Michael Terran

Hello all, I pulled this off of a blogsite and this is what “Gerald” posted. My throughs are this, The Husband is NOT Christ, we are ALL too follow Christ example. Second he is using 1 Peter 3:7 out of context, God did not make the woman (EVE) with defects, because with evil things God CANNOT be tried! I think what Peter is saying hear is that (And I’m also taking into account All of scripture and History etc) That the woman has a double disaveraged because of the fall. #1 she now has a sin nature and #2 Man will rule over her! The bigger picking on the smaller! We also see that with other men too. I was very short/small in 8th grade 4’8! Yes I was picked on because of that. Now I’m about 5’6 (Smiling).

I think what Peter is saying in that account, that it’s up to the Man or Husband to make sure that the Woman or wife has a equal share in ALL things and to make sure these sinful attiudes do not rule!

Second, in my mind, the complimentarian logic is grounded much more solidly in the Christ/Church relationship, than in the God/Christ relationship. Ephesians 5:21-33 pretty clearly draws a parallel between the husband/wife relationship and Christ/Church relationship. Paul’s whole logic of how the husband and wife should treat the other is clearly patterned after the way that Christ and the Church relate to each other. Whatever one might conclude about the economic equality of God and Christ, there is certainly some measure of economic inequality between Christ and the Church.

The reason why the complementarian logic applies most immediately in the home and in the church (besides the fact that we think Scripture teaches it) is because both of these communities more closely reflect the final escatological community. The mandate of love and respect within the husband/wife relationship need not be extended to all male/female relationship because not all male/female relationship reflect the relationship between Christ and his Church.

Third, I think that the disparity of physical strength between men and women is not without significance. I’ve written about that elsewhere (search 1 Peter 3:7 under the “complementarian tag” on my blog if you’re interested). God chose to make the woman physically vulnerable before the man. It is this very brute and basic fact that accounts for so much of the way women and men have related throughout human history, both good and bad. I would add the general observation that the vulnerable by nature of their vulnerability, tend to follow those to whom they are vulnerable, particularly if the one in the less vulnerable position treats them with love, dignity and respect. The egalitarian nature of our western legal codes, along with modern technological advancements, has made the vulnerability of the woman less, and therefore the woman has less of a need to depend upon/follow the man. But in most cultures throughout history, the egalitarian mindset just wasn’t possible–even if both men and women had wanted it. Too much in life required physical strength (war, hunting, building, etc.), thus putting the woman in a place of deference before the man.