gengwall

“I have some of Frank Viola’s books but haven’t read them yet.”

You can’t mean former Twins pitcher Frank Viola, can you?

With John Piper’s “interpretation” this week that the tornado here in the Twin Cities that hit a church holding an ELCA meeting was “a gentle but firm warning [from God] to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin”, he has lost all credibility with me. I simply can’t take anything he says seriously, no matter how serious the topic. It is truly a tragedy that people go to this fount of babbling silliness for presumedly wise cousnel. Maybe this latest bit of nonsense from him will turn out to be a gentle but firm warning from God to all of us not to listen to John Piper.

But more often than not in a complementarian church, it is the wife who is counseled on how to stop the abuse, not the husband.

Or worse!!! I have real life friends who have tried this exact approach and all that the church does is berate the woman and try to find out what SHE has done wrong to cause her husband’s abusive “reactions”. It continues to get sicker.

There is so much here to respond to but I will focus on one thing, touched on by molly. Of the many problems with the “kingship” paradigm, the one that bothers me most is the lack of accountability for the “king”. Sure, the wife has a “leader” who can guide her through life and help her make the right decisions. But who guides the husband? Comps will claim that Jesus is the man’s guide, which is a convenient way to ignore the very un-Christlike behavior the man engages in while supposedly modeling Christ. The result is some of the most abhorrent abuse imaginable as the husband is viewed by all as doing no wrong while the poor wife is maligned by all for the slightest objection to the abuse. Now that truly is “sick”.

I think many conservative denominations view gender roles in ministry as a settled argument, and that is why you don’t see people leaving. Feminism really never had much impact on conservative denominations and even older, more conservative, protestant congregations. The women there didn’t feel downtrodden because they accepted and were quite comfortable with male leadership. Frankly, most women didn’t want the job. Why leave when you are perfectly happy with the way things are?

I see that in both the chruches my grandparents attended and the evangelical churches I have attended since becoming married. For the most part, the women are perfectly happy with the way things are. Of course, for the most part, the men don’t lord it over the women. As I have said many times, these people often operate in a very egalitarian manner even if they are operating within a complimentarian structure.

Here is a link to the clip (I think) on the Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage web site:

http://www.laughyourway.com/video-library/Mens-Brains-vs-Womens-Brains/#

Mark Gungor also has a video on youtube (can’t get at it at work) which addresses brain differences, and specifically, the male “nothing box”. My wife, my sister, my mom, my married female in-laws – none of them can relate. Yet every male partner in those marriages knowingly nods their head when the “nothing box” gets mentioned. I wish I could share it with you Cheryl because it is truely a peaceful and blissful state of mind, but I know your integrated, always active brain would immediately want to put “something” in there, and we males just won’t have that.

LOL! OK, so I was putting in my last comment and the sidebar of the blog was positioned at “Recent Posts” and as I hit I glanced at the sidebar and read the title of this entry but thought I was reading “Recent Comments” and I just about had a heart attack thinking Grudem had actually come on here and responded. I’m awake now!

So, Grudem’s Q5 is really more of Q4, which was weak to begin with. “Someone throw that man a life saver!”

The weakness of the challenge is reflected in the overwhelming volume of corrective response.

It’s a shame that Grudem apparently posed the questions then arrogantly walked away intending to never actually consider any answers.

Some others:

Bible in Basic English – “to have rule over”
ASV – “to have dominion over”
Youngs – “to rule a husband”

Only to question 4 and this is the best “challenge” Grudem can come up with? He’s really grasping…or should I say “gasping”.

Grudem seems to be shying away from total silence and has taken the “just can’t judge prophesy” approach, according to this article by him on the CBMW site. Of course, this argument relies heavily on the hierarchical interpretation of 1 Tim 2, the error of which has been discussed here at length. Again, he ignores the obvious and instead analyses scripture based completely on his preconceived prejudices.

Another gem of ancient Greek also mirrors the construct of 1 Cor 14:34-36 and shows that sarcastic rhetoricals can deny or denounce the preceeding assertion. I give you Job 38 in the LXX. Here God puts together a mighty string of or’s denouncing Job’s “words without knowledge”. In fact, the construct is very similar to 1 Cor 14 in that the word of God is contrasted to the word of man.

The problem with Grudem’s construct is that it assumes that vss. 34-35 are direct instructions from Paul (and therefore, from God). Of course Paul isn’t going to contradict himself through the rhetoricals of vs. 36. But, if, as egalitarians contend, vss. 34-35 are not the instructions of Paul but the practices of man, then the dripping sarcasm of vs. 36 makes perfect sense, just as does God’s sarcasm toward Job.

So, again, Grudem’s question is disingenuous (as is his research) because he has not reviewed any other passages that have the same construct that egalitarians propose exists in 1 Cor 14. In other words, other than 1 Cor 1 which I noted before, there are no other constructs (at least reviewed by Grudem et al) where Paul’s rhetoricals are responding to the words and deeds of others instead of his own words.

Grudem is pretty sly. He constantly makes statements like “Our problem is that when we look at other examples [of a word or phrase]…” but he never actually lists any of those examples. In reality, there are no identical constructions to 1 Cor 14:34-36 where a “matter of fact” statement is made followed by such negative rhetoricals – whether or not the rhetoricals affirm or defeat the prior statement. Grudem, therefore tells a half truth when he says…

“Our problem is that when we look at other examples of e used in constructions like 1 Corinthians 14:36, where the following material is clearly false (that is, Paul and the Corinthians know that the word of God did not come from them), then “or’’ functions to show that the preceding material has to be true.”

…because although there are plenty of examples of negative rhetoricals in the NT, especially by Paul but also by Jesus, they almost always follow a statement that has already been exposed as bad behavior. So, it is true that they “affirm” the prior statement, but only in the sense they affirm its negativity. But that isn’t the construct of 1 Cor 14:34-36! This passage has negative rhetoricals following a matter of fact statement presumed to be relating positive behavior. That construct is almost non-existent in scripture (although I don’t have the resources to check the LXX).

So Grudem again employs red herring arguments and challenges while himself speaking half truths about his research into the Greek. Doubly disingenuous if you ask me.

Grudem conveniently ignores all that proceeds vs. 34 and all that follows vs. 37 as if it has nothing to do with Paul’s instructions. “Cherry pickers – unite!” The overall message of 1 Cor 14 is clear – “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly [men and women alike] to prophesy, and do not forbid [anyone – man or woman] to speak in tongues.”

As often happens, 1 Cor 14 – in particular vs. 34-37 – is a bit baffling if you take the complimentarian interpretation. If the rhetoricals in vs. 36 affirm all that has come before, they affirm a contradiction. Of course, if you are a complimentarian, you live in a world of Pauline contradictions. I suspect the apostle would take quite a bit of offense at such an implication about his teaching.

On the contrary, if you assume Paul means to be clear, then 1 Cor in its entirety is crystal clear once you understand what is really being said, or more correctly, who is saying it, in vss. 34-35. As he often does, Paul takes a brief sidebar to dispose of a particular practice which is a stumbling block to the accomplishment of his overall instructions.

Incidentally, Grudem’s challenge is easily won, and you don’t have to go outside of 1 Corinthians.

1 Cor 1:13 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”

[A behavior, practice, attitude, or tradition]

1 Cor 1:14 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or [?]were you baptized in the name of Paul?

[A series of rhetoricals where the answer is “no” showing that the preceeding is incorrect behavior, practice, attitude, or tradition]

In reality, Grudem’s questions, at least the first 2, are simply red herrings which attempt to distract from proper hermeneutics. Rather than study the Greek across similar authors, audiences, and contexts, Grudem tries to send us on a wild goose chase looking up words by authors who have nothing in common with Paul, writing to audiences who have nothing in common with the Body of Christ, addressing issues that have nothing in common with Christian marriage. The question back to Grudem should be:

Can you find any Greek text which uses mutual hupotasso AS PAUL DOES, and that deliniates any authority structure within that mutual submission.

The burden of proof is not to find another Greek author who Paul has emulated, but another Greek author who has emulated Paul. If one can not be found, then Paul is defying convention and his words require a novel interpretation.

Just a little more along the same reasoning because of what Sue posted. Grudem claims:

“Christ does not submit to the church, but vice versa, and likewise the husband does not submit to the wife. These roles are not open to redefinition, reinterpretation, or adjustment. Any change represents a deviation from the divine purpose, rendering a marriage no longer a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church”

And so, if we carry through with this logic, the church does not agapeo love Christ. After all, if we are talking unilateral roles, then love is one directional just as submission is, right? I mean Grudem agrees that the teaching carries all the way through to vs. 32 and therefore the instructions for husbands (i.e. Christ) only go one way. Women, you are freed from having to express unconditional love toward your husbands. I bet that is a relief, huh.

Sorry for being redundant but the blindness of Grudem to the absurdity of his own argument just astounds me and I can’t help but repeatedly point it out.

First – of course vs. 21 is mutual. It can’t be understood any other way, unless you add a whole lot to scripture that isn’t there…oops, Grudem seems to have done just that.

To assume that husbands don’t have to submit to their wives would lead to the parallel conclusion that wives don’t have to love their husbands. “What’s good for the goose….” Such a conclusion completely ignores Paul’s purpose – he is addressing gender related deficiencies or problems in marriage that have gender specific remedies in marriage. There is absolutely no justification in isolating Ephesians 5:22-24 from Ephesians 5:25-30, and vss. 31-33 make it intellectually impossible. It is all one passage and any “doctrine” applied to one part must be applied throughout. Moreover, it has a direct bridge to vs. 21 (even Grudem agrees that submission is only implied in vs.. 22 and 24) which summarizes a lengthy teaching on unity (not hierarchy) within the body.

Grudem ignores one other well documented fact. Paul loves to mess with Greek. He not only makes up new words but also deploys others in direct contrast to their conventional usage. His very application of hupotasso in vs. 21 defies conventional wisdom because, regardless of Grudem’s revisionism, no authority structure is present. (In fact, it hasn’t existed at all in relation to the body in the entirety of Ephesians leading up to this passage) As the same thought then leads directly into vs. 22, there is no reason to believe Paul doesn’t have the same non-authoritarian concept in mind when turning his attention to wives.

Again, the answer to Grudem’s question is staring him right in the face.

Since my general area of study is marriage, I will take a crack at the Ephesians reference.

There are two primary indicators that “head” does not involve “authority over” as Grudem claims.

1. The headship of Christ in relation to the church is used to create an environmental or relational picture from which to understand the submission of the wife to her husband (and later, the sacrificial service of the husband to the wife). But that submission is of the same kind that all believers are to have in relation to one another within the body. Any time someone in the body submits to another, the other is treated as “head”, yet the relationship contains no authority structure. Believer A’s voluntary attitude of submission toward believer B does not grant believer B any actual authority over believer A. The same is true in marriage. The only difference in marriage is that such submission is particularly difficult for wives toward their husbands. So, the strong word picture of Christ and the church is presented to help wives get over their resistance. It still does not grant the husband any inherent authority over the wife. In fact….

2. The model of Christ as husband/head contains no authoritarian actions. In fact, Christ’s headship as husband is a complete contrast to the worldly model of kephale. Rather than operate as authoritarian ruler over his wife, the church, Christ acts out headship by being a sacrificial servant. Over and over again in scripture this picture of Jesus persists. As “head” he washes the disciples feet. As “head”, he pleads with the Father in prayer that the body may be “one”. As “head”, he insists his followers not to “lord it over” others. As “head” he suffers and dies so his bride can be cleansed. Paul stresses this sacrificial service when addressing the husbands in this passage (and all believers leading up to it). Certainly, no one can have the sense they are an authoritarian ruler over the one submitting to them after they get through with Paul’s description of the “head of the wife”. I challenge any complementarian to show the scriptural basis for husbandly authority in the description of who the head is and what he does as outlined in Ephesians 5:25-30.

Now, Christ is mentioned as “head” with authority in several passages, most notably in the opening of Ephesians (Eph 1:22). But Christ’s authoritarian headship there is not in relation to his bride but in relation to all of creation and for the benefit of the church. So, Christ as head of the universe is not the same as Christ as head of the church, and whereas Christ exercises unlimited authority over the universe, he never does so as husband/head of the church.

So, the answer to Grudem’s question is simple and we don’t have to go outside fo scripture to find it. You see, he forgot to include his proof verse in Ephesians 5 as one of the examples of headship. Right in front of his nose is the example of kephale without inherent authority.

Lin,

Let me try to understand something. Do you believe that males and females were basically androgynous before the fall – possessing identical hormonal levels and brain structures? That hardly seems possible if, as Cheryl has said, they were intended to procreate fall or not.

The reality is that God designed males and females differently. Can anyone deny that? Is it not naive to then believe that those gender specific differences won’t impact how we interact with the world and each other?

It has been my understanding that the “sameness” argument of radical feminism has been demolished by the last 20 years of brain scan and hormone studies. But I guess there are still those who believe we would all act exactly the same despite our “nature” if it weren’t for all that pesky, evil “nurturing” that inundates us from birth forward. If that is the case, then I am quite thankful for such detrimental cultural impacts on our lives. If my wife were just another me, I couldn’t live with her at all, let alone in an understanding way.

Truthseeker said – “The bible is curiously quiet about male/female non-physical characteristics. If it is, then it must be due to the fact that they either don’t exist or they are not germane to biblical topics.”

Neither is true because your premise is false. The bible is chock full of teaching in both the old and new testament about male/female non-physical characteristics as they impact male female relationships, especially the marriage relationship, and 1 Peter 3 is one of the starkest examples. Seriously – do you think 1 Peter 3 is irrelevant if removed from the 1st Century Roman ruled Jewish culture?

Cheryl – you have done some heavy lifting here but I am not sure it will help. I run into the same thing all the time myself. Others are so convinced, despite not only all the anecdotal evidence but a great deal of sound biological and sociological science, that we are all psychological play-doh at birth and everything observed as “different” is really the result of manipulation by that evil boogey-man: culture.

As I mentioned earlier, for those seeking biological and sociological confirmation of our inherent, designed* differences and the impact they have on our relationships, I recommend the following:

“His Brain, Her Brain” by Dr. Walt and Barb Larimore
“Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps” by Allan and Barabara Pease
“The Proper Care and Feeding…” series by Dr. Laura Schlessinger
“Brain Sex” by Anne Moir and David Jessel
“The Essential Difference” by Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen

And the huge listing of male/female differences, with references, on the web site of Dr. Arlene R. Taylor – http://www.arlenetaylor.org/brainfacts-references/219-pdf-files

None of these authors support the cultural patriarchal model that some here believe “differences” and culture inevitably lead to. Yet they clearly recognize those differences and attribute them to “nature” over “nurture”. Our culture can’t change our hormonal balance or brain structure any more than it can change our anatomy. Dr. Taylor probably says it best, and in a way that should be to the liking of everyone here, I would think:

Men and women are more alike than they are different. After all they are members of the same species. In truth there may be greater differences between individuals within the same gender than between males and females. Nevertheless, there are [gender specific] differences that need to be recognized, honored, and understood-insofar as it is possible to do so. (from the “Selected Brain Facts, Male-Female Differences” pdf’s found on the web site above)

*Many of these authors, of course, do not recognize “design” as part of the equation. I see no need to quibble about the source of the differences when the conclusions about their impact are the same.

“Can you show me in the OT where it is taught that men need respect and women need love? Is that made clear there? Is it a result of sin culture or of Creation?”

Actually, I think Proverbs 31 is an excellent picture of a couple living out this paradigm.

BTW and for the record, I am not an Eggerich lap dog. Like virtually every scholar whose words I give weight to, (Cheryl included 😉 ) I do not agree with absolutely everything he says. In some cases, it is far more than a quibble. BUT, his general theory – that expressing love and respect in gender specific doses is the key to a relatively loving, peaceful, and egalitarain marriage – holds significant sway with me, not only because of my observation that withholding the same destroys marriages but because it rests on a sound (and so far undisputed) scriptural foundation.

“Kim, It seems you are trying to tell me I have specific female attributes in the areas of emotions, intellect and feelings outside the obvious biological ones.”

I don’t think Kim or anyone else is saying that women or men have gender specific attributes in the areas of emotions, intellect, or feelings. That is, if you mean by “attributes” that either men or women are universally more or less emotional, intellectual, or feeling than the opposite sex. But we do, in general, process and react to stimuli and information in different ways, and it has everything to do with very gender specific biology (mainly hormones and brain structure).

Denying the differences between men and women just because people have abused the differences will not make them go away. It is no different than those who deny Paul’s or Peter’s teachings simply because many have abused and misinterpreted those teachings. For example, many people, almost exclusively women, completely reject 1 Peter 3 as being valid scripture! They do this simply and only because it has been abused by many others, mostly men, to support patriarchy. In other words, they believe the lie – that Peter teaches hierarchy – and therefore fear his teaching. (It is even worse with Paul). The only solution that allows them to retain any sense of self is to believe another lie – that Peter is irrelevant, or even worse, an evil mysogyinst. Rather than explore the true meaning 1 Peter 3; rather than embrace the gender specific teacing and attempt to determine its value for men and women alike; they completely reject 1 Peter 3 and therefore ignore, or even argue against, its important lessons. Wouldn’t it serve our purpose much better if we rose above our cultural indoctrination which says that Paul and Peter preach hierarchy, and instead search out the real and deep meaning that they wish to impart to us all through their very gender specific teaching?

So, why does Peter use Sarah’s factual obedience as an example? Why is it important that she showed reverence and maintained a quiet disposition when Abraham was behaving badly? And how will that help all wives deal with all similarly acting husbands? And what does he mean when he says husbands should live with their wives in “an understanding way”? Could it be that there is a general male tendancy NOT to live that way with our wives? And what is the difference between the reverence Sarah models and the honor we are to give our wives? Certainly Peter had a purpose in using two very different words, didn’t he? What do these very different instructions for husbands and wives have to do with our general conduct as Christians? Are we to continue in gender specific ways outside the home, or is the home a particular dynamic? Doesn’t Peter bring it all back together in the end and say that ALL of these behaviors and attitudes are proper for the Christian in his or her general dealings with people? So if we are all to act this way in general, why again does he need to be so gender specific when speaking of marriage? And why the sidebar into marriage at all?

All of these questions, and many, many more, stem from the gender specific isntructions to husbands and wives. Yet “hierarchy” is far from the default conclusion one need come to in answering them. Just because some have concluded that hierarchy is the lesson to be learned doesn’t mean we all need to conclude that, nor does it at all confirm that erroneous conclusion. “Come now, and let us reason together” for “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”.

“geng, so you are on record as saying Eggerich does not believe nor teach that the husband is the leader and does NOT interpret kephale to mean leader?”

What I am on record as saying is read the man’s own words and then draw your conclusions. Don’t trust what a blogger, or even I, say he “means”, teaches, or believes.

Lin – have you read his books; seen his seminars, or are you just relying on this blog to inform you? I have done both and I can tell you conclusively that he is not teaching a hierarchical model. Heck, his wife teaches men in the seminar.

As far as the study goes, Eggerich never says that the real need for love and respect differs by gender. He says that the “felt” need differs.

Please go to this post on the Love and Respect web site for a more clear explanation from the man himself.

http://emersonandsarah.blogspot.com/2009/04/stereotyping.html

If you are still not convinced that Suzanne has “jumped the shark” on this issue, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Lin – with respect (no pun intended), you are reading past what Cheryl, I, and even Eggerich are saying. We all believe and understand that the needs for love, respect, etc. are on equal footing across the human spectrum. Eggerichs is not talking about real need, he is talking about felt deprivation of need. His citing of Gottman and Murray does not counter their conclusion, it confirms it. (BTW – have Gottman and Murray claimed he lied, or is this just some blogger’s opinion?) If anything, the posts at Suzanne’s Bookshelf grossly misquote and misinterpret Eggerich. But we are not here to debate that blog.

But, your concern is valid because if the apostles were indeed setting up a situation where real needs differed, then hierarchy could be a conclusion (and has been the conclusion) some may come to. Let me see if I can summarize – some would interpret Paul and Peter’s instructions to indicate that women are emotional wrecks that are easily deceived and men are the strong logical Rodney Dangerfield’s of the race who are only “looking for a little respect”. Of course, many people draw those conclusions. But as Cheryl repeatedly points out, they do it in a vacuum which is absent of any context. When one considers the complete message of these apostles, especially Paul, it is clear that they are not just “preaching to the (culturally bound) choir”. In fact, they are preaching completely outside the box within that culture. Equality of needs, as expressed through the equality of obligations for the Christian, is rampant through the teaching. There is no reason to conclude that that equality stops at the front door of a household and a completely new paradigm emerges within marriage. The needs and obligations of the individual Christian within marriage do not differ from those outside.

But, despite that truth regarding real needs and obligations, marriage does have a dynamic that differs from other relationships. It is good you bring up Adam and Eve and their pre-fall state. It is very true that prior to the fall and their eyes being opened to all the ways two people can hurt each other, there was no need for gender based instruction because there was no existence of felt or real needs being denied. But after the fall, things became very different, including the way in which Adam and Eve interpreted and reacted to harmful words and actions of their spouse. Apparently, those interpretations and reactions, what each gender felt was being denied to them in terms of needs, were different.

Now, of course, I could be wrong, but I think Paul and Peter back me up. If not why, did they never say “wives agapeo your husbands as Christ does the church”, or even the more generic “wives and husbands agapeo each other”. It doesn’t mean at all that wives and husbands are NOT supposed to selflessly love each other in equal measure. But wives naturally love and so they don’t need to be instructed to do so. Men, on the other hand, naturally “rule”, which is very selfish and unloving. So, although we know we need to love everyone without regard to our own needs, when it comes to our wives, we need an extra kick in the pants to remind us because of our fleshly nature, as a result of the fall, toward our wives.

OK – so, I don’t see how any of that sets up hierarchy in marriage or how any hierarchy translates to the body. I believe you draw a false conclusion:

“If there are clear ‘God ordained’ gender differences in emotions, thinking, intellect, etc., then the comps have a good point that women are more easily deceived and lack proper leadership skills.”

First of all, none of this has anything to do with intellect, leadership skills, or susceptibility to deception. No one, Peter, Paul, Eggerich, or I, are saying anything like that. And differences in thinking and emotions are simply differences – there is nothing inherently good or bad about them. Certainly we recognize that such differences add flavor and depth to any organization. So much so for the church.

Let me give an example. Let us say for example sake that women are universally more emotional than men. Now, there is trouble even within that statement because “emotionality” would be almost impossible to measure. So lets make it more specific. Lets say that women universally “emote” more than men. (Still troublesome, but at least there is a cultural perception of what “emoting” is). Even if that were true (or even if it were true in general), what makes that “worse” for ministry (or better, for that matter) than less emoting? Nothing that I can see. It isn’t wrong, it isn’t worse, it isn’t inferior, it’s just different. That is why “emoting” or lack thereof is not a requirement for an overseer.

Again, I want to keep this on topic. Peter’s example here is sound and his sidebar into marriage is very pertinent to church ministry because it avoids hypocracy. One must make certain they conduct their marriage relationship with the same amount of love and respect that they conduct their other relationships. Their obligation to their spouse is the same and the needs of their spouse are the same as their needs. BUT, their spouse may interpret and respond to harmful actions differently than they personally do, and the testimony of the apostles as well as much reseach (Gottman and Murray are not the only ones to have thought this was important) proclaims that there is a gender tilt in that reality. So when dealing with married couples, there needs to be an emphasis on love or respect that is equaly gender specific.

I sense Cheryl’s desire to move on, so I will say no more on this point other than, “I agree with Cheryl”.

Back to Sarah’s respecting of Abraham. Here is how I see it. The general context is women showing respect when their husbands are behaving badly. The broad context is people showing respect when anyone is behaving badly – governments, masters, etc. So, it makes little sense to me to hold Sarah up as an example if the context in Sarah’s life is when Abraham is behaving as a loving, believing husband. Therefore, I have to conclude that Sarah is being put up as an example for those times when Abraham behaved badly, especially and aprticularly toward her. Those times when he passed her off as his sister meet all the criteria – not only was that completely unloving of him toward her (and certainly disrespectful too), but he was being disobedient to the word (or, in the OT case, the law) by bearing false witness. This is also a time when Sarah obeyed him (harkened to his word) in apparent silence.

As far as addressing him as “lord” it may be as Cheryl suggests, simply the general way she referred to him. My use of “superior” earlier, while probably a bad choice of words, was in reference to the way she would have addressed him in that bad situation, i.e. as her older brother. Certainly the older brother in a brother sister relationship in that time would have received the title of “lord” from his younger female sibling. In fact, it strikes me that to not have called him “lord” would have raised suspicion about her true identity in relation to Abraham. So that too fits the scenario, although it is not testified to in scripture. As such, tying “my lord” into the prostituting activity is a stretch. But everything else seems to fall right into place and match up perfectly with the general message Peter is trying to convey.

Actually, I only vaguely noted that he referenced science. His main point, and mine, is that both Peter and Paul are very gender specific in their instructions to married couples.

A much better book in terms of the science and gender based felt needs is “his Brain, Her Brain”, by Walt and Barb Larimore. On the secular reading list, with even more reference to peer reviewed studies, is “Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps” by Allan and Barbara Pease. Of course, they don’t cite Peter and Paul, even though they come to the same conclusions.

Wow – am I late to the party. This discussion is great and I don’t want to get too far into gender wars. On the other hand, being the token male here (right now), I suspect and hope my perspective will lend some clarity (or, more likely, fuel).

Please keep in mind this is what is generally true…..

I am sure you have all heard of the “Love and Respect” books and ministry of Emerson Eggerichs. He makes a simple observation and backs it up not only with science but more importantly with Paul’s and Peter’s specific, but separate instructions to husbands and wives. Here is the observation:

Men have a felt need for respect like women have a felt need for love.

He illustrates this in a very simple way. Let us say that a husband or a wife acts harshly toward the other during an argument….

If you ask 10 men, at least 9 and maybe all 10 would say they felt disrespected by that harsh treatment. More importantly, none of them would be suspect of their wife’s love for them.

Ask the wives the same question and the same ratio will say they felt unloved.

It has a lot to do with how we receive and interpret stimuli and how we perceive our own self worth. Men tend to relate to their performance while women tend to relate to their relationships.

OK – enough for the generalities. In my personal circumstance, what Cheryl relates for her marriage and what Dr. Eggerichs illustrates in his materials is very similar to my experience. Things like “living in an understanding way” with, agapeo loving, and honoring (cherishing) my wife are the things she responds positively to. When I treat her badly, it is in those areas that she feels she has been harmed or betrayed. I on the other hand respond to reverence, submission (and I mean that in the positive way described here), and phileo love. When she treats me badly, while I never doubt her agapeo love for me, I do feel she doesn’t respect or “like” me.

Although all of us need all of these things, we react differently when those things are withheld. And although Paul and Peter no doubt understand the universal need for honor, love (of all kinds), respect, submission, etc., and the universal obligation we all carry to show those things to others, it is no coincidence that, when speaking to married couples, their instructions in these areas get very gender specific. Husbands are never, in the marital context, directly instructed to hupotasso (submit), phobeo (reverence, i.e. respect), or phileo (friendship love) their wives. But wives are specifically instructed to do so to their husbands. Yet we all need and are obligated to do these things. Conversely, wives are never instructed to abide in gnosis (knowledge, understanding), time (honor, cherish), or agapeo (selflessly love) their husbands. But husbands are specifically instructed to do so to their wives. Yet again, we all need and are obligated to do these things.

Now, either Peter and Paul had a serious gender bias, were off their rockers, or were on to something. More on that later (right Cheryl 🙂 ), but these specific gender based instructions can’t simply be brushed aside because we all need and are to show love, respect, submission, etc.

That is a great testimony Kim, and very true to Sarah’s example I believe. Be of good cheer – God has amazing ways of grabbing hold of people when we least expect it.