SM

NN (239)
NN: “The above logic chain proves that the differentiation between men and women is a truth which transcends particular culture – but it does not prove that it is hierarchical.”

I do not believe Paul or Peter’s address to wives and husbands was an attempt to “differentiate between husbands and wives.” There already existed within the culture a very clear demarcation between the genders. This was a reality, not a truth, whose negative implications, as well as any positives, have been felt by cultures throughout human history.

The authors may very well be instructing the original audience how to best live within their current cultural climate given their station in life. They may be explaining how the gospel informs their station in life in practical ways. Specifically, because of the differentiation that existed in the culture, for wives for whom it was already a cultural mandate to not only submit but obey, the gospel elevates their societal obligation by impressing upon wives to “submit as unto the Lord,” but even more remarkable in a society consumed by status and prominence was the instruction to all—regardless of status or prominence–(men included) to “submit to one another” (Eph 5:21, etc.).

I agree that nothing in the logic chain proves that culturally mandated differentiation is hierarchical. However, the differentiation that existed within the culture was assumed and so was hierarchy. I suspect it was a climate completely foreign to our modern sensitivities.

NN: “To prove that we must examine the particular instructions give:”

So you are now trying to prove hierarchy apart from “eros” which is in contradiction to your thesis in your article under discussion on this thread.

NN: “Women are told to “hupotassoe” their husbands – this same general instruction is used by Paul in the same context to describe the proper actions of citizens toward their governments and slaves toward their masters. Furthermore, we are instructed by the Christ that we are to obey the governing authorities (”render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) so we must interpret Paul’s specific instructions to wives to be in keeping with his use of the words to describe other obedience relationships.”

It’s already been said, but the verb for vs 22 is borrowed or implied from vs 21, so if hierarchy is in vs 22 then it is in vs 21. NN, are you saying that everyone is to obey everyone else? Even if “obedience” was in view in vs 21, the call for wives to “obey” out of reverence for Christ elevates the aberrant societal obligation imposed on them because of gender differentiation that was not present in the Beginnings.

Also, the coin had Caesar’s insignia, so it belonged to Caesar. Jesus’ wit—gotta love it! I see no relevance of giving to Caesar what is his and Paul’s instruction to wives in Eph.

Because there is no explicit equivalent instruction to the husbands the relationship logically must be hierarchical? Really? There is no specific instruction for women to “agape” their husband? Should they? Of course! There is no specific instruction for husbands to respect their wife? Should they? Of course!

NN: “Since Paul explicitly gives no such equivalent instruction to the husband the relationship logically must be hierarchical.”

In your article under discussion here, you claim when we look at Eph 5:22 “it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – ‘eros’… The presence of this type of love is distinctive of the marriage relationship….And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two ‘inequivalent’ people then the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident.” You continue, “[a]nd we see that in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.” You also add, “[t]he operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship…” which you conclude is patriarchal hierarchy.
You are now claiming that the seemingly absence of an equivalent instruction specific to husbands is the basis for hierarchy.

You presume “X” where X=absence of an equivalent instruction specific to husbands
Logical consequence is “Y” where Y=hierarchy

NN, is this now your position and do you want to retract your thesis:– patriarchal hierarchy is a natural and God-made consequence of “eros” between two “inequivalent” people in marriage?

NN, I have been more than generous with my time to interact specifically to your comments and questions. Now, I eagerly await “all the available evidence from the scriptures” that supports your “eros” thesis, unless of course you are retracting it.

NN, even the quote I used in 294 was from within the article itself not from anything you have provided in this discussion to support your thesis.

NN (285)
“I’ve reiterated more times than I care to recall – I will not do so again.”

You have not once substantiated your thesis other than claiming that as we turn to Eph 5:22 that “it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros”? WHERE in Eph 5:22 in “Wives, unto your husbands…” is it apparent that “eros” is “operative”?

If I missed it, as we are posting rapidly, will someone, ANYONE, point it out to me?

Where has NN substantiated by listing “all available evidence provided by Scripture” (NN 239) that he believes supports his thesis under discussion?

NN (284)

“Leads to” was not lost on me.

So let’s break down your restatement of your thesis: “The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship….”

“X” leads to “Y”

X= operation of eros within the marital relationship between two “inequivalent” persons
Y=”an [sic] natural and god-made asymmetry of the relationship (hierarchy)

“The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship….”

Would you like to reword your thesis and any restatements i.e. the one above from the article under discussion? If so, how would you restate it?

NN @ 280
“the content of (239) is essential to any concept of hierarchy based on ‘eros’ -”

Exasperating…..

Here again your asserting what you wrote in 239 is essential to your *****concept of hierarchy being based on “eros”******.

I’ve lost count, but let’s give it another go….

From where do you get the concept of hierachy based on “eros”?

NN,

Here is another example in the concluding paragraph wherein you reiterate your thesis:

“The operation of eros within the marital relationship *****leads to**** an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship….”
(emphasis added)

Would you like to reword your thesis and any restatements i.e. the one above from the article under discussion? If so, how would you restate it?

NN (270),

“In my original post on “eros,”….I note that this concept is underpinned by a previous post giving explicit proof for hierarchy… ”

The only note to a previous post in the article under discussion here is how “wives be subject” is defined and is as follows: “However, as discussed previously, the instruction here given is the same as that given to servants toward their masters and citizens toward the ruling authorities – it is quite clear that this instruction does imply submission to authority.”

In the article under discussion “Agape & Eros”, your thesis is that in
Eph 5:22, “it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros”….The presence of this type of love is distinctive of the marriage relationship….And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two inequivalent people *** THEN *** the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident…. And we see that in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.” (emphasis added)

It is clear in context and with the conclusions you draw that your “eros” thesis was not supported by any claims or conclusions drawn from another article.

NN: “the proof for hierarchy came first; though you seem to have latched onto them in reverse order.”

I’m simply reading what you wrote.

NN: “That I am telling you that any discussion of hierarchy based on “eros” must first presuppose that hierarchy exists is something I have already said and should not be strange to you.”

I have not read you actually address the questions concerning your “eros” thesis until 239 after multiple requests by me and another commenter. Even then you backed off from your claim stating it was your hypothesis. However, in the next sentence (239) you claim “all the available evidence provided by scripture [you] have read” best fits your hypothesis, but you do not provide this evidence after multiple requests.

NN: “But to clarify the nature of the other statement – we have a quote in physics:
“But the real glory of [a conceptual model] is not that we can find the answer, but that we can find a way of thinking such that the answer is self-evident.””

Again, this is a theological discussion, however it sounds like your physics quote is what theologians call reading into the text–reading the text with presuppositions.

NN: “The concept of “eros” as explaining marital hierarchy is a model; but we must have a common understanding of the data before a model can possibly make any sense.”

A model of WHAT!?
What DATA informs the MODEL!?
It is clear that the “simplicty of the gospel” has been forsaken.

In order for a meaningful discussion to ensue, NN, you must explicate, substantiate, or retract your thesis in the article under discussion.

NN, I’ve given you many chances to sell your claim.

Barely patient,

NN,

Are you confusing your blog entry at LJ titled, “The Question of Patriarchal Hierarchy as a Biblical Doctrine” in which you do use
Col 3:18, Eph 5:22, 1 Pet 3:1 with the article under discussion here: “‘Mutual Submission’ – Submission in love: Agape & Eros” of which your thesis regarding “eros” has been challenged for lack of support?

Hopefully this is an inadvertent mistep on your part, otherwise, it appears you are changing the focus of the discussion from your article “‘Mutual Submission’–Submission in love: Agape & Eros” and its thesis.

Still patient,

My apologizes to the blog owner and readers if it appears I am “beating a dead horse.”

Though a newcomer to this Doctrine of Complementarianism, I have done a great deal of reading and listening to sermons/teaching and have not heard once this idea that “eros” constitutes the hierarchy. For that reason and the obvious, I believe such a thesis, as all theses should, be qualified biblically–this is a theological discussion. No formulas, signs, or symbols necessary–just scripture.

To SM (253)

NN, we cannot progress if you keep change the game. 258 comments in, plus the questions posed on your blog, and you want to change games. I am going to stick with your thesis presented in your article under discussion in this thread which you first brought to this thread in your comments which have remained unsubstantiated.

Your thesis in your article is that when we turn to Eph 5:22, “it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros”….The presence of this type of love is distinctive of the marriage relationship….And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two inequivalent people *** THEN *** the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident…. And we see that in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.” (emphasis added)

Now you are changing your position and claiming:

“The concept of hierarchy stems from ‘eros’ necessarily hinges first on hierarchy existing.”

Gosh, which is it?

I am beginning to think you are not convinced of your own thesis. If you are not convinced, you cannot sell it to anyone else.

I will only address your thesis presented in the article under discussion on this thread. I am eager to have you explicate, substantiate, or retract.

Still patient,

gengwall, (255)

This is how NN defined at my request “inequivalent”:

“In this case “inequivalent” means that two “objects” (people) are not the same in the sense that you cannot reverse the relational statement concerning them and have it hold true (mathematically we would say that the relationship between them is not transitive).”
http://nuallan.livejournal.com/53190.html

I conceded the point that a man is always a husband and not a wife and the woman is always a wife and not a husband.

However, they are both each other spouse and partner, in addition, they are co-heirs together with Christ, sons of God within the family of God, members of the Body of Christ, co-laborers in the Kingdom of God, vice-regents of God’s creation…

NN (249),

Your article hinges on your thesis–your claim from Eph 5:22 that “it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros”…. The presence of this type of love is distinctive of the marriage relationship…. And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two inequivalent people then the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident.”

As I see it, this is the critical issue as it relates to your article under discussion here. The rest of your article hinges on how well you support your thesis from scripture. (I understand this to be a theological discussion.)

NN, I am simply asking you to sell me your thesis. You make a claim but fail to support it with “all the available evidence provided by scripture [you] have read.” (NN at 239)

Once this issue of “eros” is “put to bed”, then we can move forward because your thesis is unsupported.

Fortunately for me this isn’t rocket science or physics. All I am simply asking for in this theological discussion is “all the available evidence provided by scripture [you] have read” that supports the foundation of your article.

NN, thanks for a response.
First you write (239): “let me state clearly that the origination of hierarchy from the basis of what I have called “eros” is a hypothesis on my part.”

Now we get to the bottom of that issue. In your article which you quote in your comments on this thread you are making a claim based on what you say is “direct”, “clear”, and “evident” in Eph 5:22 without identifying the words or phrases that either explicity state this or from which you infer this. Thanks for owning your hypothesis.

BUT, just when I thought I could “put to bed” this issue of “eros” being the basis of patriarchal hierarchy in marriage you continue:

(239) “[Eros] fits by far the best with all available evidence provided by Scripture that I have seen…”

Ok, I thought it was a hypothesis. Once again, would you be so helpful as to provide the scripture that you claim establishes “eros” as the basis for patriarchal hierarchy in marriage, other than Eph 5:22 which you cover already in your article under discussion and up to this point have yet to use effectively to support this claim.

NN continues: “…- but I cannot logically prove it in the same way (as a scientist trained in formal logic I mean something very specific when I say “prove”).”

I haven’t been asking you to “prove” the basis of your thesis. I have been simply asking you to support your claim that as we turn to Eph 5:22 we can see “clearly”, “directly” and “evidently” that “eros” between to “inequivalent” persons constitutes “a natural and God-made asymmetry”.

NN, you have had many opportunities to post in comments here and on your journal “all available evidence provided by Scripture that [you] have seen” and have not stepped up, yet?

I would be eager and diligent to read “all available evidence provided by Scripture”.

Patiently,

NN (214):
“If interested for gmail chat ingarandur[AT]gmail[DOT]com – it is so much quicker to figure out where the common ground is for a starting point in the discussion that way, and easier to step through a discussion point by point without it taking aeons…

I appreciate the invite. I am not so much interested in a “live” chat because I am not able to just sit and carry on without interruption or having to leave the computer for some time. The blog format posting is more compatible with my schedule and responsibilities. Again, there are others who are engaged in this conversation on this thread who seek to understand your premise. This is where your article came under discussion. I didn’t get any answers from my questions posted there when I initially obliged your request but rather you seem to step back somewhat in your comments.

I have made my questions succinct and clear for the ease of clarity and brevity in your responses; therefore, I a chat would only take much more time than I have.

NN continues: “Though you raise a good point…”

Ok, what is the good point I raised? Again, please explain what you are claiming.

NN continues:
“I presume that we can agree that the apostles consistently give distinct and non-equivalent instructions to husbands and to wives separately:
Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Pet 3, etc. – In each case the wife specifically is told that she is to be submitted (”hupatassoe”) to her husband; while in each case the husband is given a distinct and different instruction.
Whatever the origin of these distinctions are in the case of the instructions given: personal, cultural, or universal – we can at least agree that the instructions given are distinct and non-equivalent.
Agree? Disagree?”

I have now answered this at least three times. Here is what I wrote at 209 in this thread:

“No, we cannot agree that the virtues or principles that should characterize the female or male Christian are unique to their gender. The instructions, as I understand, are addressing real people in real time with their own unique set of political and cultural circumstances. All the epistles are addressing real people including–the disenfranchised and marginalized–Christians, women, salves–and how they can best live out their faith within the current systems…. Given the overall teachings of scripture, I do not see that wives and husbands are given distinct instructions but that the same principles and virtues are incumbent upon both believing spouses.”

My answer to this question on your journal:
“I concede that the authors may very well be instructing the original audience how to best live within their current cultural climate given their station in life. Specifically, for wives for whom it was already a cultural mandate to not only submit but obey, the gospel elevates their societal obligation by instructing wives to “submit as unto the Lord” but even more remarkable in a society consumed by status and prominence was the instruction to all (men included) to “submit to one another” (Eph 5:21, etc.).”

I have been more than fair by consistently and forthrightly answering your questions. However, you have yet to answer one of mine. You avoid by inviting me to your journal. When I pose questions there you evade by responding that you will not answer as it seems I have worked them through myself or by simply restating your presupposition without giving any explanation or basis and when pressed you still do not answer by inviting me to chat as if that will some how simplfy this process.

If you believe something, say why? It is based on what truth? What fact? What scripture? If it is not based on anything other than your observation or experience or anecdotal evidence then own that.

I was reading a blog recently where the author claimed that hierarchal complementarianism was divinely ordained because women were less confrontational. He had no scripture. He merely based this on anecdotal evidence based on his experience with his wife, but at least he owned the premise of his reasoning by saying she was more shy and steered away from confrontation, and he believed men to be generally more confrontational therefore qualified for headship i.e. authority and leadership over wives.

NN, whatever it is, just own the basis of your premise and spell it out for those of us who are sincerely trying to understand your conclusion: —because “eros” exists between a husband (who can never be a wife) and a wife (who can never be a husband) a patriarchal hierarchy is divinely-intended.

At this point, if you do not do that, I have to conclude either:
1) that you realize what you thought Paul wrote so directly and what you thought was so clearly evident now appears not so direct or evident, or
2) that you knew up front you were reading into the text, or
2) that you do not know the basis of your premise, or
4) that you realize you were misguided and are backing away from this.
Which of these is it or is it something else?

With respect,

NN (207 & 208)

“To answer your question ‘how or why NN equates the existence of ‘eros’ within marriage as the basis for a ‘natural, God-made asymmetry’ which is patriarchal.
“In the marital relationship the husband is not the wife and the wife is not the husband – these two people are inequivalent upon interchange.”

NN, in your article you say you are establishing your claim by looking at the principles found in scritpure. You begin with a “parallel” scripture from Phillipians to correspond with Eph 5:21 and draw the conclusion that “agape” is the overarching principle allowing for mutual submission among Christians.

Then you turn to Eph 2:22 and write, “[s]ince the first passage was made clear by observing that the governing principle in christian relationship is “agape” love we shall seek the same sort of understanding of the marital relationship.” However, you do not seek the same sort of understanding, but continue, “[a]nd as we do so it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – ‘eros’.”

The problem I have is not only your claim in the article under discussion on this thread that “eros” is the basis for hierarchy in marriage, but you are drawing your conclusions–seeing a principle of “eros”–from Eph 5:22 that is not there. NN, in looking at Eph 5:22 how is it “apparent” that there is “eros operative” which becomes the overarching principle requiring submission solely by the wife to the husband throughout all time?

NN: “And you agreed”

I agreed only that men are only husbands and women are only wives.

NN: ” – furthermore we note that the apostle gives distinct instructions to husbands and wives (whatever the reason he did this for – the instructions are consistently different: we can at least agree on this?)”

No, we cannot agree that the virtues or principles that should characterize the female or male Christian are unique to their gender. The instructions, as I understand, are addressing real people in real time with their own unique set of political and cultural circumstances. All the epistles are addressing real people including–the disenfranchised and marginalized–Christians, women, salves–and how they can best live out their faith within the current systems…. Given the overall teachings of scripture, I do not see that wives and husbands are given distinct instructions but that the same principles and virtues are incumbent upon both believing spouses.

NN, do you see this differently, if so, how?

NN: “So the husband-wife relationship in that context was an asymmetric (inequivalent) relationship.”

In what “context” is the husband-wife relationship asymmetric (inequivalent)?

In your article under discussion on this thread, the context is that “[t]he presence of this type of love (“eros”) is distinctive of the marriage relationship versus other christian relationships. And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two *inequivalent* people then the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident.”

In other words you are saying: Because a man is a husband and can never be a wife, and because a woman is a wife and can never be a husband, and since “eros” exists between them it is evident there is a patriarchal hierarchy in the marriage. No, it is NOT evident to me that because “eros” exists in marriage Paul is instructing a hierarchical nature for the marriage relationship.
NN, can you please help me see how you see come to this conclusion?

Your claim about “eros” in the article under discussion on this thread is not consistent with what you have written about 1 Cor 7 which includes the idea of “eros” on another thread on this blog to which you linked. There you write, “1 Cor 7 seems to indicate an equality between the man and woman regarding their ‘exousiadzoe’ toward each others bodies…certainly the passage does seem to indicate equality in this claim between each spouse to the other’s body.”

To me it seems you are inconsistent.

So, I ask again, (195) “…[W]hat does the existence of “eros” whether romantic or sexual love between a husband and a wife have to do with establishing a ‘natural and God-given asymmetry’ between the genders in the relationship?

If anything, I would think the very nature of “eros” which is [sic] culminates in a sexual union is a very “leveling” experience. In other words, getting naked together and mutually pleasuring each other is a great equalizer of sorts. I can’t think of any other human experience that creates a physical and spiritual oneness–a single organic union–than two becoming one in sex. The idea that “eros”, whether or romantic or sexual, constitutes the basis for a natural, God-given asymmtrical hierarchy contradicts everything inherent about “eros” between a husband and wife.”

NN: “So thus far we have proved inequivalence -”

I was not seeking to prove inequivalence, but I did concede men are husbands and women are wives.

NN: “…but not the nature or origin of it…”

Again, I wasn’t seeking to prove existence or the nature or origin. It was your term in your article. I was seeking clarification from you of your claim.

NN: “I ask again if we can move venues to make it easier to keep track of.”

I obliged you before, but because we seem to both be following this thread which is addressing your article, because this is where the conversation began, because others are engaged in this same topic, for the sake of time following the same conversation in two places, and for various other reasons I believe this venue is suitable and that it would be much easier for us to navigate this one thread on your article.

However, on another post at your blog, I am awaiting your reply to my comments and questions.

Dave, I listened to a sermon of yours wherein you tackled this topic, and it certainly gave me something to think about. It was a perspective I had not ever heard. I totally identified with the desire to “possess and be possessed” and understand that to be at the heart of the innate desire for intimacy–to know and to be known, to love and to be loved.

My question is how or why NN equates the existence of “eros” within marriage as the basis for a “natural, God-made asymmetry” which is patriarchal.

Re: Sue at 196

I understood from NN’s article under discussion in this thread that it was based on scripture:

“Since the first passage was made clear by observing that the governing principle in christian relationship is “agape” love we shall seek the same sort of understanding of the marital relationship. And as we do so it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros” (&epsilon&rho&omicron&sigma). The presence of this type of love is distinctive of the marriage relationship versus other christian relationships. And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two inequivalent people then the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident.
“….******And we see that in the marital relationship****** – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.” (emphasis added)

I thought NN was discussing Ph 2:3 and Eph 5:21-22 and drawing conclusions about “eros” from that. I, too, may have misunderstood.

NN, will you clarify, please? From where do we see this about “eros”? Are you drawing your conclusions about “eros” and its implications for a “natural and God-given asymmetry” between a husband and a wife from scripture? Or, are you inferring this based on your observations or experience?

NN, I sense that you are trying to help me understand, but I am a slow learner.

NN at (184) I did miss this post: In general
Let me make something quite clear “eros” (&epsilon&rho&omicron&sigma) is NOT exactly the same thing as the modern english “erotic.”

ok…

NN at 184 (cont’d) “Eros encompassed what we might today call “romantic love” ~ certainly encompassing the sexual but not limited to it.”

I also read 190.

NN at 190: “Let us put it another way “eros” describes the type of love which exists between a husband and wife which should not properly exist between other people…”

I get that. But, what does the existence of “eros” whether romantic or sexual love between a husband and a wife have to do with establishing a “natural and God-given asymmetry between the genders in the relationship? I just don’t get this claim.

If anything, I would think the very nature of “eros” which is culminates in a sexual union is a very “leveling” experience. In other words, getting naked together and mutually pleasuring each other is a great equalizer of sorts. I can’t think of any other human experience that creates a physical and spiritual oneness–a single organic union–than two becoming one in sex. The idea that “eros”, whether or romantic or sexual, constitutes the basis for a natural, God-given asymmtrical hierarchy contradicts everything inherent about “eros” between a husband and wife.

NN, can you explain what you are seeing that I am missing?

NN (188)

“The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship…”

Where did you come up with this? This is what I, and I think Sue, are wondering? In my previous comment here (189) I quoted you saying on another thread that based on 1 Cor 7 there is an equality concerning the authority a husband and wife have towards each other’s body, but in this statement from your article under discussion you say that “eros” leads to a “natural and God-made asymmetry”?

I am a newcomer to this debate. I have been doing a lot of online reading the last two years. I have yet to hear from a complementarian that “eros” love is the basis for a “natural and God-made asymmetry” between a husband and wife.

To NN
I continued reading in the thread and may have posted here prematurely. I did find this statement by you at #17:

NN: “1 Cor 7 seems to indicate an equality between the man and woman regarding their “exousiadzoe” toward each others bodies….I think “jurisdiction” or “claim” might be a better technical understanding of the word here. But certainly the passage does seem to indicate equality in this claim between each spouse to the other’s body. It simply must be noted that this one aspect of relational reciprocity does not negate the possibility of hierarchy in the relationship overall”

In this comment on this previous thread you claim that this one aspect of reciprocity as it relates to “eros” does not negate the **possibility of hierarchy**. However, in your article under discussion here, you assert, “….in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.”

Can you explain how you advanced your claim since you do agree 1 Cor 7 sets forth directly and unequivocally an equality that exists between the husband and wife regarding their “exousiadzoe” toward each other within the context of “eros”?

To NN (179)

I, too, though I have not addressed this here or on your blog have had great difficulty reconciling your comment about “eros” and how that makes for, what I understand you to claim, a divinely intended patriarchal hierarchy in marriage that supercedes “agape”.
You didn’t answer here Sue’s (I believe) question on this. I followed the link you provided in #179 read the comments preceding and following the link up to #12 and you still did not answer the claim you make that the “eros” love unique to a husband-wife relationship is what makes qualifies it as a patriarchial hierarchy. You seem to avoid backing up your claim on this thread and that one.

In #12 on the link you provided you state:

“Therefore this passage can either be interpreted as a situation in which hierarchical governance exists or not… Once again, I leave it to the reader to decide whether it is the case that there is hierarchical governance within the Biblical marriage relationship or not…”

Will you help me understand the relationship that “eros” plays in making marriage a patriarchal hierarchy?

What type of love provided for the patriarchal hierarchal relationship of master-slave?

From NN’s article: “The presence of this type of love (eros) is distinctive of the marriage relationship versus other christian relationships. And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two *inequivalent* people then the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident.”
(*indicates italics, author’s emphasis)

NN, can you explain exactly more clearly what you are saying?

*consensus*

Unfortunately there are those who defy common sense:

“Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed. . .” (pg 45) (on Driscoll’s understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12-14)

Mark Driscoll, Church Leadership: Explaining the Roles of Jesus, Elders, Deacons, and Members at Mars Hill, Mars Hill Theology Series (Seattle, WA: Mars Hill Church, 2004).

Do the women in these patri/hier circles really believe this about all women in general which more often than not would include them?

Driscoll’s practice in his church/network is at odds with this profession from his book and heard in his podcasts. While women are not designated as elder/pastor, he does permit women which in his view are “more gullible and easier to deceive than men” to “….use the abilities that God has given them to their fullest extent in anything from teaching a class to leading a community group, overseeing a ministry, leading as a deacon, speaking in church, leading worship, serving communion, entering into full-time paid ministry as a member of the staff, and receiving formal theological education…”

http://www.cbmw.org/images/jbmw_pdf/12_2/12-2.pdf takes on this view. There doesn’t seem to be a consesus among JBMW / CBMW contributors on their view of this issue.

https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-1-No-3/The-Definitive-Book-On-1-Timothy-2
Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, edited by Andreas Kostenberger, Thomas Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Baker, 1995)
“Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity. Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth. Appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables…. This is not to say women are intellectually deficient or inferior to men… their gentler and kinder nature inhibits them from excluding people for doctrinal error…. The different inclinations of women (and men!) do not imply that they are inferior or superior to men. It simply demonstrates that men and women are profoundly different. Women have some strengths that men do not have, and men have some strengths that are generally lacking in women…. Women are prohibited from the teaching office not only because of the order of creation but also because they are less likely to preserve the apostolic tradition in inhabiting the teaching office” (pp. 145-146).”

This appears to me to be based on no rational analysis or objectivity of women.

Excerpted from “Boundaries Without Bonds: How to Keep Headship from Being HardshipTools” by James W. Andrews http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-1/Boundaries-Without-Bonds

“…I grant it seems strange on the face of it to put any kind of a ceiling on women’s ministry in the local church. However what troubles at first glance makes more sense on second thought. Consider these things: …..

4) For all their remarkable attributes, the Bible suggests females are inherently more susceptible to spiritual deception than males.

This conclusion always stirs a hornet’s nest, but the quarrel is not with me. The Apostle Paul cites Eve as the archetypal female who in her seduction exemplified this vulnerability. That fact in itself is an all-sufficient reason to disqualify women as church leaders inasmuch as doctrinal integrity is crucial to the preservation of the faith.

Was it by accident the cunning Serpent approached Eve rather than Adam? Did not Paul say Adam himself was not deceived (he simply rebelled) but Eve indeed was?[19] Does this susceptibility presuppose some original imperfection in the female makeup? Hardly. Rather, it illustrates God never intended one size to fit all.

In life the qualities that suit us for one role are often the very traits that disqualify us for another. That phenomenon is not a manufacturing defect; that is just a design difference…”

If susceptibility to deception disqualifies women from certain ministries in the church, from a hierarchialist perspective, how does this susceptibility qualify them for their domestic role? This is a serious question.

Mark wrote:
“Perhaps you mean do i believe the bible teaches that women will be ‘teachers’ in the church, then i would say no. The reason being the resposibilty of the gift and its correlation to the gift of pastor which i believe the bible teaches are for the men of the church.”

Mark,
I am trying to follow this discussion. Maybe I missed a qualifier. Can you clarify. Given the above statement, do you believe the bible permits women in the to teach the bible or church doctrine to other women in the church?

Mark,

Mark wrote:
“I do believe that there is a gift of teaching. I also believe that there is a gift of prophecy. The difference is i don’t believe that the gift of prophecy commended for women by Paul in 1 Cor 11 is the same gift as that of teaching in Eph 4:11. Paul numerously distinguishes between the 2 gifts which is all i am doing.”

I do not understand anybody to be arguing they are the same. Correct me if I am wrong. I do understand you to be saying prophecy is “higher” than teaching, and I am not sure what you mean by “higher”. It is a gift to be desired. It is preferred over tongues for the obvious reason of understanding and edification.

I understand you to say women are given the gift of prophesy in 1 Cor 11. Are women given the gift of teaching in Eph 4:11?

Cheryl wrote:

“The witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection who were personally ordained as preachers of the good news by Jesus Himself are not the same as those who think they have special authority because they stand behind a pulpit. When we compare Jesus’ personal ordination of individuals to a non-biblical pulpit, honestly there is no comparison at all.”

That is great.

Mark,
If I man and a woman were to deliever the identical theological material to an assembly of mixed gender believers, how would you classify each delivery? I’m just trying to understand your position and how it plays out practically.