I see it as very possible for Eve’s desire to be sinful. Many women desire for their husbands to protect, provide, entertain, be their comforter, etc., etc., to the exclusion-in varying degrees-of trusting in God for these things. That is, while all of these things are not evil in themselves, many women expect more of some or all of these things than their husbands can provide. So, yes, I see it as very possible that Eve’s desire could be evil, objectively. This discussion seeks to determine whether in fact her desire was evil. I think the balance tips in favor of her desire somehow not being quite the right thing.

God’s statement regarding Eve’s desire for Adam-if it is construed as a positive or neutral statement-also doesn’t follow the train of circumstances: Adam and Eve erred (sinned, were deceived, etc.) and these are now the negative consequences.

We could, however, play the devil’s advocate, and consider, as the comps do, that there ARE positive attributes within God’s pronouncement. I personally know comps who believe it is a GOOD thing that Adam ruled over his wife. Their rationale being that since Eve was deceived, Adam must now rule over her to compensate for her deceivability. I mean, if we are going to say ‘why not?’ to Eve’s desire being good, then why can’t we have the right to say the same about Adam’s forthcoming rule? If we are going to consider any part of the consequences in a good light, then we have to be willing to examine ALL the consequences in the same favorable light.

I think it is interesting that God said to Eve that her desire “shall be ” rather than ‘will continue to be’. That says to me that it is at the very least likely that something about her desire will now be different than it was pre-Fall. God’s entire statement-curses, predictions, etc., contain negative factors (toil, pain in childbirth, rule over, etc.). Why would we single out Eve’s desire as being positive? It doesn’t fit with the theme of the rest of God’s statement there.

Cheryl, I think Ezekial 18:20,”…the son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity…the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself…” also makes it difficult to support that all mankind take on the wickedness of the wicked (Adam) in the form of a sin nature. A sin nature is much more than an external consequence, it is a very heavy burden and aspect added to the very core of who a person is.

I do not believe the sin nature theory though I certainly used to. I had just never examined it before. I continue to see it causing many logical problems in this discussion, though it would be time- and space-consuming to resurrect them all here. In terms of logical support and scriptural support-both here and on other blog and websites, I see sin nature as being on par with the comp view of women.

Gazza, I share your points and questions.

Also, if all women after Eve supposedly get their sin nature through Adam (which I don’t believe), then it makes it perilously easy for comps to support their claim that women wish to rule over their husbands. After all, the view being given here is that women do NOT get their ‘sin nature’ from Eve, thus, they get it from Adam, which now opens the door to the Pandora’s box of questions of male and female sin natures and tendencies, etc. which could lend itself very nicely to a notion of women getting Adam’s ‘rule-over’ tendency to want to rule over their husbands(or wives?!) which would support comp thinking.

The issues at stake here are not small. Ultimately, truth is at stake, but the fallout of not being very, very careful here in discerning truth in these matters is monumental to say the least.

I don’t know how to do the blue quotation marks so you will have to bear with my version of importing quotes:
As I read through all these comments, I believe it is the belief in sin nature that is causing problems for some of your statements and conclusions.

My comment per Cheryl’s quote (that follows): Cheryl, you state that one of the reasons or ‘witnesses’ you see that establishes that Adam had a sin nature is #2.” He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life.” This would seem to indicate that he had a sin nature before he even participated in the whole incident of taking from the tree of life. In other words, why would God have considered Adam a threat if he didn’t possess-prior to this incident (the Fall)-a sin nature? You don’t state that you believe God also saw Eve as a threat. Therefore, you believe Eve had no sin nature leading up to the Fall. This would imply that God created Adam, alone, with a sin nature (otherwise, where and when did Adam come to possess this sin nature?). So why wouldn’t God have created Eve with a sin nature, especially since she was formed out of Adam? What would be the purpose of creating only Adam with a sin nature unless God had a plan FOR Adam to sin? Yet elsewhere, in other discussions, you stated that the sin nature came as a result of the Fall, not prior to it. That would contradict the basis for your second ‘witness’ here:
Quote from #227 Cheryl: “I believe that there are three reasons why we can understand that Adam has a sin nature:
1. He hid his sin.
2. He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life
3. He was prophesied to be the one who would practice sin through ruling his wife.
I consider all of these a valid witness to Adam’s sin nature.” End of Cheryl’s qoute.

Quote from #280 Pinklight: “Three witnesses of Adam’s sin nature:
Sin of rebellion
Rule
Reaching forth his hand also for the other tree” End of quote.
My comment: Pinklight, it appears that you also are saying that Adam was created with a sin nature and that it is BECAUSE OF this sin nature that he reached forth his hand for the other tree, rather than the sin nature being a result of reaching.

283 Gengwall says: “Cheryl’s response is basically two fold:1. That Adam’s sin nature, exemplified by the apparent inevitability of him eating from the Tree of Life, is a second witness that Adam sinned outside the garden…” End of quote.

My comment: This statement or summary also attributes to Adam a sin nature PRIOR to eating from the Tree of Life. (It does not imply Gengwall’s agreement of this summary necessarily.)

I see both a view that Adam somehow had his sin nature before the Fall, where in earlier blog discussions on this site that wasn’t the case, and also simply a problem with the sin nature theory itself. There is nothing to say that Adam needed a sin nature to do what he did. Otherwise, if that is the case, then Eve needed a sin nature to sin, also, which I imagine she did after the Fall, during the rest of her life. She likely sinned at least once. Speculation, yes, but nowhere in the bible does it say that Eve lived a sinless life. So, if she can sin without a sin nature, what is to say we need a sin nature to sin? Human nature is plenty capable it appears of making sinful choices. I see the following claims-direct or indirect-as being very problematic both here and in other arenas:
Troublesome claims or inferences:
1. Adam had a sin nature pre-Fall
2. God made Adam with a sin nature? I thought God created male and female equally spiritually at the starting gate?
3. Yet Eve sinned without having a sin nature? What was the purpose, then, (NOT the consequence) of making Eve able to sin without a sin nature but giving Adam a sin nature? Why would God do that? It makes it really hard-if one takes that view- to not believe God helped Adam to sin by giving him a nature over which he had no choice-almost like God had an active, not passive, hand in Adam’s sinning. We know that can’t be true.
4. All subsequent humans are born with a sin nature (not Jesus, of course.)

Lin, #250-that is very helpful! Thanks!

Kay and Pinklight-outstanding points!!!! The comps I know do not see their ‘authority over’ as unkind to neighbors but rather as obeying God’s command for the sake of order in the church and in the marriage relationship. They would be quick to say they submit to others, also, (like the other plurality of leadership, etc.) and say they have no problem with that. I think they speak genuinely-at least the ones I personally know. They just somehow don’t ‘get it’.

Gwall-liked your comeback to others when they ask who leads in your marriage-‘the Holy Spirit’!!!!!! Love that!!!!! I can already hear the rebuttals from those I know who just can’t grasp the concept of not having leaders: “Yes, the Holy Spirit leads, and then He gives ‘subleadership’ to men.” Somehow, we are such a bunch of truly motley sheep-especially we women-that we need leaders, and sub leaders, and sub sub leaders, ad nauseum. They point to the military and how there is a huge chain of command there for order’s sake. They also point to Moses and the children of Israel and his father-in-law’s advice to appoint leaders over groups of people so Moses wouldn’t have to do all the work. They say all this is needed for the sake of simple logistics-and order. AND, they say women are not allowed to participate in this stack of leadership positions-more or less-depending upon which group one is referring to. And, of course, this is all part of God’s ordained plan for working with fallen mankind, which brings us dangerously close to the whole hush-hush possibility of flawed design.

Flawed design kind of reminds me of how so many stores now try to sell-immediately at point of purchase-an additional warranty for the appliance or whatever. It is almost to me an admittance that the product has a flawed design and will inevitably not hold up somehow to the claim that their product is wonderful.

I agree with the thought I have heard expressed that if the man always leads, he can never fully mature as a person would if he sometimes has to ‘follow’ or work a thing out in mutuality; and likewise, neither can a woman ever truly mature if her growth is always stunted by keeping her in a position of total or even partial submission ultimately. Rotten stuff! Stanks like old fishiz if you aks me. 🙂

Just wondering…if male leadership/female followership is a genetic/’by design’ feature of God’s creation, then it would seem that the fact that not all men are natural leaders and women natural followers would indicate flawed design. I wouldn’t want to accuse God of that!!!

gengwall, #41, they don’t see it as a sinful consequence (some of them); they see at as God’s remedy for a now-fallen creation, amazing as that may seem. I know this from personal conversations with men who believe this way. Your comment that they practice a fallacy by claiming the role is by design yet base their claim on events rather than biology is very astute.

Kay, very good point that leadership by design and remedy/consequence for fall don’t jibe. And yes, if it is so genetic for males to be leaders and women to follow (by ‘design’), then why don’t all men and women find it easy to do their roles? They would probably claim some type of ‘fallen nature’ clause yet it is this very same ‘fallen nature’ that in their ‘remedy’ theory is supposed to address any ‘fallen nature’ deficits!

Lin, #39, I have actually heard some indeed say that the consequences are not curses or consequences for sin but rather are blessings from God meant to address the problems that occurred in the fall. This blindness to all the logical breakdowns in their thinking is why one doesn’t get far even with good logic when talking with them. Back to praying that ‘blind eyes’ will see.

Cheryl, I will pray for your husband’s surgery, too. You do have a lot going on!

Chery, I am up very late and just saw your post plus the news. I am praying for them!

Lin and Mara: right on! In the post above, I referred to a tragic situation. One of the women who was horribly abused in that circumstance dutifully told her male church officials-when they came asking about it-that she had forgiven the man. Later, when the couple whom I personally know extremely well visited her, she confessed that she still suffered severe nightmares, fears, phobias, etc. from the abuse. She knew she had to say she had ‘forgiven’ the man, yet the damage was severe, and what did the forgiveness really accomplish? The abuser didn’t even ask for forgiveness.

It is NOT enough to just go up and say to someone, “I am sorry, please forgive me” when the offense has been hideous. True repentance as well as appropriate reparation MUST be demonstrated, and sometimes it takes time to tell if it is indeed true.

Piper’s comments are frankly appalling. Would this be the advice he would give to his own daughter-if he has one-if she married and then discovered the hard way that she had married an abusive husband? I think not, or at least I hope not. His response sickens me. I received a similar one once from a pastor and elder. It didn’t work, I can assure you of that, and two persons were on the receiving end of the brutal violence.

Lin #30, 4th paragraph-isn’t that interesting in light of the conspicuous absence of any teaching in the bible about ‘the neck turning the head’?! I can understand why you became disenchanted with what you saw.

Dave, #28, very good point! This recently happened to a family very close to me, and thank goodness the parents had the good sense to risk losing fellowship to report a hideous string of sexual abuses against several in their church and sadly, one in their own family, when they learned of it. It was only when they appealed to the legal or illegal aspect of not reporting the incidents that their church finally ‘approved’ them reporting it. They had already reported it, so the ‘approval’ was retrospective, but it was appalling that even the wife of the accused wanted to simply have him ‘forgiven’. Since it turned out that he had done this over the years numerous times, and all the forgiveness over the years had not at all changed his ways, it baffled the family who finally reported it that so many in the church still promoted ‘forgiveness’ and some counseling to ‘turn him from his error’. Hadn’t worked before, lives lay in ruin along his path, WHAT were they thinking?!!

Lin, that is also very interesting that you point out the fact that in the past, the SBTS used to be soft comp. A little bit of false teaching can absolutely spoil a huge and growing batch!

Lin, I agree. The softest comp marriage out there may be the safest-amongst comp and patriarchal marriages, but it is still comp and it is comp strictly by virtue of believing that men outrank women-always. That is why I can’t even endorse the softest comp marriages in principle no matter how soft and nice they are. Does that mean I disfellowship with my soft and not so soft comp friends? Not at all. It just means I cannot endorse even the ‘softest’ compism on principle.

Soft comp marriages and theology provide a spiritual glass ceiling for women that is not really so soft and nice after all. The disclaimer I need to make here is that if a marriage is absolutely egal in practice then it is not soft comp and shouldn’t be entered into the discussion as such. However, the danger lies in having those who are in marriages which are practically egal and theoretically comp supporting comp theology nonetheless. They think they have a wonderful comp marriage when they actually may have a wonderfully egal marriage, but the credit goes incorrectly to compism.

The dangers of genuine soft compism have been discussed elsewhere so I won’t go into them here. They are very real, however.

Cheryl, that is great!!!

Mark, I am looking forward to reading your modernized version of Fell’s book. My heritage is Quaker going back a number of centuries, and I have a number of very old classic Quaker books, but I don’t have hers. Interestingly, in Barclay’s Apology (the classic Quaker apologetics), he only devotes a large paragraph to the topic of women preaching, etc., in which he summarily dismisses any bias against them as being due to a misunderstanding, basically, of the situation to which Paul was speaking. In other words, Paul was addressing a particular circumstance and not making a broad statement about restricting all women for all time. How did Barclay and Fell ‘get it’ without all the vast study aids, arcaeological findings, etc., that have followed since? Quakers strongly believed that the Holy Spirit could indeed teach His own via the bible and His Spirit. (FWIW) That is NOT to say I believe there is no value in all the supporting texts and findings we have today. Quite the opposite.

Oh, dear! I don’t know why all those backslashes appeared!

110-I meant to say it substantiates the meaning of God (not kephale) as Godhead rather than the Father… Which still means, as you pointed out, Pinklight, that kephale can’t mean Father in this whole passage.

So, if kephale means head in a non-‘authority over’ way in this passage because of the Godhead meaning of God, that means it can’t be used as a given that head in Ephesians 5:23 means ‘authority over’, either, as an extension of 1 Cor. 11:3. If kephale in Eph. 5:23 is claimed to mean ‘authority over’, it will have to be substantiated apart from the meaning of kephale in I Cor. 11:3.

Truthseeking is the only way to go, isn’t it?! 🙂

Pinklight, I am back-had to take care of work. You have an absolutely stunning revelation there. If God is translated as Father, it DOES become very problematic when applied in the rest of the passage, yet how could kephale NOT mean the same thing throughout the passage? Therefore, it seems to irrevocably substantiate the meaning of kephale as Godhead rather than the Father in I Cor. 11:3. That is a profound blow to the ‘subordinate Christ’ view and the ‘authority over’ view. Wow!!!!

It is shocking that some teach that we are not to pray to Jesus. They would have to believe that, though, if they want to stay consistent within their ‘subordinated Christ’ view.

pinklight, #102-outstanding point and one I have never seen addressed (in my limited range of reading about it)! I will have to chew on that one for a bit.

sm, I have asked the same question you have, in #70, of comps many times, and have never received a specific definitive answer. What is a husband called to do that is uniquely his to do that a wife is never to do? Extremely valid question in light of the comp claims. I am not a comp.

Cheryl/geng…great insights and observations! I am fly-on-the-wall-ing here. Cheryl, I had to laugh at the thought of whether it is a sin for a husband to serve his wife. My observation: my comp husband (no bossin’ in this household because as he ruefully chuckled, ” I can’t be your authority if you don’t let me”, and I don’t-trust me! So we have an egal household with a divided egal/comp theology. Nonetheless, back to the ‘is it sin for a husband to serve his wife’ and will it make him less of a man? No hair has fallen off my husband’s chest since he began serving me. 🙂 And none has grown on mine as I ‘lead’ in individual circumstances. Neither of us rules the roost and we both have the correspondingly appropriate hair or lack of hair in the ‘manly’ places. 🙂 (Note: we both serve and defer/submit depending on the individual circumstance. I have no more desire to be his boss than I have to be his sub-adult helper.)

gengwall-thanks for the Cosby chuckle! I am sort of collecting egal humor, and another I read recently is from John Wayne, when asked if he believed in equality for women. His response: “Heck yes! Women have been superior for far too long!”

gengwall-don’t discount your contributions! I have been taking notes. What you have said is critically important, also.

TL-I got to the place, in attending my husband’s strict comp church that I could not get very far into a service without weeping (silently of course), at the destruction to women and the loss to all of the church’s teaching, and so I would leave so as not to cause a distraction of any kind. Finally, my husband graciously said that I ought to feel free to go elsewhere. I already knew I had that freedom but I was glad he came to a place of accepting that it wasn’t good for me to be there. Now I pray that his understanding will not remain darkened.

Cheryl, I agree, your testimony is powerful! Thank you!

gengwall, how true! That is one of the key weaknesses or fatal flaws for me regarding the complementarian position: it may sound nice (it doesn’t to me, but to many it comes across as somehow pleasantly chivalrous, etc., I believe) to have the man be the ‘boss/authority’ head and the woman be the ‘responder/number one advisor’ but when it comes to the myriad applications that of necessity follow such a definition, there are too many unresolved conflicts and unanswered questions that result.

One of the more recent ones that comes to mind in my own experience was my recent question to a complementarian in a fairly restrictive church regarding the age at which boys become men, since this particular church does not allow women as Sunday school teachers in the high school level classes. I was told that 13 years was considered the defining age-based on Jewish tradition during the biblical time of the N.T. I then posed the question that if indeed the males aged 13-17 in this church were now ‘men’, why was it that they still had to remain under the jurisdiction of their parents until age 18? What kind of ‘men’ are they truly-biblical men but not cultural or legal men? Would all the parents of these ‘men’ feel confident that if the legal limits and cultural standards were set aside, that they would feel comfortable allowing all these 13 year old ‘men’ truly function as men (marrying, holding down full-time supportive jobs, beginning families, etc.)? Emotionally, intellectually, mentally, and spiritually, are they now truly men? How do we define the difference between men and boys anyway? Is it different for each individual male or do they all cross over into manhood at precisely the same age? I didn’t receive answers to any of these questions but I think they deserve solid answers from sincere complementarians.

gengwall, yes, I do agree with all you have said in your last post. Like you, I, too, think Mark has a much more egalitarian marriage arrangement than he may realize or want to acknowledge. I was reflecting upon the numerous times I have heard the statement made in general, that if a couple mutually decide that the husband should be the head, then it is ok. When these statements have been made, the writer or speakers have always given as the reason for the husband being designated as head that it is ‘biblical’. Those are the cases I disagree with. It is a bit of an oxymoron anyway to say a couple ‘mutually’ decides that the husband will ‘decide’ isn’t it? I always get a chuckle out of that one. 🙂

gengwall-that is a very good ‘nutshell’ summary of the Ephesians 5 ‘head’ matter. I am always astonished at how ‘effortlessly’ the word ‘headship’ is pulled out of this text by some when it simply isn’t there. It’s kind of like pulling rabbits out of a hat so perhaps we could label some of these bewildering exegetical sleights of hand as ‘magician exegesis’?