Boot camp is on! Gimme twenty, soldier!
Just kidding. I’m also kidding about the title of this post. The dumb/smelly part, not the Comments 101 part. Speaking of comments, if you have a moment, please review the comment policy on the sidebar. This policy exists in order to facilitate the goals of this blog, which is to foster an environment where complementarians and egalitarians can talk about gender issues, find ways to build bridges with each other even in the midst of continuing disagreement, and more.
This cannot be done if any/either side is regularly lobbing bombs at each other. But many times, we don’t mean to lob bombs. We just aren’t well versed in conversing with those who are “on the other side.”
Intentions might be great, but, let’s face it. We could use some practice! For the next few weeks, let’s talk about our comment policy guidelines, one by one, fleshing out what they might and might not look like in real life. Today, we will take a closer look at the first guideline.
1. Focus on issues, not personalities.
Example A.
Gretta McGlockenstien is an egalitarian and she’s also a militant bisexual who says every woman should have at least five abortions!!! This PROVES that egalitarians are all militant bisexuals who love abortion!!!!!
No.
Gretta is Gretta. People are complex. This comment proves nothing about ALL egalitarians. Gretta’s egalitarianism may or may not have anything to do with her other beliefs. If the commenter can link to a few studies that prove 99.99% of egalitarians are all abortion-loving bisexuals, then he/she is welcome to make his/her point. There may be a correlation there, obviously. Otherwise, this comment is completely out of bounds.
A better way to comment about Gretta might be,
“Gretta McGlockenstein really concerns me. She loudly preaches her version of egalitarianism but is also a vocal promoter of sexual immorality and radical abortion beliefs. Some of my comp friends think she is a typical egalitarian. Egals here, would you care to comment about her and share what you agree and disagree with regarding her teachings? Do you think she is a spokesperson for most egals or not? Thanks.”
Example B
George Blezzer, a popular complementarian teacher, said that women were worth less to God than men are. Since he said that, it proves that ALL complementarians believe that about women. This is exactly why I hate complementarians so much! They never even bother to look at their Bibles!
No.
If George Blezzer said that, it’s okay to point it out (and link to it to provide proof). But don’t assert that because Blezzer said it, it is what all complementarians believe. That isn’t true at all. One speaker for a group does NOT represent all members of that group. And throwing in the slam, based on your opinion of Blezzer’s teaching, that all complementarians don’t study their Bibles is taking a bad comment and making it worse. We want to be assuming positive intent about each other unless we have proof otherwise.
A more appropriate comment might be,
George Blezzer, a popular complementarian teacher, said that women were worth less to God than men are. This really concerns me, because it goes against what I see Scripture saying here___ and here___ and also here___. I also feel personally hurt by his words. Comps, how do you feel about Blezzer’s teachings? Is he representative of the majority of comps? If you agree with him, would you mind sharing the Scriptural basis you have found for doing so?
…
The first “version” of these fictional comments are purposely over the top, and the characters are intentionally made up. The comments box below is open for your own imaginary examples of 1.) how to break the first comment guideline and then 2.) how to follow it (and read on below for a bonus).
The comments box is also, as always, open for any thoughts, questions, complaints or other hypothetical* examples regarding the first rule in our comment policy.
*Please refrain from using a real comment as an example of what not to do. Our intent here is not to single anyone out, but rather to learn how to communicate better. Thanks so much.
FREE Comp/Egal BOOK GIVEAWAY CONTEST:
Whoever comes up with the FUNNIEST hypothetical example to share of an inappropriate comment and then a corrected version (that adheres to all 8 of the comment guidelines) will win a FREE (gently used) BOOK from Complegalitarian.
Hint: the judge of the contest says that poking fun at your OWN side is highly recommended. 
This competition will run for the entire week or two of the blog series, and you may place your entries under any of the posts in this series (starting now with this one). You may enter as many times as you like. Have fun!
Comps, this is your chance to get a free copy of Carolyn McCulley’s, “Radical Womanhood– Feminine Faith in a Feminist World.” Egals, this is your chance to get a free copy of “Women in the Church–A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry,” by Stanley J. Grenz.
And if you win the contest but don’t want either book, you can always choose the Mystery Prize, which is guaranteed to be one of the most, er, original gifts you’ve ever recieved. Muhahahaha…
Ooohh…competition. Time to dig the gray cells out of the mothballs
. And a very clever way to inspire us to be more thoughtful about our words.
What you describe is called an inductive mistake in reasoning – a “hasty generalization.” It is what prejudice is based on, and there are so many comments like this from either side in gender internet discussions, I tend to ignore them. Another problem, right up there, is the ascribing of motives to people for why they express the beliefs they express:
1. Egalitarians are power hungry.
2. Complementarians are power hungry.
That’s what the ad hom claims usually boil down to, and sometimes people can get quite verbose making this mistake, or they just nail the judgmentalism on the end of a comment as a final, fallacious, unnecessary zinger. A conversation stopper, or else a match for dynamite, and neither is productive.
I wish people would state their ad homs as simply as I did, so I don’t have to wade through paragraph after paragraph only to find out I’ve wasted my time reading a comment.
I like that a lot, Lynn. (Especially I have a lot to learn and think this series will be a good refresher for me in so many ways).
I tend to get the heebie-jeebies when some folks throw out a logical fallacy term, because I’ve seen them used so often as bombs instead of as bomb diffusers. Kind of like a “throw in a Latin word and you win” game.
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen something like this happen, where, “You just used a [insert logical fallacy], so you are wrong. I’m am right.” And then the “right” person goes on to make an ad hom argument “proving” their point of view. Gack!
That said, I know there is a way to point them out that is constructive, and I’ve seen that done as well.
“You just used a [insert logical fallacy], so you are wrong.
Actually the person could be right, but the way he was arguing didn’t prove his point.
The average person, male or female who posts online does so as if they were talking to someone using average non professional, imperfect language. They don’t think in terms of writing a thesis in which they must look up and provide quotes to support their claims. In some cases this can be irresponsible when they are stating things they expect to be taken as authoritative. Otherwise, we know its just an opinion. And it really may be too much to require the average poster to factually support their every opinion.
But, when discussing doctrinal concepts Christians should try to support their statements with some kind of facts…. Even if its saying they heard it on the radio last week by suchandsuch and that is how they think that Scripture should be interpreted. I think that unless the person is trying to claim doctrinal authority, we should be able to give some leeway as to how much factual support we require from the average person before we slap their hands with a requirement for full proof.
On the other hand, I don’t think most people have appreciated the purposes of this Blog. It really isn’t a place for just anyone to talk about anything. And we DO have other blogs and Christian forums where we CAN talk about anything. The problem is that no one seems quite clear on how we can go about accomplishing the goals of making it a place for comp and egal cross dialogue. When the mods try to control dialogue then everyone complains that they shouldn’t be edited, they should have freedom. Yet, when we have freedom, then we just talk about anything and there is no comp egal cross dialogue.
Personally, I am actually pondering whether the only way the purposes of this Blog can be accomplished are to revamp the format drastically. I’m thinking of having a set of standard questions from both sides which can be on eternal posts, and making all dialogue by approval only in which the discussion IS more formal, requiring both Biblical quotes and info from other sources. Just a thought. Still thinking.
Personally, I hate controlling dialogue. I’m naturally adverse to deleting anything. I should probably do it a lot more here, but I just have this innate aversion to moderating a conversation. I’m a huge fan of free speech. Yet I do see that we’ve got a problem here. What this blog was intended to do and what it is actually doing are two different things, and one of the biggest reasons for that (if not THE reason) is a lack of respectful dialogue.
HOW to dialogue while remaining in disagreement YET maintaining a gracious respect… That’s the tricky thing, the thing that is rarely mastered ANYWHERE, not just here.
It’s not a naturally human thing to do, I’ll grant that, but I refuse to believe it is impossible. It is part of our calling. “They will know you are My disciples by your love…” Learning to relate in love is something that isn’t optional but is part of who we are created to be, part of what we are growing into.
If we can treat each other with graciousness in the midst of disagreement, I think we will be shocked at how much we have in common, shocked at how much more receptive each side is to really truly *listen* (now that they don’t have to concentrate so hard on keeping their defenses up), and more. I think it really is a skill worth the hard work of growing.
Yes, Molleth it is an honorable ideal.
Perhaps, you can point to a Christian blog elsewhere that is operating in the kind of atmosphere we would like to see here, a place that we could use as an example to reach for.
[...] 4, 2009 by molleth *Don’t forget about the Comment Contest (here, scroll to bottom)! 2. Support your claims with [...]
“If we can treat each other with graciousness in the midst of disagreement, I think we will be shocked at how much we have in common, shocked at how much more receptive each side is to really truly *listen* (now that they don’t have to concentrate so hard on keeping their defenses up), and more. I think it really is a skill worth the hard work of growing.”
Why can’t we be gracious with eachother while being firm on the lines that scripture draws? Can’t both comps and egals do both? Why do any of us have to insist on what our opinion/interpretation is?
What do our opinions matter really in light of scriptural boundaries? SERIOUSLY? I am so confused as to why all of us who want to participate here cannot just keep to and uphold the facts and proofs. Seriously. What is so hard and bad about that? If I am an egal and believe that the bible teaches that women are to only be the caretakers of children, well then why would I bother to tell what I believe if it cannot be proven? I must be lost…
And you egals smell funny! hehehe
It appears to me that the only way conflict is going to be resolved within egal and comp discussions is thru facts, evidence, and proofs. Look how long this “debate” has been going on. Since the 70’s… Nothing is going to resolve communication problems between egal and comp accept scriptural boundaries. That is what I see. If we knew what they were, then who could argue or be sensative since we all want the truth?
That’s my penny!
“I think that unless the person is trying to claim doctrinal authority, we should be able to give some leeway as to how much factual support we require from the average person before we slap their hands with a requirement for full proof.”
This is funny and interesting.
What IF comp doctrine were considered by many in the churches to be “the authority”? Isn’t it considered the authority in many churches by many people? If so, then how should comps approach topics with their opinions since what could be said may be taken as authoritative by other readers just because it’s comp doctrine?
Kathy,
If a doctrine is considered to be authoritative, then it is vitally important that it be supported by Scripture that is not taken out of context. Just because it is considered to be authoritative doesn’t mean it cannot be questioned. Rather it must be questioned moreso to be certain it is true.
Context is also key. Too many today think that one can pull a sentence out and from the ‘plain reading’ of that sentence determine its meaning. Rather the proper reading is determined by how the author meant it in relation to all the other words surrounding it.
I love your examples of constructive vs. destructive comments – very helpful and appropriate.
Molleth, this is cute and may be helpful. However, many of you good folks don’t just say that Complementarians are dumb. In fact, I’ve not heard that.
What is said over and over again by Egalitarians and anit-Patrios even here at Complegalitarian is that we Complementarians are abusive.
You may think that. However, IF you want bridges built instead of bridges burned, you may want to tone down the anti-Complementarian rhetoric here at Complegalitarian.
Maybe you have. I’ve not been around for awhile. What Complementarian would want to be here?
Please talk about yourselves and what you believe, and not “comps this…and comps that….” Don’t you have a postition to defend, and not just another’s position to tear down?
Mrs. Webfoot
Lynn:
Another problem, right up there, is the ascribing of motives to people for why they express the beliefs they express:
1. Egalitarians are power hungry.
2. Complementarians are power hungry.>>>>>
Lynn, you do see that power is a big topic in these discussion, don’t you? You are objecting to the insinuation that people are “power hungry” on either side?
Egalitarianism assumes that the man has the power, and the woman is in the position of weakness. So, women need to be empowered so that the power will be equal.
In a way Egalitarians are correct. The man was given more power and he weilds it harsly after the fall. This was part of the curse put on the woman for her rebellion. It was a curse that God imposed. I also believe that the woman’s tendency to ridicule and undermine men’s authority is part of that curse and is what “your desire shall be for your husband” is talking about. I think that many, if not most, Complementarians would say that.
So, there is a power struggle in marriage, in the church, and in society at large.
There does need to be balance in male-female relationships. I believe that. St. John Chrysostom spoke a lot about balance, or equilibrium in the marriage relationship.
Egalitarians say that the balance comes from an equality of power. Right? That’s how I understand it, anyway.
Complementarians say that the balance comes from the husband’s loving, gentle, self-sacrificial leadership and the wife as his help-meet who has an attitude of submission, respect, and love, of course.
Christ’s relationship with His Church is the model that Christians should follow in their marriages. He is in authority over His bride, the Church. He is also her loving Savior and Friend, even though she is to obey Him. She responds to Him in love.
So, yes, it is about power.
I think that we all are power hungry, and that is because of the fall. All human beings want to be in control. There are different ways of acomplishing that, but we are pretty power hungry. Maybe some more than others.
How do we as Christian maintain balance in our relationships? Egalitarians would see it one way, and Complementarians another.
I think that both sides are correct in seeing the power hungry tendencies in the other. We are power hungry.
The flaw is that of not seeing those tendencies in ourselves, IMO.
“What is said over and over again by Egalitarians and anit-Patrios even here at Complegalitarian is that we Complementarians are abusive.”
If you would like to support that with a quote, it would be appreciated. To my knowledge no egal has said such a thing on this blog.
What has been said is that the principles of male only authority can be used abusively by males who like to dominate.
With that aside this post is not for the purpose of registering complaints but of learning and practicing how to discuss things accurately without resorting to inaccurate blanket statements such as the one you made above.
Please stick to the topic.
FWIIW, I as an egal do not think of Christ and church as the model for marriage. Rather, I think of SOME ASPECTS of Christ and church as an EXAMPLE for marriage. The aspects of Christ that Paul mentions in Eph 5 are all serving aspects of Christ, and all these are examples that a believing husband should try to follow in serving his wife. The aspects of church that Paul mentions are similarly, examples for a believing wife.
If you would like to support that with a quote, it would be appreciated. To my knowledge no egal has said such a thing on this blog.>>>>
TL, no. I don’t have the time or the patience to rifle through all the posts and all the comments.
If you don’t agree with it, then that’s fine.
Don:
FWIIW, I as an egal do not think of Christ and church as the model for marriage. Rather, I think of SOME ASPECTS of Christ and church as an EXAMPLE for marriage. The aspects of Christ that Paul mentions in Eph 5 are all serving aspects of Christ, and all these are examples that a believing husband should try to follow in serving his wife. The aspects of church that Paul mentions are similarly, examples for a believing wife.>>>>
Well, Don, you leave out the fact that the husband is said to have authority over the wife in the marriage.
In the Church, they are both part of the Bride of Christ, assuming that both are believers.
Of course, you reject the fact that “kephale” means “authority over”, so we would disagree there.
The aspect of Christ would include what you mention, plus the fact that the husband is the leader and the wife the help meet.
That is where we differ.
Thank you for your comments, Don.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
TL, I had a change of heart. Here is just one piece of evidence.
http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/guest-author-ericw-what-comp-egal-tenets-support-abuse/
“This was part of the curse put on the woman for her rebellion. It was a curse that God imposed.”
I do not think that it is Safe to say, at all, that God himself imposed a curse on the woman if it is not true, since we wouldn’t want to paint God’s as a character that is not true. So if this is going to be said, it Must be proven. Otherwise, it needs to be made real clear that there is NO scriptural reason provided to us, to believe that God did curse the woman. We can only say, scripturaly that 1)the serpent and 2) the ground were cursed, but not the woman or the man.
Readers should not be given a false picture of supposively God’s character if it cannot be proven.
Kathy aka, the stickler
What is said over and over again by Egalitarians and anit-Patrios even here at Complegalitarian is that we Complementarians are abusive.
Mrs. Webfoot,
Please don’t say something the above if you are unable to back it up with a quote or link to prove it. See number two of the comment guidelines.
Stating your own personal views about theology is, of course, perfectly acceptable.
Warmly,
Molly
I meant, readers (particularily women) should not be given a false picture of supposively God’s character if it cannot be proven.
Webfoot,
Nowhere does the Bible say ‘the husband is to have authority over his wife” except in Esther when it is said by a drunken pagan. There is no God sanctioned statement that says that. Some may think OTHER things that are said IMPLY that, but that is a matter of different interpretation.
Webfoot, you still haven’t quoted anyone saying that comps are abusive. The link was a discussion about abuse, but I still haven’t seen any egals saying that ‘comps are abusive’.
“Of course, you reject the fact that “kephale” means “authority over”, so we would disagree there.”
1) It is NOT a fact that “kephale” used as a metaphor IN Eph 5 or 1 Co 11 means “authority over”.
2) There is NO contextual evidence whatsoever to prove such a notion in either passage just mentioned.
Because this is true, scholars and those looked to for their interpretation, do not go around saying “this and that are facts”, because they KNOW BETTER.
Well, how about you, TL and Molleth, make a clear statement that you see no connection between Complementarianism and abuse – or Patriocentrism and abuse – or Patriarchy and abuse.
We can start there if you want to clarify your position.
It would do a lot to clear things up in my thinking about the Egalitarian position.
Thank you,
Mrs. Webfoot
Here is what I posted on my blog. I hope that we can get this cleared up. I have added some questions. I hope you don’t mind. This is an important issue to get right.
TL and Molleth both challenged me to provide “proof” to back up what I said. I provided the link to one of their more offensive posts on the subject of Complementarians and abuse. They still ask for direct quotes. So, I then challenged them to clarify their position.
—————————————————-
On the Complegalitarian blog, this is what I said.
If they do not believe that Complementariaism, Patrocentrism, and/or Patriarchy make people abusive, what connection do they see between these positions and abuse?
I am waiting for them to post my challenge, and then to clarify.
1. Do they see no connection between Complementarian teachings and abuse?
2. Do they see some connection…?
3. Do they see a direct connection…?
4. Other?
kathy
“This was part of the curse put on the woman for her rebellion. It was a curse that God imposed.”
I do not think that it is Safe to say, at all, that God himself imposed a curse on the woman if it is not true, since we wouldn’t want to paint God’s as a character that is not true. So if this is going to be said, it Must be proven. Otherwise, it needs to be made real clear that there is NO scriptural reason provided to us, to believe that God did curse the woman. We can only say, scripturaly that 1)the serpent and 2) the ground were cursed, but not the woman or the man.
Readers should not be given a false picture of supposively God’s character if it cannot be proven.>>>>>
Kathy, I find your doubt about this a bit perplexing. Who said this, God or Satan?
“He shall rule over you.”
Was it part of the curse, or not? Who imposed the curse, then?
Who decreed that there would be weeds and that there would be pain in childbirth?
I’m a stickler, too.
We are born under a curse, under God’s wrath. The pain associated with what was supposed to be blessings is part of what God uses to drive us to Christ, our Savior. There is punishment for sin.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
PS
Christ took that punishment on Himself. He was made a curse for us, that is, in our place. It was God who ordained the curse in the first place, and then provided the Savior.
Galatians 3:10
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”
Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”
Kathy, I’m not sure what you think I’m saying.
I am not saying that women are more cursed and in need of a Savior than men are.
I am not saying that women can be blamed for all the consequences of rebelling against God any more than men can be.
Adam was held responsibile for the actions of the human race, but that doesn’t mean that men are greater sinners than women.
I am not saying that in Christ men should deal with their wives in a heavy-handed way.
What do you think I’m saying?
Hey, Mrs. Webfoot, just for clarification, I’m guessing I posted my request for clarification about the same time you were providing it. Sorry about that. I wouldn’t have posted it if I’d seen your comment doing exactly that. Though if folks challenge your link, that’s also fair game.
For example, if I say, “All comps are abusers” and give a link, but you think that link is wrong and isn’t representative of ALL comps, you have every right to say so and kindly challenge my statement.
Let’s all just try to do it in the right spirit, not being sarcastic and also not making wide sweeping statements without sufficient proof.
For example, Mrs. Webfoot, you could TOTALLY say, “I feel like egals here are always saying that comps are abusers.” That’s okay to say. She’s just sharing her own feelings about what she, as a comp, feels like when she reads here. Some proof or links to specific statement would be nice, so we could all help clear up a misunderstanding or work to communicate better, but no links/proof is required, because Mrs. Webfoot is simply sharing how she FEELS.
Whereas Mrs. Webfoot saying, “Egals here are saying that all comps are abusers” is not okay UNLESS you have specific proof. When we make an authoritative statement, ESPECIALLY about what others are doing and/or why they are wrong for doing so, it really needs to be done with a link or some “proof” included. That’s just plain good manners.
It’s something we all need to work on, and certainly no one has arrived at a place of perfection, but we’re working, and that’s a good thing!
Molleth, here are my questions so that we are sure what I am asking. I am not saying that Egalitarians are more abusive than Complementarians, but that the problem of abuse is a human heart problem. I hope you understand.
I want to know what Egalitarians think about Complementarianism in all its forms – hard or soft or in-between or whatever – and abuse. What connection is there?
I’m giving you a chance to clarify. I think that you need to, since Complementarians are regularly presented on this blog as the abusers and women as their victims.
what do you really think? If I have the wrong impression, then tell me what the correct one is.
——————
1. Do they [you as Egalitarians on the Complegalitarian blog] see no connection between Complementarian teachings and abuse?
2. Do they [you...] see some connection…?
3. Do they [you...] see a direct connection…?
4. Other?
——–
And, yes, Molleth, that is how I “feel”. I feel it very strongly. Convince me that I am wrong.
Webfoot, the link you gave is an ongoing discussion on the subject. I suggest you take your questions to that post. This post is on another subject.
http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/guest-author-ericw-what-comp-egal-tenets-support-abuse/
Perhaps, then you can find that elusive person who you claim says that “comps are abusive”.
Webfoot,
Kathy, I find your doubt about this a bit perplexing. Who said this, God or Satan?
“He shall rule over you.”
Was it part of the curse, or not? Who imposed the curse, then?
This was part of the curse put on the woman for her rebellion. It was a curse that God imposed.
I can say from my own personal perspective, “It seems to me that woman was cursed at the fall, because since then man would rule over her.” I can say that out of feelings, my own personal perspective. But I cannot say from a biblical perspective, (meaning biblicaly provable) that GOD imposed man to rule over woman, and that it was a curse. This is because God did not say he was imposing such a thing on woman. In fact it simply reads “he shall rule over you” therefore it can be concluded that man is imposing his nature on woman, since that is all that is said. Also Genesis directly speaks/writes of what is cursed, and that woman is cursed is not said at all. So God said “he shall rule over you”, but that he imposed this kind of male behavior, or that it is a curse (again biblicaly speaking – what’s provable) factualy cannot be drawn from what he said.
Who decreed that there would be weeds and that there would be pain in childbirth?
Again, how does this prove that God cursed the woman?
So really, it comes down to personal perspective vs. biblical perspective.
Uh oh, I tried to put your words in quotes, Webfoot. I don’t know what happened.
Testing
[quote]Who decreed that there would be weeds and that there would be pain in childbirth?[/quote]
{quote}Am I gonna get this right?{/quote}
Someone help me out here, please…!
Stickler… try “blockquote” and “/blockquote”
Neither Adam nor Eve, were cursed at the fall. The serpent was cursed and the ground was cursed. In addition, because of their sin, death came into the world on everyone: the earth, plants, animals, all creatures and humanity. Sin and death manifest through many things.
God warned Eve that Adam would now (since they sinned) change in his behavior to her as well her behavior would change as well. She would desire ( because it is a result of sin, I suspect this is inordinate desire) him and he (as a result of sin) would seek to harshly rule over/control/dominate her.
That is my take.
Webfoot, I posted on the other post here…
http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/guest-author-ericw-what-comp-egal-tenets-support-abuse/#comment-11187
Okay, so some of you object to calling the punishment that came on Eve a “curse.” I have no problems with calling it that, but what would you call it, then?
Punishment? Chastizement? What? It has to have a name, doesn’t it? I mean, all women have suffered because of the fall and the curses associated with it.
Are you saying that God would never curse a human being?
Then, TL, I think that I will just continue with my original assumption about what Egalitarians think of Complementarians.
I don’t see much willingness on the part of Egalitarians to convince me otherwise.
Thanks,
Mrs. Webfoot
On “He will rule over you”, this is a warning from God about what to expect in the future in being married to the deliberate sinner who tried to blame you for his sin. Not everything in Gen 3 after the fall is bad or a curse.
“Okay, so some of you object to calling the punishment that came on Eve a “curse.” I have no problems with calling it that, but what would you call it, then?”
It wasn’t punishment. The only punishment for sin was death. And that death was pervasive to the whole world.
Who decreed that there would be weeds and that there would be pain in childbirth?
Again, how does this prove that God cursed the woman? >>>>
Do you agree that God decreed these things?
They are punishments. They are part of the curse. A curse comes on those who break God’s laws. Adam and Eve broke God’s laws, and they came under a curse, as did all creation. It’s not just that they died, but all of creation groans because of sin.
Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Christ took on Himself the curse.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Webfoot,
What did I think you were saying? I didn’t interpret what you said, I just took what you said, as you worded it. Simply put, “woman was cursed”. That’s what I thought you were saying.
“Adam was held responsibile for the actions of the human race,”
This is another personal perspective…the idea that Adam was held responsible for Eve’s actions along with his own, is quite an interesting theory.
And how does the idea that God Punished the woman with “pains in childbearing” (whatever the Hebrew actualy says…) and a dominating husband come into perspective?
Stickler, these are not personal perspectives. I did not make these interpretations up. You may disagree with them, but they are not my perspectives.
Please quit saying that. Please quit insinuating that I am inventing things that Christians have never believed.
I can assure you that I am well within orthodoxy.
What I mean by “personal perspectve” is that it cannot be proven from the scriptures. That’s it. I’m not saying that you made them up.
How am I insinuating that you are inventing things that Christians have never believed? I was not insinuating any such thing. I’m trying to contrast between biblical (factual)and personal (theory). Really, can ANYONE say that such and such is biblical if such and such cannot even be proven? That’s sounds Way more than silly to me. Anyway, Christians have believed lots of things throughout history…
I’m using the word “biblical” in the way I understood it to be used within complementarian theology…
Like what does Grudem mean by “Biblical manhood and womanhood”?
He should have titled his book, “Personal Perspective on Manhood and Womanhood”
Oh. Thank you for clarifying, Stickler. So, you are saying that the Complementarian position and maybe even orthodox Protestantism are not Biblical, at least from your perspective.
So, I believe something that is unbiblical. Do I understand you correctly?
Did you get a chance to look at these Scriptures? I think that it is more than safe to say that the breaking of God’s laws – and laws – brings a curse on the lawbreaker.
I think that it is also more than safe to say that Christ took our punishment on Himself, being made a curse for us, so that we could be free from condemnation.
At this point in time, we are still living in the world with all the effects of the fall. Someday all of that will be changed because Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
So, it is very Biblical to speak of people – men and women – being under a curse which began the moment they rebelled against God – and will end at the regeneration of all things.
Christ took that punishment on Himself. He was made a curse for us, that is, in our place. It was God who ordained the curse in the first place, and then provided the Savior.
Here are just a few Scriptures, but there are many more, of course.
Could you tell me what part of what I said was unbiblical?
Thank you for the polite interaction, stickler,
Mrs. Webfoot
Galatians 3:10
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”
Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”
Deuteronomy 28:18-20 (New International Version)
18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.
19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.
20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. [a]
It’s something we all need to work on, and certainly no one has arrived at a place of perfection, but we’re working, and that’s a good thing!>>>>
Molleth, I am not being sarcastic, but I am looking forward to where you explain rule #4 “Do not lecture anyone.”
I wish that the moderators of this group would follow that rule. Please don’t lecture me.
Stickler
“Of course, you reject the fact that “kephale” means “authority over”, so we would disagree there.”
1) It is NOT a fact that “kephale” used as a metaphor IN Eph 5 or 1 Co 11 means “authority over”.
2) There is NO contextual evidence whatsoever to prove such a notion in either passage just mentioned.
Because this is true, scholars and those looked to for their interpretation, do not go around saying “this and that are facts”, because they KNOW BETTER.>>>>
Stickler, I respectfully disagree with you. We shall agree to disagree.
If you get time, you may want to read Dr. Grudem’s recent article in the CBMW Journal.
Personal Reflections on the History of CBMW and the State of the Gender Debate¹Tools: Print
E-mailWayne Grudem
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-14-No-1/Personal-Reflections-on-the-History-of-CBMW-and-the-State-of-the-Gender-Debate
Here are two quotes from that article. :
Grudem says, “in 2001, I published another article, forty-one pages in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, on “The Meaning of kephalē (“Head”): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged.
So that’s 132 pages of lexicographical research published in academic journals on one word in the Bible. And these articles spanned sixteen years of my life. ”
Grudem says, “Why did I do this? So that commentaries, Greek lexicons, and Bible translations in future generations will accurately teach and translate a crucial verse in the word of God. If head equals “authority over” as has been shown now in over sixty examples, then the ballgame is over. And even today, twenty-four years after my first article, there are still zero examples where a person is called “head” of someone else and is not in authority over that person. Zero. That kind of evidence would normally settle the debate forever in ordinary exegesis of ordinary verses.”
I think that over 60 examples and 132 pages published in academic journals are enough to show that Dr. Grudem’s arguments are sound.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
Webfoot,
I think EACH of us owns our own faith. When I accept the teaching of another, I now own that teaching as a part of my faith. And I can be mistaken, so I also seek to learn more and am open to changing parts of my faith as I learn more.
For example, the Bible says that the husband is the head/kephale of his wife. The Bible says it and I accept it. Now what the term kephale MEANS as a metaphor is part of one’s interpretation and people might disagree and have differing interpretations. But all Bible believers agree that the husband is the head of his wife.
LOL that would have been more accurate. And still as powerful for the complementarians.
Webfoot,
All Grudem has shown is that authority is ONE POSSIBLE meaning of kephale. He has not shown that that is the meaning Paul had when he used it, this is Grudem’s own personal choice of interpretation on what he thinks kephale meant to Paul, others are free to select another possibility. One needs to determine by context whether authority is the best meaning of the kephale metaphor or is there another in each case where it is used.
Don, wasn’t the final rundown shown by scholars, that out of some hundreds of uses, kephale could have been used in the sense of some authority possibly 8 times, or was it less than that.
Well, Don and TL, I will respectfully disagree.
I’m not sure what “rundown shown by scholars” you are talking about. What scholarly, peer reviewed journals are they published in?
Then, TL, I want to remind you of the “no sarcasm” rule.
If the moderators freely disobey the rules, then what can you hope from the rest of us who are under the authority of this blog?
Webfoot, you are not a moderator.
And I wasn’t being sarcastic.
A more precise look at what was missing from Grudems research has been done by several scholars including Giles.
Sue has a ton of excellent research here on her blog …
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/index-cbmw-grudem-kephale.html
This one is particularly informative. Sue actually does the nit picky research and provides it, whereas Grudem only alluded to things but never actually provided the evidence.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/grudem-and-kephale.html
By far, the vast majority of uses of kephale in Greek refers to the blob on top of your neck when standing. EVERY other use is a metaphor and one needs to try their best to figure out the metaphor.
In the LXX I think there are 3 uses where it is plausibly used as leader, but archon is much more prevalent. It is also used in head/tail metaphor as first in line, in a head/body metaphor of unity, as the head of a river as source, ala Zeus had his daughter spring forth from his head, which we today think as a totally strange story, let alone a metaphor.
A kephale MIGHT mean leader in any specific instance, but it is a decision to interpret it that way. Grudem overstates his argument, all he has done is shown that kephale MIGHT mean leader in the gender examples in the NT. One needs to study the immediate context to see if leadership is being discussed or not. Of course, the non-egals believe that leadership is being discussed and the egals do not think so.
Sue is a wonderful scholar and gives one enough info so one can make up their own mind. She demonstrates time and again how Grudem words things in his articles so that his position is seen in the best possible light, even tho he knows he is crafting his arguments, it may not seem that way to a casual reader. That is, he is vague when it serves his interests to be vague and exactly as precise as he wishes to be whenever he writes that way. Grudem is writing advocacy, but does not ‘fess up about it.
In contrast, Sue is always precise and let’s the chips fall where they may.
Once you see that Grudem is participating in a debate and uses debating tactics, one can more easily see why he often overstates his case.
I agree Don. I’ve a lot of respect for Sue’s skills in language research.
The fact of Grudem’s wanting to win is interesting. Trying not to characterize Grudem ….. It reminds me of certain psychological traits where people with a certain self image must win at all costs in everything they do. Its an unbalanced way of behaving. And unbalanced behavior is not limited to sick people or those with lower intelligence quotas. Even very intelligent people can be unbalanced like this. The mystery of human emotions and intellect.
God has rebuked me for my “win” mentality. But I can also see it in others.
For example, in the most recent article by Grudem that Webfoot mentioned, he says “So the egals cannot lose … on the meaning of that word (kephale)” what he is REALLY saying is that non-egals cannot lose on that word.
Most everyone knows that when a word is used as a metaphor, it might have one or more meanings from a set of various meanings. For the non-egals to be correct, it MUST have the meaning of leader, if it has ANY other meaning, then the egals are correct. And no one is required to believe it has the meaning of leader. So Grudem is reduced to overstating his case and declaring victory, when all he has shown is that kephale MIGHT mean leader.
TL, this is sarcasm.:
““He should have titled his book, “Personal Perspective on Manhood and Womanhood” “
LOL that would have been more accurate. And still as powerful for the complementarians.”"”
Please own it. It’s yours.
Then, when was Sue published in a peer reviewed theological journal? She has done a lot of work. she is a smart woman. She has not “proven” anything.
You may wish to accept her scholarship, and that’s fine. I have no problem with you having your sincerly held beliefs.
Then, TL, this breaks rule #6.:
“It reminds me of certain psychological traits where people with a certain self image must win at all costs in everything they do.”
If you are going to have rules, please follow them.
Well, as always, it has been an interesting exchange.
Thank you for the interaction.
Maybe I’ll drop in sometime this summer.
I would still like clarification on what connection you see between Complementarianism and abuse, but maybe that will come later?
God bless, and please take care,
Mrs. Webfoot
PS
I’m taking down my comments about Complegalitarian. I just like to post on my own blog when I am posting here. Maybe it’s about accountability? I see no need to leave it up, though.
Here is the connection I see between comp teaching and the POTENTIAL for abuse.
1. We are all sinners and all of us have the potential to be abusers.
2, Comp teaching tells the husband he has a trump card or leads, etc. over his wife. Egal teaching says that no one has a trump card, or “wins” by virtue of their gender.
3. If someone believes they have a trump card, then they will act in various ways in response to this belief, for example, play the trump card to end discussion. If someone believes their spouse has a trump card, then they will acts in various ways in response to this belief, for example, surrender early since you will lose eventually anyway. If someone believes no one has a trump card, then they will act in various ways in response to this belief, for example, unless an emergency, pray for wisdom until consensus is reached, believing that a lack of consensus is a reason to delay making a decision.
4. People that study abusers and victims have DEMONSTRATED that the #1 correlation to being an abuser is drug/alcohol abuse. And the #2 correlation is believing that the husband is the leader, in charge. This obviously includes believers and non-believers.
5. CBMW has tried to address this by claiming that an abuser is not a comp. This puts the cart before the horse. As a man thinks, so he is, per the Bible. That is, a comp does not magically become a non-comp the instant he abuses his wife.
6. This does not mean that all comps are abusers, far from it, just like it does not mean that egals cannot be abusers. Anyone can be an abuser using the tools they have. But the paradox for non-egals is that to avoid being abusive a husband MAY need to refuse to use the power they are taught they have, the power to make the “final decision”.
7. The question in some cases becomes exactly what constitutes abuse. I claim that violating the will of another adult is to treat them like a child and is abusive UNLESS there is a case of imminent danger of harm. That is, in some cases, a parent needs to violate a child’s will for the good of the child, but doing this to another adult is problematical. Even God does not violate one’s will, rather, God lets us suffer the consequences.
Sarcasm is the use of sharp, cutting remarks or language intended to mock, wound, or subject to contempt or ridicule.
While I can see where you could have taken our exchange as sarcasm, however by this definition it was not. There was no intent of contempt or ridicule. Perhaps, mildly so, but no angst involved. Thank you for your help is seeing that though.
“Then, TL, this breaks rule #6.:
“It reminds me of certain psychological traits where people with a certain self image must win at all costs in everything they do.”
If you are going to have rules, please follow them.
Perhaps, you missed what was said before….. “Trying not to characterize Grudem” …. it reminds me …..
Webfoot, you are not a moderator. And it really does no one any good to go around trying to find fault with what others say. This does not contribute to the conversation. The mods here are good and if something was at fault in my writing they would have approached me offline and/or edited it out. It has happened before. No one is perfect no matter how hard some try.
But bottom line is that it is not up to you to try to control the conversation here. The fact that your posts are left up for the most part should show you how intent we are in trying not to excessively control conversation. We want people to be able to express themselves freely unless things go really haywire.
Thank you for your contributions, Webfoot.
Submissiontyranny blogspot has some articles on the connection between wife’s submission/husband leader and abuse. I wish there were more writers like her around.
“Every time I hear a man explain that Ephesians 5 is talking about the husband being the leader, I get the sense of someone who is trying very hard to convince me he does not believe in being the ruler of his wife and that being a leader is somehow different.”
I’ve sensed this also. This is her opening statement of her June 10th post. Interesting…now I feel frustrated, so taking brake!
I love the book “The Shack”, where it explains that everything the Trinity does, they do without violating any human’s free will.
Now if only Christians applied that teaching to relationships, things might go better!
Don,
Look at this quote:
Author:
Title of Book:
Philip Barton Payne
Women, Authority, and the Bible, pg. 118
The Mickelsens actually understate their case from Greek usage. Including its 1968 supplement, the Liddell and Scott lexicon lists forty-eight separate English equivalents of figurative meanings of kephale. None of them implies leader, authority, first or supreme. To confirm that “authority” was not in the usual connotative range of kephale, I consulted three prominent speicalists in ancient Greek literature.18 They all agreed that the idea of “authority” was not a recognized meaning of kephale in Greek.
18 David Armstrong of the University of Texas at Austin and Michael Wigodsky and Mark Edwards of Stanford University.
Don,
Here’s another one for you:
Author:
Title of Book::
Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen
Women, Authority & the Bible, pgs. 100-103
Under section two, where Bauer gives “superior rank” as a meaning for kephale, he cites only two references from secular Greek. One comes from Zosimus and is dated A.D. 500-at least 400 years after the New Testament was written. (Our question is not what kephale meant in A.D. 500 but rather what Paul meant when he used kephale when writing his letters to the churches in the first century.) Bauer’s only other reference to secular Greek to support the meaning of “superior rank” is to Artemidorus in the second century, where kephale is used as a symbol of the father. What Artemidorus said (Lib K, Capt 2, Para 6,) was “He [the father] was the cause (aitos) of the life and of the light for the dreamer [the son] just as the head (kephale) is the cause of the life and the light of all the body.” He also said: “the head is to be likened to parents because the head is the cause of life.” Bauer’s reference may be an example of a lexicographer reading his own cultural understanding (i.e., fathers have “superior rank”) into the text………..
Those, who, like Bauer, insist that kephale means “superior rank” say that since kephale is used with that meaning in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, that meaning must have been familiar to Greek-speaking people in New Testament times. The facts do not support this assumption.
The Septuagint was prepared by a large group of Hebrew Greek scholars for the thousands of Jewish people who lived outside of Palestine. For these Jews, Greek was their first and sometimes only language, and they could not have read a Hebrew Old Testament even if one had been available. They used the Septuagint in their synagogues. For all the early churches outside Palestine, the Septuagint translation was the Old Testament, for it was written in the only language they knew.
We studied all the instances in which the Hebrew word rosh (meaning “head”) appears in the Old Testament and how it was translated in the Septuagint. Rosh occurs approximately 600 times and the Aramaic word resh occurs 14 times. Usually rosh or resh simply means physical head of a person or animal, the same meaning that the Greek work kephale usually has in the New Testament. In the 239 instances when Rosh refers to a physical head, the Septuagint translators nearly always translated it with kephale. But like our English word head, rosh sometimes had metaphorical or figurative meanings, including leader or someone in authority, or beginning, as in rosh hashshanan (Ezek 40:1 “at the beginning of the year.”)
About 180 times, the Hebrew word rosh, meaning “head”, clearly refers to a “chief something”-a chief man, chief city, chief nation, chief priest, that is, the leader or authority figure in a group. Apparently, this meaning for rosh was as common in ancient Hebrew as it is in English today. But, as we have seen from the Liddell, Scott, Jones, and McKenzie lexicon, that was not a common meaning in the Greek language of New Testament times. The findings of these lexicographers are confirmed when we examine the Greek words that the translators of the Septuagint used when the Hebrew word rosh means leader or chief. In the 180 instances when rosh means leader or chief, the Septuagint translators rarely used kephale. Archon, meaning ruler, commander or leader, was used 109 times (about 60 per cent). Apparently the translators believed that archon rather than kephale more accurately conveyed the meaning of the Hebrew rosh when it meant ruler or leader…………
Although archon was the most common word used for rosh when it meant chief or authority, it was not the only one. The translators occasionally used thirteen other words. Some appear in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, where heads appears three times: “Choose wise, understanding and experienced men, according to your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads. And you answered me, ‘The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do’, So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you…”
Obviously heads in this passage meant superior rank or authority. But the Septuagint translators did not use kephale in any of the three places. Instead, they used the Greek words hegoumenous, hegeisthai and chiliarchos. The verb hegeomai means to rule or have dominion. The noun chiliarchos means to be a leader, a commander of a thousand soldiers. Among the fourteen words used to translate rosh, kephale does appear eighteen times. But these include six passages that have variant readings. Four others involve a head-tail metaphor that would not make sense without the use of head in contrast to tail. For example, Deuteronomy 28:44 says, “He shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail.”
Mrs. Webfoot it is not worth the time or effort to have these folks try and understand you since you are seen as being hostile to their rules and belief system… they don’t respect your person (.)
I thought I might have found a place where ideas could be shared and honest debate might be possible, but then professor Grudem is still ridiculed, though a major publishing house (Peter Blare’s letter regarding Liddell-Scott lexicon’s use of source) conceded their error in what they published about kephale and the confusion regarding “source”.
Mrs Webfoot, I can feel your pain in wanting things to be clarified, but I don’t think that will ever happen at the moment, and sometimes it’s good to just leave/live in peace, as much as possible
. Paul says it well, “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” Pray for those that don’t understand you and possibly God will grant them just that, even if they don’t agree with you.
Note to Don, I appreciated your openness to God’s correction, we all need to have Scripture mirror it’s truth on us.
I have learned not to take this debate too far, it has it’s purpose, but then living for God is so much more.
I truly hope that honest debate will someday be possible, as people consider what is the greater truth, and also consider that they could be mistaken some of the time.
Blessings,
Ralph (I’ll sleep on it tonight if I should comment further)
“then professor Grudem is still ridiculed, though a major publishing house (Peter Blare’s letter regarding Liddell-Scott lexicon’s use of source) conceded their error in what they published about kephale and the confusion regarding “source”.
I’ve heard of that. Do you have access to a copy of that letter which is provable that it is from Liddel Scott’s Lexicon authors. It was my understanding that there was great pressure put upon them to write such a note, but have never seen one.
Even so, they are not the final authority on ancient uses of words, although I agree they have been one of the best for some time now.
“I have learned not to take this debate too far, it has it’s purpose, but then living for God is so much more.”
I completely agree.
1. I don’t think the issue is whether or not kephale means “source”, but whether it means “leader or authority.”
From what I have read it doesn’t mean that. How exactly Paul was using Kephale I’m not sure. But he wasn’t using it as “leader or authority.”
2. I’ve heard of that. Do you have access to a copy of that letter which is provable that it is from Liddel Scott’s Lexicon authors. It was my understanding that there was great pressure put upon them to write such a note, but have never seen one.
I’ve never heard of that. If you have a link to that Ralph – please share it with us. Thanks.
TL:
I’ve heard of that. Do you have access to a copy of that letter which is provable that it is from Liddel Scott’s Lexicon authors. It was my understanding that there was great pressure put upon them to write such a note, but have never seen one.>>>
Evidence. Please provide evidence. Otherwise, this is just hearsay.
TL,
This is from the Mickelsen study. They checked the Septuagint to see how many times Hebrew word “rosh” (chief or leader) was translated from Hebrew into Greek as kephale. Here are there results.
This is from pages 103-104 of Women, Authority and the Bible.
That leaves only eight instances (out of 180) where the Septuagint translators clearly chose to use kephale as a translation for ro’sh, when ro’sh meant chief or leader…….Septuagint translators used fourteen different Greek words to translate ro’sh:
1. archon (meaning ruler, commander, leader) 109 times
2. archegos (captain, leader, chief, prince) 10 times
3. arche (authority, magistrate, officer) 9 times
4. hegeomai (to be a leader, to rule, have dominion) 9 times
5. protos (first, foremost) 6 times
6. patriarches (father or chief of a race, patriarch) 3 times
7. chiliarches (commander) 3 times
8. archiphules (chief of a tribe) 2 times
9. archipatriotes (head of a family) 1 time
10. archo (verb; ruler, to be ruler of) 1 time
11. megas, megale, mega (great, mighty, important) 1 time
12. proegeomail (take the lead, go first, lead the way) 1 way
13. prototokos (firstborn or first in rank) 1 time
14. kephale (where head can mean top or crown) 8 times
kephale (in head-tail metaphor) 4 times
kepahle (where manuscripts have variant readings) 6 times
ro’sh (not translated) 6 times
In his book “Beyond Sex Roles” Gilbert Bilezian critcizes Wayne Grudem’s kephale study. It starts on page 215.
Here’s some info on Gen. 3:16 for all to think over:
(NIV)
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
Author:
Title of Book:
Linda Belleville
Women Leaders in the Church, pg. 107
A plausible suggestion is to read the pronoun hu as it (neuter), rather than he (masculine). The wife’s desire will be for her husband, and it (the desire) will rule her. This fits nicely with the context. It is also quite close to the wording of Genesis 4:7, “Sin’s desiring [tesuqa, same noun] is for you but you will master it [masal, same verb]” (AT).
Top of Page
——————————————————————————–
Author:
Title of Book:
Richard S. Hess
Discovering Biblical Equality, pg. 92
Rather, Genesis 3:16-17 is best understood as a description of the new order of things, of how life will be lived as the result of the Fall, rather than how it should be lived. It is not a command for one sex to rule over the other any more than Genesis 3:17-19 is a command for all Israelite men to be farmers or a prohibition of the use of weed-killer. These are not God’s decisions on how things must be, such that violation of them would be sin.
So, the Septuagint really sheds little or no light on the usage of “kephale” in the NT.
The word “rosh” and the different words used in the Septuagint to translate it, OTOH, does give a clear idea of male headship in the OT, though. You do see that, don’t you.
That’s what I take away from jpl’s posts. It confirms what I have been looking at in the Septuagint myself. Male headship in the OT is the firmly established order of things in the patriarchal family and patriarchal society.
I would say that the fact that “rosh” in the OT is often translated as “archegos”, which simply means “a leader, a chief, a prince ruler.”
Don’t you see a difference between the head of a tribe, a chief, or a prince ruler and the head we find in the NT?
In Ephesians 5, for example, Paul is talking about the husband and his wife, not the head of a tribe and all he is responsible for. The chief ruler may have had many families under his rule.
Besides, the relationship between husband and wife is in view in Ephesians 5. It is much more than just a ruler and those ruled. The NT head is one with his body. He is still the leader, but the relationship is very different.
n his book “Beyond Sex Roles” Gilbert Bilezian critcizes Wayne Grudem’s kephale study. It starts on page 215.>>>
jlp, Grudem has responded to all of those criticisms. Have you read both sides of the debate?
A husband’s headship over his wife is the kind of union that Christ has with His church. He is still the one that she obeys, but He is also her most intimate Friend and Companion, Redeemer, and much, much more. Read Jonathan Edward’s sermon on The Excellency of Christ to see all that Christ is to His beloved. The sermon is a tremendous blessing.
So, back to the words translated as our English “head” in the OT. why would it be surprising that the Greek words used in the Septuagint are what they are? The OT patriarchal system was different.
We don’t have tribes in the Church. We are not tribal – though I suppose that if you studied each denomination or even each church, it would have tribe-like qualities, but they are not technically “tribes.”
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/edwards/excellency.html
Don:
4. People that study abusers and victims have DEMONSTRATED that the #1 correlation to being an abuser is drug/alcohol abuse. And the #2 correlation is believing that the husband is the leader, in charge. This obviously includes believers and non-believers.>>>>
I will resubmit this. Don, who are the “people that study abusers and victims”? Please substantiate your claims. Otherwise, it is just someone’s opinion. What is the evidence, and who are these people who study this out?
Good info JLP. I remember the Mickelson study. And then Sue narrowed down the information by checking each one of the 8+ instances of kephale. That info is on her blog.
Belleville’s point on 3:16 makes even more sense when we realize there is no word for ‘over’, rather the word is ‘in’. Thus, it becomes ‘it will rule (harshly) in you’. I can understand missing the gender because of our English usage of referring to everything that has a will as “he” if they are unknown. But ‘in’ cannot be confused with ‘over’. I suspect that translaters first made the mistake with ‘he’ and then figured saying that ‘he shall rule in you’ didn’t sound right so they figured what was meant was ‘over you’. I’d like to see some more research on this.
Check the interlinear at
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf
Webfoot, the evidence that needs to be provided is the letter spoken of. One cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. One must prove that it does exist, otherwise it doesn’t exist.
jlp quoting:
“Rather, Genesis 3:16-17 is best understood as a description of the new order of things, of how life will be lived as the result of the Fall, rather than how it should be lived. It is not a command for one sex to rule over the other any more than Genesis 3:17-19 is a command for all Israelite men to be farmers or a prohibition of the use of weed-killer. These are not God’s decisions on how things must be, such that violation of them would be sin.”>>>>
I don’t take “He shall rule over you” as a command to the husband that he has to be harsh with his wife.
I don’t take it as a prophecy, either.
It is part of the curse. It is a punishment. Disobedience to the law of God – any law – carries with it a punishment. Otherwise, a law has not effect. It is null and void if there is no punishment attatched to it. All of God’s laws carried a punishment for disobedience. That is how justice works.
Those who break God’s laws are said to be under a curse, as I pointed out from the Deuteronomy quotes. Just search “curse” at Bible Gateway and see how much that word was used in the OT Law. BTW, Genesis is part of the OT Law, even though it predates the Law of Moses.
Yes, death is one of those punishments. There are many others related to the fall.
Also, God did not leave us without a way out. Christ took all our punishment on Himself. He was made a curse for us. It’s all paid for. We can be free of the condemnation and the curse of the Law.
Yes, we suffer the effects of the fall still, but that will all be gone someday, when Christ returns. Meanwhile, we wait and we have this sure hope.
God has also shown us a different pattern for relationships in Christ.
Egalitarians would say that equality in the relationship is the “way out.”
Complementarians would say that balance, or equilibrium in the relationship is the “way out.”
Both sides see the loving self-sacrifice on the part of the husband. Both sides see that love and respect are inner attitudes that both husband and wife are told to have towards one another.
Complementarians see the need for any organization to have a leader. It is that way in the Church, with Christ as our Head, our leader. It is that way in marriage, with the Christlike husband as the leader of his wife.
I’m not sure who the author of that quote is arguing with.
The default mode of human society is a patriarchy that tends to be harsh and painful, one that the will cause the wife grief – one that she will tend to fight against. I think that is what God decreed when He said “he shall rule over you.”
It should not be that way in Christ. The harshness should be removed from the picture.
I don’t know how I could explain it better.
Yes, if Ralph can provide a link to the letter it would help. I had never even heard of the letter till Ralph mentioned it. So I’m hoping he has the link.
Ralph – do you have the link?
Webfoot, if you will do some responsible research you will find that most Hebrew scholars agree that Gen. 3:16 is not a curse. It is not written in that form.
In addition, harsh rule is sinful, which even you have acknowledged. God would not curse a whole race by cursing the other half to sin. God does not ever cause us to sin. No matter which way we see the traditional view of this verse, they all come out having God cause Adam and Eve to sin. That is simply not acceptable. Thus, there must be another way of viewing it.
1. it is not a curse, because then God would be commanding men and women to sin.
2. a more likely reading, is that it is God warning the woman that these things would take place in her future.
TL:
Here’s more for you:
Author:
Title of Book:
Catherine Clark Kroeger
“The Classical Concept of Head as “Source”, from the appendix of Gretchen Gabelein Hull’s book “Equal to Serve.” pgs. 267-268
The concept of head as “source” is well documented in both classical and Christian antiquity and has been long accepted by scholars. Some evangelicals, however, have shown a reluctance to deal with the data…….…… To find earlier works, we must use Greek-Latin dictionaries, of which there are a great abundance. In these the definition of “source” for kephale is well attested. Henry Petrina’s Lexicon Dictionarium Graecolatinum of 1577 lists the following meanings: caput, vertex, summa pars, apex cerni, exorium, origo (source or origin), statura coporis.
{Clark’s article then goes on to give several examples of head being used as source in ancient Greek. Following is first example:}
Pages 268
Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, wrote of Adam:
Therefore of our race he became first head, which is source, and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the spirit. Therefore he himself our source, which is head, has appeared as a human being. Yet he though God by nature, has himself a generating head, the heavenly Father, and he himself, though God according to his nature, yet being the Word, was begotten of Him. Because head means source, He establishes the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore as God according to His nature, the one Christ and Son and Lord has as his head the heavenly Father, having himself become our head because he is of the same stock according to the flesh.
In case you have lost count, kephale is defined as “source (arche) no less than four times in this single paragraph. In his application of the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Cyril bases his argument upon this definition. Christ was begotten of the Father, who is His source, woman was drawn from man, who is her source.
TL:
Here’s another:
Author:
Title of Book:
David Scholer
Women, Abuse, and the Bible, pgs. 42-43
What is the result of this two-decades-long debate within evangelical circles over the meaning of kephale, and how does it relate to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Ephesians 5:21-33? It is not likely that any further progress can be made now in the analysis of the Greek word kephale; the evidence is in and has been sifted from various perspectives. It seems clear to me that the evidence shows the metaphorical meaning of kephale can be varied, including “authority over”, “preeminence”, and “source.” It is, however, especially important to note that the Septuagint evidence rather clearly indicates that the Greek kephale was not normally used to translate the Hebrew rosh when the Hebrew term meant a ruler, leader, or someone in authority. This considerably weakens the argument that kephale in Hellenistic Greek means “authority over” or “ruler.” In my judgement, Bilezikian and Crain have made this case especially well. Rather, it seems clearly established that kephale can mean “source”, as many (such as Kroeger, Fee and others) have shown. Perhaps Fee has given the most succinct statement of the basic evidence.
However, and this is a very important point that so much of the kephale debate seems to ignore or to put aside, the determinative evidence for the meaning of kephale is its use and function in particular contexts. Thus, proving a range of meanings for kephale is important, especially against the undue limits argued by Grudem, but the critical issue is how kephale functions in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Ephesians 5:21-33.
Although 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (especially in the allusions to Genesis 2 in verses 7-9) does reflect to some degree the traditional Jewish understanding of androcentrism, the passage as a whole provides considerable support both for an understanding of kephale as “source” and also for a genuine equality and mutuality between men and women in the church. The christological issue in the words “and God is the head of Christ” (11:3 NRSV) is better served in Pauline theology by the understanding “source” rather than by “authority over”. Further, even the Genesis argument (11:7-9) fits very well with understanding kephale as “source.”
Webfoot, if you will do some responsible research…>>>>
Breaking of rule #5
5. Do not make insulting remarks about anyone’s scholarship.
If you will read my posts, you will see that I put the concept of curse in the greater context of breaking God’s laws.
Yes, Ralph is right.
thank you, Don, for the evidence I asked for. I appreciate that.
Mrs. Webfoot
Say – where has our dear friend Eric been lately?
Long ago, but not so very far away, I wrote:
Another problem, right up there, is the ascribing of motives to people for why they express the beliefs they express:
1. Egalitarians are power hungry.
2. Complementarians are power hungry.
To which Webfoot replied:
Lynn, you do see that power is a big topic in these discussion, don’t you? You are objecting to the insinuation that people are “power hungry” on either side?
Not exactly. I am objecting to people saying, “You are arguing that way because you are power hungry.”
I am quite confident that both sides of the debate are human, thus both sides of the debate struggle with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life.
I didn’t see your question until just now. Our youngest just celebrated her 10th birthday on the 12th, and we just celebrated our 24th anniversary today. A neighbor took my daughter to VBS (we are switching back and forth as helpers each night), and my husband and I went out to Applebee’s, or however you spell it. So we’ve been busy.
David S. – quote from book:
It seems clear to me that the evidence shows the metaphorical meaning of kephale can be varied, including “authority over”, “preeminence”, and “source.” >>>>
I think that he is “fudging” here. He has had to admit that “kephale” means “authority over” or “preeminence” – i.e. “highest rank” – but he doesn’t want to recognize that “source” also speaks of “highest rank” or “preeminence” or “authority over.”
Nothing he says refutes Grudem’s statement:
“And even today, twenty-four years after my first article, there are still zero examples where a person is called “head” of someone else and is not in authority over that person. Zero. That kind of evidence would normally settle the debate forever in ordinary exegesis of ordinary verses.” 5.”
Then, I’ll bet you that Cyril also said that the woman was subordinate to the man because he is her source; he is her “kephale.” I may look up the complete context of that quote.
Chrysostom taught that woman was subordinate to man because he is her head, her source. Read his complete homily On the Veiling of Women. Read it to the end, and note this,
“This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us. ”
http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/Headcoverings/chrysostom.htm
Note that he said the fact that a man is the head of a woman shows his superiority – his superior rank. That is very significant, because Egalitarians have quoted Chrysostom as if he were an Egalitarian! He was a patriarchalist, of course.
I’ll bet that Cyril had a similar understaning of “kephale.”
Again, what needs to be shown is that the usage of “source” doesn’t also always carry with it the the other meanings of “authority over” or “highest rank” or “preeminence.” “Kepahle’ means “authority over” or “preeminence” or “highest rank.” A “kephale” is that kind of “source.” It’s not just a reference to generation.
Then, the arguments from the Septuagint are practically irrelevant. They are, as I said, argument sfrom silence. You can’t estabilsh the meaning of a word by where it is NOT used! Besides, as I said, the head of a tribe is very different from the “kephale” in the NT.
“Kepahle” doesn’t mean “tribal chieftan.” Why would it be used to translate “ro’sh”?
Those arguments do help to prove that the OT was solidly patriarchal.
Those arguments do help to prove that the OT was solidly patriarchal.
Does anyone argue otherwise?
Re: my last post/comment:
I guess it depends upon what the meaning of “solidly” is.
If solidly means 100%, then I guess I’d say “no.”
But if solidly means “overwhelmingly” or “substantially” or “primarily,” then I would agree, and would think that nearly everyone else would agree that the OT is “solidly patriarchal” (as opposed to “solidly egalitarian” or “solidly matriarchal”).
Both the OT and the NT were written in patriarchal cultures that included polygamy and slavery. It was allowed in the Mosaic covenant for a free man to marry a slave woman or even for 2 slaves to marry; this does not mean it was God’s best.
If anyone thinks Grudem is the last word on kephale, they should read Susan’s website. She demonstrates his errors time and again with enough information so one can see where he makes mistakes. Susan is an actual Greek scholar, Grudem is not.
Her website is http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/
Eric, the fact that the world was solidly, overwhelmingly patriarchal means nothing in the scheme of what is righteous behavior to follow. After all, the world was also solidly and overwhelmingly sinful. Does that give us license to be sinful also.
Without a doubt, the OT is patriarchal.
For the egal (who believes Gen. 3:16 describes what will take place until the promised Seed comes), this is as it should be. Patriarchy, slavery, sin, death, all of those things we believe came through the fall.
It is very sad, because we believe that the effects of the fall are so destructive, but yet through the stories in the OT we see rays of hope shining here and there, offering us hope that redemption will come, that God did not leave us, and that He is the kind of God who can make a garden where there was only a desert before.
TL:
I was not endorsing or siding with patriarchalism. I was just wondering/asking why Mrs. Webfoot was seemingly asserting the proof of something (“Those arguments do help to prove that the OT was solidly patriarchal.”) that to me is evident to and admitted by everyone, whether that person is a complementarian, an egalitarian, a scholar, a theologian, a historian, an atheist, or simply a reader of the OT.
Eric ….
I agree, Eric. That the OT was patriarchal is neither here nor there. It was patriarchal. It was polygamous, too, consistantly so. That was the way it was. The OT is life after the Fall. There are all sorts of things there that are less than ideal.
Even the Levitical code and the Tabernacle, etc, all of which are good things from God, are less than ideal (as in, they were not sent to save us nor could they save us). Even those good things were less than the ideal, temporary things intended to help move us towards acknowledging and recieving the promised Messiah.
So patriarchy is there, but it’s up to us to figure out whether patriarchy stems from pre-Fall design or whether it is the result of a twisting/bentness of the original intent. Generally, comps fall to one side and egals fall to the other, but no one denies that patriarchy was alive and well after the Fall.
molleth:
Well,
1) since those who attain to the coming age and the resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage; and
2) since in Christ there is not male and female; and
3) since the eschaton is about:
a) a New Creation (not simply a reboot of the old creation), the life of which we in Christ and in the church already participate in – i.e., the “restoration” that Christ’s salvation effected and is fully going to bring about and which is to be displayed even now in the church is not about dusting off and/or renewing the old creation (i.e., Genesis 1&2 as a pattern); as well as
b) a New Man; and
4) since whether one was a slave or a freeman, or a Jew or a Gentile, was neither a qualifier nor a disqualifier for either offices or gifts in the church,
then I fail to see how patriarchalism can even be thought to be a required feature or a proper understanding of the Christian life.
Why do you folks have rules when you break them all the time?
“Grudem’s not a Greek scholar. Susan is.”
neener, neener, neener…
That breaks rule #5.
I HATE legalism!
IF Susan says that Chrysostom taught that “kephale” means “preeminence” or “highest rank” or “authority over” the one who is subordinate, then maybe I’ll take a look. If not, then I’m not interested. No offense.
Then, of course the fact that the OT is patriarchal and that “kephale” was not used for tribal chieftans is irrelevant to the discussion of what “kephale” actually means in the NT.
That was my point. It’s irrelevant. I didn’t bring it into the discussion in the first place. It has no business being in the “what does ‘kephale’ mean” discussion.
It belongs in the OT patriarchal society discussion.
Just as an aside, the Proverbs 31 woman was a patriarchal wife, so why do Egalitarians like her? Maybe that could be the topic of discussion some time.
molleth:
It is very sad, because we believe that the effects of the fall are so destructive, but yet through the stories in the OT we see rays of hope shining here and there, offering us hope that redemption will come, that God did not leave us, and that He is the kind of God who can make a garden where there was only a desert before.>>>>
I agree.
I would add that God redeemed people in OT times, too. We see the way of blessing in the OT. We see sinners repenting and finding grace and mercy. We see blessing where there had been cursing.
God’s grace was evident even in the OT, and now we live under the grace of God in Christ.
Webfoot,
Grudem IS NOT a Greek scholar, he is a theologian, while Susan IS a Greek scholar, this is what she was trained as. This is not insulting, it is just the situation. Wallace is a non-egal and a Greek scholar, but Grudem is not.
Okay. What does Susan say about Chrystom’s usage of “kephale”?
I think you’ll have to ask her. I don’t think she has a specific post on Chrysostom’s usages, but she may have mentioned him.
What makes someone a Greek scholar? Why is Wayne Grudem a theologian but not a Greek scholar?
I note that Dr Grudem has done a lot of research in Koine Greek.
What qualifies a person as a Greek scholar? What have Dan Wallace and Sue McCarthy done that Dr Grudem has not done?
Grudem has made basic and fundamental mistakes in Greek grammar. I am not sure if he is still making them, but he has in the past. One can see examples in (another) Greek scholar Ann Nyland’s paper on Grudem’s misprisions. (A misprision is a deliberate error.)
http://www.wsrt.net.au/seachanges/volume3/html/nylandframes.html
Sue’s blog also discusses some of them.
Training is the key. Sue is a linguist I believe. She studies languages and majors in a few. Her schooling reflects that. I know other Greek and Hebrew scholars. One is a theologian as well. Many years of schooling and double majors.
Grudem’s schooling gives him degrees in theology. A degree in theology requires a certain amount of study in Greek and Hebrew (I’m pretty sure) but not enough to qualify one as a Greek scholar in those languages. One would have to take more schooling. I know several pastors who had the same and have forgotten most of it.
So, Grudem had the basics but not enough to make him really skilled. As Don says he does make several really basic mistakes. What I don’t understand is why he demands they be followed when anyone can do the research in study tools and find he is in error.
There are those who develop a real interest in a language such as Greek and through personal research and study have learned enough to be somewhat skilled, but that does not make us Greek scholars.
This was informative from the artical about Grudem’s errors….
excuse the font mismatches, they’re a little difficult to read around.
TL worded it better than me.
I am not a Greek scholar, for example, altho I do read some papers by such. I have no degree in Greek. My Greek teacher was a Greek scholar and knew others. I am a self-study believer who contributes at Sunday school such that I am considered a resource at my church, for example, I am teaching on Psalm 1 in 2 weeks and have given other teachings. The fact that I am not a Greek scholar is not relevant to my ability to teach, as I can use what scholar’s say with attribution.
Webfoot:
1) I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to wade through this thread, so if you’ve already done this, sorry. Could you please give me a link or links to where Chrysostom speaks extensively about “kephale?”
2) Was the language Chrysostom originally wrote in Greek, and if so, was what form of the Greek language was it?
TIA
Lynn, here is a link to his homily On the Veiling of Women.
http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/Headcoverings/chrysostom.htm
Here is one quote from that homily. When it starts out, it looks like he is talking like an egalitarian.
You have to read the whole thing to know what he means by “source.”
Yes, he was Greek. He is one of the fathers of the church and was a patriarchalist, of course.
“This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us. ”
I don’t know, but it really opened my eyes to read Chrysostom. He clearly shows that “head” implies “superiority.” Superiority in what way? Superior in rank, in preeminence because the woman came from the man.
According to him, she is not inferior in being, if you read Chrysostom’s homilies.
I believe that they can all be found online.
Lynn:
2) Was the language Chrysostom originally wrote in Greek, and if so, was what form of the Greek language was it?>>>
I’m pretty sure that Chrysostom would be considered a Greek scholar.
Chrysostom was a native Greek speaker. He wrote some incredibly horrible things that were very misogynistic and some other things that were not, such as Junia being a female apostle. I wonder how the same person could write all that is attributed to him.
Agreed Don.
It is interesting isn’t it. Tertullian wrote incredibly misogynistic things about women but later on he accepted women prophets and leaders. Sometimes people do change their minds. It behooves to note when things were written. Even Paul wrote said some damning things about Christians before Jesus softened and changed his heart.
It is good to remember that the era these people lived in were very misogynistic in general. It was a mixture, some reasonable good and some very bad.
He’s complex. We all are.
The interesting thing about Chrystostem is that he believed female subordination came as a result of the *Fall* (just as egals believe) and that it was NOT that way by design. (This is true of most of the fathers, might I add. Female-subordination-in-creation is a fairly new deal, if my research is correct).
His teachings on subordination are usually balanced with a great deal of love and respect that is often missing from other church fathers when they talk about “women’s roles.” I appreciate that.
Suzanne has done a lot of research/reading on Chrystostem:
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/turning-back.html
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-4-chrysostom.html
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/subordination-of-christ-and-woman.html
(Chrystostem explains why women are subordinated here)
She’s got a ton more but I haven’t found them yet. I did find this, though, which is handy:
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/index-cbmw-grudem-kephale.html
(Wayne Grudem and the kephale studies, etc, an index to all Suzanne’s posts/research)
“So, how does Grudem assume that kephale means authority? In fact, a mere 5% of the time that rosh meant “leader” it was translated as kephale.”
Interesting stuff.
Back to my life…
Love,
Molly
“Grudem has made basic and fundamental mistakes in Greek grammar. I am not sure if he is still making them, but he has in the past. One can see examples in (another) Greek scholar Ann Nyland’s paper on Grudem’s misprisions. (A misprision is a deliberate error.)”
Hi Don.
I don’t think Ann or you should say that Dr Grudem makes deliberate errors. I think you should assume his sincerity and assume good motives in what he says.
David, I agree with you. The problem comes when those who are Greek scholars expose those errors with full and detailed explanations and Grudem still persists in saying the same thing. This has happened many times.
Personally, I don’t know what to think. Does he just not believe them? Since this is just a matter of language usage which in this case is easily attested to, why would someone not believe it?
Hi believer3. I don’t think this is a simple matter of the rules of grammar, but involves interpretation of the data.
While I don’t agree with Dr Grudem on everything he says about the use of masculine and feminine language in translating the original texts into English, I think his interpretation of the data with regard to what the New Testament writers are saying is sound.
I believe him to be an honest man, a loving, caring husband and a faithful, godly Christian man whose goal is to please his Lord and Saviour.
Well, not knowing exactly what you are referring to, cannot say. But the things that Don and I are thinking is regarding Grudems claims about the usage of aner as always linguistically referring to male humans and never inclusively referring to women. His statements regarding this are incorrect.
All the rest is a different subject and debatable.
Besideds, I don’t know anyone who is always right on anything, especially understanding Scripture correctly.
“I believe him to be an honest man, a loving, caring husband and a faithful, godly Christian man whose goal is to please his Lord and Saviour.”
I believe the same about Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama. But wow have the both of them made some “interesting” to say the least, mistakes and decisions.
I did not say that Grudem made deliberate errors, Nyland did, I just explained her term as it might be unfamiliar (it was for me).
However, it is clear he has made some errors in print and that they are pretty basic, things that are taught in 1st year Greek class. What is not clear to me is if he is still making them or not. He did these same types of errors with Strauss on the TNIV discussion back when.
Also, anyone can have blind spots, even if he is a honest man, a loving caring husband, etc. I see him as a brother with whom I have some disagreements over interpretation of some verses.
I couldn’t care less about Grudem’s personal life or that of any Bible scholar. I just want to know whether or not their material is accurate.
G’day jlp
I think that in some circumstances what a person believes and does has a huge bearing on what comes out in their teaching.
I admit that there is much to be gained from TDNT, even if it is true that Kittel had Nazi sympathies.
We can learn from folk who have a low view of the Bible if the material they are conveying is accurate.
But when people are teaching God’s Word to us in the church, their manner of life is hugely important, I think.
And I think that we have to evaluate people who claim to be godly and sincere in their faith, and that we can’t take at face value everything a politician tells us.
The culture tried to tell us that one can separate personal from public/political morality, but we know different. The challenge is that all of us are sinners, can make wrong choices, have blind spots and weak spots, etc.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6485447.ece
an extract: “First, correcting a misperception doesn’t really work when the original misperception fits snugly with the subject’s ideology. Second, and worse still, attempting to correct errors often produces a backlash, with the error becoming more firmly believed.”
This is a challenge for ALL of us.
When I said I didn’t care about the personal life of Grudem or bible scholars, what I meant is this: I will never meet any of these people, I will never interface with them in any significant way. Therefore, when I look at the material they put on the web, what I am most interested in is the accuracy of the material.
I’m sure that Phoenix seminary was very interested in Grudem’s personal life when they decided to hire him. And that’s as it should be.
I’m sure that other seminaries are also very interested in the personal lives of the people they hire. And again, that’s as it should be.
But for me, who will never interface with these people – and who only uses their material to help me understand the Bible – the only thing that matters is whether their material is accurate. I have no personal interest in them. I don’t care if they are married, if they have children or if they like to play bridge. All’s I care about is whether or not their material is accurate. That’s the only interface I am going to have with them, so that’s all I care about.
Molleth:
He’s complex. We all are. The interesting thing about Chrystostem is that he believed female subordination came as a result of the *Fall* (just as egals believe) and that it was NOT that way by design. (This is true of most of the fathers, might I add. Female-subordination-in-creation is a fairly new deal, if my research is correct).>>>>
I beg to differ with you. He said that female subordination came because the man is her head. Since she came from man, and he is her head, she is subordinate to him.
Please read the quote that I provided.
The idea of creation order is a very ancient one, Molleth. It is not something that the CBMW invented.
PS
Male headship dates back to before the fall, to the time when the woman was taken from Adam’s side. That makes him her “kephale”, and it makes her subordinate to him.
Here is what Chrysostom said in his homily “On the Veiling of Women.” I quoted it earlier to Lynn, and I’ll quote it again here for you, Molleth.
He gave 4 reasons for the woman’s subjection to the man. One of them is because he is her ruler. See what the other three are. One of them is because he is her “kepahle.”
“Ver. 9. “For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”
This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.
http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/Headcoverings/chrysostom.htm
1. Men are head of the woman.
2. Men are the glory of God and women the glory of man.
3. Men are not for the woman.
4. The woman is for the man.
Being in subjection to man because of the fall is only one of the four reasons why the man is superior in rank to the woman.
This is consistent with Complementarianism. Male headship predates the fall, but the harsh rule that God ordained is a result of the fall and a punishment on Eve -and all women as daughters of Eve –
for her sin.
Then, as I said before, the arguments about “ro’sh” are irrelevant, since they are in effect an argument from silence. You cannot establish the usage of a word from where it is not used. A “ro’sh” was a tribal leader, and the NT husband is not a tribal leader.
“I beg to differ with you. He said that female subordination came because the man is her head. Since she came from man, and he is her head, she is subordinate to him.”
I read the link. Didn’t see where he stated that. Can you please copy the quote that says this and then note how many paragraphs down it is. Thanks.
“Male headship dates back to before the fall, to the time when the woman was taken from Adam’s side. That makes him her “kephale”, and it makes her subordinate to him.”
First , Chrysostom was discussing the reasons for veiling in his opinion, he was not discussing reasons for female subordination.
Secondly, the fact that the woman was created from the material taken from the side of the man means that she was of the same substance as him and therefore of the right substance to be his ezer kenegdo (help equal to him). It has nothing to do with headship. Headship theorizing is reading into the context, as that is not the subject.
“Being in subjection to man because of the fall is only one of the four reasons why the man is superior in rank to the woman.”
1st, woman is not subject to man because of the fall. 3:16 is not commanding the woman to be subject to the man, neither is it commanding the man to harshly rule over the woman. It is simply a warning of what now will be because of sin.
2nd, Scripture does not say that the male is superior in rank to the female. If you think it does, please quote the Scripture that says so.
TL, I beg to differ with you. Chrysostom was simply saying 4 reasons that Paul was giving for a woman to wear a head covering in gathered worship. It all had to do with the man having a superior position of authority over the woman.
You may disagree, but that is what Chrysostom was doing.
He was not a feminist. He was not an Egalitarian. He was a patriarchalist and a hierarchicalist.
Besides, the demands for Scripture are odd, since 1 Corinthians 11 is Scripture.
I disagree heartily and completely with your interpretations. I respect your right to disagree with me and to disagree strongly.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
“TL, I beg to differ with you. Chrysostom was simply saying 4 reasons that Paul was giving for a woman to wear a head covering in gathered worship. It all had to do with the man having a superior position of authority over the woman.”
Yes, Chrysostom was giving his reasons that he believed women should wear head coverings. Agreed.
No, it had nothing to do with a man having authority over a woman, or a man being in a superior position. These are not stated anywhere in 1 Cor. 11. Since you think so, please quote the relevant Scriptures in 1 Cor. 11 that say so.
You may not agree with Chrysostom, but that was what he was arguing.
He believed, as I do, that Paul gave 4 reasons that the man was in authority over the woman. I’m not saying that you have to believe like I do, or like Chrysostom did. I am saying that his interpretations are very much like the CBMW and Dr. Grudem.
TL, I’m not sure what you are asking that I haven’t already given.
Here are the 4 reasons that man is superior to woman. Remember, too, that Chrysostom did not believe that women are inferior to men as far as their being goes. This has to do with hierarchy within marriage and gathered worship.
I Corinthians 11:
1. v. 3 – “the head of the woman is man…”
2. v. 7 – “he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”
3. v. 8 – “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;”
4. v. 9 – ” 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ”
Here is the Chrysostom quote yet again.
“Ver. 9. “For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”
This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.”
All four of these reasons have to do with what is called “creation order.” These are all pre-fall.
Here are some more quotes from the homily in question – On the Veiling of Women. These show clearly that Chrysostom believed that there were creation order reasons for the superiority of man – superior in rank, not in being.
under the entry for v. 7
“And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also is it a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection. ”
under the entry for v. 7
“This is again another cause. “Not only,” so he speaks, “because he hath Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman.” For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that hath the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of thy rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest thou insult both thyself and Him that hath honored thee. ”
I could give more quotes, but you get the idea. Read through the homily, and see how many times he makes the point that because of creation order, the woman is in subjection to the man.
You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree.
I respect your opinion. However, for me, it is clearly absurd for Egalitarians to use Chrysostom to “prove” that he had a similar understanding of the word “kephale” as do Egalitarians.
It sheds a lot of light on what is meant when a “kephale” is called a “source.” Because the “kephale” is the source, he is preeminent and in authority over the one who comes from him. That is the creation order argument in a nutshell, IMO.
It also shows why it is safe to say that “kephale” means “authority over.” She how the word is used in context, and how the Greek theologian and native speaker used the word.
Feel free to disagree.
I’m staunchly on Dr. Grudem’s side on this one.
No offense meant for those who think otherwise.
No offense meant at all.
PS
Here is the link to the homily.
http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/Headcoverings/chrysostom.htm
St. John Chrysostom also read the New Testament as teaching and supporting baptismal regeneration, an episcopal form of church government and authority, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist really change into the real body and blood of Christ, etc.
And I suspect he had a less than adequate understanding of the Hebrew Old Testament (as well as where the LXX failed to fully or properly translate the Hebrew).
(Off-topic: So when YHWH Elohim took from the side of the adam/ish and built the ishshah, did He first remove all the Y chromosomes from the cells He used so the ishshah wouldn’t be an exact clone and would be a genetic female?)
Almost everyone uses a cafeteria approach to Chrysostom, selectively quoting him. For me, I quote him when he was COUNTER-cultural and am often shock by the horrible things he says when he was conforming to cultural expectations. But anyone is free to treat Chrysostom as they wish.
Reading some of the early church fathers thoughts about women is pretty shocking. It was a horrible time for women. Tertullian’s hatred of women was shocking. However, later on if one continues to read his writings, his attitude changed quite a bit.
Eric, cool thought about the xy chromosomes. That’s why the Scriptures say that God built the woman from what he took from the side of the man. More like rebuilt. He had to change the internal structures of the bone and tissues.
Don, I don’t use a “cafeteria” approach to Chrysostom. No, we are not free to interpret him as we wish. We should try to interpret him as he is, not as we wish he were.
He is soundly and consistently what would now be called Complementarian like the CBMW. It’s unmistakable. He cannot be called anti-woman, either.
TL, that’s a pretty broad brush statement. You weren’t there.
Tertullian blasted everyone. He was an equal opportunity shocker. I haven’t read him. Have you?
Hey, God bless, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and maybe I’ll drop by in the future to stir the pot a little.
Have a good summer.