Susanna Krizo

Mark and NN, it seems to me that you begin with the ASSUMPTION, that God instituted authority at creation, and it seems to me also that you have never challenged the thought, which is why you cannot provide the actual text in the Bible where it says so. This is of course supremely common in all of humanity, not only Christians, for we all profess unchallenged beliefs that we have been taught, yet not thought through. So, look through your Bibles and see if you can find a text where it says: “God instituted authority at creation” and post it here for all of us to see.

sorry, I forgot to remove Mark’s comment from my post which I used as a reference.

Marke, I never said authority=evil, I said authority was instituted BECAUSE OF EVIL, i.e the presence of sin.
As I suspected, the only foundation you can give is “God says,” but you did not answer my question: WHERE DOES GOD DECLARE IT AND WHY DID DECLARE IT. This is the question comps cannot answer wherefore they must resort to the Divine Commandment Theory, i.e. it is right because God commands it, but the question whether God has actually commanded it, cannot be proven by such a theory.

Comps have done a superb job at convincing the church that egalitarianism is caused by post-modern philosophy. Of course they have zero proof of it and can only demonize women’s rights movements, as the White Supremist demonized the civil rights movement. Whereas both of these movements had some issues, they were hardly influencing the church to remove itself from the original plan; even comps admit that there was plenty wrong how the church used to teach wifely submission etc. That said, it was actually ancient philosophy which changed our view from egal to comp by making the woman inferior. Where do we get the idea that a wife should be under the husband’s authority? From the Vulgate, in which Jerome translated Gen 3.16: “under the man’s authority will you be and he shall rule over you.” This was perceived to be a commandment until 1980’s. Luther, who BTW used the Hebrew Bible, as did Jerome, translated Gen 3.16, “your will shall be under the man’s authority and he shall rule over you,” and this is where we get the idea that a husband should place his wife’s will under his authority. Very few know about these changes since our modern Bibles use the word “desire,” which is also a false translation.

Gen 1 describes the rule of a rational over an irrational, Gen 3 describes the sinful rule of a rational over an other rational being, but Gen 2 describes love, which is why it is used in Eph 5 to fortify the teaching that a man should love his wife as he loves himself.

You asked why authority or rule was necessary in the sinless world. As i pointed out, and as God himself declared it was there before the fall. Therefore you ought to be more regulated in your arguments, rather than declaring that ‘rule’ is a consequence of sin. If God ordained that authorty exist in a sinless world we ought to teach and know that- that’s my point. Once that is set as the foundation, then one can look further to see if such authority existed between husband/wife and if it did, we can be confident that authority is not in and of itself sinful. This is at the heart of many egalitarian arguments, and unfortunately they by pass this point assuming authority=evil (which of course is a by-product of our post modern philosophy)

elastigirl, I agree, this discussion could go on for a very long time and be still very useful. The sad thing is that comps retreat always when it gets interesting, when the arguments are coming really close to the root of the problem. But hey, we are not trying to force anyone to debate, it’s a choice.

NN, the only thing I want you to answer is this: why did God give the man authority? If it was given to him at creation, why was it given to him? To settle disputes between spouses? This would mean that Adam and Eve argued in the garden and that there was never a point in time in which humanity lived in peace.

Hey NN, I see you are online. You have still not answer my question…!

Cheryl, I just read your post about your marriage and wow! it was just like mine! When Ira (and I) thought he was supposed to be in “charge” we were constantly in turmoil and headed for a divorce, for who can live without peace? When, after I did my research and found that egals were right, we changed our thinking, we changed back to what we were like before we got married. Just like you said, also we were best friends, we lost it, but now we can be that again for we no longer have the idea that he has to make all the decisions between us. We have figured out that he is really good at somethings and I am really good at somethings and that we better let the person who is good at the thing needed make the decisions for the benefit of the family.
“For her own good” is a title of a book which describes how male doctors thought they were prescribing treatments to their female patients “for their own good.” These treatments included laudanum (derivative of opium), hysterectomy for any and all reasons, bedrest for weeks, even months (without visits or anything to do, which drove some women insane), female circumcision etc. The doctors thought these were for their own good, but as we know now, they weren’t. When also women became doctors, the treatments changed for women began to ask the dreaded question “why?”
Thanks for sharing your story. It completely validated our experience and Ira would say he is the one who has benefitted the most since what he got back was me, the woman he traveled to the other side of the world to marry.

Dave, good to hear from you! You are so right that Ephesians was meant to be read in one sitting and that the purpose of the letter is to explain that Christ was to bring everything back to himself as the head, i.e. the beginning/source of all things. That was one of the main point I found when I was reading Ephesians myself. Anakephalaiomai means (Eph 1.10) “to bring back to the head,” and this is the will of God, the mystery hidden and now revealed. Since Christ has now brought back everything to the beginning, marriage ought to reflect the original beauty of it, and this is the dividing point between comps and egals: what was the original marriage like.

Could someone please explain to me where the Bible says “and the husband has authority over (exousia) the wife, because…” and what that “because” is.
In all other occasions Paul is very clear why the authority is given:

Rom 13:4-7
For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. (NKJV)

Eph 4:11-16
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head–Christ– 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. (NKJV)

The question is not whether we need leaders, of course we do. The question is WHY we need leaders. And the answer is simple enough: we need leaders because humans cannot co-operate because of sin. Marriage was instituted prior to sin, contrary to civil governments which were instituted after sin, and the reason it is believed a leader is needed in marriage is the existence of disagreements and the likelihood of an impasse which the husband’s authority is said to solve. For this to hold true, either the husband’s authority was instituted after sin or Adam and Eve could not live in peace with each other in the garden and Adam’s authority over Eve was given to restore peace. Any comments NN and Mark?

Kay, you wrote: “It seems to me that you (NN) are trying to hold two opposing views at the same time – one hand says Christ redefined “greatness” as serving others and the other hand says that serving is transformed back into “authority” over when done by male believers.”

The reason NN holds this view is that in 1977 Robert Greenleaf wrote a book called Servant Leadership. His concept called for all leaders, especially in the corporate world, to be servants who sought the good of others instead of seeking to please themselves. The church adopted the principle with enthusiasm, but because of the belief that all men should lead they changed the belief from leading through service to service through leading. I.e. instead of using serving as a means of leading, all men are seen as SERVING WHEN THEY LEAD. This change gave comps the neccessary ideology to continue to demand that all women serve while all men lead. Of course it is entirely unbiblical and contradictory to the core, but that’s besides the point.

The rule in Gen 1 is that of rational over an irrational, humans over animals. But never does the Bible say that a rational being should be over an other rational being. This is of course why the woman was considered irrational for about 1800 years by the church and it was only secular science which made the church change her mind about it. If you wish to place authority of the man over the woman in the creation account, you must explain why God would place a rational and thinking person under the authority of another rational person and why he would have done so, except for sin.

Mark and NN:
Humans were told to rule over the created world in Gen 1, but where do you find the word “rule” in Gen 2 when the man’s relation to the woman is concerned? It appears first in Gen 3, as a result of sin. You must go to 1 Tim 2 to find that the man’s prior creation (assumingly) gives the man authority over the woman, which you then transfer to Gen 2. I.e. the only reason you have for the man’s authority is his prior creation and the woman’s deception. Of course, the early church denied that the man had authority over the woman from creation, saying neither God or man said anything about subjetion, finding the rule first in Gen 3 due the sole guilt of Eve, which was a very logical conclusion considering the changes in theology which appeared in the second to fourth century. They did say the man had “pre-eminence” but in the way the emperor was the “first among equals,” not as a authority figure over a subject. (The emperor was careful not to say the freeborn Romans were his subjects for the Romans detested kings and would not have one). The church concluded also that authority between men was caused by sin, and accidental in nature, wherefore your argument that authority belongs to the created order and is intrinsic to it is a modern conclusion, caused by the confusion of changes in theology, mostly the most recent one of 1980’s when Gen 3.16 was relegated back to its original position as a consequence of sin instead of a mandate.

I.e. you must explain where the Bible says the man has authority over the woman and why God gave it to him.

Gengwall, that was a brilliant thought! (that Paul says explicitly that the head cannot control the body) Come to think of it, this principle was behind Augustine’s concept of original sin. (I write so much about Augustine because I am studying his texts right now, but also because he gave us most of our theology whic his why the (almost) all theological thoughts lead to him). He observed that the mind cannot control the body and as an example he used unwanted erections which he could not get rid of regardless of how much he tried. Because of this observation, he argued that the body and the soul used to live in perfect harmony but when the mind corrupted the body through sin, the body begun to rebel against the mind and corrputs now the mind. This rebellion he equated with original sin. He was influenced by Manechianism and Platonism, in addition to the fourth century changes in theology, which led him to equate the rebellion with sexual passion. From this there was only a short step for him to transfer the whole concept to men and women, although he had to reverse the first part of the scenario: the woman corrupted the man, who corrupts all subsequent humans due to original sin (Adam’s sin being transmitted to posterity through natural generation), the man cannot control the woman, who rebels against the man and is therefore placed under the man’s authority, just as the soul must subdue the body.
Comps use this argument when they find a connection between Gen 3.16 and 4.7 and argue that the woman rebels against the man, as sin tries to control humans, who must therefore rule over the woman.
But once again the man’s rule is caused by the existence of sin, for what need was there of such a rule in the garden when the two were innocent of evil?

Mara: You are right, sex between unequal parties in which one has the right to command and the other only to obey describes a master-slave relationship. This brings us to the next thought: the man’s rule is based on three things: power, sex and housework. The man wants power and sex (which will give him also children) but not the housework. This is why the freeborn Roman men had a wife, slaves and courtesans. The wife provided the children, the slaves did the housework and the courtesans provided the amusement. All three were available sexually for the man under whose authority they were (except the courtesan, who came the closest to equality with the man but only because the man had to pay for her services). The modern man tries to squeeze all of these from the one wife he marries and no wonder it is a disaster.

Kristen, you are absolutely correct: Paul would not have had any such thoughts, and he used the metaphor only to describe the unity of the head and body as they create one human being. But I think it is fascinating how God made the body in a way that it does reflect the beauty of marriage, when properly understood.

NN, you are still ducking the one question I would like you to answer: what is the foundation of the man’s authority? God’s will? Then why did God will it?

One more thought: the heart begins to beat faster when there is less oxygen in the body. I.e. if you stop breathing the heart begins to beat faster in order to get more oxygen to the body. In this case the heart responds to a need the body has, but not according to the preferences of the brain, but in accordance of its created purpose: it was created to circulate oxygen through the circulatory system. The human may think it is controlling the heart when it lowers its heartbeat or makes it faster, but in actuality, the heart is only adjusting its speed in order to function according to its created purpose. A bran that is trying to adjust the heartrate “just because” will only hurt itself for it depends on oxygen. The same is tru of a marriage. A man who is trying to control his wife “just because” will only end up hurting himself.

The brain and the heart live in a perfect symbiosis, for although the brain can affect the heart, the heart can also affect the brain. A heart attack for instance will kill the brain in ten minutes, arythmia or a weak heart can cause less oxygen to flow to the brain causing dizziness and other problems. You need a body in which the head rules over the body entirely, being able to shut it down at will, not only to cause it to beat faster or slower. You need also a body in which the heart has no control over the head. And you need a marriage in which only the man has a brain and the woman doesn’t.

NN wrote: “The body can of course come under attack from external sources (e.g. car accidents, plague infection, etc.) but one of the most prevalent difficulties is with internal attack when the body stops doing what it is supposed to.
Cancer is one of the most common forms of this. When little parts of the body become “selfish” and “decide” that they are the “most important” part of the body. They begin sequestering resources that aren’t theirs and hurt the rest of the body to grow beyond their intended design – ultimately causing widespread death throughout the body – including the death of the cancer itself.”

A very apt description of the practice of the man’s headship, don’t you think?

How does biofeedback work?

Researchers aren’ t sure exactly how or why biofeedback works. However, there does seem to be at least one common thread: most people who benefit from biofeedback have conditions that are brought on or made worse by stress. For this reason, many scientists believe that relaxation is the key to successful biofeedback therapy. When your body is under chronic stress, internal processes like blood pressure become overactive. Guided by a biofeedback therapist, you can learn to lower your blood pressure through relaxation techniques and mental exercises. When you are successful, you see the results on the monitor, which encourages your efforts.
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/biofeedback-000349.htm

The last sentence should read: Neither can you stop your heart form beating…. (Wiggly baby makes writing difficult)

Ok, I googled the sites and yes, you are right, such therapy exists, but there is a logical fallacy in your statement. The brain can only correct an error in the system, not the system itself. The therapy is used to treat disases caused or made worse by stress or other mental issues and relaxation is the key. I.e. the problem originates in the brain, wherefore the brain can fix it. You can mentally reduce your heartbeats when you are under stress and thus calm yourself, but you cannot stop your blood from flowing, let’s say for 10 minutes. Neither can’t you stop your heart from beating, only the heart can do so.

NN, yes, authority is compatible with Christianity but only because of sin. Children need parental guidance because of their inability to control their sinful impulses, etc. For your argument to hold true, you must prove that humans would have needed an authority figure while living in a sinless world. God’s authority stems from his role as a creator, what is the foundation for the man’s?

NN, the brain does not control the circulatory system which is controlled by the heart. I.e. the head needs the blood which is pumped by the heart and thus circulated throughout the body, but the head cannot make the heart pump more or less blood. If this was the case, we wouldn’t have strokes, for the brain would be able to control the bloodflow to the brain.

Yes, the argument that the head has to have authority over the body is a superb one. I would answer the argument with this: the head can send a commandment for the limbs to move, but the limbs can also command the head to send the signal. I.e. if you put your hand in a fire, the hand will send a signal to the head that it should make the hand move. In this case it is the hand that commands the head to take action, it does not originate from the head. There is one thing the brain cannot do and that is to regulate the heart which is vital for the existence of the entire body. I.e the head does not have absolute authority over the body.

NN, you wrote: “The authority of Christ over us is complete, He is our God and our Lord – it could be no other.”
Again, you proved my point: Christ has authority because he is OUR GOD AND OUR LORD. Is the man the woman’s god and lord? What is the foundation of the man’s authority?

I forgot to mention that Augustine equated the man with reason and the woman with the irrational appetite within one human being in an effort to make the man the ruler from creation, however he wrote also that Gen 1 clearly states that God created a man and a woman and that these two cannot be considered as representing the reason and appetite within one human being. The reason for this contradiction is that in the first mentioned instance he used allegory, which was common in the Alexandrian school of theology, in the second, he used the method of a literal interpretation.
Augustine’s attempt clearly shows also that he understood marriage as a one body unity, for why else would he argue that the man and the woman represented two parts of the one soul. He was also adamant that the word “head” when applied to Christ always denoted the unity he has with his body, the church.

Great thoughts everyone!
What comps can never answer is why slavery exists in the Bible since it was abolished using biblical principles. They, as NN does here, say that Paul used the same word of both slaves and wives, and since we know slaves had to obey, so must also wives. They ignore entirely the fact that slaves were considered equals in the early church, as were women, and that it was only when the church married Rome that the freeborn Romans could not tolerate the idea of viewing their slaves as their equals, wherefore the slaves were returned to their former position of inferiority. Augustine wrote that slavery could not be abolished in the Christian Rome because it would have destroyed society and as a Roman, he was concerned foremostly that order should be preserved. He did however recognize that slavery was a result of sin and acknowledged the slave’s right to seek a better master if he lived under a harsh one, and to ultimately seek freedom. Augustine had some issues with his overbearing mother and his own inability to control himself, wherefore he chose celibacy. This is clealry reflected in his view on marriage which he sees through the eyes of Plotinus, the creator of Neo-Platonism in the third century. Because he equated the man with the soul and the woman with the body, and because Plato wrote that the body is always trying to control the soul and hinder its ascent to higher things, i.e God, he ascribed rule to the man. This rule began after sin, and in his writing on Gen 3.16 he calls the woman the flesh and the man the soul which rules the flesh. Prior to sin, at creation, Augustine saw the man representing reason and the woman appetite within the soul. He changed the terms a few times depedning on which book you read. But most significantly, he wrote in his treatise on Eph 5 that the woman is not called flesh in the epistle because the flesh is sinful. He wrote also that the man is called the spirit (i.e the soul), for he needed it for his model to work, but which is untrue, for the man is called the head. His contradictions clearly demonstrates that the woman’s subjection began after sin and that every attempt to make it a creation based model fails.

Well said, Elastigirl!
The only place where authority and submission is an intrinsic part of life is the army, which is why comps try very hard to make a marriage equivalent to an army, the husband being the officer and wife the private. But an army must have a purpose for its own existence, with set rules for its conduct. What does the husband-wife team fight against? Debbile Lowe from Mercy Chefs, currently serving in Haiti, put it well: if the wife is the private, she does all the work, i.e. the fighting. In this case it should be the husband who stayed at home, while the wife went out to the world to fight the enemy, who or whatever it was.

Thanks Cheryl! Samuel is adorable, the cutest baby ever according to everyone who sees him. But… he is definitely a handful and beyond.

NN, that you did not write anything about women teaching does not mean that it is not the logical outcome of your thinking. In comp. theology the church-home connection is a major tenent, based on the fact that the man was created first and has therefore authority over the woman. It is because of the man’s prior creation the comps claim God denies women the right to teach men.

I don’t understand how comps can claim that the man has the same authority Christ has without making the man divine. Neither do I understand how they justify a man’s submission to another man. God the Father- God the Son is already used to further justify the submission of women to men, hence there really is no justification, or comparison, for a hierarchy between two men, which is why both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas wrote that a man became subject to another man by accident and was caused by sin. There is no way around the fact that submission to authority is caused by sin and was not part of original creation. Chrysostom wrote that neither God nor the man said anything about subjection to the woman and it was because of Eve’s sin that all women were subjected to men. This was also the view of Tertullian and Jerome. Augustine tried to create a creation based subjection of women to men, but he had to use Neo-Platonism to do so (just as Thomas Aquinas had to use Aristotle) and he contradicted himself at least five times.
BTW, here’s the verse about Christ dying and becoming lord:

Rom 14:9
For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living (NKJV)

Don’t forget that if you are trying to make the man the woman’s lord, she becomes his slave since “kyrios” refers to a slave owner, wherefore the early Christians called themselves the slaves of God. “Kyrios” can also refer to a polite way of addressing a man, and this is the way it is used in the NT when two equals address each other. If you try to make Abraham Sarah’s lord, you make Sarah Abraham’s slave.