gengwall

That’s right Lin, but pointing to differences is no more proof that those differences yield better leaders than pointing out a particular, er, “appendage” that men uniquely have. The followup needs to be: “given those differences, what about them makes men better leaders?”…….and…….nothing but crickets.

“Trying to define ‘roles’ for God is rather like nailing Jello to the wall…”

Well, God has no gender…I’m not sure what you are getting at here.

“ESS”?????

The Holy Spirit – good point. I love it when someone tells me that I am to be the “spiritual leader” in my home. I respond: “Oh really? I thought the Holy Spirit was the spiritual leader in my home”.

Kay – don’t get me wrong – I agree that the differences don’t equate to gender separation of such roles as leader and follower. But men and women are fundimentally different (there are areas that don’t overlap at all like some hormonal levels and brain structures). Ignoring the differences does not make them go away. Moreover, such ignorance misses a prime opportunity to catch comps using their own terminology. “Design” boils down to biology. But comps can’t point to any design features that inherently yield (or block) leadership ability. The best way to defeat the “designed to lead” argument is to have them come to their own conclusion that nothing that is uniquely male in their design makes for a universally good (or bad) leader. So, if you want to see them squirm, have them point out what is unique about male “design” and prove that it makes for a better leader. When they can’t, they have just self-acknowledged that they are not designed to lead.

Well Lin, you are still not understanding me. Physical size and genitalia are only a portion of the physical differences between men and women. There are many more that occur underneath the skin. Those are now “observable” and, in some cases, play a role in behavior. They do not, IMO, dictate leadership ability at a gender level. But that is the question that needs to be addressed.

The reason this is vital is that “design” is the key to the comp argument. Our “design” differences are clearly evident in what is observable. If the observable gender differences grant neither gender a leadership advantage, then it can’t be claimed that men are designed to be leaders.

Lin – by “observed differences” I do not mean only outward physical differences. Never-the-less, your expanded questions are spot on.

Yes, Kay, much of the argument is an argument of convenience. That doesn’t change the convincing nature of the argument in their minds. In fact, the conviction they hold about male leadership is only reinforced by the observed differences between men and women and the apparent (to them) obsession of women to grasp leadership. It is of little effect, then, to point out biblical cases of female leadership to them or to blithely brush their arguments aside as convenient because you only look more like a “Femi Nazi” to them and are easily disregarded as, ironically, out of touch with God’s design and Word.

The only effectual approach, at least IMHO, must be to challenge the original premise. Were men designed by God to be the leaders of the human race, or were men and women together designed to be the co-leaders of the human race? Moreover, considering the obviously observed differences in men and women, are there gender specific design parameters instilled by God and if so, what are they if not leadership and, I guess, “followership”? These are the questions that must be addressed first. Knock out the foundation, and the whole house of cards crumbles.

“Interestingly, they come up with “male only leadership” via implication, but deny clear cut examples of female leadership like Deborah and Abigail.”

They don’t necessarily deny these examples literally, but they approach them in one of several ways. Some simply try to explain them away as not actual cases of leadership. Some dismiss them as being rare exceptions to the rule. Some even go so far, at least in cases like Abigail’s, to claim that the female “leadership” is still a usurpation. In any event, those cases do not upset their general view that men are the God designed leaders of the human race.

I have just finished the second weekly session in Men’s Fraternity on the topic “The Biblical Definition of Manhood”. Now, Men;s Fraternity is a program I endorse, and its leader, Robert Lewis, is at worst Comp light, although my reading of other materials he has produced leads me to believe he is solidly egalitarian, at least in the home. Never-the-less, this focus on men being “designed by God to lead” was at the front of those last two sessions. I believe CBMW believes even stronger in this design element which leads to the conclusion that female leadership strips a man of his designed calling and even his built in yearning. In their mind then, it is not a pride issue at all. It is a glorifying God issue – it glorifies God when men act in accordance with their God given design. Conversely, it is shameful to a man – in essence a repudiation of his design – if a woman takes his place in leadership (which inherently includes teaching).

The linch pin in this philosophy is the leadership “design” of males. What is that idea based on? It is based on the same old tired arguments from Genesis 2 and 3: Adam’s being first created, Adam’s naming of Eve, Adam’s “job” of tending the garden, Adam’s teaching to Eve God’s command about the fruit, and Adam’s being approached first after the fall. The complementarian interpretation of these events leads them to the conclusion that the male was designed to be the leader. It doesn’t matter to them that scripture never says this literally because they believe scripture says this suggestively. Because man has this built in design to lead, and subsequent yearning to fulfill that design, it is shameful for a woman to deny him.

Now, as is typical with complementarian arguments, the premise is entirely false. That is where the debate needs to begin, as I have attempted to point out in my “Show Stoppers” series of posts. Until you move complementarians off of this fundimental belief in God’s design for males, the most rational arguments and appeals to scripture will fall on deaf ears, or worse, be construed as an attack against the very will of God.

Correct Lin! The bible never even proposes the concept of a servant leader either in marriage or in the church. It is the supposition of comps that when service is being discussed it is being discussed in the realm of leadership. But biblical teaching never says “husband’s lead yoru wives” or “males lead the church”. The only component of the “servant leader” label that is positively taught is the servant component. Conversely, “leading” (the exercise of authority by one person over another) is expressly forbidden as Kay and others point out repeatedly!

This perspective also may shed light on Paul’s use of indefinate nouns for woman and man. If Timothy did not provide names or specifics, but simply outlined a general problem in some families (or even in an individual family), Paul would not be addressing a specific woman but would be addressing wife/husband combinations. If that was true, then the indefinate “woman” and “man” makes perfect sense and would properly translated “I do not allow a wife to teach [false doctrine] or dominate her husband”. The later use of the definate article still works, as now Paul gets specific within each marriage. “the woman” (really, “the wife”) and “they” are each individual wife and couple. Just some food for thought.

There is a subtle circumstance at hand in this verse which is important not to miss. Cheryl does a great job bringing it to light in this post.

Often, when it is pointed out that the teaching involved must be false teaching and the “authority” being exercised by the woman is domineering and even violent authority, people are prompted to ask the question “wouldn’t the same prohibition be true if a man was engaged in the same behavior? Why does there need to be special treatment for a woman?” They then conclude that this can’t be false teaching and domineering authority because there are such parallel instructions for men. They conclude it must be normal teaching and authority and therefore the prohibition is gender specific.

But the circumstances would be different if a man was engaged in this behavior. Timothy would have direct authority to confront a man on these issues. He would not need to “name drop”. Because the circumstance here involves a woman who has a husband that Timothy must bypass, as Cheryl points out, it absolutely requires that Paul write what he has written.

Cheryl,

The next post in my “Show Stoppers” series is going to be on 1 Tim 2. I certainly plan to include a similar scrutiny of “I am not allowing”. Maybe I’ll just point people to this post.

This seems like an appropriate post to say “have a blessed Christmas everyone.”

We will be in Nashville over the holidays and I don’t know how often I will take time away from all the family fun to stop in here. So if you don’t hear from me, have no fear – I am just escaping the MN cold and blogosphere stress for a couple of weeks.

Although I like BLB when I need to do word studies or to get a quick look at multiple translations, I don’t care too much for their parsing and layout in concordant/lexical view. It really is not nearly as helpful as a true interlinear view. So, your interlinearbible resource is a well appreciated addition to the tools I use.

It may help if you know where I am coming from on Ephesians 5. I am working on a godly marriage model based on Ephesians 5. I see Ephesians 5 as a direct response, or correction if you will, to the damage to marriage caused by the fall, specifically Genesis 3:16. As such, my personal focus is on the instructive side of vss. 21-33. Maybe that is too myopic. That is why your take both intrigues and maybe confuses me a little. Still, it gives me something to think about over the holiday.

To whom it may concern – the resource that Charis gives is similar in presentation to scripture4all.org but has the NA26 text, whereas S4A has switched to the Textus Receptus text. Good to know when there are distinct textual differences like in Ephesians 5:21-22.

Hey, that site is nice! I see where you are getting the imperative so ignore my question. Will study more.

I see we cross posted. I will go look at your resource as well.

I will add – in Collosians 3:18 hupotasso is in middle voice, just as it is in Ephesians 5:22, in the Textus Receptus and the Majority text. In NA26, hupotasso is passive in Col 3:18 and Ephesians 21, and absent in Ephesians 22 where it is derived from vs. 21. What resource are you looking at that has it as an imperative in Col 3:18. I am looking at scripture4all.org (TR) and studylight.org (NA26) for my parsing.

Susanna has an appendix in her book which shows how Ephesians and Collosians are really the same letter to different audiences. My point is that Paul does not alter the voice between the two – it is no more imperative in Collosians than it is in Ephesians.

Perhaps I am misundertanding you Charis. I will ponder it more.

What I believe is that Ephesians 5 (even starting before vs. 21-22) is instruction to first, Christians in general, and then Christian husbands and wives – active and passive forms not withstanding. It seems, like you are saying that Paul is simply stating the obvious about people’s “status”. I believe essentially the opposite – that Paul is instructing people to change the status quo.

Anyway, I appologize if I am not understanding you. I have been baking bread for three days straight and maybe the yeast is going to my head.

Hey Charis. Hopefully Susanna and Cheryl will pick up on this and share some of theri discoveries about hupotasso. They have investigated the word far more deeply than I. I do wonder if this idea of submission being the “state” the wife is in will rub them slightly wrong. I know it doesn’t sound quite right to me. Let me explain.

I believe the instructions to husbands and wives in Ephesians 5 are fully parallel. In other words, I believe Paul is instructing both wives and husbands about a state they need to get to in order for marriage to function properly.

Now, you may argue that the passive for the wife coupled contrasts the active direction for husbands to love their wives. I think that is an argument worth considering. Never-the-less, Paul appears, at least to me, to be instructive to both husbands and wives. Put simply, he wants them to do something. The fact that he commands it for men but leaves it as a voluntary act for women does not alter my view that the whole passage is instructive to all concerned.

*gengwall puts fingers in ears* “Ahhhhhhhh! I’m not listening! I’m not listening”

Whooooaaaa! 😮 Dave said the “p” word. hey Dave – I sure heard that!

“I took the time and effort to contact complementarians and invite them to interact with me regarding my research and my exegesis on the hard passages”

I will offer a humble observation. The Mike Seaver style of interaction is probably the best within this forum for a meaningful discussion. (It is indeed a shame Mike did not follow through to the end) But the regular “style” of dialog in the blog is not conducive to an effective debate. It is true that Mark held tough for a long time. But even he and the topics pursued with him have faded under the inevitable progress of a popular blog. Again, my hope is that John Starke was good willed in his brief post. If so, then I have no choice but to see his subsequent absence as reluctance to get into a stream of commentary which is both too deep and too wide for him to swim against. Unfortunately, I also sense that he and others at CBMW have no interest in the Mike Seaver style Q&A either. It may just be that WIM is just too intimidating for them regardless of the style of forum.

“What surprises me the most is that so many women have become convinced that they cannot hear from God directly regarding His Word.”

What surprises me the most is how many men think they are universally better “listeners” when it comes to hearing from God. That certainly has not been my experience (either personally or anecdotally amongst my circle).

Cheryl – “I was hoping that John would be one of the more respectful ones who did care to interact and defend his views. I am not saying that he isn’t respectful. However he just isn’t into answering the hard questions. He works for CBMW so I guess this shouldn’t be a surprise. They won’t engage regarding the hard questions coming from people who request them to prove their position from the Bible.”

Which brings me to my conclusion. Either John had no intention of interacting here, which makes his post quite disingenuous and patrinizing, or he had a notion to interact but has changed his mind. I certainly hope it is the latter, as the former would not be very “Christian” of him. But if it is the latter, I would hope we could change his mind back by showing him that a) he has nothing to fear from the participants here, and b) it would not by any means be a waste of his time, as you so clearly point out.

“Unfortunately it appears that John Starke will not be answering the questions we have. I have tried to engage CBMW since 2006 and silence is the only answer of preference for them.”

That is unfortunate. It would be great to hear “from the horse’s mouth” the answers to the many questions posed here. I often wonder how well they actually know you, Cheryl? Do they know this blog and your positions well, or was John’s brief comment (really, just a position statement) rendered in ignorance of what goes on here? The “hit and run” as some put it, indicates to me that either John is being simply patronizing or he somehow believes this blog is something different than it really is. What I mena is, I don’t know if he believes he will get a fair hearing here. Anyone who researched this blog would know that the majority of what goes on here is objective and fair minded debate, but a person who maybe only drops in and reads a comment or two may be under the impression that this is some feminist hate blog and conclude that they should not waste their time here.

John – if you ares till “lurking”, I can assure you of two things:

You will encounter many men here as well, so you are amongst brothers as well as sisters;
The people here are not radicals but are serious minded fellow believers who have serious and well thought out questions to ask and serious and well thought out responses to complementarian positions.

So, John, if you were just being patronizing, shame on you (maybe that is one of those “imperfection” you reference). On the other hand, if you are simply worried you would be wasting your time in a feminist buzz saw, have no fear!

…Esther, Rahab, Naomi, Phoebe, Priscila…

I can’t help but laugh at the irony of the old testament – “wisdom” is a female.

Your list of questions is daunting (and right on) sm. I would not presume to add to it. I find the flaw in the argument at the very beginning, a flaw that you highlight amongst your questions:

“Yet sexual desire, the appetite for sex, is not given in equal measure. It is typically given in greater part to men.”

And, pray tell comp commentator, what happens when you have an atypical couple?….*crickets chirping*….