Craig #226

“I had wondered if Egals could argue that the comp definition of “authority” was wrong because……”

I can’t speak for egals, but it doesn’t seem as though the hier-comp definition from RBMW of authority as the right, power, and responsibility to direct others in tandem with compliance is different than the standard dictionary definition summarized in 142. Speaking for myself, I don’t think the definition used in this excerpt of RBMW is necessarily wrong; I don’t think male authority in marriage is the ideal or God ordained.

Craig #194 “Say I become an Egal, and my comp friend asks me about it. If I think that the meaning of “authority” and its difference to “leadership”is a good argument for the egal position, and my friend says “I don’t think they mean that” what would I say to back up the meanings as given in #142?”

Authority defined in RBMW:

“36. What is the meaning of authority when you talk about it in relation to the home and the church?
This question is crucial because the New Testament shows that the basic relationships of life fit together in terms of authority and compliance….And in marriage the wife is called to submit to the sacrificial headship of her husband…. What becomes clear as soon as we try to give a definition to this authority is that its *form* changes from one relationship to another. We would define authority in general as the right (Matthew 8:9) and power (Mark 1:27; 1 Corinthians 7:37) and responsibility (2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:10) to give direction to another…For Christians, right and power recede and responsibility predominates….Authority becomes a burden to bear… It is a sacred duty to discharge for the good of others…. The transformation of authority is most thorough in marriage. This is why we prefer to speak of *leadership* and *headship* rather than authority….The husband’s authority is a God-given burden to be carried in humility….Thus authority in general is the right, power, and responsibility to direct others.” (pg 71-72) (*emphasis added)

Hier-comps define authority as the right, power, and responsibility to direct others and in the marriage relationship husbandly authority dovetails with wifely compliance. The ellipses were used for brevity’s sake but the response addresses the idea that governments are to establish and justly enforce laws and parents should lovingly enforce compliance, etc. The next natural progression in the discussion would be that husbands “lovingly enforce wifely compliance” since basic relationships are knitted together by authority and compliance and how for Christians authority is transformed in its various forms–government/citizen; employer/employee; parent/child. The article stops short of that. Why?

Moreover, hier-comps actually want to shy away from using the word authority, by renaming it headship and leadership, but still hang on to authority as the right, power, and responsibility to direct others with a qualifier that responsibility predominates right and power. It appears there is an attempt to make husbandly authority and wifely compliance more palatable by first renaming it and then describing the right, power, and responsibility to direct others in an authority-compliance relationship model as a “burden to be carried in humility” and “a sacred duty to discharge for the good of others”.

Craig, I point this out because as I read it, to hier-comps authority and leadership mean the same thing and is something to be exercised or possessed by males only. That is why in their definitions for manhood and womanhood only men lead and women receive masculine leadership.

If you were asked that question, you may have to start with explaining how you understand the terms and are using them.

Inconceivable! Have you been mostly dead? Or simply lost in the pit of despair (*gengwall clears throat*)

No, I just live under a rock. I have always been out of the pop-culture loop. Anything I know about pop-culture I learn from the news.

“Maybe you are blathing?”

Bluffing? No.

“Truly you have a dizzying intellect.”

No, at least average, I hope.

“I suppose you are also going to tell us you are not left handed.”

Right.

“Quick, someone get SM a holocaust coat, a screaming eel, and a rodent of unusual size!”

I have no idea what this means.

“I promise you it isn’t a kissing movie, if that turns you off. ”

Nah, but I did think it was a new kid (girl) movie, until recently, and figured I hadn’t heard of it since I had all boys. A few months back, maybe February, I was reading comp material/blogs online and PB was on several top 10 lists of romantic or chick-flick man-approved movies. I looked it up and realized it is from the 80s.

“I suggest you get yourself a nice mutton-lettuce-and tomatoe sandwich, take a chocolate covered miracle pill, sit back, and enjoy the movie, for there will be blood tonight!”

I am going to have to do that—enjoy the movie that is.

Alex #55
Let me first qualify my comments by saying I am new to the comp/egal debate and a new commenter on this blog.

Your example about homeschooling is interesting. I am noticing from listening to Acts29 pastors on marriage, womanhood, & manhood they, too, are qualifying the husband’s authority with similar examples. I.e. a wife being instructed that bed rest for the duration of her pregancy was best, but she keeps cleaning & shopping because she prefers to be busy; it is part of her nature; so the husband leading in his authority says, “I need for you to submit to me in this. I need you to trust me in this. I need for you to stay in bed next several weeks for your and the baby’s health….”; the husband then dies to self taking care of the house, meals, and his wife.

From your HS’ing example and this one and others like it, I do not see anything a husband is doing that a wife shouldn’t do. She, too, should “lead” when decisions need to be made by appealing to facts that that may affect a positive outcome or “lead” when the husband is not well by imploring him to follow dr’s orders and die to self to help the husband for his own well-being.

Even in your example, the wife *agreed* after a hearing of her husbands objections. I don’t see how your example is unique to complementarianism, other than you say there exists a “leading” to make the final decision, which in practicallity does not exists in the example you gave.

Craig,

Based on what I have read and heard, the terms are not contrasted but are used interchangeably and sometimes in novel ways. In reading comp material online, listening to sermons, and in comments on this blog, I have noticed a redefining of terms and misuse of words to accommodate ideology. Effective communication is very difficult when words are not used grammatically and according to their denotations which were decided long before this conversation began.

For example, in a previous thread, the noun authority was used as a verb meaning to nurture, to cherish, and to care for. I think we have to agree on terms and definitions to effectively communicate because wives nurture, cherish, and care, and hier-comps commenting here agreed, but would not agree that wives “authoritied” their husbands.

This could be eliminated if we would just say what the text says: “husbands love (agape) your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, nourishing her, cherishing her, washing her with the water of the word to present to Himself a bride without spot or wrinkle…”. Today, listening to an ACTS 29 pastor online, I heard him define a husband’s *authority* as “leading like Christ loved the church and gave Himself….” Again, this is mixing in words that are not in the text and making the text say something it is not.

If a hier-comp says he has authority over his wife then what does that mean? For you, authority means the responsibility to break a tie when spouses arrive at an impasse. For another it means, nourishing, cherishing. For another, leading like Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her.

That women were under the authority of their husband or father was assumed in ancient biblical culture. You gave a few scriptures for the basis of your husbandly authority, but I do not see any evidence in your examples that divinely ordains a husband to have authority, as it is defined, over his wife, although I would agree he has responsibility in the marriage but not as a irrevocable, immutable tie-breaker.

PS I haven’t seen Princess Bride, but, boy, does that line fit this issue.

Craig,

“…if some situation arose (and it never did) where my wife and I couldn’t come to some mutual agreement after prayer, discussion, time, counsel etc, I [Craig] would be responsible to make the decision”

Are you saying that you always were/are the one responsible to make a decision if no agreement could be reached? On what basis does your responsibility lie? Was/is this a responsibility that is non-transferrable?

Are their time limits or some type of criteria that had to be exhausted before you would have had to make the decision should you have come to an impasse? Were these agreed upon?

Thanks, Craig, for you input. I know you are searching, too, so no pressure.

In this discussion, I deferred to others to define the terms which was well done. I would like to respond to this:

Craig #160 “Sacrificial loving service can be carried out without having to be a leader.”

I would contend if you are exhibiting sacrificial loving service in the name of Christ, you are leading (influencing) for Christ’s sake that His fame might increase and His nature be revealed in and through you whether you are are male or female, young or old.

Craig #160 “A woman is also to exhibit loving, sacrificial service, but not as a leader in marriage or the church. There are many ways besides leading, that she can serve God. The man should carry out the leadership of #142 in a sacrificial, loving manner…. Sacrificial loving service can be carried out without having to be a leader. Is that a reasonable comp answer?”

142 “LEADERSHIP is about guiding, directing, pointing, protecting, assisting, giving encouragement and example to follow what is taught.”

Craig, that is consistent with what I have heard and read of hier-comps. It seems it boils down to semantics redefined based on gender.

If men guide, direct, point, protect, assist, give encouragement and an example to follow they are leading.

If women guide, direct, point, protect, assist, give encouragement and an example to follow they are submitting.

If hier-arch comps are going to teach that leadership (sacrifical loving) is exclusively the role of the males, as they do, and submission exclusively the role of the females, as they do, then the behaviors that define leadership….guide, direct, point, protect, assist, etc., and those that define submission, must not be used interchangeably by the sexes otherwise, to borrow their term, we have gender confusion.

That would be more consistent than simply saying well males and females practically do the same things, but when men do it is is leading and when women do it is submitting.

Craig #93 “We have always mutually decided on things and worked together as a team. I wore the leader badge but have never had to use it. So in this aspect, I am not sure if our marriage would practically change at all if we became egal.”

Craig, when I read, “I wore the leader badge but have never had to use it,” it sounded as if you do believe you have some degree of authority (to command obedience or compliance either by reward or punishment). I know you don’t mean a literal badge, but it sounds as if you believe(d) you inherently had some type of authority to wield should you deem it necessary.

Craig #142 “I think that if I asked many of my comp friends what it means to exercise authority in their marriage and in church they would talk more in terms of the words for leadership above. They would shrink back from the words used above for authority.”

You may be right about your friends. Or, would they echo your sentiment at #93? I don’t know. But, when I read comments like those at #93, read other material, and listen to sermons/conferences, it sounds like for hierarch-comps authority and leadership as you summarized go hand in hand and is reserved for males only.

Thoughts?

Craig #93 “The comps I know focus very much on loving, sacrificial service as the way of exercising leadership and authority.”

If a woman exhibits loving, sacrificial service is she exercising leadership and authority?

As a “soft comp”, Craig, would you (have) concede(d) that if your wife were exhibiting loving, sacrificial service that she was exercising leadership and authority? I am new to this doctrinal debate having not heard the comp/egal terms until a couple of years ago.

I have read and listened to enough sermons/conferences of leading comps to know they would say “no” because men are inherently born to lead and women are born inherently to follow. So, I am trying to get to the bottom of what observable qualitative difference is there between the sexes that makes loving, sacrificial service from a female different than when practiced by a male for whom the same motivations and actions would be leadership and authority.

I know you are searching, too, so I am just typing out loud.

I doubt that Mark uses the authority conferred on him by his wife selfishly, but as he has described, it is authority conferred on him by her, nonetheless.

NN #173
TL #178

It is near impossible to know what NN’s point is, since he did not provide any commentary or synthesis of his thoughts with the quotes. Given his title, I suppose the quotes he has pulled are intended to say something about authority, although the word “rule” is used in the quotes and used according to the English definition.

I found the final quote he used very telling:

“My children,” said Aslan, fixing his eyes on both of them, “you are to be the first King and Queen of Narnia.”
“You shall rule and name all these creatures, and do justice among them, and protect them from their enemies when enemies arise.“
“Well,” said Aslan,”can you use a spade and a plough and raise food out of the earth?”
“Can you rule these creatures kindly and fairly,….” The Magician’s Nephew

I noticed Aslan’s instruction to the King & *Queen* resemble closely the instructions given in Genesis 1:27-28 to both the male & *female*:

“….He created them as male and female.28 God blessed them. He said to them, “Have children and increase your numbers. Fill the earth and bring it under your control. Rule over the fish in the waters and the birds of the air. Rule over every living creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I am giving you every plant on the face of the whole earth that bears its own seeds. I am giving you every tree that has fruit with seeds in it. All of them will be given to you for food.” “

Mark,

I realize you have several commenters and a host throwing questions at you on this thread and another. At your earliest convenience, could you look at #216 and respond to the following?

Are the options in the scenario at #216 biblical? If not, why not?
Are some or one option biblical but not others? If so, which ones and why?
Would your scenario at the dinner table be *more* bibilical? If so, why?

I would like to build on to what Kristen wrote at #155:

I happen to believe that God is not arbitrary. His commands and precepts are based on sound reason. That is why for me, before evening considering hierarchicalism which is not even commanded, I would need to know God’s rationale for assigning adult married women to a subordiante position under the goverance of their husbands, regardless of how loving. Among other things, the rationale must affirm God’s good-will, wisdom, love, sound judgment, sense of justice, integtrity and respect for all humanity.

That is why the question of “Why?” must be answered.

Referring our children to their mom or dad has never been about a show of who is in authority. Rather, in our home it is about deference being shown to both the husband (dad) and wife (mom) because the other may be better equipped to inform the other’s decision or to make the decision. More importantly, for us, it is about “inviting the other parent” into a circumstance or situation and presenting a “united front” to our children, not about creating a scene that dad is in ultimate authority.

So, though we don’t have the exact custom Mark does for the dinner table, the scenario in our home would play out accordingly:

if mom were asked by a child to be dismissed prematurely from the table, she could remind the child of the family’s rule and dad would reinforce most likely with a joke or a fun challenge, etc. However, if mom chose to show latitude for reasons only known to her at the time she could excuse the child and dad would not feel threatened because he has full confidence in her and trusts her because he knows she brings him good and not harm. Or, mom when asked invites dad into the process, and they decide together. The latter is not too different from Mark’s example, except the motivation. The motivation here is to show deference and to use a natural occurence as an opportunity to present a “united front” not about a scene to show who is in ultimate authority.

Each example affirms the mom and dad’s authority in the lives of their children, shows confidence in each other, and models respect, deference, and two lovingly working together as one.

That is my question at #13:

“What necessitates, from a hierarchialist perspective, the need for a woman to be under authority? Not origin, because I understand the claim is God is the source of delegated authority to husbands over their wives. What is the rationale behind why wives need to be under an authority?

I understand how children benefit from a parent setting boundaries and enforcing them when necessary for the child’s own protection, benefit, etc. because children do not have the wisdom and experience to judge matters well. Parents are responsible for their children, legally, etc. which necessitates parents have the privilege to set boundaries or expectations for behavior, etc.

I understand in the relationship of master/slave why authority would be necessary i.e. to enforce compliance towards behavior, to distinguish the position of master over slave, and various other reasons.

I understand, historically, the rationale as to why women were under authority. However, how would a hierarchialist answer today about that which necessitates a woman be under authority.”

And again at #62 to Mark

“You did not provide a rationale for the basis that the constitution of a married adult female necessitates she be under the authority of her husband. What is it about the constitution of a married adult female that necessitates she be under the authority of her husband and where do you find this in scripture?”

And at #67

Mark,

In a theological discussion, I would prefer an explanation shaped by scritpure of what it is from the Christian hierarchialists’ perspective that necessitates an adult married woman be under the authority of her husband. If, however, there is not a scriptural basis for this rationale, I am eager to hear any explanation.

i.e. Some hierarchalists say it is because the woman is more susceptible to deception using 1 Tim 2:14 as their scriptural support.

Mark, (56)

You did not provide a rationale for the basis that the constitution of a married adult female necessitates she be under the authority of her husband. What is it about the constitution of a married adult female that necessitates she be under the authority of her husband and where do you find this in scripture? (See #13)

Ephesians does not answer this question, rather your interpretation has practical implications for however you answer the question above?

26

That is what I suspect it boils down to, but was hoping NN or Mark could clarify from their perspective. I did just a small bit of research online and did find some churches using the “Eve was deceived”; therefore, she must be under authority which falls under what one commenter described above.

20

Yes, I have heard in several hierarchialist teachings and writings online that a single woman is to remain under the authority of her father as long as she is unmarried and/or pastors/elders can fill that role. I have heard/read some purport that even in dating relationships that the boyfriend assumes a leadership position.

I have not heard any one say or write what necessitates a woman, whether married or single, to be in authority to a man/husband.

Children “belong” to the parents; slaves belong to the master. This ownership in the relationship between the two constitutes rights to command, direct, determine, command obedience. What is it in the relationship between a man and wife and a single woman and her father/pastor/boyfriend that constitutes a right to command, direct, dtermine, command obedience, etc. even lovingly?

gengwall–
Ok, I do remember hearing in a sermon or two Mark Driscoll saying something like that. So is there no consensus among hierarchialists today as to what necessitates wives be under authority?

I maybe should clarify…

I am using authority as a noun and in the way in which it is typically understood in English i.e. the power to command, direct, exact obedience, determine, etc. no matter how lovingly.

I have a question for anyone.

What necessitates, from a hierarchialist perspective, the need for a woman to be under authority? Not origin, because I understand the claim is God is the source of delegated authority to husbands over their wives. What is the rationale behind why wives need to be under an authority?

I understand how children benefit from a parent setting boundaries and enforcing them when necessary for the child’s own protection, benefit, etc. because children do not have the wisdom and experience to judge matters well. Parents are responsible for their children, legally, etc. which necessitates parents have the privilege to set boundaries or expectations for behavior, etc.

I understand in the relationship of master/slave why authority would be necessary i.e. to enforce compliance towards behavior, to distinguish the position of master over slave, and various other reasons.

I understand, historically, the rationale as to why women were under authority. However, how would a hierarchialist answer today about that which necessitates a woman be under authority.

Cheryl & Dave,

I appreciate the kind words. I am way out of my league here, and I know that. I am learning so much from both sides–much I was better off not knowing (ignorance is bliss) but at the same time it is good to know what is out there.

That should have read:

“elsewhere in scripture.”

Mark #599,

You ask Dave:

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

A Christian brother who is submitting to a Christian sister who is not his wife would not expect her to “submit” to marital rights with him. This is taught elsewhere is scripture.

“Ever since, like their anatomy, women tend to internalize shame (accept blame) and men tend to externalize shame (blameshift).” (Charis 562)

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, ” The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

To me, this does not sound as if the woman is accepting blame, but that she too is explaining away her behavior by shifting the blame to the serpent.

Tiffany @569

“For the vast majority of the thread the sides haven’t even been able to agree on basic common ground. (the definition of authority, that for whatever reason it is there that the instructions are different to husbands and wives, and others).”

Tiffany, we haven’t been able to agree on a definition of authority because I was not aware that it had been redefined and reclassified. In fairness, it would have been easier for us to communicate if I had been aware of how you and NN were uniquely using the word authority.

I did begin to communicate using your definition of authority hence my questions at 496 which has remained unanswered by NN & you and 501 which has remained unanswered by NN.

Tiffany,

Thank you for your time. I usually only come and read here from time to time as I have time. I have only commented a couple of times on this or any blog for that matter because I don’t believe I am acquainted with the systematic doctrines of Complementarianism and Egalitarianism to contribute or hold my on like the other commenters here.

The bizarre nature of NN’s thesis just would not leave me even after a day and half. I, too, feel as though I have spent much time here. As far as your last comment:

“(my back and forth with SM rather confused the matter and I don’t think was helpful)”
Actually, it was most helpful to me, at least. I believe I now understand how you use the word authority, although I believe you are inconsistent when you apply your use to wives.

And, lastly,…

“However I still maintain that in a marriage where both are seeking Christ it is basically a non issue.”

I agree. For believing spouses seeking Christ, the right or privilege or burden of “power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine” whether administered rightly or wrongly is a non issue in marriage. However, nourishing, cherishing, and self-sacrificing are characteristics of how a believing husband is to agape his wife, and these are characteristics of how a wife should agape her husband. In this environment, the right to control, command, or determine, etc. is irrelevant.

Kind regards,

I forgot to check back to include the complete comment reference on my last post.

It was 505 (NN).