Paula

What responses have some of you to the belief that comps have shared with me that it is not about heirarchy but about separate though equal areas of responsibility, if you will? It seems to me that the man’s area, spiritually, always includes everything in a woman’s realm of reponsibility, but not vice versa per these comps. It is then pointed out that Christ was equal with God but submitted to Him while on earth, and this is supposed to pave the way for the equivalent submission teachings for women. (from Phillipians)

Truthseeker,

I was in a blog that went on for hundreds of posts about that very thing. But you point out the main issue: that no matter how terms are defined and tweaked, the bottom line is that men wind up with no restrictions and women have borders around their gifts, borders drawn by men and not God. And egals of course see this as intrinsically unequal, that is, hierarchial, while comps insist that “separate but equal” can be defined as “he orders, she obeys”. This seems to be the point of impasse.

But they step even farther over the line in drawing much more analogy from the Father/Son relationship than is warranted by scripture. When Paul spoke of the Christ/Church mystery relating to husband/wife in Eph. 5, the context tells us it was about unity and being “one flesh”, not about hierarchy at all.

And besides, Christ is the model for both men and women. His human submission to God was an example for everyone. But comp. wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want only men to relate to how Christ rules over the church, but only women to relate to how Christ submitted to the Father.