gengwall

Agreement between Paul and Jesus a necessity? What a novel concept. Of course, the lack of agreement between Paul and Jesus when Paul is viewed through a complimentarian filter is evidence enough that that filter is defective. When one discovers that there are alternative views of Paul which do in fact agree universally with Jesus (and all the other biblical authors, for that matter), it should be a no brainer to abandon the complimentarian teaching. Still, old traditions die hard, especially when those traditions put you “in charge”. This is the same dilema that the Pharisees ran into; and why almost none came over to Jesus.

I wonder if it would appease everyone if it was put: “The dark side of submission, while not a universal phenomenon amongst complimentarians, is a very significant problem in some complimentarian congregations”

LOL – Mara thinks she writes too long of a post. Must now ROTFL. Mara, you just keep writing and don’t worry about the length. I could read your heartfelt and balanced comments all day.

That is an extrodinary response Mara. Bravo. Yes, one would think that all Christians, complimentarian and egalitarian alike, would want to properly diagnose and root out abuse in our relationships.

What is really interesting is to see pastors from complimentarian traditions or denominations who never-the-less believe essentially in egalitarian marriages try to walk this tightrope. They try to preach the “party line” but have to include all kinds of caveats. Some times it is almost comical. (I have heard a particular pastor literally try to preach and dismiss submission all in the same sermon).

And in light of the prior comment, I should ammend comment 11 to read in all places – “some complimentarians” – lest I be guilty of the same all inclusive labelling I object to.

I agree Mark. I know many marriages that work wonderfully with two happy and loving partners that claim the complimentarian banner. But, as many have said before, these marriages are more egalitarian in function, regardless of how they define the structure. Never-the-less, no one should assume that every marriage that contains some hierarchy, or an authoritarian head, or any other terminology one wants to use, is invariably an abusive one.

On the other hand, understand where many people here are coming from. They have seen much the opposite. They have seen many relationships that truly are abusive mislabeled, misdiagnosed, and mishandled. It is understandable that they are sensitive to any assertions that abuse doesn’t exist, or any attempts to misplace blame for abuse, or any attempts to resolve abuse in ungodly ways. They have seen it over and over.

Oh yes – one more thing. Complimentarians also engage in blatant error when dealing with 1 Peter 3 because they envision the husband’s abuse as a byproduct of his wife’s unsubmissiveness. This clearly and absolutely was not the case with Abraham and Sarah. Abraham engaged in his sinful activities completely on his own. Sarah had nothing to do with it. Nor do wives “cause” their husband’s abuse. Because complimentarians refuse to make husband’s take responsibility for their own actions, they completely abuse Peter’s teaching, twisting it into both a cause and prescription for abuse that clearly is in error.

I agree, but believe there is more. Peter’s use of Abraham and Sarah has significance in the type of relationship being addressed. Abraham was behaving badly. If it refers to his prostituting Sarah to avoid harm to himself, as I believe it does, he was behaving abusively. Peter’s point is that Sarah’s “godly attitude” which included voluntary humility, submission, and respectfullness toward Abraham in the midst of his sin was insrtumental in turning him from his sinful, abusive ways. The important point is that the context for Sarah’s “godly attitude” is the marriage relationship and the effect of her “godly attitude” is to stem a pattern of abuse by her husband. This is exactly what complimentarians claim is the purpose for submission “for a season” to abuse. This parallel can’t be ignored, nor can we twist the context of Peter’s teaching into something that it isn’t.

Now, where they fail in their application is the complete lack of recognition of the husbands abuse, and the complete lack of application to the husband of the remainder of the passage. They also fail to take into consideration Paul’s advice on abusive situations and the fact that he does not call for wives to submit to abuse for a second, let alone “a season”. Complimentarians, in essense, don’t recognize the abuse component of the relationship at all. They only recognize an apparent lack of “godly attitude” on the part of the wife. Without addressing the abusive husband and without applying Peter’s corrective action to his sin, they present only half a solution to abusive situations. That is a flawed and demonstrably failed position, not to mention an ungodly one.

Sorry – the second link didn’t take. Let’s try again. My blog post is HERE

FYI

Wade Burleson has posted a rebuttal to quiverfull theology HERE
I have consolidated and posted my rebuttal to anti-contraception arguments HERE

I will add just this to Cheryl’s comment. Dave – I too am inclined to cut Piper slack (for example, see my post 86 above). But what I see, even in his sermons, which you submit are well thought out and prepared, is a subtle elevation of men and degradation of women. It is not blatant, but it certainly indicates his inclinations. It is not too large a leap to believe this hierarchical overview carries into the area of abusive husbands, although I agree some here may at times get a bit hyperbolic in their reactions.

I will give you a quick example of this subtlety. In a comment on another post, someone was taking exception to a single line quote from a Piper sermon. I was able to find the whole text of the sermon and comment on the quote in context. To summarize, I agreed with 95% of what Piper was saying in the passage of the sermon, which actually dealt with setting boundaries and establishing guidelines for children. So what is the 5% i took issue with? At the beginning of the passage, Piper also asserted, very subtly, that the types of boundaries and guidelines that parents set for children should also be set for wives by their husbands! He led the passage off with this statement, then never said another thing about it. But this seemingly innoccous statement was what stuck in my mind. It is that kind of “jab” that Piper often throws in that betrays his true sympathies. Such a perspective regarding household “rules” and who sets them is exactly what domestic discipline advocates adhere to. And although I know Piper is not a domestic discipline devotee, he never-the-less is sympatico with them to a degree. And THAT is what freaks people out, and not without justification. So, although I have no problem with almost everything Piper preaches, it is these little instances of exposed hierarchialism that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up and cause me to gasp.

Hmmmm. Everytime I present a series of questions to Mark I seem to be ignored. Or maybe it is just that my little line of inquiry is overshadowed by weightier issues and scads of comments. But I am nothing if not persistent. I will try a third time.

Mark – what is special about formal church that makes it a setting where women teaching is inappropirate when the identical teaching by a woman in other settings would be deemed appropriate? For example – why can your wife teach you at home, but cannot present the identical teaching to you in formal church? What are the specific differentiators of church vs. other contexts that disqualify women from teaching in church but allow them to teach in those other contexts?

Lin – Although I see your point on submission hindering male salvation, that is what 1 Peter 3 seems to be suggesting. Of course, patriarchalists take it too far. Or more correctly, they fail to recoginze the sinful state of the husband (Abraham) and focus on the total submission of the wife (Sarah). So their application of 1 Peter 3 is indeed polluted. But that doesn’t mean 1 Peter 3 has not applicability.

No problem (btw – spam word: helper – lol) I am the worst when it come sto typing too fast and making errors (I left the preceeding error in palce on purpose to show a typical mistake…and I left the error in these parenthesis in place as well, just to be thorough.) And that doesn’t even include my many plain old spelling errors.

The discussion is proceeding nicely. I will leave everybody’s line of questioning to them and concentrate on the main bone I have to pick with Mark – what makes “church” so special that women can’t teach there, but they can present the identical teaching to an equivalent (and even possibly, identical) audience (adult men) if the setting is not “church”?

I believe the above should read “just as Adam was not called to speak for Eve”

Mark,

I agree with Dave that the “church” is any collection of believers and that Christians “do church” in many different ways, both formal and informal. But, let me continue my line of questioning based on your definition. You still have not answered what it is about church that distinguishes it from other gatherings of believers that makes teaching by women improper in church yet proper in those other settings. For example, you say it is appropriate for your wife to teach you at home. What is it that distinguishes your home from church that would make such teaching in your home appropriate but make the very same teaching inappropriate at church?

“Both the immediate contexts of the passages refer to the ‘formal’ if i can call it that assembly of believers. Not bible study, not youth, not mission, not bible college, but ‘church’.”

Are not bible study, youth group, missions, and bible college classrooms “assemblies of believers”? What differentiates these from the type of assembly Paul is addressing? If indeed these can not be classified as “church”, where are the scriptural guidelines that define who can teach in these other “contexts”? What differentiates these different assemblies of believers from “church” which makes it ok for women to teach in them but not in “church”? Where are the defining what’s, where’s, when’s, and how’s that guide us to know when we can accept women teaching and when we can’t?

TL – if you mean in comparison to the lack of curse for Eve, I believe, as Cheryl does, that Adam’s more grievious sin (not being deceived and failure to guard the garden) was the cause of his more serious consequences and outcomes (I would throw banishment from the garden in with those consequences).

Pinklight – apple; schmapple!

Kay – My “three things” related to Ephesians 5 and what Jesus did as “head”, or more precisely, as husband to his body/bride, the church. In that relationship, I see Jesus sacrificing, interceeding, and serving. To me, that is the essense of agapeo love that Ephesians 5 calls husbands to exhibit. Hope that helps.

“Adam was instructed to tend the garden – protect it. In that he failed but it was not a matter of sin.”

As a side note, I’m not so sure I agree that Adam’s dereliction of duty was not a sin. God lists two causes for the curse and consequences to Adam – eating from the tree AND listening “to the voice of your wife”. I agree with Cheryl and other’s assessment that this relates to Adam’s failure to act while the serpent was deceiving Eve. I would take that as part and parcle of Adam’s failure to guard the garden, and since said failure is listed along with eating the apple, I would say it constitutes part of Adam’s sin.

Hi Mark,

I would like to add some questions to Cheryl’s.

If it is appropriate for women to teach men “at different times and in different ways”, but not teach men in “the church”, then how are women and men supposed to figure out what those different times and ways are? Where is the scriptural “guide” that says when, where, and how it is ok for women to teach men?

Also, what do you think it is about “the church” that would make Paul designate it off limits for women to use their teaching gifts? What are the unique “when’s”, “where’s”, and “how’s” that set “the church” apart? And why do those “when’s”, “where’s”, and “how’s” disqualify women from using their gifts when other “when’s”, “where’s”, and “how’s” qualify them? And, to tie in the first question yet again, where does scripture outline all of this?

I wrote a fairly long and detailed post rebutting the anti-contraception position back in my Christian Forums days. I may have to copy it over to my blog as this seems an increasingly contentious point in the church, especially with the emergence of “mainstream” quiver-full movements.

However the Scriptures never offer such a teaching. All of us are responsible for our own actions and God shows this clearly in the way that he called both Adam and Eve to account for each of their personal actions.

Those who believe that God approaching Adam first means that Adam was a covering for Eve need to explain why God didn’t ask Adam “what has Eve done?”, or at the very least, “what have [the two of] you done?” Each participant was interogated as an individual:

“Who told you (singular) you were naked”
“Did you (singular) eat of the tree”
“What have you (singular, to Eve) done”

Neither was asked nor answered for the other’s actions (although both tried to distract from the issue). If Adam was to answer for the first family, then why wasn’t he asked family oriented question. Moreover, if Adam was to cover Eve, why was he not asked about Eve? And why was Eve asked to answer for herself if Adam covered her? All of this covering nonsense is simply read into the text. Why did God seek Adam first? Could be any number of reasons (I still think it was because Adam was undeceived and therefore the more grevious perpetrator). The only reason not supported in any way based on God’s actual questioning is the reason that Adam was Eve’s cover.

In Jesus we have all the “covering” that we need. Does a woman need a human spiritual “covering” over her? No. Her place is to be in the body of Christ as a fully functioning body part without having to be led and controlled by a human “covering”.

Maybe that is the fundimental question that a comp should be required to answer before continued discussion: “so, fellow Christian, do you believe that Jesus is an insufficient spiritual cover for women?”

Will there be a male version of the B.A. in humanities? There has not been any announcement yet of hunting classes for the men but since Patterson is an avid hunter, we expect that announcement will come sooner than later to help teach young males true “male headship”.

LOL – it has long been understood in our deer camp that the most successful hunters are actually women. Oh, and I’m quite sure that there are a few accomplished male chefs out there.

Of course, to “relegate” the responsibility still assumes it is mine to dispense. No need for the Spirit in such families, I guess. As if it is the husband who gives out the spiritual gifts and decides in what measure each family member receives them. Even if they did allow such a distribution of work, it would be a very scary thing.

That’s exactly how it was for us, Dave! The biggest example in our life, and in many couples, was prayer. My wife is simply better gifted as an intercessory prayor than I am. Yet I was always told that I was supposed to lead the family in prayer, lead my wife in prayer, lead, lead, lead. I was never comfortable, and whenever we tried to fit that “spiritual leader” paradigm, our corporate prayer life suffered! But once we were free to see that there was nothing wrong with my wife leading our families prayer life since she was the more gifted at it, prayer came busting out all over from all of us.

How sad is it that there are truly many, many fellow Christians who would claim both that I am shirking my responsibility and she is usurping my authority because of our approach to family prayer!

LOL – although I agree with the made up state of the word, “headship” is used to parallel “submission”, not “bodyship”. I make no claims to the appropriateness of such a distinction, just the recognition that that is how people use them. Of course, there ARE plenty of books related to the duties of submission (and headship). Ugh!

Never-the-less, your correction is well noted. “Head” and “Submit” are not parallel in Ephesians 5. The parallels are Head/Body and Submit/Love. Head and Body are not jobs. How do we get everyone to stop making incorrect connections of words? There’s the rub!

Once upon a time, I was going to write a book entitled “Submit Does Not Mean Obey; Head Does Not Mean Boss”. As I reflect more on those concepts, I think the “Head” portion of the title still doesn’t quite get it right because it still leaves open the interpretation that “Head” is some kind of “role” or “job”. I really believe that is where the whole train comes off the rails. As long as people continue to view “headship” in a vocational light, they will continue to apply a vocational paradigm to the rest of the equation. Vocational paradigms are inherently hierarchical, and task oriented. Being “head” becomes a “job” for the husband in which he has to fullfill certain obligations and perform certain tasks, all in relation to his wife, who must inherently have a different “job” because, as we all know, “too many cooks…” I think the challenge, Cheryl, is to finally get us out of this vocational mindset. You have a great start here. And my book title? Well, I’ll have to give that more thought.