Here’s a question for everyone:
What role has Scripture had in shaping your views on gender issue? Does it, for instance, have a primary role or is it one of many different resources that you have used to view gender issues, such as observations of nature, study of history, study of gender treatment in different civilizations, logic, philosophy, psychology, etc.?
Wayne,
Scripture has always been the last grid any view about gender has to get through.
Examining history helps us see what may have been misunderstood in the past, and should lead us to review our beliefs.
Observations of nature usually lead me to see just how complex humans are, and how a vast number of people don’t measure up to gender stereotypes.
Studying culture (or living in different cultures) has helped me see how culturally biased some gender stereotypes really are.
Logic (with a good dose of Scripture) helps keep some balance.
All in all, Scripture has the final say. I’m finding that my God given common sense is leading me to understand (from God’s word) that God’s expectations of gender behavior are not that different after all.
What role does Scripture play for me on ANY issue?
For me, it is the canon, the way I measure any idea.
As a prot, I do not have a Magisterium that can answer my questions. Once a Magisterium is denied, this opens up a huge range of possibilities of being deceived, by which I mainly mean self-deceived. I am well aware I have a “ringmaster” in my mind that does its best to maintain the illusion that all is in control and going well.
I am charismatic, but how do I know that what I think it God’s voice actually is God’s voice? I compare it with God’s voice as revealed in Scripture, as God will not contradict God.
I believe in science, but how do I know the truths of science align with the truths of Scripture? Because God is the source of ALL truth according to the Bible and IS Truth with a capital T.
I am a member of a congregation and it traces its heritage to Pentecost and before. So I have a source of tradition to help me, but this tradition is always subordinate to Scripture; it is NOT big T Tradition and not on a par with Scripture.
I can use logic in my quest for truth, but I cannot treat Scripture like the axioms in Euclid’s Elements and derive math-like proofs. I need to learn to think more like a Hebrew and less like a Greek when reading most of Scripture, but this is a challenge as I have a very Greek upbringing.
My final grid is my relationship with God and I use Scripture as my canon to do my best to ensure I am not off into space, as I use Scripture to measure my walk.
So my short answer is I want to use Scripture as the primary measuring tool for my walk with God, people, and Creation. I am always learning more and want to be teachable.
Good question Wayne. For me I always just accepted what everyone else was saying regarding who/what I was supposed to be as a woman, until I met the Lord.
It was God and the Scriptures that set me free to be myself and step out of the boxes. I never really gave any thought to these things before that. When I realized that what had been taught me from my Catholic relatives was not what Scriptures really said, then I started reading in other venues: history, physiology, other cultures. But it is God’s Word that is the ultimate freeing power.
Christ came to set us free not put us under more bondage. Christ came to heal the wounded of which I was and deeply so. Although, I started out in the Shepherding Movement (of all places) and did my best to live within their beliefs, God and the Holy Spirit were there with God’s Word constantly pointing out to me the disparity of their view with Scripture.
P.S. God is convicting me of sounding pompous in my earlier post. I war with my flesh.
I want to believe that Scripture is primary, but sometimes that is just the correct answer to give, like on a test, and my practice falls short.
As a prot, I do not have a Magisterium that can answer my questions. Once a Magisterium is denied, this opens up a huge range of possibilities of being deceived,
Which is not to say that a Magisterium, or having one, ensures against the possibility of being deceived.
How has Scripture shaped my views on gender?
In all ways and in none.
In all ways because, as a believer and a Christ-follower, it informs my worldview.
In no ways because it is steeped in patriarchalism and has been used as an excuse to continue that sinful tradition.
I grew up, as did many, with a King James bible. What I learned is that I was the wrong sex. I have always read the Bible with a jaundiced eye. Always wondering if this means the same thing if I substitute “woman/sister/daughter” instead of “man/brother/son.” Wondering how ancient peoples came to the conclusion that brothers were capable of a deep sort of love (that we call “brotherly”) but women apparently were not.
And yet, I still use the scriptures as the blueprint for how to live my life. It’s just that this blueprint is old and written in a language that I apparently don’t speak.
Eric,
You need icon is so cute! (I just had to get that out of my system).
Don,
I didn’t think you sounded pompous. I thought you were trying to be thorough. But glad you came in and said what I’m sure we all understand. We all war w/the flesh.
BTW I’m charismatic to. I also know that I must compare what I think may be the leading of the Spirit with the Word.
Sometimes, when my spirit is grieved by a teaching, it drives me to the Word to measure what is being said.
It is Scripture which compels me to be a Complementarian. Both testaments so clearly articulate the view that God has given men and women different roles, in some situations, in the home and the church.
Having accepted the Scriptural teaching, I believe that everyday life shows that accepting God’s way that we read in his Word works to his glory when we follow his instructions.
And reading some of the experiences of others on this blog shows the tragic things that happen when we don’t conform to his design. [I'm referring to stories of abuse that have been shared here.]
David, I have also accepted Scriptural teaching.
It does not compel me to be comp.
It releases me to be egal.
I’ve been released from the curse of the law and released into a new and wonderful life.
We can compare notes, if you like.
But know that I believe that you study and continue to study scripture.
I hope you believe that I also study and continue to study scripture.
I won’t talk about abuse right now because I’m purposely backing off from that topic for the time being.
(No one told me to. It is a choice I’ve made myself.)
(coming out of lurking, hello everyone)
The two major factors for me in going egalitarian were the Bible and study of women’s roles in the early church. I struggled to accept the complementarian position as a teenager, being repeatedly told that strong women leaders in the Bible like Deborah were only used by God because the men at the time were unworthy. Remarks about how “sad” it was that God had to use a woman were a real turn-off to me. I needed a better explanation for the biblical data and at the time I could not find it. Once I found out that women had been deacons, elders, and bishops in the early church, an egalitarian was born.
I wouldn’t call myself a hard egalitarian—I can even accept that God primarily calls men to lead and primarily calls women to nurturing/support roles. It’s the total exclusion of women from leadership roles that bothers me.
One other issue has been (if you click on my blog), you’ll see that I have a long history of respectful interfaith interactions with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church), which began when I was 16. They themselves adhere to a complementarian system, but for different reasons than traditional Christians do. I’d be lying if I said that the flaws I see in the LDS patriarchy system have not had an effect on how I view evangelical complementarianism.
Hi Bridget,
Welcome to ex-lurker new poster.
I am egal as I now see that Jesus, Peter and Paul were egals, so I am following in their footsteps. I know this idea is spew-worthy to some, as it seems so preposterous.
The reason I did not see it before was due to a few things:
1. Non-egalism was what I had been taught by teachers I respected a lot.
2. The Bible seemed to obviously teach non-egalism.
3. Being male, it was hard to see all the negative effects of non-egalism, esp. when I was NOT looking for any.
4. As Mel Brooks says, “It is good to be the king!”
Hi Mara. I can’t see that a high view of Scripture and Egalitarianism are compatible.
For example, comments and articles on this website by Egalitarians reveal that some believe the Scriptures that we currently have have been tampered with [such as your own comments on Hebrews].
I also note that some Egalitarians seem to be bedfellows with those with Emergent views and recommend their books on their websites.
The Blue Parakeet book by McKnight and Webb’s book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, which espouse Egalitarianism show a willingness to go beyond Scripture or to deny biblical teaching by reinterpreting it.
Or was it the “Egalitarians are egalitarians because they wrongly (re)interpret Scripture and/or go beyond Scripture and/or deny Scripture” card?
David,
I’m assuming you are referring to me regarding the emergent views, since I have a book list on my blog and there are emerging-type books on it (and I don’t know of anyone else here who does). You can just name name’s next time, it’s okay.
I want to clarify some misconceptions quickly, if possible (though I’m aware that you may choose to not agree, at least I’ll feel better because I’ll have explained my own personal view of emerging Christians).
One misconception is that
1.) If someone likes a Brian McLaren book, then that means they agree with everything he says.
Another misconception is
2.) People who are emerging have left orthodox Christian teaching.
Both of those are false. I hold to what most evangelicals would consider the core doctrines of the faith. I eat the Bible like chocolate. Also, I do not agree with McLaren on everything, nor do I follow him. I just really appreciated some of the questions his thoughts raise, as I do with other emerging authors.
Also, please know that emerging Christians, just like evangelicals, etc, do not have “a spokesperson.” They have a lot of voices out there talking, but there is not one voice who represents the group. The group is incredibly diverse, from very liberal to very conservative followers of Christ. The one thing they all have in common is that they are asking much the same kind of questions that the Reformers asked, and those questions are uncomfortable. It’s the thinking that is so good…talking, wondering, studying…trying to see God more fully, trying to know Him more fully… I think that some of the questions are uncomfortable because they hit close to home.
My Jesus-loving conservative CS Lewis-loving grandmother gave me my first McLaren book, if you want to know the truth.
Her words were, “I don’t agree with everything, but he sure has some challenging questions to think about…”
Emerging christians are just finding it difficult to hold on to their faith in the typical status quo evangelical church. They don’t necessarily know why, but they love Jesus and so they are emerging out of what “was” (our modern version of doing church” and exploring both backward and forward trying to find a meaningful way of being the church–a way that nurtures both the community around them and their own faith itself.
We live in a time when modernity and post-modernity exist together, but soon it will be all post-modern. Here is what I think is important to communicate:
The church, in many respects, has embraced modernity. That is what the post-modern/emerging Christian questions. Not God. Not absolute truth (you can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe in absolute truth-heh), but the things from modernity that the church has brought in and baptised and claims as untouchable.
The postmodern Christian is touching them, saying, “Are you sure this is an eternal absolute…? Because it looks like something you just drug in from modernism…” They aren’t doing that to be irreverent or to be nasty—they’re just trying to know God without the stumbling blocks of modernism. (For the modern person, modernism isn’t a stumbling block. For the post-modern members of the faith, modernism *is* a stumbling block).
Things that are of Christ we keep, whether they cause people to stumble or not, because Christ is what we are all about. But having much of the church lose heart in their faith, all because we present God as inextricably connected with modernistic thinking…? This is what is happening in churches across the world as believers trickle OUT of them instead of into them.
There is a mass movement of people who can’t exactly explain why, but they all express that they are leaving the church in order to *save* their faith. That the post-modern Christians are asking some tough questions (about what our current understanding of “church” is) is GOOD.
What is hard is understanding what’s going on if you are a modern person. Some of us have our feet in both worlds. Some of us are modern. Some of us are post-modern. The ones with the most difficult time in all of this are those who are fully modern. It is very difficult to see out of that framework.
Okay, my ramble about emerging Christians is over. I only share this because I’ve heard concern about this before and I want to clarify. I personally hold tightly to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed as absolute truths (from Scripture).
David.
Instead of going after what I think is faulty in your arguments, let me lay the ground word for mine. Or at least begin to lay the ground work for mine.
Proverbs states that God abhors a false balance and differing weights.
When studying scripture it is important to keep the main thing the main thing and not to major on the minors.
In the Old Testament Moses gave us the ten commandments.
In the New Testament Jesus states clearly that in loving the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and in loving your neighbor as yourself you will keep the law and the prophets.
He also says that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto you.
A third thing He stated clearly is that we should not look to lord over one another.
Anyway. I feel that people err when they give the words of Paul, or the unknown author of Hebrews more weight than the words of Jesus Christ Himself.
When they give the words of Paul more weight, they no longer keep the main thing the main thing. They no longer interpret the secondary issues through deep understanding of the primary issues. They change the main things or primary things using secondary things to support their changes.
The pharisees did it when they decided they didn’t have to honor their father and mother because of a secondary issue.
All scripture is Spirit breathed and good for instruction and reproof and all those other wonderful things mentioned in that verse. But not everyone rightly divides the Word of Truth.
I feel that comps subvert the words of Jesus by giving too much weight to their interpretation of secondary issues.
No where, in all of the Gospels, in any of the words written in red will you find Jesus defining roles in marriage or the church. He was far more concerned with keeping the main thing the main thing. By His words and actions He raised up those who had been lowered by society (women and the poor) and brought down the lofty (Pharisees).
Now I can guess where you will go with this.
But rather than make a prediction I’ll just let say what you will without putting words in your mouth and deal with that one when we get there.
That’s what discussion is.
Btw, what I should have added is that there are PLENTY plenty non-emerging-minded people who are egalitarians. F.F.Bruce, the famed conservative scholar, is a great example of someone who became egalitarian because of what he saw in the text. The guy is revered at Dallas Theological Seminary, ya know, so he’s obviously well within the pale of NOT emerging.
Ie, my “emerging” views are a personal side issue.
For example, comments and articles on this website by Egalitarians reveal that some believe the Scriptures that we currently have have been tampered with [such as your own comments on Hebrews].
Is accepting the possible tampering of the Scriptures a greater deviation from NT faith than using the Pharisee-adopted-and-standardized Masoretic Hebrew text for one’s Old Testament when 90-95% (or more, per Lee Martin McDonald) of the NT quotations from the Old Testament are from the Greek (LXX) text – and in some instances, the NT author’s argument DEPENDS ON the LXX reading, versus the different Hebrew reading?
OK, everybody, we’re doing pretty well right now. It could get more heated, of course, but I’m hoping that won’t happen.
It seems to me that, David, you object to egalitarianism because of the excesses of some egalitarians. You have listed some of these excesses.
Some egalitarians object to all of complementarianism because of the excesses of some complementarians.
In both cases we are practicing guilt by association, yes?
I suggest that we will build bridges toward each other better if we listen carefully to each individual. I want to listen to David as he might describe his long, loving marriage and how he and his wife manage it, whether or not each feels fulfilled in it, and whether his wife feels that their marriage is just as biblically based as he does. If so, we need to respect David and his wife for building a loving, respectful marriage, based on complementarian principles which they find in Scripture.
Similarly, for the comps remaining here (two or three?! I hope more), I suggest that they look at what the egalitarians here actually believe. And when something is said that sounds unorthodox it would be a good idea to ask for clarification. (I should have written the same thing for egals when they sense something which they consider unorthodox or untrue to Scripture in what a comp has written.)
Comps hate it when egals state or hint that comps abuse women. Egals hate it when comps claim that they are not true to Scripture.
Comps hate it when egals paint them with the same brush as they would abusive patriarchialists (I assume there are patriarchialists who try never to abuse). Egals hate it when comps paint them with the same brush as comps would male-hating, Bible-denying secular feminists who have no regard for godly principles for life (there are also god-fearing feminists).
So, let’s be careful with the kind of brush we use to paint those with whom we disagree.
Shall we sing it together (tune: We Are Climbing Jacob’s Ladder):
We are slowly building bridges,
We are slowly building bridges,
We are slowly building bridges,
soldiers [both male and female, of course] of the Lord.
OK?
molleth ~ Btw, what I should have added is that there are PLENTY plenty non-emerging-minded people who are egalitarians.
Myself included. I cling to my Bible inerrancy like my father clings to his massive firearms collection.
N. T. Wright is also egalitarian, and though some emerging church people are fond of him, he’s hardly part of the movement himself.
Bridget,
It’s cool to have you here. I had a great time, last night, perusing your website. (I’ve been to Utah a few times and have read massive amounts of LDS literature, finding it all extremely fascinating)…
I would add that I believe that the Bible is infallible, as in the original text was breathed by God through man. (Many other emerging Christians do too, btw). If and/or when there are problems, it’s with the humen element, not the God element.
Wayne, you asked how Scripture has shaped our views on gender issues.
I replied that Scripture compels me to be a Complementarian, because it clearly articulates the view that God has given men and women different roles, in some situations, in the home and the church.
I later said that I can’t see that a high view of Scripture and Egalitarianism are compatible, after Mara wrote that she accepts Scriptural teaching.
You didn’t ask why I was not an Egalitarian.
You then suggested that I object to egalitarianism because of the excesses of some egalitarians.
I think the Scriptures are clearly Complementarian and that God has given men and women different roles, in some situations, in the home and the church. That’s why I’m not an Egalitarian.
However, I can’t help pointing out that Egalitarianism as articulated here involves sitting above Scripture and having a lower view of it.
I think the books and writers Egalitarians cite with approval both here and on their websites show this clearly.
David, I didn’t ask you why you are not an egalitarian because I don’t believe that that is any of my business. I think that you should follow the interpretation of Scripture that you believe is right. And that’s one (of many) things I have always appreciated about you, the depth of your convictions, always wanting to be fully biblical. Of course, there are some egalitarians who want the same thing for themselves. Because we are all human, we sometimes interpret the same passages of the Bible in different ways. Someday, in heaven, we can find out which side was right, if either, and if we still care at that point.
What I addressed on my preceding comment was trying to get both comps and egals not to paint the other side with too wide of a brush, not to use the guilt by association arguement for people who haven’t committed the wrongs that we sometimes ascribe to the entire group.
I especially like the positive presentations on this blog of why people believe as they do. I prefer them to negative presentations about the other side. For myself, I think that positive presentations contribute more to understanding. But it’s OK if others disagree with me. I won’t disapprove their messages unless the negative presentations are a kind of attack on the beliefs of others.
I think the Scriptures are clearly Complementarian and that God has given men and women different roles, in some situations, in the home and the church. That’s why I’m not an Egalitarian.
As I pointed out, so-called “egalitarians” are in fact also complementarians. They don’t view male and female as identical and/or fully interchangeable. Where they differ from restrictive or hierarchical or patriarchal complementarians is in their not believing that Scripture requires or mandates for Christians that certain roles or gifts or offices in the church or in the home be held only by those with male genitalia, or that Scripture necessitates that females be subordinated to males in the church and/or in the home.
Or so this noobie thinks.
The exceptions would be those that nature/physiology requires or determines: i.e., the female in the home is the mother, daughter, or sister, and the male is the father, son, or brother, but that is not so much a matter of Scripture as a matter of what the terms mean by definition.
Eric, you are right. Many egalitarians believed in complementarity of the genders before comps took the label for themselves. I love the complementarity that God has designed for men and women, husbands and wives, different personalities, different giftings within the Body, etc.
I like the book “Complementarity Without Hierarchy.” I guess that’s about where I am in all of this. I am a complementarian in the traditional sense of the word, but I don’t believe that God designed a hierarchy for males and females when he created Adam and Eve. I don’t think that Eph. 5:22, teaching wives to submit to their husbands, implies that there is a hierarchical ordering of husbands over wives, or males over females. Submission is a loving thing which we can offer to each other in a variety of relationships in life. It is beautiful within marriage if it is bathed in love and there is no coercion or abuse to force submission. Coercion, ISTM, is an opposite of sacrificial love, which is what husbands are called to do for their wives. And, as I have often said on this blog, I also believe that the mutual submission commanded of us within the Body (Eph. 5:21) does not end with two members of the Body get married to each other. Mutual submission (in the broad sense of what service and sacrifice for one another includes), deference, forgiveness, etc. are widely taught in the Bible, so it is not just something found in Eph. 5.
G’day Eric
I think your two posts highlight the terminology problem. I don’t like the terms used for the two camps, as I have said before. I agree with you that Egalitarians are also “complementarian” in many ways and I assure you that I think Complementarians are also “egalitarian” in many ways.
On your point that you disagree that “certain roles or gifts or offices in the church … be held only by those with male genitalia” Complementarians would say that being male does not qualify someone for serving as a leader in the church.
Although Scripture tells us that an elder is to be the husband of one wife [or a one woman man], it also has many other requirements. Most men do not qualify.
I like the book “Complementarity Without Hierarchy.”
Which is actually the subtitle of the book Discovering Biblical Equality, for those who might be interested in reading the book Wayne is referring to:
http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Biblical-Equality-Complementarity-Hierarchy/dp/0830828346/ (2nd edition)
“However, I can’t help pointing out that Egalitarianism as articulated here involves sitting above Scripture and having a lower view of it.”
This is really not true. It is a harshly negative assumption that I deeply wish both sides would refrain from assigning to the other.
David,
I think Eric was correct in his statement about male genitalia. He did not claim that male genitalia was the only requirement, just that it was one requirement that is claimed by Comps. Given that, a female can never be a church leader (of some types) due to her being female. Being female in and of itself is a disqualifier.
P.S. Scripture tells us an elder is to be a faithful spouse, when the Greek is understood as it would have been in Ephesus.
Hi Don.
None of the Bible translations I have in BibleWorks or e-sword, or in your old-fashioned book form back up what you say.
Not even the looser translations such as The Message.
All of them say that an elder must be “husband of one wife” or “faithful to his wife.”
It is not that Complementarians strangely argue that God draws his leaders from the males, but that the Bible itself says this unambiguously.
Or was it the “Egalitarians are egalitarians because they wrongly (re)interpret Scripture and/or go beyond Scripture and/or deny Scripture” card?
Eric,
Let me know how I can take revenge on you?
Thanks.
molleth ~ (I’ve been to Utah a few times and have read massive amounts of LDS literature, finding it all extremely fascinating)
I thought they were fascinating, too—so fascinating that I wound up marrying one of them.
Looks like I have more to understand about the emerging church movement. That’s the problem with being formally educated by Mormons; there’s a ton within my own religion which I’m not caught up on, but I’m trying.
Glenn Miller’s Women in the Heart of God series was a huge influence on me as a teenager. I ordered and read almost every book on his recommended reading list, Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity Vol. 1 by Carroll D. Osburn (ed.) being my favorite. I only just recently got my hands on a copy of Vol 2., since its printing was rather limited the first time and it was re-released as a paperback a few years ago. It contains the best essay on Gen. 1-3 I’ve ever read, and I never thought I’d come to appreciate the book of Hosea so much.
There’s still plenty of complementarian and egalitarian literature I need to catch up on, but all in good time. I’ve got a huge pile of LDS and LDS-evangelical themed books to get through right now.
I said earlier today: “But know that I believe that you study and continue to study scripture.
I hope you believe that I also study and continue to study scripture.”
David said: “Hi Mara. I can’t see that a high view of Scripture and Egalitarianism are compatible.
For example, comments and articles on this website by Egalitarians reveal that some believe the Scriptures that we currently have have been tampered with [such as your own comments on Hebrews].”
David, originally I was going to leave this alone and just discuss scripture.
But it has occurred to me that you may not take anything I have to say as serious unless we get a couple of things straight.
And in all honesty, I’m a bit hurt that you would judge me as not having a high view of scripture.
The benefit of a doubt I give to you coming to this table you refuse me.
I do not feel I should have to defend myself, but I will try anyway.
I believe that…
~In the begining was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him. And apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life. And the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness did not overpower it. John 1:1-5
~The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld His glory. vs 14
~…it is not an idle word for you it is life (Somewhere in Deuteronomy)
~The word is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword dividing as far as joints and morrow, soul and spririt, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of men.
~Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Somewhere in Deut?)
~God’s word will not return to Him void without accomplishing what He sent it out to do. (Somewhere in Isaiah)
(I’ve recited these from memory. So if I didn’t get them quite right, that’s the reason. My translation of choice is NAS)
I also believe that God has hovered over His word as the Spirit brooded over the waters in Genesis.
If it bothers you about what I said about Hebrews, then I guess I need to further explain. I do not think that a missing greeting or the gender of a pronoun can add or take away what God intended in His word nor the power behind it.
I won’t go into the rigors of my own Bible study with you. Nor do I expect you to go into the rigors of you own with me.
I just believe that you study the Bible and hold it in high view.
I wish you’d get past your prejudice of me and realize that maybe I do to.
Hi David,
Yes, this is fairly recent information and the lexicons have not been updated recently.
========
The second qualification: “Faithful spouse” (3:2)
The second qualification in the list deals with the
overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that
this qualification means that whether one is a husband or
a wife it is important to be a “faithful spouse.” It requires
that an overseer, if married, be faithful and be “a one-spouse
kind of person.”
According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French
Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this
Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish
and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman
or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way
characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”
When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase
was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where
Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him
myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.
Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2
surprising because modern versions of the Bible
translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” –
making this qualification appear to be restricted to men
only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is
about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is
not saying that oversight is “for men only.”
Pages 87-88
Think Again about Church Leaders by Bruce C. E. Fleming
The TOB is a scholarly work.
Mara, lots of people study the Bible and lots of different conclusions are reached, but I don’t believe that all are equally valid.
The expressions of Egalitarianism that I read here trouble me, because they not only appear to distort what the Scriptures are saying, but they also, in some circumstances lead to further errors, I think.
For example, some have redefined the teachings about husband as head AND about Christ as head. In not wanting to think of a husband as being a leader or an authority, some folk on this website have said that Christ also is not leader, but simply coleads with us.
I think this is taking reigning with Christ too far. While we are given great authority now, and even greater in the coming age, we will always defer to our Lord Jesus. He will always be LORD and God.
Concerning prejudice, I don’t think I am prejudging people. In fact, I never assumed that Egalitarianism would lead people to dethrone Christ until I read it here. I can see it is a logical conclusion, but I would have hoped that it would not be taken to its logical conclusion.
“All of them say that an elder must be “husband of one wife” or “faithful to his wife.”
David, There are several words in Scripture that are difficult. Some like this one you mention, have been troublesome from the first several hundred years. It doesn’t even take one hundred years for us to lose touch with the meaning of something. Think about the words that have changed in the last fifty years.
“One wife husband” is an idiom. This was discovered by a French writer. Rev. Bruce Fleming has documented the information in his book Familiar Leadership Heresies.
It is rather interesting that it was an idiom, since we have a form of that idiom still today pretty much all over the world. When we say he is a one woman kind of guy or she is a one man kind of woman, that is the same idiom. It basically means faithfulness in relationship. So “faithful to his wife” is not bad, but more accurately, “faithful spouse” is the more precise interpretation. As in all idioms, when we are addressing an unknown mixed group the default gender is always masculine.
It is because I realize that I have held varying viewpoints on the gender issue over time – in fact my understanding of many different issues has deepened, been tweaked, or even reversed as I’ve been digging in the Bible- that I believe that both sides of this debate can hold to a high view of Scripture.
Why bother referring to Scripture and scrutinizing the meaning of certain passages and even single words otherwise? Do any of us appeal to the authority of something we do not hold in high esteem?
believer3, if “faithful spouse” is a better translation, why do none of the translations I have available give this rendering?
David:
William D. Mounce discusses the 4 options for translating 1 Timothy 3:2 in his Pastoral Epistles Commentary (Word, vol. 46). He settles on “one-woman man” as being probably the best option for this difficult phrase (it occurs in reverse-gender form in 1 Tim. 5:9, as well as 1 Tim. 3:12 and Titus 1:6).
G. W. Knight seems to conclude the same thing as Mounce, also settling on his own option 4:
The first specific characteristic in the 1 Timothy list is μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, literally “a man of one woman,” or “a husband of one wife.” ἀνήρ and γυνή, the common NT words for “man” and “woman,” take on the meanings “husband” and “wife” in contexts such as here. Various interpretations have been proposed for this phrase from the patristic period until today (for a summary of the patristic discussion including a synopsis of the elaborate discussion by Theodore of Mopsuestia see Dodd, “NT Translation Problems II”): It has been suggested that it requires that a bishop (1) be married, (2) have only one wife his entire life, (3) be monogamous, or (4) be faithful in the marital and sexual realm.
With regard to (1), it is exceedingly doubtful that Paul intended that these words and the words about “children” (plural, vv. 4, 12) be understood as mandating that only a married man with at least two children could be an officer in the church. Probably he wrote in terms of the common situation, i.e., of being married and having children, and then spoke of what should be the case when this most common situation exists in an officer’s life. Paul, like Peter (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1), regarded himself as a fellow elder or bishop and wrote of his singleness and his apostolic ministry without regarding them as mutually exclusive (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1ff., especially v. 5; see also 7:7, 8). In fact, he commended singleness, using himself as an example, as a state where one would have more freedom to serve the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32ff.).
With regard to (2), it would be strange for the apostle of liberty, who considered widows and widowers “free to be married … , only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39) and who used this principle of freedom to illustrate his teaching on the law (Rom. 7:1–3), to deny this freedom to a potential church officer whose spouse has died. Likewise, the freedom to remarry granted to the “innocent” party when a marriage has been terminated as a result of sexual unfaithfulness (as I believe Mt. 19:9 should be understood) or when an unbelieving spouse has abandoned a believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:15) does not seem to be restricted so that they could not apply to a potential officer. Only if the phrase under consideration could only be understood in the sense of (2) above would this evidence be excluded. An interpretation, however, that included those other considerations would do more justice to the totality of the evidence.
With regard to (3), polygamy, which existed among Jews of the NT age (see Str-B ad loc. for documentation; they cite, among many others, Josephus, Ant. 17.14; B.J. 1.477), is certainly ruled out by the sense of the phrase. In A.D. 212 the lex Antoniana de civitate made monogamy the law for Romans but Jews were excepted. In A.D. 393 Theodosius enacted a special law against polygamy among Jews, since they persisted in the practice (Hillman, Polygamy, 20f.). Two Greek marriage contracts have been found that seem to be concerned to prohibit polygamy: “It shall not be lawful for Philiscus to bring in another wife besides Appolania” (92 B.C.); “Ptolemaeus … shall not … insult her nor bring in another wife” (13 B.C., both in Hunt-Edgar, Select Papyri I, 7, 11).
The question remains, however, whether the phrase is intended to exclude only polygamy or all violations of marital and sexual fidelity (4). Two considerations make it doubtful that polygamy is exclusively in view: The first is the insight obtained (pace Str-B) from the occurrence of the counterpart phrase ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή in a similar context, 1 Tim. 5:9 (the only other NT occurrences of this kind of phrase are μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα here, in 3:12 [ἄνδρες in v. 12], and in Tit. 1:6 [ἀνήρ]). The phrase in 5:9 affirms marital and sexual fidelity in monogamous terms, but does not imply polyandry as the intended contrast, since polyandry was not practiced in the first-century Greco-Roman world. Doubtless the phrase in 5:9, following after 3:2, 12 and in a similar list of qualifications, is used in a similar way as its counterpart in 3:2, 12. The implication is that the phrase in 3:2, 12 is therefore not intended to exclude only polygamy. Furthermore, that men could have sexual relations with women other than their wives seems to have been accepted among Greeks and Romans, so that this would be an issue important to address.
The second consideration in favor of (4) is that this statement (3:2) positively affirms sexual fidelity couched in monogamous marital terminology (“husband of one wife”). It is analogous, therefore, to the command “You shall not commit adultery,” which is also couched in marital language but which encompasses other sexual sins, as the outworkings of that command in the chapters following Exodus 20 evince. “The natural meaning of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ is surely, as Theodore [of Mopsuestia] says, ‘a man who having contracted a monogamous marriage is faithful to his marriage vows,’ excluding alike polygamy, concubinage and promiscuous indulgence” (Dodd, “NT Translation Problems II,” 115). “Promiscuous indulgence” would encompass Jesus’ words on wrongful divorce and remarriage in Mt. 5:32; 19:9.
This characteristic, like the others, is the result of God’s grace in Christ (cf. especially 3:6, 9) and thus has reference to a man’s status and conduct from the time of his conversion. So just as one is called on to look back on a widow’s earlier life (when she was living with her husband) to ascertain her marital and sexual fidelity in having been “the wife of one husband” (5:9), so also (cf. 5:22, 24, 25) for the bishop (3:2) and deacon (3:12): One must look back over his life from the time of his conversion to ascertain his marital and sexual fidelity in having been “the husband of one wife.”
Str-B H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch I–V. 3rd ed., München, 1956.
Knight, G. W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles : A commentary on the Greek text (157). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.
Maybe your translations choose “husband of one wife” because that is a “literal” translation of the Greek, and when in doubt, translators may choose “literal” as the easiest option. Lea and Griffin also seem to agree on “faithful spouse”:
3:2 Paul’s use of the singular for “overseer” does not suggest that he was advocating a monepiscopacy (single person serving as pastor). The singular is generic in meaning just as is the “woman” in 2:11–12. A reference to overseers or elders in the plural appears in 1 Tim 5:17. Also the phrase “if anyone” in v. 1 suggests a group larger than one. Probably the overseer served over a single house-church with the group of overseers from within a city constituting “the overseers.”
To be “above reproach” demanded that the overseer be a man of blameless character. The same word (anepilēmpton) is used of widows in 5:7 and of Timothy in 6:14. It may serve as a general, covering term for the following list of virtues that should distinguish a church leader. The etymology of the word suggests the meaning not to be taken hold of. It describes a person of such character that no one can properly bring against him a charge of unfitness.53
The NIV translation that the overseer be “the husband of but one wife” implies that Paul was prohibiting polygamy among the overseers. Such a practice would be so palpably unacceptable among Christians that it would hardly seem necessary to prohibit it. It is best not to see Paul as writing primarily in opposition to polygamy. Some have felt that Paul was demanding that the overseer be a married man. However, Paul’s own singleness (1 Cor 7:7–8) and his positive commendation of the single state (1 Cor 7:1, 32–35) would seem to allow a single man to serve as a church leader. Others have felt that the passage rules out remarriage if a first wife dies, but Paul clearly permitted second marriages in other passages (1 Tim 5:14; Rom 7:2–3; 1 Cor 7:39). His statements here should not contradict the permission for remarriage he gave in other passages. Another interpretation is to understand Paul to have prohibited a divorced man from serving as a church leader. While this can be Paul’s meaning, the language is too general in its statement to make this interpretation certain. Some evangelical New Testament scholars suggest that there are New Testament passages that appear to permit divorce (Matt 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15).
It is better to see Paul having demanded that the church leader be faithful to his one wife. The Greek describes the overseer literally as a “one-woman kind of man” (cf. “faithful to his one wife,” NEB). Lenski suggests that the term describes a man “who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity.”54 Glasscock uses Lenski’s understanding to support his view that a divorced man can serve as a church leader if he is thoroughly devoted to the wife whom he has married.55 His application prohibits a monogamous man known to be flirtatious from serving in a place of leadership. Glasscock does not seek to encourage either divorce or the presence of divorced men in the ministry. He suggests that we must not hold a man’s preconversion sins against him (Col 2:13). Had Paul clearly meant to prohibit divorce, he could have said it unmistakably by using the Greek word for divorce (apolyō, cf. Matt 1:19).
53 Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistles, 579.
54 Ibid., 580.
55 E. Glasscock, “‘The Husband of One Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2,” BibSac 140 (1983): 255. For a rejection of the view that the phrase “husband of but one wife” prohibited remarriage after the death of a first wife, see P. Fairbairn, “On the Meaning of the Expression ‘Husband of One Wife,’ in 1 Tim III. 2, 12, Tit I.6,” The Pastoral Epistles (1874; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980), 416–32.
Lea, T. D., & Griffin, H. P. (2001, c1992). Vol. 34: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (109). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
David,
If you read my post above quoting Bruce Fleming, you should be able to see why your translations do not show the option of “faithful spouse”.
This morning during my Bible study I remembered something.
I was reading Revelation and was reminded of my aversion to escatology (sp?).
I went to one church and they swore up and down that Christians will go through the tribulation. They pulled out their charts and graphs and proof texts and convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that, yes indeed, I better be a post-tribulation believer or I would be in great error.
Some years later I went to another church. And the preacher there was into pretribulation rapture. And he had his charts and graphs and proof texts and told us that we could be post trib if we wanted to. But he was going up with the first load.
Then after that, there was a church that was post trib, and they had their charts and graphs that looked a lot like the ones I saw in the first church.
Nowadays if someone comes along with their charts and graphs and wants to try to convince me of anything endtimes related, I tense up and start looking for a blowtorch so I can set their charts and graphs on fire.
Okay, that was an extreme exaggeration. I don’t actually look around for blow torches. I just have a real aversion to end-times teaching. And because of it, I refused to read the Left Behind series.
But this does not release me to ignore what the Bible says. I still read Revelation, Daniel, and Matthew 23 along with the rest of the Bible.
Why do I bring this up?
Both sides of the endtimes debate are fully convinced of their conclusions.
Trust me. I’ve been in both camps.
They use the same scriptures to prove opposite things and each have an aresnal of other scriptures to prove their beliefs.
Both sides of this issue have a high regard for scripture.
To say that one side or the other did not would be disrespectful.
And sometimes those in one camp are disrespectful toward the other side, when really they shouldn’t be.
Sometimes those on one side of the issue accuse the other side of things they simply shouldn’t, like not having a high regard for scripture.
They should remember that whether pretrib, postrib, midtrib, pantrib, the bottom line is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Sorry if this is off-topic. But I’m really trying to make the point that someone accusing another of not having a high regard for scripture has no place here.
Don Johnson
Hi David,
Yes, this is fairly recent information and the lexicons have not been updated recently.
This is not an isolated instance. There are a couple essays in the book Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Language-Lexicography-Bernard-Taylor/dp/0802822169/
that discuss the sad state of ancient Greek (including NT Greek) lexicography due to things like the failure to incorporate the most recent data, repeating old information without verifying its validity, etc. IIRC, this applies especially to LSJ, but also to BDAG (2000). For those who know some NT Greek, Randall Buth has a good essay in there arguing for using the aorist, not the present active indicative, as the root/main word form. Randall is an acquaintance of mine who has developed cutting-edge curricula for immersion in Koinê and Biblical Hebrew at his ulpan in Jerusalem; he was saved during the “Jesus Movement” days by Lonnie Frisbee (look him up if you don’t know who Lonnie was – and while you’re at it, get/watch the DVD Frisbee: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher) and has gone on to become one of the most knowledgeable persons in the field of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic languages. He posts frequently at B-Greek.
Awhile back Ann Nyland wrote/translated her The Source New Testament, which incorporated data from papyri that was only recently available. Even though the papyri have been around for more than 100 years now, much of it is still in need of study and translation and incorporation into lexical works, and as Dr. Nyland points out, much of this recent information is still only in scholarly journals, and hasn’t reached the books and tools most Christians use and read. I’ll put the URL for TSNT in the next post, since WordPress holds up my posts if they have more than one link.
FYI: Dr. Nyland’s work and translation argue against gender discrimination in translation, and for awhile her translation was promoted by a Christian woman’s group, but when a Gay-Lesbian Study Bible edition of The Source was published, they stopped promoting her. Look on Amazon for books by Dr. A. Nyland or Ann Nyland to see all she has written in this field.
I am not saying her translations and conclusions are the “right” ones, but they are more information that those who read in this area might want to avail themselves of.
The Source New Testament With Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning (Paperback) by Dr A. Nyland (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Source-Testament-Extensive-Notes-Meaning/dp/0980443008/
Mara, great comment.
That was along the lines of what I was going to say regarding 1 Tim. 3:2 and ‘one woman man’. That phrase has been translated in various places as having married only once (I remember that teaching in the 70’s), as having never been divorced (or annulled), as having only one wife (no polygamy), as having never committed adultery, and finally I believe the French Bible has it correct …. a faithful spouse.
If Paul had meant to say that only males could desire to serve as a supervisory role and that those men had to be married (and have children), Paul would have said so plainly and would not have used “anyone who desire” as the introduction. What Paul did was use a colloquial phrase or idiom to convey something much wordier, that it was a faithful saying that a faithful kind of person is to be the kind of person to oversee the workings of the church, a person that was faithful in all the areas of his life. Paul’s list was not a complete list but a general idea of what kind of person an elder (and a minister/deacon) who served needed to be.
Interestingly, there are a lot things in Scripture that it has taken the church in general many years to realize including the big one of slavery.
“For example, some have redefined the teachings about husband as head AND about Christ as head. In not wanting to think of a husband as being a leader or an authority, some folk on this website have said that Christ also is not leader, but simply coleads with us.”
Not sure if you are talking about me or not, David, but since I was one who talked about my view on Ephesians regarding a Christ who pulls His bride up, not keeping her down, I’ll bite.
I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of All. I believe He is my authority. I believe He is my ruler.
But when it comes to the husband/wife analogy, what Paul specifically said was that husbands were to *love* their wives as Christ loved the church. So, using that, I went back through Ephesians and looked at how He loved her, particularly as relates to hierarchy. And He pulled her up to “be seated with Him in heavenly places,” put her “in Him” and gave her all things that were in Him.
So in pointing out the way He treated His wife in love, I am not denying His authority. I am simply saying that Paul’s command was to love as Christ loved. I see Complementarian doctrine telling men to be over their wives as Christ is over the church. But Ephesians says to love their wives as Christ loved the church.
No doubt the wives were in a lower hierarchal place. This is par for the course—they lived in a land where a husband had the right to decide whether a wife’s baby could live or die, for goodness sake. Legally, they were property of their husbands. So the command for wives to submit is something we should read with full knowledge of the cultural backdrop, or we risk reading more into it than might be there.
But on the part of the husband, he is not told to rule her but to love her. In the same way that Christ did.
So what I’m looking for in Ephesians is how Christ loved, not how he ruled. Because Paul is specifically talking about how Christ loved her, not how Christ ruled her. I think we add to Scripture when we search for how Christ rules the Church and seek to apply it to how husbands are to relate to their wives.
Ephesians 5 specifically talks about How Christ loved her. And so if we have Christ, who is GOD, pulling His bride up that high and giving her that much status (HUGE!) and power and authority, how can we, who are mere mortals with no where near the status Christ has, Biblically justify keeping wives down in a lower seat?
Don and Eric,
very interesting “faithful spouse”. Gives a whole new interpretation to that most sacredly held Scripture, doesn’t it? Is there then no gender implied in the text?
Not in 1 Tim 3 first verses on elder and deacon once the term is seen as not gender specific, as an idiom. And there are other terms that are gender unspecific, like tis/any, which is another clue that elders can be female.
Also, Phoebe was a diakonos so one gets a contradiction if it is seen as excluding females as a diakonos also uses the same phrase.
So there are 2 ways to resolve the contradiction, deny Phoebe was a diakonos by translating it away as servant or accept Phoebe was a diakonos as read the term as “faithful spouse”.
Another thing that is strange if this is SUPPOSED to be a restriction, it is not put in the obvious place for same, when the leadership gifts are first mentioned, there is no hint that females are excluded. Compare this with the Aaronic priesthood which WAS all male, this requirement was put right when it was instituted, where one would expect.
Here’s a point that is a bit less academic:
1 Timothy 4 also mentions something about an elder’s “children”. Although my former church believed only males were to serve as elders, I did note that at least one of the men chosen to serve in that way had no children.
Which should have, according to the church’s understanding of the text, excluded him. Since it is clear that an elder should not only be male, and not only be married and have a child, but in fact should have more than one.
Chai…
It seems to me it would not only exclude the childless, it also would exclude single men. And we know THAT isn’t happening.
I will definitely look into this more. I do not belive it is referring only to men for a number of reasons, Phoebe included (and yes we all know how she is relegated to servant) but this adds more info, which is always a good thing.
Eric,
we have the DVD on Lonnie. An interesting and confused life, to be sure. But also one used mightily by God to bring many to Salvation, even if some relegated him to obscurity…
this may sound niave, but what is BDAG? One of the things about blogs and discussions, not everyone has the same info. You know how long it took me to figure out TTYL? or IMHO? Some of us are behind the times
David: “Mara, lots of people study the Bible and lots of different conclusions are reached, but I don’t believe that all are equally valid.”
Hi, David.
Somehow I missed this.
I agree and appreciate this position.
I can respect this and work from here.
I do think the original texts contain all of what God wants them to contain.
But I am suspicious of translations and want to walk lightly where they are concerned.
Even well-intentioned, well-meaning people are subject to the limits of their own cultural prejudices.
Thanks for your response.
Kate, shouldn’t you have ended your comment, instead, with SOUABTT (Some of us are behind the times)?
LOL
so what is BDAG?
Kate:
BDAG is the lexicon authored/edited by Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich (it used to be BAGD, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, but Danker did so much work on the 2000 edition that his name moved into second place). It originated with Walter Bauer (in German). It’s the standard NT Greek lexicon. It’s “real” name is: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. BDAG is the 2000 update of the 1979 BAGD.
FWIW, the “extras” on the Frisbee DVD are almost as long as the feature movie, and watching them is like watching Part 2 of the film (with some repetition), in case you haven’t yet done so (some people never bother watching the “bonus features” on DVDs, but on this one they definitely should).
And what is TTYL??
Sheesh – I misused it’s for its. I HATE IT when I do that, since I’m always quick to note when others misuse contractive it’s for possessive its. It’s perhaps the most frequent grammatical/spelling error these days.
Talk To You Later
TTYL – Talk to you later
Eric, I do that all the time too. I usually let my spell checker decide. LOL
Eric, we did watch the extra, definitely worth it! and thanks for the info…
another one often misused affect and effect
so to get back to answering the question posited:
I am reading a book for a new course I will be teaching, and in it I am reminded that our worldview is made up from reason, history, experience, checking with others, looking at data and testing. As Christians, we also have special and general revelation because we know we are all flawed and left to our own, our views are skewed. So we are to know theology and Scripture. These form the core of our understanding and our Christian worldview which should undergird eveything.
So how does this fit with gender issues? I think it is the same as good hermeneutics. We study Scripture in context, not out of context, of its writing, its style, its history and so forth. This leads me to get a great deal of what I view gender issues as from Scripture, which is foundational. But I also know science, nature, nuture, etc. But gender, specifically Jesus’ treatment of women, is a good indicator of how God views women, in high esteem and worthy of being His messengers of Salvation. Jesus always separated women from those who would harm them, cared for them, and rebuked those who thought they were less than anyone else or treated them poorly. He did the same for children.
So what other specific gender issues would there be? Leadership? Roles? Homosexuality? Who is allowed to do what? All of these, in my Christian worldview, are determined by an understanding of Scripture. Of what Scripture does not address specifically, I will sift through the overall teaching of Scripture.
On the subject of “one-woman man”/”one-man woman,” whatcha think the author of 1 Timothy 5:9 would say about this woman:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/weird/Indiana-Woman-Said-I-Do-23-Times.html
Oh, my! Definitely not a one-man-kinda-woman!
and then of course there is the Octuplet’s mom who is a mom kinda woman but not the man kinda woman..
Heaven help us!
Wayne’s question is especially relevant to me. I came to Christ as a young adult, after much discussion and wrestling with the Bible. At that time I was convinced (and remain convinced) that the Bible is the “God – breathed,” inerrant, authoritative Word of God. Almost immediately it seemed that reps from every alternative religious group in northern Wisconsin showed up to challenge orthodox interpretations (I didn’t know we had Mormons up there until this time!). This experience, as well as my own rather thorough conversion history, gave me a deep interest in Scriptural truth and apologetics and an awareness of the ways the Bible can be abused. My early training and fellowship were in conservative evangelical churches where comp teaching was unquestioned. I accepted it wholeheartedly and never even considered looking for an alternative. My job was (and is) molding myself to God’s will as revealed in the Bible, not the other way around.
. . . After I had been a Christian for a couple years, I was blessed with the chance to study at Moody Bible Institute for a semester. Moody is a well regarded, influential, and staunchly comp evangelical school focusing on training Christians for ministry. The teaching itself was thoroughly comp – but I was one of those students who liked to play in the library, and there I found my first egalitarian book. I prayed and brought the same commitment to truth-seeking and careful study that had served me earlier when weighing unorthodox claims. I contacted my comp pastor at home, who kindly provided information and guidance. I also took advantage of the research resources available at Moody. And, with my goal specifically being not to justify one position over another but to seek truth, I concluded that the egal position best represented the original intent of the biblical writers, and that the comp position, while sincerely held, likely derived from early cultural influence reinforced by human fallen nature.
I freely admit that I’m no theologian, but I’ve continued to pray and seek, and hold my egal (and other) convictions up to scrutiny to the best of my ability. I’ve had wonderful opportunities to dig deep and learn more about history, theology, science, and philosophy over the years – and what I have learned, in addition to my observations and experiences in the church and world, has served to reinforce my egal convictions. Please do not assume that egals don’t take the Bible seriously – my stance is based on my conviction that the Bible needs to be obeyed no matter what, whether it results in persecution by the “world” or risks misunderstanding and rejection by fellow Christians.
David,
For example, some have redefined the teachings about husband as head AND about Christ as head. In not wanting to think of a husband as being a leader or an authority, some folk on this website have said that Christ also is not leader, but simply coleads with us.
I think this is taking reigning with Christ too far. While we are given great authority now, and even greater in the coming age, we will always defer to our Lord Jesus. He will always be LORD and God.
I am not sure whether you are referring to statements I’ve made in comments on other threads, but want to clarify that I would not say that Christ co-leads with us. First of all, Christ is God — something that we will never be. Second, we only receive the fellowship and love of God/the Trinity, as well as life everlasting, because of Christ’s atoning death and subsequent resurrection. We only receive the power to love because of, and through, Him.
I believe that a lot of the confusion results from equating “head” with “leader.” They are not the same. Christ is our head, and His leadership is love. But this love-leadership is something we are all called to do, regardless of our sex.
Sarah,
There’s a lot of hidden egals at the Moody Bible Institute.
Hi Bonnie
I think the Scriptures make Christ as “head” and as our leader to be substantially the same.
For example, when we read ” As the church submits to Christ in all things …” we see the church being called to submit to Christ’s authority.
“For example, when we read ” As the church submits to Christ in all things …” we see the church being called to submit to Christ’s authority.”
I don’t know. I think ‘in all things’ is different than His authority. Plus, the question is also whether the subject is authority (which I don’t see linked anywhere in that section) or in honor, trust or something similar.
at this link
http://evepheso.wordpress.com/
are some interesting quotes from 1 Clement about the submission verses in Ephesians.
Mike Aubrey…
“In 1 Clement submission does not refer to and ordered structure of authority but simply where one defers to another regarding gifting. Submission becomes an act where one person defers to another depending on circumstances or abilities. In fact we see that the one who is in authority in 1 Clement actually ends up serving the one who submits. The following sentence continues: “
1 Clement …..
(1) The strong must not neglect the weak, and the weak must respect the strong. Let the rich support the poor; and let the poor give thanks to God, because He has given him someone through whom his needs may be met. Let the wise display his wisdom not in words but in good works. The humble person should not testify to his own humility, but leave it to someone else to testify about him. Let the one who is physically pure remain so and not boast, recognizing that it is someone else who grants this self-control. (3) Let us acknowledge, brothers, from what matter we were made; who and what we were, when we came into the world; from what grave and what darkness he who made and created us brought us into his world, having prepared his benefits for us before we were born. (4) Seeing, therefore, that we have all these things from him, we ought in every respect to give thanks to him, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
David,
For example, some have redefined the teachings about husband as head AND about Christ as head. In not wanting to think of a husband as being a leader or an authority, some folk on this website have said that Christ also is not leader, but simply coleads with us.
When making a statement of this kind it is helpful to everyone if you cite someone or something.
There are hundreds of posts on this site. I tried to give the gist of what was said. I’m sorry that I did not specify the writer, nor quote. I tried to accurately convey the sense of what was said.
Someone then responded, claiming ownership of what I cited, with a clarification.
[...] post. Some responses to Eric’s question have already appeared under my preceding post on Scripture and Gender Issues. I deleted Eric’s comment, so it could be highlighted as a post. Additional comments can be [...]
Hi David,
As the church submits to Christ in all things
If you are referring to Ephesians 5:24, this is the immediate context:
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. (NASB)
Paul is speaking to wives. He does not tell wives to be subject to their husbands’ authority, but to them. Likewise, he says that the church is subject to Christ, not to His authority. And, as the church is subject to Christ, so also ought wives be to their husbands. He speaks in terms of “head” – the husband is head of the wife, and Christ is head of the church. Earlier in the letter, he also speaks of Christ as head:
1:22-23: And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
4:15-16: but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
So then, what does it mean to be head? These passages speak of Christ as head which is attached to the Body, as head over all things to the church, as one who fills, who supplies, for the building-up of the church (His body) in love.
How is this analogous to a husband? This is the question which must be answered, I think, in order to understand what Paul is saying to wives in Eph. 5.
As to the things Christ is and does as head, He has authority to be and do them, and leads by doing them, and we could even say that He directs by doing them, but leading and directing are not the focus of the “head” passages.
And it must be noted that the analogy to a husband is limited: a husband does not have this authority as Christ does; he can only love, lead, and direct properly as he himself submits to Christ as part of His body, the church. (As Christ can only do so as He submits to God the Father, although, since He is one with the Father, He will never not submit.) A husband, however, as a fallen human, will fail in his submission. Yet, he is subject to Christ as Christ is to God the Father, and as a wife is to Christ, and is to be to her husband, though she will fail.
Ephs. 5:24 is not a call for the church to submit to Christ’s authority; it says that the church is subject to Christ. There is no indication that the church has any choice in the matter. Wives, however, do have a choice; they can choose to submit to their husbands or not.
A case for the church being called to submit to Christ’s authority which is outside of his authority as head would have to be made using other Scripture, unless the authority we are speaking of is that of love, which is the context of the “filling” and “supply” of which Paul speaks. But a wife is not called to submit to her husband’s authority unless that authority is one of love, her model of which is Christ’s love, which is never non-existent and never failing.
And a wife cannot submit to her husband’s love and supply and filling in everything, because, being not Christ but human, he does not love, supply, and fill her in everything! However, as the source of the stuff from which she was made, she can submit to him in everything, honoring him and being loyal to him in everything. The analogy between Christ and husbands, then, can not be drawn any closer than that. And I do not know how to reconcile a husband’s being head as indicating preeminence or prominence with husband and wife (man and woman) being equal in Christ.
A husband has authority to fill, supply, and direct his wife in love, but only through Christ; Christ is the intermediary. A wife, however, does not need her husband as intermediary to also fill, supply, or direct her husband in love; her intermediary is Christ.
Because of this, I believe that the equation of “head” with “authority” and “leader” in an absolute sense is an anachronistic extrapolation with no proof in Scripture. There is a difference between the authority and leadership of Christ and that of husbands, since husbands themselves are part of the Body of which Christ is head, Christ being perfect – God – and husbands not.
(sorry for the long comment; I tried to be thorough
)
This doesn’t make sense to me, Bonnie. It seems to me that I submit to Christ because God has placed him in authority over me.
“This doesn’t make sense to me, Bonnie. It seems to me that I submit to Christ because God has placed him in authority over me.”
I don’t know David. Did you come to know the Lord as your Lord and Savior because you realized He was the authority of the world. Or did you come to know the Lord because He willingly suffered death so that you could be freed from the power of sin and evil? Did you come to know the Lord because you realized how much He loves you?
I submit to the Lord and love the Lord because I trust Him and know that He loves me more than and more perfectly than any human being ever can. I recognize His authority, but it is secondary to the fact that I trust Him. Demons recognize God’s authority and submit to it but they do not trust Him, neither do they love Him.
David, I appreciate your honesty
It seems to me that I submit to Christ because God has placed him in authority over me.
Our context in this discussion is the relationship of husband and wife, and men and women in the church. Specifically, the conversation between you and me centered around the meaning of “head.”
May I ask for your thoughts on a question? If “head” and “governing authority” are equivalent, then why are governments, parents, and masters not said to be heads, in Scripture? Why is “head” something specific about God, Christ, and men?
And another question
: Is all authority the same?
Hi Bonnie
I think “head” is often used in an equivalent sense to “leader.” I think the context shows this.
I don’t think all authority is the same, but do think that all Christians have folk to submit to. If I choose not to submit to the policeman or to my pastor, I am not submitting to someone God has placed over me, and so I am not submitting to God.
Bonnie,
I know you asked these questions to David. If you don’t mind, I’ll chime in and run off again.
May I ask for your thoughts on a question? If “head” and “governing authority” are equivalent, then why are governments, parents, and masters not said to be heads, in Scripture? Why is “head” something specific about God, Christ, and men?
And another question
: Is all authority the same?
ove your
Thanks for asking that question. If the main meaning of “head” is governing authority, or person in authority over, then why is it only used of husbands in relationship to their wives?
And I would add to it, what do you do with the rest of the verse?
Head is explained in relation to the body, of which the head is the savior.
I’m not suggesting husbands are saviors of their wives. But what if it’s meaning to Christ’s sacrificial love to the church?
As later on, in verses 25-30 Paul tells husbands to
It all seems to be referring to Christ’s sacrifice, love and nurturing of the Church, because we are his body. I don’t see any reference to authority or leading. (Although Christ is our authority, or leader and our lord, but that may not be what his being head of the church implies).
Masters and parents are not commanded to be one with their slaves and children in their relationship of master-slave, parent-child. As members of the body of Christ, yes. While husbands are commanded to be one with their wives.
The authority of master over slave and parent over child is limited (or can be limited, in the case of slaves) in it’s duration. Masters can release their slaves, and I recall Paul pleading for Onesimus, Philemon’s slave, that he receive him as a brother, no longer as a slave, and offering to pay off anything Onesimus owes Philemon.
That sounds like a request that he free him.
Children (males) are commanded to leave father and mother to marry, and daughters were given in marriage, released from their parents’ authority.
Another point regarding authority is that all authorities have been given the power to compell those under them to obedience. (Not to mention, slaves, children and citizens are told to obey, not submit to, their authorities)
Husbands are never given the right to compel their wives to submission or obedience.
It seems like Paul was talking to men in a society where they were authorities over their wives, and telling them that they are the head, and that’s why they ought to love their wives sacrificially. Kind of like Christ, who didn’t consider his equality with God as something to be grasped, became a servant and died for us, to join us as his body to him, the head.
I don’t know if this makes any sense. Just some thoughts.
David,
A couple points regarding submitting to authorities and submission within marriage.
Authorities of the land are necessary to keep order. Remember in Romans 12 that those who obey authorities have no need to fear (the authorities), while those who don’t, have all the reason to fear because they can be rightfully punished.
Are you suggesting that somehow the relationship of a wife to a husband ought to be one of obeying, even some times just to avoid punishment?
Did God give husbands authority to punish their wives for disobedience?
And God didn’t command authorities and citizens to be one flesh. The relationship is very different.
Amazing reply, Believer 3!
“I think “head” is often used in an equivalent sense to “leader.” I think the context shows this.”
In English, in America, in our era it is. But I do not believe this was so in the times of Scripture. Especially when ‘head of’ (not head over) is used metaphorically, we need to see how and in what way it is used metaphorically.
There is a couple uses in the OT where a metaphorical use of ‘head of and tail of’ was used to signify leader and follower or authority and submitter. But it is not used this way in the NT, There is not head of and tail of metaphor. It is primarily used in a ‘head of and body of’ metaphor.