Lin
Active 2007–2012
Tag Cloud
“Grudem and Piper do use the term subordination but only in relation to function NOT ESSENCE which was what the Arian heresy was.”
This is a stawman. It is the essence that decides the functions for comps. You cannot separate them.
It is like saying, you are equal to me but you cannot do this or that like I can. So how is that equal? A lot of older African Americans can relate to that illogic.
“This is precisely the issue I have. Egalitarians argue that there is no creation order in Gen, then when we look at this passage in Corinthians the answer changes from’ no creation order’ to ‘so what’, it ‘means nothing’ using your own words. It is inconsistent, do you believe there is a creation order but it means nothing, or do you believe there is no creation order?”
The only significance of creation order is DECEPTION. Since Eve was created last, she did NOT see God creating the Garden or even perhaps the animals. She was a perfect target for Satan. Adam DID see these things. He KNEW. The difference is that Adam sinned willfully with his eyes wide open. Eve was deceived. Both are SIN. But read what Paul says to Timothy about this in 1 Tim 1. Paul says he sinned out of ignorance. And he has compassion for those who do. But not for Hy and Al who willfully deceive on purpose.
That is the ONLY significance of creation order. There is not one place you can show me in Gen 1-2 that God says that Adam is in charge of Eve. That he is her authority. You have to read that into the text. You have to make inferences.
And comps do. They claim that Ezer is a junior assistant. they claim that creation order automatically means heirarchy. And so on. All of that is reading into the text. I mean, think of the facts that could be misrepresented: Cows are more important than Adam because they are created first. Eve is more important because she is created lastand is God’s crowning creation and called an Ezer like God is called an Ezer.
These statements are just as ridiculous as comps saying Adam is over Eve because he was created first.
Bruce Ware teaches that Eve was made in the ‘indirect image’ of God and is a derivative. As if creation materials are where we receive the Image of God.
It is so obvious what is happening in Genesis when we take our patriarchy blinders off. God wants Adam to see that he is alone and needs someone comparible to himself. So he has him name a bunch of ugly animals. So when Eve is presented, he is like WOW! Flesh of my flesh….she is LIKE HIM! God says a One Flesh Union. Where in that description do you see authority/subordinate relationship?
What comps are doing is teaching the sin of the fall as virtue. I heard someone else call it sanctified sin. That is all it is. One human, because of male genitals, is to have authority over another human without those genitals. For some reason, the genitals make them in charge of the woman. (Sorry but that is really what you are saying)
But if we are really going to be honest, we have to say that Adam sinned willfully with his eyes wide open. So why would Adam or his descendents be more qualified to lead women as Eve was deceived and admitted it! It makes no sense. I mean, if all women are more easily deceived because of Eve then we surly do not want them teaching kids or even other easily deceived woman. This is another place the comp position breaks down badly.
What does make sense is the real rendering of Teshuqua in Gen 3:16 where it is rendered as Eve turned away from God and toward her husband. And because of that he would rule her. We see it lived out in sinful man right after the fall. So teaching women to follow their husbands lead instead of Jesus Christ, is quite insidious. She cannot serve two masters or 2 ‘heads’ if it means authority.
“As far as Lin’s comments regarding this being ‘simple’ as relating to chapter 6, my only comment can be- it is most definitely not simple. Scholars on both sides recognise this, I suggest Lin for you to have a better look at the so called simplicity of this issue.”
Mark, that is how scholars make their living. It needs to be complicated so they can keep writing books and papers.
Scripture tells us that the BEST teacher is the Holy Spirit. I believe that with all my heart. There is room for scholars but they are not the last or best word on the “Word”. I do not think it is confusing at all unless I am trying to read authority into something that is not there. Then it becomes confusing. Paul is simply referring back to what he wrote earlier in the same exact letter to the same audience…he says that women will be judging the angels, too. But because you are reading authority into this whole passage, that would not make sense. The authority over another paradigm keeps you from the true message of this passage.
It would help to read all of Cheryl’s teaching on 1 Corin 11 on the sidebar. She goes into depth and no sense in repeating it here. But if you do read it all or watch or DVD, it will explain what Paul was referring to. And remember, in verse 10, “symbol of” was added by the translators. Women have authority over their own ‘head’.
Much has already been pointed out but I want to add a few cents:
“2. Paul draws back to the created order in his argument.”
But it is not in order! Besides, created order means nothing. I could easily argue that Eve was more important because she was created last and called an Ezer like God is called. Created order means nothing because God many times did not use the FIRST born son. Created order means nothing because it implies that creation materials are important. From where do YOU, as a male get the IMage of God? From dirt?
“5. Paul concluded from the creation order that a women ought to have a sign of auhtority on her head.”
No, he did not. “Symbol of” was added by translators. Paul was actually saying that women had authority over their own heads (they could decide whether to cover or not in the Body).
” The reference to angels here is unusal and also heavily debated.”
It is not a big mystery. Paul mentions this first in 1 Corin 6 (keep in mind: same letter, same audience) and says that ALL believers will judge the angels. He is simply referring back to this. Women will judge the angels, too. What else could it be since he mentions this once already about judging the angels? This is actually serious proof from Paul that he views women as total equals in the Body.
“Kay has raised a very good question that has gone un-answered. How is “manhood” defined?”
Comps say there is equality of essense. So manhood would have to be defined physically, right?
Dave, I have found Jon Zens to be a great resource. He gets it when it comes to the false teaching on human authority in the Body that is everywhere. Seems we have thrown the Holy Priesthood out the window these days! And people are suffering spiritual immaturity for it, too!
Mark, it is really up to the comps to prove Kephale means authority over. Even if it has been translated that way for thousand years. We have found many things to be tradition and not good exegesis such as transubstantiation, slavery, church/state, magistrates, infant baptism, etc.
The question is this: Why wasn’t a clear Greek word for ‘authority over’used? There are several to choose from used in plenty of other passages.
And in that vein, why are we ignoring the head/body metaphors all through the NT when we look at kephale?
Can you point out where anyone has been disrespectful of Piper? Or questioned his motives?
I am the only one who has referred to him and that is only to present what I have read from him or heard him speak from a stage.
“I was simply trying to steer the conversation from such accusations as it is not reflective of true comp teaching.”
This might be a good place to start. What IS true comp teaching. While they might not teach a husband to abuse his wife there are many well known celebrity comp teachers affiliated with CBMW that seem to give abusers a pass or they are not really sure what is abuse.
Since you are familiar with Piper, I will give you one example of his seemingly misunderstanding of abuse:
The problem is that so many think Piper knows what he is talking about here. But he does not understand that all abuse escalates. When you cowtow to a bully it gets worse. So, his advice here is quite dangerous:
“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.”
But her church will tell her to pray more and submit more.
I have a question for Piper and all who give this sort of inane advice. As a Christian brother in Christ, why not go and take the beatings and verbal abuse in her place. That would say volumes to the abuser and send a true Christian message.
If kephale is about authority then why isn’t it chronological in 1 Corin 11? It cannot be that the Holy Spirit is talking about chains of command or it would be chronological.
“refering to your link #13, where you claimed that the sadducees seemed very interested in authority, and im assuming you are applying that to complementarians. Just a few points.
- The text you sighted actually has nothing to do with authority and thus your conclusion of authority is a bad one.”
I agree with you on what that passage was about. But keep in mind that women were nothing unless they could produce sons. God regulated this in the law because of sinful man and a woman’s worth being about producing male heirs. “Widow” in Hebrew means no voice. Widows were cast outs in that patriarchal society so God made provisions for them to be taken care of in the law
“2. The links were not well researched at all, it was just a rebuttle about a very small thing Grudem has said. It was all about dis-proving Grudem, and had very little ‘research’ to show any other use of the word.”
That is not true at all. Sue has brought up instances in Greek lit that other scholars like Grudem refuse to acknowledge. You cannot come to the conclusion that it means authority unless you want to ignore all her research.
There are quite a few links to Kepahle on her blog.
“as far as i know, that means for 450years the church understood kephale to not mean ’source’-this is significant.”
Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Kephale when there are quite a few very clear Greek words for authority if God had wanted to clearly communicate that a wife has a chain of authority between her and Jesus Christ?
“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.”
I am not going to spend time looking for Piper quotes but male preeminance/authority is all over his speaking and writing. He does use a lot of adjectives when describing it, that does try to mask what it is.
However, I also believe in the authority of the Bible. I believe you have to read into scripture to get preeminance for men in the NC. In the OC, it is a result of the fall/sin that God works through. Patriarchy is more of a sin trap for men than anything.
The NC teaches being a servant. Giving up our rights (for all believers) and that we are not to lord it over like the Gentiles. It is teaches mutual submission for all believers. It teaches spiritual gifts. An elder, whether male or female would look more than Matthew 5 than a Pharisee.
Ok, that did not work. Google: Biblical Foundations for for Manhood and Womanhood by Wayne Grudem. The book is online.
(I always feel like a shower after reading his stuff to wash off the legalism and biblical gymnastics for him to maintain his preeminance)
Oops, the second book is at this link. Read pages 31-32
He touches on this in two books.
I don’t have the reference in this book…but just look at the contents page on this book:
http://www.amazon.com/reader/1581347340?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib%5Fdp%5Fpt#reader
In this book, look at pages 31 and 32. See how deftly he slips it in there about God when talking about Ezer and authority. If I remember correctly, he goes into more detail on this in the other book. He says here that the person doing the helping puts themself in a subordinate role. He uses some examples about parents and then deftly slips it in about God. I can see where people really buy into this stuff unless they really analyze it biblically and rationally.
If you read this book it will make you nuts. But it will also help you see where almost all comps are coming from. You can recognize they are parroting Grudem because most pastors teach Grudem and most seminary students have a Grudem book at their side at all times.
“Actually, such considerations as how a person thinks and acts are just as biological as they are “nurtured”.”
So what are pink and blue prefall thinking patterns? Women think like this and men think like that. Where do we see such a thing addressed so we know for sure?
” I see no reason to believe that ALL the physiological differences between men and women including not only gross anatomy but hormonal levels and brain structure didn’t exist pre-fall just as they do post-fall. Nowhere does the bible say that our fundimental physiological design changed with the fall. All of that as well as culture and nurturing contribute to how we perceive and process stimuli and interact with our world (and of course, each other). There is no issue with being fundimentally different in design when neither design paradigm is “better”.”
This is exactly what comps teach and why they are so comfortable assigning roles. Women are like this and men are like that. Such as: Men are natural leaders and women are natural followers.
But unfortuantly, that makes me a freak of nature. :o) And why I quit making celebrity comps richer by buying their books and attending their conferences. I could not relate to how they said women thought.
“That reality is why complimentarians can make no compromise in their doctrine of the home, because it would invlaidate their doctrine of the church (or at the very least significantly weaken it). The two are linked not only in realtiy but also in Paul’s “head” and “body” metaphors. So, I suspect and expect a continuing lively discussion. Carry on…”
gengwell, this conumdrum for comps was brought home during the last presidential election. While they supported Sarah Palin (me too!) they said her secular work had nothing to do with male leaderhip in the home or church.
But the question was brought up would she be in sin if she lead a bible study with her staff which included males. The answer was yes. That is just one example of the Talmudic bent of the comp position. We need a Talmud to keep up with the rules!
But Piper was even more confusing. As he teaches that women in leadership over men in secular venues must not appear to be giving them orders. They can suggest but not direct. Hmm. A woman president that can only make ‘suggestions’ to her direct male reports.
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.
The bottomline in this whole discussion is the sin trap this thinking is for men. Christianity is all about giving up preeminance. being a servant not a leader. Comp teaching takes the focus off Christ and being a servant to ruler/ subordinate thinking. It really is sad.
“Do you agree that there are different roles/functions for Adam and Eve?”
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 since God is described as an ezer and several men in the OT have names that are derived from Ezer, we cannot make that into a junior assistant position. It is a ‘help comparable’.
Unfortuantly, ‘scholars’ like Grudem are so inclined to male preeminance that he teache in his book on feminism that God is subordinate to us when HE helps us. Grudem teaches this in order to get around the Ezer problem. It really is Blasphemous. And I pray that more people will wake up to this.
I would like to see a list of pre fall NON biological attributes of men and women. Where does God say, women will think like this and men will think like that. Where does God say women will be more emotional and men will be stoic? How much of how we view the genders in terms of non biological attributes comes from post fall behavior and is cultural from centuries of nurturing?
Wow, I am late to this discussion. But a few things after skimming over the last thread.
Mark made a comment about egalitarianism sliding into homosexuality. This is a huge strawman. For one reason, historical fact teaches different. It was the partriarchal cultures that were so accepting of homosexuality. It was normal in patriarchal cultures! Women were viewed as property and for child bearing reasons. They had almost no education and were homebound. It was quite normal for men to take on male partners. Reading about Roman and Greek cultures is a wake up call when folks use this strawman.
I just wanted to mention that the definition of teshuqua in Gen 3:16 is really a problem for most modern translations. And most comps translate Gen 3:16 as Eve being punished for ‘usurping Adams leadership’. That is not true and a horrible disservice to the Body of Christ to teach such a Blasphemy.
I know some egals have differed here but if we look at modern word meanings ‘desire’ is not the best interpretation. Too many see it as sexual desire.
We know that the early church would have most likely been reading the Sept. and would have understood Gen 3:16 to mean that Eve was ‘turning’ from God and toward her husband. That is what God was saying would happen as a result of sin.
But comps teach women to ‘turn’ toward their husbands for leadership. They teach this as a Christian virtue. But the truth is that we should turn to God for leadership.
My view is that if we cannot get Gen 1-3 right, we cannot understand the rest at all.
One more thing, Mark mentioned that Adam was NOT with Eve when she ate. I have found this view interesting. Comp preachers differ on this. Piper says he was there. McArthur says he was not there.
I believe scripture teaches that Adam was there.
“Then my primary question – Why on earth would any woman put up with this nonsense? But then I suppose that goes to the question as to why anyone would put up with any sort of an abusive relationship.”
Hi Sam,
I have a bit of a different take on this question. My background includes marketing a lot of comp seminars and materials in mega churches. They were big money makers for the churches and those who have comp ministries.
Why are these venues sold out? (And there are a ton of comp authors and ministries out there and folks flock to them)
Because people love formulas, rules and roles to live by. They are always looking for the magic formula to make everything perfect. That is why self help books sell well. Same reason. We just took self help formulas, twisted scripture and applied it to the marriage.
One of the most popular pink and blue ministries even has a charge for accessing his website community. It is HUGE business. And marriage books in Christendom are hot commodities if they are in the pink and blue vein. If not, they are immediately branded as liberal and heretic by the big names and the publishers shy away.
I wish you could have seen the money these folks raked in.
But all these rules, roles and formulas are much easier than the hard work of constantly Abiding in Christ, constantly seeking the Kingdom. But if each person is doing just that, their marriage will thrive because they will be automatically putting Christ first and consequently each other will benefit.
Frank,
Welcome to the faux heresy club!
Have you been preaching or teaching in this debate? If so, then is Mike in sin for engaging you in this debate according to his beliefs? I do wonder where they draw such lines. Is it if there is a pulpit involved?
“Help!!!!
Can anyone help me.
Does anyone know, or think they know, or even disagree with,
what I’ve been trying to say about elders/leaders/pastors?
I believe it is a very important part of what is being said here about abuse and those here who have suffered abuse. All? I have.
There is no excuse for abuse.
Physical, domestic, emotional, or spiritual abuse.
It stinketh!!!
Please help, I ain’t been talken good american.”
Amos, I get you. It has been my contention all along that if folks understand that the NT teaches ‘servant’ instead of ‘leader/authority’ most of these problems would go away.
Having what some think is ‘authority’ or leadership over others is a huge sin trap. We see it played out every day in churches all over the place. The problem, as I see it, is that there are so few real ‘elders’ that no one knows what a real one would be like. So, they think the ones with the titles are elders/pastors, etc. I would think we would need to go back to Matthew 5 to see what a real elder would look like. What I call the salt elements.
Dave,
I really appreciate what you guys are doing over there. I especially appreciated the post on submission. I even copied it off to print!
But I am not as sanguine about unity as long as some see that exercising our gifts is a sin. I can see where there might be tolerance that we exist but the vitriol is so thick where I am that we are referred to as Jezebel’s, feminists and in rebellion to God. We are constantly compared to those who ordain homosexual pastors.
But, with that said, the only way to combat that is to exposit the Word. And your conference is a great way to do that. I hope you plan to keep the blog up for future reference.
“Homosexual marriage & women teaching/in leadership and authority over men ARE related (although, perhaps not in severity) in the fact that they are both clear examples of people’s unwillingness to follow the clearly stated directives given in God’s Word”
Since the issue of women teaching men is so very clear in scripture as sin, can you tell me at what age boys become men?
“As for judgement: we are called to correct each other as believers.”
I agree and that is what this blog is about.
For you to compare the sin of homosexuality to “a woman proclaiming the Word as sin” is heinous and uncalled for. Cheryl is much nicer than I am about such grievous comparisons. Being a woman proclaiming the Word to ANYONE is not a sin. To compare it to homosexuality is an insult to your sisters in Christ here.
Why not engage in other posts about exactly what scripture teaches and defend your position of women not being allowed to teach men from that perspective. We can show you how a ‘plain reading of scripture’ was not INSPIRED as the real reading of scripture.
And it has NOTHING to do with the sin of homosexuality being accepted by those groups in error.
Should I compare your beliefs about women to that of David Koresh? Papa Pilgrim? Would that be fair?
Everyone is pointing out the real problem we see in the interpretations put forth by the masculinists: Authority.
I can model the love of Christ, His truth, etc and not be in authority over my peers. I am one of the sheep.
What could be done with someone exercising ‘authority’ in the church? We get a glimpse of it with John writing about Diotrephes.
I also take a hint from the passages on dealing with church discipline in 1 Corin 5 and Matt 18 (and others) when the ‘Body’ is told to deal with these situations as a whole. The instructions were not given to elders to carry out. (Although some who are teaching church discipline are ADDING to Matt 18 a step that is not in the Word. I heard this taught by someone very wellknown and I was aghast that this man would ADD to scripture what was not there)
It is one reason we see these groups use Hebrews 13:17 so much. A badly translated passage that they think supports their being in ‘authority’ over others in the Body.
But the body only has servants
more dumb questions:
We know that Phillips daughters were prophets, Deborah was a prophet as was Huldah.
Is Mike saying that women CAN be prophets but cannot JUDGE any prophecy…(If we can find a defintion every one agrees upon)?
But his definition of 1 Tim 2 means that women cannot ‘teach’ men. So how do prophets NOT teach something?
So, I am confused. Is a preacher/pastor a prophet? Or a teacher or both?
I am thinking along the lines of what is considered normal in the institutional church and how these functions are viewed today.
Are we seeing that the gifts given in scripture are usually tied up in one central person in the Body?
I do know that Mike’s church, SGM, calls their top leaders Apostles. I know CJ Mahaney is called an Apostle. So, I was wondering what Mike calls himself? A pastor, preacher or Apostle?
I wonder if Mike would accept the Puritans definition of prophecy?
“No doubt our biological differences have been distorted by the fall. However we do have biological differences. Who knows what “male pride” would have originally been like without the factor of sin. We should be able to conclude that God originally created the differences to be with outsin so whatever “male pride” looked like before sin entered the world has certainly been greatly distorted by sin now. ”
There would have been male pride without sin?
“Women are the ones shown in scripture as the nurturers. It was the women who were there at the cross when all the men scattered. Women were the ones who were first to the tomb as they were the ones who considered that Jesus should have spices for embalming.”
Why is that considered nurturing? Why not loyalty or courage? Or just plain Boldness for their Messiah?
I think Truthseeker has it right. We are treading on dangerous grounds that we cannot prove ingrained before the fall. Women took their sinful place after the fall to be dominated in Patriarchy. And this place has been passed down over thousands of years through expectations for women. They characteristics have been taught and caught.
I think there is also a danger in being afraid of comps accusing us of teaching unisex so we buy into some of their teaching on non physical character traits for men and women. As in women being natural nurterers. (Breastfeeding is a great example of this as it comes very hard for some women and is even impossible for some)
To claim that there are no differences spiritually between the sexes but then to claim there are vast differences in emotions, intellect, ego, pride, nurturing, etc., negates the claim there are no differences spiritually.
“There are no pink or blue characteristics. However once again I will emphasize that men and women typically have more or less of the characteristic by gender. To say “Male pride” one gets the picture. Males struggle with an ego issue far more than females do on the average”
If there are no pink or blue characteristics, then why are we having this discussion?
But, I can tell you this is not true at all that men struggle more with the ego issue. It is a folk myth. As one who consulted in hundreds of companies all over the USA, I can tell you that female pride and ego are alive and well. It is just that the METHODS for carrying out this sin are different based on what society deems is acceptable for a female to do and a man to do.