TL-yes, that whole body image seems to frequently get lost in the discussion yet it is clearly a/the logical and valid meaning if one looks into what the word kephale or head meant in those times.

As I have listened to and reflected upon the debate between comps and egals over the headship-of-husband-over-wife-issue, it seems often the conclusion is that if both parties want it, and no one is being ‘hurt’ then it is ok. I disagree. If we first determine that the bible teaches that husbands, as ‘heads’, are NOT to usurp or have authority over wives (realizing some may not even come to this determination), then I don’t see how it can really be a benignly acceptable matter if some DO chose to have a husband-as-authority head position in a marriage. If God does NOT authorize it, and if He goes further to say we can only have one Lord and Master, then are we not seriously usurping and impinging upon His authority-let alone disobeying- if we designate some as heads over others in this manner?

If so, that is no light matter. It is not even ok if both parties involved agree to it. Just because two people agree to something doesn’t make it right. It would be like two (or more) people deciding that it is ok to make any given human the authority/head/lord/master of their human life-24/7 (as is the case with husbands and wives), not just for work, or club membership or whatever. If God commands us to have no other except Himself as Lord and Master, then it is a very serious thing if we allot that position to some human or other being. It was certainly a serious thing when the Israelites designated a constructed calf as their god while Moses was up on the mountain meeting with God.

Additionally, if it is determined to be not only NOT something God has explicity commanded, but also something He commands against, then it is not possible for it to NOT be harmful on some level. In the church my spouse attends (I do not) the teaching is explicit that the wife is to submit her will, talents, abilities and desires to her husband. To me, that is a seriously flawed teaching. We do at times submit ourselves temporarily to employers, to the rules of a given organization, etc., but to submit one’s entire being for one’s entire earthly life to another is horrific. Only our Lord has the right to that place in our lives.

Correction: I meant all 12 or 13 pages of the link I just mentioned-not 8 pages. The pages are a fairly quick read and I found the whole discussion useful.

I have been away for a while. I have continued to ponder this topic though and found the discussion (all 8 pages of it-some of the best is in the last few pages) at the link I have listed to be very helpful.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/602358-do-we-really-have-sin-nature.html

Well, ok, the link does transfer as a live link. Welcome to the 21st century, Truthseeker! (Where do techno-infants go to hide?!)

Pinklight, I agree with you. I, too, want to know the truth of this matter, and after reading the article I linked to above (#40) I now realize how much importance this issue has-far more so than I ever imagined to the claims Christians make. Wow!!!

The following link takes you to an article refuting the possibility of humans having a sin nature. It is an outstanding article, complete with many bible references. It is addressing this matter from the standpoint of those who claim that homosexuality is a trait one is born with, and it shows how this is not possible unless we are born with a sin nature. Extremely interesting article-I highly recommend it be read in its entirety. I don’t know how to make this link available as a live link, so you will just have to copy and paste. My apologies.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50517

Thanks to Paula at Words of a Fether for this link.

Where does the bible specifically and explicitly say we have a sin nature that came from Adam? Adam didn’t need a ‘sin’ nature to sin. His human nature seemed to be quite up to the task. I will need to do a bible search to see if there are verses that specifically say we have a ‘sin nature’. We do have ‘flesh’ but I am not persuaded that is the same as an unnamed sin nature.

As egals, we can easily see that because Adam was created first does not mean he was the leader or ruler of Eve automatically. Likewise, I think it cannot be said from Genesis that we have a sin nature that Adam gave us. I can no more see explicit verses saying Adam gave us a sin nature than I can see explicit verses that say men should have authority over women because Adam was created before Eve.

“You said: ” …then likewise, Adam’s actions would provide us an opportunity for sin but we would still have to appropriate or participate in it. ”
That is exactly right. Adam’s actions brought us a sin nature, but a sin nature doesn’t force us to sin.”

Cheryl, I didn’t say Adam’s actions brought us a sin nature. I said they brought us an opportunity to sin. You said they brought us a sin nature. Very very different-sin nature vs. opportunity to sin. Perhaps better yet, Adam simply brought us an example of sinning to follow should we choose to do so along with all the consequences of his sin that affect us. I do not see any mention of sin nature in the passage.

” We can’t say “the devil made me do it” or “Adam made me do it”. What our sin nature does is crave sin but it doesn’t make us sin. ….. But our “natural man” craves sin. We all give in but we don’t have to.”

You are again inserting ‘sin nature’ where the bible never does. It is like when the comps insert terms and concepts such as ‘roles’, ‘masculinity’, and ‘femininity’, into the bible and biblical discussions when those terms are never mentioned in the bible. It may SEEM ‘logical’ to do so, but if the basis isn’t truly there, nor the language, then we tread on unfounded ground at the least. You also seem to interchange ‘sin nature’ with ‘our natural man’. I think they are different. We do have our human nature. That seems to be all we need to sin. It was enough for Adam, who was not described as having a sin nature prior to sinning that enabled him to sin.

“So what I am saying is that Adam’s sin brought us to sin with the natural inheritance of his rebellious nature, but it cannot make us sin. Christ’s obedience brought us to righteousness by his actions but He does not force us to have faith in Him.”

Where in the bible does it say we ‘naturally inherited his rebellious nature? After all, if an inherited nature is required to sin, then where did Adam get his, since he sinned? And if a sinful nature is requisite for sinning, then logically and in a parallel vein of thinking, a righteous nature would be required for choosing righteousness. Yet, no mention is made of us inheriting a righteous nature so we can choose salvation. You rightly say that “Christ’s obedience brought us to righteousness by his actions…,” it says nothing of our coming to righteousness by having some kind of inherited righteous nature. Yet, the very same logic is being used to say that we choose sin because we have a sinful nature.

Adam seemed well able to choose to sin without having any mention of a sinful nature. I think then, that we are totally capable of sinning, in like manner, without having a ‘sin nature’.

Does this make sense?

Tiro, thanks for the tip! I never thought about men wanting a good study bible from the vantage point of this topic but that makes sense. My duh!

In Lin’s statement about men and women both expressing ego, but in different ways, she said the difference in how they expressed their egos was due to what was acceptable in society, not inherent male/female characteristics. That is culture, not physiology (‘acceptable in society’).

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. (Two possibilities)

In 1 Peter 3:7 “You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.”, I notice several things.

First, he is addressing husbands, not all men, so the weakness their wives have ‘since they are women’ may be by virtue of being women AND wives, not just being women. In the same way, slaves might be said to have been diminished in capacity NOT because they were diminished as individuals in their inherent make-up but because of their position as slaves. In fact, egals often point this out. It would seem to be contrary to their position on slaves to then turn around and attribute qualities to women wives because of their gender rather than their position in that society.

It would seem that the understanding of why ‘wives are weaker, because they are women’ in 1 Peter 3:7 would need to be explored and understood. What does weaker mean in that context? Was it referring to the general economic status of women of that time and culture (as some egals have postulated) or to their physical strength or to some other facet? Was it for that time or for all times?

I understand that we can observe and note general characteristics of male and female in any given time and society, but I am not convinced that very many-if any-of these can be attributed to anything other than cultural influence. Sociologists have spent much time studying these things and can document societies that run counter to everything we have mentioned so far. Each of those societies may only have some of the exceptions, but the exceptions are out there.

Even the egal arguments used here on this site use the argument that because even one or two examples of an exception to comp thinking can be found, it negates the particular comp thinking in question (for example: Junias being named among the apostles is the single example of a female apostle so it is used to validate female apostleship.) Using the same rationale, if even one example of a non-nurturing female or nurturing male can be found, it negates the ‘females are most nurturing’ theory.

The reason I say it is dangerous to tread on the ground of adding one’s own observations about male/female characteristics to the discussion of a biblical topic is that it presents/relies upon extra-biblical observation which opens up a Pandora’s box. Unless it can be proven, beyond a doubt, it ought to be left out. We have used extra-biblical evidence (as have comps) in support of egal thinking, but it has been valid when and because it has been factual, proveable, historical, contextual evidence, etc. Do we have that for male/female emotional/mental theorized differences-beyond a shadow of a doubt and without acceptable exceptions? And who defines ‘acceptable exceptions?’

That there are ‘pink’ and ‘blue’ norms for any given society is fairly obvious, but that these norms are inherent to all females and males is not even possible because of the many exceptions. Sin is so pervasive it makes it difficult to see the true ‘non-sinful’ condition of males and females. We have to look at the pre-fall condition for that, and we see no clues there of male/female emotional/mental differences. At least, I don’t.

The statement that ‘women are needed spiritually to bring a balance’ suggests to me that there is a ‘pink and blueness’ to biblical truth. I don’t see that supported anywhere in scripture. Can God not speak the same truth through a man or a woman equally? Is that not what we, as egals, are positing? If one is speaking about a particular issue related to men, women, slaves, etc., then, yes, having a representative of that particular group would be extremely useful. Otherwise, I don’t see how it would be necessary.

I think it is noteworthy that the many places where the bible makes reference to sins such as pride, greed, adultery, fornication, anger, etc., it does not differentiate between male and female versions of nor proclivities towards these sins nor does it address a specific gender. The ‘love’ chapter is a noteworthy example in that it discusses numerous attributes that might have been attributed to male/female but aren’t, at all.

Respectfully,
Truthseeker

When we bring biological differences into the discussion in ways that the bible does not, are we not treading dangerous ground? Isn’t this the same ground the comps have tread and used to justify their beliefs? They claim a relationship between Eve and subsequently all women’s particular ‘sinful inclinations’, ie prone to be deceived, based on women’s biology or ‘uniqueness’. I see no basis for their discussion or claim in the bible. Do we now resurrect claims based on biology for egal. purposes? I think we have to be very, very careful if we do. Just a thought. What’s fair for the goose has to be fair for the gander sometimes.

I have to agree with Lin on this one. I can assure you, having ongoing firsthand access to comp thought, that women’s so-called emotional proclivity IS used as an argument against their ability to be in ‘leadership’ positions!!!! I am not referring to just one comp’s thoughts, either.

I also agree that we would have a hard time proving that it ISN”T culture/environment/….that effectively shape or influence how we feel about ourselves as male or female. When a male or female goes against the grain of standard cultural thought in terms of characteristics, they are definitely viewed as outside the box in an eyebrow-raising way. I have known both males and females who seem to defy the stereotypes of gender ‘behavior’ and characteristics, and they were/are very definitely NOT self-proclaiming or practicing homosexuals nor did they have a rebellious spirit. (The two most common accusations when these sorts of people are encountered.)

I can assure you I feel little lack for love in my marriage (to a comp) yet as a woman I do feel a huge lack of respect for who I am in Christ when in the company of comps-including, respectfully though sadly, the spouse.

Cheryl, thanks for pointing out the ‘understanding’ aspect. That is true, and I had forgotten about that.

Cheryl, its nice to have you back in the fray. 🙂

I, too, agree that respect is something women like/need as much as men. No doubt there are both men and women to be found who need less respect and some who may feel a need for more, if we could measure such things, and it may be a function of other factors as well. Some folk seem to take much heat with little wilting. Others wilt quickly. (heat being disrespect here)

Likewise, women have often been characterized as wanting/needing security to men’s wanting/needing respect. Again, I think these are general desires of humans. I think it is interesting to note that the ‘love’ chapter in the bible does not differentiate between male and female in its address. We are all to do these ‘love’ things and we all apparently need to receive love in these various forms from one another. Similarly, nearly all the directives in the NT about how we are to live and to treat one another are not directed to specific genders. Nowhere does the bible say anything like ‘women need…’ or ‘men need ….’ The closest possibility is the comment about women being the weaker vessel, yet there is still no mention of them always ‘needing’ a particular thing because of this.

Kim and Lin, thanks for sharing those encouraging stories!!!

Paula, yes, I do see what you are saying and it does make sense because we know saved husbands wouldn’t need the witness. I guess it is the ‘if’ wording that seems awkward somehow since it seems to address a dual audience of wives married to non-believers and wives married to believers simply by virtue of the ‘if’. No doubt the conduct of other wives (including those of believing husbands) has an impact on the unbelieving husbands who may be observing all of this wifely behavior.

In 1 Peter 3:1, ‘so that if any of them….’ I understand this to mean that some of the women are married to unbelievers, though not all. The ‘if any’ seems to suggest to me that some might not be unsaved husbands.

Yes, and Paula, the explanation or translation you give for ‘she shall be saved through the childbearing if they continue….’ makes more sense than anything I have ever read. She cannot logically be Eve, the ‘saved’ cannot mean original salvation, so childbirth taking the meaning of ‘being raised up in the faith’ makes the most sense. This woman needs to be trained up in the faith and teachings of Christ. I am surprised that so many scholars, even egal. ones, see this as referring to salvation in Christ, and oftentimes referring to Eve, who at the time of the writing couldn’t still be waiting for her salvation connected to Christ’s birth.

Rejoice, I believe you and I understand! How do you explain the feeling of degradation such male rule teaching-even in its ‘mildest’ form-produces? I am told by some comps-even a woman once-that it is incredible that a woman wouldn’t love the position of being treated like a queen-protected and honored (though in a limited role-my addition).

51-quite true, gengwall, and I should not have been so hasty to suggest painting with a broad brush. I, too, had in mind more the subset of strict, conservative, patriarchal marriages and churches. And admit, as well, that I have no stats to back up anything.

gengwall-thanks for the helpful and great response! I don’t know why I never thought to look to the lion’s mouth (kjv translators’ comments) for such a terrific comeback! there it is!!!

I am glad, too, that the original wasn’t written for a ph.d only audience. Nor did most of the audience have one in their back pocket.

By the way, I get a huge kick out of the expression on Dogberry’s face on your site as well as his words. Perfect.

so, gengwall, out of curiosity, which bible do you recommend to new believers? Or, if several, which, and how do you explain the multiples to them? I have been asked by my comp why I can’t recommend just one bible. I am then accused of looking for versions that tickle my ear, that support what I want to believe. When I explain that all current versions are translations, and therefore not inerrant, and that I look for ones that are the closest to what I understand the originals to be saying, I am met with: ‘well, you are no Greek or Hebrew scholar(which is true), so how much can you know about what the translations in the original languages mean anyway? And if I mention reading what other legitimate scholars have written, based on their studies, I am met with the tickling ear accusation since scholars can be found on both sides of the argument (comp/egal argument).

It always makes me feel like my license to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ has just been ripped from my hands and stomped to pieces on the ground in front of me. And never mind that the stomper has chosen to listen to those in authority over him, Sunday after Sunday, and I can assure you THEY weren’t there when Jesus and the apostles and Paul walked and talked on this green earth. Cain’t win fer losin’.
(spell-check hated that last phrase. 🙂

Cheryl, somewhere recently on your site, you mentioned you might need to address the issue of ‘head’ within marriages in more depth. I think that would be extremely valuable since I have encountered-in my church search-a number of pastors who espouse egalitarian views of women in ministry but still cling to ‘man as king’ or leader-head within the marriage. They more typically have a definition of ‘man as head at home’ that can be summed up as ‘chief rubber stamper of big decisions’ but it is still oppression and still, I believe, from examining things, unbiblical. It still forces women to be spiritual and relational thumbsuckers-albeit the biggest and oldest thumbsuckers-in their marriage/family.

Dave Warnock raises another hot button question which I have wondered about, and that is how much influence does comp teaching have on the fact that so many men within their congregations struggle with sexual sins. I have know a good number of secular men who have no problem maintaining purity within their marriages. Yep, that’s right. Downright ‘pagans’ who aren’t flooded with ill passions. Is it, as Dave suggested, because they aren’t trying to force their women into such disrespectful ‘roles’ or positions as semi-mindless beings?

Lin, #40, that is amazing, isn’t it? The women are the biggest consumers of comp goods. That is like frogs adding firewood to the fire under their own kettle. This begs the question: why do women do it?

Paula, that’s it! 🙂 I did go read what Dave wrote on his site (per #42-thanks Stickler!) and he makes very good points. Your point about the fact that what one believes on the issue of patriarchy is not something to just give a passing nod to is right on. Comps often do say that we should be happy they are bringing new converts into the kingdom, etc., so why all the fuss about what they teach about compism. I have heard that first hand from church members. Yet, as you and Dave pointed out, this particular teaching, if false, has huge ramifications, and as you pointed out, if one is choosing or teaching the kind of submission that comps teach, is it not promoting the sin of wrongful allegiance to a lord other than Christ? Our spouses and church elders are not to be our lords. Therefore, if it is actual false teaching and sinful, it DOES need to be addressed and is NO light matter. After all, we certainly see Paul in the N.T. getting serious about false teaching.

What people are being converted to is a serious matter. And may well include ‘lesser doctrines’ such as patriarchy that may be tucked in the saddle bags. If they are so unimportant, then why does it become a big deal when someone chooses to question the patriarchal belief or practices within a comp church? It’s like stomping on the ground next to an ant hill. The little ants don’t just stay underground, calmly knitting sweaters or whatever they do under there. No, they come RUNNING!

gengwall, #38, in my short time in a comp church, and still married to one, I saw in the church more teaching from the pulpit (read ‘pulpit’ here with a Forrest Gump accent. It does the word justice.) about men being good leaders. I think women get their instruction more from a swift kick to the shins under the table. One woman, a lady in her early seventies, and part of the senior group, shared with me that she had written a piece about the function and purpose that the elderly can fulfill in the church. She had hoped to share (not preach) it at their next gathering. An official male elder to whom she innocently revealed her plan, asked her to have her husband share it. Though she told me she didn’t want at all to be divisive, she was nonetheless puzzled since God had given her the idea, not her husband. I understand it was never read, BTW.

At this particular church, women-only classes focused on teaching women their proper place. Dutiful wives of elders were the only women allowed to teach these classes.

Lin and Paula, I had to be gone for a few hours and it looks like I missed your fun!! LOL #s 30-34!!! Lin, those answers make me nuts, too. Yes, we are having much-needed fun, but it is precisely these glaring inconsistencies that are at the heart of the impossibility of the practical working out of what comps teach. Comps don’t even agree on what is included in roles and prohibitions so if that doesn’t prove that the basis for their teaching is as clear as mud, I don’t know what does!

What I think is that there is a prime opportunity here for a DVD spoof, albeit with as much respectful humor as is feasible, that reveals the utter impossibility of ever implementing comp teaching.

Isn’t it an absolute Howell to try to imagine how one would influence a husband to drive correctly without teaching them?! What do we do, stage an incident wherein we experience a timely and strategic sway or fall upon the targeted arm of said errant husband thus importuning him to turn in the correct direction?!!!! Or, perhaps it would be allowable if we adopted a deep voice for the above-mentioned instructional-yet-non-instructional goal.

It is just insane. A case of the Emperor’s new clothes.

Paula, that is great!!!! Oh, to be able to storm the comp camps and raise ‘howl’ in the name of truth to set the captives free!

Lin, #22, I have asked those very questions of and posed the same scenarios for comps and all I am told is that God is the one who established roles and rules, so even if they don’t make sense, we abide by them because God said so. I agree, though. If women are such stupid contaminants, why let them loose with the children when they are in their putty stage? And why on earth have give the power to teach to the wolf-natured men?! Oh, howl me a cry of foul!!!!!!