pinklight
Active 2007–2012
Tag Cloud
I doubt that he ever saw it in 1 Timothy 2 because it likely wasn’t a passage he wanted to unravel.
lol
Comps say that Paul is “grounding” male privilege in the creation order.
This is my thought in response to what you’ve said. Since in the passage the only link of his prioroity of creation made is to him not being deceived, then comps must come to the conclusion that only men are not deceived because Adam was created first. Men then would be privileged to not being deceived and I really think that such a belief is totally lame to be honest.
Andersen said one example of “misogynistic influence” in the ESV is Genesis 5:2, which reads, “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.”
Wayne Grudem, a member of the translation committee, used the verse in a book to make the point that “God named the human race ‘man'” and not some gender-neutral term, suggesting a leadership role belonged to man before the Fall.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5370/53
After I read the first paragraph above I immediately thought “Grudem was behind that” and then I went on to read the next paragraph an lo’ and behold LOL!
Andersen said she dedicates an entire chapter in her new book, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System, to what she called “mistakes” in the English Standard Version Bible translation due to “androcentricity” when she wrote the book. She said she now believes they weren’t mistakes, but were the result of “deliberate mistranslation” in the ESV Study Bible released in 2008, hailed by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as “unapologetically complementarian.”
They may claim in their paternalism that other aberrant groups and lesser individuals have distorted their teachings, but their “good” intentions do not exonerate them.
If (as I think will happen) CBMW answers with a dismissive and demeaning letter, then such a letter will work against CBMW–
Either way, they are stuck. lol They’re in between a rock and a hard place. If they apologize it will hurt them, if they are dissmissive it will also hurt them. Too bad for them! They are not in a good position at all with this letter.
I came to believe a while back that CBMW was established more to market a doctrine and make money for a select few.
I bet it’s true, Lydia along with some other things…
Elastigirl,
Rebel time! Woo Hooo! lol
If (as I think will happen) CBMW answers with a dismissive and demeaning letter, then such a letter will work against CBMW–
😉 😉
the time for accommodation of abusive religion needs to be over.
Preach it!!
@11 Thank you, Greg! Excellent thoughts! Just some of what I’ve been thinking!
@2 Yep!
These ladies know what they are dealing with, and I’ve noted also that they have expertise in abuse… I can only imagine that they have a good idea of what they are doing when it comes to such a problem as CBMW.
I agree with the approach in this CBMW case. There’s been too much damage done. I don’t think the letter is so much about the egal cause as it is about stopping what’s coming out of CBMW which has resulted and will continue to result in damage.
What??! You can’t read Hebrew? Oh pishaw! ;P
<3<3<3
Dave, Kay and Cheryl,
I had asked for prayer in one of these recent posts and you said you had prayed for me or were going to. Well, I want to thank you all again for praying for me!! The problem IS removed. 🙂 I am SOOO thankful for that. I had to do some work…but this probelm was so big and draining etc that I can’t even explain. AMEN! <3<3<3
“As well the wife should do the same for the husband. After all it is the man who was in need of an ‘other’, not the woman.”
Music to my ears.
Alex,
The only time the husband would be wrong is WHEN using his trump card he does not give everything up for his wife.
“These are extremely rare instances and are the only time the husband is to use his leadership to overrule his wife. Could the husband be wrong? Yes of course,”
Alex,
How can the husband be wrong if when using his trump card he is giving up everything for his wife?If a man gives up everything for his wife as scripture instructs then why would he be wrong?
“That means he is to give up everything for her.”
Hi Alex,
Wouldn’t it include his own way or “trump card”? In other words if a final descision needs to be made, then if the husband gives up everything for her, why would he take and use his belief of a trump card in order to get his own way (which is not for the betterment of the wife)? Maybe I just don’t understand what you are saying well enough? Can you give me an example where a final descion needs to be made and the husband pulls what he thinks is his final trump card, and when he does this he uses it in giving up everything FOR his wife?
“And of course, all those add up to the core Biblical value – love. “Insistence…for male authority” is, if nothing else, quite unloving.”
For sure.
Kristen, Oh yeah! <3
Thanks for all the interaction, Mark. I’ve learned more things about the comp position. It does seem as though through it all we’ve not really gotten anywhere agreement wise. Maybe one day you can come back and answer the questions 🙂 God bless.
81
Alison,
It does appear that some who use the h-bomb get some kind of satisfaction out of it or something. I always thought it was strange. Are they okay? Do they like to hurt others? Are they serious? Are they jumping on the wagon because they are followers? Are they hateful? Someone else does it so they must? (lol) I see the majority of it like this – “These are God’s rules, you need to to obey the Law and if you don’t you’re a heretic.” In other words, people trying to work their way to God and forcing others to also. It’s all just some form of religion without life. People are definatley fallen.
And I hear the frustration part. I went through it for a while…
Hi Dave! Good to see you still pop in every now and then 🙂
Last time someone called me a heretic for the fight for freedom (egalism), they wish they hadn’t…they were so filled with hate when they did. It can be a very serious thing…
61
Talk about one swipe lol! Ghees. If things couldn’t get any simpler lol!
When the husband turns his “facing-him strong help” into a “subordinate to him sidekick/assistant,” the man has rendered himself effectively alone again
Yep.
The whole issue, I think, needs to be reframed by the Law of Love. We have to consider how loving it is for a husband to try to take authority over his wife,
Oh, but this is why the focus is on what the woman/wife does as I found out. It’s about what she does rather than the hsuband forcing her. That sure is the way around that one!
On and on is right – just look back at #6 where Mark tries to find “authority” when it’s not in Greek. Notice he had no reply to that one at all. Just tack that one on to gengwall’s list (in Post#2) of all the things comps have to overlook.
Yes, the main point we have is that none of the hierarchist’s view squares with the Law of Love & “not so with you.”
I saw that, Kay. “gengwall’s list”. Love it.
The “Law of Love”. Love it. People think that they are so special that they are exempt from the Law of Love. And how does an exemption from that Law make one special?
I’ve often wondered though if Adam, the human, was male before God created the woman and brought gender into the picture.
TL,
I think Adam was male before God created the woman because he says he was -She shall be called woman for she was taken out of man (male). Adam could have said that she was taken out of “adam”.
There is not one comp who has contextual support for his interpretation that says since the wife is told to submit therefore the husband has authority over the wife and they cannot provid any contextual support for kephale to mean “authority over”.
In 1 Co 11, they doen’t even have anything to use to offer for an argument. And having no contextual support for “God” to mean the Father is HUGE. The subordination of the Trinity falls on that alone. And there IS contextual support that “God” means the Godhead.
In Genesis, comps interpret that Adam was created first to mean that he had authority over Eve ONLY because of the way they interpret Paul in 1 Tim 2. So they read their interpretation of 1 Tim 2 back into Genesis. And they use “helpmeet” also to try and support their position which already began in 1 Tim 2.
And on and on it goes…
I see, Sue.
I am completely convinced, however, that the complementarian position, is not clear and obvious and indisputable.
Me too. In fact, further I’m convinced that it’s not even supportable.
And I agree that he didn’t make the subordination of women his mission (and they were already subordinated by his culture anyway).
I’ve to make a correction because terms do matter.
…things are noted in Genesis, one woman was made from “man” not “Adam”, the human). Adam said that she was taken from “man” (male human).
In some way, God and Christ are of the same essence, as a human Christ is of the same essence as mankind, and as humans men and women share the same essence. This is unique to Christianity, the link between God and humans.
I agree.
But in some ways, Paul seems very influenced in his language by certain presuppositions. Woman is for man, but then again, man is of woman. He backtracks and reshapes. I don’t see scripture as one hundred per cent consistent. I would have to say that most scholars don’t.
Sue,
but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
I do see scripture as 100% consistent. When Paul’s says “woman was made for man” he can only be refering to Genesis where Adam was alone and so God made the woman for Adam (his aloneness). Two things are noted in Genesis, one woman was made from Adam and two she was made for his aloneness. Adam needed a companion. In that way woman was for man. I don’t see anything wrong with that.