I finally finished this response to John Starke’s article instead of commenting on the preceding posts. I hope you will forgive me. Time is at a premium right now for me. We leave tomorrow to meet with some of our US Board of Directors and in the travels I will be away from the internet for the next few days on and off. Go ahead and post away your comments and I will try to catch up as I can. 🙂

I should also add that by saying to women “you are not alone”, I mean that we are here for them. I don’t mean that my husband is a fool like Nabal. In fact my husband is a godly man who I dearly love. We work well together because we have great love and respect for each other. I sure wish that I could get him to post here, but he feels that the ministry he has keeps him so busy that if he started here he would be distracted from the things that God has called him to.

Cheryl: I can certainly understand your husband’s position if he places as much effort as you do within his ministry. I’m sure his beam of pride towards his wife’s work is enough for him right now. lol I’m sure he has beam of pride going in the other direction as well (you)!

I truly have to wonder if these men understand how stifling their instructions sound to others.

I’m sure those that believe all this stuff truly don’t give that a thought, but those with a open heart have to feel it. It seems to me these men want to gobble up all the Glory for God to give to him personally. I mean women are for their ‘glory’, and men are for God’s ‘glory’. How much easier do the men have it if that was so?

Men (or humans in general) do not have a heart like God, and at times can never be satisfied with what they have. They may not even see the honor they are being handed, and those acts out of love given to them. God sees this, and yet according to their definition women need to be satisfied with what is given to them. They don’t see the women being robbed of anything.

Starke wrote: “Baxter recognizes the failures of husbands, since he was one himself, and there is no biblical expectations for women to follow their husbands in sin or submit to abuse. Yet, many may see the husband’s imperfections as an opportunity to exchange roles, as if he has lost his chance to lead.”

If “husband’s imperfections” are not sin(s) then what would they be? Lack of wisdom? Personal preferences?

Starke wrote:”What would cause a wife to rebel against the biblical mandate to follow the leadership of the husband? Baxter gives a few reasons:
Failure to believe God’s will is best. God’s design for the Christian family, which includes the structure of authority and submission, is best! God is wise and we, as sinners, need divine wisdom. He writes, “Who are you to assess God’s Word in a way different than his own qualifications.”

So, we are to believe that God’s Divine Wisdom is for wives to be in “joyful” submission to “the failures of husbands” and “the husband’s imperfections” ???

Again, what are these “failures of husbands” and “husband’s imperfections”?

Starke wrote: “When something other than God is the desire of the heart, it begins to desire more than the portion granted.”

Is it just me, or is this a nonsensical statement?

“In the last point, John Starke summarizes the need to “trust” in the leadership of the husband even if he is a “failure” because there is no provision by God for a woman to step outside of her “place” no matter what a husband does with his leadership:”

Is this what Sapphira did? :o)

Ah, no. And here’s their loop hole.
Saphira lied against the Holy Spirit. Her husband led her into sin, and she followed.
You can bring her up and they won’t bat an eye.
But this difficult Abigail character…
They just try to pretend she doesn’t exist.
Or worse, they say the blood of her husband is on her head because she commited the sin of independant thought, or something like that.

“Saphira lied against the Holy Spirit. Her husband led her into sin, and she followed.”

I thought she was to overlook his imperfections and failures. And how can she judge exactly what is sin since she only gets a portion granted from the man who professes to follow Christ? So, she is really stuck in a bad position. She is given less wisdom than her husband and has to overlook imperfections that her husband says are not outright sin because he has been granted full wisdom and knows best.

Always take their teaching to it’s final logical outcome and it never makes sense and will end up negating the rest of the Word.

You are right, though. Abigail must make them nuts.

“When something other than God is the desire of the heart, it begins to desire more than the portion granted. The sinful cravings of the heart are deceitful and can justify sin or can explain away divine instruction.”

Can’t hierarchical men see that they are describing themselves perfectly with these two sentences? Rather than seeking God they seek their own power and position, to be superior to and in authority over women. So the cravings of their hearts deceive them into justifying sinful domination and explaining away divine instruction.

really, it’s all just utter nonsense!

Cheryl,

Have you invited John Starke to respond. His blog is called John Ploughman. If you email me, I can give you his email and you can invite him to respond to your posts.

“And how can she judge exactly what is sin since she only gets a portion granted from the man who professes to follow Christ? So, she is really stuck in a bad position.”
Lin,
That really is a bad position for a Christian – since we’re told to “walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please”…..or maybe Gal.5:16-17 applies to ‘men’ only? But, what a paradox that would be – without it how would the wife know when she’s desiring against the Spirit for more than her “portion?”
….never mind – I just recalled that comps solve that by having the ‘wise’ husband tell her…hmmmm…Can anyone say, “Circular?” Can anyone say, “Usurping the Holy Spirit?”

I can’t help but laugh at the irony of the old testament – “wisdom” is a female.

“the old testament – “wisdom” is a female.”

“But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” 1 Cor. 1:27

So the full inheritance thing does not apply to married women. Would it apply if a woman stays single?

Kay, I agree. To follow a husband as they teach it, is to walk by the flesh and not the spirit. The husband actually takes the place of the Holy Spirit for the wife. it is grievous.

But this difficult Abigail character…
They just try to pretend she doesn’t exist.

Or they say, “She’s the exception that proves the rule,” like that is some great wise pronouncement. People who say this don’t understand what that saying means. To “prove” a rule, in older English, means to “test” the rule, it doesn’t mean it’s proof that the rule is correct, which makes no logical sense.

“Would it apply if a woman stays single?”
Lin,
You and I both know the answer should be “no,” but many hierarchists have recently been teaching that all women need “a spiritual covering.” So, now we have some teaching that daughters must stay under their father’s authority until they marry and transfer it to their husband’s. And the older single women are assigned “spiritual fathers” to watch over them.

“But this difficult Abigail character…
They just try to pretend she doesn’t exist.”

Along with Deborah, Huldah, Sheerah, the Prv.31 woman, Mary Magdalene…

…Esther, Rahab, Naomi, Phoebe, Priscila…

. . .Joanna, Susanna, Lydia, Mary, Chloe, Junia, the Elect Lady. . . .

…somehow I feel as though I started a chain reaction. 😉

Hey guys, thanks for the chain reaction to Kay’s comment 😉

12 Sue, I sent an email to John Starke to invite him here. Hopefully he will consider commenting regarding the reaction to his blog post.

Hi John,

I just wanted you to know that this conversation was going on. As you know, I have not yet been able to understand what you mean by “God’s design.”

John,

I also like Sue’s question on the issue of God’s “design” for women. Where in the creation account will be see a “design” that places a woman created to be a follower and created to be in submission and under the authority to a man?

John,

I would also like if you would comment about my response to your article regarding Abigail’s apparent going against the “leadership” of her husband and the commendation that she received from David for taking the righteous lead. How does this Scriptural example measure up to the mandate for the wife to “joyfully” submit to her imperfect husband’s lead that is “God’s design”?

John,

Thanks so much for offering to answer questions about your view.

If “husband’s imperfections” are not sin(s) then what would they be? Lack of wisdom? Personal preferences?

How can a wife judge exactly what is sin if she gets only a portion of the full wisdom granted to her husband?

I find it rather odd that apparently sometime during the wedding ceremony a woman loses a great deal of her Spiritual discernment and yet this mysterious process is nowhere referenced in Scripture.

Or do you hold that all unmarried female believers are given less of the Holy Spirit’s guidance? And if so, where do we find this in Scripture?

Thank you in advance for addressing these puzzling questions.

John wrote: “1- Let me be clear, women are not to follow men into sin. There are plenty of actions that men can do that forfeit their leadership – abuse, abandonment, adultery, etc.”

John,
One more question, I hope you don’t mind. The “abuse, abandonment, adultery” are clear to all of us, but what are all those very unclear (“etc.”) etceteras?
And where can a wife find them plainly listed in Scripture, so that with her limited portion of wisdom she can discern them?

“I also like Sue’s question on the issue of God’s “design” for women. Where in the creation account will be see a “design” that places a woman created to be a follower and created to be in submission and under the authority to a man?”

This is a big problem for them. For a long time it was taught that the fall was the “design” so to speak. Eve was blamed and that was that. Partriarchy was God’s design. As folks became more biblically astute and that would no longer fly because it was basically teaching that the sin of the fall is virtue for a women… they changed it to created order being the design. Nevermind that patriarchy is one of the sins resulting from the fall and no where do we see God saying that one flesh union is NOT really a one flesh union. But there is one flesh in that union gets a bigger portion of something in order to be the boss…portion of what we do not know. It seems to thought it has to do with simply being born male.

But seriously, wouldn’t it be grand to be able to tell folks it is their Christian duty to overlook your imperfections so you could just go on being whatever sort of jerk you want to be? Actually, it is not grand at all but a HUGE sin trap.

“One more question, I hope you don’t mind. The “abuse, abandonment, adultery” are clear to all of us, but what are all those very unclear (”etc.”) etceteras?
And where can a wife find them plainly listed in Scripture, so that with her limited portion of wisdom she can discern them?”

Sort of like, Honey don’t worry your pretty head about how I spend the money or do the taxes. It is your job just to go along with what I decide.

My dad used to flip out at the widows at church who had no clue how much insurance they had or even where the policies were! And of course, back then the bank accounts were frozen for a time even against the wife! Victims of sinful patriarchal marriages.

Starke: “For Baxter, the husband is responsible for the normal teaching and instruction in godliness.”

What are we then to make of Timothy, whose father was a Greek? Paul wrote that “the geniune faith that is in you (Timothy), which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice.” Not a mention of faith being shared with Timothy’s father. In fact, during that time period it was known that grandmothers would carry out the religious instruction in the absence of Jewish fathers.

Is abnormal teaching and instruction in godliness sin?

Unfortunately it appears that John Starke will not be answering the questions we have. I have tried to engage CBMW since 2006 and silence is the only answer of preference for them. It makes me wonder why they have set themselves up as the go-to place for complementarianism (they even coined this term) when they are unwilling or unable to answer the hard questions.

I believe that if one has the truth, that truth is open for rigorous testing by God’s word.

I read his second article to men.

It seems to me they clearly don’t have a clue what to do about the apathy he speaks about in his article, and that could be why they don’t answer the questions.

The model they speak of will work for people if they approach it in the proper attitude, but when apathy is used instead I don’t think they have figured out the proper approach to it yet.

When you state for women: If it is God’s design, then women need to find their joy and contentment in that design and not rebel against it.

Then mention the apathy towards God’s design towards men, and then state: “Those husbands that despise the word of God and live in willful ignorance do not only despise their own souls, but their families also.”

You need to have a different approach to that problem besides: it is God’s design, then women need to find their joy and contentment in that design and not rebel against it. Why? I would assume that the man’s apathy hinders their joy and contentment in the design, and they are clearly rebelling against it.

Banging the roles and the design is all fine and good, but where is the bang towards the apathy? When you spend to much effort towards asking a person to find their joy and contentment in their role, and basically ignoring the apathy that is clearly present in the home? It basically enables it to continue, and you can’t find to much joy in a design that is clearly not present unless you use denial.

We need to find solutions to the apathy, and I would hope that issue wouldn’t be placed squarely on feminism as well. To me at times? That is used as a scapegoat for not wanting to truly LOOK at something squarely in the eyes. Its an easy out, and blame shifting isn’t going to help one darn bit.

“If it is God’s design, then women need to find their joy and contentment in that design and not rebel against it.”

The big word in that sentence is ‘if’. Is it really God’s design, or is it the traditions of men?

“Unfortunately it appears that John Starke will not be answering the questions we have. I have tried to engage CBMW since 2006 and silence is the only answer of preference for them.”

‘Hit and run’ does seem to be their usual modus operandi. (Mark the Aussie comp. excepted)

It doesn’t even make sense that they will not try to help us see the error of our way…unless, of course, they have no answers to back their teaching. 😉

“Unfortunately it appears that John Starke will not be answering the questions we have. I have tried to engage CBMW since 2006 and silence is the only answer of preference for them.”

That is unfortunate. It would be great to hear “from the horse’s mouth” the answers to the many questions posed here. I often wonder how well they actually know you, Cheryl? Do they know this blog and your positions well, or was John’s brief comment (really, just a position statement) rendered in ignorance of what goes on here? The “hit and run” as some put it, indicates to me that either John is being simply patronizing or he somehow believes this blog is something different than it really is. What I mena is, I don’t know if he believes he will get a fair hearing here. Anyone who researched this blog would know that the majority of what goes on here is objective and fair minded debate, but a person who maybe only drops in and reads a comment or two may be under the impression that this is some feminist hate blog and conclude that they should not waste their time here.

John – if you ares till “lurking”, I can assure you of two things:

You will encounter many men here as well, so you are amongst brothers as well as sisters;
The people here are not radicals but are serious minded fellow believers who have serious and well thought out questions to ask and serious and well thought out responses to complementarian positions.

So, John, if you were just being patronizing, shame on you (maybe that is one of those “imperfection” you reference). On the other hand, if you are simply worried you would be wasting your time in a feminist buzz saw, have no fear!

Starke wrote:”Let me be straightforward. I don’t know how much time I am able to interact with these comments. I’m glad Sue offered you my contact info, in order that I may respond to some of these”

Time and time again comps seem to be too busy for answering questions or helping wayward wandering brothers and sisters in the Faith. This just baffles me. Aren’t we supposed to be reaching out to those wandering from the fold.
“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?”

gengwall,
I have interacted with John on other blogs but he never stuck around very long on those sites. I thought it might be different on my own blog. Sigh!

It is still my view that if you have the truth it is worth defending. If you don’t have the truth, it is worth listening to the other side so that one may have the opportunity for giving up error and submitting to the truth of God’s word.

For some reason many comps will not defend their view or really listen to what the other side is saying. Some comps will take the opportunity to do a “hit and run” and their apologetic stand consists only of slandering the opposition calling them heretics and sinners. We had a few of these on this blog and a couple of them I have on permanent moderation because of their slanderous attacks against Christians. They no longer come here to post because they only want their foul comments to be seen publicly. Since I want this blog to be about a respectful attitude, I don’t let their unseemly comments through and since they refuse to show any kind of respect to other Christians who disagree with their comp view, they don’t care to interact. I do not believe that this kind of conduct shows any kind of “good fruit” for their side.

I was hoping that John would be one of the more respectful ones who did care to interact and defend his views. I am not saying that he isn’t respectful. However he just isn’t into answering the hard questions. He works for CBMW so I guess this shouldn’t be a surprise. They won’t engage regarding the hard questions coming from people who request them to prove their position from the Bible.

Cheryl – “I was hoping that John would be one of the more respectful ones who did care to interact and defend his views. I am not saying that he isn’t respectful. However he just isn’t into answering the hard questions. He works for CBMW so I guess this shouldn’t be a surprise. They won’t engage regarding the hard questions coming from people who request them to prove their position from the Bible.”

Which brings me to my conclusion. Either John had no intention of interacting here, which makes his post quite disingenuous and patrinizing, or he had a notion to interact but has changed his mind. I certainly hope it is the latter, as the former would not be very “Christian” of him. But if it is the latter, I would hope we could change his mind back by showing him that a) he has nothing to fear from the participants here, and b) it would not by any means be a waste of his time, as you so clearly point out.

gengwall,
Yes, indeed I do hope he changes his mind. While the comments are passionate on this blog, I think that those who comment here have actually been grateful for comps who come by to dialog. They have been treated as brothers in Christ. This is an in-house debate, not a debate between true Christians and cultists.

Kay,

Time and time again comps seem to be too busy for answering questions or helping wayward wandering brothers and sisters in the Faith. This just baffles me. Aren’t we supposed to be reaching out to those wandering from the fold.

I have to admit that I am baffled too. I am especially baffled because I took the time and effort to contact complementarians and invite them to interact with me regarding my research and my exegesis on the hard passages. Why they are unable to even show me my errors, yet they can still hold to the complementarian view so strongly absolutely amazes me. It doesn’t make sense to me.

“I took the time and effort to contact complementarians and invite them to interact with me regarding my research and my exegesis on the hard passages”

I will offer a humble observation. The Mike Seaver style of interaction is probably the best within this forum for a meaningful discussion. (It is indeed a shame Mike did not follow through to the end) But the regular “style” of dialog in the blog is not conducive to an effective debate. It is true that Mark held tough for a long time. But even he and the topics pursued with him have faded under the inevitable progress of a popular blog. Again, my hope is that John Starke was good willed in his brief post. If so, then I have no choice but to see his subsequent absence as reluctance to get into a stream of commentary which is both too deep and too wide for him to swim against. Unfortunately, I also sense that he and others at CBMW have no interest in the Mike Seaver style Q&A either. It may just be that WIM is just too intimidating for them regardless of the style of forum.

gengwall,
I really like the men’s insight here on this blog. It is very helpful and encouraging to me.

I did offer to give Mike a review copy of WIM, but he did not take me up on my offer. If I could give my take on why he wasn’t interested in seeing the full argument with multi-media? I think it was because he could not afford to be persuaded and my DVDs have been said to be very persuasive. Mike is a really nice guy in a very comfortable place. If he entertained a view that was logically persuasive from the Scriptures, then he would have to remove himself from his position in a church where the comp view is not just the accepted view, but the required view for pastors. Sometimes it seems better to some to remain happy and ignorant, then to risk having the blinders taken off and having their whole world turned upside down.

That is my take anyway.