“…one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of
view that I have ever heard.[Read the full post here, comments section is long, but certainly interesting, including many female complementarians voicing disagreement with Burk and Ware].
“And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat
to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways
men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become
passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as
men in their homes and in churches…”
Commenting on selected passages from the first three chapters of Genesis, Ware said Eve’s curse in the Garden of Eden meant “her desire will be to have her way” instead of her obeying her husband, “because she’s a sinner.” [quoted from the Ethics Daily
article, here].
Ware also touched on a verse from First Timothy saying that women “shall be saved in childbearing,” by noting that the word translated as “saved” always refers to eternal salvation.“It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God’s ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as–for the most part, generally this is true–as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man’s position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men,” Ware said. “Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God’s design for her as a woman.”
For women, interpreting I Timothy 2:15 in the manner Ware describes (apart from
the full context of the verse, even withstanding previous complemenarian
teachings) argues that God mediates salvation to women differently, through
certain works in combination with faith.
In Closing
That Ware spoke at a large much-lauded conservative church is troubling. That he is praised for “rightly and clearly representing complementarian doctrine” is more troubling. I will admit, after wading through all of these posts, to sitting here with a heavy heart. If this is not an adequate representation of complementarian doctrine for you, and if you live in circles where Ware is considered an authoritative leader, please make your voice heard.
From my exposure to Sydney Evangelical/Anglican teaching, I don’t think they’d agree with Ware’s comments on a womens salvation. That said, CBMW is highly popular here.
I have been following Ware, Moore and Grudem for a while now. This does not really surprise me because they have steered toward Patriarchy for some time now. But what DOES surprise me is lack of serious analysis from many who should know better. The young preacher guys and seminary students are jumping on this bandwagon with glee. Not questioning a thing. They admire these men with titles.
This is false teaching pure and simple. Now, they and their supporters will insist all day long that is NOT what they are teaching. But, it is. No matter how they spin the ’saved’ in Childbirth teaching is teaching a WORK for salvation.
It is mind boggling this is coming from an Southern Baptist Seminary professor. The same denomination that proclaimed Jesus as the narrow gate and priesthood of believer our battle cry against those who would lord it over.
And he did imply that unsubmissive wives were in sin and this could trigger abuse. he did say the abuse was sin but that begs the question. he is equating unsubmissivness as a sin AND trigger for abuse.
That is a crock. Who gets to decide what is unsubmissive? The abusive husband since he is the ‘head’. And we all know an abuser needs no specific trigger…anything will do.
What is sad is that there could very well have been abusers in that audience. Baptist churches now seem to be a safe place for them and sexual predators with a title.
These teachers have gone over the cliff with this issue of gender. I agree with one commenter who said this issue has become an idol. They need to be rebuked and this false teaching must be denounced from the roof tops.
” this issue has become an idol. They need to be rebuked and this false teaching must be denounced from the roof tops.”
I agree.
Jesus didn’t say “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and embrace your gender roles, and be saved”.
Mr. Ware should be aware that if he upholds a man’s higher responsibility for the sin that happened in the garden as an argument for man’s boss-ship, he should uphold a man’s greater responsibility for the sin that happens in the home. He conveniently forgets how Adam blamed Eve, something that he seems to justify in his sermon. A man can keep blaming his wife for his sin.
I don’t find any place in the Bible where men are instructed to exercise leadership or headship. Wives are instructed directly to respect their husbands as heads, to submit and so on, even complementarian teachers will usually see that submission should never be imposed on a wife. She gives it freely. A husband is to love as Christ did. Did Christ wait until we submitted to love us? No. We love him because he loved us.
These teachers are so caught up in their hunger for power over women that they forget what Jesus did.
They should be sent to Philippians 2 to get an idea of what Christlikeness looks like, then they can come back and claim their position as Christ in the marriage.
I noticed that, in listening to this sermon, the majority of it was about the woman’s place. Its amazing to me how much time is spent telling women what we can and cannot do.
I’m not sure where I stand in all this, but I can say that I was more then shocked by Ware’s words on childbearing and spousal abuse.
-Cally
“This is false taching pure and simple.” –Ditto.
I said it in an earlier response (about “he who pisseth against the wall” sermon) There are “nuts” all over the place–even in high places. (I’ve been considered a bit nutty too).
Seems to me, that we are witnessing the emergence of one of those historical, negative shifts in Christianity. . . Comp-a-la-extreme.
The Comps I’ve heard here sound like Sam C . . .not lockstep with the whole extreme shift.
Just because this “dude” is vocal and has unquestioned access to a mike, doesn’t make him the voice of comp. Movie stars get “the mike” all the time and whatever group represented by their current “awakening” usually cringe. (there may be Quakers cringing over my expressed opinions).
I repeat the question. . . are we looking for “worst case” scenarios or a way to come to a general consensus among the majority of Christians. . . in time these “fruit loops” wear out their graces in public–think Jim Baker, Rush Limbaugh, etc. This Ware guy will become a caricature of himself eventually. . . .natural outcome of such hubris.
I’m far more concerned with the average folk (like I’ve heard here) finding a way to keep a modest ecumenical dialogue rolling. Is the purpose of the post to enhance that dialogue or to “prove how bad those awful comps can be”?
Hubby and I recently left a So Bap church. God led us to a Nazarene church where we’ve been serving for several years now. I teach adults, men and women. I direct the choir and lead worship.
The only time I have to be even aware that this brouhaha is going on is when I deliberately put myself in its path. Thank the Lord!
Is the purpose of the post to enhance that dialogue or to “prove how bad those awful comps can be”?
Merryquaker,
Um, ouch.
My experience sounds a lot different than yours, but my circles have had a lot of this sort of stuff. A lot.
The church my husband worked for (as youth/music guy) was BIG into CBMW. In fact, that’s why I only led music once in my husband’s absence, despite the fact that I really enjoy leading music and do a good job at it (which sounds a little bold or prideful, but I’m trying to make the point that I was very qualified to do it, but because I was FEMALE, I was unqualified).
The biggest church in my entire surrounding area is also BIG TIME hand-in-hand with CBMW’s teachings. This is not some fringe thing.
That is what really concerns me with Ware—-that Ware is not a of the “fringe nuts.”
He’s a guest speaker at John Piper’s church (big name in conservative circles), he’s a contributor at CBMW (big name in conservative circles)as well as on their board, and Denton Bible is HUGE and it’s pastor is very well known in conservative circles.
Point being, this is not some isolated fringe event. And Ware is speaking for all complementarians, as well as being backed and applauded by the big-name influential complementarians. Which makes this not some odd fringe issue that is inappropriate for discussion.
As to the sort of complementarians we have here, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate them.
They have warmed my heart many times.
The church my husband worked for (as youth/music guy) was BIG into CBMW. In fact, that’s why I only led music once in my husband’s absence, despite the fact that I really enjoy leading music and do a good job at it (which sounds a little bold or prideful, but I’m trying to make the point that I was very qualified to do it, but because I was FEMALE, I was unqualified).
Argh. That came out all choppy. I was trying to say that when my husband would leave on trips, he would have to find a male to lead the music for that Sunday. Often, the males he found were sweet, but musically impaired.
There were plenty of women who would have done a great job, myself included, but leading the congregation in song was considered authority, and it was improper for a woman to have authority over the men in the congregation.
Now, running the nursery? Putting on VBS? A-OK. I did a lot of that…
How is leading in praise singing authority? LOL!
I think people need to concentrate more on how to serve God than to worry about what 10 reasons why men are the HEAD and AUTHORITY!
There is alot more scripture how men are to be serving, and their attitude etc.
I feel sorry for any woman listening to that sermon with her husband that has been abused in the past. “OKAY Honey he said it was a sin, but he also said you NOT submitting to me caused IT!”
Yuck!
Merryquaker,
This man, Bruce Ware, writes many of the official statements of the CBMW. All the writers of the CBMW say it the same way.
Wives are created from the first to be in an authority-submission relationship. If they do not submit, they are in sin, and the response will be either abuse or passivity on the part of the husband. That is why you have abuse and divorce, because women do not accept their role. This is the teaching.
Childbearing is salvific because it demonstrates the submission which saves a woman. So, its okay if you don’t actually have children, but you have to make a show of domesticity and submission to the male, to show respect and that you are a submissive assistant to male enterprise.
This is the teaching that infiltrated my former church and is now being taught to the young people there.
This is not an outlier of complementarianism. This man is on hand to write the most foundational statements of the CBMW.
There is a huge difference between complementarians as people, and the doctrine as it is taught by its organized promoters.
Molly, I have read all the comments to the article which you linked to and I cannot find all the “many female complementarians voicing disagreement with Burk and Ware”. A ’sleight’ exaggeration to say the least.
As Ellen pointed out in her comments, too much is being read into what Dr Ware said.
It seems to say more about the personal prejudices and blind spots of the other commentators than anything else.
Doubtless he could have worded it better (because of those wanting to practise eisegesis on his words), but even Suzanne admitted that Dr Ware in no way supports or advocates abuse in any form whatsoever under any circumstances.
Glenn,
I was referring to commenters Corrie, Bonnie, and others like them who do not consider themselves to be egalitarians. I know them through the internet as having said they believed in gender roles (though to a lesser extent than what Ware was talking about, to be sure), but you’re right, I dont’ think they necessarily claim to be complementarian on that thread and there’s no way you could have magically known that. Thanks for having me clarify.
I agree that Ware was not intentionally promoting abuse. But if there were abusers in that audience, or abused women, believe me, the damage was done.
Glenn, do you have any insight on why aren’t comps like yourself or Denny jumping on the “women saved by faith through acceptance of complementarian gender roles” part? This seems to be HUGELY important, out of everything else, on a theological/Christological level, in that it denies sola fide to women.
Nonetheless, what he teaches is doctrinally false and very damaging. It depends on adding words to the scripture.
Gen. 3:16 in the ESV,
6To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
(A) in pain you shall bring forth children.
(B) Your desire shall be for[a] your husband,
and he shall(C) rule over you.”
Footnotes:
1. Genesis 3:16 Or against
Note the addition of against. That is not in the Hebrew. Why has the ESV added to scripture?
The consequence of sin is identified as the wife doing something against her husband first, and, in response, he abuses her.
This is a very dangerous teaching.
And, yes, there were many women who call themselves “complementarian” who were protesting Ware’s teaching.
In fact, as I saw from Tim Challies site last year, most complementarian women do not agree that the male-female hierarchy was part of creation. So they don’t actually believe that women were created with the design of existing to fulfill the will of the male, as Ware teaches.
Challies wrote,
I have discussed this topic with several women and have been a little bit surprised by their reactions. It seems to me that women would be glad to know that the idea of submission precedes the fall. This shows us that the headship of the husband is not rooted in a punishment, and perhaps even an unfair punishment where woman was given the harsher penalty of having to submit, but is rooted in the very purpose and creation of mankind. Yet women have told me that they prefer to think that submission is a product of the Fall.
At least some complementarian women are protesting this teaching. Thank goodness. As I said, there is a wide gap between calling oneself complementarian and believing in complementarianism.
“this is not some isolated fringe event.”
I agree, it’s been going on for THOUSANDS of years. . . this is not NEW.
The point I make so very poorly, it seems, is that you can spend a huge amount of energy fighting the lie we’ve (humans) struggled with since the beginning. . . or take it as Christ said “tares among the wheat.”
Personnally, I’m more practical minded. It seems a lot more good could be made by putting lifeboats out and pulling folks from the ocean. . . rather than, say, try to raise the Titanic.
That being the case, the best able to address abuses (even in leadership) ARE the very flock. . . i.e. those very comps on this site who endure and repeat that the extreme is not their belief. . . it seems a no-brainer to be allies and bring together those who have a moderate and better understanding of comp principles.
Hardliners will always look for a preacher to stand up and justify the unjustifiable. . .and they tend to be very vocal and in-your-face. It is a distraction from the true work of Christians.
I must admit, I’ve previously daydreamed of publicly “taking down” a few of these straw men. . . there are some that just get my goat. . . however, this is pride on my part. It’s less grandiose pulling folk out of the ocean. . . but, in the long run, more real and useful.
Previous posts/response found that comp properly practiced is not so terribly unacceptable even to egals. In fact, practical application (from how I read things) seemed very similar.
Perhaps the reason comps are reluctant to stand up against the extremes among themselves is because they’re already terribly busy defending against “outside” attacks against even moderate practice.
Then we had better provide lifeboats. How are women supposed to get out. This is not presented to them as optional once they are married.
People need to be rescued from this teaching.
I will tell you the things that I overheard that were “lifeboats” for me. These are the things that I want to shout out for others to hear.
1. Submission to any kind of abuse and narcissism reinforces it.
2. The Bible does not tell a woman to obey her husband.
3. The marriage vow to obey your husband is wrong.
4. The Bible does not give a husband authority over his wife.
A woman must understand and believe these things to be able to make her own decisions and become a survivor and not a victim.
Not only the wives but the husbands also need to be released from authoritarian marriages.
” 1. Submission to any kind of abuse and narcissism reinforces it.
2. The Bible does not tell a woman to obey her husband.
3. The marriage vow to obey your husband is wrong.
4. The Bible does not give a husband authority over his wife.
A woman must understand and believe these things to be able to make her own decisions and become a survivor and not a victim.
Not only the wives but the husbands also need to be released from authoritarian marriages.”
Sue, that is so true!
We need pastors, in individual churches, teaching married couples these truths.
The problem is that if conservative Bible colleges teach the interpretation of Genesis 3:16 as a woman wanting to usurp authority and causing a man to rule over her, then it’s putting the blame on women, as you said.
Young wannabe-pastors will be learning that they should counsel abused wives to submit a bit more and the abuse will stop.
I went to a Bible college where this was taught. The guest lecturer, a senior pastor, lauded a woman who stayed in an abusive marriage saying that her reward was her husband’s salvation. (I believe he used the same story that Patterson likes to tell)
The young students absorbed his words as wisdom from an experienced pastor.
These young people graduated a year later. Many of them went into foreign missions and church work. One became the assistant pastor at a church on an underprivileged housing estate. He counseled a divorced woman, mother of 5 underage children, to go back to her drinking, wife beating, pornography addicted ex-husband.
Thankfully, he was under the supervision of a wiser, senior pastor. The senior pastor told him off for his counseling.
You just never know who is going to be absorbing these teachings and how they might decide to put them into practice. People like Bruce Ware need to be reminded that they are influential and this doesn’t mean “authority” but RESPONSIBILITY. They seem to forget that.
Molly,
Can you please explain what you mean by the photo?
Perhaps we could start teaching seminary students to think for themselves. . . search the scriptures to find what IS true, like the Bereans??
JK,
I added the photo because I was thinking that what Ware said went so deeply against the way that Jesus treated women. But I do see how my intention could be read the other way (a woman serving a man as her lord). I didn’t really think about the different options for interpreting the picture. Whoops! Thanks for asking.
Molly, I thought it was about putting on Jesus make up for men because of what Ware teaches.
)
Thanks Molly. There is interpreting to be done here. Interpreting completely the other way is really possible. Some of us (but probably not the seminary profs) do hear and see singer- actor Yvonne Elliman and Ted Neeley too.
I like your note, Merryquaker:
Perhaps we could start teaching seminary students to think for themselves. . . search the scriptures to find what IS true, like the Bereans??
I also like how Peter and John just couldn’t stop preaching the liberating Jesus (Acts 3 & 4); they’d seen him really free women, in actions and in teachings, from the choke-hold of the religious types. And that bloody assassination hadn’t kept him down. Lot’s of interpreting there. So Peter and John, after being thrown in jail a bit and threatened, said to the religious types,
“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you’ve got to interpret, but we can’t help but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
Just like Jesus did, Peter and John insisted on an interpretation, and let the oppressive religious types have their own.
Having taken classes and heard both lectures and sermons by Dr. Ware, I must say Molly is quite unfair. Although I have not listened to this sermon I am sure Ware us not teaching “salvation by works”. Ironically he (and other Calvinists) is often charged with the opposite criticism (viz. not requiring enough works).
Ware is expressing that our obedience to Scripture is a “demonstration” (his word) of our salvation (Jas 2:20; John 15:8). It is not a “contribution” to our salvation. Big difference. His interpretation of 1 Tim is a possible one for complamentarians (though certainly not the only one). Although clearly not salvific, one may argue similar language is used of other works (I.e. water baptism).
Is this all really that strange? A complamentarian is arguing that when a women rebels against her God given role and function in marriage (according to this interpretation) trouble results. The husband is affected by her sin (and vice versa). If unsubmissivness is a sin for a wife of course this would affect her husband. All relational sins within a marriage affect the other party. Likewise if a husband is not leading with the sacrificial love of Christ is wife is affected by his sin (according to Ware).
I am “not” (!) even advocating one view or another here. I am simply pleading for everyone to attempt to understand complamentarianism as a “package” doctrine. So do not (like Molly) presuppose and import egalitarian tenets onto complamentarians. That is utterly unfair and far from being evenhanded. Likewise it would be unfair for Ware to evaluate Molly position and trying to smuggle in complamentarian presuppositions that a priori rule out egalitarianism from consideration.
For Molly’s part she is assuming (without argument) that for a wife to be unsubmissive to her husband is not a sin. This is extreme question begging (assuming a conclusion in the premise) and cannot be presupposed of the complamentarian position. A better approach is to understand the package viewpoint of Ware and deconstruct is from there (like any theological matter).
My experience is that thinking for one’s self is strongly encouraged in seminary. However, keep in mind many denominational seminaries are required to toe-the-line as part of the their charter, so they have limited flexibility to what they can support (and this goes both for liberal and conservative traditions). While I recognize that there can be a fine line between education and indoctrination, I think (most?) seminaries do a very good job of teaching their students to come to their own conclusions despite an evangelical tendency towards anti-intellectualism and a bias against formal theological education.
Although I have not listened to this sermon I am sure Ware us not teaching “salvation by works”.
I truly hope not. But please note in his sermon where Ware explains that “saved” *must* refer to eternal salvation, not sanctification. That’s a pretty big deal. I admit to being really shocked about it myself, but then again, CBMW does teach that gender roles are an intricate *part* of the Gospel (not a side-aspect or an optional interpretational choice).
I thought that the CBMW handbook, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, did a much better job presenting the interpretational options from 1 Tim. 5:15 (Chapter 9, pg. 192, in my 1991 copy).
Of course if a person believes that comp gender roles are God’s ideal, they are going to say that obeying the comp gender roles are going to play a big part in the ongoing work of personal sanctification. That’s understandable. But Ware clearly emphasised that the verse was refering to “eternal salvation,” not personal sanctification. I truly cannot understand why there isn’t a demand among comps for a retraction.
For Molly’s part she is assuming (without argument) that for a wife to be unsubmissive to her husband is not a sin.
Well, my aplogies for not being clear enough, but that’s not what I believe.
I believe that submission is a Christian virtue, and that the Bible commands believers to submit one to another. What I disagree with is one-sided submission, as described by Ware, where on party is the submissive and the other party is the dominant, solely based on gender.
I truly do not want to misreprent Ware. What I do want to do is foster dialogue about what Ware authoratively taught was “Biblical” truth.
“For Molly’s part she is assuming (without argument) that for a wife to be unsubmissive to her husband is not a sin.”
Ware is teaching this as a one way street when scripture does not support that. Just a two verses earlier Paul teaches that believers are to submit to one another. This does not rule out believing husbands submitting to believing wives. There is so asterisk telling us *except husbands to wives.
Yet this is ignored and the teaching is set up that the husband is basically her earthly priest. Of course, they do not use those words but that is the logical outcome to all he teaches.
As to the 1 Timothy 2 childbearing issue…it is bizarre that this is even attempted to be interpreted as either a salvation or sanctification issue. That would still make it work…even if he (and others) can somehow make it into a ‘role’ that women should keep to. It causes women to focus on their earthly role following her husband at the cost of focusing on following Christ. They are both the poorer for it.
Childbearing in that passage is a noun. Paul is already talking about Eve being deceived just like the ‘woman’ (singular) in that passage who was teaching false doctrine. So Paul uses the analogy that because of the ‘childbearing’…referrring back to the seed that God told Eve about…she would be saved if ‘they’ (gune and aner) would perservere in…..”
BTW: Women do not have ‘roles’. A role is something you ‘play’ or ‘pretend’ to be. We are to be ‘In Christ’.
“This is extreme question begging (assuming a conclusion in the premise) and cannot be presupposed of the complamentarian position. A better approach is to understand the package viewpoint of Ware and deconstruct is from there (like any theological matter).”
I have to disagree. The better approach is to start with 1 Timothy 1 and go from there. Let’s get rid of our presuppositions and pray the the Holy Spirit will illuminate truth to us as we study deeply…in context.
” Trierr said…
My experience is that thinking for one’s self is strongly encouraged in seminary.”
That is heartening. That has not been my experience with some Baptist seminaries in the last few years as disagreement on some secondary issues labels one as a liberal or feminist. It is quite sad.
Many complementarians find the CBMW crowd a bit over the top.
We may agree with some of what they say, but we often find them rather abrasive, and too trigger-happy.
Don Carson is robustly complementarian, but had to withdraw from CBMW, partly because of unguarded comments made about versions such as the TNIV.
The two articles below in Christianity Today where the writers critique their own position are helpful for this debate.
Sarah Sumner’s critique of egalitarianism
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/28.41.html?start=1
and John Koessler’s http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/27.40.html of complementarianism are well worth pondering.
molly,
just a curious thought I had. . . if Ware teaches a woman’s salvation either through or in relation to her fulfillment of this archetypal “role” of womanhood. . . then, how does he handle variants, like say, women who choose lifelong celibacy (like nuns, or their equivalent) and how does he manage those scriptural references to eunuchs?? And, what about those women who are mentally retarded and unable to make decisions for themselves regarding adult marital type relationships–are their salvation impossible to a full extent. . .I’m sure you catch my drift. . . such hardline imposure does not allow much room for the vulnerable among us to reach this “salvation” expressed through works. In past times these vulnerable among us were “written off” as predestined (Calvinist) to be among the lost. Of course, that line of theology does not fit with the Christ I know.
“I believe that submission is a Christian virtue.”
Right on. Submission is a virtue and to be treated with reverence. Conversely, the lack of submission, or the dominion of one over another is rightly to be DISrespected. “Respect of tyrants is disobedience to God.” (paraphase of Ben Franklin, who was quoting Greek philosophers).
To those who insist on taking advantage of women or others who submit and therefore, create a dominant state for themselves at the expense of others, it is not only right, but good, proper, and even required by reverence itself, to oppose such an one.
However, submission as a virtue, requires unilateral action. To require a quid pro quo mutuality is to belie the nature of submission in and of itself and remove virtue from it, reducing it to the status of a mere social contract. For submission to be a virtue it must stand alone.
Therefore, we very well should and must oppose those who misuse the submission of our brothers and sisters, but, can not require that they submit before we practice this virtue. Can be very frustrating following this Christ, eh?
It seems that Ware is following, in some regards, a rather well known commentator from a few years back who said regarding 1 Tim 2:
“If women submit themselves willingly and patiently to that which God has commanded of them and which their state requires, it is an acceptable sacrifice to God, and the curse which was laid upon all women in Eve’s person is virtually obliterated, for God receives them into his favor and love.”
That is such a frightfully interesting tidbit in that, Genesis 3:14 clearly states (if the grammatical use of “thou” is properly translated in this inspired word of God). . . can either be utterly inclusive (serpent, earth, woman AND man) or entirely individual (serpent only). . . “thou” as an inclusive pronoun can not be used selectively as so often applied in this portion of scripture. . . .Ask ANY Amish.
Therefore, either selectively, the serpent is entirely held indivually and exclusively accountable for the entry of sin. . . OR, the entire grouping of individuals comprises the subset inclusively. . . that meaning those “curses” fall evenly upon ALL creation (MEN included). .
Unless, of course, there is an “error” in this “infallible” translation. . . grammar rules are grammar rules for a reason (as my Latin teacher used to scold us for sloppy, paraphase translations).
SoOooo then, what “sacrifice” must be offered by MEN to acheive this same “near salvation” that is offered to WOMEN via submission (read that, euphemism for enslavement) to dominant men?
OR, are men, by virtue of God providing no such alternative for them to “work out their salvation,” considered unable to be saved–predestined? to destruction??. . . .
You can not have it BOTH ways. . . this is what has “boiled the blood of women” for centuries. . .this insistent, childish irresponsibility on the part of men. . .their refusal to be held accountable for their behavior. . . that has fueled the anger, and rebellion, and yes, the male hatred. . . via women. . .
Reality check on Gen 3:16 (once again, grammar) suggests that an possible other interpretation for that (since punctuation is missing) is that a woman’s husband will desire her and that this desire will cause him to try to rule her (own her). .
I’ve taken psychology classes–that is fully supported by psych. research as an all too often reality. That would not make this a Command, so much as a warning and explanation to women. . . such as the rest of the text does for men.
And, I would further direct you to Revealation 12:1-17, which pretty succintly describes the REAL reason why men dominate women. . . once, they blamed their disobedience of God on woman (she gave me the fruit). . . now, they disobey full out at the direction of the serpent (Satan is not privy to which woman shall produce a prophet, a healer, a teacher, . . .therefore, he attacks all in precaution–whether this is literal or metaphorical, or both. . . )
This inequal “redemption” hurdle is nought but, sloppy, sloppy, sloppy error on the part of those who must not spend much time listening to the voice of light. . . it full well denies other scriptures that these same use to cover their spiritual heinies in pride. In that, I do most vocally and fully oppose.
However, I continue to submit (as to my Lord–in heaven), knowing, that He has already won and that this sloppy excuse will fully be exposed in due time. I pity those men who hold to such nonsense for temporary pleasures.
Merryquaker,
YOu say it very well
” this is what has “boiled the blood of women” for centuries. . .this insistent, childish irresponsibility on the part of men. . .their refusal to be held accountable for their behavior. . . that has fueled the anger, and rebellion, and yes, the male hatred. . . via women.”
It frustrates me no end when teachers ignore that women’s “insubordination” or “rebellion” has a cause. The law of cause and effect (if that’s a law!) doesn’t seem to apply to us.
Men are provoked by their wives’ desire to take control (or protect their dignity), and respond by either acquiescing, becoming abusive or (I’ll add a third negative response) passive-aggressively doing their thing anyway. But the woman is to blame for her failure to comply or acquiesce.
Women are provoked by their husbands’ lack of consideration or his selfishness (or his desire to be respected!), and they respond by rebelling, giving in, or giving the cold shoulder and passive-aggressively pursuing their own thing. The woman is to blame for her lack of submission.
It’s double standards.
Did anybody check out Ware’s claim about the word for salvation always referring to eternal salvation?
In truth, it is only the tense, voice, and mood of that word usage which refers to eternal salvation in the Greek (“shall be saved), in the other passages where that TVM is used. But the word — sozo, I think pronounced “sodzo,” with the long o, is used in a variety of tenses, voices, and moods in the NT, and not all of them refer to eternal salvation. And there are some TVMs that sometimes refer to eternal salvation, but in other passages these same TVMs of sozo refer to saving physical life, or something else.
So it is inaccurate for Ware to say that the word always refers to eternal salvation. Because the basic word sozo does not always refer to eternal salvation in the NT. But also because when you commit the fallacy of conflation your argument is invalid. The other contexts of where that specific TVM of sozo means eternal salvation doesn’t then give Ware the right to collapse the context and insert the meaning of eternal salvation back on the text he is attempting to exposit.
“Did anybody check out Ware’s claim about the word for salvation always referring to eternal salvation?”
Funny you ask this. This word is also used in Acts 27:31 when Paul is talking about being saved in a shipwreck.
It is hard to make the distinction in the verse in Timothy because this woman, as a false teacher, is in real trouble from deception. There is not works salvation. Or even works sanctification.
Paul would NEVER teach that one has to stay in a ‘role’ of works to be saved.
This could very well be a reference to her teaching her husband the false teaching of the Temple of Artemis where they believed that Eve was created first and that certain acts/gods would keep her safe when bearing children. (A lot of women died in childbirth)
Let’s face it. If one is saved unto the Lord, then one is “safe” in childbearing whether they die or not.
But we will never be saved or sanctified by having children. That is a lie from the pit of hell. Our transformation is NOT one of works that is outward only. It is inward and may or may not involve children.
If Ware’s interpretation is true, then how come many godly committed Christian women cannot bear children but drug addicts who could care less, can? It makes no sense. And this misinterpretation of this verse is cruel to such godly women who cannot bear children.
As an egal, I an very concerned that such as Ware’s teaching is even considered Christian by any sizeable group of believers. I pray that God will reveal Ware’s errors to him and others.
Molly,
I’m jumping in here, not having listened to the sermon, nor having read it, just to point out another option re. eternal salvation.
Salvation in the Bible is portrayed as justification, sanctification and glorification (I’m assuming you know what I mean). Therefore, when it was reported that Bruce Ware referred to “being saved” as “eternal salvation”, I immediately assumed he was referring to the sanctification part. Knowing a little about the different interpretive options put out by different people, my immediate assumption was that the was distinguishing his understanding from options such as:
- “being saved from death in childbirth”
- “being saved from deception”
- “being saved from [enter your own preference]“
I don’t think it’s necessary to insist Bruce Ware was referring to justification and so salvation by works.
To say that a man becomes abusive because his wife refuses to submit is sheer ignorance. The person in my life that became verbally and emotionally abusive did so because I would do anything to please them, including taking on their guilt. How much more “submissive” could I have gotten?