Truthseeker

Rose,
Don Johnson is the ‘Don’ mentioned above, and he is the person from whom I first learned of the groundbreaking work by David Instone Brewer on divorce. He wrote a book about divorce from the Christian/biblical perspective that leaves all others in the dust as far as I am concerned, and explains things very well. David Instone Brewer has a website and I emailed him several questions a couple of years ago and he responded quickly and very helpfully. You won’t be disappointed.

I have learned that so much of what the bible says that seems hurtful or puzzling clears up when I finally learn more about what it really meant ‘back then.’ This is true of so many issues that I no longer worry about the tough ones: I know there is a good explanation out there though I may not learn of it in my lifetime. So I just hand those unknowns to God, set them on the shelf, and wait until I get clarification that brings peace. I don’t feel obligated to accept any person’s interpretation until there is a clear explanation that makes sense. Literal readings of the bible can often be puzzling when we don’t have all the contextual and linguistic information. I believe the Holy Spirit can give us a quiet peaceful assurance that God has reasons that are truly good and just and loving for things; we may simply not have the proper understanding. I don’t say that as an advocate of women being subjugated subordinate, or having to put up with abuse or anything like that because I don’t believe God teaches any of that. I am convinced, but each person has to come to their own convincement about these issues and the way and journey is usually a bit trying and not short.

Rereading here, several years later, I can only say that I find Paula and Lin’s (and Stickler’s) thinking to make the most sense. I am glad I reread. They provide the least basis for contradictions. In reading many comp arguments and claims in the past couple of years, some of the very things that Cheryl and Geng are holding fast have become the things comps use, logically, against egal or eternal subordination, etc., type of thinking.

Cheryl,

I am glad you are feeling better!

Per salt, I heard a sermon recently in which the preacher explained that in those days, animal refuse was burned for fuel, since other sources were scarce.  Salt was added to the ‘fuel’ to make it burn brighter.  When the ‘fuel’ was burned up, only the salt would remain but it would have lost its savor or ‘flavor’.  What has anyone else heard of this meaning?

Don, thanks!  I have to go make dinner, now, but will look those up as soon as I have a minute this evening.

Michael Terran and Don, those responses do help very much!  Thank you.  What would be the best reference/lexicon to use to show that kephale can mean source or origin in koine Greek?

Don,  that is fascinating that the ‘man’ may refer to a group that includes females!  When I checked scripture4all’s interlinear version of the verse, I noticed that the Greek above ‘man’ as in ‘Christ is the head of every man’ and the Greek above ‘man’ as in ‘the head of the woman is the man’ are different.  What is the difference?  I need to know Greek!

Also, one of the responses given to me regarding the problem with Christ being the head of every man, if we view ‘man’ here to mean all men-saved and unsaved, is that Christ could be their authority in one sense even if they don’t acknowledge it; in the same way that God is the Supreme authority over mankind, Satan, etc. even if unacknowledged as such.

Michael Terran,  your insight about ‘in the Lord’ is very interesting because one of the objections raised per the whole headship section has to do with whom Paul is speaking to or about in this section.  I maintain that when he speaks of Christ being the head of every man, the ‘every man’ here refers to all men-saved and unsaved.  Therefore, leadership can’t apply because non-believers don’t have Christ as their ‘leader/head’.   The comp view I am dealing with thinks that because Paul is addressing this letter to believers, that the ‘every man’ refers to all believing men.  Your point about the later mention of ‘in the Lord’ seems to refute the view that ‘all men’ refers to Christian and non-Christian.  Am I seeing this right?

Pinklight, I agree.  When I point out that headship as defined/described per Christ and the church with regard to husband and wife only seems to say that He loves her and gave himself up for her, and that leadership has to be read into this, it doesn’t seem to be clear to my comp.  I agree that leadership really does have to be ‘read into’ the passage.  This seems to be another case of trying to nail jello to the wall to make it clear that definition is being ‘read into the passage.’  I don’t know why other than it may simply testify of my own inadequacy as an explainer.  Yet, I know that in the final analysis, my job is to proclaim the truth as best as I can and only the Holy Spirit can ‘convict’.  I do pray for increased skill in proclaiming, though!

Much to chew on here, and I thank you very, very much!  Just a reminder that I am egal, but am having this debate with my non-egal spouse.   I have checked all the McCarthy links, thank you Cheryl!…Don, when Carson claims that the LSJ has both common and classical Greek, and that Bauer only has common, thus if it isn’t found to be a meaning in Bauer it isn’t common, how does one know which of the meanings in LSJ are classical and which are common?  So, if Bauer has left out ‘source’ or ‘origin’ as common definitions for kephale (as Carson claims-I don’t have either lexicon so I can’t check this out), what you are suggesting is that Bauer’s lexicon is not exhuastive per common definitions?  When ‘source’ or ‘origin’ are listed in the LSJ, are they notated as to whether they are classical or common usage?
     I realize that context would seem to be clear about kephale meaning source or origin.  Yet, it remains like that elusive picture that is shown of a drawing that can either look like a young woman or an old witchy woman, depending on how one ‘sees’ it.  I think, similarly, that for a while, one’s mind (comps.) can just ‘not see’ any other context than the authority/leader one and this must just require prayer and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit within them to see clearly.  The comp I discuss these things with is very sincere, and spending hours reading the info I present as well as the opposing view’s info,  but just cannot get past the authority/leader concept of head.  It does look like there may be some new ‘lightbulb’ points expressed in the recent comments, though.   I thank ALL of you for what you have shared!  Any prayers for the outcome of this debate with my comp spouse are welcome, too!

Don, thank you!  Here is the piece from the book in case I have mentioned anything incorrectly:  Let me know what else you ‘see’ in this that my untrained mind misses.  (From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies):  (pg. 37-38)

“It follows, then, that we should be a trifle suspicious when any piece of exegesis tries to establish the meaning of a word by appealing first of all to its usage in classical Greek rather than to its usage in Hellenistic Greek.  In an article in Christianity Today, for instance, Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen argue that “head” in I Cor. 11:2-16 means “source” or “origin”, but their appeal is to the standard classical lexicon (LSJ-which does of course move forward to cover Hellenistic Greek lexicon (Bauer).  The latter lists no meaning of “source” or “origin” for kephale, head for the New Testament period.
     We may usefully continue with the previous example.  Not only do the Mickelsens appeal to LSJ, but they also fail to note the constraints that even LSJ imposes on the evidence.  The Mickelsens make much of the idea ‘head of a river’ as the river’s “source”; but in all such cases cited by LSJ, the word is plural, kephalai.  When the singular form kephale is applied to a river, it refers to a river’s mouth.  The only example listed by LSJ where kephale singular means “source” or “origin” is the document the Fragmenta Orphilcorum, from the fifth century B.C. or earlier, which is both textually uncertain and patient of more than one translation.  Although some of the New Testament metaphorical uses of kephale could be taken to mean “source”, all other factors being equal, in no case is that the required meaning; and in every instance the notion of “headship” implying authority fits equally well or better.  The relevant lexica are full of examples, all culled from the ancient texts, in which kephale connotes “authority.”  The Mickelsens’ argument, and that of many others who have joined the same refrain, probably depends on an article by S. Bedale; but the fact remains that whatever the dependencies, the Mickelsens are attempting to appeal to an unknown or unlikely meaning.  Certainly there are sound exegetical reasons why such a meaning will not fit the context of I Cor. 11:2-16.”

Truthseeker, again:  I disagree with the statement that authority fits equally well or better.  Carson doesn’t justify this statement.

Help!  I am in over my ‘kephale’ on this one!  In reading D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, he says those who translate kephale as source are mistaken as that meaning only occurs in classical Greek and they should be looking at the Hellenistic (koine or common?) definition which is the lingo the N.T. was written in, which would not reveal ‘source’ as a definition for this time period but would yield ‘leader’ as a definition.  My comp spouse pointed this out to me in our ongoing debate so I need to hunt this one down.  Any experts out there on this one?  I posted this here in the headship section even though this is an older post because others like myself might look under ‘headship’ for this issue.

I have been away from these sites for a good while due to a death in the family and a surgery plus a complicated move.  Interesting to see the stress issues being addressed.  Cheryl, I pray for progress for you!  Tiro, living with pain, I can’t imagine. I am praying for you, too!  My health issues have not resulted in ongoing pain for any length of time.  I, too, have a stress-related health situation, and am being treated for it, but find that my biggest stressor is dealing with the comp/egal split in my fairly new marriage.  I know these things are allowed for a reason(s) but they are sure tough in the meantime!  I still need to get a handle on how to live victoriously and joyfully while married to a comp and living in his comp-ound!  I think the challenge for egal women married to comp men is a tough one, depending upon the circumstances, and mine aren’t hideous, yet, what is the price of the loss of freedom within the body of Christ?  I think how much freedom women have in the secular realm, for the most part, in our country, as they are free to associate as equals on any level in the work world or at home, etc.  Yet, within the Christian family, where we should be the MOST free to relate to our Father/Creator and with our brothers and sisters, we are clamped down upon and silenced!  I am freer in Christ, to worship and fellowship, if I only meet with women or if I meet alone.  That should not be.

Recently, due to a discussion about why females aren’t asked to pray before the meals in my home, I thought about the irony that a girl may speak to her father, to her brothers, etc. about any subject except God!!!  When it comes to God, she may ask about, but not teach, pray to, etc., in front of mixed company.  It is a travesty!!!  And this is the state of things in many churches and church groups.

I need to go pray!

As I ponder current egal/comp issues here on the homefront, I sorely  needed a good laugh today and Paula, your comment on the qualifications of a certain gentleman for the auto business per vapors did it!  🙂

Yes, we do need updated lexicons for this business of reading the bible without bias.

LOL Don, Tiro….thanks for the votes of confidence in God’s ability to create women with the ability to fully function as His followers and children and the biblical support to do so as well.  It is an eerie and sad thing to set foot inside a church that is filled with muted Stepford wives.

Pinklight,  join those of us who are on the outside looking in, as Paula so aptly put it.  I ache and long for a ‘regular’ group of folk to fellowship with, but having recently left the institution, also, I, too, value these online ‘fellowship’ connections.  I still pray for and keep an eye out for some kind of group or gathering-midweek or otherwise-informal or formal-to which I could belong.  As it is, I gather fellowship here and there via conversations in person and otherwise where I can.  It seems, as an egalitarian, my local choices are either comp churches, or egal churches so liberal that I would have to embrace gay theology or seeker friendly mania, etc.

Mike, welcome!  This is one of the safest, most respectful Christian sites you will find!  I am praying for you and your wife’s circumstances.

Hey!  I got ‘serve’ as the anti spam word; are you guys getting ‘lead’ as your word?!  🙂

Seriously, Michael, thank you for the suggestions.  Much time has passed since my entry, and I have done a ton of reading and have been much blessed with the help and conversations of others who know more on this topic.  I will look up, though, the resources you mentioned that I haven’t yet examined.

Most of all, at this juncture, I just wish there was one reliable easy-to-read bible translation that would rise to the top.  It would simplify the bookshelf, but it would also simplify the process of sharing with new believers.  As it is we have to make disclaimers on the major translations when making recommendations.  It appears that Ann Nyland (The Source) was on a good track until, unfortunately, she published her commentary for gays and lesbians.
Meanwhile, I remain very grateful for the Scripture4all link and the many resources that are available that help clear up the confusion, not the least of which are your contributions and blog site, Cheryl!

Don, what you are saying makes sense to me in light of the way I have seen comps approach the matter.  We have to be very careful with our own ‘additions’ of any kind to the matter of intrepreting scripture if we are going to hold their toes to the flame, also.

In the comp realm to which I am connected (though am not a part of), all that is said per ‘restricting women’ in the NT is classified as ‘pastoral advice’ from Paul to Timothy, etc.  That is, not all comps even care about whether a thing is a law, command, or a passing bit of advice.  As long as it has been ‘said’ in the bible, it is therefore ‘biblical’.  It is such muddled thinking, and I feel it has to be prayed away sometimes.  With folk like this, no amount of clever, truthful, logical appeal works.  That is not to say that discussions such as this are not vital;  it is just to say that there are those out there whose minds are not yet open to the truth about this issue.  I think only the Holy Spirit can make inroads into some of these cases.  Many of us were on that side of the fence at one time, too, and it was likely the nudging of the Holy Spirit that began to budge our thinking.  Again, this doesn’t at all negate the need for these discussions and clarifications.  It is just a reminder that what may seem as obvious as the nose on one’s face to us is not necessarily so to others.

When someone questioned what a comp whom I know thought of Sarah Palin being in a leadership role-over men-since this comp is quite a supporter of Palin, the comp’s response, albeit rather irritably, was ‘I know it doesn’t make sense, but it is biblical’.   It must be frustrating for comps at times to have such a ‘non-airtight’ belief about this whole matter of women’s ‘roles’ and ‘limits’.  Yet, because it is such a powerful error, in its consequences, we have to prayerfully and lovingly continue responding to it, whenever we encounter it.

Cheryl,

You have my prayers!

Don, in 29, your point is extremely important, as is Paula’s in 30, because we are in a position of defense or offense as the case may be, and the other side is definitely scrutinizing.  The more we can explain our case in terms that are indisputable, or at least plainly in or not in the bible, cultural record, lexicons, inter-linears, etc., the tighter it will be.  That is a good thing-not for the sake of ‘winning’ but for the sake of truth.  The cleaner our track record, the better.  I know that within my realm, presumpions and assumptions are quickly spotted, and I have to be very careful of what I use or exclude from my ‘presentations’.  Rightly so, for I do the same in reverse.

I will add that in all fairness, my husband’s church operates as they do out of an expressed concern for orderliness and timeliness.  I wonder why the early church didn’t think of this and form large, controlled meetings?!  We know that the NT addresses matters of order, yet does so within the context of the generally more accessible smaller house church groups.

How true it is that one who raises questions can be considered a troublemaker, no matter how respectfully the questions are put forth.  I think this is one of the benefits of doing ‘church’ the way it sounds like they did when the church was an infant.  Everyone brought a hymn, etc., and in a format where each could freely share, it would also follow that anyone could freely question, and ALL present would hear both the concern and the responses.  In our present mode, where a single person (pastor) speaks in front of a group, I only once was in a congregation where the pastor took questions afterwards-sometimes.  The church of my husband, which I currently attend sporadically, does indeed welcome challenges, but they welcome them in private.  I think that is dangerous because it means that no one else hears the concern or the response.  How easy it is to sway or influence the masses along a particular line of thinking when the masses are so controlled.

In my realm, comps have stated that what happened at Pentecost was for then, not for the rest of NT time.  It was for when the church was being established.  No other explanation is given, but they do seem to break NT time into two phases after Jesus ascends:  Phase one is establishing the new church and phase two is everything after that in this life and begins generally after the book of Acts.  That is how they try to explain away prophets and apostles.

They also do not refer to such things as the women’s issues as laws.  They are principles written for the church.  Somehow in their minds, that is a significant difference.  All verses that we egals would use to raise questions and/or explain the equality position are subordinated to the verses that explicitly tell women to be silent or not teach or usurp authority, etc.  When I asked one about the passage that begins with ‘when women pray or prophesy’, the only answer was that it would have to be done in a way that was consistent with their kingpin verses (be silent, do not teach or be in authority over….etc.)  When I asked how this could be done, short of having segregated services or the women being alone when they did this (which would conflict with the context), there was no direct answer.

Greg is right, they always have an answer.  It may fall flat in our understanding but it seems to work for them.  They do seem to tie everything back to creation.

I was told, in a recent discussion when I showed the person the interlinear and Strong’s per Phoebe being a deacon rather than a servant, I was told that the context was different.  That the passages dealing with the qualifications of deacons pertained to an office rather than just an individual woman ‘serving’.  This particular comp could just not see around the ‘husband of one wife’ phrase and condition even though I showed that the word for elder could mean more than one gender as could the word for ‘one’ as in ‘If one desires the office of…”

Sometimes I am told that we have to read it as it is written and sometimes I am told that context matters.  Context never seems to matter when it supports what I am trying to show, but always when it supports the other view.  In fact, I was accused of listening to every wind of doctrine for having changed my view in the past half year.  However, when I suggested that I would not likely have been so accused had I changed from egal to comp, I was met only with a look of disdain.

Blindness is blindness.  I can only appeal to the Holy Spirit in this matter and trust Him for the results.  Paula, you are right about the need to put energy and focus on establishing new ‘churches’ or house gatherings, whatever works, that have egal teachers and pastors throughout the country.  We are desperately in need of such missionaries in our country (the U.S.), at the very least.

Ron, your story is very helpful-thank you!  Your insight about developing a deeper relationship with Jesus and not merely doctrine describes what happens when we move from being ‘Word’ oriented to using the Word to enable us to become Jesus-oriented.  Isn’t it so easy to focus on the ‘Word’ rather than the Author of the word?  That we then formulate rules which become substitutes for knowing Him is the oft tragic result.  Your wife does indeed sound like a true minister and an example of ‘the least among you being the greatest.’  Your story is very encouraging to me-thanks, again!

(ironically the anti-spam word of the moment is ‘women’. 🙂

just curious…did those of you with spouses come to an egal. position at the same time or did some of you have to wait a while to be on the same page (or maybe your spouse waited a while for you to catch up)?  How did you deal with the intervening gap of time if there was one?

Ron, very good-thank you!  It really does seem that somehow a light just has to go on in one’s mind to even be open to the possibility of this type of thinking.

Lin, I agree with what you said about one’s understanding of the Genesis verses being the underpinnings for their views on all the rest of the issue.  One has to read a LOT into the Genesis verses to arrive at a hierarchical view.  Bruce Ware gives a quick outline of how comps. do this on his recent input at http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2162 .

Tiro’s reference is on the Taking a Break blogtrail on this website.

Lin, my parents saw this, too, as well as other things that gave them pause for concern and it caused them to always be ‘fringe Christians’ because they could never fully buy into what they saw happening in churchianity.  They were very devout Christians and lived their faith in a very real and practical way, however.

I am intrigued by Nate and Joanne Krupp’s description of what church and church leadership ‘should’ be like on their Radical Christianity website.  (I haven’t investigated all their recommended links, etc., so can’t vouch for those but like what they have written per church and its functioning).  They support home churches, and, again, the disclaimer would have to be that any group-home or corporate-has the potential to be good or misguided.

In searching out Catharine Booth’s bio (per The Better Bibles blog, per ‘Sue’s’ entries on the blog Tiro just referred to, discussing Bruce Ware’s latest message) was very interested and stunned to see her reference this verse (with much valid indignation): Psalm 68:11-“The Lord gave the word and great was the company of those that published it.”  When I looked this up on scriptureforall’s interlinear, it says:  ‘my    Lord    he-is-giving     saying     the-women-bearing-tidings    host    vast.’ 
Yet another example of translators doing an injustice?!  What  can we trust in the translations?!

Thanks, friends!  Lots of good things here:  Pinklady-essentially to not lose sight of the forest for the trees (verse over context) and that is so true.  Very good point of refocusing for me. 
    Greg-So true…and I, too, have wondered about the chainlinking of certain verses to make others ‘hold’ true.  It was said to me by the main pastor of my husband’s church that these various New Testament letters were ‘pastoral’ and thus broad or applicable for all time in their scope  yet he doesn’t require all the women to wear head coverings or go without gold adornment, etc., because that was ‘a cultural issue for their time’!  Furthermore,  supposedly these various epistles were shared amongst the churches and Paul ‘knew’ that when he wrote them, so thus they are meant to be applied to all churches.  This some-things-are-cultural and some-are-for-all-time twisting and turning is so hard to get them to see.  I have decided that perhaps I must do more question-asking, and less stating of things so that they/whomever will have to really think about what they are saying and its impact. 
     Paula, extremely good point and I had forgotten about that verse.
     Don, I frankly agree with you and have pointed out to my husband that he ought then to not need to listen to any sermons or teachings unless they are simply strict readings of the bible, and then who needs to go anywhere for that?  I haven’t received a good reply to that one yet.  It is vitally important to know what the bible’s message meant to the people of the time.  We have to distill from it the main points, the principles, and discard the shell of the things that are simply clues to context rather than binding rules for all time, critical for determining context and then principal, but not new rules in themselves.
     Most of all, I pray that I will engage in this whole exchange with my husband and other comps with proper humility, gentleness, respect, love, and yet steadfastness in holding to the truth.

Michael, thanks, and your points are good, also!  Somehow, one’s eyes have to be open.  Lin, you are right, and I actually do have Cheryl’s dvd series and have watched it, and this comp began to watch (saw about an hour of it) and felt there were a number of errors in just that much of it.  I realized then that I am dependent upon the Holy Spirit to enlighten the truth to this person and I have to trust the same Holy Spirit to guide my efforts and words.  I wish it could have all been answered-in the comp’s eyes-via Cheryl’s dvd series.  She has covered it so well and that would save me a lot of time!  Somehow, I think this whole issue, to some people, is kind of like that ink drawing of a face where you either see an old woman or a young woman depending on how you ‘see’ it.  I think or wonder if there is not some threshold point, with the concept of biblical equality, where a person finally ‘sees’ it.  How was it for  some of you that were comps and are not now?  Was there finally an ‘aha’ moment after which it just all made sense or were you persuaded gradually, bit by bit?  Did it happen quickly or over a long span of time>
     The difficult thing here is that this comp is my husband.  He is a very mild or non-existant comp in practice in our marriage, but officially is a comp, nonetheless.  When I go to his church, I sometimes have to really fight tears because I grieve so at the oppression that is taught in the name of Jesus.  In my mind’s eye, as I think of the verse that says ‘how beautiful on the mountain are the feet of them that bring good news’ I see this church (and ones like it) taking the men in, and setting them out on the wide open terrain and giving them rugged shoes and saying to them, ‘go freely, you can go anywhere’, and taking the women, and herding them into a corral and binding their feet and saying to them, ‘here, you can hobble around here and teach the other hobbled ones and the young children.’  This past Sunday I finally visited another church, a Salvation Army church of all things, that is egal., and it was a very freeing feeling to be back in the midst of egal. belief and practice, yet very sad to know that across town, in another place, sat my husband in his church, as we each sought to have like-minded fellowship.
     I was raised egalitarian, and even had a great grandma who was a minister, but I was never able to articulate well or defend the egal position (never had to because I was surrounded by egals),  yet was attending a Calvary Chapel when I met my husband (there were no egal churches in that area that weren’t very liberal per homosexuality, also, so I went to the Calvary Chapel; my husband lived hundreds of miles away so that wasn’t where I met him), so I was in a weakened position in my own mind, regarding this issue.  Now I am not, and am finding myself needing/wanting to defend my view.  I can only think that one of God’s purposes in all this is to make me well able to give a reason for this aspect of my Christian belief since I was not able to do so before, and perhaps He will have me use my honed belief time and again with others for His kingdom’s sake.  What a hard, painful journey, though!