There has been some discussion in recent comments on this blog about what might be a more accurate label for the side in the gender debate which is the other side from egalitarians. It has been correctly noted that egalitarians believe in complementarity within marriage and the church. So do Complementarians.
Here’s how I see a main difference in views on complementarity between Complementarians and Egalitarians: It seems to me that Complementarians focus on complementarity of roles while egalitarians focus on complementarity of gifts and personalities.
Now, obviously, Complementarians have always recognized that there are differences between people having to do with their gifts and personalities. So, both Complementarians and Egalitarians share this recognition that we are unique individuals, with different gifts and personalities. But this is not the kind of complementarity that Complementarians focus upon. They focus upon what they believe are divinely designed roles that differ for men and women, by virtue of them being men and women. There are, for them, important gender roles.
Egalitarians agree with Complementarians that there are gender roles which are biologically based. Women bear children. Men do not. So child-bearing is a role on which Complementarians and Egalitarians agree with regard to complementarity.
In general, Egalitarians do not find in Scripture or in common sense that they believe comes from God that there are any other roles within marriage or the church which are gender based. Instead, the assignment of any roles within any particular marriage or church would be according to gifting. If a husband is the better cook, then the husband will often do more of the cooking. If the husband is better at child care and the wife is gifted as a professor or stock broker or journalist, then sometimes the wife will be the major wage earner while the husband has a primary role nurturing their children. Many Egalitarians would consider such role assignment based on the complementarity of their individual gifts to be appropriate. Many Complementarians would disagree.
Have I summarized focal beliefs on complementarity correctly?
Great job, in my opinion.
I would add/qualify that per my understanding of how Complementarians view the church and the “roles” in the church, there is in actuality no default or defined “complementary” role that is for women only, as all the “roles” in the church can be filled and performed by men, whereas there are several church “roles” that can never be filled or performed by women. Thus, I don’t think Complementarians are actually complementarian when it comes to the church.
Feel free to correct me if I am in error here.
I like to eat roles. Roles are what I get from eating too many roles. (Rolls, I know
Roles are something played. By actors. In a play. How do roles even relate to real life marriages, real husbands & wives, and the living, breathing organic life we have with Jesus Christ? Shouldn’t we just be who we are in Him, and give others the grace to do the same?
CG:
I suspect one reason the word “roles” has come to be used here is because Complegalitarian blog author David McKay, himself a Complementarian, has often used that term in his posts and comments and arguments here.
Or maybe “roles” is common lingo among Complementarians and the CBMW folks when speaking of the differences between men and women.
CG:
When you speak of “roles” (or “rolls”) and say the words, do you make a special effort to roll your r’s? (As in: “R-r-r-r-ruffles have r-r-r-r-ridges.” And, eating too many Ruffles can make one a bit roly-poly.)
Eric,
I agree with that observation regarding complementarity in the church.
I think Complementarians are also more concerned about who exercises authority over whom than Egalitarians seem to be. Both in marriage and in the church, a hierarchy is taught and lived out (to a greater or lesser degree).
Eric wrote:
Or maybe “roles” is common lingo among Complementarians and the CBMW folks when speaking of the differences between men and women.
Yes, it is (they are?). Divinely-designed roles is an important belief of Complementarianism.
The people who invented the term “Comp.” decided that they needed a new word, as the existing words that described their beliefs had negative connotations in today’s world. Some of those people later decided that patriarchy was not such a bad word and use it to describe themselves and have separated from CBMW and criticized it for not being plain speaking.
The existing word that I think best describes this type of thinking is “masculinist” as they believe males by virtue of being males are to be leaders in home and church by God’s choice.
But names are a part of one’s identity and go beyond the name to indicate a framework, a way of viewing Scripture and even reality. Frameworks indicate a default context, this is especially true in this case. To me as an egal, many times it seems like comps are “wearing blue glasses” and see blue when it is not really there; and I can believe that comps believe they are seeing clearly and it is me who is wearing colored lenses.
This blog seems to be a gracious oasis of Christian thinking and healing.
I take it that by ’soft’ Complementarianism, we mean that, for example, while a husband is to lead, he is to do so lovingly, considerately and sacrificially; while a wife is to submit, she is not to do so unquestioningly.
There’s a Christian counsellor training organisation based in the UK (www.cwr.org.uk) that teaches Complementarianism for marriage but Egalitarianism for church leadership. I’ve been looking for something on such a mix on this blog, but I haven’t found anything yet.
It seems to me that if one accepts Complementarianism in relation to marriage, one has also to accept it in relation to church leadership to be theologically consistent.
The reason I believe this is that Adam was both a husband and a spiritual leader – he was spiritually responsible – for his progeny (Ge. 1:28, Ro. 5:12-19). If Adam hadn’t sinned, we would see this very clearly, as he would still be alive.
Someone might say, well what about leadership among groups of his children? It seems to me that the status of the first-born son, invested by God throughout the Torah, suggests that leadership would still be male.
Wayne, when you write about Complementarianism, you seem to be able to do it dispassionately, but other posts here come across as being written with a sting in the tail.
David:
I assure you I have no sting in my tail. Sometimes my questions or comments may seem blunt, but I think that’s more a function of the medium (i.e., the limits of written communication) than the messenger. Were we two (or three or four) to dispassionately discourse about these things over a draft (or a draught – or three or four), I think the tone would be basically pleasant all around. Or at least I would hope it would be.
Wayne, when you write about Complementarianism, you seem to be able to do it dispassionately, but other posts here come across as being written with a sting in the tail.
Thanks, David.
Unfortunately, the sting goes both ways. Egalitarians hear a sting when you have written that the Bible is “clear and unambiguous” supporting your position. I know that you don’t intend a sting by that. You are simply stating what you honestly believe.
Each side feels the sting when the other side tells what they honestly believe and it sounds like a criticism of the other side, *unless* we work very, very hard to word our statements in I-terms, such as “from this wording in the Bible I personally have concluded …” or, “OK, I can see how you could get that understanding from that verse, but here is how I understand it.”
I continue to hope that I can be a shepherd on this blog, leading us to remove the stings when we comment. But I also recognize that it is very difficult to do when such important issues are at stake, such as when an abusive husband uses the pretext of complementarian teaching to force his wife to obey him. For anyone who has been abused (I am one myself) it can be difficult to separate the abuse of a doctrinal position from the position itself. And the difficulty is compounded when some teachers of the position make statements that sound so very close to that of abusers who distort the doctrine for their own abusive purposes.
And the same goes for egalitarians. It is possible for a Biblical Egalitarians to try to force their beliefs on people who are Biblical Complementarians. Any such force or negation of the other’s points of view sting, because they affect us at our core where we have tried to come to a position which is truly godly and biblical. Any such force is contrary to the teaching of true godly, biblical love, as taught, for instance, in 1 Cor. 13.
How to be true to one’s understanding of the Bible, yet speak lovingly without a sting is a task that is extremely difficult. Sometimes I wonder, with others here, if it is even possible. But, yet, I find examples in the Bible and church history, where, eventually, at least, there was some bridge-building done, some peace between the differing sides, some acceptance to fellowship even while convictions have not changed, some willingness not to demonize the other side.
I struggle greatly with all this, David. I empathize with each side in this debate. I can feel the sting each side feels.
How then should be speak to each other? I made some suggestions at the beginning of this comment for ways of wording our statements that might help. But I don’t know if my suggestions are realistic in all cases. I’m not sure if I know any more now about trying to build bridges between comps and egals, or even about trying to create a safe environment in which each can speak, than I did when I started this blog. Should we give up trying? I don’t know. I really don’t know. Maybe the best answer, sometimes, when we believe things do differently so deeply is to try to avoid each other. Yet our words continue to impact the others even if we avoid direct dialogue, since each side has blogs, books, and other forums which have plenty of sting for the other side.
David, if you have any ideas that might help rescue us from these dilemmas, I would very much appreciate hearing them.
Wayne:
I’m not sure if I know any more now about trying to build bridges between comps and egals, or even about trying to create a safe environment in which each can speak, than I did when I started this blog.>>>>>
It’s not a safe place at all for Complementarians, and I don’t think that most who participate here want it to be.
Is that your fault? No, of course not. Your intentions are good, and your cause noble.
I don’t know who you mean by the “most” who “[you] don’t think…want it to be” “a safe place at all for Complementarians,” but speaking for myself I can say that I join Wayne in wanting this blog to be “a safe place” for all, whether Complementarian, Egalitarian, or anything in-between.
“It’s not a safe place at all for Complementarians, and I don’t think that most who participate here want it to be.”
As far as stings go (as Wayne pointed out) both egals and non egals are getting stung by the conversation. I consider this a good thing. We humans like to think we have arrived and need no more growth, after all growth is work and often not exactly fun. But it does not behoove the conversation to make negative assumptions about others unstated motives.
A more positive assumption and likely more accurate, would be to say that none of us wants to be stung and few make deliberate efforts to sting others. Most here are dialoguing on subjects that are important to us. We are hoping not only for deeper understanding from others, but within ourselves as well.
In the end all, we are all Christian brethren who will be spending eternity together. It would seem reasonable that we try to get along better while we are here.
TL/Believer3
Eric:
Were we two (or three or four) to dispassionately discourse about these things over a draft (or a draught – or three or four), I think the tone would be basically pleasant all around. Or at least I would hope it would be.>>>>
Webfoot:
Beer might help. I prefer coffee, but that probably wouldn’t help. Hmmm. I’m going to have a cup right now, so watch out when I come back caffinated. You’ve been warned.
Webfoot:
I know you were talking to David. Don’t mind me.
Mrs. Webfoot
TL, that’s fine. You are free to call it as you see it. I think that the fact that very few Complementarians are participating should tell you something, but that’s up to you.
Hello cndo. Welcome.
”It seems to me that if one accepts Complementarianism in relation to marriage, one has also to accept it in relation to church leadership to be theologically consistent. The reason I believe this is that Adam was both a husband and a spiritual leader – he was spiritually responsible – for his progeny (Ge. 1:28, Ro. 5:12-19). If Adam hadn’t sinned, we would see this very clearly, as he would still be alive. Someone might say, well what about leadership among groups of his children? It seems to me that the status of the first-born son, invested by God throughout the Torah, suggests that leadership would still be male.”
Personally, I can get along with soft complementarianism in marriage providing that there is no authoritarianism. However, in the body of Christ I find no room for male dominance in Scripture. You say you believe that Adam was spiritually responsible for his progeny in Gen. 1:28. Do you not see that Eve was spiritually responsible for her progeny as well. Do you not see that parents are both equally responsible for their children?
You might also enjoy doing some research about the ’status’ of a firstborn son. God often passes by the firstborn and uses another.
Well, Eric, I may be wrong. Should I present some quotes that would help you see why I have that impression?
I’m glad to know that you, Eric, want this to be a safe place for all. I believe you. I choose to believe you.
I also choose to believe Wayne.
Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.
God bless you,
Mrs. Webfoot
Mrs. Webfoot:
As one who is likewise passionate about good coffee, I am sure what we have in common is much greater than our differences!
I’m now trying the Melitta Single Cup Coffee Brewer (I found it for $2.99 at the Kroger grocery store after looking everwhere for it – Wal-Mart, Target, Penney’s, Belk’s, Sam’s, Costco, Foley’s/Macy’s, Dillard’s) with the Melitta #2 Flavorpore micro-perforated filters. I’ve been an Aerobie AeroPress “fanatic” for 1.5 years:
http://www.aerobie.com/Products/aeropress.htm
after switching to it from a French Press, but I’m finding I can get just as good (or better) coffee with the Melitta, and it uses 30% – 50% less coffee per cup, too. Heat my water in a $30 Wal-Mart GE 1.7 qt. automatic tea kettle and I’m good to go!
As for beer – while I like the taste (compared to non-alcoholic beer), alcohol and I don’t get along very well with each other, so when I do imbibe, I know I’ll pay for it later (but it’s a price worth paying if the fellowship is worthwhile).
Wayne: It appears that the “bridge” that can be built between Comps and Egals is a “beverage bridge.” Maybe we should all just take communion together, using croissants and coffee, or popcorn and beer?
The kind of person I want to be is the kind that can graciously disagree.
I don’t always do it so well.
Sorry.
However, this exercise is good for me to learn how to communicate my disagreement without flaming, name-calling, or any of the other things we fall into when we get frustrated.
Stand back, I’m on a coffee high too.
.
Maybe I should post at night after a glass of wine instead.
Eric suggested:
Wayne: It appears that the “bridge” that can be built between Comps and Egals is a “beverage bridge.” Maybe we should all just take communion together, using croissants and coffee, or popcorn and beer?
Ah, yes! But some of us are old enough to have been raised in churches where consumption of any alcohol was one of the deadly sins. I don’t think popcorn was ever sinful, but I know that some religious groups abstain from drinking any caffeine on religious grounds (hmm, would that be coffee grounds?!).
Eric:
Or maybe “roles” is common lingo among Complementarians and the CBMW folks when speaking of the differences between men and women.>>>>
Webfoot:
I’ll ask you point blank. What do you have against holy rollers? Hmmmm?
Webfoot:
Yes, I think that you got it when you say that roles have to do with our differences. We are equal, but we are also different. We are equal in the sense of being alike, but we are not exactly the same.
Webfoot:
Men and women are not exactly equal, as if man=woman. No one believes that. If you look up the word “equal”, you will find that it means alike, but it does not mean the same.
Webfoot:
In fact, the very words husband, and father are Biblical words and they are also roles. The words wife and mother are Biblical terms, and they are also roles.
Webfoot:
A man is not born a husband or father, but sometime in his life, most men take on those roles. A man can engender children, but that does not necessarily make him a husband or even a father in any real sense. It is when he learns to be a good husband or learns to be a good father that he is fulfilling the role as it should be.
Webfoot:
The same can be said of a woman and being a wife or a mother. We are born with certain physical, emotional, intellectual and other basic capacities by design. However, we also have to learn how to be what we were designed to be.
Webfoot:
Compare it to a musical talent. A person may be talented, but if he or she doesn’t spend time developing that natural ability, they won’t live up to their full potential.
Webfoot:
If you don’t like the term “role”, then say “talent” or “gifting” or something like that. Women have a natural talent for being wives and mothers. Some are better at it than others. Some are more talented, or gifted, for being single. However, all women can learn how to be better at being wives, mothers, or even as single women whose natural desires are channeled in other ways. It’s very hard for a woman when she is unable to have children, even when married, but by God’s grace, there are other ways to fulfillment.
Webfoot:
I could say similar things about a man.
webfoot:
I’m not really sure what the problem is with saying that men and women have different assigned roles, but then I’m not everyone. I’m just me. I don’t speak for everyone, just myself and what I believe. Complementarian best describles what I believe that Bible and God’s creation design teach us.
Mrs. Webfoot
Not if one doesn’t see the NT as teaching patriarchalism when it comes to how the church is to meet. E.g., I don’t see the NT teaching that single women are to relate to a male pastor as married women are to relate to their husbands, or vice-versa. Nor do I see the NT teaching that the “pastor” is a stand-in for Christ. (When I/we were Orthodox, we were taught that one reason priests were male was because when they were speaking to the congregation, they were representing Christ, and Christ, of course, was a male. And, conversely, when they faced the altar and prayed to God, they were representing and speaking for the congregation.)
Unless one takes this Orthodox (and presumably Roman Catholic) view of the priesthood, what function does the “leadership” of a church perform that requires a male to do it? What “leadership” charismata can only dwell in the male of the species? What actions of the Holy Spirit can only be expressed by male Christians?
Webfoot: ” TL, that’s fine. You are free to call it as you see it. I think that the fact that very few Complementarians are participating should tell you something, but that’s up to you.”
You bring up an interesting point Webfoot. Since starting my online dialoguing in staunchly patriarchal/comp forums and lists (since 1995), I have found that for the most part comps have been the most hesitant to engage in real dialogue. Whereas it has been overwhelmingly egals who have been seeking dialogue with those who differ hoping for complementary fellowship and understanding. I’ve always found this odd and wondered why.
My thinking which of course holds some bias, is that as egals who believe in mutuality, we do not want to cut off those who differ. But the originators of ‘complementarianism’, CBMW, have sought to negatively label and cut off those who differ. Thus it ends up to be the egals who are seeking fellowship with non egals, not the other way around.
Just a thought. Do not feel you need to answer.
“I get by with a little help from my friends. ohh, I get high with a little help from my friends.” Don’t mind me, Mara. We were in Liverpool last week.
Popcorn’s good.
…and Belguim. I gots chocolate and coffee. Life is good.
I’m really offended that you all consider popcorn and beer a substitute for the Lord’s Supper. Clearly you are unscriptural and skewed by a right/left [insert flavor of your choice]-wing agenda. I’m horrified and think this proves exactly what I’ve been saying, which is that I’m the one who is right, and you all have major problems.
.
.
.
.
.
[couldn't resist~!]
Well, Molleth, you KNOW that in my scheme of things it would all be part of a larger FULL MEAL. I don’t believe in communion “elements.” I think the Lord’s Supper/Table should be a FULL SUPPER. If you don’t leave full, you haven’t had supper!
But if you need to crucify a Jew for mocking communion, go ahead, pound the nails in my hands. I and my people are used to it.
When I went to theological college, we had an American lecturer called Randy. His name greatly amused us Aussies as Martin’s first encounter with him shows:
Randy: Hi, I’m Randy.
Martin: G’day. I’m sexy.
Randy told us about going to seminary and then on to graduate school.
At seminary, the big sin was smoking. Christians don’t smoke. But they all had a great time playing card games [but certainly not gambling]. Then in graduate school, he found the situation had reversed. Most students smoked, but card-playing was one of the seven deadly sins. This was a blow to Randy, who was a canasta fan.
If you make it to Germany, drop by.
I bake some very nice muffins…
You may not want to come if you haven’t had the pox…
Thank you, Madame. That sounds lovely. The pox? That sounds kind of Medieval.
Actually, though, we live way out in the wilds of the Pacific Northwest, with , racoons, bears and deer for neighbors, and are now back home. We are quite uncivilized, I now realize.
So, it may be awhile before we get to Germany. Keep some muffins warm for me. I’ll provide the Starbucks.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Maybe the blog should be renamed Complegourmetarians. It seems like we’ve found something we can all agree on.
A bridge has been built and crossed!
Lol,
I meant chickenpox!
Your neighbourhood sounds lovely….
Eric,
I think we could build all sorts of bridges if we didn’t talk so much about our differences…
“In general, Egalitarians do not find in Scripture or in common sense that they believe comes from God that there are any other roles within marriage or the church which are gender based. . . .
Have I summarized focal beliefs on complementarity correctly?”
Yes, with the addition that Complementarians believe that Scripture does teach there are some vocations (I hate the word “roles” that are allowed for men in the church which are not allowed for women. The offices of elder and overseer being the two vocations.
If you are thinking of a better term for “soft complementarianism,” someone once mentioned “neo-traditionalism.” I think the intent was to divest the term “traditionalism” of some legalistic baggage that had got stuck to it.
It’s an idea, anyway. The hard comps can’t stand the term “complementarian.” They tend to lean toward the term “patriarchy,” which means “father-rule,” but when the Bible speaks of patriarchy, it means a tribal form of human government, therefore, I don’t believe it is a good term to use when speaking of marriage and the church.
My 2 cents.
It’s not a safe place at all for Complementarians, and I don’t think that most who participate here want it to be.
I agree with the first part, Mrs. Webfoot. I am not smart enough or divine enough to know the motives of others on this blog. I’m sinful enough that I sometimes don’t even know my own motives. I do know, but no one has to believe me, that a real part of me longs to see comps and egals treat each other with greater respect, not just on this blog, which is a pretty good reflection of how comps and egals treat each other “out there.”
I like to believe the best of people, until proven otherwise.
Life involves risk-taking and that is difficult for me because I was a victim of bad abuse and watched my mother get it badly also. So my natural tendency is to continue to try to protect myself. And that has caused problems in my relationships with others. God has been working on me for many years dealing with these issues. He’s not done yet. And he may not be finished when he takes me to glory.
But I have started taking some risks, when there is no evidence (yet, anyway), that someone will harm me. And the joy that has come from that has been wonderful. I never knew that other people could be trusted. I have found out that some not only can be trusted, but they don’t judge, either. I think God is that way also. I’m still learning that about him. He has been patient, waiting for me to catch on to what is true about him. He really isn’t abusive. But it’s easy for me to be afraid of him, given my childhood and even later years.
I suspect there are some lessons for all of us that we learn in the school of pain inflicted by others (or ourselves).
I have so much to learn. Anything I do now that has any value comes from God. I lived too long trying to make it on my own, as a super-spiritual little boy trying to survive in a dangerous world.
All of what I have said in this comment colors how I look at life and disagreements among my fellow Christians. I want something better for others, just as (I think) I do for myself.
Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief!
That is so awesome, Wayne…
Webfoot:
It’s not a safe place at all for Complementarians, and I don’t think that most who participate here want it to be.
Wayne:
I agree with the first part, Mrs. Webfoot. I am not smart enough or divine enough to know the motives of others on this blog.
Webfoot:
The last part is very simple. When some spend most of their time explaing what complementarians believe and how abusive comps tend to be and how terrible we are, I have to wonder what gives. I read the words and the words communicate rejection.
How can it not be intentional? If it is not intentional, then what is it? Insensitivity? Carelessness? What?
Hi believer3,
I am grateful to have some feedback from you to stimulate my thinking further.
I had Ro. 5:12-19 in mind when I said I believe Adam was spiritually responsible for his progeny.
I believe parents are equally responsible in relation to extent but not in type. Similarly, although all children need both respect and praise, boys tend to thrive on respect more while girls tend to thrive on praise more.
Surely Christ models both masculinity and femininity: masculinity in His leadership of the Church, and femininity in His submission to His Father’s will.
You said God ‘often’ passes by the firstborn and uses another, but I can only find one example. It’s true that happened with Esau and Jacob, but what about the overall thrust of the Bible? God’s histrionics after Abram’s attempted sacrifice, His emphasis with the tenth plague (Ex. 4:22-23), His teaching in the Torah (Ex. 13:2) and indeed His fanfare with the advent of Christ himself.
Respectfully
Hi EricW,
I also don’t see the NT teaching that single women are to relate to a male pastor as married women are to relate to their husbands, and vice-versa.
I also don’t regard the “pastor” as a stand-in for Christ.
I believe the function the “leadership” of a church performs that requires a man to do it is that of honouring God and His original design (from 1 Tim. 2) rather than being preoccupied with its busyness, what it regards as its gifts; itself.
Respectfully
Mrs. Webfoot wrote,
the very words husband, and father are Biblical words and they are also roles. The words wife and mother are Biblical terms, and they are also roles.
OK. But what are these roles? What are their limits and what are their extents?
If ‘husband’ is a role what other roles, if any, are subsumed under that label? Likewise with ‘father’, ‘wife’ and ‘mother’?
I’m a fan of “Wife Swap”. I realise each show is probably edited this way and that for dramatic effect but, nevertheless, it’s fascinating to watch other human beings be human beings. A couple of nights ago the episode was about a swap between Christian families.
In one family the ‘husband’ seemed to be a pastor in some sort of pentecostal church – at least he was a pastor and there was a lot of jumping about going on during the filmed service. In this family the ‘wife’ role seemed to include getting the husband a cup of tea before he got out of bed and then making breakfast for him, doing all the cooking and cleaning and washing and ironing, doing all the bathing of children, and generally supporting him by being involved in various church activities and behaving in a very respectable, restrained, middle-class fashion. That is, this man’s ‘husband’ role seemed to be limited to remaining on reasonably affectionate terms with his wife and having conjugal relations with her (I presume). His ‘father’ role seemed to be limited to doing the job that would earn an income and having some interaction with the children. The woman’s ‘wife’ role seemed to encompass everything else related to maintaining the home and raising the children.
The other family, as you would expect for the sake of dramatic tension, was quite different. The wife saw no great virtue in preparing meals from scratch. The husband, to the dismay of his swap-wife, enjoyed bathing his children. The couple spent money at the betting shop and in going out for a drink with their friends, singly or together. They enjoyed spontaneity and sharing their lives.
To me, one of the most interesting things about this episode of the show was the final meeting between both couples. As you would hope (since this was a show about Christian couples) they were very civil towards each other. Civility is often missing at these meetings.
As one might also hope, the couples learned something from being exposed to another way of living. (Despite the common lack of civility, learning from the experience is quite common.) The pastor decided to take on more of the housework himself, his wife decided to allow more spontaneity into her life and the other couple decided they would find a church to go to. Lovely!
But all this is really a question. When people talk about ‘husband’ and ‘father’ being roles, or about ‘wife’ and ‘mother’ being roles, how do they define those roles? Do the words, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ merely denote that a man and woman who sexual relations together or does ‘husband’ also mean ’someone whose domestic service requirements are met’ and ‘wife’ mean ’someone who provides domestic services’? Does ‘father’ mean ’someone who has fathered children’ or does it mean ’someone who will do what is necessary to raise his children’ or does it mean ’someone who provides a woman who will do what is necessary to raise his children’?
Another interesting thing to me was this: when the couples reunited the “slack” Christians gave each other a big hug and a smoochy kiss on the lips. The pastor and his wife hugged and kissed each other on the cheek.
Messed up grammar.
This sentence, Do the words, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ merely denote that a man and woman who sexual relations together or does ‘husband’ also mean ’someone whose domestic service requirements are met’ and ‘wife’ mean ’someone who provides domestic services’? should read:
Do the words, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ merely denote a man and woman who have sexual relations together or does ‘husband’ also mean ’someone whose domestic service requirements are met’ and ‘wife’ mean ’someone who provides domestic services’?
Hello cndo,
You addressed your comment to believer3, but I’d like to respond. You said,
Surely Christ models both masculinity and femininity: masculinity in His leadership of the Church, and femininity in His submission to His Father’s will.
If submission to His Father’s will is feminine, then men are to be feminine, as they are to submit to God the Father just as women are.
…although all children need both respect and praise, boys tend to thrive on respect more while girls tend to thrive on praise more.
Can you refer to any studies which give evidence of this?
On examples of “passing by” first-borns (or next-in-lines), Abel was martyred by Cain. Onan abdicated his family responsibility (to Tamar), as did the “closer relative” of Naomi’s in the story of Ruth. The Levites, not the Reubenites, were chosen to be the holy priesthood (Exodus). David is chosen over his older brothers to become king, and Solomon was chosen king over Adonijah. In all of these cases, virtue or other suitability is chosen over family rank. They are also significant in Jesus’ lineage.
1 Tim. 2 – a most controversial passage.
The opinions and interpretations run the gamut.
Speaking of God’s “original design,” what is God’s original design for the church? What is his original design for what is to happen when the church comes together?
What place does the Lord’s Table have in the meeting, and is it to be a dinner table, or an altar?
What kind of worship is the assembly supposed to engage in? Is it supposed to be a mutual sharing and edification? Is it supposed to have a musical performance and a lecture?
Is it supposed to resemble a college classroom? A family living room? A family dining room?
Is the meeting supposed to be according to a liturgy and structure? Is it supposed to allow and encourage spontaneity? If both, what is, or should be, the relationship between the two?
What is to be the central focus of the assembly? What are the saints supposed to bring to the meeting – and what are they supposed to take away from the meeting?
What and where is the place for “outsiders”?
Understanding why and how the church meets is also part of the question of whether or not men and women have or need to have distinct roles, and what those roles are or should be.
When some spend most of their time explaining what complementarians believe and how abusive comps tend to be and how terrible we are, I have to wonder what gives.
If I take their words at face value, which I prefer to do until evil motives are proven, these individuals are telling their story of abuse from people who have distorted the biblical complementarian message.
I read the words and the words communicate rejection.
Rejection of you, as a complementarian? Well, that is possible. But it is also possible, instead, that their motive is to share their pain and hope that others will care. They may be hoping that others will understand how any ideological system can be distorted and used as an excuse to justify one’s own sinful behavior. That is what I have read from their stories.
How can it not be intentional? If it is not intentional, then what is it? Insensitivity? Carelessness? What?
Excellent questions. How can we find the answers to questions? We find answers by asking the people who know the answers, those who write things which impact us as rejection. (And that impact is very important; our emotions are God-given to us as a signal that something needs to be paid attention to.)
Let me suggest that bridge-building can occur between individuals who intentionally or unintentionally hurt each other, by telling each other how we feel when specific things are said to us, and by asking if that was their intent in communicating as they did.
It is not easy to build trust between people when we have been hurt by them, but the effort is worth it. I understand that the Bible teaches it to be the way of reconciliation between individuals.
So, let me suggest that when someone writes something that triggers within you an emotion of rejection, you write to them and say, “When you wrote that about how your complementarian husband abused you, it felt to me that you were saying that complementarianism itself is abusive. And since I am a complementarian, I felt rejected by you.”
And that is pretty much all we can do. We tell someone how what they did or said impacts us. And then we leave it with them. It is their choice what to do with it. If they have a loving heart, they will want to examine how they have communicated and how it could have impacted others the way it did. And if they care about how they impact others, they may ask you for forgiveness. Or they might explain what their intention was in telling their own story. And that might give you and opportunity to bring comfort to them, as Jesus does, and calls us to do (2 Cor. 1:4).
These principles for dealing with hurt during dialogue are for egalitarians, also. Egalitarians feel hurt, also, by things said to them about complementarianism or egalitarianism. So, egalitarians, when you feel this hurt, please do not lash back. Instead, try to tell the one who said something that hurt you, “When you said that the Bible is “absolutely clear” that a man is to lead his wife, I felt hurt. It felt like you were rejecting my understanding of biblical teaching. It felt to me that you believe that your understanding is the only possible biblical truth. Can we talk about this?”
What do you think? Is there anything here that I have said that sounds like a biblical approach to dealing with rejection or pain caused by what others have said? Is there anything here that might be another approach to determining what the motives of others are?
Blessings,
Wayne
Hi cndo, thank you for responding also.
Let me share with you how I do and don’t view Romans 5:12. You imply that Adam is spiritually responsible for all humanity because they all came from his seed. But that cannot be. Adam is dead. Adam was only spiritually or otherwise responsible for his children as long as he was alive. And as long as he was alive, so was Eve as far as we can tell. Thus she also was spiritually and otherwise responsible for their children. In my view, Romans 5:12 is not about Adam or Eve being responsible in any fashion for their children, offspring, or seed.
What it is about is the fact that Adam dealt treacherously with God by deliberately disobeying Him (Adam was not deceived as Eve was) and thus was the one who ushered sin into the world. Through Adam’s disobedience, all humanity is born into sin. Adam is not responsible for anyone else’s sin. Each individual will face God for his/her own sins. But Adam is responsible for the first two being escorted out of the Garden and thus all humanity living without the real presence of God in their lives as it was in the Garden of Eden. This is NOT a reason to give Adam a special medal of honor. This is NOT a reason for men to think they are more special than women and deserve a special honor.
In fact, a seldom observed fact is that Adam in love and perhaps repentance, named his wife Mother of all living (Eve). The name that God gave to both of them, adam (Gen. 5:1-2) simply means human (part of the dust of the earth signifying his death as well), and is the naming of the race of humanity.
I’ll get back to you on the ‘firstborn’ thoughts.
Blessings,
TL/believer3
Eric, I loved the questions in your March 11, 3:27 comment. Please come and worship with us (the local Hawaiian church) any time, any place.
I think it was Don Basham who said/wrote in a book: “If you don’t know where you’re going, how will you know if what you’re doing is taking you toward your goal, or away from it.”
Similarly, if a person doesn’t know God’s purpose and plan for the church, how will he or she know whether what they’re doing and how they’re doing it is in line with God’s purpose, or at cross purposes with it?
I am not being soap-boxy or preachy, nor am I claiming to have the answer(s), but I suspect that a majority of Christians haven’t even asked themselves or God these questions. Rather, they often just accept and assume whatever their church does or most Christians do. They may question some doctrines and consequently change churches, sometimes going from one side of the Protestant/Evangelical spectrum to the other or to various places in between or even sometimes back and forth a bit. Sometimes they may even jump out of their Protestant world into Orthodoxy or Catholicism. But do they question the basic form and fashion and purpose of meeting, and why they do what they do, and why they do it the way they do?
“Tradition!” Tevye says.
Wayne:
What do you think?>>>>
What do I think? Hmmm. I think that I will keep my thoughts and my feelings to myself.
Yes, your thinkng holds some bias.
Mrs. Webfoot wrote:
the very words husband, and father are Biblical words and they are also roles. The words wife and mother are Biblical terms, and they are also roles.
Janice:
OK. But what are these roles?>>>
Yes, and I explained what I meant by roles. You are free to call what I call roles by some other name.
I think that if we did not label one another, but allowed others to self-define, there would be more bridges built.
cndo, I agree with what you are saying. Thank you for your comments.
I especially like this statement.:
“Surely Christ models both masculinity and femininity: masculinity in His leadership of the Church, and femininity in His submission to His Father’s will.”
Thank you.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
In Rom 5 Paul is using a Qol Valhomer argument for the sufficiency of Christ alone. One can tell this by the “much more”. What is says about Adam is incidental to the main point, but the claim is if Adam could have made things a total mess, how MUCH MORE can Christ fix things.
On Adam naming Eve, I can find no authorization from God for this, it was a continuation of his rebellion. But the contrast is clear, just as the woman was “the mother of all living”, the man was “the father of all dieing” due to his rebellion.
Eric:
I’m now trying the Melitta Single Cup Coffee Brewer (I found it for $2.99 at the Kroger grocery store after looking everwhere for it – Wal-Mart, Target, Penney’s, Belk’s, Sam’s, Costco, Foley’s/Macy’s, Dillard’s) with the Melitta #2 Flavorpore micro-perforated filters. I’ve been an Aerobie AeroPress “fanatic” for 1.5 years:
http://www.aerobie.com/Products/aeropress.htm>>>>
Webfoot:
That’s a very cool-looking press. My brother might like something like that. He loves his French press. I have one large one and a little one that my daughter got me at Starbucks. I use them sometimes, with Gevalia coffee.
Eric:
after switching to it from a French Press, but I’m finding I can get just as good (or better) coffee with the Melitta, and it uses 30% – 50% less coffee per cup, too. Heat my water in a $30 Wal-Mart GE 1.7 qt. automatic tea kettle and I’m good to go!>>>>
Webfoot:
Sounds good. Of course, it’s time for true confessions on my part. I use instant coffee most of the time. Here in the US, it’s Taster’s Choice Gourmet Roast. It earned the “Best Taste” award in 2008.
Webfoot:
If I go to Starbucks or another coffee shop, I get a dopio and a tall steamer. My daughter, who spent a brief time as a barista, taught me how to order it. I mix the milk into the coffee as I drink it, and then give the left over milk to my husband.
Is that a complementary kind of thing to do?
I hate to be a wet blanket, but we might not be out of the woods yet…popcorn might be safe. But: haven’t you heard – butter is evil (spoken as one slathers it abundantly on numerous edibles)!
Webfoot:
Sounds good. Of course, it’s time for true confessions on my part. I use instant coffee most of the time. Here in the US, it’s Taster’s Choice Gourmet Roast. It earned the “Best Taste” award in 2008.
Aaack!!!
On the topic of the post, one trend I’ve noticed is that many complementarians tend to view gender issues in terms of overarching themes they believe are derived from Scripture. Thus, masculinity and femininity are part of a theological structure which defines duties and identity and are intimately tied to primary themes of creation and divine nature. An individual’s gifts or preferences are legitimately expressed only within the parameters of this structure. The Bible is interpreted through its lens as well as providing its basis. I have found that some complementarians have difficulty conceptualizing male/female differentiation without reference to those things they have been taught are inextricably bound to it: authority/submission, leading/following, initiating/responding. And because of the integrated nature of their understanding, challenge to part may be seen as a threat to the whole. My egal understanding calls into question whether the structure itself is actually Biblical. Does this make sense?
For each side, I think there is a bit of an Alice in Wonderland effect when discussing things with the other side, as it reminds me of Alice talking with the Queen sometimes and the question is which side is Alice and which is the Queen. Of course, each side sees themselves as Alice, trying to make sense of what seems to not make sense.
Such a situation is ripe for misunderstandings and dings.
”On Adam naming Eve, I can find no authorization from God for this, it was a continuation of his rebellion. But the contrast is clear, just as the woman was “the mother of all living”, the man was “the father of all dieing” due to his rebellion.”
I also find no authorization from God for Adam to name his wife, NOR to take the name “human” ( adham) for his own personal name, when God gave it to both of them. The concept that naming gives one authority is also not found in Scripture.
1. Adam named the animals AFTER both with given authority over all the creatures. So naming gained him nothing new except for the exercise to experience his aloneness.
2. This naming was done after their disobedience as well.
3. There is much historical evidence of naming that was done by the townspeople both favorably and disrespectfully. Nable was named ‘fool’ by his townspeople because he was a vicious drunk who did not honor God or other people. This did not give the townsfolk authority over him at all. Fact is no one was able to take authority over Nable.
4. When Jesus renamed Peter, it was not to take authority over him (after all as Creator Christ already had all authority), but was prophetic encouragement and with Godly compassion.
I simply do not see any issue of authority, good or bad in Adam naming Eve. It is my opinion that he was honoring her. We may never know precisely what was going on in Adam’s thoughts when he did that…….. unless we kind find him in the hereafter amongst the zillions of people in heaven.
P.S. the Valhomer argument that the question of Adam is incidental to the all sufficiency of Christ, sounds very good.
Sarah, yes, it makes sense, and I was just thinking of how to address this when I read your apt comment!
Earlier, Mrs. Webfoot (hi, Mrs. Webfoot — I’m not talking about you, but to you and Sarah and everyone reading this
) said,
A man is not born a husband or father, but sometime in his life, most men take on those roles. A man can engender children, but that does not necessarily make him a husband or even a father in any real sense. It is when he learns to be a good husband or learns to be a good father that he is fulfilling the role as it should be.
The same can be said of a woman and being a wife or a mother. We are born with certain physical, emotional, intellectual and other basic capacities by design. However, we also have to learn how to be what we were designed to be.
Compare it to a musical talent. A person may be talented, but if he or she doesn’t spend time developing that natural ability, they won’t live up to their full potential.
As a wife (of 21 years), a mother (of 3), and a professional musician (among other things), I think I understand these things, at least a little. First of all, there’s the matter of ontology vs. practice, about which I’ve commented a lot in these threads. There are differences between the two, and also between the matter of developing a natural talent and acting appropriately to being a man, woman, husband, wife, mother, or father:
A man is a man when he, naturally, attains a certain age and capability. This is so important that many cultures have coming-of-age or rite-of-passage ceremonies to celebrate it. Same for women. However, there are good men and bad men, good women and bad women (capable of acting either in redeemed or unregenerate ways). A man who has fathered children is a father in a very real sense, although he may be a great one or a terrible one, or somewhere in-between.
A husband is (ontological fact) head of his wife. That’s not something he grows into. He is, however, to sacrificially love (in practice) his wife. His wife is to submit (in practice) to him.
Yes, there is a standard of righteousness, just as there is a standard of being a good musician, into which one can only develop via long study, instruction, and practice. But none of us ever achieve perfection in any of these areas, even the most accomplished. We are, however, made righteous in Christ, through Christ, that fellowship with God may be restored and we may have life eternal.
The standard, then, for men, women, husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers, is to do right in those capacities, “right” being walking in the H. S. and in love. Such acts can be done immediately, without years of study and practice, when one is in the right attitude with God. (Although doing so in a frequent and consistent manner, and overcoming sinful patterns of thought and behavior, is a growth process for sure
)
Hello cndn,
”I believe the function the “leadership” of a church performs that requires a man to do it is that of honouring God and His original design (from 1 Tim. 2) rather than being preoccupied with its busyness, what it regards as its gifts; itsel”
Where do you see this original design (of male only leadership) in the beginning stated in Scripture by God. If it’s original, then it should be found in Genesis.
Also, I see Biblical leadership to be about equipping the saints to become mature like the stature of Christ’s maturity, so that all Christians (not just men) would do the works that Christ did and more. IOW real leaders inspire more leaders, not more followers.
Hello TL,
Yes, I agree with you that Genesis is a sensible place to go to when considering the origins, but it isn’t the only place. Take John 1, for example, or Paul’s writings in Romans 5, Colossians 1 and 1 Timothy 2. Prophets and Apostles weren’t just very clever or very perceptive; they were inspired by the Holy Spirit with new revelation from God.
I see the original design of leadership by the husband in Adam being made first, and in him naming the animals before God created Eve.
I see the original design of leadership more generally in that God urged Adam and Eve to have children before the Fall. If the Fall hadn’t occurred, we would actually see Adam’s overall leadership. Since the Fall has occurred, we have Paul’s inspired explanation in Romans 5 that death came into the world through Adam’s sin: that is, he was spiritually responsible for us, his progeny.
I’m afraid I don’t know what IOW stands for. I agree that godly leaders will inspire more leaders, but not necessarily everyone, because leadership is but one of the creational gifts listed for us in Ro. 12:4-8.
With warm regards in Christ,
Eric, I’d be interested to read your own answers to those questions. I have refrained from sharing my answers in this comment for fear of getting too far off the topic.
It’s not clear to me on what your assumption, that the roles of men and women should be designated on the basis of functional and structural considerations for the church, is based.
It seems many states around the world have been moving towards a separation of sex and gender in general.
I think that, for Christians, this matter of the roles of men and women are rooted in our identities as revealed by God, and therefore they come before functional considerations.
‘I also don’t see the NT teaching that single women are to relate to a male pastor as married women are to relate to their husbands, and vice-versa.’
‘I believe the function the “leadership” of a church performs that requires a man to do it is that of honouring God and His original design (from 1 Tim. 2) rather than being preoccupied with its busyness, what it regards as its gifts; itself.’
Hi cndo,
I agree with your first quote, cndo.
I read that Adam’s priority of creation is connected to him not being deceived rather than leadership per what Paul wrote:
Adam was created first then Eve and Adam was not deceived.
I don’t read ‘Adam was created first then Eve and Adam was the leader.’
What do you connect to Adam was created first then Eve and why? Do you connect ‘leadership’ to ‘Adam was created first then Eve’? If so why and/or how?
‘I believe the function the “leadership” of a church performs that requires a man to do it is that of honouring God and His original design (from 1 Tim. 2) rather than being preoccupied with its busyness, what it regards as its gifts; itself.’
Hi again…
Here above you connect ‘leadership of a church’ to ‘a man’ to ‘honouring God’ and ‘His original design (1 Tim 2). Can you show this process of connection in the writings of Paul in 1 Tim 2?
Obviously, despite the length of my comment, I wasn’t clear.
What I want to know is not what complementarians mean by the word ‘role’ but what complementarians see as the essence of each of these roles of ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘father’ and ‘mother’.
For instance, is it essential to the ‘wife’ role that a wife is the one who prepares all the meals? Or is this idea, that wives are responsible for food preparation, simply a Western cultural tradition? Has it been going on so long that many people think of it as good, right, normal and an essential part of what it means to be a married Christian woman?
The pastor’s wife in the “Wife Swap” example obviously thought that food preparation was an essential part of her job/role/function. But among the Sudanese (many of whom are Christian) men do the cooking. That’s their culture.
Among women there are many who find great satisfaction, even delight, in doing domestic duties. That’s their nature. I used to pray that God would make me like those women and then I realised that I was asking him to make me a Martha. Yet Jesus said, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41-42 – RSV)
‘Compare it to a musical talent. A person may be talented, but if he or she doesn’t spend time developing that natural ability, they won’t live up to their full potential.’
What I find to be a remarkable tragedy is how many (I bet most!) people never do live up to their full potential inside or outside the church. This world puts reigns on people, tells them who they are to be, and culture shapes our thinking. I find it a sad state of affairs that humanity was made in God’s image though in this world it will never shine as his image to it’s full potential, never. Sad but true.
It’s not clear to me on what your assumption, that the roles of men and women should be designated on the basis of functional and structural considerations for the church, is based.
I’m suggesting that one first should know what the church is supposed to look like and do before one says “in the church, men are supposed to do this” and “in the church, women are supposed to do this.”
I see death coming from Adam’s sin as he was a deliberate betrayer, while the woman was deceived. In other words, Adam is a bad example and one should not see leadership in that, rather it is something to mourn about.
on March 11, 2009 at 5:36 pm | Reply Webfoot
Mrs. Webfoot wrote:
the very words husband, and father are Biblical words and they are also roles. The words wife and mother are Biblical terms, and they are also roles.
Janice:
OK. But what are these roles?>>>
Yes, and I explained what I meant by roles. You are free to call what I call roles by some other name.>>>>
Good grief! I read “But are these roles?” Instead of “But WHAT are these roles?” So my answer was “yes.” Oh, boy! Time for new glasses.
BTW, I LOVE Wife Swap. It’s one of the few Television programs that actually tries to build up marriage and family life, it seems to me. I find it encouraging to see how many different kinds of people love their families and want them to be happy places.
My daughter likes Supernanny better. My husband hates TV. We are a divided family, I guess.
Well, I’ll simply say in answer to your question that biology determines a lot of what those roles look like.
I think that a role is more about who we are and what we do because of who we were made to be than anything else. I’m not sure that who washes the dishes or cooks the food is what a role _is_.
I’m not sure about the domestic service question, but I do need to get supper on the table.
We’ll talk more later, Lord willing.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Yes, I thought you meant the chickenpox, but since we spent a lot of time in Medieval cathedrals in Europe, my mind kind of took a dark turn.
Yes, we live in a beautiful part of the world. We are really blessed.
Exactly, Don.
Hosea 6:
7But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.
Adam was not deceived therefore his disobedience was deliberate. Adam example is not one men or women should follow or applaud. Neither should we reward it.
I thought your take was rather good in explaining complementarianism and complementarity as viewed by Comps & Egals. It shored up how in most practical ways, I lean toward the egal view of marriage — though I still am constrained by Scripture toward the Comp view that women are not called as Pastor/Elders and that there is some sense in which the man has a unique leadership role in the home. But, I’m so non-traditional when it comes to the way that works out and, as some here know, I have frequently taken issue with the way Comps often don’t seem to value complementarity in gifting and seem to only appreciate women to the degree they fit into a pre-determined role or function. I know that’s not all Comps and I’ve even heard some positive things in my church lately, but that’s often been my experience.
Yes, Adam failed to lead, but that doesn’t change God’s design, as far as I can see.
Okay, well as I said I believe functional and structural considerations for the church come after our identities before God. Ultimate reality is relational, as the theologian D. Broughton Knox has said.
Hi TL/believer3
I’m not saying Adam is responsible for any of his children’s sin: I believe the tendency to sin was inherited from Adam. In that sense he was responsible for our spiritual wellbeing (or otherwise, as it turned out).
Blessings
I agree with you TL that Adam was honouring Eve. There’s nothing in Genesis that suggests to me that Adam was rebelling in naming Eve.
Adam named the animals before God created Eve, according to Genesis 2, and before their disobedience (Genesis 3).
It took both of them to produce ‘the living’, of course.
There is a difference between modelling femininity and being feminine (that is, being a human woman).
See Pr. 31:23, 31 for respect and praise. Sociological studies can’t tell us what are God’s ideals; that’s why we need to study theology.
I don’t think God passed by Abel: the Bible says Cain murdered him in cold blood. In the same way, we can’t say God passed over the first-born in the case of Tamar or Naomi; as you put it, Onan abdicated his family responsibility. So did Eliab (1 Sa. 17:28). Adonijah was not the first-born (1 Ki. 1:6): it was Absalom, a traitor to his father, and he was dead when David was succeeded anyway.
Theology is different from Sociology in that truth doesn’t belong to the numerical majority of occurrences in the Bible.
We see the importance of the first-born immediately prior to both the Abrahamic covenant (to bless all nations) and the Mosaic covenant (to start with the one nation of Israel). This sets the framework.
The Levites were set apart to the Lord as they – and only they – had rallied around Moses at the time of the gold calf (Ex. 32:26-29). If instead the Reubenites had rallied around, they would have been set apart to the Lord.
… to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”? Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”? And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.” (He. 1:5-6).
But where did God say the man was the lead /rule the woman? We see God telling both they are to lead/rule the animals.
I see naming as an exercise of authority, esp. in that culture. This is how/why Jesus can rename Simon as “Stone” and James and John as “sons of thunder”.
The question is whether any act is authorized or not, I see NO authorization for the man naming the woman. The man was authorized to name the animals and it is quite explicit how this was done. No such text for the woman.
Hi, Bonnie,
How are you doing?
I’m not sure what to say. Is there a point of disagreement with me? Is there something you want me to clarify?
Thank you for sharing about yourself. Let me see. I would not call myself a professional musician simply because I don’t have time to play very much. Well, I have time, but our travel plans interrupt rehearsal schedules.
My husband and I play in a local Christian orchestra, and they cut me a lot of slack. We have a concert coming up in the Spring, and I will miss all the rehearsals except that last one.
I do a lot of other things, including ironing and cooking. I am not crazy about ironing, but my husband needs me to do it for him. It’s a sacrifice I make for him.
I used to have quite a few private students, but I had to close down my studio because of other responsibilities.
My role as wife and mother is much deeper, though, than what I do or don’t do – where I go or don’t go. It has to do with who I am.
Have you ever read a book called To H*** With All That, Loving and Loathing Your Inner Housewife? I may be one of the few who read it. It’s a good read.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
cndo wrote:“I agree with you TL that Adam was honouring Eve. There’s nothing in Genesis that suggests to me that Adam was rebelling in naming Eve.”
Well, even though it does appear that the name he named her with honors her, this does not negate the fact that he may likely have taken it upon himself to name her. God didn’t tell him to do so. She could have named herself just like Adam chose to keep the name that God gave them both as his personal name.
We may never know the particulars to that one, which is why it is improper to use it as a reason the man has supposed authority over the woman. We still have to ask, who gave it to him? No one did in Scripture. Thus, since he took it upon himself, he wrongly took some kind of authority over the woman. And that is not a principle that anyone should promote.
Still, it is a beautiful name.
But he should have asked her if he could name her. Oh, I forgot! We don’t know! Maybe he did!
Hi Kathy,
I do connect leadership to Adam being created before Eve, because I believe the reason God asked him to name the animals before He created Eve was to prepare Adam for his leadership role, and also because of Paul’s teaching in Ephesians.
Hi again Kathy,
I think I’ve answered that above (especially in my previous comment); do get back to me if you still have any questions about my position.
With warm regards in Christ
Hi believer3,
I think my reply to Kathy covers my position on this, if you’re interested.
” I do connect leadership to Adam being created before Eve, because I believe the reason God asked him to name the animals before He created Eve was to prepare Adam for his leadership role, and also because of Paul’s teaching in Ephesians.”
Since God never stated leadership learning as His reason for naming the animals, and because God DID state his reason for it before He had the man name the animals, I find that a difficult concept. It is quite clear to my thinking that God created the whole naming of the animals scenario in order to allow the man to see his need of an other like himself. Remember that it wasn’t until the man realized he was really alone that God then stopped and took from the side of the man with which to rebuild the woman, the help for his aloneness…… not someone to rule over. Adam (and Eve) already had someone to govern. God gave them both governing authority over all the created creatures. That should be enough for anyone.
I don’t see anywhere in the OT where either Adam or any other husband was told by God to exercise a leadership role over one’s wife.
Here is how I see it.
Adam is the name of both the male and female and also the name of the human before the split. Before the split, Adam is not called a male (Adam is simply a human) altho MANY teachers teach Adam before the split was male, it is not warranted from the text, as far as I can tell.
A side/part of Adam became the female and the remainder became the male.
Gen 2 is the story of how God addressed 2 lacks, the lack of a human to water the ground and the lack of a “corresponding help” for the human. To solve the first, God creates a human Adam; to solve the second, God splits the Adam.
The nameplay on “Eve” in Genesis 3:20 is only apparent in the Hebrew. The translators of the LXX apparently felt it was so important, though, that instead of translating/transliterating her name there into Greek as Ευα as they did in Genesis 4:1 (pronounced “Evv-uh” – the widely-used “Erasmian” pronunciation of Greek would wrongly pronounce it as “You-ah”), they instead wrote:
The Hebrew says:
Such wordplays are common in the Hebrew OT, and are often lost in translation.
Adam is referred to as ‘him’ before God created Eve, though. See also: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0120.asp
It is not clear to me what verse you are referring to.
I assume you are referring to Gen 1:27 as that is mentioned in the AIG post you refed..
The CLV (Concordant literal version) translates it as “In the image of God he creates it, male and female he creates them.”
If not, please tell me which verse you are referring to. I can only find him/male/ish after the split.
Hebrew Genesis 1:26: “And Elohim said Let us make adam (singular, no definite article) in our image according to our likeness and let them rule… 1:27: And Elohim created the adam in His image in the image of Elohim He created him male and female He created them. 1:28 And Elohim blessed them and Elohim said to them Y’all be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and y’all rule… 1:29 And Elohim said Behold, I have given to y’all.”
I.e., lots of plurals (i.e., them, y’all)
Hi cndo,
I don’t make the same connection of the two in my mind and neither does Paul in his writing of 1 Tim 2, but I have to ask some things, how would Adam’s naming the animals prepare him for his leadership role, or how would his naming the animals prepare him to lead a woman? How does naming animals prepare one to lead another human being? How does naming animals prepare one for a leadership role in human relationship and what would the leadership role look like that naming the animals prepared Adam for?
Don,
I have a question. Am wondering how you would respond to Adam having said that she was taken from ish (male human). If Adam said she was taken from male human then wouldn’t that be saying that he was male when she was taken from him? Because of what Adam said ‘for she was taken from ish’ I see that he must have been male before she was taken from him’. Now that’s all I have or can find up to date that seems to be saying he was male before she was taken from him.
Also Don, Paul says in 1 Co 11 that woman was made from and for man. How would you respond to that? In 11:3 I may be undecided how aner is being used but in the following verses the two are contrasted it seems as man and woman.
Don, it is bizarre to say that Adam was not a man before the creation of Eve, if that is what you are saying.
It is also hard to see that the writer wants us to see the naming of Eve was sinful.
Cndo, how do you connect leadership to Adam being created first then Eve to Eph 5?
kathy
Also Don, Paul says in 1 Co 11 that woman was made from and for man. How would you respond to that? In 11:3 I may be undecided how aner is being used but in the following verses the two are contrasted it seems as man and woman.
As I mentioned in an earlier post somewhere, the dia that Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:9 which is often translated “for the sake of” can be a dative of agency, per Goodwin’s Greek Grammar (available free online, I believe), and Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich (BDAG, 2000) supports this possible grammatical meaning – i.e., woman was created “by the agency of man” – which fits in with all the other “source” language of 1 Cor. 11 better than the idea of “for the sake of.” At least it’s a possible way of responding to your question.
I wrote:
Hebrew has no neuter gender. The word I translated as “him” in 1:27 – “…in the image of Elohim He created him…” could also be translated into English with “it.” It seems to me (without access to my Hebrew resources) that in 1:26 the word adam is probably best translated as “mankind” (i.e., as a kind or species). The switch to the singular WITH the article in 1:27 (“And Elohim created the adam….”) may or may not mean anything; in 1:28-29 it’s clear that Elohim created adam as “them,” not as a single being.
Don, another way to ask what I’m trying to get at…
With 1 Co 11 in mind, was woman made from and for human or man?
‘I don’t see anywhere in the OT where either Adam or any other husband was told by God to exercise a leadership role over one’s wife.’
This is one of the many problems I have with the comp understanding. Surely if it was important God would have included it somewhere.
cndo wrote:
‘I do connect leadership to Adam being created before Eve’ (how do you do italics in this?)
But the real questions – the important questions – are: how did the (human) writer of Genesis understand it, how did the first readers understand it, how did the Jewish readers understand it and (most important of all) how did Paul understand it. Paul doesn’t say what he means by it, neither does the writer or first readers (whoever they were).
Philip Towner (in Commentary on the NT use of the OT, ed by Beale and Carson) suggests that Paul is applying the (rabbinic) argument that “first is best”. However, he admits that ‘Paul does not appear to cite a rabbinic formula that made use of Gen 2. …for all we know, his application of it to men and women by way of allusion to Gen 2 is novel.’ As far as I can see this is an admission that he hasn’t found any rabbinic commentators applying primogeniture or ‘first is best’ to Adam and Eve. Certainly there are none in the Genesis Rabbah on Gen 1-3, or in any later rabbinic writings I have seen. David Instone-Brewer says there are no 1st century sources that say what it meant.
I get irritated when writers make sweeping statements that 1st century or Jewish readers would understand Adam formed first as meaning authority over Eve. There is absolutely no evidence they did. The absence itself is interesting. The rabbis certainly thought women were under male authority. They were willing to use other verses to support this. Why not Adam being formed first?
The CLV words Gen 2:23 as “This shall be called woman for from her man was this taken.”
This is a wordplay, ishah and ish (when spoken as the Torah was spoken), where “ah” is the feminine suffix, so he is saying she is a female man, that is, a woman.
My point is that the text simply does not give a gender for Adam BEFORE the split. It was not important to the story, no matter how much we think it might be. That is, Adam is simply a human, with gender not specified, as the need was for a human to water the earth. A part of the human is used to form a woman and the remainder forms a man, think of clay pots. God forms a clay pot to solve one problem (lack of human to farm the land) and then 2 pots from that one pot so the 2 pots complement each other to solve the second problem (lack of a mate/corresponding help), this is the basic meaning of formed, as in forming a pot.
The naming of Eve was not authorized, it was done but not authorized, I see it actually as the man’s first act that demonstrates his claim to rule over the woman, which is again not authorized by God.
On 1 Cor 11:8-9 woman out of man, woman created thru man. My understanding is from the pot analogy. A side/part of the pot was formed into a woman, the remainder was “closed up” to form the man; however both are Adam/human. People could see that men are generally larger than women, so the main part of the original pot/Adam became what is male.
(how do you do italics in this?)
Amanda, to get text to display in italics use this sequence before the text
{i}
and this sequence after the text
{/i}
but instead of typing the curly brackets, as I did, use the angled brackets which are above the comma and period on your keyboard. I can’t use the angled brackets in this comment because they won’t show up.
I get irritated when writers make sweeping statements that 1st century or Jewish readers would understand Adam formed first as meaning authority over Eve. There is absolutely no evidence they did. The absence itself is interesting. The rabbis certainly thought women were under male authority. They were willing to use other verses to support this. Why not Adam being formed first?
Sounds kinda like the Jehovah’s Witnesses using the absence of the article in John 1:1 to argue that Jesus was “a god” or a created being. I.e., you would think if that were a probable understanding of the passage the Arians would have jumped on it like white on rice. But a person who seems to be knowledgeable in this area has stated that as far as he knows, the Arians never used John 1:1 to support their position.
(Anybody have evidence to the contrary, i.e., was John 1:1 used by the Arians as a proof-text?)
‘I believe the reason God asked him to name the animals before He created Eve was to prepare Adam for his leadership role,’
But why? There is no statement in the Bible about naming indicating authority. There is an article (which I don’t have in front of me unfortunately – I moved house and things are a mess!) which looks at the naming events in the OT and concludes that naming shows the discernment of the namer because they choose a name appropriate to the individual. This certainly fits with Adam naming Eve in both Gen 2 & 3. It also explains Hagar naming God in Gen 16. That could hardly be about authority.
Interestinly this understanding of naming has some support in the rabbinical commentators. In the Genesis Rabbah Rabbi Aha comments on Adam naming the animals with a story of how the angels asked God what the nature of man would be and God replies that his wisdom would exceed theirs. God then asks the angels to name the animals and they can’t. They don’t know the names. Then God takes the animals to Adam who is able to name them. Adam then goes on to name himself and God (as Adonai), giving reasons for these last two.
Not exactly an explanation of the text you’d want to go with given the lack of evidence for most of it. However it does show at least one Jewish reader – and a rabbi at that – understanding naming as showing wisdom. It would also argue against authority being involved in naming. If it was an important component would the rabbi have depicted Adam as naming God?
It is also hard to see that the writer wants us to see the naming of Eve was sinful. (David)
I think I would agree with David that there isn’t evidence that the writer considers the naming sinful. And I don’t think that simply because it was after the fall everything Adam did was sinful.
If you assume naming means authority then you might want to see it as sinful. But if naming is about discernment or wisdom (see my comment below) then it isn’t sinful
Maybe the author wants to show that, despite the fall, and the lack of wisdom Adam’s action showed, he has not lost all discernment. After all while the fall affected all areas of our life it didn’t disfigure it totally.
Not sure if this comment is going to appear in the right place
Very interesting, Amanda!
Hi cndo,
Why would a husband (or a man) be modelling femininity by submitting to Christ?
On primogeniture, I’m not saying it has no significance nor place; it certainly does. But it is not always primary over other factors in God’s choosing. The examples I gave are no different from the case of Jacob and Esau; regardless of how it happened, the first-born, or next-in-line, ends up with less “authority” in the long run.
Hi Mrs. Webfoot,
I would certainly agree that being a wife has both ontological (who one is) and practical aspects (what one does), as does being a musician. I’m simply pointing out that we must keep in mind which is which. I see much confusion between the two in comp. doctrine – speaking of ontology as if it is something we do, and speaking of acts as if they are part of our ontology. (Some of them are, but not all.) A person can’t try to be something she already is, and she isn’t really something she is merely acting as.
I gave my “credentials” – wife, mother, musician – to establish a bit of authority for what I was saying
That’s cool that you’re a musician. I believe David McKay is as well. What’s your instrument?
Chronologically, did God not make Adam and put him in the garden, and instruct him on what he could eat, and bring him the animals to name, and then make Eve from his rib?
Regardless, I don’t see that his being made first means that he had some sort of ruling authority in the act of naming Eve.
Kathy:
I find it a sad state of affairs that humanity was made in God’s image though in this world it will never shine as his image to it’s full potential, never. Sad but true.>>>>
Webfoot:
Christ is fully Man and fully God in one person. In Him, we are being remade into His likeness. When He appears, we shall be like Him.
1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
I lean toward the egal view of marriage — though I still am constrained by Scripture toward the Comp view that women are not called as Pastor/Elders and that there is some sense in which the man has a unique leadership role in the home.
This is where I am at as well.
But isn’t ISH a male and ISHSHAH a female?
Forgive me if I am rehashing remarks (I did not read the 114 prior comments).
Wayne:
As an egalitarian I find your assessment entirely off the mark. I take “both” (1) gender roles and (2) personal expertise into account within my marriage.
(1) Gender roles much deeper that feminine childbearing. If one simply skims the surface of the psychological and sociological material it becomes clear there are numerous unique gender differences that contribute to unique roles. “Most” men are the security guards of their house and family. Makes sense, they are typically physically stronger and perhaps more aggressive than their wives… Other examples could be given but I think the point is while there are typical roles husbands and wives play, egalitarians believe neither one is “the boss”. Instead they co-lead their family.
(2) More obviously egalitarian marriages work off of the principle of mutual deference. I defer authority (for lack of a better word) to my wife in matters of financing because she is better at it. Most issues are collaborative and may even involve a loving interplay of give-and-take.
I think (1) and (2) are compatible. It seems to be that both complementarians and egalitarians believe in (1), the only difference is that the former believe that being in charge is a unique (ontological?) gender role of men. And (2) is unique to egalitarians.
David asked,
“But isn’t ISH a male and ISHSHAH a female?”
Technically no. In fact, ISH is used in many cases where it refers to a person who is a member of a group. It can be translated as “each” or “someone.” In any case, ISH is grammatically male, but does not necessarily designate maleness.
Here is a post which may explain why it is that ish and isha have nothing to do with each other etymologically. He cites,
“Strange and unbelievable as it seems the word אשה has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the word איש.”
Brandon,
“Most” men are the security guards of their house and family.
While it is difficult being a single parent, physical security is not an area where I have noticed any change at all. How does being aggressive ensure security for the family? Financially perhaps, but you have assigned that role to women.
I appreciate the fact that you are an egalitarian with regards to authority. However, one of the difficulties I have experienced on this list is that there has not been one word by anyone in all this time with reference to single mothers.
I want to make it clear that I consider that it is incredibly difficult to be a single mom. It is exhausting and discouraging. But, the thing that goes, is the ”mom at home nurturing, because mom is busy providing and protecting. My point is that women are just as capable of filling the male role – they are fully decked out for this by God or nature or what have you. They just don’t have the luxury all time of taking on the more supposedly feminine roles.
So all of this does not ring true to me as a natural construct, but purely social. Someone made women think that they are not as strong at being providers and protectors as men are. Then if women don’t get the same training this becomes true.
I will concede that women do not use chainsaws or work on an oil rig.
It’s okay – in fact it’s necessary to use the NT to interpret the OT. For example, the Jews didn’t understand the OT prophecies concerning the Cross until Jesus and the Apostles patiently explained it to them.
God could have created Adam and Eve together, simultaneously, but He decided not to do so.
I was thinking of Ge. 2:17. Your descriptor ’split’ reminds me of cells dividing rather than God taking one little piece out of Adam. Presumably it’s just your short hand way of referring to that activity.
I interpret Adam being created first in relation to the fact that wives are commanded to submit to their husbands (Ep. 5:22-23) as the church submits to Christ (Ep. 5:24). God could have created Adam and Eve simultaneously. 1 Ti. 2:13 also provides a link, I believe.
There’s nothing in the text to say God altered Adam after He created Eve, to make him sexually (or in any other respect) into a man. Also, Paul contrasts Adam and Christ, referring to both as men, in Ro. 5:17.
But Paul, a Pharisee, did (1 Ti. 2:13). The problem with looking for evidence as to how 1st century or Jewish readers understood doctrines in a certain way is that such evidence doesn’t constitute Scripture. Evangelicals, of course, believe in the sufficiency of the Bible for ‘life and godliness’.
This is where I am too.
Bonnie:
Chronologically, did God not make Adam and put him in the garden, and instruct him on what he could eat, and bring him the animals to name, and then make Eve from his rib?
Regardless, I don’t see that his being made first means that he had some sort of ruling authority in the act of naming Eve.>>>>
Do you see Adam as being of the male sex when he was created? IOW, is the default mode of humanity androgyny? Was mankind created androgynous, split into male and female, and will be reunited again in the eternal kingdom?
PS
Rewrite:
“IOW, was Adam created as fully male and then created Eve as fully female or is the default mode of humanity androgyny. Was mankind created androgynous, split into male and female, and will be…”
Hi, Bonnie,
How are you doing?
Bonnie:
I would certainly agree that being a wife has both ontological (who one is) and practical aspects (what one does), as does being a musician. I’m simply pointing out that we must keep in mind which is which. I see much confusion between the two in comp. doctrine – speaking of ontology as if it is something we do, and speaking of acts as if they are part of our ontology.>>>>>
Webfoot:
I don’t see that.
Bonnie:
(Some of them are, but not all.)>>>>
Webfoot:
Could you be specific?
Bonnie:
A person can’t try to be something she already is, and she isn’t really something she is merely acting as. >>>
Webfoot:
I’m not sure what you mean.
Bonnie:
I gave my “credentials” – wife, mother, musician – to establish a bit of authority for what I was saying >>>>
Webfoot:
I did the same.
Bonnie:
That’s cool that you’re a musician. I believe David McKay is as well. What’s your instrument?>>>
Webfoot:
I try to make the ill wind sound good. I play the oboe. BTW, last night I had a dream about playing the 2nd Brandenburg Concerto, first movement. Weird.
God bless, Bonnie, and thank you for taking the time to respond,
Mrs. Webfoot
Sue,
Careful. God did not create androgynous creatures with arbitrary roles in life that are determined entirely by social conditioning. The reason why heterosexual marriages are the biblically “ideal” place for family life and child-raising to occur is because there are unique/different traits in a husband/wife combo that complement one another.
Usually husbands will be the protector or the one hunting deer because they are stronger (statically have much more muscle mass than woman) and are inclined (via chemicals in their brain) to be be more competitive/aggressive. Of course there are exceptions–some woman are stronger than their husbands, their are single mothers who wear hats (but they where not intended to), etc. Rather than dismiss the difference between men and women (some of which has been proved via science) we should embrace and celebrate that fact that God made us different.
This actually supports egalitarianism too. So when women are on elder boards or are preaching they will unwittingly give a voice to feminine concerns and help apply the Scriptures in ways that will hit women in pointed ways and show men a new twist on issues…
The tricky part about distinguishing *true* feminine from *true* masculine is that it is so subjective. In order to do it accurately, one would have to find traits that are exclusive to either sex, and seen across culture and across history.
This is why, I think, we can safely say that GENERALLY breastfeeding is a feminine role, and warfare is a masculine role. Those are two things we have seen across culture and across time.
But even there, one has to be careful. Some traits are seen across culture and across time, but may be products of the Fall as opposed to products of the original creation ideal. Ie, warfare—is brother killing brother really part of the creational ideal? No. So, there again, a dilemna.
It is for reasons like this that I, personally, tend to shy away from drawing up a list of masculine/feminine traits. I feel confident and secure in my femininity, but “confidence” is not what I feel when drawing up a list. More like, “presumptive.” I well know the damage that can be done from drawing up the list wrong, via my own personal experience in patriarchalism. So I think that while the effort is usually well-intentioned, I’m not sure it’s worth the cost of getting it wrong.
It would be a fascinating study and the subject really intrigues me. But it must be understood that it is incredibly complex and would require much effort—and even then, incredibly difficult to do without bias in a number of different directions.
But cndo, What Paul says is Adam was formed first. He doesn’t say what he means by this. Nowhere in scripture does it say what the significance of Adam being formed first is. The idea that it is about Adam having authority over Eve is not in scripture. That is an assumption made and then applied to scripture.
I am an evangelical and believe in the sufficiency of scripture for life and godliness. But I try very hard not to confuse my interpretation of scripture with scripture itself. Adam was formed first is scripture, that this means authority over Eve is not.
Even comps go outside scripture to help them understand it. Think of the endless debates on the meaning of kephale or authentein. Since the last word is a hapax you are forced to go outside scripture to understand it.
There are other ways of understanding what Paul meant by Adam was formed first. The question then becomes which of these is the most likely. All of the explanations involve assumptions but some assumptions are more likely than others.
I am more convinced by the explanation that takes into account the fact that verses 11 & 12 form an inclusio. This implies that these two verses form a unit of thought. I think it is more likely that Paul’s explanation is for the whole inclusio rather than just part of it. How does the comp understanding of verses 13 & 14 explain verse 11?
I also think that the comp understanding fails to take the text of Gen 2 & 3 seriously. Almost no time is spent there. There is little engagement with what is actually written about Eve being deceived and why that might be and how that may link to Adam being formed first. This means verses 13 & 14 are split. But they can be read as a single explanation which explains the whole inclusio (verses 11 & 12) and fits into the context of 1 Timothy. And all of that without having to reconstruct the heresy. Some assumptions have to be made but that is the case with any explanation of these verses.
And let’s face it, the comp explanation does go beyond the biblical text by assuming Adam’s being formed first is about authority.
But if you say that Adam being formed first means Adam has authority and then go back to the OT and read Gen 2 with that assumption you are not using the NT to interpret the OT. You are using your interpretation of the NT to interpret the OT and that is very dangerous.
Yes God could have created Adam and Eve together (in fact that is how Gen 1 reads) but he decided not to. However scripture doesn’t say why he decided not to. It might have been to show the importance of women. To show that it was not good for man to be alone – which actually is in the text.
What you can’t say is that the fact that God created Adam first proves that it is about Adam’s authority. What it proves is that God created Adam first. Any reasons for this are speculation (and should be recognised as such) since no reason is given in the text.
If we take scripture seriously as the word of God we need to be very, very careful not to confuse our interpretations of scripture with scripture itself. We need to be aware of what our assumptions are and how likely they are.
(I tried to bold some words. Not sure it will work)
Careful.
???
Could someone just make one positive statement about single parents?
Amanda said:
‘I also think that the comp understanding fails to take the text of Gen 2 & 3 seriously. Almost no time is spent there. There is little engagement with what is actually written about Eve being deceived and why that might be and how that may link to Adam being formed first. This means verses 13 & 14 are split. But they can be read as a single explanation which explains the whole inclusio (verses 11 & 12) and fits into the context of 1 Timothy. And all of that without having to reconstruct the heresy. Some assumptions have to be made but that is the case with any explanation of these verses.’
I just want to share
another example of an assumption that has been made about v14 in 1 Tim 2. It’s been assumed that the deceived woman in v14 is Eve. Why? Why has that been assumed? Does v.14 read ‘Eve’? No it does not. It reads ‘woman’. Did Paul write in confusing fashion using singular ‘woman’ twice genericaly and then once to refer to a specific woman, Eve? Seems disorderly to me that he’d use ‘woman’ both genericaly and specific in the same passage and in between breaths. (Btw, since most can agree that he uses ‘woman’ to refer to a specific woman in v14, then why not think that he uses the same singular usage to refer to a specific woman in vv 11 & 12?) Either all 3 times are generic (all women are deceived then…) or all 3 times are specific, and refer to the same woman, a woman at Ephesus.
I think that if we were to know the difference between our assumptions and scripture that we’d all come to more to agree on.
I read an interesting book chapter on this topic today: “God in Communion With Us: The Trinity” by Catherine Mowry LaCugna.
Regarding the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity she writes:
“One particularly strong strain [of Arianism] was Eunomianism. Eunomius believed the basic Arian premise that God was so utterly transcendent that God could not traffic with any element of the created order except through intermediaries. Jesus Christ was just such an intermediary, less than God. Furthermore, Eunomius believed that he could name the essence of God: Unbegottenness. …[S]ince Jesus Christ is Begotten, he cannot be of the same essence as God.
Nicaea proclaimed that the Son was begotten from the substance [essence] of the Father, [and] this was tantamount to saying the Son was begotten from the substance of God. … [The Cappadocians] argued against Eunomius that unbegottenness is not the property of the unknowable divine essence. Rather, unbegottenness is the property of a divine person, namely the person of the Father. Begottenness is the property of another divine person, namely, the Son. Therefore Father and Son can share the same substance, even though they are altogether different hypostatically (in personhood). … [Thus] the Cappadocians made person rather than substance athe primary ontological category. …
[T]he radical move of the Cappadocians was to assert that divinity or Godhood originates with personhood (someone toward another), not with substance (something in and of itself). Thus personhood … was secured as the ultimate originating principle of all reality. As the contemporary Greek theologian John Zizioulas puts it, ‘God exists on account of a person, the Father, and not on account of a substance.’ If God were not personal, God would not exist at all.
…
The divine unity was no longer located in the Father-God who was prior to or greater than everyone and everything else. Instead, the divine unity and divine life were located in the communion among equal though unique persons, not in the primacy of one person over another. … Trinitarian monotheism preserved the principle of shared rule and banished once and for all – at least theoretically – the idea that any person can be subordinate to another.” (All emphases in the original.)
I feel confident and secure in my femininity
Well I don’t feel confident in mine. On the other hand I do feel completely at ease with my womanhood.
The word ‘femininity’ is loaded with all sorts of trivial, superficial, girly-girl cultural baggage – fashions, hair styles, make up, frilly things, not competing with the boys, etc., etc.
The word ‘masculinity’ is similarly culturally loaded.
I’m just glad to be a person or human being with God’s blessings and a female one at that!
I did not enjoy the clear messages received in the past from patriarchal, authoritarian sources saying that I’ve no right to my personhood or rights as a human being because I am a woman and therefore different and must confine myself to some roles or box. And I don’t think that love takes away ones freedom of rights to be a human being at their full potential, female or male.
Hi Sue,
Like you I recognise that being a single mother is exhausting and discouraging. It is not made easier if Christians give the impression that either all families (at least proper ones) have two resident parents or that being a single parent isn’t much different from being a married one.
However, taking on a nurturing plus providing role does model to your children that one of these is not the sole responsibility of the father (or mother). If a woman can do both then so can a man – giving birth and breastfeeding excluded
!
I was a single mother – I suppose I still am since I’m not married but my 3 children are. One of the positives is seeing my children as happy, healthy adults and knowing they respect me. It was interesting at my younger son’s wedding the father of the bride, in his speech, commented on what a good job I’d done in raising my son. A bit embarrasing when my ex-husband was present and wasn’t mentioned! But there are people who understand how hard it is and respect you for the effort you make.
One of the things I found was that being a single mother forced me to focus on the important issues with my children and let the less important go. Were my sons’ rooms messy? Yes, they had ‘floordrobes’! But as long as there was a path to their bed and they weren’t supporting a family of rats I let it go (and kept their doors shut!) But other things I drew the line at. If they wanted to go anywhere with the youthgroup at church that was fine. I knew all those involved. But a party the other side of Sydney with friends from school – no. I didn’t know the kids or parents involved.
We all survived and so did our relationship with each other.
Just a slight correction to my comment above. In the fourth line I meant to write at least ‘proper’ ones but I left out the inverted commas around proper. I would certainly not want to give the impression that the only proper family was one with two resident parents. My apologies to anyone who took it that way.
Sure. Just got off wishing one of them a happy 60th birthday on facebook.
She was single through no fault of her own. Years ago. Divorce was not her wish. She was left with three children. The youngest girl was a baby. She worked hard, was ministered to and ministered in my church for years, is still working even though her children are now grown and gone.
She faithfully took her two girls and one son to church. Her grown son has done military service in Iraq. Her youngest daughter is married and seems to be doing well. Her oldest daughter lives near me, has two boys, and these boys have a heart for missions, and want to go on a family type mission trip this summer to a camp in the Dominican Republic that some from our church are going to.
She’s got some crowns waiting for her in heaven, this mother does.
Yeah, okay, good point. I mean femininity in the sense that I really like being a woman. I’m glad I am a woman. I like my body, I like who I am, etc.
I was HORRIFIED recently when reading a gay-conversion story by a woman who now works for Focus on the Family’s program, I think, where she was talking about how she was saved from being a lesbian and learned to love being a godlly woman. What she said THAT meant was that she learned, in this program, to tweeze her eyebrows and wear panty-hose and go for manicures, etc. I wanted to spit. That’s Biblical womanhood? Tweezing your eyebrows? Wearing pantyhose? Getting your nails done?
I wasn’t mad at her, I was just furious at the program that equated being a christian woman with those ENTIRELY cultural “one-socio-economic-subgroups-version-of-feminity” things. Shoot, I know a few godly Christian women who wouldn’t know how to shave their armpits if you handed them a razor. (THis is Alaska, after all *grin*). They are brimming over with Christ, but you’ll never see them in pantyhose, and good luck if you ever convince them to pluck their eyebrows—- or somehow prove why it’s “godly” to do so. I doubt they even know that some of us are crazy enough to do it! LOL…
I hate that kind of stuff. Makes me want to grow out my armpit hair, just out of spite!
But just being born a woman…? That’s different. I like being a woman. I hate the price tag that comes with it in this fallen world, but I do love being a woman, and I don’t believe God made a mistake when He was knitting me in my mother’s womb, or when He called me, a female, to Himself.
‘floordrobes’ !!
Thanks. Both my children have floordrobes! But they also get lots of hugs as well as being supported and having someone to talk finances with them and other stuff. They are good kids so I don’t have any rebellious behaviour to contend with – as long as I can put up with floordrobes.
Amanda and Sue…. what are ‘floordrobes’ ??
believer3:
You can find the answer to anything, or the meaning of any strange new word, using Google or Wikipedia.
You’ve never come across this term? I’ve heard others use it but maybe it’s an Austalian thing.
Explanation – a wardrobe is somewhere to store clothes. A ‘floordrobe’ exists when you use the floor for the same purpose. But rather than hanging the clothes you place them in piles or (more normally) drop them in heaps. This is done because of the difficulty (some) teenage boys have with taking clothes to a wardrobe, opening the door and placing the clothes inside. Of course after using the ‘floordrobe’ for a while accessing the wardrobe becomes even more difficult. There is also the problem of distinguishing between clean and dirty clothes. But my sons didn’t seem too stressed by that – at least until the started noticing girls!
Oddly enough my daughter didn’t have a floordrobe. Maybe it’s the Y chromosone that does it.
I have got to stop looking at this thread. It’s 3pm Saturday over here and I’m preaching 10 am tomorrow and the sermon is only 1/2 done.
Well, I finally figured it out. Wardrobe – floordrobe. LOL
I cannot remember the last time I ever referred to a closet as a wardrobe. That’s life out here in the boondocks on an island.
Molleth: You wrote, “generally breastfeeding is a feminine role” (?)… Im not saying we must make an “exclusive” male/female list of roles. My point was simply that the social sciences have shown us that there are some “general” inclinations we find in men and women and these ought not be ignored. Further when much of these are linked with the psychical makeup of our God created bodies it makes it difficult to deny them without much special pleading. Women are a “weaker vessel” and are not the same as men with different body parts.
Of course some supposed gender roles are socially constructed so careful discern is needed. The radical feminist of the 60’s and 70’s (and some today) have argued that things such as having children (or breastfeeding) were the only feminine roles but I am surprised when evangelicals use this argument.
Sue: Sorry I was not trying to take a shot as single mothers. There is much to commend.
Brandon,
Yes, I like the “general inclinations” the social sciences have found. In fact, I love that kind of term. “General inclination” is so much better than “role,” in my mind. I do not buy the androgeny argument, where men and women are simply interchangable parts. But having lived through a worldview that had men and women neatly divided up into very strict catagories, I am understandably gun-shy about the idea of drawing up lists of males and female traits.
Some of the most agreeable/believable male/female differences I’ve read are those that come from feminist researchers. In fact, one book…hmmm, I can’t remember the title, but there was a book on the psychology of women (exploring the implications of quite a few studies showing distinct differences in female psychology vs. male psychology), written by feminist drs… It was fantastic, and really made some strong points. (I’m personally more apt to trust the possible gender differences when they come from sources like that, than I am gender differences posed by Piper, Grudem, etc).
Hi Amanda,
You’re right: I am using my interpretations of the NT to interpret the OT. Likewise, I use my interpretations of the OT to interpret the NT. I agree with what you said about being careful to indicate our prior interpretations and assumptions.
Because of passages such as Ps. and Eph 5:23.
After the golden calf incident, God took one tribe (the Levites) in place of the first-born. Lots of things went wrong during Israel’s history; we need to be looking to God’s ideal, God’s design, I believe. You said Abel was passed over for Cain, but actually Cain was the first-born (if not in spirit).
Has anyone here, or does anyone, feel angry with God for not making this matter clearer – especially in relation to church leadership? Do you think it’s irresponsible of God, after going into such detail in Numbers and Deuteronomy about the organsation of Israel, not to make leadership unambiguous for the church? Alternatively, perhaps you feel that whichever view you hold is obviously clear.
In my experience sermons by women tend to focus on psychology, feelings, experiences and practical applications far more than on theology and accurate, thorough exegesis. They tend to refer to the Bible in a rather sweeping manner rather than ‘accurately dividing’ the word of truth. Women preachers also tend to be rather haughty in manner.
A woman preacher recently said ‘I don’t think Paul was the easiest of people to be around’. Paul, the ‘Moses’ of us Gentiles? Appointed by Christ to reconcile us to God? Surely he deserves more respect and gratitude! Such unqualified remarks – she didn’t explain why she thought that (lack of accuracy again), don’t help the egalitarian cause as far as I am concerned. And the New Testament indicates otherwise anyway, as far as I can see (eg Ac 20:37-38).
IOW = “in other words”
Here are a couple “gender based” assignments I see given by God to the man and the woman before the Fall:
woman: uniquely assigned to ezer/help meet
man: uniquely assigned to “leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife” (this is given pre-Fall in Gen 2:24, and repeated by Jesus and Paul)
” My point was simply that the social sciences have shown us that there are some “general” inclinations we find in men and women and these ought not be ignored. Further when much of these are linked with the psychical makeup of our God created bodies it makes it difficult to deny them without much special pleading. Women are a “weaker vessel” and are not the same as men with different body parts.”
I agree with that. And in fact always have pretty much.
The difference in approach between one who observes differences of general inclinations and one who believes there should be certain specific differences, is in the element of control. The first is willing to allow people to be who they are. The second approach wishes to restrict and limit people to the differences they think they should have whether or not they actually fit.
”In my experience sermons by women tend to focus on psychology, feelings, experiences and practical applications far more than on theology and accurate, thorough exegesis.”
cndo, That may be your experience, but it is not everyone’s. I know many women who teach and preach more accurately than a lot of men. But I don’t think it’s a man versus woman thing. Fact is that it is a highly prejudicial and inaccurate statement to imply that men are more capable of discerning and exegeting truth from Scripture than women are. But it is what I have heard from patriarchal and hierarchalist teachings.
In some denominations women are told that they are less capable of discerning truth from Scripture than men are and that they should not try, so they don’t. In those denominations I have seen a lot of teaching by women that is more feelings, experience, and psychology oriented (as you say) than in other denominations. And I consider it a sad thing. These women could easily be taught how to properly exegete Scripture.
I suppose I could say that on average I’ve seen more scholarly discussion and research from most egal women than I’ve seen from most non egal women. That IMO is because patriarchal/hierarchalist teaching teaches women to turn to men for their answers rather than researching and studying for themselves. And in my experience if any of these women try to research it for themselves, they are badgered and fear mongered into not doing so, but pushed into accepting what they are told. They are allowed to do enough research to support what their male leaders are saying, but not enough to really question the veracity of what they are told. I know this because I have experienced it personally and watched it happen to others.
”Has anyone here, or does anyone, feel angry with God for not making this matter clearer – especially in relation to church leadership?”
Interesting question. The majority of Scripture is not “clear”. It is not clear because God’s Ways are above and beyond our human ways. Christ even spoke in parables that were not ‘clear’ to the average person. I suspect but do not know for certain, that God only intended to make obviously clear what is sin, what is holy, and how to find salvation through Christ. Everything else we must search for showing our determination to know the truth and exercising our mind, heart and spirit in the process. There is so much that has taken humanity so long to learn. And we’ve so much yet to learn.
In relationship to ‘church’ leadership, I don’t think there are many who get it yet that it is about serving and self sacrifice, not about the flesh, power or positions. No one’s flesh is better than anyone else’s flesh. We need to be led of the Holy Spirit from a foundation of Godly Holy Love, seeking to point the people of God toward Christ, and helping to equip them in the things of God as the HS leads. If you want Scriptures, there are tons, and several here would be glad to cite them for you.
We are all on the same level ground at the foot of the cross. That includes men and women, all races and ethnicities, and the rich and the poor. Some of us are blessed with skills to share. Some of us are given certain spiritual gifts and ministries that we should use to bless, encourage, teach, inspire and prompt our brethren toward other good works for the goals of God.
Leadership in the OT was somewhat different than in the NT, although God did use women mightily as well as men, although fewer of them.
And no, I don’t think it is obviously clear. Obviously!
“You’ve never come across this term? I’ve heard others use it but maybe it’s an Australian thing.”
Thanks for the detailed definition Amanda. Pretty funny!
Maybe we would call it ‘floorset’, since the common term here is closet.
So would you say that it is a male inclination to be messy. LOL I wouldn’t want to go there. haha
I know of many male (and female also) friends who are ridiculously “nitty” about things being in their place. Think of the series “Monk” on TV. I knew a guy who organized his spices alphabetically. Knew another guy who threw out his wife’s spices except for the ones she used every week – and they had to sit at the front of the cupboards. He was always throwing stuff away. ?? Knew of a woman who never let her children play in the living or dining room and dusted fanatically. Know a Chaplain now who chooses to be a minimalist and everything is stacked and packed orderly. He also keeps throwing out things. and so on ……
Knew of a woman who never let her children play in the living or dining room and dusted fanatically.
Phew… that’s not me! lol
I think it’s partly fear that drives these lists of what it means to be feminine or masculine. We were given Dobson’s Bringing Up Boys a few years ago…there’s a good example of wild terror that boys who are not raised intentionally to be “masculine” will become homosexual. IMO this mindset is hurtful to both boys and girls.
Thinking back on my tomboyish childhood…I realize that a lot of what I did/how I did things was based on my fear of being associated with “stupid” girls. I abhorred frilliness, was driven to be smarter than and run faster than everyone, etc. so I wouldn’t be brushed aside as being just a girl. Of course wearing lace doesn’t mean you’re stupid, but in my immaturity I made that association based on my observation of how girls were valued – especially for their intellects.
The struggle is different now that I’m grown. The church is particularly guilty of bombarding women with expectations that they will like and do certain things because they are women. Nursery duty? Women’s retreats? Kitchen service? Decorating? I cannot say how marginalizing it has been for someone who has not fit the mold in this regard.
Rather than reigning people in so they can become the “godly women they were meant to be” I would suggest that this mindset has the opposite effect for many.
cndo
We could also say that there are far more men who have to step down from ministry because of sexual impropriety than women. I don’t think they do the cause of men in leadership any good. In fact, I am always surprised, given this, that men are allowed to stand up in front of a congregation. Clearly men easily lead women into sexual sin.
Perhaps men should be veiled when they speak in public, or they should only preach with their wife in the audience or sitting up on the stage with them, – “covering” him in a sense with her ownership. I don’t know how we can go about lessening this sin without barring men from public leadership altogether.
I note that women in speaking and leadership roles, are almost universally considered to be sexually unattractive to men, and are therefore much more able to assist the congregation in focusing on God.
I note that women in speaking and leadership roles, are almost universally considered to be sexually unattractive to men, and are therefore much more able to assist the congregation in focusing on God.
This would be interesting to give to Sarah to discuss. That would be Sarah Sumner, not Sarah Palin who did attract a lot of attention because she is attractive to men and women liked her because she was juggling motherhood as well as her political career.
I’ve lived in three Australian states and have never heard of a floordrobe until now.
A question:
Where did Eve learn that if she so much as “touched” the fruit she would die?
It doesn’t appear from the text that she learned it from God or from the serpent, so that suggests that Adam told her.
As a result of what she was taught (or thought she was taught), when Eve touched (i.e., “took from”) the fruit and found that she did not die, she seemingly concluded that the serpent might be right and that God indeed might be lying, so she did the next logical thing – i.e., she ate from it.
So while some may use the creation (and Fall) account to teach that only men should be in charge and/or do the teaching, I wonder if an argument could be made that the it appears that Adam (i.e., the man) didn’t do a very good job?
EricW,
You might be interested in this article on Eve and the instruction she was given by God himself on what she could and could not eat, and there are more articles on the same subject that you can find if you tpye in ‘Eve’ etc in the search engine.
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/07/20/adam-eve-fruit-inspectors/
Eve gave a testimony of what God himself (not Adam) said to the BOTH (you is plural) of them.
‘There is little engagement with what is actually written about Eve being deceived and why that might be and how that may link to Adam being formed first.’
The topic of Eve being deceived by the serpent is an interesting one IMO.
Here’s are just some things I’ve seen after some studying:
1. When the serpent spoke to Eve he distorted the command that God had given to Adam before she was formed.
2. Eve is oblivious of what God said to Adam since she did not exist yet, but Adam knew what the serpent was doing to the command that God gave him but did not speak up and let Eve become decieved by the serpent. Adam let her fall.
3. Eve testifies to what God told the both of them on what they could eat.
4. It’s an eye popper to see what the serpent did to the command God gave to Adam when he was alone.
I had to fix #3:
3. Eve testifies to what God told the both of them on what they could NOT eat, but before that she tells the serpent what they both were given permission by God to eat.
It’s difficult because male pastors, when bad leaders, are viewed as bad leaders. Their gender has nothing to do with it. But when a leader is female, any and every fault she has is blamed on her gender.
In other words, Joseph Smith was just a false prophet. He wasn’t a false MALE prophet. His MALENESS did not cause his falseness. His maleness is never used in any way to explain what he did wrong. He just is viewed as a false prophet. But imagine if he was female…? His gender would be part of what was so wrong with him, then.
So I feel like there is a very strong double-standard. I’ve had a ton of bad pastors, but that’s just because they were bad, not because they were guys. I wish others would afford the same measure of judgement to women who serve in positions of leadership. Ie, if they stink, that’s becuase they stink, not because of their gender.
I suspect Blacks feel the same way and suffer from the same automatic double-whammy as women do.
I couldn’t believe the catty and sexist remarks I heard coming from liberals and Democrats, both male and female, when Sarah Palin entered the race. Were a Republican or conservative to have made the same kinds of remarks about Obama with respect to his race as they did about Palin with respect to her sex, that person would have been sentenced by the press to the everlasting fires and tortures of Gehenna.
kathy:
Interesting article. I’m not sure I agree with some of her argument/eisegesis, though.
(Eisegesis isn’t, IMO, automatically wrong; one can’t help but read some things into or posit some things about some texts in order to exegete them or argue a point from them. In fact, I do a bit of that in what I write below.)
The Garden creation seems to be a special creation. Its plants seemed to flourish and reproduce by the man’s tending and care of them, whereas the Genesis 1 plants could reproduce, untended, on their own by the fact that they all were seed-bearing.
The blogwriter’s assumption or deduction that the Garden plants were of the same seed-within-their-fruit-bearing kind as the Genesis 1 plants – and that Adam and Eve were to inspect the plants as to whether or not they had seed in their fruit (which is part of how she argues that the woman also heard God’s Genesis 1 command to eat from all seed-within-its-fruit-bearing trees) – may be right, but I don’t think the text demands it. Thus, I think the argument is a bit weak at this point.
YMMV.
“In my experience sermons by women tend to focus on psychology, feelings, experiences and practical applications far more than on theology and accurate, thorough exegesis.”
If I listen to charismatic style “name it and claim it” preaching, I hear this kind of thing from both men and women. Also in more liberal churches, where the sermons are straight out of the 6 o’clock news not the Bible.
As a complementarian, I don’t hear women preaching in church. What I do hear are women such as Anne Graham Lotz, who preaches rings around many male preachers I’ve heard, Kay Arthur (very limited exposure), who appears to focus on the Word not experience, Beth Moore, whose study on Daniel I would rate as comparable to a Bible School class on the book of Daniel (I’ve been to Moody Bible Institute).
I’ve also had a year experience at Bible Study Fellowship, started by a woman who took the Word so seriously she demanded her students sit quietly in the class if they didn’t do their homework.
Then there’s the one woman who taught our women’s Bible study for years at our church. Pretty balanced in interpretation and application as far as I could see. Pretty diligent student of the Word.
My experience doesn’t match yours, I guess.
“I couldn’t believe the catty and sexist remarks I heard coming from liberals and Democrats, both male and female, when Sarah Palin entered the race.”
I understand it perfectly. The media was in Obama’s pocket is why, so they could be hypocritical that way.
I’ve lived in four Australian states and one Australian territory and didn’t hear the word until, maybe, two or three years ago. I have two sons who use floordrobes. The word, being so descriptive, is one I haven’t forgotten. (The other son has Asperger’s and is incredibly neat even though he never dusts or vacuums. But at least I can get into his room to do that for him.)
I keep thinking of how, when I was a child, I had to share a room with my sister (and, earlier, with my brother as well) and how, in such a situation, the use of floordrobes could not have been tolerated. But these days every kid (except, it seems, in the UK and, of course, in certain Australian communities) seems to have their own room so slovenliness doesn’t have to impinge on anyone but the sloven. Ah! The benefits of increasing prosperity!
On the other hand, I recall reading someone who said that one should not fight with one’s teenage children over anything important. Discuss those big things with great care and loving kindness. Fight over the unimportant stuff – such as the state of their room. They must rebel in order to separate themselves from their parents so let them rebel over something inconsequential.
I think I agree with EricW, rather too much eisegesis. And it seems to make the assumption that Eve couldn’t have done anything wrong and build from there. Also doesn’t seem to take into consideration that this is a Hebrew narrative and what that implies.
Where did Eve learn that if she so much as “touched” the fruit she would die?
I think this is an important question. One of the features of Hebrew narrative is repetition. (There is a whole chapter on repetition in Robert Alter’s book The Art of Biblical Narrative.) Any changes in the repeated piece are significant. The writer would expect those reading or hearing the narrative to pick up on these changes.
When Eve (Gen 3:3) repeats the command the repitition isn’t exact. The most obvious change is the addition you must not touch. A Jewish reader who knew the Torah would think of the command in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. There is also Prov 30:6.
The question that needs to be in our mind as we read narrative is how does the writer expect us to understand it and how would the first readers/hearers have understood it. And bear in mind this is Hebrew narrative.
At the time Eve adds to the law, the command to not do that hasn’t been given. So she is not breaking a command of God. (But it is possible that the writer – and God – expect the reader, when they get to those verses in Deuteronomy, to remember Eve and see why it is important not to add to the law).
However, what the changes and especially the addition show is that she hasn’t learnt the command properly. In an age when Jews might learn the Torah by heart, word perfect – I gather some still do – this would have been seen as a failure. After all it was only one command.
I think it would have been highly unlikely that either the writer, first readers or any in the first century would blame Adam’s teaching rather than Eve’s learning.
Certainly the rabbis saw Eve’s adding to the law as the direct cause of her being deceived. But the Midrash doesn’t say how Eve came to hear the command.
However, in 3:17, when God says “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ The ‘you’ in both ‘I commanded you’ and ‘You must not eat’ is singular. So God doesn’t seem to think he gave the command to Eve. He certainly doesn’t confront Eve directly over the command.
What this would mean in the context of 1 Tim 2 is that verses 13 & 14 are giving an illustration/example of what happens when those who have not learned try to teach. Adam, after all listened to Eve (rather than listening to God not rather than leading her). The women are in danger of being deceived by false teaching because they have not been taught scripture. (A secular education is beside the point. It won’t protect against false teaching.)
The emphasis in the inclusio of verses 11 and 12 is the bracketting phrase ‘in quietness’ This is the way to learn properly – whether you are male or female. Paul is particularly concerned that the women learn properly to protect them from false teaching.
If they are taken in by the false teaching and then teach this to men then the whole household could be led astray. The husband was the head of the family (which included more than just the nuclear family) and his religion was considered the religion of the household. Think of the way the Philippian jailer’s household was baptised when he believed. Also in Titus 1:11 Paul talks of whole households being ruined by false teaching.
I think that in the first century most people wouldn’t have needed much persuading that women shouldn’t teach. I think what Paul would have needed to back up fairly strongly was the need for them to learn. This was the unusual thing and people would need some persuading. Any explanation of verse 13 & 14 that doesn’t include an explanation of why women should learn for me lacks credibility.
Okay. I suppose I was trying to see whether God has gifted men and women in line with the complementarian roles the church has taught for millennia. Is it not true that, by a long way, most airline pilots and engineers are men? I read this in a secular book, based on evolutionary psychology. I don’t know of many female theologians. What I’m exploring is whether there is something innate that puts women off subjects such as engineering and pure theology. A well-known Pentecostal pastor addressed a group of men (including myself) in 2002, and cited a survey from New York in which most women said they’d rather raise a family than work outside the home (by the way, I do believe in equal opportunities for men and women outside the church).
Ps. 40:8.
Your approach to the Bible sounds similar to Walter Brueggemann’s:
http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/225
Presumably, an egalitarian could actually attend a worship service in a complementarian church. Not so the other way around. Maybe Romans 14 is applicable here.
I used to ’speak in tongues’ but now I’d love to know why charismatics think the 120 disciples were baptised with the Holy Spirit; my reading of Acts 1-2 leads me to conclude only the Twelve apostles were. It follows from that that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were only given at the laying on of the Apostles’ hands (Ac. 8:18).
Off-topic, I realise, but I haven’t found a defence from charismatics anywhere on the Internet!
Molly,
That is a very good point. Males can be good or bad leaders, while females, just because they are female, can’t be leaders. Period.
You can make a good case for women not being pastors or the main preachers of a church, and support it with the Bible. In fact, you can believe that God is grieved if a woman preaches.
But don’t knock the female gender and our leadership abilities. Not even God saw the need to do that!
I learned one very important lesson when we started attending the church we are currently part of. The preacher/leader is a woman.
At first, I didn’t want to be there or listen to her because of her gender. One member of the church told me not to look at the preacher and dismiss her because of her gender, but rather, to listen to her.
When I started doing that, I realized she has good insight, is devoted to understanding God’s word and living by it. She is not wishy-washy or emotional in her exposition of God’s word.
On the other hand, once I stopped having an issue with her gender, I started seeing what was really wrong.
Bottom line, I think that too much concentrating on secondary issues can get us off the main track and can be one more tool the adversary is using against the Church.
floordrobes! So that is what my sons had! Love It!
Single parenting is hard work… no matter how it comes about! And sometimes we are single parents even when we are married. I always felt I was even before the divorce, it’s just that once it is “for real” there is even more responsiblility and less time. So you major on the majors (late night parties) and minor on the minors (floordrobes). And you work hard in and out of the home… especially when “support” is almost non-existant. I always ended up working at least one and a half jobs, one year one full time and three part time jobs….
I think we in the church need to pay more attention to single parents, rather than make them feel like outcasts. What i wouldn’t have given if my church had offered help, respite, anything! It is not that they werer rude or careless, they cared. They just didn;t know what that care should look like. I got tired oif asking, so struggled on my own to raise my three sons.
Hands down, any single parent who does the best they can deserves praise, not condemnation – or worse – being ignored.
oopps… I meant that for one year I had to work one full time job and three part time jobs to make ends meet and provide for my sons… sorry it didn’t make sense whne I re-read it!
Bonnie wrote: “Hi cndo,
Why would a husband (or a man) be modelling femininity by submitting to Christ?”
CNDO responded: “Ps. 40: 8 I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart.”
Are you suggesting cndo that a woman is to worship her husband like that, desiring his will over her own, considering his will her law?
No, cndo. I am not an Open Theist. I believe God indeed knows the future as well as the past and intimately the present. I do not approach the Bible through a lens such as that. I believe that the Bible in the original manuscripts is inerrant and God via the HS will help to unveil it to me as I seek Him.
Please do not seek to dismiss my contributions by casting aspersions on my approach to Scripture.
I’ve seen plenty of defense from charismatics all over the net. But you are correct it is off topic for this thread.
Your second statement is interesting. Do you believe that the apostles decided who got what gifts and then the HS followed their leading. What about today? Are you a cessationist?
Are you orthodox? If so what branch?
cndo,
I am reading Susan Pinker’s Sexual Paradox and for sure, there is an imbalance in engineering because even women who score on par with men in engineering, still often choose more people oriented jobs. There are many differences between men and women.
However, women perform on par with men in all verbal areas, and have some advantages there, as well as in people oriented domains.
So, all in all, from what I have read, being a pastor would be people oriented, and theology and exegesis is very verbal.
I acknowledge the vast advantage a small group of men have over women in math and computer science, but I do not see this applying in any way to theology.
Men and women are on average of the same IQ but there are more extremes for men, more mental handicaps and more geniuses, especially in the non-verbal area. So, men will always supply, on average, more computer scientists. However, many women do score equally with men in this area, just not AS many.
The conclusions would be that there should not be an affirmative action plan to have equal male and female computer scientists, but that equally qualified women should be welcome, although they may not last as long as men in the job. Women do make concessions to child bearing and other family concerns.
I personally am of the opinion that the exegesis I read that is written by women, overall, outperforms exegesis written bv men. This is probably my bias so I won’t make an issue out of it, but this is my distinct impression.
I also think women are equal to men as preachers and pastors.
I do think that systematic theology is perhaps unattractive to women, as it is a culturally male thing to do. However, I come from a background devoid of systematic theology, only biblical theology, and it was male dominated as well.
“Okay. I suppose I was trying to see whether God has gifted men and women in line with the complementarian roles the church has taught for millennia. Is it not true that, by a long way, most airline pilots and engineers are men? I read this in a secular book, based on evolutionary psychology. I don’t know of many female theologians.”
True, but when you try to dissect the reasons why you get into nature/nurture/sinful oppression issues. There are general brain differences between men and women, with some overlap, of course. I also think there have been, and Aristotle is the first I’ve read of, grossly presumptuous ideas about women, which are by no means favorable presumptions. It was many, many years later that the modern scientific method upended some aspects of Aristotle’s methods.
So of course there is the “nurture” “stuff” to contend with as well, and that is not a slight matter.
My overwhelming reading experience on Christian blogs I have read and skimmed, and other forums on the internet, is I tend to see Christian women, theologically, (with some exceptions, mind you) focused on gender issues, mothering, homeschooling, and relational subjects, the political issues which touch on these things as well, not eschatology, systematic theology, biblical theology, linguistics, logic. I’ve given up on trying to understand why, because I’m never going to study the research out there or contribute to it, myself. I am just too old, and interested in other things.
But what I’ve noted is not a bad thing at all, it just has been what I’ve seen, in general.
For example, there are many women, and rightly so, who have exposed the false teachings of Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, whose focus is infants, children, and parenting.
You have to be grounded in the word and have theological smarts to refute false teachers, and there are many women who do admirably at discernment, from what I’ve seen.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out there are complementary brain differences between men and women, but I do think women should be as grounded in the Word as men in order to be Bereans, or to say, “This is a disagreement I have with what [name of famous theologian] said about this Scripture passage, and here’s why, etc.”
“I used to ’speak in tongues’ but now I’d love to know why charismatics think the 120 disciples were baptised with the Holy Spirit; my reading of Acts 1-2 leads me to conclude only the Twelve apostles were.”
Bringing this back on topic, I don’t know how you came to change your view. If you read Acts 2, there appear to be more than 12 languages/dialects mentioned, and then Peter jumped up to the plate and said this was a fulfillment of Joel, which mentions women prophesying. But more to the point, as the 120 were gathered it said the tongues as of fire rested on each one of them, and it didn’t single out the apostles, so I don’t know where you would come to this conclusion from.
Peter did say “These men are not drunk,” but he also said, “Men of Israel . . .” IOW – when he said “Men of Israel,” he was preaching to everybody, women included, and I take it to mean, “these men are not drunk” means the women weren’t, either.
I take that meaning especially in light of the fact that Peter referenced and quoted the Joel passage about the Holy Spirit coming on all flesh without distinction, and what they were doing was not the charismatic teaching on “prayer languages,” but these were prophetic utterances in well over 12 languages/dialects.
My conclusion was the women in that 120 were also given a special prophetic utterance beyond their ability, that day, to confirm the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. But it is to be noted the languages were understood and the visitors understood what was being said.
In a sense, the “uttermost part of the earth” was reached out to, on that day, even before the persecution, when they were scattered.
cndo,
I’m female. But my giftings are in the area of math and science. I’m a terrible speller as the people here can attest to.
Back in the eighties, even though I did better in calculus, physics and other courses that make a good foundation for engineering, I was never encouraged to go into engineering. It was never suggested. I didn’t even know what an engineer was. This was very cultural and had nothing to do with my abilities.
Both my father and my brother are engineers. Both my father and my brother have been pilots, one private, the other in the Air Force. Even my grandfather flew a plane privately.
I could have too. If I knew that I could.
But it was never suggested. It was never encouraged. By anyone. My father, my teachers, anyone.
I could be bitter.
I prefer not to be.
Plus I’ve heard that the women in the engineering field are STILL not accepted by many of their male peers. The men either treat them with kid gloves or behave very sexist around them. Many cannot be neutral. I may be able to handle that now in my forties. But I’m sure I wouldn’t have been able to back in my twenties.
I believe my father regrets not encouraging me now. He regrets the potential I had not being used. I have no unforgiveness toward him. Both he and I were part of the culture we grew up in.
And I plan, someday, to take private lessons and learn how to fly a plane.
If I start a bucket list, that will be on it.
Oh dear, I didn’t intend to cast any aspersions on your approach to Scripture, believer3. I didn’t know WB was an Open Theist; even if he is, I don’t see that as a bad thing (I’m not a Calvinist).
No, not exactly.
Firstly, I wouldn’t use the term ‘worship’ in relation to the principle of joyful submission of a godly wife to her husband (1 Pt. 3:6, 1 Pt. 3:1-6), unless by ‘worship’ you mean ‘giving worth’ in this sense of joyful submission.
Secondly, I interpret the first part of this verse as indicating that Christ joined His will with that of His Father, rather than that He grudgingly put His Father’s will above His own.
Thirdly, I interpret the second part of this verse as indicating merely that Christ cherishes His Father’s will, rather than ‘considering [His Father's] will [His] law’.
cndo,
The tricky part of the analogy (for those who say that husband and wife are to be as the Father and Christ) is that the Father and Christ are of one will, by *nature.*
But a human male and a human female are not of one will by nature.
So if they are taught that their will must be the same (and that it should be the heads/husbands), then the wife must, of necessity, subsume her own will. The wife must, of necessity, submit her will to the will of another (fallen imperfect) human will.
An alternative view would suggest that a husband and wife are to be on the same team and to cherish each others wills, to work together as a team led by Christ. This way, each spouse is free to cherish the will of the other, to gain strength and benefit from the will of their partner, and to submit their will to Christ as individuals and as a unit.
In this alternative view, submission one to another is a reciprocal thing, not one-sided. (This seems to me to be a beautiful picture of the Trinity and of the way Christ treats His church—-the law of Love at work in a marriage, truly).
That’s really good and very interesting. Thanks Amanda!
God gave instructions about which trees and fruit to “you[plural]” here:
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold,
I have given you [pl] every herb
bearing seed, which [is]
upon the face of all the
earth, and every tree, in the
which [is] the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to you[pl] it shall
be for meat.
see http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf
To me, this sounds like evidence that God spoke to BOTH of them about the fruit restriction (seedless fruit was not OK)
TL,
I think some of it also is a lack of trust, or else a lack of distinction between the things which should be restricted or limited and those which need not be. It’s the slippery slope argument. I do think that allowing certain evils will lead to great damage, although perhaps not “end-of-the-world”-type damage. But then that’s cause-and-effect, not slippery-slope.
Anyway, if I may be psychological for a moment (btw, there are plenty of male psychologists, legit and otherwise, and come to think of it, some of the male figures who have had the greatest influence on modern society have been psychologists
) I sense that some of the motivation behind this attempt to overcontrol the social order (or anything else) may be an effort to create either a (false) sense of security or to compensate for a person’s feeling of lack of control over something that really bothers them. (Of course, that’s my strictly unprofessional opinion 
)
“Oh dear, I didn’t intend to cast any aspersions on your approach to Scripture, believer3. I didn’t know WB was an Open Theist; even if he is, I don’t see that as a bad thing (I’m not a Calvinist).”
Well, that is somewhat of a relief.
I’m not a Calvinist either. But I do not take the approach within Open Theism which maintains that God cannot know the future.
Anyway, my apologies for misunderstanding you.
So, what did you mean by it anyway. what were you referring to??
TL/Believer3
Hi EricW,
When God God tells them both (you pl) in Gen 1:29 what they can eat, it’s after the garden creation. God therefore tells Adam again, or a second time what he can eat, first as recorded in Gen 2 and second as recorded in Gen 1. So it seems that the Gen 2 plants are the Genesis 1 plants.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold,
I have given you [pl] every herb
bearing seed, which [is]
upon the face of all the
earth, and every tree, in the
which [is] the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to you[pl] it shall
be for meat.
The fruit inspection and faith factor in the article I thought were interesting insights.
‘However, what the changes and especially the addition show is that she hasn’t learnt the command properly. In an age when Jews might learn the Torah by heart, word perfect – I gather some still do – this would have been seen as a failure. After all it was only one command.’
I think it’s most important that there is nothing that proves she added to God’s command and that it is tradition that she did. I don’t have a reason to think that Eve could not get one simple command correct either. For me unless it can be proven that she got it wrong, which it cannot then her testimony of God’s words stand. I wouldn’t assume her guilty untell proven that she were.
I think it is better to presume her innocent since we cannot prove her guilty and this goes for anyone who may be called into question or brought charges against. Innocent untell proven gulity, right? Well, not with Eve…why does she get that kind of treatment?
Thanks cndo,
I do not see anything in Ps. 40:8 to suggest that a person submitting to Christ is committing a feminine act.
we need to be looking to God’s ideal, God’s design, I believe.
God’s design cannot be altered; it is immutable. His ideal seems to be to reward righteousness as well as award grace to the undeserving. It seems that what you call God’s ideal was not considered ideal in many cases by God Himself.
Concerning Cain and Abel, note that I didn’t say that Abel was “passed by.” What I meant was that the first-born, Cain, did not end up getting first-born privileges because of his wickedness. He was cursed, not blessed, and sent away, because of what he did. (Blessing wasn’t given according to rank, although it often went along with it.)
I think you are assuming that Genesis 1 and 2 have to be taken apart and fit together with each other in a Western analytical chronological fashion. While it may make “sense” to cut and paste and order the various parts of Genesis 1 and 2 this way, I’m not sure the author and readers/hearers would necessarily do or conclude as you do.
Also, nowhere can I see that God told them not to eat plants that don’t bear seed – or even if such plants were created. Genesis 1:11-12 seems to indicate that all plants (including trees) were seed-bearing.
I have to add that now after the woman’s creation God gives more food to Adam, food upon the face of all the earth. First Adam was only given food that was in the garden then he is later given food upon all the face of the earth. So God makes an addition to what Adam may eat when he gives permission to them both to eat. And this reminds of the addition God made to the command, according to Eve’s testimony. There’s nothing wrong with God making additions to his permissions and commands.
EricW,
Let me fix this statement:
‘So it seems that the Gen 2 plants are the Genesis 1 plants.’
So it seems that the Gen 2 plants are the Genesis 1 plants in respect to having seed in them otherwise it contradicts what God commanded Adam. In other words God told Adam he could eat from any tree in the garden except the one tree. Then after the woman is created he tells Adam & her (you is pl in Gen 1:29) that they can eat all trees and plants with fruit that have seed therefore the one excluded tree could not have seed. So the plants and trees have fruit with seed in Chp 1 & 2, they are the ’same’ otherwise God is contradicting himself when he is giving Adam permission to eat the second time.
kathy:
I still think you’re over-analyzing and over-parsing the text with this seed-versus-no-seed distinction and conclusion/supposition. And I still hold to my initial response to that woman’s post/argument – i.e., I think the seed-versus-no-seed argument used to support the view that Eve also heard the Genesis 1 instruction is a weak and faulty one.
Just curious: Have you read the chapters in the original Hebrew? Have you read some scholarly commentaries on Genesis 1 & 2?
I don’t understand what you mean by taken apart and fit together since I simply see the two accounts as describing the same creation event. Both complement eachother. The accounts are the same event of creation but told in 2 different ways.
In Gen 1 God gave them permission to eat every herb bearing seed and fruit that had seed upon the face of the earth. He did not give them permission to eat that which did not have seed. Then in Gen 2 we know he commanded Adam not to eat of 1 tree, so the 1 tree could not have had seed, otherwise God contradicts himself.
I meant to write:
… And I still hold to my initial response to that woman’s post/argument – i.e., I think the seed-versus-no-seed argument used to support the view that Adam and Eve were to inspect the plants as to whether or not they had seed in their fruit (which is part of how she argues that the woman also heard God’s Genesis 1 command to eat from all seed-within-its-fruit-bearing trees) is weak.
I wish John Hobbins were still here to weigh in with his Hebrew expertise (which I do not have).
EricW,
‘I still think you’re over-analyzing and over-parsing the text with this seed-versus-no-seed distinction and conclusion/supposition…’
Just curious: Have you read the chapters in the original Hebrew? Have you read some scholarly commentaries on Genesis 1 & 2?’
So where would the middle be? lol!
All I’m looking at is two times where God actualy SPEAKS , communicates words to his created human beings. Once to a single human being, Adam, and second to Adam and Eve. And taking both times he SPEAKS into account, by comparing them the logical and simple conclusion is that 1 tree doesn’t have seed. That’s all I’m saying. Easy and simple and so I don’t know how something as simple as that can be over-analyzing and over-parsing. My point of view comes from putting myself in Adam and Eve’s place. If I were them, I ask myself what did God say to me? So alrighty then…
29 Then God SAID, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
And I don’t read Hebrew nor commentaries often, EricW.
But Kathy I think your argument has two problems.
1. If only seed bearing plants and fruit with seed are permitted food then there would be no reason to forbid eating a tree that didn’t have seed. It would already be forbidden.
2. You seem to be assuming that if permission is given to act in a particular way towards a generalised group of similar objects (ie eat seed bearing plants) then refusing permission to act that way to one specific object means it doesn’t bear the common characteristic. This seems to be like saying that these two statements
i)you can marry any woman you wish.
ii) you can’t marry that person standing there
means the person isn’t a woman. There may be other reasons however not mentioned in the first statement that prevent marriage.
God could give permission to Adam and Eve to eat from any seed bearing tree and then forbid them from eating from one of that group for reasons not disclosed.
Slight correction to above. Adam and Eve weren’t forbidden to eat the tree but rather its fruit. Although they probably shouldn’t have eaten the tree either. The hazards of lack of sleep
OK, thanks.
I’ll keep your thoughts/observations in mind for future contemplation.
God told them they[Plural] could eat ALL seed bearing fruit and herbs. So the fruit of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” did not have seeds in it. It was unproductive fruit, fruit that could not reproduce, deadly fruit.
I have a friend who suggested that the “forbidden fruit” in the Garden is sex, that Adam and Eve were children “naked and unashamed”, the snake is phallic, the sterile (seedless) fruit is because this sex was not “fruitful”. That God would have eventually introduced sex, but it was too early when the snake (the beautiful Lucifer) initiated the woman, then she turned around and seduced Adam. I think my friend is interpreting things too much in this temporal dimension instead of seeing the spiritual significance. But her thoughts are intriguing and not without merit, I think. It sure would explain why Adam raised no objection to “eating the fruit”!
Personally, my meditations on the spiritual significance of sterile, deadly fruit leads me to NT passages like:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” Matthew 23:15
Why do you say the Father and Christ are of one will, by nature? Doesn’t Christ’s Passion prayer indicate that He has a personal will, but that He delights to bring it into line with His Father’s will?
believer3 wrote:
Do you believe that the apostles decided who got what gifts and then the HS followed their leading. What about today? Are you a cessationist?
Are you orthodox? If so what branch?
***
No, I believe the HS decided who got what gifts (1 Cor. 12:11). I am not a cessationist in relation to miracles, just the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
I am an evangelical (the Baptist denomination is closest to my understanding of the Bible).
Response to Lynn (March 15, 2009 at 7:24 pm)
Ac. 21:8-9 indicates a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in relation to women prophesying, along of course with the women at Corinth. I am convinced that prophesying is different from teaching because it is passing on a message, rather than producing a message.
As for the reasons why it seems to me that only the Twelve Apostles were baptised with the Holy Spirit on that first Pentecost, please refer to a blog I started just a few days ago to examine that one question:
http://cndo.wordpress.com
I can’t see a reason why the Twelve didn’t speak prophecies in more than twelve languages, that is, consecutively. I find it implausible, however, that a crowd would so readily identify a group of 120 people as ‘all Galileans’, and anyway the group of 120 disciples were not all Galileans.
The tricky part of the analogy (for those who say that husband and wife are to be as the Father and Christ) is that the Father and Christ are of one will, by *nature.*
So, do the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit share one will? Does each Person of the Trinity have his/its own will?
What does it mean to say that they “are of one will”? Does it mean that they mutually share the same will, as they share one ousion? Or does it mean that their separate wills are always one in agreement, purpose and action?
From your blogpost, cndo:
From a cursory reading of Acts 1 & 2 I think a case could be made that it was only the Apostles who received the Pentecostal infilling. However, I don’t see why believing that what happened at that Pentecost happened only to the Twelve means one must be a cessationist (if that’s what you’re saying). Were one to believe that Acts 2:1-4 was referring only to the 12, I don’t see why that person couldn’t also believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today. Paul doesn’t seem to restrict his discussion of the charismata in 1 Corinthians 12-14 as referring only to apostles, or as being of very limited duration.
Am I understanding you correctly?
FWIW, St. Maximus the Confessor taught that Christ had two natures, two wills and two energies:
Troparion – Tone 8
Champion of Orthodoxy, teacher of purity and of true worship,
enlightener of the universe and adornment of hierarchs:
all-wise father Maximus, your teachings have gleamed with light upon all things.
Intercede before Christ God to save our souls.
Troparion – Tone 8
Let us the faithful fittingly praise the lover of the Trinity,
the great Maximus who taught the God-inspired faith,
that Christ is to be glorified in His two natures, wills, and energies;
and let us cry to him: “Rejoice, herald of the faith.”
Responding to Sue (on March 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm)
“I am reading Susan Pinker’s Sexual Paradox and for sure, there is an imbalance in engineering because even women who score on par with men in engineering, still often choose more people oriented jobs. There are many differences between men and women.
However, women perform on par with men in all verbal areas, and have some advantages there, as well as in people oriented domains.
So, all in all, from what I have read, being a pastor would be people oriented, and theology and exegesis is very verbal. “
Hopefully we can agree on the gifting of many women making them well suited to the ministry of encouragement, then (Ro. 12:7); whether we understand that in relation to the lucrative ‘Christian Counselling’ training industry or not.
Women might define their identity in terms of their relationships, but as Leil Lowndes has said, their understanding of relationships might not be as good as they might think, perhaps due to the prevalence of woman-woman conversations.
Some say that men are able to compartmentalize their lives more than women; could this be an asset for looking at pastoral issues more at arm’s length?
The accent in the Pastorals seems to be on preaching the Scriptures accurately, and the Apostles said they had to give themselves to the Scriptures and to prayer. We would of course want women teaching other women and children to do so in a competent manner, so perhaps this business of looking at whether there are fundamentally different interests and giftings is turning out to be a side track.
I thought that orthodox Trinitarian doctrine declares their seperate wills are always one in agreement, purpose and passion. Meaning, Christ’s personal will is never in opposition to the Father’s personal will. ?? Am I wrong on that?
Now, Christ *on earth* was 100% human (not just 100% God) so His *human* will may have differed from God’s. I don’t know, but I think it’s safe to suggest so, given His suffering in Gethsemene when He said, “not My will but Thine be done.” I believe it was his *humanity* He was struggling with there, not His God-nature.
But that is a different thing that saying, *eternally*, Christ’s will differs from the Father but He perpetually subsumes His will and obeys His Fathers instead.
All of this relates directly to what I think is the inappropriateness of comparing a husband and wife with the Father and the Son. A wife and a husband are both fully and completely *human.* There is not one of them that is 100% divine and the other that is half divine, half human.
Personally, I feel it’s contradictory to believe in Romans 3 (that all have sinned and gone astray, that our natural state is rebellion against God and self above all else) and yet also believe that being born male automatically qualifies one for leadership over the female you marry. At least in the church world, the complementarian position only allows males who meet certain leadership qualifications. The problem is that the complementarian qualification for leadership of the home is simply being male.
So I believe that comparing a husband and wife to the Father over the Son-on-earth neglects a very important fact: Romans 3… It’s a real doozy of a chapter, and it needs to be given the same amount of authority as any other passage.
Those who call for husbandly authority must keep Romans 3 in mind and realize that a great many men will NOT be godly leaders and their wives and children will suffer. So if husbandly leadership is going to be taught, then help for the suffering women must also be clearly communicated as well.
Ie., what Focus on the Family did with their Boundless article was irresponsible, in that regard. Women married to husbands who will not love them with the love of Christ must be educated and given aid to live through the pain of being under the authority, until death, of someone who does NOT have their best interests at heart.
The complementarian position of husbandly leadership must be held in tension with the Christian position of the nature of the flesh. I so appreciate those complementarians who do that and am thankful for them.
What St. Maximus was defending (against the monothelites) was that Christ had 2 wills – one human, one divine. If He had only a single divine/human will, He would not have been fully like us, and hence couldn’t have fully saved us.
I don’t know what the Orthodox/orthodox teaching is re: whether the members of the Trinity share a single will (as they share a single essence, I believe, if that’s what homoousion means) or if they each have their own will, but these three wills are in perfect and eternal agreement with each other. Being three persons, I guess it depends on the extent to which personhood = having one’s own will.
Responding to TL (on March 16, 2009 at 12:05 am)
“I’m not a Calvinist either. But I do not take the approach within Open Theism which maintains that God cannot know the future. … So, what did you mean by it anyway. what were you referring to??”
I think Open Theists believe that God is very flexible, and because of His wisdom and power He always fulfills His plans even if He doesn’t know some of the details – because He doesn’t need to know. But that could be a confusing side track. I believe God knows who will choose Christ and persevere, although I have some sympathy too for the idea of ‘Corporate Election’.
I referred to WB because of what you put about certain themes not being obvious, apart from the central truths about the redemption and so on. WB says a similar thing, as quoted in the web page to which I referred you. I don’t agree with everything he says (particularly that ‘the OT isn’t talking about Christ’, when Jesus said exactly the opposite in Lk. 24), and on balance I find him too liberal. But I also found exploring his views on the Scripture thought-provoking and so I thought it worth mentioning to you as well. In fact, I’ve also mentioned him to another friend of mine who’s just gone back to the Roman church, in the context of ecumenicalism.
Hi Amanda,
On point 1, seed bearing plants and fruit w/seed were given as food to both Adam and Eve after 1 tree was already forbidden to Adam. Since God gave permission for only this kind of food, yes, the 1 tree then was automaticaly forbidden to Eve. The prohibition then of the 1 tree is encompassed within what God gave them both to eat.
The bible shows us that women have seed as men do. So on point 2, a better example I think would be like saying
i) you can marry any woman who has seed
ii) you cannot marry a woman who does not have seed
And both are women wether they have seed or not.
God could make an exception but the text doesn’t supply any such thing. Suchh an exception is never made. Where I’m coming from is based on what the text actualy supplies.
Sue and cndo, I’d like to chime in my opinion also.
”Hopefully we can agree on the gifting of many women making them well suited to the ministry of encouragement, then (Ro. 12:7); whether we understand that in relation to the lucrative ‘Christian Counselling’ training industry or not.”
My understanding of the ministry of encouragement is that it is a prophetic gift. Prophesy is to be encouraging as well as teaching and corrective. The scholars of the OT were the prophets. Huldah and her husband lived next to the quarters where the scrolls were kept, the insinuation being that is where you could find at least Huldah.
Whether one is male or female has little to nothing to do with ones effectiveness in giftings of prophesy or encouragement. Sometimes I am bothered by the insinuations of some Christians that like to ‘assign’ gifts of the Holy Spirit to women, that they consider ‘soft’ and of lessor value, as many do in their understanding (or lack of) of what spiritual encouragement is about.
”Women might define their identity in terms of their relationships, but as Leil Lowndes has said, their understanding of relationships might not be as good as they might think, perhaps due to the prevalence of woman-woman conversations”
Relative ‘truths’ such as this should not be used as a foundation for an eternal truth. How women define themselves (and how men like to define women) is deeply culturally influenced and different around the world.
”Some say that men are able to compartmentalize their lives more than women; could this be an asset for looking at pastoral issues more at arm’s length?”
Probably not. We have lost the meaning of what pastoring means and includes. It means shepherding in the Greek. Traditionally both men and women were shepherds and are mentioned as such in Scripture. Proper shepherding is very relational. Good shepherds make themselves easily accessible to the sheep. Today’s pastoral/shepherding ministry in America is looking more and more like a business. This is not good.
”The accent in the Pastorals seems to be on preaching the Scriptures accurately, and the Apostles said they had to give themselves to the Scriptures and to prayer.”
Yes, that is the American and European view. I think all of the five fold ministry gifts involve teaching, but each may have a different emphasis.
”We would of course want women teaching other women and children to do so in a competent manner”
Since I do not see any Scriptures limiting women with the gift of teaching to using it teaching only women and children, I am of the opinion that both men and women should teach men, women, and children competently. Whatever we set our hands and minds to do, we should do so with diligence.
” I referred to WB because of what you put about certain themes not being obvious, apart from the central truths about the redemption and so on. WB says a similar thing, as quoted in the web page to which I referred you. I don’t agree with everything he says (particularly that ‘the OT isn’t talking about Christ’, when Jesus said exactly the opposite in Lk. 24), and on balance I find him too liberal.”
Thank you for clarifying that cndo. And I would disagree with WB on the same grounds you do. As well, I am quite conservative.
Well thanks, Ericw!
”I thought that orthodox Trinitarian doctrine declares their seperate wills are always one in agreement, purpose and passion. Meaning, Christ’s personal will is never in opposition to the Father’s personal will. ?? Am I wrong on that?”
Molleth, this isn’t perfect either, but might help some. In the Trinity, which never changes there is only one Will, one Authority, one Power which somehow they all are harmoniously united in expressing, though they express it differently. This is explained in the Athenasian Creed. The Messiah as both 100% Human and 100% Divine had an added dimension which He had to yield to the Divine Will. If there were 3 wills, then there would be 3 gods. But our God is One, a mystery very difficult to explain. God cannot disagree with Himself.
kathy:
On what basis do you say that the Genesis 1:29 command was given to mankind after the Genesis 2:17 command? Just curious, but can you cut and paste the verses from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in a post/response here the order in which you believe the things recounted therein occurred?
It doesn’t seem as though mankind was created androgynous — either sexless, or containing combined traits of both sexes, and certainly not that male and female will be “reunited again” — I’ve never heard that. Whether men and women will be male and female in the hereafter, I’m not sure — whatever being like the angels is (Matt. 22:30).
What the “split” in Gen. 2 seems to be about is the marriage mystery, the two-become-one. The reason for this marital union is because woman comes from the body of man, and they are made of the same “stuff.”
When the man (in Gen. 2) calls the woman, “woman,” he is identifying who she is — whom God has made her.
This commentary/commentator thinks it was all 120:
THE SETTING (2:1)
2:1 The time was the day of Pentecost, which Luke noted with a phrase that is literally translated “when the day of Pentecost was fulfilled.” The “fulfillment” language bears more weight than mere chronology as the fulfillment of the time of the divine promise for the gift of the Spirit (1:4f.).70 The time of waiting was over. Luke was much more vague in his reference to the place. They were all together “in one place” (epi to auto). The next verse specifies that it was a “house” in which they were sitting. But where was the house? Was it a room in the temple? That would certainly explain how a large crowd could have been so quickly attracted to the scene. Luke, however, usually referred to the temple by the normal designation hieron, never by the word “house”; and there was really no room in the temple where a gathering of laypeople could “sit.” The most likely place for the gathering is the upper room where they had been praying. Perhaps it was near the temple, where large crowds would assemble on a feast day.
Who were the people gathered in the upper room? On whom did the Spirit descend? Was it the 120 mentioned in 1:15 or only the Twelve apostles? In 2:14 Luke mentioned only the Twelve, but there it probably was to connect them with Peter’s speech, which appealed to their special role as eyewitnesses to the resurrection (2:32). The presence of the large crowd testifying to the witness of the Spirit-filled Christians (2:6–11) would indicate that the full 120 were involved, as would the text Peter quoted from Joel that refers to women as well as men prophesying (2:17–18).
2:6–8 The crowd is said to have come together at the “sound.” What sound, that of the rushing wind or that coming from the Spirit-filled Christians? One cannot be certain, since Luke left out more detail than he told. The inspired Christians doubtless left the upper room and rushed forth, most likely to the temple precincts. Only there would be found sufficient room for a crowd of 3,000 plus. There also the crowds were to be found, assembled for the Pentecost festivities. Most likely the inspired cries of the Christians attracted the onlookers.81 Certainly the inspired speech perplexed them “because each one heard them speaking in his own language.” Luke heaped up words to describe the crowd’s perplexity. They were “utterly amazed” (“astounded and amazed,” author’s translation, v. 7), not at what the Christians said but that such simple Galileans would know their languages. The label “Galilean” need not imply that all 120 were from Galilee, though a sizable band of disciples had accompanied Jesus from there to Jerusalem (cf. Luke 8:1–3; 10:1–17; also see 23:49).82 Verse 8 basically repeats v. 6, with the added note that it was in their “native” tongue, the language group into which they were born, that they were hearing these “Galileans.” This prepares for vv. 9–11, which list the various areas of the Diaspora represented.
70 Compare Luke 9:51, where the same construction marks an important stage in salvation history. The time had come for Jesus to go to Jerusalem and face his destiny there. See E. Lohse, “Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen Geschichts-werkes,” EvTh (1958): 422–36.
81 Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 3rd ed., rev. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 165. (Hereafter referred to as Acts: GT.)
82 Bruce notes that Galilean diction was quite distinct by “its confusion or loss of laryngals and aspirates,” Acts: NIC, 59, n. 15.
Polhill, J. B. (2001, c1992). Vol. 26: Acts (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (101). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
John Lightfoot also thinks it was all 120 (Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica) who received the Holy Spirit baptism with the Apostles, and it appears that R. J. Knowling in his Acts commentary in The Expositor’s Greek Testament does, too.
Hi EricW,
On what basis EricW? On the basis that only one creation event occured, not two. The two accounts of creation describe what God did in different words though both describe the same events and both accounts give different details. The bible provides two accounts of one and the same creation period.
In Gen 1:26 God determines to make humankind, a ‘them’ and also determines to give them rule over the earth.
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
In 1:27 God did what he had just determined to do from 1:26 by making humankind, ‘them’ and he made them male and female:
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
So Gen 1:27 describes what happened in Gen 2 where Adam and Eve are created. In Gen 2, after God makes Adam he commands him to eat from any of the trees in the garden and he commands him to not eat from 1 of the trees in the garden. And God does not command the man to eat from any tree on the face of the earth but just from the trees in the garden. And God also creates woman his final act of creation.
Gen 2 chp 4
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman, ‘
for she was taken out of man.”
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
(EricW, if you are interested in the Hebrew, in the seeming variances of the times of creation of plant life, the garden and the animals, Cheryl Schatz could direct you to the Hebrew sources she has been in contact with. The two accounts are in complete harmony and do not contradict eachother. Anyway, for example, the animals that Adam named were a ‘creation act two’ so that animals were created before and also after Adam was created, and all animals were created before Eve since she was last of creation.)
Next after Gen 2:24 follows Gen 1:28 God blesses humankind, them or Adam and Eve and tells them to be fruitful and multiply which is something that Adam could not have done alone so God could not be blessing Adam alone and telling him to multiply. God also tells them to rule over the earth just as he had determined to have them do from 1:26.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Then last in 1:29 God gives humankind, them permission to eat seed bearing plants and fruit with seed on the entire earth which ofcourse includes the trees in the garden. The ‘you’ in Hebrew is plural which shows that God is not talking to a single individual but rather more than one.
29 Then God said, “I give you (pl) every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Look at what Jesus said in Mark 10, 6″But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ (Gen 1:27) 7′For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.’ (Gen 2:24)
So Jesus combines part of Gen 1:27 & 2:24 as if both describe the very same events of creation because they do though they are just written in different ways.
Does that work, EricW?
Also Gen 2:17 command was never given to woman. It was given to Adam when he was alone before Eve was created and there is no evidence or proof in the text showing that she had any clue as to what the command was that God gave to Adam. And this ties into why she was deceived by the serpent…
CNDO,
I wrote,
“However, women perform on par with men in all verbal areas, and have some advantages there, as well as in people oriented domains.
So, all in all, from what I have read, being a pastor would be people oriented, and theology and exegesis is very verbal. “
You wrote,
“Hopefully we can agree on the gifting of many women making them well suited to the ministry of encouragement, then (Ro. 12:7); whether we understand that in relation to the lucrative ‘Christian Counselling’ training industry or not.”
What Susan Pinker wrote was that there is a general female advantage in spelling and language fluency. She continued that women’s language skills are better integrated with general cognitive abilites such as memory and emotion. page 46
This is why I said that I believe that women are more naturally gifted at exegesis than men. Men tend not to integrate the information as easily in my experience. They are aware of lists of material but do not notice when something does not fit the pattern. This is a general tip-off to a misreading of a citation. I find most exegetical studies have errors in them that the authors are unaware of but which literally jump off the page to me.
I feel it is a great, an enormous, disadvantage to Christianity that more women are not exegetes and more men are not engineers and computer scientists.
I also agree however, that women are in general more empathetic, although not universally so.
To continue on page 37 Pinker wrote,
“Girls and women are handier with reference materials, and are much quicker to generate synonyms than boys”
“The female edge in verbal fluency appears so early in life and is so consistent over time and across cultures that the science of sex differences must be involved.”
I have been involved in many discussions where I just assumed that men were aware of their errors in grammar parsing or vocabulary, but now I have to rethink this. I realize now that these men were not aware of their errors and assumed that they had accurate verbal memories when they did not.
Bonnie, you might want to ask Don what he was talking about. You might ask
There was no “split”. Adam was fully male when God formed him from the dust of the earth. Eve was fully female when He made her from Adam’s rib.
Find out what groups teach androgyny. You need to be informed. Look up the word “hermaphrodite”, too.
You may find it interesting. These terms are used to defend…well…you figure it out if you want to.
Thanks!
Sue
To continue on page 37 Pinker wrote,
“Girls and women are handier with reference materials, and are much quicker to generate synonyms than boys”
“The female edge in verbal fluency appears so early in life and is so consistent over time and across cultures that the science of sex differences must be involved.”
I have been involved in many discussions where I just assumed that men were aware of their errors in grammar parsing or vocabulary, but now I have to rethink this. I realize now that these men were not aware of their errors and assumed that they had accurate verbal memories when they did not.>>>>>
Sue, are you willing to clarify what you mean, here. I don’t want to take it the wrong way.
I have met many men with excellent grammatical and vocabulary skills. My husband is one of them.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Webfoot,
Neither Don, nor anyone here is teaching androgeny nor hermaphroditeism. Please do not stray us off track like that.
When the woman was created, the Hebrew word used was etzlo (don’t know modern spelling), and it means something long, flat akin to taking something from the side of the man including flesh and bone. We see this because the man says that the woman is his flesh and bone. It’s a difficult word and some historically thought to try to identify it with a particular ‘organ’ such as a rib. But it wasn’t really a rib or that would have been said in Scripture. It does not say split in half or anything of that sort either. But God likely took something substantial and then fixed the man while reforming the woman.
It is of note though that the man is not mentioned as male until the woman is presented as female. Perhaps, at that time is when God explained male and female to the first man, which is why he got so excited about the woman that God presented to him as his strong help, equal to him to allay his aloneness.
Bonnie,
“What the “split” in Gen. 2 seems to be about is the marriage mystery, the two-become-one. The reason for this marital union is because woman comes from the body of man, and they are made of the same “stuff.”
Exactly. Because in some way she was a part of him in that her flesh and bones were taken from the first man and reformed as female, when two come together in marriage it is like becoming again as one flesh, two living as one.
TL, that’s fine. Of course no one would teach that.
You agree, then, that Adam was a fully formed, fully functioning male when God formed him from the dust of the ground?
This is orthodox Christian teaching and always has been.
I have been involved in many discussions where I just assumed that men were aware of their errors in grammar parsing or vocabulary, but now I have to rethink this. I realize now that these men were not aware of their errors and assumed that they had accurate verbal memories when they did not.>>>>>
Recently I saw someone cite something only he didn’t cite it accurately. I was just thinking.
Clearly I don’t know your husband so I hope you don’t take this personally.
Often, very often, in fact, people challenge me to discuss the gender differences. Usually I restrain myself. But I finally went out and bought Susan Pinker’s book. I am only quoting what is well-known, that women are better ON AVERAGE at all verbal skills, and connecting language and emotion, at verbal memory, at contextualizing, and so on.
Men are better at spatial mapping and abstract mathematical computation ON AVERAGE.
To my mind, the ideal male is a computer scientist and the ideal woman is an exegete.
I am just kidding, you know. I admire lots of fine men. Shall I list them. Richard Longenecker, RK Harrison, Al Pietersma, Fee, Waltke, Gleason, Leman, …..
And so on.
Oh -and Ellis Deibler – all these teachers of mine.
Webfoot,
When I used the word “split” I was responding to your use of it, and using it to signify the division of man into male and female, regardless of how it occurred. And thank you, but I am perfectly aware of what androgyny is. I was responding to your comment, which I thought was in response to mine where I said that it seemed that, chronologically, woman (female) was made from man (male). And that’s what I still think. Hope that clarifies.
My original comment was made for the purpose of saying that I saw no biblical proof that man’s being created first meant that his “naming” of Eve indicated his authority over her.
Okay, Sue. Thank you for clarifying.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Bonnie, the idea that Adam was not fully male when God formed him from the dust of the earth and then breathed into him the breath of life is an ancient Gnostic heresy that is popular in some circles these days.
I agree with most of Brandon’s comments on that, at least I think his name is Brandon.
Just a word to the wise. I’m not sure how it can be denied when some of the Egalitarians here are clearly saying that Adam was not male until Eve was split off the first human.
“I’m not sure how it can be denied when some of the Egalitarians here are clearly saying that Adam was not male until Eve was split off the first human.”
Mrs. Webfoot, would you please provide a list of quotes with attributions (either from here or other forums where the egalitarians use the same handle) that cause you to think this way?
Mrs. W., would you please show evidence of your final sentence above? I must have missed it. I’m well aware that there is no mention in the Hebrew in Genesis 3 of the [male] man until the woman is fashioned from his tissue, and I saw reference to that fact, but I missed where anyone said that “Adam was not male . . .” Not saying it wasn’t said, but I’d like to take not of where and by whom, and especially by how many egalitarians. “Some” indicates more than one, though not all.
Huh? All you need to do is read all the comments in the thread.
Let me ask you two ladies, Mary and Lynn. Do you believe as has all of church history – except the Gnostics and groups like them – that Adam was a fully formed, functioning male even before Eve was created?
That should settle it. It is important that you have that straight, and I didn’t mean that to be a pun.
Peace,
Mrs. Webfoot
EricW,
Thank you very much for the commentary references in support of the 120 disciples receiving the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. To answer your question, I have been taking the conservative interpretation that only the Twelve Apostles received it (starting with Christ seemingly only giving instructions about it to the Twelve, unless Luke meant ‘apostles’ in the more general sense, in Ac. 1:2, 4) and it was only they who gave the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Ac. 8:18). In fact, this verse is also the reason I struggle to accept that the 120 received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
“I’m not sure how it can be denied when some of the Egalitarians here are clearly saying that Adam was not male until Eve was split off the first human.”
I asked:
Mrs. Webfoot, would you please provide a list of quotes with attributions (either from here or other forums where the egalitarians use the same handle) that cause you to think this way?
The response:
“Huh? All you need to do is read all the comments in the thread.
Let me ask you two ladies, Mary and Lynn. Do you believe as has all of church history – except the Gnostics and groups like them – that Adam was a fully formed, functioning male even before Eve was created?”
I don’t respond to interrogation after my question has been sidestepped like that. Please provide the quotes, then I will be happy to answer your question. If not, I’m not answering your question.
Mrs. Webfoot,
Earlier in the thread you asked me to clarify what I was saying about ontology and practice. I’ll respond to your comments:
A man can engender children, but that does not necessarily make him a husband or even a father in any real sense. It is when he learns to be a good husband or learns to be a good father that he is fulfilling the role as it should be.
The same can be said of a woman and being a wife or a mother. We are born with certain physical, emotional, intellectual and other basic capacities by design. However, we also have to learn how to be what we were designed to be.
And also
I think that a role is more about who we are and what we do because of who we were made to be than anything else. I’m not sure that who washes the dishes or cooks the food is what a role _is_.
A man who is married to a woman is a husband. A man who has fathered children is a father. He can either honor those commitments, or not, or somewhere in-between. This is the sort of language (honor, covenant [promise], fidelity, honesty, etc.) I find in the Bible, not terms such as “fulfilling roles.” God doesn’t assign roles and expect us to fulfil them. He gives us abilities, opportunities, and goods, and expects us to be faithful in them, or to them, and be good stewards. He expects us to walk in righteousness in the power of the Holy Spirit, in whatever “role” we serve. The only way to not fulfil our design is to either actively resist a calling or to mutilate ourselves or others in some way – to profane that which is sacred, or act with evil intent. Good and evil are about good and evil, spiritual good and evil: the works of the flesh vs. the fruits of the spirit. Our “role” is to be and do good.
“I don’t respond to interrogation after my question has been sidestepped like that. Please provide the quotes, then I will be happy to answer your question. If not, I’m not answering your question.”
Perhaps this came across as too harsh. What happened was, you made an assertion about what some egals were “clearly saying,” and I asked where, and you sidestepped giving me the evidence, and proceeded to question me.
I wasn’t part of the conversation, and made no assertions either way. If I had, I would have been happy to have clarified for you. So I do not think it is fair play to write a post like that.
However, I will grant a little leeway here and answer your question. I tend to think Adam was created as a male, but that is only an inclination of thought. We simply do not have all the facts. And we have instances of angels being called “he,” and they are not male, either.
This is one of those “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” type issues, and I don’t have any dogs in this fight due to lack of all the evidence needed to say for sure one way or the other. If anyone were to be dogmatic about it,
I would have to wonder why, because either assertion is not backed up by what the text says (think – angels are not male again).
Now, would you be so kind as to provide the evidence for your assertion about what “some”egals are “clearly saying?” TIA
Lynn wrote:
“This is one of those “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” type issues, and I don’t have any dogs in this fight…”
You “don’t have any dogs in this fight”?
Spoken like a true Texan, Lynn! Way to go!!
I think I used the phrase on this board a few weeks ago, and some people didn’t know what I was talking about, so I had to explain:
“I don’t have a dog in that fight”
President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker used “I don’t have a dog in that fight” in the 1980s and 1990s. It means “I don’t have an interest in this matter.” It is not known where or when the saying originated.
Have a dog in the fight/race: To have a stake in, or be exposed to the risks associated with, the outcome of some problem or dispute. Conversely, “I don’t have a dog in that fight” is frequently used as a way to beg off and opt out of being expected to assist
21 August 1984, Washington Post, pg. A9:
DALLAS, Aug. 20—Vice President Bush today gingerly sidestepped questions about the financial disclosure problems of Rep. Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.), saying, “I don’t have a dog in that fight.”
8 April 1995, Elyria (OH) Chronicle-Telegram, pg. C8?:
More honestly, the party chief (Haley Barbour—ed.), who’s trying to play traffic cop among at least eight GOP presidential candidates, says: “I am not as dumb as I look .. I ain’t got a dog in that fight.”
23 October 1996, New York Times, pg. A25:
How do New Yorkers pick a dog in this fight?
10 May 1997, Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard, pg. C11, col. 3:
“As they say here in Texas, we don’t have a dog in that fight.”
7 March 1999, New York Times, pg. BU1:
WHEN Wall Street competitors start growling and snapping at one another, the safest place for the general public is usually a good block away. As the folks down home would say, we probably don’t have a dog in that fight.
16 February 2003, New York Times, pg. WK11:
After a recent U.N. session on the Iraq crisis, I asked a Bush aide how China was behaving. “The Chinese?” the official said. “They don’t think they have a dog in this fight.”
New York Times
10 December 2006, New York Times, Sunday Magazine, “On Language” by William Safire:
“I don’t have a dog in that fight” has long been a favorite Texas saying of former Secretary of State James Baker (now cuttingly called “acting secretary of state”).
“Spoken like a true Texan, Lynn! Way to go!!”
I’m not a Texan, though. Never been to Texas. I remember I first heard the phrase from someone born and raised in Kansas during the dust bowl days. It’s funny how some things stick in your mind.
“That dog won’t hunt” is another good one.
Bonnie, thank you for expressing your views. They are interesting.
Lynn, you are free to look into it for yourself. Feel free to not respond. Feel free to think what you wish. Feel free to be free. Feel free to disagree. Feel free to be harsh, or not, or not mean to be harsh, or whatever you wish.
Have a good day, ladies and gentlemen, and peace.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Lynn:
“That dog won’t hunt” is another good one.>>>>
A good one for what?
A good one for some of the weak arguments some people sometimes make to support some of their positions.
(Note that I am not specifying anyone or any side or any view in particular.)
“It’s a Texas thing. You wouldn’t understand.”
Now, I’m fixin’ to get back to work…
Lynn:
However, I will grant a little leeway here and answer your question. I tend to think Adam was created as a male, but that is only an inclination of thought. We simply do not have all the facts. And we have instances of angels being called “he,” and they are not male, either.>>>>
I choose to grant you a smile.
You are comparing apples to oranges, it seems to me, Lynn. The man Adam was a man. When was he made a living soul? Shortly after he had been formed as a human male, made in the imgae of God. I don’t think I’m being overly dogmatic, here, in saying this.
I know that I am being orthodox, and the other answer – either we don’t know, or Adam wasn’t male until Eve was made – are something different.
1 Corinthians 15
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Gen 2:7
The Church has always taught that Adam was a fully formed human male before Eve was taken from his rib. Here is an answer from a Roman Catholic website. I agree with most of the answer.
“Fr. Vincent Serpa
Catholic Answers Apologist Join Date: May 4, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,705
Re: Was the creation of Adam androgynous?
——————————————————————————–
Dear K,
The Church does not teach that Adam was originally androgynous. Nor does it teach that Gen. 2:22 must be understood literally. What is most important in the creation story is THAT God created and not HOW He created. Certainly, God did not have to make Adam androgynous in order to create Eve any more than He had to create from androgynous dust when He created Adam.
When a man and woman come together they image the union the three divine Persons have in the Godhead and the union the Son has with His Church.
The idea that God created a two-side being in creating Adam is one creation that is not found in Scripture nor in the Church’s interpretation of same.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. ”
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1097926
If you care to look into it, – and I think that everyone interested in these discussions should, but that is up to each person to decide for themselves – you will see that there has been much debate on this subject at different times in church history. Orthodoxy has always sided with the teaching that Adam was a fully formed male at the time of his creation, before Eve was created.
That’s all I’ll say for now. Partly, because I’d rather blog about some really neat cake recipes I found today. I also want to check Facebook to see if my daughter has been able to get to a computer today or not.
I’m feeling better, too, so I’ve got to get to work. I take little breaks to talk with you good people. I find it interesting and somewhat edifying. I wish we could make more progress, and maybe that will come in time.
Thank you, Lynn, for your response. Thank you for your answer.
No, I wouldn’t say that a person who believes that Adam was not fully or technically male until Eve was created is necessarily an ungodly Gnostic heretic! Heavens no!
However, you may wish to look into it and see, and see why sometimes the “Gnostic” word or the “androgyny” word are bandied about in these discussions. Not all Egalitarians are in agreement, and not all Egalitarians are Evangelical and orthodox. Not all on the other side are Evangelical and orthodox, either. There are some teachings that both sides needs to understand and maybe avoid?
Hey, I think that some forms of what can be called Complementarian in a broad sense do tend towards an ungodly view of leadership. I keep saying that in places, but no one seems to listen or care, so I kind of quit even trying.
IOW, I can see potential problems in some forms of that paradigm. I can see potential problems in some Egalitarian teachings, too.
It shouldn’t be a big deal, but I guess it is.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
“I tend to think Adam was created as a male, but that is only an inclination of thought. We simply do not have all the facts. And we have instances of angels being called “he,” and they are not male, either.”
Lynn, this would be correctly exegeting the Gen. story. Likely the first human was a male, even though Scripture does not say that. It would equally be poor exegeting to claim that the first human was androgynous or a two-sided (whatever that means) being as Fr. Vincent said.
The only thing we know is what Scripture says. We cannot stand strongly on what Scripture doesn’t say except to say that it doesn’t say. Many times we can guess by putting together the other pieces of the puzzle. In this case the other pieces of the creation just don’t give us any clues about what the first human looked like in detail. We don’t even know what color of skin, hair or eyes he had.
tL:
Lynn, this would be correctly exegeting the Gen. story.>>>
In your opinion, right, TL?
Eric:
A good one for some of the weak arguments some people sometimes make to support some of their positions. >>>
I get it! It’s a put down.
“Thank you, Lynn, for your response. Thank you for your answer.”
You are welcome. And since you are not going to answer my question and provide examples of your accusation about some egals here clearly teaching Adam was created androgynous, I will tell you what I think.
Of course I don’t moderate here, but it seems pretty clear to me by not providing evidence for your stated claim, you are violating one of the standards of this forum, namely:
2. Support your claims with evidence.
Not necessarily. It basically means – “That won’t work”
Waylon Jennings, That Dog Won’t Hunt Lyrics
Artist: Jennings Waylon
Song: That Dog Won’t Hunt
Album: Will the Wolf Survive? Waylon Jennings Sheet Music
Waylon Jennings CDs
Verse 1:
Well you think that you can lie and tell me alibis
And it’s alright
Keep the grapevine line working overtime
On your late nights
You think you can say some words, take away the hurt
And I’ll still be your number one
But when it ain’t working out we got a saying down South
Baby that dog won’t hunt
Chorus:
Baby that dog won’t hunt
So you can hang up your guns
Break my heart and then you want a new start
Baby that dog won’t hunt
Verse 2:
Well it’s been open season on your double dealing
And it’s so wrong
I guess I’ve been a fool playing by the rules
For too long
Well I’ve been sitting here at home with the porchlight on
While you’ve been chasing everything that runs
Let me put this in your ear and make it be so clear
Baby that dog won’t hunt
Chorus (x2).
I wonder how many women become egalitarians due to a significant bad experience with a man. For example, I knew a woman whose father, a church youth worker, had an affair when she was about two; she ‘hated men’ for the first twenty two years of her life (as she put it), despite being in the ‘love and forgiveness’ atmosphere of the church. So it was no surprise when she told me she thought both husband and wife could lead in a marriage. But isn’t marriage like dancing? All the dances I know involve one consistent leader out of every dance couple (the man, as it happens).
Lynn
“Thank you, Lynn, for your response. Thank you for your answer.”
You are welcome. And since you are not going to answer my question and provide examples of your accusation about some egals here clearly teaching Adam was created androgynous, I will tell you what I think.
Of course I don’t moderate here, but it seems pretty clear to me by not providing evidence for your stated claim, you are violating one of the standards of this forum, namely:
2. Support your claims with evidence.>>>>
Okay. I won’t violate the rules of this group anymore.
I’ll let you good folks have your fun.
“But isn’t marriage like dancing? All the dances I know involve one consistent leader out of every dance couple (the man, as it happens).”
You don’t know enough dances. As one who did dance shows and taught dancing back in the 60’s, there are many types of dancing that do not involve the man leading the woman. PLUS most all dancing is done to supoort and show off the beauty of the woman’s dance. I’d love to see that attitude incorporated into marriage.
*happy sigh*
I love Waylon Jennings…
cndo,
I think when a woman is told to put all of her trust in a man, to be completely dependant on him (as the Focus on the Family article so eloquently stated, where she moves if he says move, she births if he says birth, she stays home or goes to work if he says so, where she does not even have the right to make decisions when her child is in a life-and-death situation unless she has her husbands permission to do so!, etc), to look to him for the vision for her life, etc, and he turns out to be a jerk and her life is destroyed in the process, she will, of necessity, question the validity and truthfulness of the teachings that helped her be destroyed.
She needs to know if God wanted her destroyed or not. It comes down to whether or not she can trust God. Is God the abuser? If He sanctions the abuse, then He must be the abuser too. She has to decide for herself then, if she can worship—-if she can even believe in at all—a God like that. Many abused women (who manage to stumble out of the church world that sanctioned the abuse by instructing her to continue to submit to abusive behavior, etc) decide that they can’t.
On the other hand, if God doesn’t sanction the abuse, never did sanction the abuse, never once approved of the abuse, then it’s different. Maybe He’s a God she can believe in, worship, use her days to glorify. She can stumble out of the world that sanctioned the abuse, knowing full well that it’s not her God that was sanctioning it, it’s not her God who approved of it, it’s not her God who took part in it. She has the tools, thankfully, to seperate the abuse, even though it was done in God’s name, from her God. She knows that just because the abuser(s) used His name to do it, it wasn’t really Him.
By the way, you asked if marriage by necessity requires a leader. As an egalitarian, I want to firmly state that I believe marriage TOTALLY requires a leader.
My personally (Biblically inspired via Gen. 1-2) picture of marriage has been two oxen hitched to a yoke together (or two horses, if you prefer a prettier picture). *smiles*
The leader is the one driving the team. In other words, the oxen aren’t leading, rather, they are cooperating with the Leader, Christ Jesus. A lot of good work can get done if they submit to His yoke and let Him lead them. A real mess and a lot of pain (to both oxen) occurs when one animal decides he/she is driving the team.
But isn’t marriage like dancing? All the dances I know involve one consistent leader out of every dance couple (the man, as it happens).
As someone who doesn’t dance, I wouldn’t know. Perhaps marriage is more like a duet.
The leader is the one driving the team. In other words, the oxen aren’t leading, rather, they are cooperating with the Leader, Christ Jesus.
Yes! Yes, yes, yes!
cndo, I have seen a number of people who support a non-egalitarian philosophy ask the same question you ask, concerning the role abusive marriages theoretically might play in people (you said specifically women) embracing equality instead of patriarchy. I think it’s the wrong question, for several reasons:
1. Not all egalitarians are women. Plenty of men embrace biblical equality as well.
2. As non-egalitarians repeatedly (and rightly) have pointed out, the philosophy of patriarchy is not in and of itself the cause of abuse in marriage; sin is.
3. A number of women who are in abusive marriages modeled on patriarchy do not ever renounce patriarchy.
4. Egalitarian marriages (again, as a number of non-egalitarians have rightly claimed) are not immune from marital abuse. Though the dynamics are decidely different in such marriages, because the husband is not considered his wife’s leader in an egalitarian marriage, both husband and wife in such marriages can and do sin, occasionally by inflicting abuse on the other spouse.
5. The theory ignores the fact that plenty of people who have never experienced abuse in relationships, study Scripture and conclude that biblical equality is true to Scripture.
6. The theory trivializes the experience of those who have experienced marital abuse as well as the merits of biblical equality; it casts such people as damaged and equality as a deficient and flawed belief system, while elevating patriarchy to an unmerited “default” position that undamaged people will naturally simply accept.
7. The theory seems to completely ignore the fact that many couples function healthily and happily, as married Christian believers, without either of them designated as the “leader” of their marriages; they tend instead to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the sole Leader of their marriages.
I wonder what you think of a woman I know of, cndo. (For the record, she does not participate here at Complegalitarian, though she has written very negatively on her personal blog and a few other venues about more than one conversation that has taken place here.) She has never married, though she wants to intensely. She used to be a biblical egalitarian, but has renounced biblical equality for several stated reasons: 1. She was personally hurt and disappointed when some of her Christian egalitarian friends did not agree with and support her in a disagreement over doctrine and therefore she now considers them not Christian at all and her enemies; 2. She considers her earlier commitment to biblical equality to be at the root of her difficulty in meeting marriage-minded Christian men, so now that she is no longer a Christian egalitarian, she will have a better chance of finding a husband; and 3. She now says she believes that gender differences were designed by God to limit women in ways more compatible with non-egalitarian religious beliefs, which is proof that biblical equality is a flawed belief system. This woman is markedly bitter toward those with whom she used to share a belief in biblical equality; she regularly refers in a derogatory and out-of-context manner to statements made by biblical egalitarians but never actually links to or actually cites those she denigrates. She makes no secret of her hatred of egalitarian beliefs nor of her contempt for individual egalitarians.
I mention that woman because she offers an “other side” kind of anecdotal evidence parallel to your anecdotal evidence of the woman who “hated men.” I believe it would be unfair for me to theorize, on the basis of the witness given in the story I just shared, and the additional “evidence” of other people who are hostile to biblical egalitarians, that people become complementarians largely because of the sins of egalitarians and therefore hold egalitarianism responsible for people embracing patriarchy instead. That would ignore the many people who have simply never considered anything except patriarchy, and those who have studied both patriarchy and biblical equality but chosen patriarchy for a variety of reasons, and probably a host of other reasons people might reject biblical equality in favor of patriarchy as a model for their marriages.
So, cndo, I see your story, if it is accurate, as evidence of nothing except that woman’s own experiences. Anecdotal evidence is generally not very reliable when one is attempting to draw a widespread conclusion from it.
Molly, that was a superb comment! I agree with you about the yoke and the true Leader of a Christian marriage.
When one takes the gritty yoke analogy for marriage from how actual yoking works, it casts the admonition to not be unequally yoked in a whole different light. From the real meaning of ezer kenedgo to equal yoking to submitting to one another, we have a consistent biblical theme of like matching gifts with like (note “like,” not “identical”) to fulfill God’s calling to work together as members of one body. The older I get (and I recently got officially “old”
) and the more I delve into the Holy Scriptures, the less support I find for positional authority figures and the more I find for each serving as the other has need. When all serve, all are served. When all submit, all are honored. When all love, all are loved. It simply “works”!
Thanks again for your splendid comment.
Mrs Webfoot made a comment to the effect that some Egalitarians say that Adam was not male until after the creation of Eve.
Someone then asked her to cite chapter and verse.
This site has hundreds of posts and trawling through them for a specific comment would be a nightmare, though it could be a little easier now we are denested.
I don’t have the time to do the trawling, but I can say that I understood Don to be making this claim several times, and that when I asked him for clarification he did not quote Robert McCloskey:
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said,
but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
I still think that Adam is the name of the man and the name of the race, and that God created a man and then from the man formed a woman.
Another thought about who leads in dancing:
Just about the only dancing I’ve ever done is square dancing. In square dancing, the caller is pretty clearly the leader of a square dance, determining the steps the dancers will take and rather remarkably choreographing a complex, beautiful weaving of all the couples, together and temporarily “split,” into pattern after pattern…with all ending up back home.
So many parallels to Christian marriage! First, though partner couples remain each other’s partners throughout the dance, they must work together with other people and be willing to interact with other people’s partners as well as their own. And the moment any of them stops listening to the caller, the entire square unravels pretty quickly. And what a disaster if one partner tells the other “I’m going to lead you; you need to follow me no matter what the caller says”! A good caller knows the capabilities and limitations of the dancers and helps them both look good and grow in their skills.
Like any analogy, this one can certainly be stretched too far. However, I rather like thinking of God as the Caller of the dance!
It’s a very different thing to accurately state that Scripture does not refer to the first human as “ish” (man – male) until after the creation of the “ishah” (woman – female), than to say what Donna was accusing unnamed egalitarians of saying and what she demanded that Lynn and I affirm. Was the human being that God formed from the dust a “fully functional male” as Donna claimed? Quite probably, though how fully functional we can’t say for certain. Does Scripture refer to the adham as a “fully functional male”? prior to the creation of the woman? No, it does not. Does acknowledging that fact consign a person to the depths of “paganism” and “gnostic heresy”? No, it does not.
And for the record, do I affirm Donna’s belief in the full functionality of an ish before Scripture called him an ish? Since I prefer not to add to the Scriptures, I’m afraid I can’t affirm such a thing. Fortunately, I have no need to! As someone else has said, I can be content to receive the definitive answer to how fully functional a male human being the adham was at the moment of his creation, when I enter eternity and will know fully what God has to reveal to me.
David:
I don’t have the time to do the trawling, but I can say that I understood Don to be making this claim several times, and that when I asked him for clarification he did not quote Robert McCloskey:>>>>
webfoot:
I think that Don might wish to provide documentation for what he said, if he would be so kind. Of course, if he has time.
Webfoot:
I say that he is teaching that Adam was androgynous before the alleged “split.” What does Don say? If you don’t want to respond, Don, no problem.
Webfoot:
Maybe, Don, you will take time to clarify. Maybe not. No big deal.
————
on March 12, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Don Johnson
The CLV words Gen 2:23 as “This shall be called woman for from her man was this taken.”
This is a wordplay, ishah and ish (when spoken as the Torah was spoken), where “ah” is the feminine suffix, so he is saying she is a female man, that is, a woman.
My point is that the text simply does not give a gender for Adam BEFORE the split. It was not important to the story, no matter how much we think it might be. That is, Adam is simply a human, with gender not specified, as the need was for a human to water the earth. A part of the human is used to form a woman and the remainder forms a man, think of clay pots. God forms a clay pot to solve one problem (lack of human to farm the land) and then 2 pots from that one pot so the 2 pots complement each other to solve the second problem (lack of a mate/corresponding help), this is the basic meaning of formed, as in forming a pot.
The naming of Eve was not authorized, it was done but not authorized, I see it actually as the man’s first act that demonstrates his claim to rule over the woman, which is again not authorized by God.
On 1 Cor 11:8-9 woman out of man, woman created thru man. My understanding is from the pot analogy. A side/part of the pot was formed into a woman, the remainder was “closed up” to form the man; however both are Adam/human. People could see that men are generally larger than women, so the main part of the original pot/Adam became what is male.
Mary:
Does acknowledging that fact consign a person to the depths of “paganism” and “gnostic heresy”? No, it does not.>>>>
Mary, could you explain to me what the Gnostics taught about the creation of man? Do you know?
You might want to look into it. Of course, if you get a chance.
cndo
I wonder how many women become egalitarians due to a significant bad experience with a man. For example, I knew a woman whose father, a church youth worker, had an affair when she was about two; she ‘hated men’ for the first twenty two years of her life (as she put it), despite being in the ‘love and forgiveness’ atmosphere of the church. So it was no surprise when she told me she thought both husband and wife could lead in a marriage. But isn’t marriage like dancing? All the dances I know involve one consistent leader out of every dance couple (the man, as it happens).>>>>
Webfoot:
I think that you raise an important question. How many women became Egalitarians because they were abused by some male? It sure seems to be the pattern when women share their testimonies. Otherwise, what purpose does the abuse testimony play in Egalitarian teaching?
Webfoot:
If someone demands that I do so, I’m willing to give specific examples of women who said that they became Egalitarians after they had been abused. I dont’ think that it’s necessary, nor would it be especially kind to single people out.
Webfoot:
Are there any couples’ dances that are not led by the man? I can think of a lot that are.
Take care, cndo,
Mrs. Webfoot
“I wonder how many women become egalitarians due to a significant bad experience with a man.” -cndo
I was taught “biblical patriarchy” as a youth in Christian school and in our church. When I married my husband, we began to learn and grow together. After twenty-six years I realized that we have an egalitarian marriage, only because the ladies group gave me a book to read. As I read, I was surprised to learn that I was labelled a white-washed feminist!
My friends apparently think I am the epitome of virtue, which they assume is the fruit of submission. But I would say I am simply the product of santification of the Holy Ghost, and liberal nurturing of my husband (who thinks I’m the cat’s meow, lol. )
If folks liike what they see in us, it is NOT the fruit of patriarchy.
“Was the human being that God formed from the dust a “fully functional male” as Donna claimed? Quite probably, though how fully functional we can’t say for certain. Does Scripture refer to the adham as a “fully functional male”? prior to the creation of the woman? No, it does not. Does acknowledging that fact consign a person to the depths of “paganism” and “gnostic heresy”? No, it does not.”
I agree with this. To say otherwise or worry about it would be to follow Willie Wonka’s advice:
“Oh, you should never, never doubt, what nobody is sure about!” (Or something like that from the first movie with Gene Wilder).
cndo: “I wonder how many women become egalitarians due to a significant bad experience with a man.”
You come at it from this angle. And there is nothing wrong with this angle. But I want you to see it from my angle.
I work in social services.
I am aware of cases where little girls growing up have been sexually abused by so many men in the family (dads, step dads, uncles, cousins, brothers, stepbrother, mom’s boyfriends etc.) it takes more than two hands to count how many perps there are in their lives.
I’m also aware of a family that had moved into our area from the south. Their kids came into care and the father (dare I say patriarch?) of that family told the caseworker that the reason men have daughters is so that they can have someone to be with. And he was serious.
Now, cndo, I also know that many men are NOTHING like this, including the men in my world. I have uncles and cousins and brother-in-laws, and a brother and a father who would be mortified at the thought and actions I mention in the above two paragraphs. I also am fairly confident that the men who post here, if I met them personally, they would be like MY dad and uncles and brother, etc and not like the men I see in my day to day job. And I mean all the men here, even the more heavy comps.
I have no idea what the percentages are of good, upstanding men like the ones in my personal life and represented here vs the kinds of men who think their women, including their daughters, are there to be used. I take for granted that the higher percentage would be men like you guys. I have to believe it or I would go into a depression.
What does this have to do with the Bible and being Biblical?
I thought you’d never ask.
Girls from these families with umpteen perps do eventually grow up. And most likely they will grow up to be angry. And they have every right to be angry. And they may see God as just another man who wants to abuse them since that is their point of reference. From their point of view (pov), all men abuse. It’s not an accurate pov. And some may say it’s not a fair pov, which is also true. But it’s all they know.
In my view, what these girls need is a personal relationship with Jesus. They need to know Jehoveh Rapha, the LORD their Healer. They need to know Jehoveh Jirah, the LORD their Provider (who gives expecting no ‘favors’ for the gifts). etc.
Who they don’t need to know right now is ‘The Lord who commands them to submit to a man’. BTW, this name for God cannot be found in the Bible anywhere so I don’t really think it’s one of His names. I see good marital advice given in Ephesians 5 and other places. But I don’t see a woman’s submission to a man being made a condition for her to receive healing, forgiveness, salvation, provision, or eternal life.
I believe in keeping the first things first.
I believe the over emphasis that some have placed on a woman being submissive to a man is out of order and misses the point of what God is trying to do on earth among men and women.
Lynn
“Was the human being that God formed from the dust a “fully functional male” as Donna claimed? Quite probably, though how fully functional we can’t say for certain.>>>>
Webfoot:
Did he have two arms and two legs. Did he have two eyes and two ears. Did he have one penis and no female organs? I think that we can say for certain that he had allt he equipment and was ready to go. Yes, I say for certain that he was more a man than any other mere mortal man who came after him because the man, Adam, was perfectly suited for the role God had created him for.
Webfoot:
Go back to Genesis 1:27. God created a male and he created a female and they together are called “mankind.”
webfoot:
Forget the word games about “ish” and “ishi.” ADAM means man as well as mankind. Good grief, how easily we are led into heresy. And yes, you are listening to heretical doctrine made dogma. Sorry. For all my efforts to “go along to get along” I can’t go along with this androgyny. You may if you want to. That is your choice. You are free.
Does Scripture refer to the adham as a “fully functional male”? prior to the creation of the woman? No, it does not. Does acknowledging that fact consign a person to the depths of “paganism” and “gnostic heresy”? No, it does not.”>>>>
Webfoot:
You are making unsubstantiated claims. You are free to make them, of course.
Lynn:
I agree with this. To say otherwise or worry about it would be to follow Willie Wonka’s advice:
“Oh, you should never, never doubt, what nobody is sure about!” (Or something like that from the first movie with Gene Wilder). >>>>
Webfoot:
Willy Wonka is not an authoritative source.
momgodin, okay. You are not an egalitarian because of abuse. That begs the question, though.
“I wonder how many women become egalitarians due to a significant bad experience with a man.” -cndo
I will ask a different way. How many women accept egalitarianism because they were abused by males?
If not very many, then why all the testimonies of those who were abused and then became egalitarians? What purpose do all the testimonies serve?
Some use them to tear down patriarchy. How do you view that kind of thing as an egalitarian?
I will say that is one of the reasons I rejected at least that form of Egalitarianism, the kind that is driven by testimonies of abuse.
What do you as one who does not fit that templet of abuse and then egalitarianism feel about others who use these testimonies as a means to deconstruct complementarianism? I don’t think it’s egalitarianism’s best face, or best advertisement myself.
Don’t feel pressured to answer. I’m just curious what Egalitarians think of this practice. It doesn’t sit well with me, but you don’t have to agree. It may sit well with others, and that’s okay.
Don wrote … ”My point is that the text simply does not give a gender for Adam BEFORE the split. It was not important to the story, no matter how much we think it might be. That is, Adam is simply a human, with gender not specified, as the need was for a human to water the earth.”
This is quite clear that Don is not saying the man was androgynous. He is simply noting what the texts say and don’t say. What one makes of that is up to them. But those are the facts.
What Don said and others who have said the same thing, has been noted. Misconceptions have been corrected. Anyone who persists in claiming otherwise in the face of this, is either having a problem with comprehension or is having a conversation with themselves IMO.
“Are there any couples’ dances that are not led by the man? I can think of a lot that are.”
One of the most beautiful of all dance forms is ballet. I took it as a child but did not pursue it. Ballet is primarily about the beauty and intricacy of the woman’s movements. The man supports her and promotes her, but he does not lead her. There is always a story rather than just response to music. The man and woman’s participation is always complementary to each other. It is one of my favorite forms. It is akin to the grandness of classical music.
”cndo: “I wonder how many women become egalitarians due to a significant bad experience with a man.”
Most of my early years through young adulthood were involved with traditional and various views of male dominated relationships, including being abused by men as well as by my mother to a lesser degree. But I did not realize the truths of Biblical equality until God showed them to me in Scripture. I was never involved with any secular forms of equality mindedness. God showed me that there was another way to live in which I would not be so prone to abuse, and it was all there in His Word.
Webfoot wrote:
Lynn
“Was the human being that God formed from the dust a “fully functional male” as Donna claimed? Quite probably, though how fully functional we can’t say for certain.
I didn’t say this. Mary did.
Mara (3:26)
I wonder if some of the women who gravitate into the Quiver Full/Patriarchy movement grew up being exploited? The “rules” of religion and Quiver Full and homeschooling the children have the appearance of “safety”.
There’s hope. God specializes in helping women with baggage. I walk with a friend who invited me to her church. She reminds me of the woman at the well whom Jesus met in John 4. She is sooooo excited about the Lord, she wants the whole town to know- including the bf she broke up with a month ago, her estranged husband, his ex wife and two children, etc etc… (many of whom we “ran into” when taking walks around the town). She told me that she just feels like such an oddball at most churches because its always “couples” but this church is different, they accept a single mom with a string of broken marriages and relationships and just love her…
Anyway, I was touched, because she was so touched by the love of Christ which is too rare in the institution… Being loved and on fire carries spiritual authority. I tell her she’s a great evangelist!
I visited her church twice and it is a refreshing place.
“What do you as one who does not fit that templet of abuse and then egalitarianism feel about others who use these testimonies as a means to deconstruct complementarianism? I don’t think it’s egalitarianism’s best face, or best advertisement myself.” -Webfoot
lol. Well, let’s see. I think I’ve only learned we were egals a month ago. So I haven’t read all the negative egal testimonies that you have read. But it was the ungracious, uncharitable attitude toward Christian women by a female Complimentarian author that compelled me to research these terms. Whatever she was… I knew that I wasn’t!
I remember thinking, “Anyone who birthed ten children should have *something* in common with me!” You’d think such a person would be more charitable than less.
So it seems that we have had opposite experiences. Which is kinda…something in common. lol. Because we probably share the same feelings of confusion and disappointment in the other’s representation.
As for what I think about using abuse testimonies to deconstruct Complimentarianism? I think it’s a legitimate point to say that the fruit of a doctrine is bad. The testimonies serve as evidence.
I think egalitarianism’s best argument is the foundational message of the Bible- reconciliation.
I wish I knew why it’s such an unacceptable thing, according to some Christians, for people who’ve been abused to break silence about their abuse. I also wonder what would lead a person to think that because some people who do break their silence about abuse also come to accept biblical equality, biblical equality is somehow a bad thing. People with the courage to tell the truth about having been abused are hardly bad advertising for biblical equality! I don’t understand at all why anyone would think that their testimony discredits biblical equality. Is it really a good thing for people to keep silent about sin? I refuse to believe so.
“Ish” and “ishah” (note: not “ishi”) are actual words in the Genesis narrative. They mean “man” and “woman” respectively. These words are not used in the narrative until the creation of the woman from the tissue of the man. Prior to that point in the narrative, the word used for the sole human being is “adham,” which indeed means “human being/creature.” Far from being “word games,” study of Genesis 1 – 3 that considers the Hebrew original text reveals this fact.
I am concerned at the accusation of “word games” against those who have already summarized this fact. They don’t deserve to be falsely accused like that.
Charis: “I wonder if some of the women who gravitate into the Quiver Full/Patriarchy movement grew up being exploited? The “rules” of religion and Quiver Full and homeschooling the children have the appearance of “safety”. ”
You make a very good point, one I didn’t think of. I really wish I knew the percentages of these kinds of things. How many gravitate to quiverfull vs. how many become hard core man-hating, baby aborting secular feminists.
I think of the ones that turn secular feminist because I’ve seen evidence of them on line in other places.
I don’t like reading comments under news stories. Everytime I do I get shocked by the lame comments on there. And I saw a comment by one of these hard-core feminists under a child porn story. The woman was venomous, hateful. It hurt me how she believe all men were pervs and perps and were all (sexually) after anything that moved. I would never leave a comment on a thread like that. But I wished for a way to tell her that all men are not like this. I said a prayer for her that she would find Jesus because I really do believe He is the only one that can reach such a wounded heart.
Awesome about your friend.
That’s really what it is all about. Being loved by and in love with Jesus. It is not about who gets to be the boss of who. That sort of thinking dries out a person.
TL:
Misconceptions have been corrected. Anyone who persists in claiming otherwise in the face of this, is either having a problem with comprehension or is having a conversation with themselves IMO.>>>>
Hmm. That anyone would be me.
No, misconceptions have not been corrected, but I will let it pass, TL, and respectfully agree to disagree. No problem.
Androgyny involves either the idea that a human being can be genderless or that a human being can be a combination of both male and female. It is being stated that Adam had no gender when God created Him.
Adam was complete in every way when God made him and Eve’s being taken from his side did not turn him into a male.
That is the dictionary definition of androgyny. No big deal.
Mary:
I wish I knew why it’s such an unacceptable thing, according to some Christians, for people who’ve been abused to break silence about their abuse. >>>>
Well, you don’t have to wonder about me. I don’t think it’s wrong for Christians to break their silence about abuse. Our church doesn’t force abused people to keep silent about their abuse, either, and I have already said that our church is heavily Gothard-influenced.
What does being abused have to do with becomming an Egalitarian is what I want to know? Too many use abuse as a means of deconstructing Complementarian teachings, it seems to me. That is my observation.
If you don’t think so, Mary, it’s not a problem. I don’t reject you for disagreeing with me.
——
momgodin, thanks for your comments. If you have 10 kids, I won’t ask you to go rummaging through the comments to see what I am talking about.
You said:
s for what I think about using abuse testimonies to deconstruct Complimentarianism? I think it’s a legitimate point to say that the fruit of a doctrine is bad. The testimonies serve as evidence.>>>>>
Webfoot:
I say that it is legitimate only if one is willing to listen to the stories of abuse from the other side, those who have been abused in the egalitarian system.
Webfoot:
You have to be willing to listen to how egalitarianism has destroyed lives and families in order to get the complete picture.
God bless you, momgodin,
Mrs. Webfoot
Mary (7:58)
I guess Don has had a cold and hasn’t posted for a few days… Hope he doesn’t mind if I quote him. I thought this was insightful into the Hebrew word play in Genesis (which is entirely lost in the translation):
from http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/01/30/man-give-woman-self-understanding/#comment-5442
‘Too many use abuse as a means of deconstructing Complementarian teachings, it seems to me. That is my observation.’
Which I think is fair. Life and death are in the tounge, and death includes sin, sin is in death cause it certainly isn’t in life. Therefore sin is in our words (tounge), and words make up complementarian teaching. So is complementarian teaching sinful? Certainly. And abuse is one of it’s results.
I see that we lately like to say that sin is the result of the person and not the teaching, well it’s a result of both. I was bothered by this, so had to speak up somewhere. There, I did.
It’s only natural to think that sin is within the teachings of complementarianism since sin is in our tounge and the tounge produces communication through words, verbaly or written.
Comp teaching can be descontructed by abuse rightfuly then because abuse is sin and abuse (the kind that causes death because it don’t cause life) is in our tounge.
Okay so now someone can go off on egalitarianism and how it is sinful. Mutual submission is a sin!!
K, just playing. I’m in a weird mood…
“What does being abused have to do with becomming an Egalitarian is what I want to know? Too many use abuse as a means of deconstructing Complementarian teachings, it seems to me. That is my observation.”
When so-called complementarianism is used over and over by abusive husbands to justify their abuse of their wives — as evidenced by the very stories you don’t want to hear tied to the “complementarianism” embraced by the abusers themselves — reasonable people will generally want to examine the underpinnings of that so-called complementarianism very carefully. Like it or not, so-called Christian complementarianism gets offered as an excuse for violence by abusive husbands in a way that biblical equality does not, by either husband or wife. That’s just the way it is when what is called complementarianism grants a husband the kind of power over his wife that insists her submission to him is akin to obedience, while it teaches that he is not to submit to her at all because he is ordained to be his wife’s leader. That’s not “deconstruction,” it’s a fairly consistent theme among those who speak for the “complementarian” Christian movement. If that becomes a sacred cow, if we must ignore that there’s an obvious connection between abusive husbands who stand on their “complementarian” principles and those principles themselves, then there’s a problem and we shouldn’t wonder when such wives, once they recognize that faithful Christian women are not required to accept either the abuse or the complementarianism, at least consider biblical equality very seriously. When a system is severely broken, people do tend to explore another system.
Though I would hope it can’t happen, I’d still honestly like to know of any true stories in which a Christian egalitarian husband or wife justifies his or her abuse of his or her spouse, by citing principles of biblical equality. We live in a flawed, sinful world and we’re all sinners. I’m sure such a thing CAN happen. The fact is, we don’t hear such stories much. Here again, it’s not difficult to understand that people will take note of that. I read recently where someone claimed that egalitarianism “utterly destroyed” people’s lives. I truly would like to see some substantiation of this. I’ll readily admit that we’ve probably all seen and heard a number of stories about Christian men who subscribe to so-called complementarianism, who have hurt and even killed their wives. (I’ve also heard of complementarian wives who’ve eventually hurt and killed such husbands, as well.) It’s NOT the fault of complementarianism, or of any complementarian, except those actually inflicting the violence or those who know about but do not protect the abused spouse. So, I think it’s high time that we hear about all the abuses of biblical equality and the abusive sin of Christian egalitarians. It’s important to understand how a philosophy’s or theology’s principles can be warped into something antithetical to those principles.
Ishah is formed from Adam, leaving ish. Ishah is a female form of ish.
However, linguists/lexicographers say that Ishshah does not come from ish. Ernest Klein A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language lists the Aramaic and Syriac and Nabatean and Ugaritic and Arabic and Ethiopic and Akkadian and Old South Arabic words that ishshah is related to and says that “The origin of these words is uncertain. They are not related to ish and enosh.”
I wasn’t abused by a man. I became an egalitarian because I learned about the misinterpretation of some passages (mostly Paul’s) from Greek into English on women. In addition, I saw a lot of contradictions between complementarianism and the Bible.
More power = more damage
Mrs. Webfoot asked,
Personally, I don’t know whether Adam (dust, man, mankind, human being) was, or wasn’t, “a fully formed, functioning male before Eve was created”. I do know that it wasn’t just the Gnostics who thought about what Adam was. The Jews did (do?) too.
I know it’s Wikipedia but this entry on Adam and Eve states that:
Mrs. Webfoot wrote,
Another wikipedia entry on “Golem” states that:
, and
In relation to embryos think about this:
Until about the 12th week of gestation there is no difference in the external genitalia of male and female babies. But then certain genes get active, or don’t, and as a result the gonads either turn into testes or they continue developing as ovaries. If they turn into testes then they start producing testosterone which causes the testes to descend into the scrotum and the uro-genital bud to develop into a penis.
Now, God created Adam in his own image and God is neither male nor female. I don’t think that means God is neuter. I think it means he possesses all the qualities that we regard as typical of one or the other sex but are, in fact, present in both to a greater or lesser degree. We all know that aggression (not in the nasty sense), though considered a typically male characteristic, is not absent in females. And see Mt 23:27 where Jesus likened his own caring for the children of Jerusalem to that of a mother hen.
It’s exceedingly conjectural but I don’t see that it’s impossible to imagine that the removal of some unspecified “side” or “organ” from Adam could have allowed what was left to subsequently cause the development of standard male external genitalia in Adam, and maybe even a standard male brain. All things are possible with God. Remember Sarah, the wife of Abraham, and Mary, the mother of Christ.
The only thing we really know about Adam’s phenotype and genotype before the woman was separated out from “him” is that we don’t know what either was. Anyone who says they do know is as guilty of conjecture as I have acknowledged I have been here.
Hi Eric (2:31),
Hmmm, well to the naked ear they sound related. Not sure about translators and linguists if they always get things right? Anyway, Here’s another explanation of the deeper meaning ishah which struck me as very edifying and respectful of women:
Eric,
Yes, the WRITTEN forms are not related, but one needs to remember that for almost all, the Torah was heard as it was SPOKEN, and in that form the words sound related. Otherwise, the point the man is making becomes obscured. Saying “ishah from ish” one can hear the relationship of the 2 words.
Adam from adamah and ishah from ish can be lost in translation or ignored as irrelevant or not, it is the reader’s choice. I choose not to disregard these as they are important pieces of the puzzle, for me.
Mary,
On egal being abusive, I think it is possible as egal is not the highest principle, love is. That is, it is possible to misuse even clearly egal verses, such as 1 Cor 7:4-5 if the outcome is not loving due to other circumstances, such as previous abuse.
My point is that I am egal, but I am not egal to the point of disregarding higher Christian principles, such as love. That is, my FIRST question is (or should be) what is the loving thing, not what is the egal thing. It may be the case that these are often the same, but I do not think there are identical questions.
Don:
I understand what you’re saying.
[I didn't check to see if adam indeed etymologically comes from adamah (ground) and/or dam (blood), or vice-versa.]
So:
1. The author of Genesis didn’t know that ishshah does not come from ish, but thought it did, hence he made the pun.
2. The author of Genesis knew that ishshah does not come from ish, but the assonance suited his purpose, so he made the pun.
3. The author of Genesis didn’t care whether or not ishshah came from ish; the assonance suited his purpose, so he made the pun.
4. The author of Genesis did or didn’t know and/or did or didn’t care whether or not ishshah came from ish; his readers/listeners would appreciate the aural and lexical similarities between the two words (and maybe already believed that ishshah came from ish), so he made the pun.
5. ?
cndo: “I wonder how many women become egalitarians due to a significant bad experience with a man.”
You know cndo, your question has got me thinking.
I mentioned earlier about little girls in abusive situations growing up. But we have just as many little boys in the system. And I’m pretty sure there are many little girls and little boys that fall through the cracks that the system never knows about.
And I am convinced that these little boys need to meet Jehoveh Rapha and Jehoveh Jireh before they meet “the Lord who places men over women” as much as the little girls do. (again, that name for God appears nowhere in the Bible so I highly doubt its validity)
These boys have not been shown the love and care they have needed and do not understand what it is to love. They need to receive deep healing and given much understanding before they are handed the notion that they get to be the boss of someone else.
My fear is that some have placed such a high emphasis on men being the boss far and above men getting healed and delivered that this has caused some terrible situations for families.
You wondered how many women turn egal due to bad situations with men. It is a fair question
I wonder how many men turn comp because of their own insecurities and wounds. My question is just as fair.
I’ve heard more than one story of a man going from church to church, dragging his wife and kids along behind him, until he found the one that gave him the level of authority over his wife and kids that he wanted.
These things should not be. And yet they are.
I’m not trying to convince you that you should become egal. But I am hoping I can help you understand the need for safeguards in the comp teaching.
Teach these men how to love, and I mean really love like God loves, before you give them any notion that they are the boss. Don’t assume they know how to love in the first place. Love, for some boys, has been demonstrated as abusive.
I don’t agree that men are told in the Bible to be the boss of their wives. But I do see that comp living does work for some. One of the ways it works is when the husband and wife are spiritually and emotionally healthy and know how to love like God loves.
Don, that’s a good point and I agree. But to be fair to people who prefer what they call complementarianism, they believe (as I’ve read and heard them say) that when love is applied to their teachings, abuse doesn’t happen. And the majority of husbands who follow those teachings, don’t abuse their wives. So they sometimes say that the comp thing and the loving thing are the same thing.
Kathy, I don’t think we can discount that point when people defend complementarianism by appealing to love as a higher principle. I disagree with them if they say that comp and love are the same thing, just as Don is correct to say that egal and love are not the same thing. But some people really do see nothing wrong with principles that assign a leadership role automatically to husbands and a role of unilateral obedient submission to wives, and consider that compatible with Christian love. And as long as they’re speaking about their own marriages and both spouses freely choose such a pattern for their own marriage, that really is between them and God.
My problem is with teachers who are fully aware of the widespread abuses yet deny or minimize them, and authoritatively teach people that such a system is the only one compatible with the Christian faith while lying about what Christian equality is. I have yet to see any coherent defense for that practice! Just what do people honestly think is so wrong with husbands and wives both allowing Christ to be the leader of their marriage, or with husband and wife both submitting to and loving one another sacrificially?
Eric, I rather like #5. We don’t know, but it really is a great pun!
Hi, Don,
How are you doing?
Don:
On egal being abusive, I think it is possible as egal is not the highest principle, love is. That is, it is possible to misuse even clearly egal verses, such as 1 Cor 7:4-5 if the outcome is not loving due to other circumstances, such as previous abuse.>>>>
webfoot:
I know that you were talking to Mary, so please accept my interjection, here. I agree with what you are saying. There should be no abuse created or tolerated in the Biblical egalitarian way of looking at church, the family, and society. I believe that there should be no abuse created or tolterated in Biblical Complementarianism. However, because of sin, it is possible for an egalitarian or a complementarian to be abusive.
Webfoot:
I believe that abuse is a human problem. I believe that the source of abuse, and the source of all sinful behavior, lies primarily in the human heart.
Matthew 15
16″Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them.
17″Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’
19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ ”
My point is that I am egal, but I am not egal to the point of disregarding higher Christian principles, such as love. That is, my FIRST question is (or should be) what is the loving thing, not what is the egal thing. It may be the case that these are often the same, but I do not think there are identical questions.
Don:
My point is that I am egal, but I am not egal to the point of disregarding higher Christian principles, such as love. That is, my FIRST question is (or should be) what is the loving thing, not what is the egal thing. It may be the case that these are often the same, but I do not think there are identical questions.>>>>
Oops. I forgot this part. Yes.
Eric:
5. ?>>>>
The author of Genesis knew what a man was.
Mary:
My problem is with teachers who are fully aware of the widespread abuses yet deny or minimize them, and authoritatively teach people that such a system is the only one compatible with the Christian faith while lying about what Christian equality is.>>>>
Mary, I appreciate your concerns. I have a similar problem, but with teachers who are fully aware of the widespread abuses among those who claim to be Biblical egalitarians,… and so forth.
Webfoot
Eric:
5. ?>>>>
The author of Genesis knew what a man was.
As Rudyard Kipling said: “A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke.”
Mara:
I mentioned earlier about little girls in abusive situations growing up. But we have just as many little boys in the system. And I’m pretty sure there are many little girls and little boys that fall through the cracks that the system never knows about.>>>>
Mara, your comments are interesting, and I am not in complete disagreement. The system tends towards dehumanization is how I would put it. There are many good people working within the “system”, though, many excellent Christian people and others who are just plain decent human beings.
Our public schools are part of that secualar system, I would say. Many Christians, both egalitarian and complementarian, have decided to keep their children out of the public schools for one reason or another.
I am sure that you are familiar with all the arguments for and against public schools. I could share our decisions about that. I’ll just say this, though. Our daughter spent K-5 in a Church of England school in So. America, she did grade 6 in a public school. Grades 7-9 were part-time public, part-time home school. Grades 10-graduation from university were in the public school system.
I would then point out that you have now brought the secular world into this discussion.
What is egalitarianism called in the secular world? What are some of its secualar faces?
Until that side of egalitarianism is examined by egalitarians, it is pretty hard to have an open, totally honest discussion on the subject of abuse and its affects and what we as Christians should do about it.
I’ll just say one more thing. A few years back the CBMW approached the CBE about signing a document about abuse. This was meant to be a joint effort and a joint stance against abuse.
The CBE refused.
Maybe they should explain why.
The “widespread abuses” among those who believe in and promote biblical equality is what you’ve alleged, Webfoot, but so far here have declined to substantiate. I, for one, would like to see accounts of true stories of Christian egalitarians blaming their sin on biblical equality.
I also have never seen any Christian egalitarian teacher or writer spiritualize or condone marital abuse. I’m sorry to say that, thanks to Paige Patterson (“Yes, I’m happy now [that a wife returned to his office, battered, after he advised her to return to her husband to be beaten again]“) and several other self-identified complementarian spokesmen, I cannot say the same for complementarian teachers/writers. I truly wish I could, for then this inconvenient fact of wives being abused in the name of complementarianism, would much less often even BE an issue.
Webfoot said:
“Eric:
5. ?>>>>
“The author of Genesis knew what a man was.”
That is true, but not the point. Eric listed the logical possibilities concerning the Genesis writer’s awareness of the etymological roots of the Hebrew language. It’s perfectly possible to speak a language fluently without having much clue as to how the language came to be. That’s why I thought #5 was the best possibility: we simply don’t know which of the other four possibilities is correct, and it’s speculation at best to claim that we do.
The reason CBE declined to join with CBMW in a joint statement against abuse is that CBMW insisted on the inclusion of dogmatic statements incompatible with biblical equality. And since CBMW was organized for the expressed purpose of refuting CBE’s promotion of biblical equality, CBE leaders saw little purpose in a tacit acceptance of CBMW’s principles. It is self-evident that NO Christian group ought to accept abuse. That CBMW saw a need to make a statement against abuse in the first place, reflects the sad fact that there is a problem with complementarian husbands abusing their wives and using their complementarian beliefs to excuse their behavior. People like Patterson have shed further light on that phenomenon when they state publicly that spousal abuse is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Egalitarian principles have been flourishing in the secular world for centuries. For much longer than that, a very different kind of equality, biblical equality, has been presented to us in the Scriptures.
Patriarchy has been a default philosophy in most cultures throughout human history, since men tend to be bigger and stronger than women and this world’s way is for the stronger to rule over the weaker. Scripture acknowledges this and illustrates the practice even among people of faith, without actually commanding or condoning it.
If complementarians do not want to acknowledge that the practice of patriarchy is a worldly phenomenon that has anything to do with the rise of what is called complementarianism, it is very unreasonable for them to nevertheless expect Christian egalitarians to identify and answer for the worst of what non-Christians do with secular egalitarian principles.
Mary
I also have never seen any Christian egalitarian teacher or writer spiritualize or condone marital abuse. >>>>
What do Christian egalitarian teachers think about the Violence Against Women Act?
I’ll start there, if you really want to go there, Mary.
We could go on to a woman’s right over her own body and other issues related to that.
Do you want to go there, Mary? I have been avoiding it.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
EricW
Webfoot
Eric:
5. ?>>>>
The author of Genesis knew what a man was.
As Rudyard Kipling said: “A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke.”>>>>
Sorry, Eric. I missed the joke. I thought you were being serious.
Moses, the one who wrote the book of Genesis under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, knew what a man was.
Many in our day are confused about that, but the Spirit of God is not one of them. He said that the male was created in God’s image.
No need to introduce gender confusion into Genesis 1 and 2. There is none.
Yeah, I’m still waiting to read how liberty supports or encourages abuse?
The reason I believe egalitarianism to be biblical is because I see the fruit as being CHARITY.
Where’s the egal hubby whose belief in mutual submission led him to abuse his wife?
Webfoot said:
“[The Holy Spirit] said that the male was created in God’s image.”
This is not what Scripture says. Rather, the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of Genesis to say that the human being — and in poetic parallel, to emphasize that male and female — were created in God’s image. Otherwise, you get the gross distortion put forth by the patriarchalist writers who claim that the man only, or more fully or directly, are created in God’s image. That kind of misinterpretation being taught as fact is why I think it is critically important to state with precise accuracy what the Bible says.
Webfoot:
I was being serious in my original comments about ish and ishshah.
But I didn’t understand how your comment about the author of Genesis knowing what a man was related to my comments about whether or not the author of Genesis knew that ishshah did not derive from ish.
I wasn’t questioning or commenting on whether or not the author of Genesis knew what a man was. I was strictly dealing with whether or not the author of Genesis knew the etymology of the word ishshah.
But since you responded as if I was writing about whether the author knew what a man was, I responded re: Rudyard Kipling knowing what a woman was. That indeed was a joke, or was intended to be a joke. (However, I don’t know if Kipling was joking when he made his quip. I suspect he was not an Egalitarian.)
As for your statement that Moses wrote the book of Genesis – as far as I know, that is nowhere stated by the author of Genesis, nor do I think Moses himself stated it in anything he wrote. Do you have a Scripture or Scriptures that say that Moses wrote Genesis?
Also, I don’t know why you think I am introducing “gender confusion” into Genesis 1 & 2 (your post only addresses me, so I assume you are referring to me by that comment).
It seems to me that you didn’t understand what I wrote, because your response doesn’t seem to relate to or respond to what I wrote.
What (other than the Kipling quip) did I write that made you think I was questioning if the author of Genesis knew what a man was, or what did I write that made you think I was introducing gender confusion into Genesis 1 & 2?
Donna, what do your questions offered in response to this statement have to do with this statement?
“I also have never seen any Christian egalitarian teacher or writer spiritualize or condone marital abuse.”
It appears, as I would expect, that you also have never seen any Christian egalitarian teacher or writer spiritualize or condone marital abuse.
You are certainly welcome to start whereever and with whatever you wish, whether or not it pertains to the discussion.
Eric:
As for your statement that Moses wrote the book of Genesis – as far as I know, that is nowhere stated by the author of Genesis, nor do I think Moses himself stated it in anything he wrote. Do you have a Scripture or Scriptures that say that Moses wrote Genesis?>>>
Okay, so you don’t accept that Moses wrote Genesis. I do.
Was the writer of Genesis – I say Moses – gender confused? Did the writer of Genesis want us to be confused about the first human being’s gender? If not, then I’ll opt for the fact that he definitely was a man, a real man with all his parts and pieces and no feninine parts and pieces.
You are free to disagree.
Webfoot said:
“[The Holy Spirit] said that the male was created in God’s image.”
This is not what Scripture says.>>>>
Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
God created males in His own image.
Again, if you think that the first human was androdynous, – neither male nor female or having characteristics of both male and female – then that is another matter.
I reject egalitarian teachings about androgyny.
I wasn’t going to say anything, but I guess I’ve got a lot to say, so here goes —
Regarding egalitarian pastors and abuse – I only know of what I’ve heard of online. The way I’ve heard of two women pastors justifying abuse is – basically – they just were the ones in charge now, and by golly they were going to do what they wanted to do (in essence). This is in a testimony on the Gothard discussion’s off-topic list, where a wife was explaining how her husband was spiritually abused by this situation, by this woman, and they had to leave the church. The other instance I’m thinking of is just more of a callous bowling over a woman in the congregation (by a female pastor) without regard for her input in a matter which affected her.
This is the same type of behavior that happens in comp. settings. Kind of along the lines of “I’m the Lord’s annointed and I can do what I want and don’t touch me” kind of behavior.
I have no experiences of marriage from which to speak. But I have this to say. Complementarian teaching does teach for a husband to sacrificially lay down his life for the good of his wife and children, it does not teach for a husband to demand submission from his wife. To do so would be to twist complementarian teachings to what the Bible doesn’t teach. I do not think Patriarchalists, such as Doug Phillips, are complementarian, and many of them despise that label (ie-complementarian) as being too wishy washy, anyway.
I’ve personally known a pretty strident egalitarian woman who will listen to no one except what she thinks the Lord is telling her to do, in her own confused mind. She submits to no one, and I mean, no one, and I don’t mean maybe. The vast majority of people who know her have the same assessment of her. She is not married, is in her mid-forties. She gravitates toward the Pentecostal/Charismatic assemblies when she does go to church, or to conferences.
But she’s egalitarian. She speaks out against hierarchies in the home and church, and claims she has just as much right to “lead out,” as she says, as anybody else.
Now, you might say, but that isn’t true egalitarian teaching. To which I would say, both complementarian teaching and egalitarian teachings are twisted by people who are evil or sick, so they can achieve their own ends. I don’t buy any claim that it is complementarian teaching, as comps interpret the NT Scriptures, which is sinful, or abusive. Neither do I buy the claim that egalitarian teaching necessarily leads to abuse. But I’ve seen egalitarian teaching twisted in this one, up close, personal instance.
I think the Patriarchalists do a fine job of twisting the Scriptures so that submission is always the emphasis for the woman – the wife. And daughter. And grown daughter who isn’t married. These are the elements of evangelical Christianity which teach, as Don Veinot calls it, “pagan, top down” authoritarianism. This is not biblical.
But at the other extreme, there are egalitarians who go through twisted exegesis to show how homosexuality is permitted. I’ve read the sites, and the Scripture twisting, and don’t tell me these people also don’t advocate for equality in the church and home for women.
So just as you would stop at homosexuality, I stop at Patriarchy. BOTH sides have their evil extremes, OK?
I’ve also witnessed online abuse, to such a degree I had to write a trusted friend privately to look at what was going on, because I was afraid I wasn’t seeing clearly –
There is an egalitarian, who a couple months ago was verbally excoriated on another, rather lively blog. She was savaged (imo, in this instance not too strong a word) first and foremost by someone very friendly to egalitarians, if not one herself, and also by another person who is egalitarian.
I was so shocked at the way the conversation was progressing I asked a trusted online friend just to read what was going on, and give me input, without me saying anything first. This person agreed with me that verbal abuse was taking place.
I will tell you what happened when I mentioned this public matter on another blog, and gave my opinion. One of the blog owners saw my comment and wrote me an email, and did two things -
Told me that next time, she’d appreciate me writing her privately.
Played the “I’m the information broker” game with me. Told me there were things I didn’t have a clue about. In essence, basically told me I didn’t know what I was talking about. The problem was, I was talking about a public conversation, and only that public conversation, and no matter what I didn’t know, this public conversation should not have happened, and should have been stopped.
So I fired off an email in reply to hers, reminding her of what she herself had often said, namely, that public comments can be subject to public scrutiny without some false claim to Matthew 18, even though I didn’t put it that way. I told her that next time, I would feel free to to write about this incident (I called it “crap”) wherever, and whenever, I wished. She was clearly playing “damage control” with me, a game I will not allow.
We’re basically talking two soft comps and an egalitarian here, doing this to this fellow egalitarian. The person most affected by this will be reading this comment, so I won’t mention names here, but I have no qualms about mentioning names otherwise.
Abuse happens. I’ve seen it from both sides of this fence.
To sum up, I’m not impressed by people claiming complementarianism is in itself sin, as someone said above. And egalitarian teaching can lead to abuse, because we are all prone to varying degrees by a lust for power and to dominate, and women who ascend to positions of leadership in the congregation (which is egalitarianism in practice) are not immune from these problems.
Sure, it’s not true biblical egalitarian teaching.
“Esteeming one another as more important than himself” is what gets thrown out the window when both egalitarian and complementarian teachings get twisted. Also the idea of “mutual submission,” or “mutual service.”
My 2 cents.
How about starting with the Evangelical and Eccumenical Women’s Caucus? That’s where most of the really interesting information is, after all.
http://www.eewc.com/
I especially find interesting their views on Planned Parenthood.
I think that the following would make a good topic of discussion in and of itself. It may help both sides to understand this topic better and how it affects all of us, whether we are Egalitarian or Complementarian.
Here is the CBMW statement. It would be interesting to see what Egalitarians think is offensive in it. It may help me, at least, to understand why.
Statement on Abuse
We understand abuse to mean the cruel use of power or authority to harm another person emotionally, physically, or sexually.
We are against all forms of physical, sexual and /or verbal abuse.
We believe that the biblical teaching on relationships between men and women does not support, but condemns abuse (Prov. 12:18; Eph. 5:25-29; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7-8; 1 Pet. 3:7; 5:3).
We believe that abuse is sin. It is destructive and evil. Abuse is the hallmark of the devil and is in direct opposition to the purpose of God. Abuse ought not to be tolerated in the Christian community.
We believe that the Christian community is responsible for the well-being of its members. It has a responsibility to lovingly confront abusers and to protect the abused.
We believe that both abusers and the abused are in need of emotional and spiritual healing.
We believe that God extends healing to those who earnestly seek him.
We are confident of the power of God’s healing love to restore relationships fractured by abuse, but we realize that repentance, forgiveness, wholeness, and reconciliation is a process. Both abusers and abused are in need of on-going counseling, support and accountability.
In instances where abusers are unrepentant and/or unwilling to make significant steps toward change, we believe that the Christian community must respond with firm discipline of the abuser and advocacy, support and protection of the abused.
We believe that by the power of God’s Spirit, the Christian community can be an instrument of God’s love and healing for those involved in abusive relationships and an example of wholeness in a fractured, broken world.
http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Statement-on-Abuse
I think we can agree about one thing – i.e., you didn’t understand what I wrote. You again think I was accusing the author of Genesis of being “gender confused.” I said and claimed no such thing.
Mrs. Webfoot: Do you read what I write in toto before you respond to it?
As for what Christian egalitarians think of the Violence Against Women Act, you would need to ask Christian egalitarians. I personally think that, like most pieces of legislation, it has its flaws and limitations and is subject to being applied unevenly and abusively, but it was designed to address a very real problem: men inflicting violence on women. Despite critics’ charges against it, that in no way negates the fact that there are also women who inflict violence on men, nor does it change the fact that both men and women have been known to file false criminal charges under that and many other laws. Based on its history and wording, it is an attempt to address the fact that American society has historically ignored the abuse of women by their husbands and male partners, and since women are on average smaller and not as strong as men, men tend to have an innate ability to do more physical damage when they assault women than in the case of the reverse. It is designed to make law enforcement take male-on-female domestic violence complaints seriously.
So…there you have it. One egalitarian Christian’s summary and impressions of a particular piece of secular legislation. What that has to do with the dearth of evidence of egalitarian Christians using principles of biblical equality to justify spousal abuse, I really don’t see. But since you asked, and therefore apparently see some sort of connection, you have the only definitive answer I can give you: my own. To the best of my knowledge, no Christian egalitarian organization has published any official statement on VAWA.
Do you want to take a shot at explaining, on behalf of Christian complementarians in general, why CBMW found it necessary to spell out and explicitly state that they are against marital violence? Really, I wouldn’t expect you to have to. What I’m having trouble with is understanding why you have several times now expected me to answer equally challenging, unreasonable questions as though I’m subject to an inquisition or tribunal or something. It seems to me as though you’re putting several of us egalitarians on trial for everything you’ve ever disliked about egalitarians and our beliefs. Again, I don’t understand why that’s necessary, especially since no one is doing anything like that to you.
I’ll just say one more thing. A few years back the CBMW approached the CBE about signing a document about abuse. This was meant to be a joint effort and a joint stance against abuse.
The CBE refused.
Maybe they should explain why.
Naturally I would be interested in viewing the document. I can say this from my personal experience. I attended the same church as Jim Packer for about 15 years. He is a founding member of CBMW.
I was living in a violent and abusive marriage. I asked the minister’s wife, ({Packer is not the minister, but only an honorary assistant) if she had literature on wife abuse “for a friend.” She said that she had no books or literature on the topic since the problem did not exist in our church.
Surely one can see that there is no value in CBMW touting its interest in fighting abuse when it has no practice itself in responding to this problem. If we know a group by its fruit then we can say that at least come cbmw leaders are totally ignorant of abuse issues or do not wish to prevent or remediate in situations of abuse. Complementarianism has not proven itself to me.
One could say that Dr. Packer is a theologian and has no involvement in this secondary matter. Would we say the same about hunger? What would Jesus say?
at least come cbmw leaders
at least some cbme leaders
From: http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-1-No-1/CBE-Declines-Joint-Statement
The CBMW statement on abuse was originally written to be issued jointly with Christians for Biblical Equality. However, James Beck, writing for the CBE Board of Directors, declined in a letter dated October 10, 1994:
Seeing how the CBMW author of the article uses CBE’s decision to decline to sign the joint statement as a pretext or basis for trashing CBE in his words which follow the CBE quote, I can see why the CBE folks were leery of issuing anything jointly with CBMW.
I think that the main point that I want to make is getting lost.
My main point – hmmm- what was it now? – was not to defend Complementarians or Complementarianism. My main point was not to degrade Egalitarians or Egalitarianism.
My main point is that I HOPE that we as Egalitarians and Complementarians can somehow see abuse more globally, more as a human problem and look at it on a case by case basis.
Yes, there are forms of patriarchy that even I as a Complementarian speak out against. Yes, there are specific teachings that some Complementarians may teach or may have taught or whatever that I would certainly not agree with and that I have spoken out agains.
Can Egalitarians see that there are specific teachings and specific forms of Egalitarianism that they should be distancing themselves from, too?
If not, then I don’t see a lot of hope for Christians to really see people who are being abused. Individual human beings, not groups of human beings.
You know, I almost voted that I was and Egalitarian, since somethimes I think I’m more equality minded in some ways than many Egalitarians I have met.
It’s just my thoughts. Take them for what they are worth, which may not be much.
Hey, I REALLY have work to do – housework, some translations, some correspondence, some oboe blowing – and I really should go see my mom.
I think that we have had some good discussion, so thanks.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
I have no idea why CBE didn’t sign CBMW’s statement on abuse. Here are my own reasons why I would hesitate before signing one of CBMW’s statements.
1) CBMW had a recording by Paige Patterson on its website in which he advised a woman to submit to beatings from her husband. I guess some non-CBMW person found out about it and wrote about it on their website. Afterwards CBMW removed the recording.
2) I’m not sure if CBMW and CBE would have the same definition of abuse. There are things CBMW might think are okay that CBE would see as abuse.
OK, Lynn, then if it’s partriarcjy, not complementarianism, when a husband abuses his wife…if that’s where you draw the line, that’s fine. (Or am I not understanding you correctly?)
If that’s what you’re saying, and other complementarians are in agreement with you about that, then I believe it’s essential for complementarians to be willing to do the same with biblical equality. It stops being biblical equality when someone violates the principles. We can disregard the license that we have seen when unilateral submission is enforced, because it’s no longer complementarianism if at every point of a wife’s submission the husband doesn’t exhibit sacrificial love. You can disregard the suspicion that egalitarian marriage breeds either selfishness or chaos (I’ve heard both charges from people who aren’t complementarians), because if mutual submission doesn’t totally prevent such things, the couple isn’t practicing true biblical equality, but something less than that.
Put another way: if complementarians don’t want any abusive situation in any way to be connected with the complementarian beliefs of the parties involved, then apply the same distinction when an egalitarian falls short and sins against another, and stop judging biblical equality at fault simply because individual egalitarians don’t all, always show forth a perfect representation of egalitarian beliefs.
But beware! If we would all dare to agree to do that, no one’s going to be able to legitimately say things like “I wonder how many women become egalitarians because of being abused by a man” or “Is it pertinent that a documented large number of men who abuse their wives believe their complementarian beliefs permit it” or “If CBE is really against abuse, why wouldn’t they join with CBMW in a statement against abuse” or “I could tell you about lots of lives destroyed by egalitarianism” or “I know a complementarian who takes every possible opportunity to tear down egalitarians” or “Prove that you’re not a pagan or gnostic heretic by saying that Adam was a fully-functioning male” and so forth. We’ll find ourselves more willing to look at the actual tenets of the systems under discussion, rather than congratulating ourselves that our beliefs are more correct than the beliefs of flawed human beings on the “other side” or that we’re the more aggrieved when the “others” prove to be human and let us down. We won’t conduct our own pet inquisitions as though they prove that egalitarianism or complementarianism is untenable. And we will be far more likely to treat the other as we ourselves would wish to be treated.
Years ago I read an article by Wayne Grudem in which he told wives they were to submit to men who were verbally abusive. Perhaps in the intervening years he has softened his view. But he was once president of CBMW.
”Webfoot: You have to be willing to listen to how egalitarianism has destroyed lives and families in order to get the complete picture.”
Do you have any links. I would be interested in reading about it.
I do know of one equality minded family in which the husband became abusive. But he wasn’t following the principles of Biblical equality when he was being abusive. That is an important distinction, because hierarchalists who are abusive USE THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY to support their abusive behavior as acceptable behavior.
Correction:
I said:
“You can disregard the suspicion that egalitarian marriage breeds either selfishness or chaos (I’ve heard both charges from people who aren’t complementarians) . . .”
I should have said:
“You can disregard the suspicion that egalitarian marriage breeds either selfishness or chaos (I’ve heard both charges from people who aren’t egalitarians) . . .”
mathladyX2
I have no idea why CBE didn’t sign CBMW’s statement on abuse. Here are my own reasons why I would hesitate before signing one of CBMW’s statements.
I posted a link to the CBMW article that quotes CBE’s reason for not signing the joint statement in my comment here:
http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/complementarity-and-complementarians/#comment-10039
Lynn,
You have said a lot of critical things about female egals. But the things you said are just mistakes everyone makes. For every critical thing you have said about a female egal I could say an equivalent thing about a male comp. But I won’t, becaude I know these type of mistakes are human. They are the kind of mistakes the whole human race makes.
Sometimes you just have to accept that people have personality faults, and not hold these faults against them just because they are egals or because they disagree with one of your doctrinal positions.
TL wrote:
”Webfoot: You have to be willing to listen to how egalitarianism has destroyed lives and families in order to get the complete picture.”
Do you have any links. I would be interested in reading about it.
I do know of one equality minded family in which the husband became abusive. But he wasn’t following the principles of Biblical equality when he was being abusive. That is an important distinction, because hierarchalists who are abusive USE THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY to support their abusive behavior as acceptable behavior.
- – -
I guess the questions one could or should ask related to this are:
I. Can the Complementarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support the male being abusive to the female?
If yes, what tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support the male being abusive to the female? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
II. Can the Egalitarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support the male being abusive to the female?
If yes, what tenets of Egalitarianism are or can be used to support the male being abusive to the female? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
That way one can see the extent to which the tenets of the systems themselves can or cannot be used to support abusive behavior, and not simply if some members of one or both sides engage in abusive behavior.
Mathlady, the proposal for a joint statement at ETS was years before the Patterson recording was posted. But the principle applies. Knowing that there were prominent personalities speaking for CBMW back then who advocated that wives submit (in their usage, a synonym for “obey”) even to abusive husbands, the Board’s response was wise and understandable. Allying with an organization formed specifically to discredit biblical equality and its adherents was not a good idea. I’ve always thought it sad that there was enough question about what CBMW’s version of unilateral wifely submission required of wives, that issuance of a statement that CBMW didn’t condone abuse was even necessary. From its very inception, nothing about the principles of biblical equality promoted by CBE gave any doubt where CBE stood on abuse.
CBMW’s suggesting that CBE needed to join a pro-patriarchy organization’s explanation of their position about abuse, was a subtle way to imply that egalitarians should also be assumed to tolerate abuse under some circumstances. CBMW was doing damage control and, consistent with their raison d’etre, tried to smear CBE in the process. Eric, I think you make an excellent point about CBMW’s subsequent use of CBE not joining their statement to attempt to discredit CBE, showed clearly why it would not have been wise to ally with CBMW on anything.
Lynn, you seemed to go out of your way to identify the only two egalitarian pastors you knew of (at least second-hand knowledge) as “woman pastors.” I’m wondering how you would have described them if they’d been men, rather than women. Would you have referred to their maleness as you described their abuse of power, or simply chalked their behavior up to their behaving in a jerk-like fashion and never even mentioned the fact that they were men?
It’s not only you. That kind of thing happens fairly often. It’s like people referring first to someone’s ethnicity, as though it’s an adjective, then to their personhood, as though there’s a default type of person, and every other type is an exception to be identified by some obvious distinction that makes them a deviation from the norm. It even happens in our Bible interpretation, where it’s assumed that men are the audience unless women are specifically mentioned. Hence, interpreting such instances in the most restrictive possible manner when it comes to women, but assuming men are free to do pretty much anything that’s not specifically prohibited. (An example is assuming that women are permitted only to be “keepers at home,” when the text includes no such exclusive restriction at all. And then a single verse after every believer has been admonished to submit to one another, it’s assumed that only wives are to submit in marriage, because there’s no verse that specifically requires husbands AS HUSBANDS to submit to the Christian sisters who are their wives.) Normative vs. non-normative kinds of people, instead of fellow members of the human race.
Just an observation.
Lynn, you seemed to go out of your way to identify the only two egalitarian pastors you knew of (at least second-hand knowledge) as “woman pastors.”
Not at all. Did you go out of your way to say this — OK, Lynn, then if it’s partriarcjy, not complementarianism, when a husband abuses his wife… ???
Well, I asked it because I wanted to be sure I’d understood correctly, so I suppose you could say I did go out of my way to ask it exactly as I phrased it.
You did say “woman pastors,” as though their being women was a factor in their acting like jerks. So perhaps you didn’t go out of your way to word it that way, but did it without thinking about it.
Eric wrote:
Excellent idea Eric. For starters….
Some tenets of comp/patriarchy I can think of that would be able to be used abusively, and have been are…
1. Husband as head of the household is the tie breaker in disagreements. In this way, when husband and wife disagree, husband can always do what he wants.
2. Wife must obey whatever the husband requests/demands as long as it isn’t sin. There are a lot of requests that the acts themselves would not be sinful, but compliance with abuses the wife in various ways.
yes, what tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support the male being abusive to the female? List them:
1. A husband should assert his rulership over his wife
2. A husband has final say on how many pregnancies, and everything else the wife does.
3. The wife is to assist the husband in attaining his goals, but not vice versa.
4. It is more important for the wife to respect her husband than for the husband to respect his wife.
5.
Etc.
Eric,
That’s a really good thought (this comment, http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/complementarity-and-complementarians/#comment-10048 regarding identifying the tenants) and should become a post of it’s own…
To Mary:
I wrote a reply in which I agreed with something you said, but it wasn’t approved. I’m too tired to rewrite the whole thing, sorry.
Also, that quip answer I wrote above is only to remark that when we think of abuse, we automatically think “male,” and it was a reply in kind. Women do abuse. More often than not it is manipulative and emotional and verbal, although sometimes it is physical, too.
Honestly, cross my heart and hope to die, the only reason I wrote about women pastors and included the word “women” is not because I am being somewhat ethnocentric, but to drive home the point that spiritual abuse not only crosses egal and comp lines, but also gender lines. I really was thinking about that when I wrote that in that way. (I’ve worked in a hospital for years and I don’t say “lady doctor,” either btw).
To the Mathlady x2:
You wrote to me:
Sometimes you just have to accept that people have personality faults, and not hold these faults against them just because they are egals or because they disagree with one of your doctrinal positions.
I don’t see how you can say this, after I acknowledge that both teachings can be twisted and lead to sin, such as this part of that post:
“To which I would say, both complementarian teaching and egalitarian teachings are twisted by people who are evil or sick, so they can achieve their own ends. I don’t buy any claim that it is complementarian teaching, as comps interpret the NT Scriptures, which is sinful, or abusive. Neither do I buy the claim that egalitarian teaching necessarily leads to abuse. But I’ve seen egalitarian teaching twisted in this one, up close, personal instance.”
And I said this at the end of the post, that when egalitarian teaching is twisted, THEN . . .
“Sure, it’s not true biblical egalitarian teaching.
“Esteeming one another as more important than himself” is what gets thrown out the window when both egalitarian and complementarian teachings get twisted. Also the idea of “mutual submission,” or “mutual service.”
Mathlady, I wrote that in response to a comment that thankfully appears to have been deleted, where a person said that complementarianism IS sin. Not that it leads to sin, but that it IS sin.
Hope that helps. But nowhere did I say I was holding faults against people because they were egals. Perhaps next time, you could quote the bothersome statement, so I can clarify? It would really help to have quotes, such as what Mary does. Thanks.
I’m still hoping that someone will identify the specific tenets of biblical equality that they think could potentially lead EITHER spouse to abuse the other.
I’ve truly tried to find something in Christian egalitarian principles that could be twisted into support for abuse, but I’m simply not seeing it.
Eric’s comment here is a case in point, and is an example of what is at the back of my mind when I gave that quip answer to Mary, where Eric asks to list if complementarianism will lead to the male abusing, and if so, how, and if egalitarian teaching can lead to the male abusing, and if so, how.
Doesn’t anybody besides me believe that women can be abusive? I used to work in a department with mostly women and some men, a couple of the women had very destructive behavior, which affected the morale of some of the other women, and these were problems that had to be dealt with.
Mrs. Webfoot: “I would then point out that you have now brought the secular world into this discussion.”
I believe that you have missed my point altogether.
Hi Eric. Interested in your question:
Can the Complementarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support the male being abusive to the female?
Not according to Paul or Peter. They teach that a husband must love his wife and serve her, even to the point of dying for her.
But if you say, Yes but what about men who only observe part of what is taught in Scripture, this could be said of any biblical teaching.
Some folk would want to modify what Paul teaches about grace because they think some may interpret him to be saying that Christians are saved no matter what they do and so live licentiously.
Some people also say that we cannot live by the Bible’s prohibitions of homosexuality, because some folk go way beyond these prohibitions into homophobia and even into bashing of gays and lesbians.
Some say parents cannot discipline their children using corporal punishment as taught in Proverbs and elsewhere, because some may go beyond Scripture and abuse their children.
Some people say that we cannot enjoy alcohol in moderation because some people overindulge.
It is unfair to blame people for the actions of those who twist their words and only adopt part of what they are teaching.
Eric:
II. Can the Egalitarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support the male being abusive to the female?
If yes, what tenets of Egalitarianism are or can be used to support the male being abusive to the female? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.>>>>>
Webfoot:
II. Can Egalitaianism’s tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to suppoort the female being abusive to the male?
Yes.
1. The Violence Against Women Act
2.
3.
4.
5.
[OK, I wrote this a while ago in response to Mary's comments to me, and I asked for the post to be edited, and just assumed it was deleted, then when I went to my email account found out it wasn't rejected at all, but Wayne just asked me to edit it myself and resubmit it. So here it is.]
“OK, Lynn, then if it’s partriarcjy, not complementarianism, when a husband abuses his wife…”
This was Mary’s opening remark to me, and this is not what I meant to convey. But I will agree with what she is driving at, so please follow along here.
(As side note, I’m not feeling well, and can’t seem to focus, so forgive the rambling nature of this reply).
I think the teachings of patriarchy such as VF, the Baylys, etc., are overly restrictive, just as you think soft complementarian teachings are overly restrictive in the church, and I meant to distinguish patriarchy from the term “complementarian,” a term the Bayly brothers despise, as you know.
However, I wasn’t thinking of patriarchal legalism as abuse on account of the way we were discussing abuse. I was more thinking of physical assault and battery, or verbal abuse. AFAIK, even the formal teachings of the mainstream patriarchs, such as Voddie Baucham or Kevin Swanson, would not endorse this kind of treatment.
If that’s what you’re saying, and other complementarians are in agreement with you about that, then I believe it’s essential for complementarians to be willing to do the same with biblical equality. It stops being biblical equality when someone violates the principles.
I agree with your last statement, but the first part wasn’t what I was saying. I said there are extremes at both ends as far as the teachings go. And I think, just as it isn’t fair to say your teachings will lead to an acceptance of homosexual behavior, which IS sin, that complementarianism will lead to Patriarchy, and from there to polygamy and domestic discipline (assault and battery, another sin). I didn’t put it that way, but that is what I was trying to convey. I do agree, as you said, that it stops being biblical equality when someone violates the principles, yes. I want to speak fairly and objectively, and I think that is only fair to say that.
You need to keep in mind I also do not believe, in the vast majority cases of severe disagreement, that a tie breaking decision is always called for. I am not in favor of Watter’s response, as quoted in another post. I am more egalitarian when it comes to marriage than that, and have already said so in this forum. So I would also say that a husband pushing his prerogative to lead his family by sacrificial service is violating biblical principles by forcing a decision, because that isn’t sacrificial service and I don’t buy all the hypothetical situations given.
What I was trying to convey, I believe it is true if someone gets power hungry and tries to lord it over others, that person has violated biblical principles, whether they are complementarian, or egalitarian, or patriarchal.
But back to your opening quote, about the wives abusing the husbands in patriarchy land . . . I do know an instance where a patriarchal wife claimed her husband was abusing her, to some of us, privately, and it wasn’t until long later that some people who were intensely involved with this situation contacted me and some others involved with her and read us the riot act, as it were, about what was really going on. One of the people who contacted us has a lot of experience in writing and dealing with spiritual abuse cases.
I’m not saying there weren’t marital troubles all the way around in this situation, but I will say that this woman was very highly manipulative and was covering up a lot of problems of her own, with some of us. I can’t say any more than that about this situation, because none of the information I have or had is public, but there are parts of this family’s story that are public.
I’ll be honest here. “Deconstructing” me from thinking she was the abuse victim here involved many emails, explanations, hours on the phone, until I realized a few of us were being taken for a ride, by this woman. You know why? It relates to what I quoted from you at the top – the part about in patriarchy, “where the husband abuses his wife.” We tend to think it is primarily the husbands who are doing the abusing, that’s why, and probably that is the case. What I’m saying is there are abusive patriarchal wives out there, as well as abusive husbands, small though their number may be. Some people really know how to manipulate the system they are in . . . no matter what it is.
What are the components of the Violence Against Women Act that you feel are basic tenets of Biblical Equality (egalitarianism) that have been used by men or women to be abusive to their spouses.
David wrote:“Not according to Paul or Peter. They teach that a husband must love his wife and serve her, even to the point of dying for her.
But if you say, Yes but what about men who only observe part of what is taught in Scripture, this could be said of any biblical teaching.”
I think you misunderstood Eric’s question. He didn’t ask what parts of the Bible are used, but what tenets of complementarianism (or patriarchalism). Comps have many tenets of their belief system that they have formed from Scripture, but which is not itself in Scripture. Things such as what “head of” means to them including final decision maker, priest of the home, wife obeys in all things not sin and so on. We know what Paul said and we know what some people say that Paul meant by what he said. They are not automatically the same thing.
Lynn, thank you very much for all the trouble you took to clarify and expand on what you were trying to communicate. I understand you much better now.
Please understand this, which I fear I didn’t make nearly clear enough but which I firmly believe: There are indeed women who abuse their husbands. The red herring that had been thrown into the discussion much earlier was, in essence, “Egalitarianism’s main appeal is to unbalanced women because they’ve been abused, and plenty of them are just making it up and besides, abuse has nothing to do with complementarianism.” (Yes, I know that is not even close to an exact quote. That’s the impression the composite complaints about egalitarianism made on me, however, and I doubt I’m the only one.) Of course there are wives who abuse their husbands. But it was the veracity and frequency and relativity to complementarian principles of husbands who abuse their wives that had been raised. It appeared to me when I read your call to recognize where people draw the line between complementarianism and patriarchy (a fine problem in and of itself, I would maintain), that you were saying that if someone claims that the complementarian husband is defending his abuse of his wife with his complementarian beliefs, you believe he’s already crossed that line into patriarchy; that he’s not a complementarian. But it now appears to me that it wasn’t a correct conclusion for me to have drawn, that you don’t necessarily believe that. (As always, I’m open to your correcting me if this isn’t accurate, either.)
TL:
What are the components of the Violence Against Women Act that you feel are basic tenets of Biblical Equality (egalitarianism) that have been used by men or women to be abusive to their spouses.>>>
TL, thank you for asking.
I think that we need a more comprehensive law in our land that addresses the subject of domestic violence in a more equitable fashion.
This act only addresses the subject of male on female violence. It does not address female on male or female on female domestic violence.
Let me ask you. Do you think that female on male violence is a problem?
I think that the subject of human on human violence and abuse could be a very interesting topic of discussion, if people will control their reactions. This is a very volatile subject, as we all know.
I really must protest your latest comment, Donna. You know perfectly well that VAWA is secular legislation that doesn’t have thing one to do with biblical equality.
If you would not want anyone to cite a pre-Civil War state’s slavery provision as proof that complementarianism is wrong (after all, such provisions set legal precedent for one adult human being requiring another adult human being to be obedient, to not earn wages, to work in the domestic sphere, and a number of other things touted as good for women by many complementarians), then you should take care not to cite a current secular piece of legislation as pertaining in any way to the tenets of biblical equality.
You’ve said a number of times that it’s not fair for people to bring up abuse even if done by Christian complementarians, so what gives with this?
Or was getting people to protest your comment a goal in and of itself?
Either way, you are wrong to do it.
FYI, one of the reasons that I really like Beth Moore is that she views people as people, not groups. She holds women’s feet to the fire, not letting us hide.
I also love a ministry called International Justice Mission. They help all kinds of people who are being abused, even whole families who are enslaved.
Neither of these ministries see abuse as exclusively a “women’s issue.” Yes, there are “women’s issues.” There are also “men’s issues” and “children’s issues” and “family issues” and so on. Any time human beings relate to one another, there is potential for abuse.
Even so, most people are not abusive. Most churches are not abusive.
BTW, I think that there are some teachings in Complementarianism AND Egalitarinism that can be used by a wife to abuse her husband, now that I think of it.
Wouldn’t it be better to talk about how human beings can abuse other human beings?
Maybe I’m an egalitarian after all.
Mary, you don’t need to bring in racism and slavery. It has already been done on this blog.
Do you think that secular thinking doesn’t influence and affect the church?
I think that the VAWA is pertinent to the discussion. Feel free to disagree.
Mary, you don’t need to bring in racism and slavery. It has already been done on this blog.
Do you think that secular thinking doesn’t influence and affect the church?
I think that the VAWA is pertinent to the discussion. Feel free to disagree.
——-
Lynn:
We tend to think it is primarily the husbands who are doing the abusing, that’s why, and probably that is the case.>>>>
Webfoot:
Why would we think that? Why would we think that it is probably the husband abusing the wife?
What paradigm makes us think that way?
Mrs. Webfoot,
I do believe that human beings are equally prone to abuse. However, the male causes much more physical damage than the female.
The male is also less risk adverse, as statistics on financial management is showing. Female managed funds do much better than male managed funds in this climate.
So, men cause more damage, and take greater risks. Who should make decisions regarding pregnancies, sick children, family funds, etc?
Given this information, who would suggest that the husband should have the final say?
Fortunately the Bible does not actually say that he should. In all the scriptures, throughout the Bible, God blesses women who take the initiative and respond to God with their own decisions, without giving final say to their husband.
Mara
Mrs. Webfoot: “I would then point out that you have now brought the secular world into this discussion.”
I believe that you have missed my point altogether.>>>
Webfoot:
Mara, I didn’t mean that it was inappropriate to bring in secular world. We live in it. It affects us. I think it is appropriate. I didn’t mean to sound like I was accusing you of something that should not be done.
Webfoot:
You made some really interesting points. I didn’t make that clear enough.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Hey, y’all, a few simple wording changes or additions can make my questionnaire such that even though it hasn’t been some days in preparation, a splendid time is guaranteed for all. And I somewhat generalized it so it can apply to both marriage and church relations and relationships by changing “the male” and “the female” to “males” and “females.”
So have at it, ladies and gentlemen. Kick the questions around, and please don’t shoot the messenger, I’m only the piano player!
I. Can the Complementarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support males being abusive to females or females being abusive to males?
If yes, what specific tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support males being abusive to females? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
If yes, what specific tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support females being abusive to males? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
II. Can the Egalitarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support males being abusive to females or females being abusive to males?
If yes, what specific tenets of Egalitarianism are or can be used to support males being abusive to females? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
If yes, what specific tenets of Egalitarianism are or can be used to support females being abusive to males? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
That way one can see the extent to which the tenets of the systems themselves can or cannot be used to support abusive behavior, and not simply if some members of one or both sides engage in abusive behavior.
And … you can’t answer “Yes” without also listing the specific tenet(s) of Complementarianism or Egalitarianism that support(s) your “Yes” answer.
(Note: I chose to use the word “tenets” instead of “tenets or teachings” because there may be some persons who present Comp or Egal teachings which may not in actuality conform to the tenets of Complementarianism or Egalitarianism. Thus, just because someone teaches something that is presented as what Comps or Egals should do or believe doesn’t automatically mean that it’s what Complementarianism and Egalitarianism hold to.)
I don’t think that there is any dispute that women can be abusive. But is anyone arguing that wives should be in charge of husbands and able to make final decisions for them? I don’t think so.
Since husband can also be abusive to wives, why would anyone put a wife under a husband. If I had my way, I would raise a far more volatile issue. Given the male track record for harm caused, given the male track record for risk taking, shouldn’t women start a class action claim against whoever put “obey” in the marriage vows? I know we can’t do this, it is something like outlawing smoking, but we can restrain it, we can limit it, and post warning signs on such an arrangement.
We don’t tell a husband he is only acceptable to God if he obeys his wife. Why are women treated this way? There are more than a few women in financial distress who want to know.
Don’t faint, Donna, but I agree with you that we ought to relate far more to one another as the fellow human beings we are, rather than adhere to all our rigid, legalistic “mars vs. venus”-style dividing lines between men and women.
And another way that you might be surprised to find I agree with you is that, like every other egalitarian I know, I recognize quite a few ways that men and women complement each other. One of those ways is that for many, probably most couples, the man is the bigger and the stronger of the two. That fact has, in a sinful world, established the near-universal tradition of the stronger ruling over the weaker; after all, God warned the woman that her man would rule over her even though she would desire him inordinately, way back in the very beginning.
So…it seems to me that with that greater strength also comes two equal truths, usually in tension with each other: A. As with any gift, there comes a solemn responsibility to use it well; and B. Like any other gift, it can be misused so as to cause significant pain and heartache to both the gifted and those around the gifted. Put simply, with superior size and strength comes the responsibility to do good with it, but there’s the potential to do harm with it. And in terms of physical abuse, which carries the greatest risk of serious bodily injury and death, it is the man who has both a greater capacity to do harm AND a greater capability of fending off the harm that a woman might do to him. To that mix, the typical difference in hormonal influence between men and women (testosterone contributing to a higher degree of aggression in most men compared to most women, for example) comes into play. All that to say, not surprisingly, there is a significantly higher number of physical assaults by men toward women, than by women toward men, with that number even higher when considering only the figures for serious physical injury and death.
Please don’t misunderstand me: that’s all cold comfort for any man whose woman assaults him, and both secular agencies and church ought to help them as well. We could all point to murders of men committed by women, assaults committed by women on men, and as you mentioned, Donna, female-on-female crime is also a problem. By far the highest number of assaults and homicides are male-on-male, for what that’s worth; historically, those are also the crimes most likely to result in arrests and prosecutions.
We can’t ignore the fact that there has been a historic reluctance on the part of law enforcement personnel to take domestic violence seriously. Most female victims of crimes are the victims of a family or household member, within the home. Also, one of the most dangerous situations for a police officer is on the premises where a DV call has originated. VAWA, flawed as it is, focuses primarily on one significant area of historically under-enforced crime: women assaulted by their male partners. Yes, more needs to be done for men assaulted by women, and women by women, and even men against men. No, VAWA doesn’t do a whole lot to help in such situations; it wasn’t designed to. But realize, the problems that VAWA DOES address are serious, too. Should women with violent male partners have no help, until lawmakers get on board about the other populations who also need better protection? I simply can’t see the logic in that. An incomplete law that protects some people who would otherwise get little or no help at all is better than no law, period. Should we shut down WIC because it doesn’t help men, or women with children all over the age of 5? Should we shut down unemployment insurance because it won’t help people who’ve been out of work for 1 month longer than the cut-off limit for benfits? Should we abolish traffic fines because the person driving 20 miles over the speed limit gets a much stiffer penalty than the one going only 19 miles per hour too fast?
I really believe we should look very closely at all these things, as opposed to broadly condemning a needed law for not being all things to all people.
Lynn:
I’ll be honest here. “Deconstructing” me from thinking she was the abuse victim here involved many emails, explanations, hours on the phone, until I realized a few of us were being taken for a ride, by this woman.>>>>
Lynn, why do you think that these good people were being “taken for a ride by this woman”? What was in it for them to be manipulated by her in this way?
How were they trying to use her?
So, with VAWA addressed as the secular law that it is, would you now be willing, Donna, to provide a list of the tenets of actual biblical equality that you think are being manipulated into excuses for violence in marriage, or for that matter, abuse of anyone, male or female or both, married or not? I know that a number of us have asked what you think they are, but other than citing a secular law that is certainly NOT a tenet of biblical equality, you havn’t yet provided such a list.
Mary:
I really believe we should look very closely at all these things, as opposed to broadly condemning a needed law for not being all things to all people.>>>
Webfoot:
Mary, that’s a start, and really the first time – no, wait, the second time – that I have seen an egalitarian speak in more global terms about abuse. Thank you.
Webfoot:
I tend to be very sympathetic to abuse stories that are shared on the internet. I can’t do anything else but sympathize. I used to be much more sympathetic, much more. Not anymore. Yes, I sympathize, but I don’t get caught up in it anymore.
Webfoot:
Lynn shared a story about a woman who was allegedly abused by her patriarchal husband. It turned out to be a scam. I ask who was scamming whom? Who was using whom? I think that it was a mutual scam. Those who fell into the con did so because they wanted to believe her. They wanted it to be true. They wanted to use her story to prove once and for all that patriarchalists are evil and abusive.
Webfoot:
It backfired on them. I hope that they have learned a lesson, but I doubt it. I really do. I haven’t seen any evidence that they have used this situation to do anything but redouble their efforts. It’s sad, really, and quite shocking to me.
Webfoot:
I know people who have been abused. I know their stories first hand, and have seen them work through it first hand. I have seen how our church and our pastor handle these situations. They get really high marks. Remember, ours is a church that has had a strong Gothard influence, but not 100%.
So, now I just want reality. No big deal. I let myself be used, too. Because our church was so heavily Gothardized at one time, I thought that it would follow the pattern that I was being told churches follow once they start down the Gothardized path. Well, you know, it didn’t happen. One day I looked at the people and the families in our church and it dawned on me. These people are happy.
BTW, I have seen Egalitarian bad church behavior, too. I won’t share details, because it doesn’t matter. It’s all water under the bridge, and apologies have been made and people have moved on – like Christians should, by the grace of God.
So, now I just want to know how we as human beings can help other human beings when they are being abused. That’s all.
So, sorry Mary that we don’t communicate very well. I don’t know what to do about it. I really don’t. I’ll just keep saying that I don’t reject you.
BTW, our mission works mostly with people who have suffered terrible abuse. I regularly spend time with abuse victims who live under constant, crushing oppression with no escape. You wouldn’t believe that I don’t suppose after all that has been said to and about me on the internet.
[...] This post written by guest author and frequent commenter here at Complegal, Eric W. See here for his comment and the surrounding [...]
Mary:
I know that a number of us have asked what you think they are, but other than citing a secular law that is certainly NOT a tenet of biblical equality, you havn’t yet provided such a list.>>>>
Hmmm. Let me see how I can answer this in a way that will be understood. No, it’s not because I don’t think you capable of understanding, Mary. No, not at all. I think that you understand a lot of things. I mean that as a complement.
I’ll try.
. I don’t think that Biblical anything would cause abuse.
. I don’t think that any of us are as Biblical as we should be or as we claim to be.
. I have read a lot of what the Egalitarians say about abuse. It’s mostly tilted towards male on female abuse, as are the secular writings on the subject.
. Even when female on male abuse is allowed, the cause is still said to be patriarchy.
. That may satisfy some. It’s doesn’t do it for me. It’s too simplistic an answer, in my opinion.
. What is the opposite of patriarchy in these debates and discussions? I won’t use the word, since some get really offended when a complementarian uses that word. So, I won’t name the system that stands in opposition to patriarchy. Things are tense enough already.
. You are free to disagree, Mary. I won’t reject you for disagreeing with me.
. Hey, at least we are talking about this subject. I think it’s really important.
It appeared to me when I read your call to recognize where people draw the line between complementarianism and patriarchy (a fine problem in and of itself, I would maintain), that you were saying that if someone claims that the complementarian husband is defending his abuse of his wife with his complementarian beliefs, you believe he’s already crossed that line into patriarchy; that he’s not a complementarian. But it now appears to me that it wasn’t a correct conclusion for me to have drawn, that you don’t necessarily believe that. (As always, I’m open to your correcting me if this isn’t accurate, either.)
Correct. I want to be fair, not only to egalitarians and complementarians on the issue of abuse, but also to mainline patriarchalists.
Although my view is God has ordained men with impeccable character to serve as elders/overseers in the church, that is a servant/leadership, as far as I can read from Scripture. And I am growing more and more inclined to view marriage as mutual submission, so please remember I’m a squishy comp, which is where I’ve been for the last couple years. You are also never going to hear me scream “heretic!” for people who hold other views from mine – both patriarchs and egalitarians. I tend to reserve heretic for denying the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, and for denying that Jesus came in the flesh, that He died, was buried, and was raised again, or that we must earn our salvation. Issues like those.
Keeping in mind my perspective, I think that it does wind up causing a lot of emotional distress and unhappiness to tell women they can’t go to college, they should marry young (except for Bill Gothard who encourages singleness to serve the Lord), that families must always do everything together, that even Christian schools are anathema, that adult single daughters must stay near their nearest male relative, etc., and there are some teachings that also are oppressive to the young men in this system as well. But I don’t classify that as abuse per se.
Men like Voddie Baucham have some valid concerns about the increasing secular nature and godlessness in our society, and he is trying to stem the tide for families by doing what he thinks is the biblical model. I just don’t agree with him, is all, and especially so when he came out on CNN against Sarah Palin.
So my final comment here is – I do not think increasing restrictions upon men and women in patriarchy land are abusive teachings. Legalistic, yes. I do think the teachings can be abused easier than egalitarian teachings, so that the males will try to force submission of the females, to the point of harsh, unemotional, unaffectionate dictatorial commands. However, most reasonable patriarchs I’ve read, from Michael Pearl to Voddie Baucham, would not approve of this kind of behavior from the men. Mainline patirarchs still believe in fathers being very involved in the lives of their families, spending time with them, working to provide for them, in spite of all the jokes (such as how many patriarchs does it take to change a light bulb – just one, but he stands still and the whole house revolves around him).
I think patriarchal teachings are legalistic teachings which lead to inward psychological and emotional problems, more so that egalitarian or soft comp. teachings. Legalism is a real killer in and of itself.~
Webfoot, about your comments about why I believed the woman I spoke of – it was simply this – some parts of her story were true, and she did not tell us everything. When we found out more facts, we did not keep our head buried in the sand and continue to believe her.
“It backfired on them. I hope that they have learned a lesson, but I doubt it. I really do. I haven’t seen any evidence that they have used this situation to do anything but redouble their efforts. It’s sad, really, and quite shocking to me.”
Learn what lesson?
You must mean about speaking out against the legalism of Patriarchy. I will continue to speak out against it. I still believe that it is pagan, top down, and unbiblically authoritarian teaching, and per my response to Mary above, yes, I do think it tends to wreak more havoc in the lives of its adherents than soft complementarianism or egalitarian teachings do.
webfoot wrote: “BTW, our mission works mostly with people who have suffered terrible abuse. I regularly spend time with abuse victims who live under constant, crushing oppression with no escape. You wouldn’t believe that I don’t suppose after all that has been said to and about me on the internet.”
May I ask what advice you give to women who are being mentally, emotionally and physically abused by their husbands? What do you consider the signs of abuse to be?
”I don’t think that there is any dispute that women can be abusive. But is anyone arguing that wives should be in charge of husbands and able to make final decisions for them? I don’t think so.”
Excellent point, Tamar. Most women don’t want the kind of husband that they have to monitor or ‘baby’. They want a whole adult to join arms with in life. It is a mystery why a man would want a wife he had to control or monitor her activities.
TL:
May I ask what advice you give to women who are being mentally, emotionally and physically abused by their husbands? What do you consider the signs of abuse to be?>>>>
Webfoot:
Yes, you may ask. What are the signs? Bruises, for one thing. Fear of the abuser may be another. Anger at the person may be another sign.
Webfoot:
Now, what would some signs that a child is being mentally, emotionally, and physically abused by his mother?
Webfoot:
What would be the signs that a husband is being mentally, emotionally, and physically abused by his wife?
Webfoot:
What would be the signs that one human being is being mentally, emotionally, and physically abused by another human being?
Advice? Contact the proper civil authorities. i.e., call 911. Get restraining orders. That is the first step if there is physical violence.
That isn’t the last step.
on March 21, 2009 at 1:18 pm Lynn
“It backfired on them. I hope that they have learned a lesson, but I doubt it. I really do. I haven’t seen any evidence that they have used this situation to do anything but redouble their efforts. It’s sad, really, and quite shocking to me.”
Learn what lesson? >>>>
Not to use people as weapons. Not to use people at all.
Not to use people’s sad and tragic stories to further your agenda.
Mrs. Webfoot: “What is the opposite of patriarchy…?”
Matriarchy?
Not to use people’s sad and tragic stories to further your agenda.
Firstly, this is done *regularly* and systematically by complementarians and patriarchalists. There are a great many stories on the theme of, “how I left feminism and was saved by embracing godly gender roles.” Not just articles, but books, workshops, bible studies and seminars…
Secondly, I am not sure how one can talk about one’s beliefs without involving personal story/stories. Is it right and good to call for a “no tragic story” policy? We’d have to do away with much of the Bible, if that is the case.
It is my opinion that stories are okay when we like their conclusions—but stories aren’t okay when we don’t like their conclusions.
But the fact is, tragic things happen, as do conclusions that we don’t care for. That’s a part of the messy complex world of real flesh and blood. Not everything neatly integrates the way we want it to.
Mara
Mrs. Webfoot: “What is the opposite of patriarchy…?”
Matriarchy?>>>>
No, it’s feminism. Read Dr. Stackhouse’s book Finally Feminist. I’ll offer that as documentation.
There’s a LOT written on that subject – patriarchy vs. feminism.
Thank you for asking, Mara.
PS
Actually, matriarchy can be the way that a society is organized.
Often, though, in my opinion, matriarchy can be a part of patriarchy. Most of the time in a patriarchal system, you also have strong matriarchs.
I will give some OT examples of that dynamic. Does anyone dispute the fact that the OT social structures were patriarchal? I suppose someone might, but I think it’s safe to say that the generally accepted idea is that the OT was strongly patriarchal.
Okay, here are some examples of strong patriarchas married to strong matriarchs.
1. Abraham and Sarah
2. Boaz and Ruth
3. David and Bethsheba
4. Deborah the judge and her husband. Some think that she was married to Barak. I don’t think it matters. She was a matriarch in Israel. She was not an “arch” of unspecified gender.
5. The Proverbs 31 woman married to a nobleman.
Can you think of others?
Feel free to disagree with any or everything I said.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Not to use people as weapons. Not to use people at all.
Not to use people’s sad and tragic stories to further your agenda.
I never did this. And in this particular case, as Spunky once said, it doesn’t matter what happens in this family, even if they do horrible things, that doesn’t make the spiritual abuse they were subjected to right, and it in no way vindicates the other parties and their evil deeds in this tragic situation.
What is the opposite of patriarchy…?”
Matriarchy?>>>>
No, it’s feminism.
I have read the book. This makes no sense to me.
Feminism means in short that women have the same rights and opportunities as men in a defined sphere. In this discussion the sphere is chiefly that of decision-making. Men and women should have the same rights and opportunities to make decisions about their own bodies and their children.
Patriarchy says that the wife is deprived of every single right the husband wished to deprive her of while still not committing a legal crime.
Feminism means the same rights, the same input, the same participation in making the decision. In this forum, it does not mean womne controlling men. Patriarchy does mean a man controlling his wife, having final say.
Unless the marriage certicate outlines the domains of final say, a man can make that to mean anything he wants. Anything.
“Mrs. Webfoot: “What is the opposite of patriarchy…?”
Matriarchy?”
That would be incorrect.
Patriarchy =
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
Matriarchy =
1. a family, society, community, or state governed by women.
2. a form of social organization in which the mother is head of the family, and in which descent is reckoned in the female line, the children belonging to the mother’s clan; matriarchal system.
Feminism=
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.
As you can see from dictionary.com, the opposite of patriarchy is matriarchy. The opposite of the modern movement of feminism might be masculinism. I’m not sure.
The original Suffregettes were the original feminists. The things they advocated are still things Christians should be advocating today. Things for women such as: the right NOT to abort a child, the right NOT to abandon a child, the right to own property, have credit, be paid equally for the same work, the right to vote, have an education, the right to get a divorce, get fair treatment in a divorce, the right to be equally considered for the custody of children, the right for fair settlement in divorce…. and more. These were all things that in the 1800’s did NOT happen and were fought ferociously by men.
The fact that certain groups have taken the original feminist movement further than it was intended does not invalidate the original intentions and the original good that was done.
molleth
Not to use people’s sad and tragic stories to further your agenda.
Firstly, this is done *regularly* and systematically by complementarians and patriarchalists. There are a great many stories on the theme of, “how I left feminism and was saved by embracing godly gender roles.” Not just articles, but books, workshops, bible studies and seminars… >>>>
Webfoot:
Okay. So, you are willing to admit that you are promoting feminism? If you are honest about that, then that’s fine. Does everyone know that, though?
Webfoot:
Yes, I have been caught up in both sides of this – both the tragic stories of those hurt in patriarchy, and the tragic stories of those caught up in feminism. I am a very sensitive, empathetic person. I am easily touched.
Webfoot:
What’s the solution, Molleth? How should we as Christians deal with the tragic, sad, horrifying tales of abuse and deception?
” Deborah the judge and her husband. Some think that she was married to Barak. I don’t think it matters.”
It matters. I believe her husband was Lapidoth. It should be in Judges 4. Deborah was the Judge of the Nation as well as the primary Prophet of the nation at that time. Her rulership brought peace to the land for 40 years. Our women’s group just did a study on Deborah and Barak. Barak was the military leader, chief of the army so to speak. He was under her leadership.
Molleth, that came out kind of hard. I am truly sorry for all that you have suffered, and don’t doubt your story.
It’s terrible what you went through.
BTW, just to clarify. I differ from others who are patriarchal in the way that the CBMW differs. I don’t have a particular problem with women running for office of working outside the home.
My question would be, “what about the children?”
I like Sarah Palin’s answers on that subject, and supported her candicay. I love Sarah.
That is probably the main point of contention between the CBMW and other kinds of patriarchy.
Then, I would probably be more opposed to feminism in the way that Dorothy L. Sayers was opposed to feminism, if any of you have read her thoughts on that.
I am not against all feminst teachings. After all, Sarah P. calls herself a feminist.
You may call me inconsistent if you like. I won’t be offended. I call myself that more often than anyone else does.
Maybe I’m a smorgasboard Christian. I eat what I like and what tastes good to me. Maybe I’m a Jell-O Christian, hard to nail down. Maybe I’m free.
So, make of me what you wish. That’s fine.
Webfoot:
Okay. So, you are willing to admit that you are promoting feminism? If you are honest about that, then that’s fine. Does everyone know that, though?
I am confused? I am not sure how what I said has to do with what you just said.
But, on a side note, yes, I am a Christian feminist (in the sense of the technical definition of feminism, which is simply that men and women, though different, ought to be treated with equal measures of respect and opportunity as fellow human beings).
What’s the solution, Molleth? How should we as Christians deal with the tragic, sad, horrifying tales of abuse and deception?
I think part of the solution is to help people know what abuse is and that it’s NOT godly to abuse, nor is it godly to tell others that they must suffer under abuse when they have other alternatives available to them.
My complementarian world gave my abusive husband righteous justification for controlling any and every aspect of my life that he wanted to control, and it took away my right and ability to protest. In fact, even worse, it told me that God wanted me to smile and be “joyful” about it—that what my husband was doing to me was godly and that if I didn’t respond joyfully to it, the problem was with ME.
I can’t speak for abuse on all fronts. The fact is, we live in a fallen world and so abuse will always be something we must watch out for, must gaurd the weak from. Abuse will be found everywhere, because abuse is a product of sin, a product of a broken world.
The Christian is given explicit instructions, over and over and over in the Scriptures, to stand up for the weak, to fight for justice, to cry out against injustice, to speak for those who have no voice… So abuse will be with us always, but those who belong to Christ will always be found standing against it on behalf of the abused.
My problem is that some complementarian teachings do the exact opposite: instead of gaurding the weak, these teachings protect the strong, and hand the weak over to them on a platter…and do these things in the name of Christ.
I am not asking complementarians to change their beliefs, persay, but to rewrite many of them with an eye towards those who can, will, and do misuse them for fleshly ends. Abuse will be wherever a fallen world is, but, my plea to my comp brothers and sisters is that they might work extra hard to make sure that abusers will have a hard time using comp theology as a tool for abusive behavior. Right now, it is my opinion that it’s painfully easy.
Donna/Webfoot wrote: ”Okay. So, you are willing to admit that you are promoting feminism? If you are honest about that, then that’s fine. Does everyone know that, though?”
I don’t think anyone here is promoting feminism per se, especially since there is the technical meaning (which few pay attention to anymore, sadly), there is the meaning of the original Suffregettes, and there are the modern secular meanings (which are not friendly to Biblical goals). Those here who believe in women’s equality, do so according to what the Scriptures say, not what society says.
It would be nice if you would desist from claiming that we do that which we repeatedly say we do not do.
Webfoot: “BTW, just to clarify. I differ from others who are patriarchal in the way that the CBMW differs. I don’t have a particular problem with women running for office of working outside the home.”
Is that a new direction you’ve taken? I thought that you were much in tight agreement with the Bayley Brothers on those issues.
Webfoot:
Okay. So, you are willing to admit that you are promoting feminism? If you are honest about that, then that’s fine. Does everyone know that, though?
Molleth:
I am confused? I am not sure how what I said has to do with what you just said.>>>>
Webfoot:
Okay. Let’s see. I may have misunderstood you. You said that many share testimonies of how feminism hurt them. Your testimony is about how patriarchy hurt you.
Webfoot:
What relation does one have to the other, I should have asked.
Molleth:
But, on a side note, yes, I am a Christian feminist (in the sense of the technical definition of feminism, which is simply that men and women, though different, ought to be treated with equal measures of respect and opportunity as fellow human beings). >>>>
Webfoot:
That’s fine. I understand. Did you see what I said about not being against all kinds of feminism? You are talking about Christian feminism, not secular. Right?
Webfoot:
Yes, I am very much for equlity, which is why I don’t like much of secular feminism.
Webfoot:
What’s the solution, Molleth? How should we as Christians deal with the tragic, sad, horrifying tales of abuse and deception?
Molleth:
I think part of the solution is to help people know what abuse is and that it’s NOT godly to abuse, nor is it godly to tell others that they must suffer under abuse when they have other alternatives available to them.>>>>
Webfoot:
Yes. I can accept that part, of course.
Molleth:
My complementarian world gave my abusive husband righteous justification for controlling any and every aspect of my life that he wanted to control, and it took away my right and ability to protest. In fact, even worse, it told me that God wanted me to smile and be “joyful” about it—that what my husband was doing to me was godly and that if I didn’t respond joyfully to it, the problem was with ME. >>>
webfoot:
Yes.
Molleth:
I can’t speak for abuse on all fronts. The fact is, we live in a fallen world and so abuse will always be something we must watch out for, must gaurd the weak from. Abuse will be found everywhere, because abuse is a product of sin, a product of a broken world. >>>>
webfoot:
Yes. How does God bring a Christian to a deeper understanding of the grace of God through these kinds of experiences, though?
Molleth:
The Christian is given explicit instructions, over and over and over in the Scriptures, to stand up for the weak, to fight for justice, to cry out against injustice, to speak for those who have no voice… So abuse will be with us always, but those who belong to Christ will always be found standing against it on behalf of the abused. >>>>
webfoot:
Yes.
Molleth:
My problem is that some complementarian teachings do the exact opposite: instead of gaurding the weak, these teachings protect the strong, and hand the weak over to them on a platter…and do these things in the name of Christ. >>>>
webfoot:
Yes. Well, I’m not sure that Complementarian teachings do, but that is your opinion and I respect it.
Molleth:
I am not asking complementarians to change their beliefs, persay, but to rewrite many of them with an eye towards those who can, will, and do misuse them for fleshly ends. Abuse will be wherever a fallen world is, but, my plea to my comp brothers and sisters is that they might work extra hard to make sure that abusers will have a hard time using comp theology as a tool for abusive behavior. Right now, it is my opinion that it’s painfully easy.>>>>
Webfoot:
Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate that.
webfoot:
I wonder if you are willing to share the positive benefits of Egalitarianism. How does it bring you closer to a deeper understanding of who Christ is, for example?
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Hi David,
I’d like to respond to your comment earlier to Erik (12:27am). I understand what you are saying (I think
). But what if the husband doesn’t love and serve his wife in a particular instance? What does compism teach should be done in such situation, which will happen in even the best of marriages, since all husbands (as all wives), whether Christian or not, are sinners?
On your example of grace, Paul himself says that grace is not license to sin (Romans 6). Homosexuality also needs no clause; it is sinful, period.
On the matter of corporal punishment and use of alcohol, those are matters of discretion – a person has to know whether or not s/he can consume alcohol without being tempted to sin, and same with corporal punishment. For some, alcohol must be avoided, as must corporal punishment, to keep from sinning. If these things are truly analogous to compism, then we would have to say that, for some, compism is a thing from which to abstain completely.
But if compism is the universal rule for everyone, then the latter cannot be true. It has to work for everyone, all the time, in every conceivable situation and circumstance, without modification. How does it work, then, when a husband isn’t doing his part? (In other words, in the “real world”
)
BTW, thanks very much for your informative and entertaining description of your feathered friends in the other thread
I wonder if you are willing to share the positive benefits of Egalitarianism. How does it bring you closer to a deeper understanding of who Christ is, for example?
Thanks for your kind replies. Also, I’d be glad to share those some time, webfoot.
Yes. Well, I’m not sure that Complementarian teachings do, but that is your opinion and I respect it.
Also, and maybe you noticed this already, but I specifically and purposefully said *some* complementarian teachings can be easily used to support abuse. I did not say *all*, nor would I ever say all, because not all can, by any stretch. Some, however (such as the teaching that we saw being taught via the Focus on the Family blog and talked about in a recent post here), support abusive husbands and strip away the ability of the abused wife to get help, much less realize she’s being abused in the first place.
Primarily *because* of teachings like the ones we just saw on the Focus on the Family blog, I did not realize that it was abuse when my husband said I had to have more babies when I didn’t want to, or when he said I had to work after my first child was born (and I wanted to stay home with her), or later, when I became a stay-home-mom when he said I was not allowed to bring in any money from home (when I wanted to), or when he said we were going to move to the one place I never wanted to move back to (I hate cold weather and always have), or when he gave any number of other commands that directly affected my life (and still do, and many will continue to do so up until the day I die).
Because of those kinds of complementarian teachings, I had no idea that I was being violated. I felt hurt and angry, but would turn on myself for those feelings, condemn myself, work and work and work to be cheerful and joyful and happy and blame MYSELF if I didn’t. Looking back, it’s no surprise that I had to work so hard to be joyful.
believer3
Webfoot: “BTW, just to clarify. I differ from others who are patriarchal in the way that the CBMW differs. I don’t have a particular problem with women running for office of working outside the home.”
Is that a new direction you’ve taken? I thought that you were much in tight agreement with the Bayley Brothers on those issues.>>>>
Hmmmm. Don’t know that it’s a different direction. I think that women should stay home with their children as a general rule. I think that women should stay with their husbands as a general rule and not get divorced or separated.
There are exceptions.
I like the Baylys. They raise a lot of interesting points of discussion. Their blog is mostly for the people in their church and a few others. I’m not Presbyterian, but I find the discussion fascinating. I haven’t checked out their blog for a long time, but thanks for reminding me that I like them.
Why do you ask?
Molleth, thank you for your answers. I really appreciate that. It helps me understand better where you are coming from and where you are now and how you got there.
God bless, and again, I’m sorry about all that happened to you.
Mrs. Webfoot
Lynn
Not to use people as weapons. Not to use people at all.
Not to use people’s sad and tragic stories to further your agenda.
I never did this. And in this particular case, as Spunky once said, it doesn’t matter what happens in this family, even if they do horrible things, that doesn’t make the spiritual abuse they were subjected to right, and it in no way vindicates the other parties and their evil deeds in this tragic situation.>>>>
No one comes out good on this one. It is a HUGE mess all around. Who abused whom? It looks like a lot of mutually abusive behavior to me, including phone calls to read people the riot act. That’s how I see it. Feel free to disagree.
Other than that, how are you feeling?
Molleth, maybe this is out of line, but I just have to ask. Do you have people who help you with your kids? Are there people where you live that have come alongside you in your distress?
I hope that you have people close, family, and a church that loves you. What can I do for you?
Molleth:
My complementarian world gave my abusive husband righteous justification for controlling any and every aspect of my life that he wanted to control, and it took away my right and ability to protest. In fact, even worse, it told me that God wanted me to smile and be “joyful” about it—that what my husband was doing to me was godly and that if I didn’t respond joyfully to it, the problem was with ME. >>>
webfoot:
Yes.>>>>
I mean, no! I’m sure you’re not perfect, but by what you have shared, no. You were doing the best you could, and it just wasn’t good enough. There wasn’t love and grace there. Well, maybe a little, but love and grace weren’t the overuling principles it looks like.
Thank you for sharing.
Yes, I do, and thank you for asking.
On how moving out of comp beliefs brought me to a closer understanding of Christ, I would have to say that the answer is so complex in the sense that my own situation was so complex, in the same way that everyone has their own unique situations… So, for me, while my experience was very very real, I’d be hesitant to say it’s *everyone’s* experience, or should be. *
For me, comp theology combined with an abusive marriage and the life of a minister’s wife to create a “perfect storm.” My relationship with God went from pure and sweet (in the beginning) to very performance based.
If there is a Scriptural passage that could sum it up perfectly, it would have to be Galatians, because I was doing just exactly as the church in Galatia was. I was adding to the cross of Christ. I was believing and teaching, “Christ, plus this.” Christ, plus gender roles. Christ, plus ____ (fill in the blank_… And Paul gets pretty blunt, in Galatians 5, about what happens to us when we add anything to Christ. Ouch.
It’s funny, because we often use the phrase, “fallen from grace,” to describe a righteous person who got off into sin. But the actual phrase comes from Paul’s admonition to the Galatians for falling from grace INTO performing-works-for-righteousness. Falling from grace doesn’t have anything to do with succumbing to adultery, pornography, lust, drugs, etc, but succumbing to the promises of law-based living—which, in my opinion and experience, are SO much more subtle and deceptive than your typical sins.
So I would describe my years in hard-comp thought as years of having fallen from grace, because I veered off of the simple sweetness of Christ into a world where performance was the name of the game (though I never would have said that then). Finding my role, fitting into my role, makign sure others fit into their roles, etc, etc, etc… I did it, sincerely, for the glory of God, believing it was God’s way…but regardless of my motives, I put Christ off to one side (all the while doing it in His name) and started down a path of works-based living.
It’s really hard to explain how I was set free…it was a combination of many things…sort of an explosion of realizations, an explosion of Scripture, an explosion that wasn’t a one time event but that took a long time to slowly comprehend… I wrote about it, in sort of a badly written allegorical story, here:
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/08/17/boxing-up-my-boxes/
Galatians was a book I spent many many months in, a book God very powerfully used to pull me out and help teach me what went wrong. Same with Genesis 1-3, though that was in a more gender-focused way…reading just the plain text, unadulterated from the meanings I’d imported into it, looking up words, chewing on phrases… WOW. I came to see myself (as a woman) in such a different light as I slowly reread Scripture with these new glasses of grace. So many lies I had believed (that I thought were Scriptural, no less!) that the Scriptures blew apart, little lie by little lie, powerfully shining Truth… (I suppose I’m still in that process, really)…
Seeing Christ, free of the trappings of gender roles, set me free in so many ways, to just be who I am instead of trying to be something I’m not. You mean I can be the leader/warrior/teacher woman that I am….you mean, that’s not SIN??? I learned (and am learning) that love is the name of the game, always, always, always. (Love is so much harder than gender roles, though…heh)… I learned and am learning that the Spirit is the leader and the teacher, not man…
I could go on for ages. I am very much in love with God.
I will say, though, that if I hadn’t “met” God in that deep sort of internal way, I’d be a very happy atheist right now. I think because God was used so prominantly in the abuse I experienced, getting rid of Him would be an obvious step of healing… I can deeply sympathize with those who come out of this world and reject Christianity altogether. I understand the drive to do that, when it was the primary chain that kept you imprisoned.
I am thankful that Yahweh was the one who helped me get out of that world—which, obviously, helped me to see that it wasn’t Him who’d had me in there all that time, but rather the Destroyer who was just doing what he does best: destroying.
* I know complementarians who are not performance driven, who are not abusive, who are not like the church in Galatia. I am just sharing my own personal experience, that is all, where complementarian thought factored heavily into a very very destructive decade of my life.
Molleth, thank you for sharing your testimony. I appreciate that. It gives me a more complete idea of who you are and what message your are trying to communicate.
Thank you.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Tamar:
I do believe that human beings are equally prone to abuse. However, the male causes much more physical damage than the female. >>>>
Hi, Tamar,
Thank you for saying that. I agree mostly.
I think that an abusive mother can cause a lot of damage to her children.
It’s the size factor. The bigger person can do more physical damage to the smaller person, unless weapons are involved.
The older sibling can do more damage to the smaller sibling, too.
A smaller person can abuse a larger person by other means, too.
I don’t think that very many people are abusive. It’s a human problem, but that doesn’t mean that all people are abusive. We wouldn’t be able to walk down the street or live and work together at all if that were the case.
Thank you for your response, Tamar.
Have a blessed Lord’s Day.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Webfoot,
I agree with you. It’s the size factor and, more importantly (I think) the hierarchy factor. It is when those who are strong abuse those who are weak.
This is a MAJOR reason why, though it is NOT okay for a wife to hit her husband, it is still a very different thing than a husband hitting a wife. The husband is usually much more powerful, physically, than the wife. When he hits her, there is a great deal of psychological terror that accompanies it. A woman slapping a man, though that is out of line, does not compare at all.
This is also why an abusive mother can do such a great deal of damage. She has so much more power, both physically and pyschologically. A child, bad mouthing a mother, is COMPLETELY out of line…and yet it is nowhere near comparable to a mother bad mouthing a child. Nowhere near at all.
This is one of the biggest requests that I have to those who teach comp doctrines. If you are going to give the husband the highest spot on a hierarchy, please please please be aware that when he abuses his position, the damage is SO much greater because now he is the one in the relationship who has the power. More emphasis, much more emphasis, needs to be but on the specific words in Ephesians 5 where husbands are called to “love your wives as Christ loved the church.” Clear specific examples of this should be shared…and clear specific examples of NOT loving one’s wife should also be shared.
Power of SOME sort needs to be given to the wives so that they can know that abuse is not okay, that it is NOT godly to be abused—and the teaching needs to be very clear that controlling the outcome of all major decisions on a regular basis, etc, may very well be (and likely is) abuse. (Instead, many comps teach that a husband *ought* to control all major decisions on a regular basis…so the abused wife submits to it, believing that if anyone is wrong, it must be her…)
When women are taught, regularly (as in the CBMW book I quoted on the guest post from Eric), that the direction their family takes is up to the husband, that all major decisions are his to make…some women will get awesome guys who will actually care about what they think and who will work to make decisions together. So those women will applaud comp teachings, never thinking them problematic. Their husband is the leader, but, really, they work as a team and they make decisions together 99.99999% of the time, if not 100%!
…But some of us didn’t get guys like that. We got guys who took the teaching TOTALLY seriously—-and made all the deicisons, and decided where the family was going, how, and when. In my case, as with many others, I actually had a husband with undiagnosed mental illness! Astoundingly (I still can hardly believe this), I let my family be led by someone who was and is simply NOT capable of leading a family. But, heck, because he had male organs, he was the leader.
I am still so sad about many of the (unretractable) past decisions to this day. There are things that I can never go back and re-do…things that I, who had a fully sane mind, should have put a stop to. Often, I thought it was crazy at the time, but I put a grin on my face and submitted…and now, come to find out, it actually *was* crazy.
I’m not a rare case. I’ve been on too many Christian women’s email lists and groups to know that. My husband’s behavior and decisions looked awesome compared to many of the wives who shared their own stories, often in the form of very serious and tearful requests to learn from the other wives how to be more submissive, how to be more joyful, in the face of having to submit to *very* abusive behavior (to them and toward their children). The advice usually given was RARELY, “That is abuse!” but rather plenty of admonitions and encouragements to keep on submitting, read so-n-so’s book on being an obedient wife, etc…
Two days ago I sat down to sort and burn a pile of old files and papers. I came across my marriage certificate and experienced a flood of memories.
There in tiny writing were the vows said “Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, …” The minister had scratched out “keep” and written in “obey” with pen at my ex’s request. On the husbands part he had ‘written in “protect.” My husband often taunted me with this vow of mine. There was nothing in my life that ever posed a real danger to it except for himself so I didn’t comment on his vows.
I was in bondage to this for the first 10 or 15 years of my marriage. But I clearly remember one conversation where someone explained to me that submission increases the abuse. After that I started to rebuild my life from the inside out. That one statement started my on turning around.
I understood that the act of acquiesence could be wrong. I understood that I had to learn to depend on myself again. I accepted that at some future date I would have to leave and be on my own.
When my mother died I did a lot of thinking about how my life would develop, how I would be divorced, and how I was truly unloved.
We went for a few briefs months to a church with an older woman priest. I never opened up to her in any way, but just seeing her, feeling her presence, it comforted me in a powerful way.
I began to understand myself as the provider and protector of my children. I began to think of myself as being as competent as a man at doing all the things that need doing.
The truth is that I probably would not have divorced if there was no fault divorce. I shudder to think of what my life would have been like if I had been born even 20 years earlier. Egalitarianism has done a lot for me.
Hi Mrs. Webfoot,
I have always acknowledged that all people are prone to being abusive. Given this, why should one person have power over another. (Yes, mothers abuse too. And fathers. It is very distressing. I don’t have the answer.)
I do acknowledge many gender differences. The following have academic consensus. Men are more aggressive, more status-seeking and more risk-taking. They are less empathetic in terms of being aware of other peoples emotions around them.
Of course, women can be nasty too, but this is on average and has scholarly consensus, I believe.
So, overall, teaching women to allow men to be the final decision-makers on matters of child care, for example, is statistically irresponsible.
I would like to recount how my husband took our son and 2 other boys out in an inflatable raft in a small bay on the ocean. He did not have life jackets and I called to him to come in again. He was outraged and paddled out beyond the bay into a current. He was able to paddle back and the story has a safe ending. However, he risked the lives of three children that day in a way that was truly unecessary. I cannot condone complementarianism as a lifestyle for anyone.
The only paradigm which is better than the man telling the woman what to do, is where each partner truly listens to the other and yields, not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of importance and urgency.
In fact, they build little boats and risk their lives to get away from their abusers. No life jackets.
PS
I don’t mean that just because the abuse that someone has suffered is less than that of other doesn’t mean that it isn’t real. No, I don’t mean that at all. Each one knows what he or she has lived through and the life lessons that have been learned.
Besides, I’m sure that all that is said will be interesting and helpful to others. Thank you.
Oops. The truth is that I probably would not have divorced if there had not been no fault divorce
I agree with Tamar and Molleth that most people are capable of abuse. I know I am, and I have to watch myself!
I am capable of manipulating my husband. But I choose to be blunt and say what I think (as tactfully as possible). Manipulation is a form of abuse that confuses people.
I am also capable of abusing my children, and that’s a reason I will not accept that the only way to discipline my children is through smacking. I am too much of a controller, I need order and quiet, and the opposite of these wind me up and shoot my blood pressure through the roof, so I lash out.
Since I set the “thou shalt smack” books aside and started to see my children as little human beings, with little hearts that can be easily hurt, and with little minds that can be reasoned with, I try to train myself to be patient, to wait for them, and not to think that “chilren obey your parents, in everything” gives me the license to demand obedience in everything, especially making an obedience issue out of everything.
Sure, I still train them to obey me, but I have to let them “lead” when it comes to how fast we can go, how much will be eating, the amount of noise (within reason), etc…
I have Molly to thank for a lot of insight.
In the same way I have realized I should pay a lot more attention to the admonition not to provoke my children to anger, I believe husbands should be paying a lot more attention to loving, cherishing, honoring (as an equal, fellow heir), rather than exercising authorities or seeing to their wive’s submission.
Do unto others….
Molly,
I enjoyed your testimony. I only wish it wasn’t buried after 400 comments here. Hope you save your comments somewhere…. (for your book?)
Tamar: “I began to understand myself as the provider and protector of my children. I began to think of myself as being as competent as a man at doing all the things that need doing.”
When I first brought up the point that Matriarchy is the true opposite of Patriarchy, my first feeling was a negative feeling towards both. I believe in partnership between husbands and wives.
However.
As I finished up that post I realized something.
There is a place for a positive view of both. And that is in a single parent home. Where there is only a father it is Patriarchy. Where there is only a mother it is Matriarchy.
And what made me think this was viewing an aging, yet tough as nails African American woman and her sons.
At work we were aware of this family and recognized that “Mama” was the boss over those boys, even as grown men. It seemed humorous to me how they snapped to when she barked.
But I saw a side to their story this last week that made me respect the woman and understand her sons’ respect.
I guess when the sons were boys they spent two weeks in the “Projects”. I’m not sure where, but I’m thinking it could have been East Saint Louis. Dangerous place.
Well Mama would have none of that. She said they were not staying. She go a job as a taxi-driver and got them out.
She was their provider protector. And they rightfully respected her for it.
She is a Matriarch.
And I’m sure there are similar stories for single fathers where they gave all, sacrificed, and gained respect as the Patriarch of their family.
Another thought occured to me as I read Molly’s, Webby’s, and Tamar’s posts.
On another list somewhere that was actually pro-comp yet anti-patriarchy, a young gal came on absolutely blasting the gals there trying to make them understand how Biblical patriarchy really was and that these comp women needed to shape up, stop being blinking feminists and return to Godly patriarchy.
To make a long story short, after enough posts we figured out that in this girl’s situation it was the mom who was the harsh, verbally abusive one. The girl was angry because her dad did not rise up and protect her. This is why she so heartily embraced Patriarchy. Because she had a good hearted father and an angry, bitter mother. When her family embraced Patriarchy, the father put his foot down and stopped the verbal abuse. And the mom submitted to it.
I tried to explain to her that I understood her need for her father to rise up and protect her. Yes, he needed to protect her. Yet I also pointed out that men also verbally and emotionally abuse and that it is just as much the responsibility of the mother to rise up and protect the children. Mom’s the one that needs to put her foot down and stop the abuse. But that doesn’t mean the family needs to turn Matriarchal.
Yes, the strong need to protect the weak.
And in the case of children, if one parent is abusive, either male or female, the other needs to know they have the right AND responsibility to protect those that cannot protect themselves.
Once, our pastor had preached on submission (again) and had mentioned nagging wives and backseat drivers.
As we left, I asked him
What if the husband is a reckless driver? And told me point blank that the husband even has the authority to kill me. “You married him.” Was his reasoning. All means all. Submit in all things, even if you may end up dead in a car wreck.
We left that church and have no regrets.
I think that someone in this thread suggested that abuse probably isn’t that common (tried to find the comment but couldn’t!) I’d hazard to say that abuse is much more common that any of us would like to admit. Much “lesser” (and even greater) abuse is minimalized, rationalized, and justified away. Many of those who abuse do so in response to being abused themselves and, while understandable, this is not justification. Perhaps the vast majority of abuse is itself a sinful response to abuse.
Abuse is, at its root, a desire to control; it is rebellious, prideful, and evidences a lack of self-control. The dictionary defines it as misuse, mistreatment, condemnatory or vilifying behavior, or a corrupt practice, which causes harm. Any of us can be guilty of such behavior and thought.
I’m wondering why this comment was rejected. I have posted it on my own blog if anyone is interested. the one about the little boats was accepted, but not the other one. It may have been overlooked.
——————
Webfoot
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You know, ladies, I’m sorry for what you had to suffer, and glad that you found happiness in egalitarianism.
However, don’t be offended, but I’m not very interested in much of what is said. It’s okay. You have a right and maybe a need to express yourselves, but it’s getting kind of boring for me at this point.
Besides, the abused people I interact with on a regular basis have it bad in ways you can’t even imagine. Sorry, but that’s the truth. And the system that they are abused by calls itself egalitarian. Ironic, no?
So, I have listened politely, empathized, and done as good a job here as I can do. I’m glad that you found something that works for you.
It has been interesting.
I wish all of you well. May God pour out His richest blessings on you and everyone.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
on March 22, 2009 at 6:39 am Webfoot
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
In fact, they build little boats and risk their lives to get away from their abusers. No life jackets.
A thought on patriarchy: I’m no expert, but I think I understand a structure that is based on male lineage and gives special honor to the males as males. I do, after all, bear my husband’s last name, as do our children. My husband’s father had six children and is considered, somewhat in jest but also in seriousness, the patriarch of the family. The seriousness is, he is the patriarch, and we honor him for that. The jest is, he’s not a guy w/a flowing white beard & robe, & frown, w/a staff in one hand & a big Bible in the other
.
He is very much respected, but he is not bowed down to. If any of us (children, in-laws, male or female) feel he needs to hear something, we tell him, respectfully but firmly. Depending on the matter, a man or a woman may tell him. And he respects us, and considers what we say. There is discussion and negotiation, give and take. Since my mother-in-law passed away, I have especially seen his vulnerability. He is the patriarch, but he is human. We have all tried our best to help & support him. This has not in any way decreased his “status” in the family, but rather has brought us all closer together. Which can only be a good thing
Molleth,
So I would describe my years in hard-comp thought as years of having fallen from grace, because I veered off of the simple sweetness of Christ into a world where performance was the name of the game (though I never would have said that then). Finding my role, fitting into my role, makign sure others fit into their roles, etc, etc, etc… I did it, sincerely, for the glory of God, believing it was God’s way…but regardless of my motives, I put Christ off to one side (all the while doing it in His name) and started down a path of works-based living.
Your testimony is similar to mine, although I came to a performance-based/legalistic understanding of my place in life via my upbringing. I found grace gradually after never having known it except in glimpses (and learning how to recognize it!) Even after I became a Christian well over 1/2 my life ago, it still took *years* for me to learn the way of grace.
I grew up believing I needed to do and be “all the right things;” so much so that I was often paralyzed by indecision because one person would say one thing, and another would say another, and I had for so many years practiced a belief that my own judgment was worthless that I lost the ability to think for myself. I ended up becoming my own person (in Him) — that process that most people go through in their teens years — much later in life, because I had to learn to accept God’s permission to “rebel,” and to trust Him myself, rather than imagine He was speaking through everyone else except me. It even took me awhile to be able to identify and own my own feelings, because for so long I’d let others tell me what they were, and judge them.
Pretty much everything I am and do now, including my blogging, are a result of that process.
Because of those kinds of…teachings, I had no idea that I was being violated. I felt hurt and angry, but would turn on myself for those feelings, condemn myself, work and work and work to be cheerful and joyful and happy and blame MYSELF if I didn’t. Looking back, it’s no surprise that I had to work so hard to be joyful.
Because of the “messages” of my youth (which weren’t really comp; it wasn’t that, but it was something which taught me that my job in life was to be the puppet and pawn of other people) I also was not aware for a long, long time that I was being violated (and that I was allowing myself to be). It felt like I was, but, because my judgment couldn’t be trusted, I figured I was the one at fault, the one who wasn’t worthy of the privileges that others seemed to enjoy so freely. Though I hated such treatment, I thought that, since I was getting it, I must deserve it. I also spent many years punishing myself, via bulimia.
Yes, God used this background to “form” me, but I don’t think He wishes that any kind of abuse go on so that He can use it to form others. This is why I am outspoken against anything that teaches people that other people must do their thinking for them, or that certain people have absolute power over others. I don’t care how subtly or “beautifully” it’s spun, it’s wrong, and I, like so many others, know first-hand the damage that can result. I sure would like to help prevent any more such damage, for the sake of all.
Webfoot: “Besides, the abused people I interact with on a regular basis have it bad in ways you can’t even imagine.”
I absolutely don’t doubt you, Mrs. Webfoot, nor do I think you are telling an untruth.
My only point with this line is that often verbally or emotionally abused women will minimalize their abuse because “At least he doesn’t hit me. I don’t have it as bad a some.” Which may also be true.
However (you knew this was coming)
My concern for women in the church is that they will be paralyzed by low-levels of abuse and made ineffective for the kingdom because “somebody else has it worse than me.”
The goal of every believer is to cast off every sin that so easily encumbers us so that we can run the race set before us.
If that sin is tolerating and being beaten down by low levels of abuse, the believer’s obligation is to identify it and change things in their lives so that they can be free.
How can they help the others who have it so much worse, who jump in little boats with no life jackets to get away, if they are bound up by misunderstanding of boundaries and abuse?
You may have no patience with it, which is fine.
But I see it as an important step toward becoming more whole and therefore being better able to partner with God in helping others who do have it worse.
Webfoot,
I have no idea what happened to that comment. Sorry.
I will say that your response feels a bit rude to me. You asked for an explanation of the abuse and more, etc, and then you say you aren’t interested and that it bores you. It seems a strange response. ? I mean, why ask in the first place?
But, bottom line, it doesn’t matter. We all have our own paths to walk. Christians, no matter what persuation, have a call to help the weak and the broken and the abused of this world. It’s all over the Bible, making verses used to support gender theology look puny in comparison. So perhaps that is something we can all agree on.
My only plea toward comps is that because we have such a clear Scriptural precedent against the strong abusing the weak, we should take great care that our theology does not set up a system where the strong can easily abuse the weak.
Just as with childrearing (great thoughts on that, Madame!), when the emphasis is on how to use one’s force to make the child obey, a system is set up where the strong can easily abuse the weak and feel justified, even godly, in so doing.
This does not mean it’s 100% wrong to ever use force to make a child obey—it’s more a statement on the EMPHASIS being put on one aspect of the teaching, instead of a more balanced approach where emphasis is put on Love, and from that foundation parents are taught how to discipline…because withOUT that foundation, any discipline (no matter what style it is) that parents use is going to be worth very little, and many times *will* be abusive/destructive.
In the same way, an emphasis on wifely submission and husbandly authority has been MY personal (extensive) experience in the complementarian world. My plea to comps is to remember that when hierarchy is stressed without being built on a solid foundation of the Law of Love, then abuse is not just a possibility but a sure thing for many.
For example, husbands are specifically commanded to love their wives—a word Paul defines in 1 Cor. 13. Yet I’ve never once, in all my years of sitting under comp teachings and studying comp books and materials, heard one sermon preached to husbands about 1 Cor. 13 being their model. Instead, I heard teaching after teaching about leadership, authority, taking charge, making decisions—-and wives needing to “come under” their husbands, to “follow,” to submit, to yeild.
As we all know, Christ radically radically redefined what leadership means. But unless husbands and wives are taught the radical new definitions of the kingdom, unless they are taught that law of Love trumps all else, unless they are taught those foundational things…it’s going to be pretty bad for some of these families. And… it is.
My plea to comp teachers is not to stop believing their comp beliefs—but to teach them in a carefully balanced Biblical manner.
Bonnie,
Hmmm…that must be why I resonate so much with your comments.
((hugs)) I relate so much…
I really appreciate you. I think that often and should take the time to say it more.
Webfoot wrote on her blog: (with my emphasis)
”You know, ladies, I’m sorry for what you had to suffer, and glad that you found happiness in egalitarianism. However, don’t be offended, but I’m not very interested in much of what is said. It’s okay. You have a right and maybe a need to express yourselves, but it’s getting kind of boring for me at this point.”
Hmmmm.
”Besides, the abused people I interact with on a regular basis have it bad in ways you can’t even imagine. Sorry, but that’s the truth. And the system that they are abused by calls itself egalitarian. Ironic, no?”
As has been said before, it would be good if you could give us specific examples with quotes if possible or a link. What egalitarian (are we talking Christian or secular) beliefs are being used to render abuses in what way. Please describe the abuse. If you do not choose to give more facts about what you claim, then I must choose to wonder if what you say is an accurate description.
Also, for what it is worth, I CAN imagine real abuse, having been through much myself and having counseled and prayed for many Christians throughout the last 39 years. And I suspect many who post here and read can also imagine real abuse in many forms. People are speaking up probably more than they ever have.
My plea to comp teachers is not to stop believing their comp beliefs—but to teach them in a carefully balanced Biblical manner.
Yes, Bonnie I agree with Molleth’s response to this. Because the sin nature can rear its ugly head, we all need to be reminded that we are to be servants of one another – wives to husbands, and husbands to wives.~
“Besides, the abused people I interact with on a regular basis have it bad in ways you can’t even imagine. Sorry, but that’s the truth. And the system that they are abused by calls itself egalitarian. Ironic, no?”
Webfoot, I agree it’s ironic, and it’s a prime example of saying one thing, and doing totally the opposite. You are referring to Communism, of course, and I have some thoughts on this.
We have entertained people from different countries, or have met nationals working to spread the gospel in their respective countries, and you are right about one thing – a sizeble majority of United States citizens and citizens of other relatively prosperous and free countries have little idea of the privation and hardship and persecution, and that includes people who are in difficult marriages where there is no physical abuse or threat of same.
We need to remember Sudan, or things that are going on in parts of Vietnam and many other countries, or google “Lord’s Resistance Army” (but if you do that, and do read extesively, you might want to have a tissue on hand for wiping your eyes, and a bucket ready in case you need to vomit). AFAIK, nobody here is fighting to have female circumcision stopped in his/her local community (and I know of complementarian people in ministries who are fighting to stop this practice in some parts of Africa).
However, Bonnie is right. If you raise a point, don’t be surprised if people start talking about it.
This, and the next post up, is in large part on account of your participation here. If you have something to say about a question you raise, then say it. If not, I don’t think it’s nice to belittle emotional suffering and the suffering that comes with wrong thinking that others go through (when they stay long in abusive marriages or church situations) by your post.
It is true that Communism touts itself as egalitarian. Everybody ought to be familiar with the line “The history of all hitherto existing society has been the history of class struggle.” Everybody in the English speaking world ought to read Animal Farm, where “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
But I think we are confining egalitarian teachings among bible honoring Christians, not groups that teach that religion is the “opiate of the people” and are atheistic.
Be very careful of how you associate things together. There are many things about Communism that are the polar opposite of Christianity. That there is a God, a supernatural world, a Jesus Christ, and a Bible are not trivial differences, so that you can ignore them and quickly go on to equate egalitarianism in evangelical Christianity to how Communists are egalitarian.
I hope you read that last sentence several times over, because I have seen you argue this way time and time again in many places. The two are not the same in some very, very, important ways.
Regarding the suffering of others in atheistic, Communist countries that claim they are for the people but are not, compared to what most of us see on a day to day basis, Joni Tada, a woman I greatly admire, once said that she used to wonder what able-bodied people were so upset about, and she began to realize that it isn’t just the extreme things in life that can rob us of our joy, or cause worry, or upset. She was talking about everything from broken necks to broken fingernails.
I think her understanding is needed at this juncture. For many reasons it is a useful understanding, not the least of which is suffering is a scale that some people go higher on, at times, than others, and some to extremes, but the extremes don’t negate the lesser forms. However – I think it is good to be globally minded about what our brothers and sisters are going through throughout many parts of the world, too.
There is a huge exception to your comparison, though, Webfoot, and that is there are women who have either died, or have been close to death, or have gone nearly insane, or insane, who have been sucked down into the quiverfull movement.
There is a lot of suffering going on out there because of that, and we need to remember that. That qualifies as pretty bad suffering to me. There are those who would sweep post-partum depression under a rug and demand their wives snap out of it, because Christians aren’t suppposed to have these problems. Now I’ve heard this kind of talk about all health problems from some Pentecostal people I’ve, known but I can easily imagine that mindset of ignoring a mother’s issues “because God ordains her to have as many children as possible” happens in the quiverfull crowd.
I have little beyond this post to say about abuse, other than that I agree with Molleth and Bonnie – that it needs to be confronted and dealt with, and not swept under a rug and ignored. But I did want to respond to Molleth’s Bonnie’s, and Donna’s comments here.
“(and I know of complementarian people in ministries who are fighting to stop this practice in some parts of Africa).”
Oh, and by the way — there are some in here who wonder about my turns of phrase and why I word things the way I do. In case anybody is inclined to do this, with the above quote, I will spell it out here, as clearly as I can.
I know of complementarian people who are fighting to free women out of slavery to fetish priests, and I have personally met a woman so freed. I personally know a man who went to spend a couple weeks in Africa to report on what some nationals were doing in their own country, and female circumcision was one of the issues they were fighting.
I put it that way, because the concern was raised here a couple times over by egalitarians who hope that complementarians would take abuse seriously, and not overpreach on submission and hierarchies so that love and sacrificial service are ignored.
And their concern is true, but I want people to know there are many, many comp men and women in the world determined to fight for oppressed people. And many comp churches who do not tolerate abuse. I probably shouldn’t get started on what is going on at Cedarville University (a Baptist University not known for teaching egalitarianism), but I don’t want to be boring.
Just to say there are women and men at Cedarville who are working to mobilize people to help oppressed women, as I recall primarily in slave trafficking, around the world. I know a young woman who wants to be a lawyer so she can work in this arena, who is now at Cedarville.
“Webfoot, I agree it’s ironic, and it’s a prime example of saying one thing, and doing totally the opposite. You are referring to Communism, of course, and I have some thoughts on this.”
That makes perfect sense Lynn. Communism is a secular form of egalitartianism, a form not sanctioned by Christians. I should have thought of that. Christians who believe in Biblical Equality do not promote or support communism.
Lynn:
We need to remember Sudan, or things that are going on in parts of Vietnam and many other countries, or google “Lord’s Resistance Army” (but if you do that, and do read extesively, you might want to have a tissue on hand for wiping your eyes, and a bucket ready in case you need to vomit). AFAIK, nobody here is fighting to have female circumcision stopped in his/her local community (and I know of complementarian people in ministries who are fighting to stop this practice in some parts of Africa). >>>>
Lynn, I do more than just read about it. My husband does more than just read about it. Our mission does more than just read about it.
Why do I find this boring? It’s not boring. The truth is, I find it painful.
Our mission is strongly Complementarian.
I personally do more than just read or talk about it.
I’ll just say that I put my life and my money where my mouth is.
I have entertained “nationals” – my best friends, actually – in my own home in their own nation. I have sat with people who are suffering oppression, in their homes. I have listened to their stories.
I am my primary source. I don’t read this in books and magazines, only.
I can’t say more than that.
I obey this command, and I obey it in many ways, including on site.:
Hebrews 13:3
Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
Thanks so much, molleth. The feeling is mutual
(I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t have posted my “testimony,” but now I’m glad I did
)
Webfoot said:
“Mary, you don’t need to bring in racism and slavery. It has already been done on this blog.
“Do you think that secular thinking doesn’t influence and affect the church?”
I was looking for a system in which some people by birthright were automatically “over” certain other people, had the right to expect obedience from those other people, and established that the subjugated had no way to ever escape their forced subjugation.
And you proved my point. You obviously don’t want people drawing similarities between racial slavery and patriarchy, yet you see absolutely no problem with connecting VAWA and biblical equality, though as is usual, you’ve done so with no substantiation for what you see as the tenets that biblical equality shares with the secular law of VAWA.
If you will read a little more carefully, I think you will say that I acknowledged it is not right to connect U.S. racial slavery with what is being called biblical complementarianism.
You have shown quite well how secular thinking can indeed affect the church. You, as a part of the church, have apparently convinced yourself that there’s absolutely nothing in common between racial slavery and complementarianism, but insist on connecting VAWA and biblical equality. If you don’t like the former, don’t insist that the latter is a valid comparison.
Lynn:
I hope you read that last sentence several times over, because I have seen you argue this way time and time again in many places. The two are not the same in some very, very, important ways.>>>>
I am not the only one who draws such parallels. Have you never read Mary Kassian’s book The Feminist Gospel?
It would be good for everyone to read it.
TL:
What egalitarian (are we talking Christian or secular) beliefs are being used to render abuses in what way.>>>
Since you asked…Feel free to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion. I won’t reject you for disagreeing. You are free.
I’m not saying that it is the case here on this blog. However, have you never heard of the consciousness raising sessions that were very popular in the 50s and 60s and even beyond? Women would gather together in a home where they would be encouraged to share their frustrations with married life.
This was one of the main ways that radical feminism was able to make such inroads into our society. Even Erma Bombeck wrote about this subject.
It resulted in many marital break-ups, and even the phenomenon of “latchkey children”. Women began to abandon the home, entering the workforce, and their children were left to fend for themselves in many cases. My mother talks to me about this a lot.
If you wish to read a good book on that subject, may I suggest To Hell With all That, Loving and Loathing Our Inner Housewife by Kaitlin Flannagan?
So, I think that a lot of what Christian feminists promote is much like what the radical feminists have promoted. Make women uncomfortable with their home-making role; encourage them to do something more imporatant with their lives than the “drudgery” of housework; and you can live without a man are all teachings that have become pretty standard in our day. The pressure for women to leave the home and enter the workforce is really strong.
Maybe you need to look at your thinking in that light and make sure you avoid that kind of feminism.
Egalitarians teach many of these same things – a woman can be independent, a woman can do other things besides keeping house, a woman should not settle for the drudgery of housework. A woman should not be dependent on a man. A woman should be able to wear whatever she wants. A man should be able to control himself, even if a woman wears provocative clothing. A woman is never held responsible for the way she dresses.
and never submit to a man.
I think that many men do feel abused by these teachings. If they complain, they are insulted even by Christian women. I have seen this done a number of times in the course of discussions. I’ll bet that it has even been done on this blog.
So, what can I say? It’s okay to exhort Complementarians about potential dangers in some teachings – or the interpretation of some teachings. No problem.
Who is going to exhort the Egalitarians when they are unable to see any flaws or potential dangers in what they teach?
Then there is, in my opinion, the total lack of concern for heresies that are taught. I feel I’m supposed to just shut up about the androgyny thing. However, how many times have I been in discussions with egalitarians and they bring up and discuss this very subject.
I haven’t even brought up the divine feminine. Many were shocked to see the CBE’s teachings on the subject of gendered language in reference to God. Thinking of God as feminine is okay, according to some.
You may feel free to disagree. You may feel free to do with my words what you wish. I hope that some thought will be put into what I say.
I hope that I won’t be abused.
Mary:
And you proved my point. You obviously don’t want people drawing similarities between racial slavery and patriarchy, yet you see absolutely no problem with connecting VAWA and biblical equality, though as is usual, you’ve done so with no substantiation for what you see as the tenets that biblical equality shares with the secular law of VAWA.>>>
Webfoot:
Let me try to clarify for you, Mary. Those subjects have already been brought into these discussions. If you wish, you may do some comment diving to see what I mean.
No problem. People are free to do that kind of thing. The topic of slavery is certainly part of these discussions. Have you never read Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals? Or is it Women, Slaves, and Homosexuals? Anyway, whatever order, there is a book on that subject.
I think that the inequalities of VAWA not only can, but should be discussed. I was happy to see that others believe that abuse iis a human problem.
I’m not sure how widespread this human tendency to abuse is, but I’m glad that others see abuse as a problem of the human heart.
I would then think that all Christians would want a comprehensive domestic violence act, rather than one that is so biased towards male on female violence only.
Also, I would think that all Christians would oppose the single motherhood trend. No, I don’t mean women with their children who have had to flee abusive spouses.
I’m talking about the trend for women, – and I don’t mean just teeagers, – to have children out of wedlock. They want the children, but they don’t want the man.
I’m sure that we all would discourage that kind of thing.
These are all issues that affect all Christians. These are all issues that, IMO, we would or should all have similar concerns.
That is my opinion, and I know it will be taken as such, Feel free to disagree. I won’t reject you for expressing your strongly helf views, Mary.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Webfoot,
No one here thinks that abuse is okay.
No one here thinks that abuse only occurs by husbands toward wives.
No one here thinks that single motherhood is easy or fun.
No one here is advocating that it’s wonderful when women choose to have babies without men.
This blog is dedicated to the subject of gender as it relates to comp and egal theology, for comps, egals, and “others/middles/not-sures,” in the hopes that we can learn and hear and grow from our interactions with each other…so this is why, when abuse comes up, we are usually talking about the abuse that occurs in marriage. By not talking about other abuses, and there certainly are many, this does not mean we don’t care or don’t think other abuses exist.
I completely agree with you when you said, “abuse is a problem of the human heart.” 100% absolutely. This is why there is concern about a system that sets one spouse up to have more power over hte other spouse, when both have human hearts that are capable of abuse.
This is why I plead with comp leaders and teachers to remember that when they teach that husbands have authority over their wives, to continue to teach that belief if that is what they see Scripture saying, but to please work to balance their teaching accordingly with Scripture. Because Scripture, in passages like Romans 3 and others, clearly communicates that husbands, just like all other human beings, are NOT somehow transformed into perfect beings incapable of misusing their authority and their power. Comp teaching, if it takes into account the many many references in Scripture to abuse and injustice, etc, must teach what godly authority does and does NOT look like, according to what Christ said about authority in Scripture, so that both husbands and wives know what it looks like, so that wives know what abuse of authority looks like, etc. The Bible is brimming with verses and passages about doing justice, about refraining and fighting against injustice, about what God thinks about the strong abusing the weak, etc.
I admit that I was concerned when I read your blog post recently, and maybe it’s not there now (I just went to reference it and it was gone), where you discussed how you were hoping to teach egals that abuse happens in more situations that just husbands-on-wives. I hope this comment helps to clarify that egals here are aware of that, many of them in very practical “hands-on” ways.
Molleth:
This is why I plead with comp leaders and teachers to remember that when they teach that husbands have authority over their wives, to continue to teach that belief if that is what they see Scripture saying, but to please work to balance their teaching accordingly with Scripture.>>>
Molleth, they do.
Besides, if you are going to reference my blog, could you please provide the full quotes and the context?
Is that what you want to teach Complementarians, – to teach balance? You don’t have to worry about that, Molleth. Balance is taught all the time, everywhere.
Check out Nancy Leigh DeMoss. Check out Family Life Today. I disagree with you about Focus on the Family. Check out the many books on marriage written by the CBMW. I could give a long list of teachers and writers who do just that, teach balance. So, I think that is being done.
I am a little concerned about your goals, there, but it is your right to try to teach us whatever you wish to teach us. Don’t you do that on your blog, too? I don’t bring my concerns about your blog onto this blog, so why do you do it to me? I wouldn’t do that. Why did you?
I hope that this post is allowed through, and that I am not abused for responding to Molleth.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Molleth:
I completely agree with you when you said, “abuse is a problem of the human heart.” 100% absolutely. This is why there is concern about a system that sets one spouse up to have more power over hte other spouse, when both have human hearts that are capable of abuse. >>>
Fair enough. I am concerned about a system that teaches that marriage is about a balance of power. Marriage is not about power at all.
Again, I hope this statement is allowed to go through.
Mara:
How can they help the others who have it so much worse, who jump in little boats with no life jackets to get away, if they are bound up by misunderstanding of boundaries and abuse?>>>>
Mara, you knew this was coming.
Thank you for responding to what I said and for not taking offense. I appreciate that.
Here is what you knew was coming. One word. Prespective.
I had written a fact:
“I hope you read that last sentence several times over, because I have seen you argue this way time and time again in many places. [Atheistic, Materialistic Communism and Evangelical Feminism] are not the same in some very, very, important ways.”
Webfoot responded:
“I am not the only one who draws such parallels. Have you never read Mary Kassian’s book The Feminist Gospel?
It would be good for everyone to read it.”
Just because someone else might argue the way you do doesn’t make your argument correct. If Mary Kassian argues that way, then she’s arguing the same way as those who equate all comps to pro-slavery, wife beating polygamists.
To equate comps to wife beaters, polygamists, and pro-slavery etc., is wrong, and it is just as wrong to smear evangelical egalitarians to atheistic communists and the homosexual community.
Mrs. Webfoot: “Here is what you knew was coming. One word. Prespective.”
Nope.
I had no idea that was coming because I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.
Please clarify.
Lynn:
Just because someone else might argue the way you do doesn’t make your argument correct.>>>
It doesn’t make it incorrect, either, Why don’t you read Kassian’s book, and then we can talk.
Lynn:
To equate comps to wife beaters, polygamists, and pro-slavery etc., is wrong, and it is just as wrong to smear evangelical egalitarians to atheistic communists and the homosexual community.>>>
You are entitled to your own opinion.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Mara
Mrs. Webfoot: “Here is what you knew was coming. One word. Prespective.”
Nope.
I had no idea that was coming because I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.
Please clarify.>>>
Okay, I’ll try.
I don’t think that I can do it.
Let me tell you a story.
I used to hear testimonies of how people were hurt in the Gothard system. I don’t doubt that those stories were true, don’t get me wrong. I am not a Gothard supporter.
What happened to me as I overly empathized and overyly sympathized with the stories I was hearing?
I began to see my own church, my own pastor, and the people in my church as following that same pattern I was hearing about. No, my husband has never been heavy-handed. So don’t take it that way.
I began to lose perspective. No, I’m not blaming the people who had sad stories of tragedy and abuse. Not at all.
However, our church did not follow that pattern. Our people were not swallowing the whole Gothard package. Our pastor was not becomming abusive, nor was our church.
We did not follow the pattern.
It’s easy to hear stories online and to begin to think, “oh, my! That sounds like me!” It may or may not be, though.
A person hearing a story of abuse needs to stand back and get some perspective. Such stories move us at a deep level, but move us to what?
If they move us to try to make our marriages and families places of peace and safety, then that’s good. If they move us to dump a perfectly good marriages that may need some work, then that is a tragedy.
Not everything is abuse. Someone’s story is not everyone’s story – including this story I am telling you.
I don’t know if that helps.
Let me see if I can communicate better with Lynn what I meant about the abusive egalitarian system.
It is easy for both sides to think of themselves as the “good guys”. In some ways, both sides are the “good guys.”
It is sobering for Complementarians to know what has been taught in the past, and even what some are teaching now. It gives an opportunity to clarify one’s own teachings and take honest correction made in love – as Molleth tries to do.
It should be sobering for Egalitarians to know what has been taught in the name of Egalitarianism, including the non-Evangelical religious forms of Egalitarianism as well as the secular forms.
Besides, if there were no Evangelical Egalitarians in our day who are supportive of gay marriage and things like that, then bringing those uncomfortable subjects into the mix would be totally out of line.
If there were no Evangelical and Eccumenical Women’s Caucus or no Tony Campolo – whom I like on some things – then it would be wrong to bring in some of these uncomfortable topics.
So, I think that you are wrong, Lynn, but no offense meant at all.
Mara:
How can they help the others who have it so much worse, who jump in little boats with no life jackets to get away, if they are bound up by misunderstanding of boundaries and abuse?
Mrs. Webfoot: “One word. Prespective.”
Mara: Please clarify.
Mrs. Webfoot: It’s easy to hear stories online and to begin to think, “oh, my! That sounds like me!” It may or may not be, though.
*****
So people dealing with low to medium level abuse in the states have no perspective because they aren’t jumping into boats trying to escape the abuses of communism?
Or do you mean, since the abuse is not nearly as bad as female genital mutilation so it should be swept under the rug?
The reason I ask is because I was talking specifically about people actually dealing with abuse, even though it is not so severe as communism or other things like that.
And you deflected it by calling into question whether or not they are actually dealing with abuse.
I’m not talking about selfish Christian people that think they are being abused when they really are not, like a man who thinks he’s supposed to be the boss but a woman won’t acknowledge it or a woman who doesn’t always get her way.
I’m talking about real verbal, emotional, and sometimes occasional physical abuse (like a shove) in Christian marriages.
They aren’t perfectly good marriages.
They are hypocritical or pharisitical marriages. The outside looks good but the inside is full of dead men’s bones.
So in a way they are worse than those trapped in communism because at least victims of communism know it’s bad and it isn’t being displayed as God’s best. It’s an honest acknowledgement of abuse. Whereas the people denying the real abuse in a Christian marriage that they are living in are being hypocritical.
Because you have run into situations where someone cries abuse wrongly does not mean everyone who considers whether or not they are being abused is in a perfectly good marriage. Some are in marriages that needs a complete overhaul. It can be done. But often the abuser will have nothing to do with it.
One form of abuse is minimalizing.
So, I think that you are wrong, Lynn, but no offense meant at all.
What you did was claim it is ironic that Communism claims to be egalitarian. I agreed that it is ironic.
I have also seen egals equating comp. to severe abuse, and comps equating egal. to Marxism or homosexuality.
I don’t like either comparison, and didn’t care that you brought it up, as you have in other public places on the internet.
So what if either side has ammo with which to smear the evangelical comp or evangelical egal viewpoint? It doesn’t do a thing but muddy the waters.
I don’t think I’m wrong. Although I have (when complementarianism has been bashed by those citing the most extreme examples) come on asked them how would they like it if I equated them all to the Metropolitan Churches in this country. But that’s just a tit for tat. I’d really prefer to leave the comparisons to the sinful extremes out of the picture.
Mara:
They aren’t perfectly good marriages.
They are hypocritical or pharisitical marriages. The outside looks good but the inside is full of dead men’s bones.>>>>
Do you mean like when a woman is abusive, and her godly husband puts up with it for the sake of his vows? He obeys God’s instructions about loving his wife in spite of how he is treated.
Are you calling a guy like that a hypocrite?
What do you mean, Mara? Are you saying that it is hypocritical to put up with suffering for the sake of being obedient? Who could he go to for help? If he goes to counselling, he will be told that it is his fault.
This is why there is concern about a system that sets one spouse up to have more power over hte other spouse, when both have human hearts that are capable of abuse. >>>
Fair enough. I am concerned about a system that teaches that marriage is about a balance of power. Marriage is not about power at all.
Again, I hope this statement is allowed to go through.
I have never heard a complementarian description of marriage that does not support male authority. Authority is power. This is the fundamental element of complementarianism.
I was in a large soft comp church with big name comps and when I asked for info on spousal abuse I was told they didn’t have any. They were happy to preach that a woman must submit but there was no concern for the victim.
I am sure that it is obvious that I am not complaining about an occasional shove but a lifetime of violence.
I am also highly sympathetic to those who suffered coercion in other ways. It is all of it dehumanizing.
Webfoot,
I feel that you have made false assumptions about me and have jumped to false conclusions.
Please go back to my last comment (10:19) with a fine tooth comb and find the place where I say only men abuse women and that it’s never the other way around.
You won’t find it. It’s not there because I very specifically made sure I kept it neutral.
‘I have never heard a complementarian description of marriage that does not support male authority. Authority is power. This is the fundamental element of complementarianism.’
And it doesn’t matter if one gives their power to another (a comp wife gives hers to her comp husband) to make descisons for her or if one’s power is taken away by another’s power, (a husband uses his power to override his wife’s will which takes away her power) it’s still power.
‘This is the fundamental element of complementarianism.’
I think that if the husband were not given unilateral authority/power through comp teaching there would be no such thing as what is today called, ‘complementarianism’. It wouldn’t exist.
Mrs. Webfoot,
I certainly hope you do not voice your agreement with men who refuse counseling because “he will be told that it is his fault”.
Mara said in part:
I was resonating with this very much and I was going to post before, but I bit my fingers. But now I am going to post and I know this sounds bitter and it is. So just pray for me because I feel EXTREMELY hurt by churches and church people. I was just thinking yesterday again about the recent history with churches and the reason I don’t go to church anymore. I can’t bear the hypocrisy of it! Its a stench in my nostrils!
At times I have wished I was married to an obvious alcoholic so that Christians would stop judging me and buying my husband’s “saintly victim” act.
I told him yesterday that I will be happy to visit the church when he gives his public confession and testimony of overcoming porn and abusiveness. I don’t believe he has mentioned those issues to the nice people (like you, Mrs. Webfoot) that he meets in Sunday School. They don’t know the scars his wife and children bear. He just loves sympathetic people like you to be his ally in disdain of counseling, in condemnation and blame of his wife that she is the abuser, and he is the poor POOR innocent victim.
So he’s the “hero” to blind church people of the world for being such a “godly husband puts up with it for the sake of his vows? He obeys God’s instructions about loving his wife in spite of how he is treated” while I am at my wits end trying to patch up the bleeding wounded lives of his youngest victims at home without so much as a gnat of help from “the church”
Mrs. Webfoot, The problem is NOT the counselor who tells him its his fault (though a counselor would not use the word “fault”, they would want him to take responsibility for his behavior). The PROBLEM is the CHURCH who agrees with lies that he is the innocent victim of a contentious wife.
Charis:
Mrs. Webfoot, The problem is NOT the counselor who tells him its his fault (though a counselor would not use the word “fault”, they would want him to take responsibility for his behavior). The PROBLEM is the CHURCH who agrees with lies that he is the innocent victim of a contentious wife.>>>>
Webfoot:
Hmmm. Did you think that I was talking about you and your situation? I wasn’t. I wasn’t at all.
Webfoot:
May I suggest a book that has helped me a lot? I won’t share the details of why it has helped me so much, because I won’t be believed. One or two people have believed me, and that has been enough. Well, actually more than one or two, but some people believe me. If you have some people who believe you and support you, and are helping you grow in the Lord, you are blessed. I hope that you have that. I hope that Mara has that, too.
Webfoot:
Okay, here’s the book. You don’t have to take my suggestion. You can tell me what to do with my suggestion, even, if you wish. I’m taking a risk, here, but it may help.
Webfoot:
The book is When People are Big
…and God is small – overcoming peer pressure, codependency, and the fear of man by Edward T. Welch
I have blogged about this book, but got bogged down. I think that the first 4 chapters are the best, especially his observations about victimization shame. That is the shame that comes on a person because of the sin of another. He gives biblical examples of that.
Webfoot:
It is terrible when a person has been shamed by the sin of another, especially when that other person is a spouse – in your and Mara’s cases, your husbands.
http://bookreviewswebfoot.blogspot.com/
Webfoot:
I was thinking of sharing some of my story. I know something about living with alcoholics.
webfoot:
My husband doesn’t even drink, but I’ve lived with alcoholics – the smoking, drinking, tavern-loving kind. They were not mean people, though. It’s weird. You’ll tell me I’m in denial!
Mara:
Webfoot,
I feel that you have made false assumptions about me and have jumped to false conclusions.>>>>
Webfoot:
Okay. I’m not sure that I did, but maybe I did. If I share some of my life story, would that help you understand me? If I thought it would help, I would. Don’t know. What do you want me to do for you? I guess I should ask that. What do you need to hear from me? I’m not “the church” and I’m not your husbands. I’m just a webfoot.
webfoot:
This is kind of disjointed, but be assured that I am not supporting your husbands against you. I tried to edit this as much as I could so that I didn’t repeat myself a lot. If I did, I beg your indulgence. If I missed something important, give it to me again. Well, anyway…
God bless, dear ladies, beloved of God,
Mrs. Webfoot
Hi Webfoot,
I hear compassion in your reply, for which I am thankful.
I am a big believer that sharing testimonies is on the pathway to overcoming (per Rev 12:11), so please do share if you feel led.
on March 24, 2009 at 11:56 am Charis
Hi Webfoot,
I hear compassion in your reply, for which I am thankful.
I am a big believer that sharing testimonies is on the pathway to overcoming (per Rev 12:11), so please do share if you feel led.>>>>
I have overcome, Charis. It’s not about me wanting help to overcome.
It’s about me wanting to protect myself from those who would do me further harm.
Yes, I am a compassionate person. No, I don’t feel led to share at this time.
It’s not safe here for me.
PS
No offense, Charis, and I do thank you for seeing me as a fellow human being, and a sister in Christ.
I am very familiar with this kind of a “masked man”. My ex was like that. And I’ve several friends who have had or have the same kind of problems in their marriage. Its a tough life to live and I’m so sorry you are living it now.
Two questions (not to you, just in general). How do men among themselves think this is OK? Why does the church give them a pass and tend to blame the wives? One answer is of course the obvious patriarchal teachings that give men no accountability to their wives, since they are to be ‘the boss’ of the relationship. Other than that I consider it a sad story that men allow this among themselves.
Hey, Charis, one more thing. Thank you for sharing that Scripture about overcoming. I don’t mean to blow you off, nor do I mean that I have arrived at full maturity in Christ.
I was thinking of specific incidents. That came out as if I thought I was perfect. No, I don’t think that about myself at all!
Maybe this Psalm will encourage you. It’s one of those strong Psalms, and I thought of you and your situation when I read it this morning. I hope you don’t mind my sharing it with you. Here’s just the first part. The experience of feeling alone in the battle is not a new one. May He encourage you and me today in His Word.
I don’t mean that you should take up arms against people! I think that this is talking about the spiritual battle that we wage with the enemy of our souls, not just about how to beat human foes in wartime.
I dunno’.
God bless, Charis, and Mara, and Tamar, and whoever else may still be reading this comment section after what? 400+ entries.
Mary? Lynn? Bonnie? Don’t mean to leave anyone out. Can you see I work with pre-schoolers? We are like them in so many ways, and need to be affirmed and loved. No, I’m not calling you pre-schoolers!
Oh, well,
Mrs. Webfoot
Psalm 35
Of David.
1 Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me;
fight against those who fight against me.
2 Take up shield and buckler;
arise and come to my aid.
3 Brandish spear and javelin
against those who pursue me.
Say to my soul,
“I am your salvation.”
4 May those who seek my life
be disgraced and put to shame;
may those who plot my ruin
be turned back in dismay.
5 May they be like chaff before the wind,
with the angel of the LORD driving them away;
6 may their path be dark and slippery,
with the angel of the LORD pursuing them.
7 Since they hid their net for me without cause
and without cause dug a pit for me,
8 may ruin overtake them by surprise—
may the net they hid entangle them,
may they fall into the pit, to their ruin.
9 Then my soul will rejoice in the LORD
and delight in his salvation.
10 My whole being will exclaim,
“Who is like you, O LORD ?
You rescue the poor from those too strong for them,
the poor and needy from those who rob them.”
…and Eric, and TL, and Molleth, and Wayne, and David, and cdno, and…..I know I forgot someone…
Thank you very much for the Psalm Webfoot. That speaks precisely to me as I was assaulted by a mentally imbalanced non believer recently and had to get a TRO on them.
PS
I don’t think that our testimonies destroy the devil. It is Christ who defeated Satan, and it is our testimony of His grace that overcomes and our willingness to demonstrate the fact of His work in our hearts by our willingness to suffer and die for Him. This can involve physical martyrdom, but it certainly involves dying daily, taking up our cross, and following Him.
Only the testimonies that exalt Christ have that power. Just telling of how we have been hurt doesn’t do it unless we also tell of His marvelous, enabling, powerful grace working in us.
Just a thought.
Hey, I think I’ll blog about that! The power of our testimony about Christ and how letting Him minister to us in grace is what overcomes the devil.
I’ll have to think about that some more. Thank you Charis, for your reminder. That is a great thought.
TL, I think that men should not encourage one another in bad behavior. It is wrong to do that. i think that it is wrong for women to encourage one another in bad behavior. I don’t think that Christians should enable one another to keep on sinning.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Mrs. Webfoot: “Do you mean like when a woman is abusive, and her godly husband puts up with it for the sake of his vows? He obeys God’s instructions about loving his wife in spite of how he is treated.
Are you calling a guy like that a hypocrite?
What do you mean, Mara? Are you saying that it is hypocritical to put up with suffering for the sake of being obedient? Who could he go to for help? If he goes to counselling, he will be told that it is his fault.”
When a body is sick you take care of it.
When a marriage is sick, you need to do the same.
You don’t need to walk in denial. You don’t need to paint on a smile and lie about it. You don’t need to be a hypocrite about it. And I actually, specifically meant the one being abused needed to not be a hypocrite about it, live in a fantasy world that everything is alright when it really isn’t. (No offense to any of the formally abused ones here who lived with abuse because they didn’t know what to do.)
If a body is sick and it is mild, it doesn’t take much to get well. It can usually be handled at home without the aid of a doctor.
But if the body has cancer or a heart attack or a stroke, it is going to take a hospital.
Any doctor or hospital staff that turns around and starts trying to blame people, point the finger, and find fault instead of doing their job of pursuing healing needs to be fired.
The answer is locate and treat the sickness.
You don’t treat a stroke victim the same as you do a cancer victim.
The church has swept so much marriage sickness under the rug and it is coming back and to bite it on the hiney.
This needs to stop.
And to answer your question about a husband putting up with abuse, all I have to say is that he is doing his wife no favors by partnering with her in her sin against him.
He needs to set up healthy boundaries.
If she verbally abuses him, he needs to remove himself from her to disallow her to continue in her sin against him. He’s not trapped in a Nazi prison camp.
If it means walking out of the room, fine. If it means moving out of the house, fine. Depends on how serious the situation is.
It is something I have had to learn.
I’ve been on the mild end of abuse unlike Tamar who has been on the severe side of it.
But the concept is the same.
I had to let my dear one know that his behavior was unacceptable and that I would not tolerate it.
I didn’t play the martyr and think I was glorifying God with my suffering. It brought Him no glory.
I moved out for three weeks.
And I wasn’t being disobedient. I didn’t serve him divorce papers. I didn’t run around with other men while I was gone. I had my earthly father’s blessing. I had my pastor’s blessing. And I felt peace with God that I was doing the right thing.
We are doing much, much better.
But we are doing better because I refused to partner with him in his sin against me.
I used to follow the advice of all the “submit” books. But it only fueled his sin. It wasn’t obedience to our vows. It was enabling sin.
Also, suffering without finding solutions in an abusive marriage situation isn’t helping anyone.
What if a partner has undiagnosed bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia. How does the one suffering abuse bring glory to God. Their partner needs treatment for Pete’s sake.
Marriages have problems. God has solutions.
It is the glory of God to hide a matter.
It is the glory of kings to search a matter out.
We are a royal priesthood and should find healing for ourselves and out partners and our marriages.
I believe that is the direction our vows should really be pointing us.
So he’s the “hero” to blind church people of the world for being such a “godly husband puts up with it for the sake of his vows?
Some parts of the Christian community are so naive, including me. I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve fallen for. I’m sorry this deception happened to you, Charis. I’m still one of those naive Christians who believes every story she hears. I wish I wasn’t like this, and I wish the Christian community wasn’t like this.
Okay, Mara, that’s fine. Good points. It worked for you, and I’m glad that things are better. What if it doesn’t “work” like it’s supposed to, though? What if the sinning partner doesn’t change? What shall the offended partner do then?
Shall he feel like a failure when those principles were supposed to work for them like they worked for someone else?
Is he hypocritical for making the best of it for the sake of his vows, for the sake of his children, out of obedience to Christ?
Are you calling that person a hypocrite for obeying in spite of his or her spouse’s behavior? That seems kind of extreme to me, but I respect your opinion.
Maybe you are just saying he shouldn’t pretend that all is well when it isn’t? I think that hypocrite is pretty strong, but maybe you don’t mean it to be.
I put in “he” , but it could also be “she.”
I’m not talking about physical violence. I think that the person who is being abused physically should leave, especially if the threat is imminent. They should not go back until and unless their physical safety can be ensured, which may be never.
Abuse of any sort (including verbal or emotional) when unrepentent is Biblical grounds for divorce, so anything up to that consequence is also possible and the decision is the person that is abused. They can choose to set limits, they can choose to stay and ignore it, they can choose to divorce or separate, but it is their choice and the church should support them in their choice.
Don, can you direct us to Scriptures which teach that emotional and/or verbal abuse, or any other kind of abuse are biblical grounds for divorce, please?
I can’t read all posts, but don’t recall seeing any from you over the past few days. It is good to see you posting.
Probably doesn’t answer your question directly David, but in Instone-Brewer’s book Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible he looks at the way in which Exodus 21:10-11
was interpretted by 1st Century Jews. While the passage is about a slave wife, apparently it was seen as applying to wives, and husbands in general. The passage was seen as allowing divorce on the grounds of material or emotional neglect. Abuse might often fall into one of these categories.
Don, can you direct us to Scriptures which teach that emotional and/or verbal abuse, or any other kind of abuse are biblical grounds for divorce, please?
Yes, this reminds me of how my brother would not help me leave my ex. I have often wondered if he lacked the physical courage, knowing how violent my ex was or if he really was concerned about spending time in prayer and meditation of the word seeking a spiritual answer. I suspect the former.
Anyway, doesn’t matter, my sister helped me and got the police involved as well.
Re: Exodus 21:10-11 and Instone-Brewer’s book, Richard Elliott Friedman in his Commentary on the Torah translates it as: “10 If he will take another for himself, he shall not subtract from her food, her apparel, and her hygiene. 11 And if he will not do these three for her, then she will go out free. There is no money.” He notes:
David,
You ask a good question as the Biblical ground for divorce is an area where there are MANY different interpretations with many resulting in condemnation of believers. Bible teachers OFTEN take some key verses out of context and make a hash of them in this area.
The basic challenge is that a reader can easily THINK they understand what Jesus and Paul are saying but actually misunderstand due to their missing the rabbinic technical terms and idioms used, as well as not knowing Torah and the way Torah was interpreted in the 1st century, that is, all the background info that was simply assumed and so did not need to be explicitly stated; but today may not be known without some digging.
I have posted my day long teaching materials here, which are based mainly on David Instone-Brewer’s works:
http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=279.0.
Going thru these will allow the student to see where some other teachers go wrong and end up condemning believers.
I can also answer question on that thread.
There is a simpler summary version here using playmobile characters:
http://www.playmobible.org/videos.html
P.S. It was DIB who showed me that I could make a hash of some Bible verses and needed to understand the 1st century context of the NT more. His insights are really outstanding, they obsolete many previous interpretations and one can see WHY they obsolete them.
Eric,
The Hebrew is onah, from a root meaning to dwell together, with “as husband and wife” implied by context. That is, a dwelling is intended, but that is not all that is intended.
The sexual aspect is certainly in Gen 2:24 and Deu 24:1-4, so one can see what the combined teaching of Torah is on this.
Don, I can’t see any files at the forum you cited, only a series of posts. How does one get to the files?
But I also think that you should back up your claim that “emotional and/or verbal abuse, or any other kind of abuse are biblical grounds for divorce” made on this forum, on this forum, by simply citing relevant Scriptures.
The files are at the bottom of each post (for the posts that have files), I can only load 1 file per post. I am a member of the forum, so I cannot see if members do not see them.
The first file is below the 2nd post and is called MarriageOutlineEC.doc.
I can cite a few verses, but without the context they are easy to misunderstand, hence my teaching. Ex 21:10-11 is the Torah foundation, but these are then given as examples in some prophets as some of God’s reasons for divorcing Israel and then Paul refers to them via remez/hint as assumptions of marriage. I discuss all this in my teaching.
One point is the standard (Greek) way of referring to a few verses to “prove something from Scripture” is a way to end up with a false interpretation of the Bible (since it was authored by Hebrew thinkers and verses did not exist in the original texts), altho it is very common, since it can take verses out of their immediate (pericope) context, out of their Scriptural context and out of their cultural context. That is, while referring to a few verses works in some cases, those cases where it works are misleading and it is not really a good way to interpret the Bible as context can too easily be lost. In a puzzling area like what the Bible teaches on divorce, it is essentially guaranteed to result in errors.
Don, when you assert that what you say is biblical I need to see you citing Scripture to show this.
You said “I can cite a few verses, but without the context they are easy to misunderstand.” Could you please cite the verses and the context?
I don’t think you would accept my asserting Scripture teaches something without any Scripture to support what I say.
If it was OK for biblical authors to cite Scripture to prove their points, it should also be permissible for us.
Very good to see you posting again, Don.
I’ve very much missed your input.
David,
I cite the verses with their context in my divorce teaching, which are 9 45-minute sessions long. I do not want to repeat that here, as it is impractical. Doing it partially does not work, as the Bible builds upon itself thru progressive revelation.
The Biblical authors were inspired by God, yet even some of their citations are non-obvious to us today. Jews were totally immersed in Tanakh, which is not true for many believers today.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/10/more_from_david.html
This brief article, a response to Piper, is interesting in that it backs up what you are saying, Don—-that a Bible verse pulled out of the context it is set in (both the passage itself and the cultural backdrop) may or may not convey the actual meaning of the author to us.
Instone-Brewer for example, comments in the article on porneia, which we’ve taken to mean one thing in teh church world, but that scholars are finding means another thing. Ie, we’ve thought it meant the specific act of sex/adultery, when it appears to mean a more generic “sexual sin in general.”
This stuff is really interesting, either which way.
I’ve always wondered, especially when advising (can’t believe I did that now!) women as a minister’s wife. THere was one wife who was being beaten, but because her husband a.) didn’t want to leave her and, b.) hadn’t slept with another woman, she felt bound by the Bible to stay with him. It made no sense to me at all. A fantastic husband could have a “whoops” fling of adultery, and while not being okay or easy in any sense, his wife now has Biblical grounds for divorce. But a total jerk can beat his wife bloody every night, and…she does not have Biblical grounds for divorce?
I don’t know. Before I read Instone-Brewer’s research, I thought it just seemed crazy and made no sense at all. When we marry, don’t we make a covenant to love and honor each other? So isn’t beating your wife or otherwise going about to destroy your spouse on a regular and unrepentant basis a breaking of that vow? Is sex *really* the only thing that can break a vow?
To me, if I made a business covenant with someone, and they regularly abused me, smeared my name all over the marketplace, slandered, and lied about me, ruining my reputation, I would consider that a breaching of the covenant. The covenant was made in good faith between two parties of good intent. To be regularly and repeatedly (and unrepentantly) abused verbally and ruined financially by my partner means that, dude, we are no longer partners.
It seems to make sense that marriage would be no different. No one enters into marriage to be destroyed. When one spouse repeatedly, regularly and unrepentantly shows that they are working to destroy the other spouse, it seems to me that that spouse has chosen to break the covenant of love and honor. The fact that they haven’t comitted adultery with someone seems rather moot.
Then I read Instone-Brewer and…wow. The Bible wasn’t silent about abuse. It was cool.
That reminds me, it’s Eric’s book. Heh. I’m sending it back, Eric. I swear it!!!!!!!!! *innocent grin*
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html
An article in Christianity Today that explains some of the “jist” of Instone-Brewer’s research.
As you know, Molleth, I will be gone till April 14, so no hurry. Enjoy!
Eric, you are going to have so much fun!!!
(He’s going to Israel, folks).
Don’t go getting hit by a bomb or anything, okay????
I discuss porneia and show how it maps to nakedness in Deu 24:1 (as in any sexual sin), that is, in many cases the NT authors selected the closest Greek work to use in a Hebrew context, so knowing the Hebrew behind the Greek aids in understanding.