Lin

“I don’t know but it seems to me that God said that the man alone was “not good”. Instead of creating another male he chose to create a female to fix the “not good” state. That celebrates our differences and proves that women are needed.”

Besides the obvious biological differences, what characteristics do you see as different by Design? Where are they listed?

“God-created hormones affects every areas of our lives.”

We simply do not know if hormones are a result of the fall or not. And if they were and affect every area of our life then they would have to affect us spiritually, too. For example, Driscoll thinks this is why women are more easily deceived than men. They can’t help it.

” However where we can all agree (I hope) is that spiritually there is no difference between male and female. Inside each of us is our spirit that is neither male nor female. Hormones do not affect our spirits and our spirits should never be judged as male or female. We are equal heirs in Christ. In the natural we are a needed part of humanity since ten males together will never be as well-balanced as 9 males and 1 female. Even the addition of one female brings balance as God intended.”

How? By what non biological characteristic? I keep seeing this statement but no one has listed the “Different by Design’
characteristics between males and females that are non biological?
We keep talking about something we refuse to define. And the reason is that if we try to define it, we find it is not universal at all. And we argue that Deborah proves that women not being allowed to rule is the exception that proves there is no rule.

” read it as the female was necessary to bring a completeness and a balance. I see females as completely needed and that God planned it that way. ”

How? Outside of biological differences, what do you mean? Now, if you mean that HUMANS are different, I totally agree.

But I am wondering outside of biological differences how we can attach pink and blue to all other characteristics of emotions, intellect, reasoning, etc? What are the pink and blue differences outside of the biological ones?

” see that God has given me as a gift and that I can bless men with a way of thinking that is needed. ”

Can you define this way of thinking? Is it universal for all women? If not, then how can it be a difference by design?

“or those of you who are different than what you see other females to be, I want you to know that you are special. You are exactly what God created you to be. You are not the same as a man. You are equal but different but you have no rules that prohibit you from functioning in the same field as the men. Different does not mean that you cannot function with freedom anywhere that God places you. It just means that you are special. You are unique and you are God’s gift to the church just the way you are.”

This is the whole point. Outside of biological differences God created us all with different characteristics. They are not necessarily pink and blue. No where in the Gen account do we see this listed unless we read into it.

Is compassion a pink or blue characteristic?
Is pride a pink or blue characteristic?
Is love a pink or blue characteristic?
Is nurturing a pink or blue characteristic?
Is reasoning a pink or blue characteristic?
Is hate a pink or blue characteristic?
Is loyalty a pink or blue characteristic?
Is wisdom a pink or blue characteristic?

I could go on but I hope you get my point.

Kim, It seems you are trying to tell me I have specific female attributes in the areas of emotions, intellect and feelings outside the obvious biological ones. Would this mean that I am in rebellion to God if I do not have the same ones you are think are specific to ‘female’?

Does it mean that all men who are touchy feely have homosexual tendancies?

I am not sure how to respond to you. I heard this all the time in my comp years when I was busy marketing comp seminars which made a ton of money telling folks such things. Many artistic men were made to feel effiminate because of their bent and women like me were made out to be in rebellion to some idea of God’s ordained
roles for women in the area of emotions, intellect and feelings
which I cannot find in scripture.

And how can I, as a woman, possibly become more Christlike since Christ was a male?

Kim, I have no problem with your differences. What I have a problem with is assigning them to men and women as gender stereotypes given by God specifically to each gender that are not biological. I know some very touchy feely emotional men as we all do. They are made fun of ,yet, Jesus wept. And not for Lazarus. He knew He was going to raise him. He wept at the sight of his friends grief. Jael drove a spike in a guy’s head, for crying out loud. Now, there is a women who demands respect. :o)

My point about the fall is that there is nothing before the fall to denote these non biological difference such as emotion, feelings and intellect. You cannot read it into Ezer because God is also an Ezer. What else do we have to go on before the fall? We are made in God’s image. To say that these are differences to celebrate and assign to genders as a result of the fall is dangerous ground.

We all need love. We are ALL to love one another. We tend to idolize these differences and focus on them because of all the teaching, conferences, books, etc. when we should be seeking the Kingdom…because ‘all these things will be given to us’. We seek to be Christlike, none of this matters. And Christ was a male!

BTW: Paula wrote a post about phobeos in this passage. Boy do we have it wrong! I went and checked an interlinear and Peter is not talking to women at all about ‘respect’ in this passage. He is actually talking to men about fearing God.

http://www.fether.net/2009/06/25/grammar-and-context-a-study-in-1-peter/comment-page-1/#comment-1155

BTW: Phobeos is used in Eph 5:23, too, in the passive. It can also mean fear or even reverence. Eggerich’s conference would not sound so good as Love and Fear or Love and Reverence. :o)

BTW: I am NOT angry at anyone. I just don’t use a lot of flowery words.

As my Jewish friend, Tikvah, would say:

“She is making an argument”

geng, so you are on record as saying Eggerich does not believe nor teach that the husband is the leader and does NOT interpret kephale to mean leader?

” wanted to share what I see: inherent differences are actually going to weaken their argument, because everyone benefits when there is more than one viewpoint on any idea.”

Kim,

It did not weaken their argument for 8 Thousand years or however far back Gen 3 was written! Gender differences havebeen the foundational argument that has kept women from being a functioning part of the Body for thousands of years. The early church fathers wrote about it! You should read the things they said about women and their lack of intellectual capability. emotionalism and ‘needs’.

It is the argument that keeps women in burkas. It is the same lie as the ‘shame/honor” society in the ME. Which is nothing but conceit. Sin.

Let’s ask ourselves something..by focusing on these differences are we enabling sin? For example: Men have fragile egos and need respect. So we give the sinner what he needs or demands? We could easily say that a woman’s need for love means she can be deceived easier. Which negates Cheryl’s argument that not all women are easily deceived.

The entire comp doctrine is based on gender differences that they exploit for position. They use these differences to elevate some other others.

Where are these differences before the fall? So, how much of it is sinful flesh? HOw much of it is mom saying, that is girls work and that is boys work?

Do all the ‘one anothers’ in scripture not apply to believers in marriage?

This stuff is so ingrained. People have been taught that because of our different sexual organs we automatically have different emotions, intellect, feelings, etc. But it is not the sexual organs. It is sin. (because Jesus fulfills all our needs)

I contend that Paul and Peter are dealing with the reality of a woman’s position in the 1st century. I certiainly do not braid my hair, either! :o)

I fear you guys are painting yourself into a corner on this. Can you show me in the OT where it is taught that men need respect and women need love? Is that made clear there? Is it a result of sin culture or of Creation?

” His citing of Gottman and Murray does not counter their conclusion, it confirms it. (BTW – have Gottman and Murray claimed he lied, or is this just some blogger’s opinion?) If anything, the posts at Suzanne’s Bookshelf grossly misquote and misinterpret Eggerich. But we are not here to debate that blog.”

Sorry, I cannot get past this. This is simply NOT true. Eggerich’s whole foundation is authority/submission model (that he believes is taught in Eph 5) to focus on the love/respect teaching. He maps love/respect to authority/submission.

The Gottman study was based on total equality in marriage. No authority involved. No model of submission. No trump card for decision making. It was not even based on gender! So the whole supporting foundation of the Gottman study was ignored by Eggerich!

That fact that Eggerich fails to mention this HUGE foundational fact of the study, should concern you. Look, you quoted from the book. I thought you would want to know the truth about the Gottman study. Eggerich teaches hierarchy in marriage. Not equality. Watch the Royal Society lecture. “According to James Murray, their study did not differentiate for gender. I should stop being surprised that the truth has no currency for those who wish to demonstrate that science proves the Bible.”

And what about the word ‘respect’ in that passage being phobos? That could present a problem for the’ ‘men need respect side’. phobos is where we get our word for phobia.

Suzanne is not ‘some blogger’. She is a scholar. Her site is a treasure trove for Greek understanding on such words like authenteo and kephale. And I do not agree with her on everything but she does her homework.

“However to save the peace let’s agree that love and respect are fairly close to one another. Most women lean towards the love end (but not all) and most men lean towards the respect end (but not all). But they are closely related so that they do go together.”

Actually, this whole topic speaks to women in ministry and I think it negates your teaching that women are fully capable in all respects to teach the Word.

If there are clear ‘God ordained’ gender differences in emotions, thinking, intellect, etc., then the comps have a good point that women are more easily deceived and lack proper leadership skills.

Both Paul and Peter lived in the 1st Century where women could not work to make a living, were uneducated and given in marriage in their teens usually to a man much older. They had no social status and could make hardly any decisions about themselves. I think they are giving advice on how to live as Christians in that culture.

Eggerich misquoted the study to prop up his presupposition of hierarchy in marriage using science. He was dishonest. But he sold a lot of books. This is another reason I am so opposed to comp books telling us how to live and how we should think and feel as men and women.

The study actually confirmed that marriages of equality in ALL respects were the happiest and most successful.

All books on gender are good sellers. We want to understand one another because SIN drove us apart. We want formulas and roles to play out. But maybe we should consider that it is our sin. I want respect and I realize how narcissitic that is of me. My Lord got very little respect while He was walking this earth.But in Christ, we should not have to focus on this stuff. In Christ, there is no male or female.

And if we go back to the Garden, show me where Eve needed love and not respect? Or show me where Adam needed respect more than love. It is silly to even think about it because there was NO sin there. That is where we need to be headed and that begins within us as a work of the Holy Spirit.

I will bow out. But I think this focus is very dangerous and props up the comp argument in saying there is a reason God did not want women teaching men.

“I am sure you have all heard of the “Love and Respect” books and ministry of Emerson Eggerichs. He makes a simple observation and backs it up not only with science but more importantly with Paul’s and Peter’s specific, but separate instructions to husbands and wives. Here is the observation:”

I hate to burst your bubble but Eggerich misquoted ‘from that scientific study. He was not honest. He forced his presupposition to fit the study. As a matter of fact, he totally misrepresented the study and left out the crucial finding that negated his theme for the books.

“This demonstrates that Gottman was misquoted by Emerson Eggerich and that there is no social science or scientific support for the notion that “men need respect and women need love.” In fact, Gottman and Murray’s detailed longtitudinal study demonstrates that marital success is dependent on love and respect demonstrated in a totally symmetrical fashion.”

I went and watched the presentation of the Mathmatics of Marriage at the Royal Academy and she is right. Eggerich was dishonest.

Another point to make on Eggerich is that he and others never linked to the study. That is always a telling sign. (CBMW is notorious for doing this). They don’t want us checking things out.

Here are some links about it. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/search?q=eggerich

“Actually I think that Peter does mention what women need. They need “understanding”. My husband and I have been talking a lot about this and we have found something that works for us. When I need him to be understanding I say first that I need him to just listen and I don’t need him to fix anything.”

I do not want to be contentious and I hope you know I am just trying to make a point. The above does not describe me at all and I am a woman.

I get very nervous when we take scripture that has been translated by men and put genders in these categories of what they should ‘feel’. This is one reason I could never relate to the comp books. I was NEVER like the women they described and what they always said women wanted or needed. I would prefer respect over understanding. Just as I would prefer cleaning the toilet over flowers.

The comps tried to tell me for years I was in rebellion because I did not fit those categories. There was always something wrong with me.

In verse 1 the word ‘respect’ is phobos which means fear or be afraid. The KJV actually translates it as fear. 1st Century women married to unbelievers had reason to fear them.

I think culture plays a big part in understanding this passage. These are women who had NO respect at all from men and would need understanding.

“I also believe that husbands flourish under their wive’s respect and even more so when she gives him public respect. We all need respect, but men seem to have a special need perhaps because they have a tender ego.”

What gives you the idea they have a special need for respect any more than a wife does? I have never understood this line of thinking. It is dangerously close to the thinking that women are more easily deceived. It does not seem to have a basis in scripture and actually makes men appear to be weaker because it is taught they ‘need’ this.

As a matter of fact, I have found that men who publicly respect their wives are more respected by others. they are viewed as strong and are not diminished by doing so.

Kim, Thanks so much for this. Keep up the good fight for his salvation. I have a cousin in the same type situation and after 20 years of prayers, her husband ,one Sunday, shocked her by telling her he wanted to be saved. OUt of no where. She had stopped even discussing such things with him long before and just sought her own relationship with Jesus Christ and took her kids to church and was quite active. During those years, she was a loving, smart and exciting wife to him while she prayed her heart out for him.

“More to my question, do y’all experience more people trying to put women “in their place” or elevate men to their thrones?”

Excellent question. In my experience marketing a zillion comp seminars, etc, I found that the focus was mainly on women. The reason could be because women are the market for comp products..they buy the conf tickets, books, DVD’s, etc., as women are the biggest consumer of all products including Christian. But the effect is to elevate men and they don’t seem to have a problem with that.

They usually say they do not know why God made it like that but that is the way it is and pretend like it is a cross they have to bear.

Tee Hee…

We are having way too much fun. But these ARE important questions for the great theologians of our time. :o)

“See, Lin? You mixed up Titus and Timothy so you can’t talk about spiritual things.”

Dagnabit! I had my one big chance and ruined it.

BTW: Ya’ll think if we make a list of ‘roles’ for women from the CBMW site they would contradict one another at any point?

For example: Piper says we CAN give men driving directions IF we do not presume to teach them. But he never states how this is done exactly.

Example: This is only a suggestion but if you WANT, you could turn right at the next light and find the wal mart.

He also states that we can supervise men in the workplace IF we do not order them around. We are to make ‘suggestions’. BUT, they also said it was OK for Sarah Palin to be VP. So, should we have a VP that can ONLY make suggestions to her male staff?

Um, excuse me, Joe. But would you mind terribly resigning? I am afraid I am not allowed to fire you.

Oops, I meant Timothy. Not titus. I am to teach…er… deceive other younger women in Titus. :o(

” have asked those very questions of and posed the same scenarios for comps and all I am told is that God is the one who established roles and rules, so even if they don’t make sense, we abide by them because God said so.”

Ok, this answer makes me nuts. Where oh where do I find the specific roles. I mean it is confusing. In Titus, I am told to stay home but I can’t. I HAVE to go to the grocery. But wait, If only I could have servants like the Proverbs 31 woman, I could send them UNLESS…they are women! But then, the proverbs 31 woman did not stay home, she was busy buying businesses and selling stuff.

So what is my ‘role’? Business woman? Stay at home mom? I know! If you were in the OC, you could have a business. If you are in the NC, you gotta stay at home.

Paula, if we just start asking the hard questions from the other end, it becomes obvious. I mean seriously, if they think (like Driscoll teaches) that 1 Tim prohibits ALL women from teaching men for all time because they are easily deceived then why on earth would they want them NEAR the kids and other women? And that would mean that, likewise, men are more prone to willfully sin, like Adam, so that means they make horrible leaders for women who are easily deceived.

The other question we need to ask is at what age do women have to stop teaching young men. If you think about, it in NT days, a boy became a young male at 12. So do we adapt that age or do we up the age because our culture is different?

Cheryl asked:

“Can a woman teach in the church if she is under the authority of the senior pastor and her husband?”

I remember reading about one church that allowed a video tape of a woman teaching but she could not personally stand on the stage and teach. No, that would be sin.

Hey, does anyone know if Lydia had a pulpit in her living room? :o)

And who was the senior pastor at the church in Corinth? Inquiring minds want to know…

This reminds me of a guy I was reading the other day on another blog who was on a roll on this subject:

He kept telling the hard core comp guys that they could not possibly allow their ‘easily deceived’ wives to be teaching their children! I mean, kids believe anything so that is not safe at all. And if the husband is at work, he won’t catch it until too late.

And if the women teach other women ,who are also easily deceived, then it is the ‘deceived teaching the deceived’ which can only compound the deception and put error upon error . So, their prohibitions do not make sense.

It would make MORE sense for women to teach men, who we all know are like Adam, and NOT easily deceived….. but wait! If we do that then they will lead the easily deceived woman into sin because ALL men, like Adam, are more prone to willfully sin with their eyes wide open.

Oh dear.

“To that end I pray, and only occasionally open my mouth to let out deadly feminine vapors.”

ROFTL!

I looked up Mr. Seavers profile and found this:

I completed the Pastors College for Sovereign Grace Ministries in Gaithersburg, Maryland

Which explains it all. If you are not familiar with SGM churches, I would encourage you all to visit http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ and read through the many blog posts there from SGM survivors of their patriarchal and legalistic teaching. There are some very sad blog posts of about sexual peversion being swept under the rug by the leaders (they call their leaders “Apostles”)

Do some research on the root of SGM churches. It is descended from the Shepherding Movement and “People of Destiny”.

It is a cult, folks. Just ask the survivors who got out.

Mr. Seavers looks to be about 20.

I wonder if Mr. Seaver can explain to us why there is a new prohibition on women teaching men in the NT since there was not one in the OT. That just does not make sense.

Very good points, Sue! It is interesting to consider that the translators of KJV had no need to fear equality with women in society and the church so were more true to the text in that respect.

Hi Sue, I was not even thinking along the lines of KJV being friendly toward women. I was thinking of the legalism of KJVO and refusing to hear other translations.

But, I would be very interested in your thoughts on why the KJV is women friendly as compared to other translations. Maybe this comment stream is not the best place. Can you write about it on your blog? I always learn tons from you.

What a great letter! My heart goes out to her because she knows this truth even while stuck in a world of lies and legalism.

She mentions so many things but a few that I hope to encourage her:

1. As for KJO, I would encourage her to read the preface written by the KJV translators. It is a very interesting read. These men were laboring under a king and a state church. That affected their translation and they seemed to know it by their own words in the preface. there is a reason King James wanted a new translation. And it was not because there was not a good one already.

2. As for church discipline..which is being touted and promoted everywhere these days, it is becoming increasingly obvious it is being promoted to gain power and control over others.

Just last night I was reading this in 2 Corinthians and I could hear Paul’s love, tears and anguish in his call for church discipline from 1 Corinthians:

1 But I determined this within myself, that I would not come again to you in sorrow. 2 For if I make you sorrowful, then who is he who makes me glad but the one who is made sorrowful by me?

3 And I wrote this very thing to you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow over those from whom I ought to have joy, having confidence in you all that my joy is the joy of you all. 4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you.
5 But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent—not to be too severe. 6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. 9 For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one[a] for your sakes in the presence of Christ, 11 lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.

Another thing, women make up more than half of all believers in this country. If they did not want comp doctrine, it would not be so popular. They are the ones buying the books and DVDs. They were out market. Not men.

“But that is about it. Other than her, I have not read a single female author or heard a single female speaker or interacted with a single online contributor who toed the strict complimentarian line.”

I know a ton of them. Mainly from my involvement with mega church ministries. Some are speakers or leaders of comp doctrine for women’s ministries, and some are authors. But mainly, the typical woman in the pew buys into it hook, line and sinker. If she doesn’t, her life is miserable at the church. Everyone wants to fit in. And the fact that most people actually like a works type of role thinking it is spiritual. They can check off a list of being a good wife and mother and they think this role is part of their sanctification. They spend a lot of time waiting around on their husbands to be the spiritual leader of the home. It is a big topic of discussion. You even hear bragging and one upmanship on whose husbands lead devotionals in the family and how often. The comparisons go on all the time. It is so very sad.

I take this thinking a step further because this is NOT going to change unless women are compelled by truth to realize they are in sin for limiting their spiritual growth and not developing gifts from the Holy Spirit. And they aren’t. I was involved in lots of women ministries and they are so shallow it is pathetic. It might as well be a recipe swap or quilting bee (some are) because the study of the Word in context is lacking. About the deepest they go is Beth Moore.

– “Our culture has such a strong concept of leadership attached to certain words that I suspect it might even be hard to separate ‘boss’ from ‘team captain.’ ”

Boy can I relate to this. As a corporate trainer we ran into this all the time in team building. Folks cannot get away from hierarchy. There has to be a ‘coach’ or a ‘team captain’. If one is not appointed, the team decides. They cannot conceive of working together without being led.

Christ wants us working together being led only by Him.

As to ‘helper’. The word is Ezer and is used of God throughout the OT. It is the same word used to describe Eve as ezer. In many passages it has a ‘war’ connotation as in warrior. If it means subordinate, then that means God is subordinate to us when He helps us. Actually, Grudem teaches this very thing in his book to prop up earthly hierarchy. Sad, huh? And his book is used on many seminary campi as a text book.

In my experience working with mega churches very few people question comp doctrine at all. they are very busy with lots of seminars, selling books, marriage encounter weekends, etc.

No one stops to question it. If you think about it, it really is easier to follow than being a Christian who mutually submits. That is harder.

With comp, Everyone has a prescribed role and knows their place. I saw it all the time with younger couples so gung ho about it all and devouring the books and seminars. The older they got, though, the harder it became. Many of the women became manipulators because they had to stay in their place but actually knew better than the man on something. They were constantly discussing how to make it ‘his idea’.

People love formulas and ‘how to’ application. That is why you see so many 3-point sermons. Ever notice that? Many of them come with fill in the blank in the bulletin. There is a reason for that. It is all planned out for easy application. And application is the big buzz word.

Personally, I find ‘application’ of doctrine very scary. I do not want someone to try and be the Holy Spirit for me. Just preach the Word and let the Holy Spirit lead me in application.

And that is all comp teaching is: Application of an already decided interpretation. There is no room for introspection on the interpretation.

gengwell, STUD is absolutely hysterical.

PMS — “I’m a-HEAD of you. The Bible says so.”
EGAL — “What happened to ‘the first will be last’?”
PMS — “That doesn’t apply between men and women.”
EGAL — “Why not? Where’s the fine print?”
PMS — “Because I’m a-HEAD of you. The Bible says so.”
EGAL — “You’re changing the meaning of “a head” to “ahead”.
PMS — “You just have a dastardly plot to bow to culture.”
EGAL — “Culture has always been male supremacist.”
PMS — “See? It’s God’s ordained order.”

Paula, Hysterical. that is the debate in a nutshell. I may have to use it.