Frank

Well, it seems the discussion with Mark has gone to quite some length. And I’m sorry got to it much later than Lin did; I wish I could have commented on some of these points myself. But I think everyone–Dave, Kay, Gengwall, Pinklight, etc.–gave some good responses and challenges to his assumptions about roles being rooted in and determined by one’s maleness or femaleness, and his unwarranted insistance that kephale could only mean “authority over” in 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5. So the observations and comments I now make will be brief.
1. Lin, in comment #8, you mentioned a dispute among comp scholars as to whether or not Adam was with Eve though whole temptation or not. Well, I checked the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English OT, the NIV, the NAB, and the NLT. All confirmed that Adam was there the whole time, allowed Satan to convince her that eating the fruit would make them both wise, and then took the fruit ate it, without ever rebuking, or even questioning, either Eve or Satan.
2. The insistence that kephale in 1 Cor 11:3 must mean “authority over” and not “source” so as to weigh an argument in one’s favor against his opponent’s is not something new. For it was used by the Arians to argue that since the man was in “authority over” the woman, because he was superior in being and function; therefore, since the Father was in “authority over” the Son, he was superior and the Son was inferior. And of course, Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, Cyril , and others argued against this heretical understanding of the Father-Son and man-woman relationships. A destable heresy, I might add, that Wayne Grudem promotes in order to have a theological ground for the permanent subordination of women, while gutting the heart of the Gospel in the process. And so Dave, I have a far lower opinion of Prof. Grudem than you do for this very reason.

Well, I think that is all I wish to say on this posting. As I have already said, I think you all did a fine job in both responding to and challenging Mark.