sm

gengwall writes: “So, a man uniquely leads a wife by following his God given leadership design…”

Practically, though, what does “following his God given leadership design to make his wife more Christ-like” look like that distingishes it as uniquely and exclusively masculine? What does he do specifically with the intention to make his wife more Christ-like (besides the obvious and stock answer “prayer”)? What does his God given leadership design compel him to do? How does a husband’s God given leadership design equip him to uniquely make his wife Christ-like and in a way that is exclusive to males/husbands?

Thanks for helping me understand.

Mark writes: “…indeed men are the head in my opinion. But what does that headship look like is the question? Loving your wife in such a way as to help lead her to becoming more like Christ, the same way Christ acts to help His Church…”

Does a wife lead a husband in anyway to help him become more like Christ?

If yes, how does it differ from how a husband would lead so as to help his wife become more like Christ?

If no, a wife never leads a husband in anyway to help him become more like Christ, how then does a husband uniquely lead a wife to become more like Christ?

What makes the wife’s “sin” of not submitting and enduring verbal or physical abuse by removing herself from the situation more grievous than her submitting to her husband’s request or demand to participate in sexual sin?

This is a serious question. I am wondering how Piper would rationalize his comments. If she can appeal to a higher authority–God, to not submit to the participation of sexual sin at her husband’s request, why can she not appeal to a higher authority–God, to not be a submissive participant to physical abuse. Isn’t she being complicit in the sin of physical abuse if she has the ability and means to remove herself and does not? Also, enduring physical and verbal abuse for a season (whatever that is) contradicts Grudem’s description of “intelligent and joyful submission” required of wives. Unless if she endures “sweetly” then I suppose the submission is partly right.

Mike writes: “Paul seems” ; “Paul is likely forbidding women”; “Paul is probably thinking of the woman’s creation”; “as well as a general pattern”

These phrases have appeared here and in previous responses and suggest to me that there is conjecture involved in Mike’s interpretation of these scriptures which is not uncommon by interpreters of the opposing view or uncommon in a great deal of scriptural interpretation.

The issue is being honest about the degree of conjecture and the necessity of possessing a generous dose of humility when presenting hierchial claims, both of which is absent among the heirchalists I have encountered in my discovery of this topic.

Piper says: “Now that’s one **kind of situation**.” (emphasis added)

The wife does not have to submit to abuse that requires her participation in something sinful, she sweetly refuses, as opposed to:

Piper continues: “Just a word on the **other kind**. If it’s not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her,…”” (emphasis added)

Abuse which does not require her to participate in sin, but endure sin because it is just hurtful to her, the wife is not exempt from submission to the hurtful husband.

As Piper continues: “…then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.”

I find it difficult to know what to say to that.

Pipers says:
“So if this man, for example, is calling her to engage in abusive acts willingly (group sex or something really weird, bizarre, harmful, that clearly would be sin), then the way she submits…
She’s going to say…something like, ‘Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. God calls me to do that, and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership. But if you ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can’t go there.’”

Somebody wondered why there weren’t many comments regarding this post, well what do you say to that?

Irony—anti-spam word is “pain”.

Piper says:
“A woman’s submission to her husband is rooted in the word of God, calling her to be—for the Lord’s sake, for the Lord’s sake—submissive to him. Which means she always has a higher allegiance, namely to Christ.”

Given the context of abuse, this is telling because I understand him to be saying, “A woman’s submission to her husband is rooted in the word of God”; therefore, for “the Lord’s sake, God has called her to be submissive to him” even in abuse.

I do NOT believe the witness of God’s goodness and holiness or whatever “for the Lord’s sake” means, is dependent upon a woman submitting to a husband’s abuse.

Mike writes:
“I think a man should equally not place himself under the authority of a woman’s teaching. I would agree that this would be equally going against Scripture.”

To accommodate the varying “I thinks” (opinions) among heirchalists the following are examples of how their religion is applied:

From “A Personal Confession – A Public Challenge
By Our Love Shall All People Know We Are His Disciples” by
Wade Burleson at the Midwest Regional New Baptist Covenant Conference, August 6th http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/08/personal-confession-public-challenge.html
“I will never forget the email I received from one of the young ladies in our Baptist seminaries who wrote me, confiding that she typed with tears in her eyes, having just come from her “preaching class” where the professor allowed all the “men and boys” in the class to remove themselves from the room so they would not be subjected to hearing a woman teach the Word of God. The young lady found herself preaching to the walls and wondered whether or not she had a place in Baptist life.”

Pastor Steve Anderson Faithful Word Baptist Church Tempe, AZ from “The Role of Women in the Church” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuBhLp2H-aw&feature=channel beginning at 7:13 minutes
“Now many churches permit women to say, ‘Amen’. Now, I don’t agree with that because I think that women are ‘to learn in silence’. Now the same term ‘Amen’ you are expressing ‘I agree with you. I stand where you stand.’ Look, that’s…we don’t believe in women expressing their opinion during the preaching, during the learning. It’s time for you to be ‘in silence’. I didn’t write the bible; that’s what it says. So, I don’t believe women should say, ‘Amen’…

SIDE NOTE: Pastor Steve Anderson does not admonish the women to refrain from laughter throughout his sermon which is, I believe, expressing an opinion, too.
I also am not persenting Pastor Steve Anderson as reflective of all heirchalists or baptists, but this is the tone and attitude that is inevitably perpetuated in various ways when you embrace the system of thought of a heirchal structure and erect boundaries to ensure there is no infringement upon the structure.

By Sam Hodges “Baptists at odds over removal of female professor: Seminary case fuels debate on women’s role in theology programs” from The Dallas Morning News January 19, 2007 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/012007dnmetnubaptists.176f48d.html
“But some conservatives say Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, under president Paige Patterson, wrongly applied [1 Timothy] to remove from its faculty Sheri Klouda, who until last year had been teaching men Hebrew in the seminary’s school of theology.
The controversy is yet another sign that conservatives…are seriously at odds…
“Sheri Klouda is not a pastor, she has not been ordained or licensed, she does not perform ministerial duties. She is a professor, for heaven’s sake,” Mr. Burleson said by phone Friday. “The same institution that conferred her degree and hired her has now removed her for gender. To me, that is a very serious, ethical, moral breach.”
Dr. Patterson did not respond to requests for comment. Speaking for the seminary instead was Van McClain, chairman of the Southwestern trustees…
…Dr. McClain did say that Dr. Klouda’s hiring as a professor in the school of theology, which occurred before Dr. Patterson arrived in 2003, represented a *****”momentary lax of the parameters.”***** (emphasis added)

I think these speak for themselves.

The latter example also shows the flux of the boundaries of what is permissible from one heirchalist leader to another.

Cheryl writes:
“If giving out information makes one in authority over another person, then look out because a woman cannot give directions to a man who is lost.”

John Piper writes:
“…it is simply impossible that from time to time a woman not be
put in a position of influencing or guiding men. For example, a housewife in her backyard may be asked by a man how to get to the freeway. At that point she is giving a kind of leadership. She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits
himself to her guidance. But we all know that there is a way for that housewife to direct the man that neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised. It is not a contradiction to speak of certain kinds of influence coming from women to men in ways that affirm the responsibility of men to provide a pattern of strength and initiative.” (pg 42 Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood)

I am new to this subject matter, so I am shocked that giving directions to anyone puts you in leadership over them. I call it being friendly, helpful, and the right thing to do, if you have the information to help someone out. The idea of having to run such ordinary occurences through a gender filter so as to not “compromise femininity or masculinity” is exhausting and impractical. I can understand being congenial, polite, clear and concise in giving directions, but what is the practical outworking of a housewife giving directions to a male stranger in a way “that affirm[s] the responsibility of men to provide a pattern of strength and initiative.” ????

Mike writes: “I don’t think Elizabeth Elliot, Carolyn Mahaney, or Dorothy Patterson feel inferior.”

I understand the issue raised is not how heirchalists teaching and practices make “them feel” or even any one woman, but that the practices and teaching devalue women, in general.

I assume as you, these ladies do not “seek to teach men” because it is not an option in the paradigm in which they function. No doubt, they are content with their sphere of influence.

I am new to this subject matter, but I don’t think the issue is about “seeking to teach men” but about whether or not one sex is to rule over the other and the implications this has for society, the church, and the other sex.

Mike writes:
“It seems odd to me that your entire case for the first part of your answer is that there is no such thing as “authority” in the church…that the Word of God is the authority and then you spend the second part of your answer saying that there is inferiority if women cannot teach men, just showing a type of authority system.”

While I would welcome some clarity on what exactly Cheryl is saying about authority within the church, I believe I understand what she writes in the latter part.

Cheryl writes in the latter part:
“When we go against the scripture and take a verse out of its context (1 Timothy 2:12…) we create a way to allow men to *devalue women*. (emphasis added) If a man is told that he isn’t allowed to listen to women teach the bible, what is he going to *think about her teaching*? (emphasis added) Would it not be normal that he would think that he is the one gifted to teach the church and she is an *inferior teacher whose value is far less than his own value* as a teacher?” (emphasis added)

I understand that Cheryl is appealing to the logical conclusion of what men would naturally think when they are regularly taught they are not to listen to a woman teach and even told they have the responsibility to remove themselves from such situations. Such as, if a man walks into a session or if a session takes the route of a woman teaching, a man is to walk out.

I understand Cheryl to be saying, the logical conclusion, the natural tendency of fallen mankind is that this kind of thinking has implications for the way men perceive women: i.e. “inferior” in “quality and value”. She even says this “devalues women” and would lead men to believe women are “inferior teachers”.

I did not understand Cheryl to be “showing an authority system” in her comment, but rather drawing out the logical conclusion of heirchalists thinking and practices.

Cheryl, correct me if I misunderstood.

For Mike who referenced these women in the previous post but on this same topic:

When Elizabeth Elliot, Carolyn Mahaney, or Dorothy Patterson teaches, are there procedures in place so as not to violate a “law” that no men are:

*present (of course unless they are there to “evaluate” which you permit), or
*within earshot so as to hear and be taught by these women?

I am thinking all kinds of measures must be taken into account not the least of which would include only female audio technicians, video technicians, sound technicians, and hospitality staff during the teaching and any male musicians or worship leaders would have to exit after their service and prior to a woman teaching.

Plus, for marketing of CDs & DVDs of teaching, are only female video and audio editing technicians used because this process requires listening and consequently the potential for being instructed in scripture by a woman? Or, is the teaching less authoritative when it is burned on a CD or DVD? I’m asking because I have come across heirchalists who have written that to read a book by a female author is not a violation of the “law” because it was not authoritative since it is in a book rather than teaching in a corporate assembly of men and women.

It all sounds like another loophole.

Mike writes:
“I don’t think it is a problem for him to sit in on a woman teaching in order to evaluate her either. I know you may say, ‘Well, he is placing himself under her teaching and authority’ but I don’t think that is what he is doing when evaluating is his motive.

This resembles the approach of our lawmakers in D.C. who always create loopholes in their lawmaking for their own advantage. Your opinion and loophole (“I don’t think…evaluating is his motive”) is a loophole permitting the circumvention of the “law” you seem to work with great conviction to uphold without technically breaking it.

What is key is your “I don’t think.” I have listened to sermons and read various heirchalists teach that men have the responsibility to remove themselves from a situation wherein “a woman is teaching and exercising authority”. So again, there is no consensus among heirchalists over where the boundary is. The boundaries appear to be in flux.