pinklight

What is wrong with you?

I’m not convinced that tradition is the main problem. Not convinced that it is tradition that has taken hold of many Christians and made them to believe in male authority. For some reason, I can’t buy that. Wish I could though if it’s true. Maybe it is and people just arn’t alive enough to think and feel for themselves and so they buy into harmful teachings of tradition.

I enjoyed reading what you had to say LNE. Thanks for commenting!

The idea that Adam’s prior creation equals male authority over Eve, I think is a really silly idea. In fact, just thinking about it boggles the mind. How can people think such things? Such nonsense? All because one desires to rule? I just don’t get it sometimes. And how can a Christian man feel good about wanting to rule over his wife? How can that make one feel good about themselves? I don’t understand that. It occurs to me that it is a form of hate. That makes sense to me. And I just can’t help but think that some men like to degrade women, by placing women underneath them. Also it seems to me that the idea of Adam’s priority of creation equals rule over woman is not mature thinking.

Just wanted to share some thoughts I was having. Comp ideology really is a pain for me. It’s a nightmare that creeps up on me ever now and then. Gruesome. Cold. And contradictory to the good will of God.

Comps, why? What is wrong with you?

I guess lots of people do that. They have a bad experience or two, three etc with people and then perceive a whole group based on those experiences.
Like me for example, at one point, because of my bad experiences with some comps, I viewed all comps to have the same kind of attitude towards women. But I know that some are just innocently caught up in church culture and take it hook line a sinker.
This guy though sounds like he’s taken it to another level, a little extreme – a son must separate from his mother in order to leave the world of “self-centeredness and selfishness”. Uh, this is a perfect example why men shouldn’t be leaders, have final say, teach etc just because of their sex – they can be as idiotic as any other person on the planet.
For one to say that Eve’s action was worse just shows traditional hatred towards women – it was Eve’s fault for the fall of man.
“Women see it as power, while men see it as great responsibility and sacrifice.” Good to know that he can think for and understand half the race on the entire planet. He must be a wise man.
“that most men will never experience a truly submissive wife.” Yep. Most men will never experience a subordinated wife. Ain’t it cool?! 🙂

Someone posted the following quote during a discussion we were having on Adam and Eve, a quote from “Carson”, and I’m assuming the commentor meant D.A. Carson:

“The devil was a murderer from the beginning, (is) probably a reference to the fall of Adam and Eve. By the success of his temptation, he robbed Adam of spiritual life, and through him brought death to the entire race (cf. Rom 5:12)” (p353).

Here, Carson is saying that the serpent’s temptation got Adam to eat the fruit from the tokogae. Below is the temptation of the serpent saying basicaly that 1) you will not die and 2) your eyes will be opened and you will be like God.

Gen 3:4 You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Paul says that Adam was NOT deceived:

1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived

If Adam was not deceived then he did not believe the lies of the serpent.
If he did not believe the lies of the serpent then he could not have been tempted by what the serpent said.
If he could not have been tempted by what the serpent said then the serpent could not have had success in tempting Adam.
If he could not have had success in tempting Adam, then the serpent could not have robbed Adam of spiritual life.
Adam ate willingly because he was not deceived. The serpent then did not take Adam’s life from him.

Am I missing something or is Carson not even getting the story on Adam straight?

I don’t know where to post my questions, so I’m posting them here.
My first question is, what was meant exactly by Genesis 2:24?

Genesis 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

In Mark 10:5-9, Jesus couples Gen 1:27 with Genesis 2:24 and following Gen 1:27 (their being made in God’s image) is God’s command to them to be fruitful and increase in number:

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;

My second question is then, is it possible that what was meant by “one flesh” in Gen 2:24, was the offspring of male and female, since children are born with chromosomes from each parent?? Does “one flesh” have to do with offspring?
I would appreciate what anyone has to offer. I mean, even partners never operate as “one flesh” all the time because there is always differences somewhere, so what of their children?? Could it be that offspring is what is meant by “one flesh”? What are your thoughts/ideas?

(lost my comment to moderation cause I missed one number in my mail address) I’ll repeat it:
Is the flesh suppose to rule over the Spirit?! Are men because they are men suppose to take over women’s ministries? Are babies born from dirt?
Masculine Christianity <—– What is that?! Is it like a unicorn? lol

Is the flesh suppose to rule over the Spirit? Are men because they are men suppose to rule over women’s ministries? Is Christianity suppose to be masculine? Can the Spiritual be likened with the natural or physical? Are babies born from dirt?

It’s odd to me that Adam, the traitor and rebel with a fallen nature, would rule over Eve, who’s nature was perfect. And isn’t that what masculine christianity is really all about?
The imperfect and fallen ruling the perfect – what a strange thought. Apes ruling people, demons ruling angels, children ruling parents – those kinds of things are completely out of order.

“Masculine Christianity” – lol
Comps want to take over Christianity. As if taking power and control over the lives of their wives and women in the Church weren’t enough! Hey, just take over the whole thing! It’s not good enough the have some people under one’s power, what’s better is to have the entire religion!

Jennifer,

Paul didn’t make anything out of the order, in the way comps do, so the thought that the wife’s submission is more important than the husband’s love is unjustifiable, period and the idea is also senseless and heartless. Kids just go around attempting to add to the Word like it’s nothing.
Funny how, while Paul teaches that the husband is to be the wife’s servant (not leader) and that he is to love her, people manage to oppose the text by trying to make the wife the husband’s subordinate (through her submission).
It really amazes me how people are so drawn to the idea of the wife submitting to the husband. It has got to be the most attractive thing in compland. Without the verse on the wife’s submission, *gasp*, the world would come to an end! If the wife is not subordinated to the husband, the sky will fall down! What a spectacle lol

The Scripture says to the first woman, “your desire shall be to you husband, and he shall rul over you”, Genesis.

Tom, here we are again. What does this mean?
Eve’s nature was still intact as perfect when God said this to her. There is no evidence that her nature had changed into a rebellious one, as had Adam’s, which there is evidence for. Her desire then for her husband resting with the evidence remains within her “good nature” and Adam’s desire to rule his wife within his spoiled nature. In spite of her desire for her husband, he shall rule her.
Ofcourse to you Eve’s desire probably has something to do evil or rebellion, and if that is the case, you are required to provide the evidence of this rebellious nature of hers. As far as spoiled Adam ruling Eve, it’s sensless to try to make anything good out of it. He was a rebel end of story, and you no doubt follow in his foot steps since you believe that wives are to be ruled. God simply as day is light and night dark, didn’t tell Adam to rule his wife, not in Gen 1, 2 or 3. He informed Eve of her new circumstance. So, to your Genesis statement – so what?

Tom,

NOTE THAT SUBMISSION BOTH PRECEDES AND FOLLOWS HEADSHIP IN THIS SCRIPTURE!! How much more plain must God be?

24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Since the title “Christ” refers to Jesus’ human nature, (and not his divine nature, the husband is not compared to God who has authority) in what way then does the Church submit to him? In what way does the Church submit to his humanity or flesh? The Church submits by accepting his death on the cross, it submits to his service, it submits to his sacrifice for her, which is what the husband as “head” is to do for the wife. He is to sacrifice himself for her as Christ did for the Church. The wife isn’t called to submit to the husband’s authority (though the husband had civil authority in Paul’s day) and she isn’t called to submit to his spiritual authority, and in which case he is never given any within the passage.
I’ve only ever seen two reasons given by comps for supporting the notion that “head” means to have “authority over” when looking to the text itself. The first is the wife’s submission, and the second the belief that the husband is compared to God. And comps never can provide support that deals directly with the husband himself, and we have to wonder why? The wife’s submission can’t count since her service is the same rendered to other Christians and within a context that is mutual. And the husband is not compared to God, that would be a lie. So then, the idea that the husband is in authority over the wife is just a fairy tale. And I’m not big on fairy tales, personaly.

I meant to quote Tom in the first line.

Tom,

The scripture plainly links submission to headship in this passage.

In a context of mutual submission (v21), the wife as the body is to submit to her husband, and the husband as the head is to be servant to his wife, which is a deeper form of submission (v23). So the link made from mutual submission (v21) to the husband as “head” of the wife (v23) is that the husband is to be a servant for the wife as Christ was for the Church. The servant in this passage is not the wife, it’s Christ and the husband.

Hi Tom,

The facts of Scripture show that “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church”, Eph 5.

It is a fact that the Bible says, in Eph 5, that the husband is the head of the wife. The question is though, what did Paul mean when he wrote that statement?
The context of Ephesians 5 is going to support what Paul meant by saying that the husband is the head of the wife, and the context is the best evidence available for what he meant.
When I look at the context, I see that the initial definition given to “head” that is provided by Paul, is in the same verse that the term is first used, v23 – For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. How then is Christ defined as “head” by Paul?
Paul defines Christ as “head” to mean “savior.” It’s right there in v23. So what I see is that Christ as head was a servant to the Church, giving himself up completely to the point of death, therefore the husband is the servant of his wife as Christ was servant to the Church. Do you see Christ’s sacrifice as a position of servanthood?
So when I begin to formulate my idea of what “head” means according to the context, I’m going to begin with v23 – how Paul defines Christ as “head” of the Church.
My question is to you is, where do you begin with the context to define Paul’s use of the term “head?”

Omg! Cheryl, I knew that Jesus submitted to the law of a second witness through your teachings.., but I didn’t know he taught it himself!! (If you pointed this fact out in the past through your teachings, I was just too busy to recognize it..)

Jesus on the law of a second witness:

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” (NIV)

How exciting!!
😀

Dejablue,

I use to struggle with the same thing. It appeared to me that most christians accepted complementarianism. I think that’s changing though and fast?
I don’t know the percentage really for egal or comp beliefs amongst christians, but these days the idea that so many accpet such a crude doctrine hasn’t been bothering me much. Just wanted to let you know that you’re not alone in your experiences.
I know what you mean about being upset over being thought of as second class too. Can’t it be infuriorating?!
If only we didn’t worry about what others think so much. Our views, thoughts and opinions can’t be of any less value than any other person’s – unless of course our beliefs devalue others (like complementarianism). In my mind complementarianism has little value because of how it negatively effects women.

Tom,

You can perceive what you want, but be honest what does your (hierarchal) interpretation or perception have to do with the facts of Scripture?

and “>”

Instead of using the “[ ]” symbols use “<“

lol
that didn’t work.

“<“

But instead of using the ” [ ]” symbols use the “” symbols.

Did that make sense? lol

At 12 minutes the Sudanese man talks about how the women have 25 percent of the government jobs and that this has emboldened them to want more jobs. And this of course is completely against God’s will, am I right?

Then end your quote with [/blockquote]

[blockquote]
At 12 minutes the Sudanese man talks about how the women have 25 percent of the government jobs and that this has emboldened them to want more jobs. And this of course is completely against God’s will, am I right?[/blockquote]

I think it’s great that the women are getting a taste of financial independence. But ofcourse, it’s completely against God’s will for them to want more jobs because *gasp*, it’s a sin! lol

Here’s how to quote another:

[blockquote] At 12 minutes the Sudanese man talks about how the women have 25 percent of the government jobs and that this has emboldened them to want more jobs. And this of course is completely against God’s will, am I right?

Rachael,

I’m glad you came here and shared what you have. It is a sad story and I couldn’t imagine myself having grown up in your shoes, so I definately feel for you there. I mean, you have to be a strong person to have gone through what you have. Strength is a good thing. And I’m glad you’ve shared your voice here. And it takes courage in my mind for you to have posted here and said what you’ve said.
The secret is, I was involved some with Cheryl during her experience and oh the horror that I dealt with and saw her deal with! Then I got wind of something that someone had said here at Cheryl’s blog about CARM and I then in response closed down, meaning I was done sharing or talking about the whole CARM thing out of fear!
So, thank you for sharing.

It is my belief and observation that often those who take an unusually strong stand toward controlling women and limiting women, have an underlying dislike, even hatred, of women.

This is my belief also. And I can’t stand it. These days I feel like I’m at a point where I’m tired of it and feel like changing the sound of my voice against such hatred.

It will do little good to point out the wrongness of their judgements.

This I agree with too.

They need to see the root of their judgements; that their foundational viewpoint toward women is not godly love.

True but even if they were to see it (as at least some I believe do already) I don’t think it would matter or change much.

What such people need to be made aware of is that they are filled with a sinful attitude toward fellow believers and God will not honor it. They violate all the ‘one another’ Scriptures.

Again, I just don’t see how certain ones being made aware of their attitude will change anything. It’s their sad human condition, and I wonder what it will take for such persons to stop their sin.

Dejablue,
I tried to listen to some of the podcast to hear what you said they were saying, and I couldn’t find the following through all my fast forwarding:

“Him and a guest are talking about their disgruntled feelings about the Sudan government giving women independence and jobs.”

This is disgusting. People have a right to life and a part of that is being able to provide for oneself financialy since it takes money to eat and have shelter. Complementriarchy deserves an “eye for an eye” for how else will staunch complementriarchalists ever learn?
Does Kevin Swanson deserve to have a job?

Rose,

God does not biblicaly require any woman to remain in an abusive marriage. There is someone who posts here by the name of Don who could explain everything better than I could, and he’s posted on this very subject over at http://www.equalitycentral.com/forum/ if you want to learn more about it.
From what I’ve learned through the years though, God definately does not require it, in fact an abused spouse has Biblical grounds to divorce, if that were what they wanted to.

Whoaps, half my post is in bold – accident.