Truthseeker

Correction:  my last entry, in the fifth line from the bottom, should have the word ‘leader’ instead of the word ‘head’.

Referring back to my comments in no.3, where I may have sounded muddled, what I mean is, if Christ only had God as His ‘head’ (meaning leader) while on earth (as opposed to having God the Father as Christ’s head for all time), wouldn’t the verse have to read something like ‘and the head of Christ was God” ?  So, since it says ‘…the head of Christ is God’, it would make since if the headship means source-which would be true always and would work with ‘is’-rather than ‘head’ which would have only worked while Christ was on earth in human form?  I ask this because the comps who believe that Christ was subordinate to God the Father while Christ was on earth use this part of the verse to justify that the word means head rather than source.  I say it cannot if my above thinking is correct.

I know that there is a link on this site for recommended resources.  Just wanted to fine-tune if there is a reason to choose one over another in each category.  Thanks for bearing with me on all this.

For my ‘assignment’, I would welcome opinions on favorite interlinears and concordances (and why) and other non-commentary types of resources.  I have only used Strong’s concordance via eSword and the scriptureforall interlinear thus far.

I agree, Greg and Cheryl.  I have just been challenged by a comp to defend my egal position just using the bible (interlinears and concordances being ok, also.)  I am such a novice at all this, but am going to give it my best shot.  One thing I noticed, in reading the bible, since this comp doesn’t believe that Jesus is subordinate for all time-just for His time on earth in human form-is that in 1 Cor. 11:3, the text says “….and the head of Christ is God.”  I had never thought about it before, but if one says that Christ is not subordinate to God for all eternity (as do many comps), but one uses this verse to show that women are to be subordinate to men or to their husbands, one has to realize that this verse was written after Christ ascended (thus His ‘subordinate’ time on earth had ended) and the verb used is present tense ‘is‘ (the head of Christ is God) then whatever headship means in reference to Christ cannot mean anything subordinate because it is an ongoing headship, a headship that continues beyond His time on earth.  So the headship has to refer to something other than the hierarchical definition it has often been given, I would think.  This was a lightbulb moment for me, given that this passage is often used as part of the basis for comp thinking, but I welcome your comments and critiques since you have likely already thought about this-all of you out there who read this blog.

Cheryl, you do deserve a break and I hope it is a blessed one!  I can’t wait to see your new series, when it is finally available.

Cheryl (60) and Paula (61)-both of you have made great suggestions.  Paula, your ‘wikki’ version, egal-in-a-nutshell, or in my case-egal for dummies :)-…is great!  I like your Q and A idea, too, and the brief summaries.  Cheryl, your link with actual responses would be great, too.  I would love to read the response given to Grudem’s 6 point challenge.  ( I actually don’t know which/how many of you did respond to Grudem.)  I appreciate the time that those of you who have written lengthy responses have taken to do so.  I know time is precious to all of us.  Actually, I appreciate the short responses, too, because I (and others) am learning from all of what is said on these sites.  Soaking it up and pondering it all.  Nuff of my feedback and cheerleading;  just wanted you all to know how valuable your efforts are.

Sorry, hit the send button too soon.  Anyway, thanks to all those of you who have evidently invested so much time and effort in responding to CBMW/Grudem/CARM etc.!   Would it be possible, as a matter of public record, and as a very useful deposit of information, to post those (your egalitarian) responses on a link here, so that the responses are available to the public?  This way it is ‘documented’ even if the above mentioned parties choose to not post all or part of your replies to them on their sites.  Perhaps this has already been done somewhere, and if so, I would love to know where.  Cheryl, I know some of your CARM dialogue is on the site (per Matt, etc.) I am aware that much of the content of your responses to these challenges are contained in various sites;  I think it would be great if there was a record of your point by point response(s) to the specific challenges (Grudem, etc.) on record.  It would allow those of us newer to the debate excellent info to study, and would be a ‘public’ record, if you will, also, that the opposing challengers could not remove or hide.  Just a thought.

Greg, your point is well taken and good to remember in this whole topic.

Suzanne, Cheryl, Paula, and others who have responded here and to Grudem et al.: I had no idea that CBMW was so unfair in their handling of your earlier responses to them, or that you had responses.  It is appalling for Christians in their position to do so but not surprising considering human nature, I guess.

In 20, Greg Anderson mentions Grudem’s open letter to egalitarians in which he invites a response.  Greg then encourages those of you who are articulate and knowledgeable to respond peradventure a woman reading that blog may be struggling with this issue and feeling oppressed by the matter, if I understand correctly.  I agree and would simply say that a few months ago, I was in the same position:  deeply distressed by the comp teaching but not knowledgeable enough with the full scope of the bible’s information on the subject plus other contextual and linguistic information to be able to articulate-thus justify-an egalitarian view.  I am indebted to this blog first, because I found it by searching the topic, and then to the other blogs, resources, and sites mentioned on this site as I continued to read and study as much as I could find to bring peace to my mind about the matter.  I do hope and pray that one of you responds to Grudem’s invitation.  It may be the only life preserver some woman (or women) gets in her critical and perhaps even desperate search for truth. And many, many thanks to all those of you who have contributed here and done the same for me.

Paula, per androgynous process…sort of a distant cousin to Siamese twinship in a sense?

Cheryl,  good points per androgyny.  It raises several questions in my mind, one of which would be ‘Why would Adam need a helper if his helper were already within him?’, and it would be puzzling as to why God would make two from one and then describe/command them to cleave and become one ‘flesh’ if they already came from a position of being literally one flesh…unless He had to separate them for procreation purposes then command them to cleave for their thought processes to join forces for having dominion over the earth.  It begins to sound kind of clumsy and convoluted.  Still welcome the thoughts out there, though.  I have no idea what science has to say about all this though what God says is the definitive statement.

Paula, thanks for the heads up on the interlinear!  Makes you wonder about the pastor who didn’t even care!

Lin, I, too, have been reading K. Bushnell and had never heard of the idea that ‘Adam’, the human (not the male) was androgenous, out of which Adam-male and Eve-female, were formed.  Any thoughts or insights out there on this one?

Paula, I just read your link and that is astonishing-it is rendered in the translations as the total opposite of what the interlinear reveals it really says!!!  It does make you wonder how much more we have been taught that is erroneous.  It makes me eager to chow down on more interlinear reading.  Which two interlinears do you use?  I like the one with parsing, also.  I need to brush up on some of the grammatical terms but that can be done.

Pastors can get away with so much when they have an ignorant, passively receptive audience!  We should ALL be double-checking their teaching!!!!   Shame on me for waiting so long to jump into the Berean fray!

Cheryl,

It is very helpful and revealing to look at scripture in the interlinear…it clearly states whether the ‘she’ and ‘woman’ are singular or plural and also gives other language for ‘silence’  (to be in quietness) and ‘usurp authority’ (to be domineering…).  Frankly, it is fascinating to read many verses or passages in the interlinear.  It clearly shows where bias may have entered into the translating process.  Not being a biblical grammar expert yet, I can’t say for sure what else may come into play when one is analyzing scripture passages for translation, but at the very least, the original writing is there to examine and begin providing clarity and clues.  Thanks for introducing me to the interlinear!

Paula,

Loved your link to your ‘rant’ on Sunday schools!  Very refreshing!!!   How true it is that we tend to just keep folk in a perpetual state of ‘baby bird receiving the worm’ rather than growing people to become mama and papa birds spiritually.  Or worse, we just discuss Christian books without even opening the bible.

Love, too, your picture of what Jesus meant us to be and have as ‘church’.  That is so freeing and inspiring.  Helps, also, to hear that others struggle to find a ‘good’ church.  I would be happy to just find several believers who would be willing to meet in a home, without feeling like they had to have a man lead and teach the bible study.  Not that men aren’t good for that, but to insist on it usually means the man will teach with a heavy hand and squelch much discussion, especially any generated by a woman (in my experience in strict churches).

Speaking of churches and what Jesus did, I would highly recommend the dvd series, “Follow the Rabbi” by Ray Vanderlaan?  It is an excellent dvd series (about $200 for about 8 dvds with approx. 6  25 min. mini segments per dvd) that is filmed on site in Israel, etc. and Ray, who has studied Jewish culture extensively, both formally (PhD) and otherwise, teaches or shows us what it looked like in that context and culture.  He reveals some very interesting bits of info that really show how far, in some ways, we have come from what the early church looked like.  It doesn’t really address the issue of women in the church as a focus point anywhere, though some of what he shares does touch on it.  Learning the cultural context is SOOOOO helpful and he does a great job of presenting that.  (Just google Follow the Rabbi to find his site.)  Enough of this tangent.

Lin, your comments are so true, and I find myself doublechecking my own motives and lenses when I read the bible-wondering if I have become overclouded with my egalitarian understanding.  And I have been accused of doing so by my spouse.  (I think my spouse does the same 🙂  Yet, I find I cannot, in good conscience, adopt any other view, in light of all I am learning.  As you said, however, those who are married to their view will be the most difficult to pry lose, no matter how good the questions or teachings are.  Because I so wish to be on the same page with my spouse on this issue, and we aren’t, I still struggle to not try to force the ‘good questions’ or ‘good teaching’ on my poor spouse.

On another topic, what kinds of church circumstances have those of you who are egalitarian found for yourselves?  Are you a lone ranger in a comp church and toughing it out-gracefully or otherwise- or have you found a church that is actually egalitarian without being liberal?  I am finding some churches-being new to this area and state-that are egal. and non-liberal but they almost always are very seeker-sensitive and naive to some of the new-agey things creeping into the church, like contemplative prayer, etc.  Haven’t decided which is the lesser of the evils:  a strict fundamentalist church (my spouse’s) or an egal church with loose boundaries?! (And I would have to go without the spouse.)  Interestingly, none of the egal churches have true bible studies-they do book studies by popular authors!  The fundamentalist church does bible studies but the format is very tightly controlled by the teacher so questioning is very difficult to do, though not impossible.  Still keeping an eye out for a home group that would be suitable but haven’t found one of those, either.

Lin, that is so true.  I wonder why it is that subordinationists or comps, etc. fail to sufficiently account for the fact that the bible lists pastoring and teaching (among others) as GIFTS, not as offices to be filled by human discernment and discretion as is the case with elders and deacons?  No where does the bible say that gifts are given or restricted based on an individual’s gender.  Neither for that matter, does it say so regarding eldering and deaconing though that mistake, based on the ‘husband of one wife’ phrase is easier to understand.  These things seem so straightforward-especially per the gifts of pastor, teacher, etc.
If, as a woman, I didn’t value my hair, I think I would be pulling it out by now!

Thank you, B. Wright.  I agree with what you have said.  You explained it very well.   In my case, the church would say they agree, also, then make it clear that while they might submit to women in some instances, in all cases of pastoral and teaching ‘leadership’ as well as headship in the home, women are to submit to them/their husbands.  Sort of a case of ‘partial mutual submission’ if you will, based in part on their application of the verse telling us to ‘obey those who are in authority over us’.

Per Bob Wright’s comment about Jesus’ subordinate position per the incarnation, ‘my’ church uses this belief to ‘justify’ the subordination of women to their husbands, etc. in this lifetime (not in the hereafter).  They don’t think Jesus is meant to be in an eternally subordinate position-just while on earth.  How does one address this variation on Jesus’s earthly subordination being used to justify women’s earthly subordination?

I just read in David Instone-Brewer’s book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, on page 187, that “In New Testament times, those phrases (man of one woman or woman of one man-I Tim. 3:2, and I Tim. 5:9) meant someone who was faithful.”  He footnotes with a reference stating that the Greek ‘monandros’ or its Latin equivalent ‘univera’ is common on funeral inscriptions in praise of someone who was faithful to her husband.  References Craig Keener, …And Marries Another (Peabody, Mass.; Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 92-93.)

Cheryl,  thank you for the sites!!!!!  Huge help, and I have already been burrowing around on them!!!!!

Lin, thanks for introducing me to Paul Burleson’s site. Those were great posts!!!! I read them all plus the comments. Somewhere else on this site I suggested that a resource link could be very helpful. I think a link suggesting other great websites/blog sites might be helpful, too, for newcomers as I am. I have to stop myself from spending HOURS a day reading everything and searching out all I am coming across. This is all like water to a dry and weary traveller! Last night, I spent quite a bit of time in the car reading material I had printed off this site and Fether’s while I waited outside our church for my husband to finish a meeting-only men are allowed to do the top administrative work here so I couldn’t be in the meeting anyway.

Lin, thank you. Your observation saves me a lot of time and money-mainly money!

Cheryl, thanks for the illumination! That makes sense to me.

On the subject of resources for study, would it work to add a link to this site that provides a listing useful resources for others beginning the research journey? I know some are scattered throughout the blog, and Cheryl, you emailed some to me as well. Books, online, etc.-any and all. Which is the most concise or helpful resource to use when trying to decipher grammar issues? I notice some of the explanations in the responses utilize a more detailed understanding of grammar to help clarify meaning. I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, so would welcome resources that are geared that direction if any are available. Thanks, again, for all you do!

Thank you, Paula!

Paula, not to worry! I welcome a bar and grill, so to speak! In fact, I was just there, and can’t wait to fully read your egalitarian link (I briefly read parts), because it looks like it takes everything and puts it together very nicely and quite fully yet not unduly (for those still in the first round of this topic)!!! This looks to save me much time as I get ready to put together a summary of sorts, or more likely, the full report, for the sake of my husband, and even perhaps the pastor of his/our church-whom I have put on the back burner until I get an adequate response. If so, may I have your permission to print it to share with others-with full credit, of course?

Paula and Cheryl, (and others), thanks for your help!!!! It is always like being at a good prayer/fellowship meeting to read this site, especially since I cannot freely speak my mind, thus freely fellowship, with those who attend my husband’s church. It is quite fundamental and separatist, though there certainly is some good there.

I am reading through this site as fast as I can, realizing that I may find answers to my questions on the various blog trails. I think I need to cut, paste, and sort the writings by topic so I will have a fast and portable ready referance. Thanks for bearing with me as I accomplish this.

Cheryl, I am looking forward to your Trinity series, and what you write about men’s authority per your above post! Paula, I am now going to locate your site-looking forward to it!!

Oh dear, as usual, as a latecomer to this site, I am probably posting on an ancient blog trail, but here goes: in studying 1 Peter 3:1,2; when it says ‘Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;….’ what does the word subjection mean here? When I looked it up in Strongs, I got the sense of rather heavy and absolute obedience, subservience, etc. Help! And while we are at it, the word ‘fear’-(while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear)-in Strongs, seems to imply just that-abject terror, etc. Is that what this is to mean?

Thanks, so much, to those of you who are patient with newbies like me. I am beginning to think I need to quit my day job and go to seminary! So much to learn in order to be able to give an accurate and sound reason for what I believe is biblical on this matter.

One of the pastors at my church, when I expressed my disagreement with, and dismay and discouragement at being taught that women have restricted roles, said to me, repeatedly, “Why does that bother you when it is such a tiny part of the whole picture? People are getting SAVED here!” Saved to what, I wondered. I feel like if I happen across those who do get saved I should give them a brochure of things they may want to consider and be alerted to should they remain in the particular church so they don’t become discouraged and frustrated, as I am there. So that they can be introduced to what I believe is biblical truth on these issues. I don’t know how to adequately explain to this pastor and whomever else that it is NOT such a small thing. Women at my church are taught, if they take the women’s class, to submit their wills, skills, abilities and talents to their husbands. When I guestioned the pastor on this, he exclaimed in near exasperation that he had to submit to the board of elders so it wasn’t like the pastors or men didn’t have to submit, also. Perhaps they do, but the group of folk they submit to is far smaller than the group women have to submit to. I just pray that their eyes will be opened and my ability to give a reason for what I believe will improve. In that vein, I welcome reading recommendations that pertain to this topic. Thank you Greg and all others who take the time to write on this blog!

kerryn,

I don’t know if Greg is still reading this, either, but I certainly do thank you for it! There is so much in the bible-pertaining to women-that has been evidently distorted in sermons, books, and so on for centuries, that it can almost be daunting to encourage new Christians, knowing that most of the churches they encounter will have some degree of that type of teaching. Thanks, again!