"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

One Has to Admire the Bold Consistency and Application by John Calvin in His Views on Women


In these dying days of evangelical patriarchalism, many believers in male superiority and male authority over females try to soft pedal their views. When patriarchalists--who  prefer the name "complementarians"--are challenged that their interpretations of Scripture are actually a belief that males are superior to females, and that they are teaching females were only created to enrich the lives of males, they cry "foul" and object to such a characterization of their views on men and women.

However, John Calvin, one of the fathers of evangelical patriarchalism in protestant circles, was quite consistent in applying his patriarchal theological views to daily life. What he theologically believed regarding women was practically applied in every day living. The consistency of the way he lived with the things he believed is evident. Calvin wrote in his commentary on I Corinthians the following:

"As far as the external connections and social propriety are concerned, the man takes his lead from Christ, and the woman from the man, so that they do not stand on the same level, but this inequality exists ... Because he is made subject to Christ and that includes the condition that he take first place in the control of the household and its affairs. For in his home the father of the family is like a king... The man is in authority, and the woman is in subjection to him ... In I Tim. 2:12 he debars women from speaking in church altogether ... because of the pre-eminence which God has given to the man, so that he might be superior to the woman ... The woman took her origin from the man, and that therefore she has a lower standing ... The woman was created for the express purpose of greatly enriching the man's life ... Paul looks higher, viz. to the eternal law of God, which had made the female sex subject to the authority of men. Therefore all women are born to submit to the pre-eminence of the male sex ... Let the man therefore carry out his function as the head, having supremacy over her; let the woman perform her function as the body, giving help to him ... Let the woman be content in her position for subjection, and not feel indignant because she has to play second fiddle to the superior sex"(translated by John W. Frazer, Eerdmans, 1996, pp. 229ff.).

I do wish modern patriarchalists would be as bold in their declarations as Calvin. Faulty interpretations of Scripture are not nearly as evident when the application of the theology is covered up. In other words, we have a great many professing "complementarians" (patriarchalists) who are functioning egalitarians. Such hypocrisy is not healthy for anyone. I personally told Paige Patterson I admired his consistency in removing Sheri Klouda from her position as Hebrew at Southwestern--he was living the way he believed. I then told him I would do everything in my power to help people see his beliefs were totally, one hundred percent diametrically opposite of the Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

One of these days the Scriptural teaching of the equality of men and women in Jesus Christ will be the standard view of conservative, evangelical churches because it is precisely what the Bible teaches. Until then, it would be helpful if those who theologically believe in male superiority and male authority over the female gender would be as bold and direct as Calvin in terms of the application of that theology into daily living.

It would help people see the utter ridiculousness of their beliefs and the tragedy of falsely interpreting the Bible to support such absurdities.

248 comments:

1 – 200 of 248   Newer›   Newest»
chaidrinkingfool said...

Thank you for this post!

:-)

I, too, disagree with patriarchal interpretations of Scripture, yet appreciate consistency of application. "Equal, but..." drives me absolutely nuts. And it moves the word "equal" that much closer to meaninglessness.

I wonder how many people realize that the word "complementary"--the dictionary definition that doesn't deal with a specialized religious meaning, anyway--carries no hint of rank or order or hierarchy in its meaning.

I believe the Bible can be read in light of the cross of Christ, or through the goggles of U.S. gender roles. When I read the verses that seem, in isolation, to limit all females for all time, I cannot reconcile that with the knowledge that the same Christ who died on the cross for women died on the cross for men. And that the same Holy Spirit who lives in men also lives in women. Either the death and resurrection of Christ conquered all sin for us, or not. Either the gifting of the Holy Spirit is to be used for the good of the church (and I mean that in an extremely broad sense), or it is not.

If a woman is gifted and called to use her gift of leadership to benefit the church, who are we to tell the Holy Spirit who lives within her "No, you are mistaken"? The same goes for a man who is to use his gift of nurturing to benefit the church. We are all made poorer by these limits imposed by human organizations.

Dee said...

Wade
Thank you for your bold words on this subject. You should get to know my former pastor, Pete Briscoe, who holds many of the same view. His mother, Jill Briscoe, made a profound impact on his life. He, in turn, encouraged me to begin to teach. When I moved away, his final words to me were, "Don't let anybody tell you that you can't teach."

I was beginning to think he was the only one.

believer333 said...

"It would help people see the utter ridiculousness of their beliefs and the tragedy of falsely interpreting the Bible to support such absurdities."

And that is possibly why they are not as forthright. If people see their falsehood then the proponents of male dominance will loose some of their foothold of superior positions of influence and power.

Bob Cleveland said...

Guess I'm going to have to find a new word for "Calvinism". I'm a complementarian, but what HE said, I AIN'T.

p.s.: Peggy gave me permission to say this.

:)

D.R. said...

Wade,

Since you are so convinced that complementarianism is wrong and egalitarianism is right, then I challenge you to a formal public debate the the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in 2011 in Phoenix, AZ.

Will you consent to debate this publicly? We can work out the details via email.

believer333 said...

"Guess I'm going to have to find a new word for "Calvinism". I'm a complementarian, but what HE said, I AIN'T."

That's nice to know Bob.

MJ said...

"dying days" - now that's funny.

You cannot have a funeral without a corpse, and the doctrine of male authority isn't even sick.

I fully understand that there have been and are abusive men, who make a mockery of the leadership role that God has given. However that does not change the plain meaning of the scripture.

The plain meaning is the plain meaning.

The Husband is the head of the wife.

Women are not to teach men within the church.

The Pastor is to be the "husband of one wife."

The Roles of men and women are not "superior/inferior" they are completely equal, but they are different.

As A.R. used to say, God made them different that He might make them one.

When God was giving His instructions to Timothy concerning women, He was speaking of men and women who were in Christ. The truth then is the truth now, culture has nothing to do with it. Truth is, and all else isn't.

The roles are equal, but the assigments are different.

It is patently foolish, and downright rebellious to go 40 miles around a plain scripture just to try and explain it's simplicity away.

Brother I do wish you would stop considering yourself to be "conservative" in your views, because quite frankly you are not. It appears to me that you are dishonestly trying to redefine the word.

Your view also leads me to think that you are viewing the scriptures as Paul's writings, and not the Word of God. Which would explain a lot, if true.

I never under any circumstances question a woman's abilities, or power.

Power and ability does not equal permission or authority. There are hundreds of women that have greater abilities to teach than most men that I know. But just because they have the ability to, does not mean that they have the authority to within the church setting.

See 1 Timothy 2:12-14. No one ever questions her abilities, and the scripture serves as the authority.

believer333 said...

D.R.

In the meantime, perhaps you could share with the body of Christ in general why you think that Calvin's word are correct, or where you might think them incorrect.

Anonymous said...

For me, it always comes down to two principles:

1-- "not so among you"

2-- femaleness is an aspect of being, not a role to play, so subordination based on essence makes the woman inferior in being; there is no escaping this logically

What kind of Christian even WANTS to have authority over another, for life, based on the flesh? o.O

Anonymous said...

John Calvin is my new hero. I agree with what he said. Look at where feminism has gotten us. I'm not signing my name because I don't want to be plundered by all of you.

Kristen said...

MJ,

I guess I'd better thank God I was able to get married and that we're not infertile. 1 Tim 2 also "plainly" says I am saved by childbearing.

Jesus plainly said that to follow Him we have to hate our father and mother. Don't forget, now, and start sending cards or presents on holidays.

The Bible also plainly says that Junia was outstanding among the apostles. Oh-- wait a minute. Complementarians say we can't read that verse plainly. "Outstanding among" really just means "noted by." Either that, or she was actually "Junias," a man.

Oh, and do you lift your hands when you pray in church? Every time? The Bible plainly says all men have to.

All that aside, however, I will try to accept my "equal" role, which somehow is always subordinate to a male authoritative role. But somehow complementarians always fail to mention that explicitly. You'd think they might want to use some "plain sense" in their speaking, since they prize it in the Bible so highly.

believer333 said...

MJ wrote:
”The plain meaning is the plain meaning.”

There was a time when this way of approaching Scripture sounded right. Today we know that what this is talking about is the fast food approach of swooping down and hoisting verses out of their contextual home, placing them on a blank sheet and then proceeding to attach any meaning to just those words (sometimes even just a piece of a sentence) that seems good. But proper exegesis of Scripture requires that we make some attempt to know the cultural background the words were written in and sometimes even addressing things pertaining to. It requires that we follow the train of thought in epistles so that we can get some gist of the process of thought the author is following. This sometimes means we must read the whole epistle. We also sometimes need to pay attention to the order of words used and their more specific meaning in the original languages.

IMO the whole concept of male dominance is built today on the hope that people do not properly read Scripture for themselves, in the hope that they will simply take it for granted that their leaders know more.

Kristen said...

Oh, and did I mention that Phoebe was actually a married man? Paul calls her a "diakonos" and also says a "diakonos" has to be "husband of one wife." So I guess she must have actually been a husband of one wife.

Gary Snowden said...

While MJ is arguing for the "plain sense" of Scripture, he (or she) probably also ought to make sure that there are no single or childless pastors serving in a congregation anywhere since specific instructions are given about being the husband of one wife and keeping his children under control with all dignity. In other words, single men and infertile couples need not apply.

Paul Burleson said...

Dee,

I'm Paul Burleson.. Wade's dad. Wade sat under Pete Briscoe's dad Stuart Briscoe several times as a very young man [child] when Stuart was with us in churches I pastored. He was, even back then, the single most biblical AND grace oriented preacher we were hearing at the time.

Stuart was with us just before beginning the work in Milwaukee. He had been asked why in the world he would go there to begin a church. His answer was..."Since I'm serving the God who brings something out of nothing and life out of death, I wanted to find the place where there was nothing spiritual going on and where the possibilities were the deadest. So I'm moving to Milwaukee."

The rest is Kingdom history.

Anonymous said...

II Tim 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH."

I think that we have to consider that there is a reason God put man in authority over woman. For one thing, we are the weaker vessel. We don't USUALLY make the best decisions because we have a TENDANCY to be guided by emotions. And I can say that because as a woman I know it's a fact. haha

I've always told my daughter that submission is 1% action, 99% attitude. If we each (man and woman, boy and girl) submit to the role God has plainly laid out in Scripture, the church house would not be as confusing as it is today.

Do I believe God intends for women to preach? No, I do not.
Do I believe God intends for women to teach? Absolutely...Titus 2.

As far as men being in authority over women like a king? Not so sure I agree with Calvin on that. One reason being that the Bible tells men to live with their wife in knowledge. In other words, know how she thinks and feels. Consider her in those areas.

What happens at home will overspill into the church house. If we have the authority correct in the home, it will be correct in the church.

~Kristi

Don said...

This shows how little the value of consistency is when it is coupled with being wrong, it is quite deadly.

Debates can be a find thing in some cases, but when possible paradigm changes are involved, such as with the gender verses, I doubt that they are that useful.

It took me weeks of study and prayer to change from marriage hierarchy to marriage equality, reading both sides and being willing to be confused and disoriented for much of that time.

One thing that I do point out, as many others do, is that the very term "complementarian" is Orwellian doublespeak, it is a way to try to mask the actual exegetical difference (gender hierarchy) with positive terminology, as a way of selling it. Once they get you to drink the Kool-Aid of their name, they are already more than half way home in convincing you they make sense.

Kristen said...

"Look at where feminism has gotten us."

Maybe we should take a closer, harder look and see where male domination has gotten us over the past several thousand years. . .

Several female contemporaries of Martin Luther's, for instance (I believe one of them was his wife, but I don't have my history book with me at the moment), thought it might be possible for Reformers to accept other reforming sects as fellow-Christians and not do things like drown the Anabaptists just because they rejected infant baptism.

If these women had had any real voice in Christendom, how much less bloody would the history of Christianity have been?

Kristen said...

"We don't USUALLY make the best decisions because we have a TENDANCY to be guided by emotions."

I was reading a study recently where it became clear that corporations (including banks) with a balance of male-female upper leadership tended to make better financial decisions over time, resulting in greater stability for the companies.

There is no evidence that women don't usually make good decisions, or are more easily deceived-- nor does the Bible actually say this, "plainly" or otherwise, when it is read closely.

In fact, the performance of these corporations indicates that when women are truly allowed to complement men, what results over the long terms is a more balanced (and therefore more effective) set of decisions.

chaidrinkingfool said...

@Gary Snowden--Good points. I'd like to add that according to a literal reading of scripture, an overseer must not only be married and have a child, but must actually have *more* *than* one child, as indicated in 1 Timothy 3:4. Please note the plural:

"4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect."

The reason that we cannot go by our "plain reading" of scripture is that we believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever: God is unchanging. We must therefore try to understand scripture as it was understood by those who read it so many years ago in a different part of the world, with a different religious background and in many ways a culture that was different from our own.

Kay said...

MJ,
When was the last time you greeted the brethren with a holy kiss?
(2 Cor.13:12)
What? Don't tell me you're bowing to today's culture by shaking hands instead?

Anonymous said...

Kristen, you may disagree with me on that point, however, you can not argue that we are still the weaker vessel because that is exactly what the Bible says we are (I Peter 3:7). What exactly do you think that means? I'm just curious.

~Kristi

Anonymous said...

Kristi wrote: "I think that we have to consider that there is a reason God put man in authority over woman."

That has to be answered....What is it in the constitution of females that necessitates they be under the authority of a male.

Kristi answers: "For one thing, we are the weaker vessel. We don't USUALLY make the best decisions because we have a TENDANCY to be guided by emotions. And I can say that because as a woman I know it's a fact. haha"

You may say that but saying it doesn't make it a fact, even if it is true that you have a tendency to be guided by your emotions in your decision making.

As far as the weaker vessel, Peter instructs the husbands as to the *manner* in which he is to treat his wife--as with honor, deference, etc. It is not a declaration that women are weaker vessels with lesser tendencies cognitively rendering them prone to poorer decision making skills.

SM

Anonymous said...

MJ,
You are right on the money.

Pege' said...

EPHESIANS 5:22 "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Wade can we eliminate these passages from the Scripture?Its there is black and white. Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church...as the church submits the the Authority of Jesus so does a woman submit to her husband. ITS BEAUTIFUL! The church is not equal to Christ is it? We are joint heirs with Jesus individually, positionally, we are adopted sons and daughters.
Positionally I am equal with my husband in Christ. The ground is level at the cross.We are joint heirs to the GRACE of life.In the function of the marriage, Husbands are the leaders, the head. Just as Jesus is the head of the church. EACH position is difficult to live out! I could sit here for hours and share my experiences over the last 26 years of marriage of struggles, hurts and deep pain from following a flawed man. He could so the same about trying to love and lead a flawed woman and a family. In our flesh dwells no good thing. How we need to walk in the spirit moment by moment so that we can truly follow together how the Lord wants us to live as a couple. Wade, I truly believe you are dead wrong on this.Stop trying to free christian women who are desiring to live as our LORD commands. In CHRIST I have true FREEDOM to do and to be all HE calls me to be. What happened to Sheri Klouda was DEAD WRONG ! IT WAS A SEMINARY AND NOT A CHURCH OR A MARRIAGE.Seminaries were not ordained by God but man made. The problem the people looking at them like they were ordained by God. That people who go and graduate from them are holy or better than a lay man or woman who do not attend but know the word just a well. You cannot compare what happened from the hands and minds of myopic men who had a agenda, to a marriage lived as scripture calls us to live it.

Lydia said...

"Your view also leads me to think that you are viewing the scriptures as Paul's writings, and not the Word of God. Which would explain a lot, if true."

MJ, Would you show us the prohibition in the OT against women teaching or leading men?

Lydia said...

The Bayly Bros were consistent, too. They left CBMW because it was too liberal.

I remember during the election this problem came up about inconsistency. Palin could be VP...no problem for the CBMW comps. But if she dared to lead a bible study for her mixed staff, she would then be in sin.

Voddie Baucham went on TV and said Palin should be home tending her fmaily. Another consistent patriarch.

I have often said they need to put together a Christian Talmud for all their rules and "roles". It gets confusing.

Lydia said...

"Wade can we eliminate these passages from the Scripture?Its there is black and white. "

Pege, You left out Eph 5:21. Are you saying that verse does not apply to husbands in the Body?

Don said...

Pege'

Unfortunately, you are using a translation that does not show Paul's teaching units, and that translation carves up the text in unnatural ways.

In this case the teaching unit is Eph 5:15-6:9. When one uses the text as Paul wrote it, one sees there is no break between Eph 5:21 and Eph 5:22, in fact Eph 5:22 inherits its verb from v. 21, where the principle of mutual submission among believers is mentioned. One then can see that a wife's submission to her husband is simply an example of the mutual submission all believers are to show to one another.

Gary Snowden said...

Pege',

It's interesting that you choose to begin quoting the passage you cite with Eph. 5:22 where the verb "submit" isn't actually found in the text, but is rather implied from the preceding verse where it is clearly stated. The problem with that is that in v. 21 Paul enjoins mutual submission as he commands us to "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (NASB).

Gary Snowden said...

Sorry that I didn't notice that Don and Lydia had already chimed in with their observations about mutual submission based on v. 21. I didn't intend to be redundant.

Thy Peace said...

I would encourage readers who missed Jon Zens sessions at Emmanuel-Enid, to at least watch the last session on Wed Sep 22. God bless you Jon Zens and Emannuel-Enid. Kudos to you all.

Don said...

"Marriage as a picture of Christ and the church" is a claim that is being used by some comps to justify a husband's authority over his wife, but it is incorrect, an example of eisegesis on their part.

Paul is making a mapping husband/head/Christ to wife/body/church. It is a head/body metaphor of unity. And we can tell EXACTLY what aspects of Christ as head does, as Paul tells us, they are all loving/serving aspects, there is no Lordship aspects involved in the metaphor at all.

All believers are to love and serve others as Christ does, see Eph 5:1-2, Paul is specifying that the husband needs to do this for his wife as a specific example of this principle, as a way to emphasize it, as the pagan culture told him he was in charge.

And God is a jealous God, so I do not suggest trying to import aspects of Jesus as Lord onto a husband.

Kay said...

Lydia,
I was about to ask Pege basically the same thing - why not include verse 21, or better, verse 18 where the sentence actually begins in the Greek?
I wonder how many people are unaware that verse 22 does not contain the word "submit" in the Greek.

chaidrinkingfool said...

I am going to quote myself here, from a comment on another post on this blog. Please excuse this. The conversation was already pretty much over by the time I posted this:

"It seems often overlooked that the aspect of Christ's love for the church that husbands are to emulate/strive to embody is specified by Scripture. .."just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word"...

Christ as *savior*. As husbands are sinful humans, this cannot mean that husbands provide salvation for their wives. What does it mean?

Christ blessed us by coming to earth, living with us as fully human. He provided us all with an example of the sort of life that is pleasing to God. What gifts! Yet how did he become our savior? By dying on a cross. Jesus emptied himself of power, of privilege, of authority: to die on the cross for us.

It is this emptying of authority that husbands are to emulate. This is the *daily* laying down of your life that is called for: not bullet-stopping, not working yourself to death in a paying job. It isn't the same for every husband because no two individuals are exactly the same, and no marriage relationships are the same."

Anonymous said...

As a complimentarian, who loves egalitarians, I do wander...if I'm not to lead my wife, should I even try. Should I try to lead her, if that is not my role as husband. As far as the weaker vessle issue is concerned, I am a minister and don't make a lot of money. When our finances became a burden, I considered it an honor to take the bill paying responsibility back from my wife because I knew it was affecting my wife negatively. Is that not an example of a man trying to lead by love? Was my wife demonstrating what it means to be the weaker vessle? I consider it an honor, perhaps becasue I was raised in this culture, to serve in the possition of protectorand leader adn try to show my wife the love of Christ (although I fail miserabley). I'm not trying to make any point, I humbly admit I could be wrong. I'm just trying to figure this all out.

Robert

Kay said...

"As far as the weaker vessel, Peter instructs the husbands as to the *manner* in which he is to treat his wife--as with honor, deference, etc. It is not a declaration that women are weaker"

SM,
I'm glad you made this point. We don't treat our fine China teacups in the same manner as our tin camping mugs.

Don said...

My understanding is that God's best for marriage is that the spouses are co-leaders in the marriage. As such, they can jointly decide how to carve up the responsibilities in ways that make the most sense to them, and without the need to fit into some predefined boxed called "gender roles" which might result in a less effective marriage than otherwise.

So by all means serve you wife where she might be weaker than you, and allow her to serve you where you might be weaker than her.

Kristen said...

"Kristen, you may disagree with me on that point, however, you can not argue that we are still the weaker vessel because that is exactly what the Bible says we are (I Peter 3:7). What exactly do you think that means? I'm just curious."

"Vessel" as used in the N.T. usually means "body," as in "we have this treasure in earthen vessels."

I don't deny that my body is weaker than my husband's. This is biological, however-- not spiritual, and it has nothing to do with my mental abilities.

There is a trade off biologically-- the woman's body is made to bear and nurse children, which means she must trade off some physical strength. The man's body is stronger, but he can't bear children.

Surely you don't think egalitarians think males and females are exactly alike? "Alike" and "equal" are not the same thing. And "weaker vessel" does not mean "weaker in mind" or "weaker in spirit."

chaidrinkingfool said...

@ Robert
Thank you for sharing.

It's great that you, out of love, were able to relieve your wife of something that was a burden for her.

I call it loving.

I don't see any reason to call it leading.

If your places in the situation had been reversed, and you were burdened, and she were able to relieve you of your burden, that would also have been loving.

Why even introduce the terms leader and follower, leading and following, into the marriage, one-body relationship?

Anonymous said...

Of course, put another way, the post could be summarized:

"It would be helpful if ideological opponents would express their views in a way that would make it easier to combat them."

I often wish others would speak as I would have them speak so I could vanquish them from the field more easily.

We all have that desire.

But life and the ability of our fellow humans to express themselves makes convincing a difficult task sometimes.

Louis

Debbie Kaufman said...

DR: Debates on this subject are never the answer. It's like calling out for a gunfight. That is not the answer here or for any topic that affects human beings. I said to you earlier that this is not a win/lose situation. It's a what does the Bible say and we need to change what is traditional and not Biblical teaching. The only thing that will change this for women is for God to open people's eyes to the truth in the same manner he does to salvation. Debating is just show. I am tired of talking, I would like to see serious study of the scriptures. All the scriptures and not just bits and pieces. I would like to see this done with prayer. Two things that seem to be lacking in our denomination as a whole. No debates. That's simply begging for a fight. Fighting or debating will not solve this. Serious reading and studying beginning in Genesis and ending in Revelation is the answer. Too many have no idea what the Bible says except for pet passages. It's time that end now.

It's the total reading of scripture where I saw women in positions of God using them, Esther is another good example, reading of angels appearing to women first, Christ appearing to women first after his resurrection and him telling them to spread the news to the disciples, other passages that I began to question and then to change my view.

chaidrinkingfool said...

Coming strictly from the perspective of the use of the English language, with the dictionary as my guide...

Actually, I do see this post as a call for honesty. Denominations and churches that hold male rule of the church and home as central to their beliefs, sometimes to the point of holding it as a test of orthodoxy, should be direct about it publicly.

When I was first saved, looking into which church to attend, I would have appreciated seeing such clear language on church websites.

"Complement" means "to complete" or "to make perfect" (source: dictionary.com). Period. But this type of relationship is not what is meant by the term "complementarian", or not exactly. Because complementarians believe, and please correct me if I am mistaken, that women are men are complementary in a way that is always hierarchal: men are always higher in the hierarchy than women.

This addition of hierarchy to the definition of "complementary" is dishonest without mentioning the (re)definition of the term up front.

Anonymous said...

We disagree and that's ok. I mean, yes, I do believe we are weaker in body. But I also believe we are weaker in mind and spirit. Not all of us are weaker, just some of us. But that is just my humble opinion.

It really doesn't matter what either of us believe. The only thing that matters is what God says.

He said for the husbands to love their wives and for the wives to submit to their own husbands.
Any way you look at it, that's the bottom line.

Whether a person wishes to argue God on that is between them and God.

God said it. I didn't. And I do try my best to obey it. Although sometimes my husband makes it very difficult. :) But in the end, I have done what God has commanded. And He always blesses obedience. I am sure I fall short in some areas. Please do not misunderstand. I know that there have been times when I should have obeyed my husband and did not, for whatever reason. But I do try and I do believe that God was very clear of the role of husband and wife/man and woman.

~Kristi

Debbie Kaufman said...

By the way, just to show Kristi that we women look at facts and base our decision on this, I had a full hysterectomy a week ago today, am full of stitches and writing all of this in between resting, walking, and minimal pain. I do use my emotions and cognitive reasoning to know that when something isn't right and there is something wrong somewhere. That something just doesn't seem right. I go from there. Using my brain. If someone continually makes wrong decisions, it's not their gender that is the problem, it's their maturity that is the problem. They need to grow up. They need to face facts.

James Hunt said...

Wade,

I've been curiously reading most of your metamorphasis over the last few years regarding this issue. Have you not stated in the past that you used to be on the opposite side of this issue than where you currently find yourself?

When you were holding to your complementarianism (uh, er, patriarchalism), did you "soft pedal your views," and did you believe at that time that "males are superior to females?" I have a hard time thinking that's how you presented your views...because I don't think you ever thought this way even when you were a patriarchalist. So, why paint complementarians in the way you have in this post? Most I know would think Calvin's take on this issue (specifically as relates to your postes quote)is bunk. I don't think you're being fair to your opponents on this issue.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Kristi:God also said verse 21 which has been pointed out to you to go with the rest of the passage. There were no breaks in the original texts. No chapter breaks. It is one full passage beginning with verse 21. Submitting in the original language means not to obey, but to consider someone's thoughts and feelings as important as our own.

A wife submitting to her husband and the husband submitting to the wife means that no decision should be made without either partner. It should not be made alone, both should agree. Submit means that a wife submits to her husband as a partner in marriage, not as in a child/parent relationship. This is evident in stories such as Mary and Joseph and the birth of Christ.

Anonymous said...

By the way, God definitely uses women to fulfil the things in which He needs to be accomplished! Women are an intricate part of God's divine plan.

~Kristi

Robin Michelle said...

Yes, let's look at what feminism has 'gotten us.'

~Women have the right to an education
~Women have the right to own property
~Women have the right to not be beaten or raped by their husbands
~Women have the right to vote
~Women are credible witnesses
~Women's health issues are now taken more seriously and not a 'figment of their imaginations.'
~Women ca now chose the number of children they will have- or even none at all
~I could go on......Horrible stuff, I know!

Bob Cleveland said...

It seems a lot easier to explain away what Scripture says, than to conform to it, and most particularly where one's "natural senses" are offended by what one reads therein.

Bob Cleveland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
elastigirl said...

Robert, you are full of kindness, and your wife is very lucky to be married to a man like you. When you offered to do the bill-paying to give her a break that was pure kindness and love for her.

I find it hard to see, though, how leadership factors in. We can call it leadership, since some require that of husbands in married relationships -- but really, honestly, if one looks at things objectively, it's love. That's all. Treating the person you love the way you want to be treated. There are things I take over for my husband when he's stressed out. I take the initiative & he's grateful, simple as that. It's just because I love him and care about his wellbeing.

"Leadership" in marriage..... (sigh) let's just reduce it all down to treating each other the way we want to be treated. So much easier, simpler, and tastes great going down with no bitter aftertaste!

Anonymous said...

Never said I believed it was as in a parent/child relationship. That would just be ridiculous. LOL I do feel it is out of respect for the husband and for the role God ordained women to hold, that we subject ourselves into obedience.

And I have read the chapters back to back. And we are most certainly to take into consideration one another's feelings. But we (women) are to also be in obedience to our husbands as well. In other words, the man is the head of the house. Yes, I actually said that. And as we all know, anything with two heads is a monster.

~Kristi

Kay said...

"He said for the husbands to love their wives and for the wives to submit to their own husbands.
Any way you look at it, that's the bottom line."

Kristi,
The problem is that you can't leave vs. 21 out of the equation - "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" If husbands aren't included in vs. 21, then to whom is Paul referring? Only the unmarried, or children, who then? There's the problem.

Robin Michelle said...

Kristi...speak for yourself when you say women make bad decisions based on emotion.

KTHXBAI

Pege' said...

OK Gang. I do not know the original Greek. I am a simple woman with a simple way of looking at things. I have a NKJ and a ESV at hand to read. One translation to another does not interest me. It says what it says... so what am I to do with what it says? EPHESIANS 5:22 "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. If I need 20 different translations and a degree in NT Greek how am I to live the life of a believer if I cannot read the word and believe it to say what it says? I am not trying to be stupid or uneducated or unstudied. I desire the truth 100% truth. Correct me all you want, tell me I am wrong but back it up with scriptures or say nothing.

Anonymous said...

Robin, your rude comment was based exactly on emotion. And I never said all women did that.
;0)

Just saying...

~Kristi

chaidrinkingfool said...

@Kay and @Kristi: The other problem with "one another" here:

Eph. 5:21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

...If it does NOT literally mean "one another", but instead "one another unless you are a married man, and then don't submit to your wife," then how are we to interpret all the other "one another"'s in scripture?

And in verse 25, husbands are told to love their wives. Is such an instruction ever given to wives? If not, are we to infer that a wife does not have to love her husband?

@Pege': Please see my earlier comments, particularly the one in which I quoted from a comment I made elsewhere on this blog. I also do not know Greek, so I use scripture to interpret scripture here, as I talk about which aspect of the relationship between Christ and the church the husband is supposed to strive to emulate. It is not a position of power.

Anonymous said...

Pege',

One of the reasons there are so many English translations of the Bible is because the original language texts are not as black-and-white as we'd like them to be. A translator can completely change the meaning of a passage just by changing the punctuation, as in the case of Eph. 5. But the Greek text used no punctuation, no space between words, and all capitals. There is obviously much room for disagreement-- and confusion.

But to ignore the bias of translators, regardless of how many or what denominations, is naive. That's why, if one wishes to assert their personal view of what the Bible says, that person must consult at minimum a range of translations from the very literal to the paraphrasical. To assert and make demands, as you have done, while refusing to do the minimal amount of research, is folly.

--Anon the Berean

Robin Michelle said...

Oh, I'll admit to being snarky....

You made very broad statements about women and their decision making skills that are patently untrue and based on nothing of substance. It is just another lie used to justify the mistreatment of women.

Jack Maddox said...

I am waiting for Wades response to DR - waiting...waiting...still waiting...

Kay said...

Pege,
I believe we have been backing up what we believe with scriptures - verse 21 of Eph.5 in fact.

As a mutualist, I do not believe the Scriptures are not telling wives to submit, BUT I do believe it is saying that they are not the ONLY ones submitting. *Because* we are all included in verse 21.

In the same way, I believe wives are also included in all the "love one another" verses - which would not exclude loving our husbands. Would it?

Christiane said...

What do we know?

God instructed Abraham to listen to what Sarah told him.

God (Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) told Mary Magdalene
to instruct the Apostles about His Resurrection.

God's Angel announces God's Plan of Incarnation to Mary,
and she says 'YES' . . .

Deborah's general refuses to go into battle without her leading them . . . and God grants Deborah's army victory.

It is Mary's voice that comes down to us today in the Scriptures . .
'do as He tells you' . . .

If we stay with what we know, a lot of the bickering fades away. God uses us all according to His Will.
Each of His Creatures exists because He wills it . . . for His own purposes.
We don't tell God how to make use of any of His human beings within the fullness of His Plan of Creation.
Let's show some humility before the Lord, and stop with our intolerance for the many differences among all of His creatures.

Robin Michelle said...

Anon the Berean,

I have an 8 translation parallel NT. It is a beast of a Bible to lug around, but I love that thing! It has helped clarify so much.

Jack Maddox said...

"One of these days the Scriptural teaching of the equality of men and women in Jesus Christ will be the standard view of conservative, evangelical churches because it is precisely what the Bible teaches. Until then, it would be helpful if those who theologically believe in male superiority and male authority over the female gender would be as bold and direct as Calvin in terms of the application of that theology into daily living."

#1 - your wrong -at best there will always be a tension between comps and eagles -always have been, always will be.

#2 - Calvin was wrong i his application -you know this. Your just to disingenuous to state the obvious. It would be like me a comp lumping you, an eagle, intuit he same camp as classical liberals who also are eagles, yet there application of that position is much more different.

mix in a little honesty Wade, it might not help your crusade, but Lord man, it could not hurt!

D.R. said...

Debbie,

I disagree completely. Debates focus directly on the text, whereas drive-by posts on the internet (along with comments) often focus on emotions and are filled with faulty logic, such as ad hominems, strawmen, and red herrings. That's exactly what we've seen in this post.

If Wade thinks his argument is the best, then let him present it publicly in a formal debate. That's much more the gentlemanly thing to do than accusing your opponents of allowing women NO spiritual expression, don't you think? Or of suggesting that Calvin's comments really reflect true Complementarianism, as opposed to the myriads of writings of scholars like Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem,and John Piper (any of whom I would dare say Wade would refuse to debate)?

I'm just a lowly pastor in Georgia. Surely Wade should have no problem accepting a challenge from me. And this would give him an opportunity to stick a big fork in the "dying" theology of complementarianism.

I await his response.

Jack Maddox said...

"Let's show some humility before the Lord, and stop with our intolerance for the many differences among all of His creatures.'

L's - don't be so hard on Wade and his intolerance of comp positions

: )

Anonymous said...

Robin Michelle said...
Anon the Berean,

I have an 8 translation parallel NT. It is a beast of a Bible to lug around, but I love that thing! It has helped clarify so much.

-----

Good! And lugging that thing around is probably of physical benefit too. ;-)

Jack Maddox said...

LOL! Wade - I called you guys eagles! LOL! The irony is on me! I am changing my position due to the fact that scripture says we will mount up on wings of 'eagles' LOL!

EGALS
EGALS
EGALS

Anonymous said...

I'm just a lowly pastor in Georgia. Surely Wade should have no problem accepting a challenge from me. And this would give him an opportunity to stick a big fork in the "dying" theology of complementarianism.

-----

I'd take you on, but then people would find out my true identity as one of those monkeys you've heard about that sat in a room full of typewriters trying to produce Shakespeare.

Doh!

-- Anon the Berean

Anonymous said...

Kristi,

Eph 5 actually says of the Ephesian and other 1st century married men hearing it read that a husband is **the head of his wife** NOT that men are "the head of their house".

To me that is saying two different things.

SM

believer333 said...

As this bit of truth of women's real equality (versus the "equal but") in the body of Christ begins to get out more and more, be prepared for some strange responses from women.

Consider how you would feel if you believed you had to set aside what you believed to be a gift/calling from God, which was an incredible sacrifice for you. And then many years later you find out that you really did not need to do that, that it was a bit of misinformation and wrong teaching. Some women like that will react with great anger and seek to try to restrict other women from such a freedom that they had at one time given up. It is a somewhat natural response to a painful experience. Why should todays women have something that was forbidden to them.

Wade Burleson said...

"I'm just a lowly pastor in Georgia. Surely Wade should have no problem accepting a challenge from me. And this would give him an opportunity to stick a big fork in the "dying" theology of complementarianism."

D.R. I have no problem whatsover accepting a challenge from you. The problem we both would have would be anyone even remotely interested in listening.

Smiling.

My son is getting married next June, so I don't know if I will be making the SBC, but you set up a time, place and format, and I'd be delighted to dialogue.

Blessings,

Wade

believer333 said...

FWIW there should be some discussion on the differences between 'head of' and 'head over'. Head over is not in the ephesian passages. Rather it says
'head of'. It also says 'body of'. Both of these statements are metaphorical. A husband has his own body just as a wife has her own head. The metaphor is that each should consider themselves part of one another, part of one body, such as the two become as one. This is a picture of interdependency. In order to do this they each need to support, honor, and do good for the other. The wife attaches herself to her husband in submission. The husband submits by treating the wife as he would himself with great care, nurturing, provision and sustenance.

Tim Marsh said...

D.R.,

It is interesting that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is comprised almost entirely of white men. I went to their website. Only three women were listed as employees.

When I went to Desiring God, where you can download Piper's books for free (I admire him for posting PDF's of his books, BTW) I downloaded the copy of the work that contained exegetical arguments for all pertinent texts. Again, they are all written by white males.

Social location plays an important role in hermeneutics, as studies have shown.

And, Piper's "What's the Difference?" is filled with plenty of logical fallacies.

I would love to hear a debate about this issue. Bottom line, this is one issue that is sadly lacking in dialogue.

Robin Michelle said...

Bible weightlifting....we could make some dough off that!

Good thing I am a feminist and can have my own business. ;)

Don said...

Nowhere in the Bible does God say "wives obey your husbands".

A pagan king says this in Esther, hardly an example for a believer.

God warns the woman in the garden about what to expect from being married to the deliberate sinner that tried to blame her, but it is not a command to the man as God was not speaking to the man and is not a command to the woman as it is not in form of a command, like "obey your husband".

Peter does mention that Sarah obeyed Abraham when discussing how to deal with being married to someone who is disobedient to God. This is because laws said she needed to obey her husband including the ability of the husband to decide whether a newborn was to live or die, so if she finds herself in a hard place, she can trust in God. But it is important to see that Peter NEVER says a wife is to obey her husband.

Lydia said...

http://searchingtogether.org/articles/women-piper.htm

Jon Zens points out problems with Piper's book.

cermak_rd said...

I'm going to agree with Wade here that the term complementarianism is soft-pedaling what is, at heart, a hierarchical view of the genders.

But I'll just say that if it's true that Christian women must be obedient to their husbands, then isn't the obvious answer to never marry and/or not be a member of a complementarian Church? People, including women, do have a choice in the West of the religion they choose.

Lydia said...

It seems a lot easier to explain away what Scripture says, than to conform to it, and most particularly where one's "natural senses" are offended by what one reads therein.

Thu Sep 23, 06:13:00 PM 2010

You are right, Bob. It is very hard for some to be mutualists in the Body. The world wants someone to be in charge. The worldly system wants a "king" just as Israel begged for a king to be like the pagans.

In the Body, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ is our authority.

Anonymous said...

this position on women as chattle and slaves is baptist wahabism, plain and simple. if you disagree, prove me wrong. the tenents are the same. no need for the debate with wade, just look at wahabism and look at what has happened over the years with sbc women. (all the same except physical torture and killings) although, what happened with Mrs Klouda with her husband in a wheelchair comes to mind. She had to sell her own blood for his medicine.

Does anyone remember when the men ran the missions work broke and women saved it. this HYPER calvinism is ruining all it touches and has for centuries. not all calvinism is wrong just the wahabi bunch

Robin Michelle said...

I just have to wonder....looking at the counsel of manhood and womanhood....am I the only one disturbed by the legalism surrounding 'gender roles?'

I know several people who are in this, attend FIC, are QF/P and seriously- their entire existence is centered on gender. Gender roles are pounded in these kids from birth and no deviation is allowed. They even try to explain away parts of the Bible where women were in power- IE Deborah was a sign that Israel was under judgment from God.

Seems to be a cult* of gender to me as it seems that are far more focused on that than Christ.

*strong word, I know, but for the level of complete control leaders seem to have over congregants it fits

D.R. said...

Wade,

Terrific! Glad you consented to a debate on the subject. We do need to work out the details though. And set a deadline for doing so.

I do hope you will be able to make the 2011 Annual Meeting as I think this would be the best place for such a debate.

We could find a group like B&H Publishing, Crossway, Gospel Coalition, 9 Marks, or Baptist 21 to sponsor and promote the debate. And I think you would find that you are wrong about the number of people who would like to hear such a debate.

If June 2011 won't work then we could certainly find a state convention meeting where such a forum would be beneficial. Or one of the seminaries might oblige as well.

When I get a chance, I will email through your church website. If there is a better email for you, then please locate me on Facebook and send it to me.

Looking forward to moving past all the emotionally-charged argumentation and finally focusing on the important texts.

Debbie Kaufman said...

DR: Emotionally charged like the Jerry Clower example you have on your blog for women to not be considered equal in the church with all the spiritual freedoms? That kind of emotional argument? Because we don't want to give up our husband's big money, not having to do anything, and driving a big nice, expensive car? :)

D.R. said...

Debbie,

I'm not sure how else to say this, but again, I don't play the "jump to conclusions" game. If you ever read my blog before, you know that I used to publish Friday Funnies. They were just that - funny videos, pics, or audio clips. Never did I say this was an argument toward my theological position, nor would I.

Jerry Clower was a comic genius. Lighten up and enjoy. And PLEASE - quit putting words in my mouth. It's simply not very sweet.

Anonymous said...

Anon Thu Sep 23, 08:47:00 PM 2010,

You said it! That's exactly what it is. It makes a mockery of what Jesus came to do, freeing prisoners and lifting burdens. They need to read Galatians about a hundred times.

Kristen said...

Kristi said:

"We disagree and that's ok. I mean, yes, I do believe we are weaker in body. But I also believe we are weaker in mind and spirit. Not all of us are weaker, just some of us. But that is just my humble opinion."

Kristi, there is a real question as to what "vessel" means. The lexicon I just looked up says it was a common Greek metaphor for "body."

But if the wife is "the weaker vessel" and this means "weaker in mind and spirit," then how can only some of us be weaker, and not all of us?

Whereas women's bodies are weaker than men's bodies. A female weightlifter may be stronger than many men, but she's not stronger than a male weightlifter. Right?

The Bible is full of women who are strong in spirit and mind. Was Abigail weaker in mind and spirit than David? He said it was her wisdom that saved him from a rash act. He said God had sent her to turn him away from sin.

Was Deborah weaker in mind and spirit than Barak? What about Priscilla and Aquila? They acted together in teaching Apollos.

"Weaker vessel" makes logical sense as "weaker in body." It does not make logical sense as "weaker in mind and spirit."

Kristi said:

"It really doesn't matter what either of us believe. The only thing that matters is what God says.

He said for the husbands to love their wives and for the wives to submit to their own husbands.
Any way you look at it, that's the bottom line."

Hmm. My husband loves me and I submit to him. We are also fully functioning co-leaders of the home and children. In fact, if I refused to function as his co-leader, I would be being unsubmissive, because that's what he wants.

Submitting and leading are not mutually exclusive. Jesus Himself showed us that.

"Whether a person wishes to argue God on that is between them and God."

I'm not arguing with God, I'm arguing against some people thinking that what they say the Bible means is equivalent to the voice of God Himself. Every reading of the Bible is an interpretation. When people behave as if their reading is not an interpretation, and that to argue against what they say the Bible means is the same as arguing against God, they are on tricky ground.

It's already been pointed out earlier in this thread that no one reads the Bible for its "plain sense" all the time-- or we would all hate our fathers and mothers. So this business of "I'm honoring God's word and you're arguing with God," needs to stop.

believer333 said...

Haven't heard Clower before. Thinking I'm not impressed with the idea that a woman such as Clower describes is all that blessed. Women need to grow up just like men and learn to value the spiritual things over the fleshly and worldly.

Don said...

FWIIW, the video is titled "The she-coon of feminism"

On dictionary.com I found the following for coon.

1. raccoon.
2. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive . a black person.
3. a rustic or undignified person.

Origin:
1735–45, Americanism ; aph. form
==========

Given that Clower was discussing a person, only the last 2 meanings are possible and neither is respectful.

Debbie Kaufman said...

DR: I am admittedly not very sweet when it comes to this subject. I am from a world in the 1970's and 80's that had to fight for every job, which men did the hiring and based it on skill and looks(I had to fight off passes from my bosses twice, once almost resorted in rape) and then fired from both those jobs because I refused.I cme from a time when college for women was not encouraged other than to find a husband. Then you gave up college and career to be at home. Then I belonged to churches who told me I could not express my interpretation of the Bible in mixed company. I had to grin and bear it or risk being ostracized. Not for any other reason than I was a woman. So I do try to be graceful, but I wouldn't classify myself as sweet on certain subjects. Until now the world has not been an easy place for women, and unfortunately neither has the church. Church. Where wife jokes, mother n'law jokes and put down jokes for women were common in hearing sermons on marriage.

D.R. said...

Don here is my response that I posted to you on my blog:

You apparently are not from the South, or possibly you are only seeking to level some sort of ad hominem attack against me.

A "She-Coon" is an old Southern expression which refers to a powerful, outspoken (and often combative) women. A simple Google search would have shown that Katherine Harris, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi have been termed "She-Coons" in just the regard I mentioned above.

I recommend a little Clower for you. It might do you some good. And teach you some good ole Southern culture.

Don said...

I did a google search as you suggested.

urban dictionary for shecoon

a female black person who isnt very well liked by anyone who isnt a shecoon.

Not a respectful term.

Your choice whether to post such a video.

D.R. said...

Debbie,

I am not going to argue experiences with you. I would only add that while I am saddened that you had the experience you did, I would implore you to recognize that every Complementarian does not practice their beliefs in such a way. I know of many traditional Churches where women are encouraged, uplifted, and have had nothing of the experience you have had. Any theological truth can be used by Satan to inflict pain.

I simply ask that you not project your experience upon those of us who are seeking to honestly follow the Word of God, but with none of the practices you were sadly exposed to. I believe the answer to such abuses is not to eschew the traditional position, but rather to seek to reform it and bring it in line with the grace we are called to show to others. I have seen this done and believe it is not only possibly, but worthwhile.

It is very frustrating to me when others tell me what I believe and how I practice based on experiences they have had in the past. As a Calvinist, surely you are told that you don't evangelize, don't care about missions, and think that God doesn't love everyone. These are projections as well. Just as you would ask your critics to look beyond their experiences to Scripture, I ask the same of you.

Don said...

Or one can surrender the male hierarchy position, just like the kings and slaveholders who used Scripture to their own advantage did one way or another.

Wade Burleson said...

I read all the comments from people like Lydia, Don, Kristin, Debbie and others and learn a great deal. Good stuff all.

D.R. just a friendly on the record reminder that I have little to no interest in any public "debate," but if you feel the need to "challenge" me, I am happy to accept. All that means is I won't be lifting a finger to organize anything, but will happy to sit in a chair when somebody points it out.

In short, I am only accomodating your desires, not mine.

:)

D.R. said...

Again Don, you are looking only in places that have no understanding of Southern colloquialisms. And you are looking for the contemporary use of a term first spoken almost 60 years ago (Jerry Clower is dead now).

Additionally, even as you noted, the urban dictionary had less definitions than did dictionary.com. Perhaps if you search more than 2 pages deep you will see what I mean. Here's one example:

http://tiny.cc/mmrp1wyja3

Additionally, Clower was never accused of racism. He was celebrated as possibly the cleanest, classiest Southern comedians of all time. I've never thought that was a racist joke and no one I've ever known thought that. We've all understood that as a Southern colloquialism just as I stated before. So Don, believe what you want. You have your right to be wrong and I'm not going to take that away from you.

D.R. said...

Wade,

Are you saying you have no desire to defend your position Biblically in an organized manner?

I certainly hope that is not what you are saying.

Wade Burleson said...

D.R.

I am saying I have no interest in organizing, preparing, or promoting anything. But I will show up if somebody wishes me to present the biblical side of a dialogue regarding the equality of men and women. Key term is "show up." I agree that the ideal place would be a Convention, but I doubt I will be at the 2011 SBC because of my son's wedding June 18th, 2011.

Laughing.

John Wylie said...

Just for the record, Jerry Clower was not a racist and the Shecoon remark had absolutely nothing to do with race. He was just a funny homespun comedian. He was raised hunting raccoons in Mississippi and he was referring to the ferocity of a female raccoon when he called that woman the shecoon of the women's libbers.

I'm not wanting to get into this debate tonight, but Clower was no racist. I was raised in West Texas and listened to Jerry Clower tapes my whole life. No one that I knew ever thought Clower was making a racist statement with his shecoon remarks.

Anonymous said...

AAAAHHHHHHH Son! Somebody shoot in amongst us; one of us has got to have some relief!

Anonymous said...

" It's simply not very sweet."

This is what the Mormons tell their women: Keep sweet.

Are we to feel guilty because DR does not think we are "sweet"?

John Wylie said...

Anon 10:41,

That's right...lol. You know what I'm talking about.

Lydia said...

"Are you saying you have no desire to defend your position Biblically in an organized manner?"

Oh brother. I see where this is going. DR, come down to earth, friend.

Aren't you going to be too busy with all those sheeple you must lead? :o)

Anonymous said...

Can we submit (!) questions in advance of the debate? Here are some I'd like addressed:

1-- Jesus said "not so among you". Could Paul directly contradict this by making exemptions for when women are around?

2-- Jesus came to free prisoners, fulfill the law, lift the heavy burden from people, and as the "last Adam" pay for sin. Is this only for men, since women are apparently still being cursed with deception, even in Christ?

3-- Jesus took on the "role" of a servant at the Last Supper as an example for us all. Does this only apply to men if no women are around?

4-- Are only men supposed to follow Jesus as "leader", and women as "follower", even though Jesus modeled both (if we use the term "servant leader")?

5-- The maleness of Jesus is supposed to be a big deal regarding salvation. Does that mean He only died for men, and only men can truly be "Christlike"?

6-- Paul used the analogy of a human body to illustrate the structure of the church. Which part of the body has to report to another part instead of directly to the head?

I've got lots more but I'm sure there's a quota or something.


(word verification: arest... as in "give it")

Anonymous said...

Calvin's quote in post: "As far as the external connections and social propriety are concerned, the man takes his lead from Christ, and the woman from the man, so that they do not stand on the same level, but this inequality exists..."

Do hier-comps believe this to be true today? Are there external connections and social proprieties (and if so, what are they) that require man take his lead from Christ and woman from man and thereby reflecting an inequality that exists wherein they do not stand on the same level?


Calvin's quote cont'd: "... Because he is made subject to Christ and that includes the condition that he take first place in the control of the household and its affairs. For in his home the father of the family is like a king... The man is in authority, and the woman is in subjection to him ..."

According to hier-comp, does the man have a greater responsibility than the wife/mother for what takes place in the family/home? Because of this greater responsibility does he not have greater authority with his wife being subject to his authority? If not why, why not?

Calvin quote cont'd: "In I Tim. 2:12 he debars women from speaking in church altogether ... because of the pre-eminence which God has given to the man, so that he might be superior to the woman ... The woman took her origin from the man, and that therefore she has a lower standing ... The woman was created for the express purpose of greatly enriching the man's life ... Paul looks higher, viz. to the eternal law of God, which had made the female sex subject to the authority of men. Therefore all women are born to submit to the pre-eminence of the male sex ... Let the man therefore carry out his function as the head, having supremacy over her; let the woman perform her function as the body, giving help to him ... Let the woman be content in her position for subjection, and not feel indignant because she has to play second fiddle to the superior sex"(translated by John W. Frazer, Eerdmans, 1996, pp. 229ff.)."

Are Calvin's remarks in the previous paragraph a fair characterization of the hier-comp thought today? If not, why not?

SM

Jack Maddox said...

methinks D.R. has yawls number : )

Wade Burleson said...

Jack,

Methinks you be blind.

Laughing

Jack Maddox said...

Wade - you sound like the kid in school who has been called out to fight after class but has every reason he can't and ultimately will not show up for the fight because in reality he knows he will get his rear end properly booted!

RESCHEDULE THAT WEDDING WADE!

believer333 said...

”Again Don, you are looking only in places that have no understanding of Southern colloquialisms.”

Perhaps, some Southern colloquialisms are a bit prejudicial and unkind toward women. Even though Clower was celebrated as a classy comedian, this does not make the joke you posted acceptable today or even then really. But you don’t need to apologize. Some people just don’t like those types of jokes about people. It likely was more acceptable then than today.

D.R. said...

Wade,

I am surprised that you say, "I am saying I have no interest in organizing, preparing, or promoting anything."

I would think this would be the perfect opportunity for you to present your case Biblically. I'm not sure why you now seem so sheepish about it. I do believe you need to make that case publicly, which is why I proposed the debate. Let's try to work this out. If it takes until 2012, then that's fine with me.

believer333 said...

One more thought on the Clower joke. It may be that some of us are talking past each other here. In my case it's not the she-coon quip that is the main distaste of the joke although I'm not fond of gender jokes anyway. It's the concept that the "deal" that his wife didn't need liberating from was all that he gave to her. It was all about him still. And it was all worldly. I'm not a feminist, but I do understand that what most feminists want liberation from is being a possession of men. They want to be their own person, with their own skills respected and honored.

Back in the 1800's women wanted to vote, get an education, NOT have an abortion at husbands whims, have credit, own property, handle their own inheritance, equal pay for equal work, be promoted into leadership jobs, and so forth. 60 years ago, women were still fighting for some of those. And Clower's view of women not needing those things, because husbands like him provided well for their wives, was demeaning to women.

Debbie Kaufman said...

It is in scripture that women and men(the 12 disciples) followed Christ wherever he went. This wasn't the case with any Jewish Rabbi who did not have a following of both men and women. What do you think people thought when they saw both men and women traveling with Christ? This was radical, new, something not normally seen. It showed what Christ was ushering in. Everything new. Including women in ministry. His ministry. This can be read in Luke 8:1-3.

Rex Ray said...

“Somebody shoot in amongst us; one of us has got to have some relief!” may be the cry if Wade and D.R. debate.

Someone said the challenge of a debate by D.R. sounded like a western shootout, but I thought it more like the Giant’s challenge to Israel’s army.

In both cases, I believe the challenger was motivated by ego since they wanted an audience to see their great abilities.

This link:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19615457&postID=2016504539972003691

I believe shows D.R.’s poor reading/interpreting skills of Acts 15 and how positive he is right. He doesn’t mind ‘cut downs’:

“To my knowledge no textual scholar agrees with you. Additionally, wouldn't we see some later controversy arise over this, or a later Church historian refer to this? It seems that 2000 years later you are the only one who sees this. Fri Jul 17, 03:28:00 AM 2009

D.R. was referring to the first church counsel in Acts 15 that we had a debate about on Wade's blog in March 2008 where he said:

“Of course there is no mention of a private v. public meeting – that is something you have to insert into the text …the meeting you were making up was one that came after Peter spoke to the Disciples and before James spoke to the people. … …your whole interpretation comes from a scenario you had to add to the text in order to come out with your view.”

(Acts 15:4-13) “…they were welcomed by the church…but some of the believers from the party of the Pharisees stood and said, It is necessary to circumcise… then the apostles and the elders assembled to consider this matter [private meeting] … after much debate, [after the private meeting and probably with the same Pharisees] Peter stood and said … we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way they are. Then the whole assembly fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul…After they stopped speaking, James responded: Brothers, listen to Me!”

BTW D.R., if Peter was speaking only to the disciples as you said, when he finished; why was the assembly silent?

Anonymous said...

D.R., the "master word twister." Is this what your church members are given every week??

Dee said...

Paul

I got busy yesterday and just read your comment. Thank you for bringing up Pete's dad, Stuart. What a wonderful man! There were a few times that I saw Pete come to teats in the pulpit. All of them when he was talking about his wonderful dad and mother.I was blessed to meet both of them on several occasions.

I sense a similar pattern in the Burleson family!

Dee said...

D R

Fancy meeting you over here. D R why is it that we have to go to such lengths to debate a secondary issue? Why can't we accept that deeply committed Christians can come out on different sides of this issue? I am currently in a church in which people disagree about the age of the earth, eschatology, and a host of issues. We all get along and even have some fun disagreements. We all come together on the great beliefs of the church throughout the ages.

Anonymous said...

and jack maddox, you sound like one of the gang members eggin' it on, waitin' to beat him up after school... (along with your good buddy and word twister, D.R.)

let's do something else....

Dee said...

Paul

I haven't finished my coffee. I meant tears not teats-aaaarghh!

Lydia said...

"Calvin quote cont'd: "In I Tim. 2:12 he debars women from speaking in church altogether ... because of the pre-eminence which God has given to the man, so that he might be superior to the woman ... The woman took her origin from the man, and that therefore she has a lower standing ... The woman was created for the express purpose of greatly enriching the man's life ..."

This is similar to what Bruce Ware teaches. That women are made in the INDIRECT IMAGE of man...that she is a "derivative".

When one believes this and teaches it, it is hard for me to believe they have ANY understanding of spiritual equality in the Body.

Quite frankly, what these people teach and believe makes me more concerned for them than it does for women.

If gender and gender "roles" are so important in spiritual things then I have to wonder how I can be Christlike since my Savior and model was Jesus Christ...who came as a male in the flesh.

Jack Maddox said...

fight fight fight fight fight!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

lol, see there jack?? must be tuff in pea ridge...

Lydia said...

I would think this would be the perfect opportunity for you to present your case Biblically. I'm not sure why you now seem so sheepish about it. I do believe you need to make that case publicly, which is why I proposed the debate. Let's try to work this out. If it takes until 2012, then that's fine with me.

Fri Sep 24, 01:31:00 AM 2010

Wade, you could debate DR like Caner debated all those Imam's.:o)

Actually, I have seen designated blog debates which are much better than an actual place in person. The in person debates become more about personal image and audience support. Most of us would not bother going to the convention. Why not do it in writing? It forces one to be articulate and keeps it from becoming just more sound bite Christianity.

I think DR is trying to make a name for himself with the SBC big wigs. And a good way to do that is go after Wade since he is so hated by the big cheeses.

I believe something like this is a waste of time. We have already seen how these folks will twist the Holiness and Sovereignty of God and the Trinity to prop up their preeminance and importance.
(They actually teach that God as "ezer" submits to us when He helps us! This to prop up Ezer as subordinate!~Then they teach a chain of command within the Trinity for eternity which only lessens Jesus Christ and ignores the Lord of Hosts in the OT and at creation. All to prop up what they see as their importance)

So now, DR is taunting Wade. What next, DR? Going to call him a sissy? :o)

Anonymous said...

Can I taunt DR to at least answer those "submitted question" I posted yesterday? I'd REALLY like to see him answer those, Biblically and without bias.

Or maybe he's afraid we're not all as gullible as we look.

Yes, taunting the bully! I double-dog-dare ya to answer those questions by scripture!

Lydia said...

"Can I taunt DR to at least answer those "submitted question" I posted yesterday? I'd REALLY like to see him answer those, Biblically and without bias."

I think he wants his own venue because it will be full of those who agree with him. I do not think he would take Wade on in a neutral venue.

Note how earlier he called those dissenting from his view "emotionally charged" arguments. Sound familiar?

thatmom said...

Wade,
Thank you so much for this article. I believe you are correct that there is much hypocrisy within the patriarchal camp. Most of those I know who embrace the term "complementarian" the most avidly do not live as they claim they believe. In fact, it has been my observation that much of this movement is actually women-directed and promoted!

My husband and I are approaching 36 years of marriage and have taken quite seriously the one anothers of Scripture, seeking to apply them to our lives in order to bring glory to God. We serve each other and in so doing, serve Him. My husband has given a wonderful gift to his three daughters-in-law by living this example in our home and each of them will tell you how much they admire their husbands and how honored they feel to be cared for and nurtured and loved in such a way.

I also believe you are correct that this is a dying movement. Anyone who is in touch with the 20 and 30 something age group within the church knows that these pseudo gender "roles" are just that, roles or parts that some people are choosing to play and that there is no Biblical basis for this thinking. This younger generation of true Christians are much more interested in what the Bible actually says than the agendas of man. I believe we are approaching the tipping point.

And, D.R., I would just like to say that I find that video on your blog to be highly offensive, not only with the racial slur in the title but the mockery of the calling some women have of being homemakers. I have been a stay at home wife and mother since I was married and see my home as a place where God's grace is to permeate everything I do. I am in my 26th year of homeschooling my 6 children and have cared for my elderly mother in my home for the past 17 years. I get up at 4:30am every morning to pack a lunch for my husband and to enjoy quiet time and coffee with him before he leaves for work. Sleeping in to 8:00 am, having a maid doing my housework, and sitting around watching soap operas would certainly never be a part of my day. The very fact that you would post that video, even if you think it is funny, tells me how little you truly think of the women who are stay at home moms. You, sir, sound very much like Betty Friedan, as do others here who actually believe women are weaker in mind and body. Freidan promoted those very same views to grease the skids toward radical secular feminism. Did if ever occur to you that perhaps you are doing the same thing by making such a mockery? Shame on you. Do your feminine congregants actually tolerate this thinking?

Wade Burleson said...

D.R.

You write: I am surprised that you say, "I am saying I have no interest in organizing, preparing, or promoting anything."

I would think this would be the perfect opportunity for you to present your case Biblically. I'm not sure why you now seem so sheepish about it. I do believe you need to make that case publicly, which is why I proposed the debate. Let's try to work this out. If it takes until 2012, then that's fine with me.


I don't know how I can be any clearer. I will try a final time. "Let's try to work this out" is not even in my vocabulary. If I am at the SBC and YOU wish to dialogue on the subject, then YOU work it out, YOU find the place, YOU schedule the event, and YOU simply ask me to be present.

I have no interest in working anything out. You are the one who issued me "a challenge" and I said I would be there. But for some reason you feel the need to act that this SHOULD be important to me.

It isn't. It sounds, though, that it is very important to you. So be it.

YOU WORK IT OUT. I, like most people will probably yawn.

Smiling.

Tim Marsh said...

D.R.,

I think that you need to rethink this debate.

Wade's post is the reason for it. If you side with Calvin totally, then you must be consistent.

The Baptist Faith and Message merely limits the role of pastor to a male. By even addressing the issue, it opens up the possibility that women can teach, preach, serve on committees and even serve as deacons in a church, just not the office of senior pastor.

What Wade is saying is that Calvin is consistent in his application of the scriptures. Which means that those who endorse Biblical Manhood and Womanhood must remove women from Sunday School classes, committees, deacon boards (if they are in a church that allows this) and must not allow them to speak publically.

I do not agree with the BF&M 2000. However, the BF&M only limits the role of senior pastor to a male and it gives no prescribed methods for women submitting to their husbands.

He will win the debate by asking you to take the applications of your beliefs about the text to their natural conclusions and demonstrating their obsurdity. He will win by also demonstrating that the SBC's stance is merely a call to limit the role of the senior pastor, not all leadership positions, ministry positions, or teaching opportunities.

Finally, regarding obsurdity, read Piper's "What's the Difference" In it, he talks about how a woman ought to give driving directions to a man in a way that is submissive. How ridiculous is that?

And, on one of his video clips, he talks about how a woman should submit to an abusive husband. He chuckles at the response, making like this is a light or non-issue. He even says that the woman, after getting "smacked around" (his words, not mine) for a night ought to bring it to the church. Well, the church will tell her to forgive him and get back in the game, especially when those elders are male.

How ridiculous is that? For that, I will never recommend Piper to anyone as a good resource.

DR, if the Lord was leading you to move churches, change careers, or make some kind of major life decision, would you tell your wife, "This is what we are going to do" or would you ask her what she thought? Would you work together in your relationship or would you be the sole decision maker when it comes to major life decisions?

Tim Marsh said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM

This is a link to the Piper video clip

Wade Burleson said...

That Mom and Tim Marsh,

I could not, my friends, have written it better.

Anonymous said...

"Note how earlier he called those dissenting from his view "emotionally charged" arguments. Sound familiar?"

Yes, very familiar. And I loved thatmom's pointing out that DR's tactics are no different from that of radical secular feminists too. ;-)

Tim's reference to natural conclusions is important too. Most people don't think about where their beliefs lead, and when you tell them they get very angry. Even if you show how illogical they are, they use even more poor logic to try and destroy you instead of talking or even debating, as they claim to want.

Interesting thing about all this is that any one of us is probably guilty of it depending on the topic. Some egals are rational and calm on the egal debate but fly off the handle when the topic is salvation or mysticism. Some comps are emotional and absurd on the egal debate but rational and calm about salvation.

People are funny that way. But that hardly means we can commit yet another fallacy-- "tu coque"-- in concluding that none of us is allowed to point fingers. ;-)

Tim Marsh said...

DR,

Should the SBC refuse money from churches that have women deacons? Women in leadership positions? Women who pray in the worship service or read scripture? Should the SBC refuse money from churches in which women teach co-ed Sunday School Classes?

If so, the SBC will go from being the largest protestant denomination to one of the smallest.

Tim Marsh said...

Pastor Wade,

Of course you could have written it better, I just saved you the time :)

I do appreciate your posts on issues dealing with gender roles and abuse.

I feel that the role of the senior pastor is one that I can agree to disagree on, but some of the stances of the Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Movement are ridiculous, demeaning and open the door for abuse.

Anonymous said...

Your role or job in life does not determine your stature.God created us all equal but gave us different roles to fulfill in life.Men's and women's roles are clearly laid out in the bible.But, that doesn't make one superior to the other.He made us different but equal.Actually, He made us different to make us one.The one compliments the other.An example; a hammer and a screwdriver, you can drive a nail with a screwdriver but the hammer is far superior at the job than the screwdriver because it was designed for that task. Now that doesn't mean you don't have certain talents because you are a certain gender. I've known plenty of women who are extremely good speakers and know their bibles very well but,that doesn't mean God called them to pastor a church. You see,we need to serve out of obedience rather than our talents.God very rarely uses us in what we perceive as our talented areas. Having said all of this, please remember God loves us all the same regardless of what role He gives us.God is no respecter of persons,and I for one,am very thankful for that.Because, I have the same standing before God as anyone, only by the blood of Jesus can I stand before Him.Have a great day and please tell somebody about this Jesus by whom we stand.

Robin Michelle said...

Are we submitting questions?? OH YAY!!!

Ok, how on earth can one claim that Deborah meant Israel was under judgment from God (based on an obscure verse in Isiah)? Seems to me the men of Israel had no problem whatsoever with her...it also seems to be that Israel did just fine under her leadership. Other nations/cities were left in ruin when God was done with them.

What about Anna the prophetess who made prophecies about Jesus?

What about Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus learning? Women did not do that in that time....what about when Martha complained about Mary being 'lazy?' Jesus did not tell her to get back in the kitchen. What about all the other women who followed Jesus and supported his ministry?

What about Paul praising Timothy's mother and grandmother for teaching him scripture-- Didn't Paul say elsewhere that FATHERS are to teach? Isn't this one of the very foundations for the FIC church? (where this teaching of male rule flourishes?) Why does the Bible contradict itself? Or could it be that that one command isn't as dogmatic as people think it is?

Why does Paul send WOMEN out to be leaders of the early church when he clearly says they should be silent in another of his writings? Does the Bible contradict itself again?

Why does the Bible say that sons and DAUGHTERS will prophesy? How can one prophesy if they can't talk in church or lead men?

If women are not allowed to preach, then why did Jesus not chastise the Samaritan woman for running into town to preach about him? Why was he even talking to her in the first place!? Men didn't talk to women in their society....especially those dirty Samaritans.

Why, also, did Jesus appear to the women and then command them to go tell others about his resurrection? Surely Jesus knows of His own "Women can't lead men" rule??

How can anyone claim that the Proverbs 31 woman did all she did under her husband's rule and did everything from home when the text says no such thing? Can't 'bring from afar' without leaving home. Just one example of shoe-horning preconceived ideas into the text.....another is that Priscilla was the silent help-meet who busied herself at home and only taught the women. BTW, why is she mentioned before Aquila? (Rom 16) I have always been taught that things like order are vital in understanding some things.

What about Phoebe? Looks to me that she was being sent to lead the church. Oh and again, she is mentioned FIRST in a long line of people. Two women mentioned ahead of any man.

These are questions that I want serious answer to from someone who holds the idea that women are to be silent, can't lead and must 'submit.' (ie- she has no voice and can't even question her 'head')

I could go on, but I am late for work....do you think the pastor will let me slide on account of Biblical debate? ;)

Bob Cleveland said...

Whatever I am, in the Spiritual sense, today, came about because my wife shamed me into going to Sunday School with a neighbor. He'd asked us a week before and I said OK, but on Sunday morning I was content to stay home and read the newspaper.

Until she said "If they were nice enough to ask, we ought to be nice enough to go".

I guess, according to the Calvin wannabes and the CBMW, by rights I shouldn't even be in church now, right?

Darrell said...

It seems to me that some of the followers of Calvin pick and choose which of his teachings they will follow and how they will "time and date stamp them".

Kinda like they do the bible??

Anonymous said...

Once again, just a reminder:

If an adult is put into a place of permanent servitude to another adult by sole virtue of their race, class, or gender, that is inferiority of being or essence. In contrast, a "role" to play is temporary and not based upon genetics or class.

Therefore, IF God has placed some adults over others in Christ, then God has deemed those adults unequal in being and in a hierarchy.

If one argues equality of being, then they cannot at the same time argue permanent flesh-based roles of one-way submission. Which, being interpreted means, "You can't have your cake and eat it too".

-- Anon the Berean

Darrell said...

calvin quote " The woman took her origin from the man, and that therefore she has a lower standing ... The woman was created for the express purpose of greatly enriching the man's life" THIS IS JUST TRASH!

I am a man and I read the Bible and have a seminary degree. I am married to a woman who spent her live as a missionary in Africa and has 2 degrees, on from seminary. (thank God it didn't ruin her)

this is real simple for you overeducated. God made Adam and said " not good alone, must get him some help." (GOD CREATED MEN NEEDING HELP!)

OR "must get him a completor"

so, calvin thinks that a male who is incomplete and needs help in being complete is the king over the very creation of God that make male complete??!@!! TRASH, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

God made HER that part of HIS creation that COMPLETED HIS creation.

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IF SOME IN THE SBC WOULD KNOCK OFF THIER ARROGANCE AND BE TRUE BIBLE CHRISTIANS AMERICA WOULD NOT BE IN THE MESS WE ARE IN. SBC POLITICS GAVE AWAY THE WHITEHOUSE AND A PROVEN CONSERVATIVE WITH THEIR NONSENSE BECAUSE HUCKABEE WASN'T "ONE OF THEM" NOW LOOK WHAT WE HAVE!


AND WE WONDER WHY A MORMON CAN CALL CHRISTIANS TOGETHER AND THE D R'S OF THE WORLD CAN'T.
LOOKS TO ME LIKE GOD HAS HIS HAND ON GLEN BECK.. NOT THE SBC LEADERSHIP. I WONDER WHY??

MAY GOD CONVICT BLESS AND GUIDE GLEN BECK.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 10:30 9/24.

"Men's and women's roles are clearly laid out in the bible.But, that doesn't make one superior to the other.He made us different but equal.....An example; a hammer and a screwdriver, you can drive a nail with a screwdriver but the hammer is far superior at the job than the screwdriver because it was designed for that task."

What in the constitution of males makes them superior to the task of ruling over their wives with authority? Specifically, how are males uniquely designed for ruling in authority over their wives that makes them superior to the task of ruling?

Also, how is one superior for the task by design but not superior? Can you explain what you mean?

SM

Anonymous said...

Last comment was directed to Anonymous at 10:3*9* 9/24 not 10:30.

Anonymous said...

darrell I can go along with
may God convict Glen Beck:
Beck has been shilling for the people that sell gold investments, and they have been deceiving the public.

Lots of people have lost their money.
Beck is involved. Even Fox is mad at him and Beck is one of Fox's money boys.

Anonymous said...

Tim, great comment about taking someone's teachings out to their logical consequences and demonstrating the absurdity.

As Wade noted, Patterson was consistent in acting out his application of his own beliefs about the 'role' of women.

Problem was: he did just that by taking his view of women out on Dr. Klouda, thereby demonstrating the absurdity of an unChristian spirit unleashed in a Christian institution.

Robin Michelle said...

The problem with America is that people foolishly believe that God 'has his hand' on the likes of Glenn Beck.

Do people even READ their Bibles? I'd like to see someone try to defend him using scripture.

believer333 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM

Tim,
Thanks for the link to Piper’s video. Talk about nutsy, idiotic teaching. Sounds like he is talking to a middle aged child, not an adult. A mature adult woman should not think that she has to be subservient to her husband as if he were her king (loved Pipers slip of calling husband lord), unless he asks her to sin. There is a lot of abuse couched in there. Having to comply in everything another person demands is hugely damaging psychologically. Also, it is a known medical fact that verbal abuse is equal to physical abuse and in long term can last a lot longer in one’s psyche. The damage of verbal abuse to a child can mess them up for their life. Being treated as a child and as a servant in which one must comply in everything to another, can also have life long effects.

The problem is that most of this stuff is done behind closed doors AND that likely half or more of comps talk it but don’t live it. Half or more of hierarchalists practically speaking live out mutual equality minded marriages (and wouldn't dream of micromanaging their wives lives) and yet argue with us about equality in Scripture.

Anonymous said...

"As Wade noted, Patterson was consistent in acting out his application of his own beliefs about the 'role' of women."

but not as consistent as Calvin if you take a good long look at his wife and her career.

If you want to see inconsistency, go back and look at what Criswell taught on this and then at his wife's long tenure as a mixed SS teacher! She even taught men on the radio.

Kristen said...

Anonmymous said:

"Your role or job in life does not determine your stature.God created us all equal but gave us different roles to fulfill in life."

Equal but different roles means, "I'm the mom, you're the dad. I nurse the baby; you get up and bring the baby to me."

Equal but different roles does NOT mean, "I'm the leader, you're the follower. I make the decisions, you submit."

In the South they once had "equal but different" facilities. They thought this meant that whites got the front of the bus and blacks got the back, whites got the new porcelain drinking fountain and blacks got the old rust-stained one, etc.

You can't say "equal but different" when the two things you're comparing are not equal. Always getting to lead and make the decisions is not equal to always getting to follow and submit. Being permanently in the position of one with the power to act, is NOT equal to being permanently in the position of one who is acted upon.

You compare it to different tools, a hammer vs. a screwdriver. But in fact, the true comparison would be a hammer vs. a nail.

As Simon and Garfunkel said once that they'd rather be the hammer. Wouldn't anyone?

Debbie Kaufman said...

It is God who gives each of us men and women spiritual gifts, annointings for a certain task. With God both men and women are equal, we just have to be willing to recieve it and use it for the Glory of God. He doesn't care if it is male or female. Both are designed for his specific purposes. It could be a woman who brings the church to its knees through her prophesying. God uses the foolish to confound the wise. It would be just like him to use a woman. I hope he does. I'm open to anything God uses, even children.

Kristen said...

Lydia said:

"They actually teach that God as "ezer" submits to us when He helps us! This to prop up Ezer as subordinate!"

If they teach this, it is a serious contradiction with other teachings of theirs. They teach that the head-body relationship (husband to wife and Christ to church) has to be a one-way authority-submission relationship because Christ never submits to the church. But if being an "ezer" to the church is submission, that throws that whole idea right out the window, doesn't it?

(What I say is that Christ did submit to the church, particularly when He was laying down His life for her-- for surely many of those who cried "Crucify!" were among those who later asked Peter, "What shall we do?" And the husband is asked to imitate Christ in the way He "gave Himself," which does entail submission. But "ezer" does not mean "subordinate assistant," even if God does sometimes stoop very low indeed to help His people.)

Lydia said...

Kristen, The problem came when they could no longer teach the fall as the reason for subordination of women.

They had to make a pre-fall arguement for the hierarchy of the male.

The view I described above about ezer is in one of Grudem's books. I kid you not.

If you think about it...the need to make male hierarchy, pre-fall, was a response to the cultural changes with women in the civil sphere. It goes back to Knight's book. So now they must read all kinds of things into the pre fall account that simply are not in there.

Redefining Ezer is one of them. It is inconvenient that God is also called an Ezer so we have to explain it away and insult God in the process. Another is creation order (cows were created before the woman..yikes!) And yet another is ESS. I wish they would make up their minds...are we women the church or Jesus? :0)

They need to write that Christian Talmud so we can keep up with the rules and roles for women and men.

I am so thankful I was able to have children so I could be saved. After all, that is a plain reading of scripture. :o)

Hannah Thomas said...

That Piper video is so sad. It truly is.

The man has not got clue one as to what this person was asking of him.

I mean 'it depends on what type of abuse we are talking about?' lol is he saying 'submit' to certain types of abusive behavior from your spouse? Sadly, if you listen to his message the answer is YES!

Going by what the man said - he doesn't know the definition of abusive behavior.

He also doesn't realize what an abusive man would do to the family after the sugar sweet speech he asked her to ramble off to him would do. If you don't know the effect of that its irresponsible to go forward.

The way they wail on and on about how feminist's ruin the world? You have to wonder if the parties that buy into that would truly believe the person coming to them for help in the first place.

Is she using the lenses of feminism to see something that isn't there? Their paranoia towards this would jade their lenses, but being men in authority NOT to many people would be successful in pointing that out to them.

He is so busy trying to sugar coat this, and not address it he forgets about other important factors.

I mean what about the children, and how this effects them? Who will wear the millstone? I doubt very highly Piper would consider his advice worthy of such. From the child's prospective? He should be sharing that weight.

When someone is abusive they don't just 'target' their spouse. Their spouse may take the brunt of it, and if they are so busy NOT taking her issue seriously? HOW do they think the children will feel? How will they view God under such circumstances? I mean they are the ones claiming they speak for God's word.

The bible speaks very strongly against 'verbal unkindness' as he put it. The flowery adjective doesn't remove it. It doesn't soften it. It doesn't change it.

From his statement about how people should take it for a season? It tells the person they will also define what a season is for you. That would also be a factor in irresponsible authority.

Unfortunately, these leaders can say that the woman has a 'higher allegiance' to Christ than to her husband...but they are also quick to remind her of the husband part instead of the Christ part to quickly. Just view their other 'lessons' to see that!

They will cast doubt asking her if what is there is truly THERE, and is she using the lenses of things that are worldly, fleshy, feminist, etc. They promote this ALL the time.

The struggle he speaks of in regards to WHOM should she submit? Their teachings and presentations is why that question is there to begin with. I doubt they would admit that either. It can't be them right? Its those feminists and the ME ME ME attitude of the world instead!

"If what he is asking isn't requiring her to sin, but just HURTING her than she endures verbal abuse for a season - she endures being SMACKED one night THEN she seeks help from the church!"

Allowing someone to sin against you in this fashion is okay in their eyes, and somehow they are to look 'safe' for the family to go to for help.

WHY this makes sense to them is truly beyond me. WHY they can't see how they are showing families they are instead NOT safe shows how completely clueless they are.

The fact they have been called out over this advice, and ignored it?

Where is the humble, loving 'leadership'? We are all waiting for them to stand up and rebuke this teaching, and show true repentance for the error.

Sadly, I doubt their pride will allow that. I pray they don't get someone killed.

D.R. said...

Wow,

I leave for a few hours and come back to see that my character was attacked by several people.

This is exactly what I mean by "emotionally charged". I want to debate Scripture. What does the Word of God say? Yet, I am being castigated as one who has ulterior motives.

I just find it intersting that so many are you are quick to heap personal attacks upon me, all the while telling me that I am unloving. I simply desire to follow the Word of God. I read it the same way that the majority of the Church has now for 2000 years. Wade seeks to "reform" it's teachings. I think he should make his case publicly in a fair format. I would think all of you who are "egalitarians" would like the idea of a fair debate.

D.R. said...

Wade,

When I said "let's work this out", I am certain you knew what I meant. You said, "I have no problem whatsover accepting a challenge from you." My challenge is a formal public debate at the 2011 SBC. If you can't be there, then we can wait until we can find a mutually agreed upon state convention meeting or the 2012 SBC.

I am giving you an opportunity to have a say in how this will be done. If you truly are willing to accept my challenge, then let's work the details out via email. You can prepare, not prepare, whatever you want to do. But if you say you are willing to accept my challenge, then that involves in some way being a part of the planning process. And certainly you know that. I'm not privy to your schedule, your availability, or other logistical data. Thus, in order to accept the challenge you must be willing to assist in the details. It's as simple as that.

If you can't go at least that far, then it means you aren't really willing to accept the challenge and thus your initial statement was not really true then.

Robin Michelle said...

Sure, let your husband 'smack' you around for a night, then go to the church....who will tell you it is all YOUR fault! You aren't submissive enough, you don't pray enough, go home and try harder. Abuse is NEVER the man's fault in these circles and heaven forbid the wife leaves. Her husband will be the victim of an 'ungodly' wife.

That is if they don't blow off the abuse and think it is actually OK to throw your wife on the couch and CHOKE her....like what happened to a friend of mine. :(

Christiane said...

I always have a lot of fun researching the concept of the feminine 'Shekinah Presence' in Judaism.

Reason: When discussing the female nature of the
"SHEKINAH PRESENCE", you cannot easily assign human characteristics to the Infinite Creator of the Universe as regards 'male' or 'female',
UNLESS you have first carefully considered this very meaningful observation of the rabbis:

"God, being infinite,
is comprised of ALL valued attributes that are to be found in this world
- including both the male and female characteristics."

We struggle to 'imagine' the 'infinite' and we cannot.
So we settle for what we can understand, in our finite minds.
Somehow, we get it wrong when we decide that there is nothing more to know.

The rabbis understand that there exists a connection of the characteristics of the Infinite Creator, to what can be found mirrored in ALL of His Creation.

For Christians, the Incarnation has given as close a look at the Infinite Lord of Creation as we, in our human condition, have been allowed to see.
It is said, that in Christ, we may look upon the Face of God,
and live.

But still . . . our smugness at thinking we know IT ALL,
about the characteristics of our Infinite Creator,
reveals to us our own inability to understand our human limitations in this place where we see as through a glass darkly.

So when patriarchists run away with the importance of males, and I've had enough of it, I think of the Shekinah Presence . . .
and I am peaceful again. :)

Anonymous said...

"I read it the same way that the majority of the Church has now for 2000 years... I would think all of you who are "egalitarians" would like the idea of a fair debate."

Appeal to popularity (or tradition) is a logical fallacy every bit as much as an appeal to emotion-- or to pity, as you're doing now. So a debate between you and an "emotional" egal might be fair, albeit pointless.

A truly fair and worthwhile debate is one where both sides must abide by the same rules, and I have yet to see that happen after many years. If your comments thus far are any indication, that is unlikely to change.

-- Anon the Berean

Kristen said...

The reason people are emotionally charged about this is because it is, fundamentally, about the very nature of man, woman, and God. Is my very nature designed for subordination, and his for authority? (This makes me unequal by nature, does it not? Then why does the Bible say I'm equally made in His image?)

If I'm not designed for subordination, why would God arbitrarily and without just cause relegate me to subordination? Is God just, or not? Is the gospel good news for me as a woman, or is it only good news for men?

Wade, I can see that you'd rather "dialogue" with D.R. than debate. I understand why. But if you think people really would yawn-- take a look sometime at the number of comments your posts on women in Christianity engender, vs. the amount of comments you receive on other topics.

Many women are content to accept permanent, divinely inspired subordinate roles, thinking it's God's will. Others look at the ramifications of that and decide that the God we know cannot be the kind of god who would will such a thing. We think the restrictive women passages were for a time and season, to help an infant church not run too far afoul of the cultures it found itself in.

But this really isn't a discussion to make women like me yawn.

Kristen said...

PS. With regards to this:

"I read it the same way that the majority of the Church has now for 2000 years."

Many of us would rather accuse the Church of 2000 years of institutionalized injustice, than God.

Hannah Thomas said...

D.R.

It seems you are reading into something that clearly wasn't stated from what I have read thus far. This gives the impression to many that this 'debate' you want needs to be on your terms, and if it is not his acceptance of the challenge was a lie. I think you need to go back and read what was said, because you are clearly off.

From where I sit it seems he is telling you he is willing to sit down with you and debate this when the opportunity presents itself.

He wasn't looking for a huge debate with 'sponsors', or something along the line of 'presidential' debates you see on television. It sounded to me like he has said he was willing to sit down with you, and do a face to face - man to man debate. No need for a huge audience and fanfare.

No offense, but you come off as 'emotionally charged' when it seems all that has been presented was a different form of debate than what you had in mind. There are different forms of debate as I'm sure you realize.

I could be completely off here, and maybe some of it was misinterpreted to me as well .... but to tell someone they are telling untruths? It could be you and Wade have a different idea of what the 'debate' format is. You description almost sounds like a televised event! LOL!

Kristen said...

I'm sorry if I seem to be talking too much here.

But another thing occurs to me. D.R. says he's reading the same way the majority of the Church has read for 2000 years.

But the fact is that the majority opinion of the Church for the past 2000 years is quite accurately reflected in Calvin's writing which is the subject of this discussion.

In distancing themselves from Calvin's traditional, 2000-plus year view of women, the Church as a whole (including complementarians) have already "reformed" the traditional view in this area. The only real question is whether they've gone far enough, or whether the complementarian version of this reformation is internally consistent (which, as Wade points out, Calvin's actually is. Distasteful, yes. But consistent.).

Wade Burleson said...

Hannah,

You speak my sentiments precisely. I would be delighted to sit down with D.R. at any time, any place, including the SBC and discuss the Bible on the issue of men and women and equality in Christ.

I think it is presumptious to think that (1). D.R. and I are the experts on the subject, and (2). Anyone would even begin to desire to listen to either him or me "debate" the issue, and (3). that I "must" plan and organize with D.R. the "event" and be involved in the planning process.

I am being courteous to D.R. and telling him I will visit with him at the SBC about these matters if he wishes, only because he "challenged" me to do so. If he wishes people to observe our discussion, fine. I shall neither prepare, plan or promote such an event. But, as I've stated now at least half a dozen times, I will show up if asked to be in attendance.

I don't know how I can make it any plainer than what I have done.

Thanks for articulating what I feel.

Lydia said...

"I simply desire to follow the Word of God."

Which implies we do not. See, it is not enough to for your side to say, let's just agree to disagree. Your side has made it into a primary salvic position. Which is really a religion of works (roles).

Your interpretation of "roles" makes Joanna a big sinner.

" I read it the same way that the majority of the Church has now for 2000 years. Wade seeks to "reform" it's teachings"

Church history is a big nasty bloody mess full of all kinds of ridiculous teaching we now repudiate. Why appeal to the traditions of men instead of going to the SOURCE?

I think Satan is delighted to have you shut up over half of the Body and teach them to follow humans instead of Jesus Christ.

I think Satan is delighted you focus on a very bad translation of 1 Tim 2 instead of focusing on Acts 2 and the "role" of women at Pentecost.

Tim Marsh said...

DR,

This is not about what the scripture says...it is about hermeneutics.

We know what the scripture says. We need to interpret it. My questions to you are hermeneutical ones.

When you have this debate, are you going to alienate the many SBC (not CBF) churches that have women in positions of leadership, ministry positions, and even ordained deacons (yes, there are SBC churches with women deacons that never have and may never support CBF)?

Tim Marsh said...

Hannah,

The sad thing is that Piper has so much influence on young pastors. I really like some of the stuff from Francis Chan and David Platt, but the influence of Piper is hard to ignore in their writing and speaking.

What I find in young Southern Baptist pastors (as well as lay people of all ages) is the inability to critically examine all the content of a particular pastor's teaching. Grant it, Piper has done some good things, but has erred greatly in the Biblical Manhood and Womanhood department. And young pastors are implementing this kind of teaching in their congregations without critical reflection on its content.

And, the SBC seminaries fail to teach pastors how to critically engage the Bible as God's Word. Rather, they are indoctrinated into a particular theology and praxis.

This is why it is so important for people to understand the pastor's doctrinal views before committing to a church.

Word Verification: "hypershe"

Anonymous said...

"This is not about what the scripture says...it is about hermeneutics.

We know what the scripture says. We need to interpret it. My questions to you are hermeneutical ones."

Thanks Tim, for clarifying that.

For example...the ONLY place the Word says anything about authority over one another in marriage is 1 Corin 7...and it is mutual. If the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate husband authority, He would have used a clear authority word in Eph 5 like He did in 1 Corin 7. But He did not.

Anonymous said...

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2010/09/13/a-question-for-the-gospel-coalition/

Could egals and comps work together?

Darby Livingston said...

"I mean 'it depends on what type of abuse we are talking about?' lol is he saying 'submit' to certain types of abusive behavior from your spouse? Sadly, if you listen to his message the answer is YES! Going by what the man said - he doesn't know the definition of abusive behavior."

Was Abraham's treatment of Sarah abusive?

Lydia said...

"The sad thing is that Piper has so much influence on young pastors. I really like some of the stuff from Francis Chan and David Platt, but the influence of Piper is hard to ignore in their writing and speaking"

Don't forget that Bruce Ware at SBTS taught at Denton Bible church a few years ago that unsubmissive wives "trigger" abuse from husbands. Which only proves that Ware knows NOTHING about abuse and does not understand the dynamics at all.

This thinking of Piper, Ware, Grudem, Mohler, Patterson, etc is very deep in the SBC. It has become the norm in their view of women.

It would be interesting to see if any of these men would report to work every morning wondering if their boss was going to smack them around that day or not. It did not matter what they did or did not do, the abuse came no matter what. And they learned to walk on eggshells all the time. Wonder how long they would put up with that?

But this is what they are teaching their sisters in Christ to do and calling it submission. Sounds a lot like Islam to me.

Lydia said...

"I mean 'it depends on what type of abuse we are talking about?' lol is he saying 'submit' to certain types of abusive behavior from your spouse? Sadly, if you listen to his message the answer is YES! Going by what the man said - he doesn't know the definition of abusive behavior."

Was Abraham's treatment of Sarah abusive?

Fri Sep 24, 05:50:00 PM 2010

Darby, Are you suggesting it was God's best for Abraham to hand Sarah over to the kings harem?

Just because God's chosen people did something bad does not mean God approved. He worked through it and around it to show His Glory.

D.R. said...

Wade,

I am sending you a message to your Facebook page. Any other correspondance between us can be done there.

Tim Marsh said...

Darby,

It is fallacious to hold OT figures as exemplars in matters of faith.

We could ask:

Could we hold David as an exemplar for marriage? Could we hold Solomon as an exemplar? What about Jacob? (I cite polygamy here)

Would Abraham's practices be acceptable? Well, no. He fathered a child by Hagar. He gave his wife to the Egyptians. Was it abuse? By today's standards, yes. By the standards of new creation, of which the church is a witness of in the midst of the fallen world, yes.

The "hero" of the OT is God, not the Patriarchs, nor David, nor even the prophets.

And, it is the result of the fall, not God's intentional will. We are in Christ, where we practice radical egalitarian practices vis-a-vis the culture in which the church is placed. We live out Galatians 3:26-29 in community.

Rather than cite Abraham, let's ask how Jesus would treat a wife, had he married? Then let's commit to doing no less.

Tim Marsh said...

DR,

As practice for your debate with Wade, how about responding, rather than ignoring, to the questions that I have posed to you.

These are questions of hermeneutics. We know the comp and egal arguments. We know what the scripture says.

Now, how are we to practice it? I can be a tune up for 2011.

believer333 said...

D.R.,

Perhaps, you might consider writing out what you want the debate to be about and posting it on your blog. There are likely several readers who would be interested in what you think the debate should cover.

believer333 said...

"Just because God's chosen people did something bad does not mean God approved."

Lydia,

It is an interesting fact that every one of God's chosen did something off the wall. Just consider the histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Lydia said...

Lydia,

It is an interesting fact that every one of God's chosen did something off the wall. Just consider the histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Fri Sep 24, 06:14:00 PM 2010

An example that I think Tim touched on:

I do not hold David up as an example to my children. I "use" David to show how God worked through His chosen people at the time. What does it mean in the big picture pointing to Messiah?

Would anyone here want their child to emulate Sampson? "Get that girl for me". Would they want their son to have 600 wives and concubines? Or how about the "anointed" Saul?

Scary thoughts!

Hannah Thomas said...

'''Was Abraham's treatment of Sarah Abusive?'''

I'm not sure what you are getting at Darby. I'm just being honest here. Abusive behavior is a pattern of behavior.

In regards to Lydia's comment about him handing his wife over? Are you saying she was wrong when she didn't mention:

Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. God calls me to do that, and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership. But if you ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can’t go there.

I guess it would have had a different ending huh?

What am I missing in your question?

Darby Livingston said...

"It is fallacious to hold OT figures as exemplars in matters of faith."

Tim,

I had to reread this sentence numerous times and still can't believe you actually wrote it. Have you lost it? Is Hebrews 11 in your Bible? How about Galatians 3? Romans 4? 1 Peter 3? I hope you're not deliberately sidestepping the question, even while appearing to answer it.

The last sentence in your response to me sums it up. You want to claim some amorphous "what would Jesus do" when Jesus tells us exactly what he would do throughout his Word. The point is this: Peter held up Sarah as a model of faith for putting up with what most today would certainly call some form of abuse.

Darby Livingston said...

And I would agree that what Abraham did was absolutely wrong. Categorically. However, Peter's answer wasn't what those on this blog are advocating. He didn't say, "Because men can be selfish pigs, let's do away with any distinctions between genders and call it square." Instead, he gave differing commands for both, even while being very aware of man's fallen condition in carrying out the gender roles.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of fallacies...
"Because men can be selfish pigs, let's do away with any distinctions between genders and call it square."

That one is "straw man" at the very least. No egal wants to "do away with any distinctions between genders". What we actually say is that beyond the obvious physical differences there is nothing in either science or scripture that says ALL men without exception are this, while ALL women without exception are that. In fact, it is male supremacy that wants to homogenize all men into this and all women into that. The differences between genders are far fewer than those among individuals of a gender.

"Instead, he gave differing commands for both, even while being very aware of man's fallen condition in carrying out the gender roles."

Let me get this straight: because men are fallen, God gave them rule over the other half of the human race. Are you serious? (And yes, this is the argument you just made, whether you intended it or not.)

Darby Livingston said...

"Let me get this straight: because men are fallen, God gave them rule over the other half of the human race. Are you serious? (And yes, this is the argument you just made, whether you intended it or not.)"

No, in fact, that isn't the argument I made. Maybe you should read a little closer and then sign your name.

Lydia said...

The point is this: Peter held up Sarah as a model of faith for putting up with what most today would certainly call some form of abuse.

Fri Sep 24, 06:30:00 PM 2010

Darby, The larger theme of that passage is about living with and around unbelievers. It was not like she could go down to the Ephesus women's shelter when he was banging her around. Look at the rest of that passage:

6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

Why the need to tell them to do good and not be afraid with any terror?

I am astounded that you are implying Abraham was NOT IN SIN for lying about his wife and handing her over to the king. Note who God worked through to protect Sarah...the pagan!

Do you not see the parallels with this and what Peter was saying to wives with unbelieving husbands.

Abraham in THAT instance was not trusting God. Thankfully, he later trusted God.

Lydia said...

"Instead, he gave differing commands for both, even while being very aware of man's fallen condition in carrying out the gender roles."

Darby, Did you miss the part in Gen when God told Abraham to obey Sarah?

Darby Livingston said...

"I am astounded that you are implying Abraham was NOT IN SIN for lying about his wife and handing her over to the king. Note who God worked through to protect Sarah...the pagan!"

Lydia, nice to chatter with you again. I even said that Abraham sinned. That's my point. Peter tells wives to be subject to husbands, even if they don't obey the Word. And then he holds Sarah up as an example of that. He nowhere in that passage concerning roles, tells the husband to be subject to his wife. Rather, he tells her to be radically kind and gentle with her. It's a clear-cut passage that we've discussed over and over and over and over and over and over.............................................................................................................

Tim Marsh said...

Darby,

Then you assume that Hebrews 11 means that we are to hold as exemplary and normative everything that these heroes did? I don't think that you want to go there.

Hebrews 11-12 function as a unit in which the conclusion is that Jesus is the exemplar of faith ("our" is no where in the Greek).

I wrote you a lengthy response, and the computer froze. I lost it and do not have the time to re-write.

Anonymous said...

"No, in fact, that isn't the argument I made. Maybe you should read a little closer and then sign your name."

I said you'd try this, but it still won't work. Yes, this is the argument you made: because people are sinners, there are "roles" to play, and one of them is that males must have authority over females.

And if anon comments are not acceptable, take up your complaint with Wade. I think it's better to focus on the argument and not the person.

Darby Livingston said...

God bless you all. I really mean that. I'm out of here.

Tim Marsh said...

1 Peter 3 says that the wife's submission (voluntary, as it were) is for the purpose of winning an unbelieving husband.

Jesus was radical in his treatment of women, vis-a-vis the culture of the day. (Again this was lost when my computer froze).

Darby Livingston said...

First I better reply to al-anon once again. Stop putting words in my mouth. You need to go back and read what I wrote or you might risk looking unable to comprehend basic English. I nowhere made a causal statement.

While Lydia and I disagree on this issue, I greatly respect her intelligence and ability to communicate. It isn't frustrating to converse with her. I would like to be able to say the same of you, but thus far you're leaving me little room for it.

Anonymous said...

Here it is again:
"Instead, he gave differing commands for both, even while being very aware of man's fallen condition in carrying out the gender roles"

You argue:
-- The reason for the "differing roles" is "man's fallen condition".

-- The "differing roles" are that men have authority over women.

-- Therefore men rule over women because of man's fallen condition.

It's your syllogism; own it. :-)

Lydia said...

"I even said that Abraham sinned. That's my point. Peter tells wives to be subject to husbands, even if they don't obey the Word. And then he holds Sarah up as an example of that. He nowhere in that passage concerning roles, tells the husband to be subject to his wife. Rather, he tells her to be radically kind and gentle with her. It's a clear-cut passage that we've discussed over and over and over and over "

The but theme of the entire passage is believers living with and around UNBELIEVERS! You cannot dance around that fact.

I agree with Tim about Hebrews.

And this brings me to something about the OT. I abhor the OT children's stories that leave out all the bad stuff. And they do, let's face it. Kids grow up with a totally wrong paradigm of the OT and what it is really about.

Darby, women believers are to submit to their husbands but obey Christ. When they are married to an unbeliever (which was probably typical in the 1st Century church) Peter is giving them comfort and hope in that passage by pointing to Sarah. It saddens me you cannot see that. Roles and rules have clouded your ability to see it.

This passage was great hope to a cousin of mine married to an unbeliever. Her submission to him, prayers and faith took 20 years before he was saved. But she believed that passage and God eventually rewarded her faith.

Lydia said...

"While Lydia and I disagree on this issue, I greatly respect her intelligence and ability to communicate."

Thanks, I think the same way about you!

Hannah Thomas said...

There is no doubt that Abraham did some things that he shouldn't have. No doubt. YES he did some cruel things in regards to his wife - with the example given - when his own butt was on the line.

Are we truly going to compare Abraham to a truly abusive person? One that regularly degrades, humiliates, mocks, ridicules, and at times beats the spouse or family members? We are talking a pattern of their life. Are we saying that Abraham was such a character?

How about we get real, and maybe acknowledge we all knew what that woman was asking...and if I were a betting person so did John Piper.

What we don't seem to see or talk about is the next set of scripture directed to the husbands.

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

An abused person would be so grateful to hear from someone they asked for help from that they are an gracious gift of life. How precious they are in God's eyes. How respect is what God wants for us all.

The abusive partner needs to realize the very SERIOUS nature of those words that follow the last comma. -ie prayers being hindered. Serious stuff don't you agree?

If that happened it would also validate victims, and their actions (from those that are to help this family) to hopefully bring this person to repentance.

WHY wait for the 'season'? Why ask them to keep enduring, and take the smack - when we have the resources NOW to help both of them presently?

What you are doing is sowing mistrust.

Why don't people see that? I just don't understand. What else are they to see? Place yourself in that position for a moment.

We aren't roles and boxes. We are God's children, and we are help one another as SOON as we can, and with WHAT we have! I have to wonder if the roles and boxes is what is hindering our common sense.

We have the tools today to help more so than they did in the past. What is strange is people don't want to take advantage of them.

God was their only hope (Sarah's day), because of the way that society was back then. For the most part abusive behavior was socially acceptable in many circles as well. They had no humans to help support them, and it was good that they had God to rely on. Sadly, he was all they had to rely on. Why? Humans didn't get it. God would want so much more don't you think...if available?

To me it seems lazy, inappropriate, and downright sinful to delay help that you know you can hand at this point - and refuse to do so.

Telling them BE LIKE SARAH is like telling a hungry person - may your stomach be full..lol and hands them no food!

Jesus said if we have the resources to help another - don't ignore that - hand it over! THAT is part of our serving! That would be a good witness for the faith.

We have resources today that were not present back then. Do you think GOD would not wish us to take advantage of those?

We place the abusive person on a pedestal, and allow his prayers to be hindered.

Why?

They want her to be like Sarah, because we don't want to get involved - but allow God to do the job that we refuse to do.

I pray that no one gets to Heaven, and has to repeat that directly at judgment time.

So much talk about how society is so awful, and yet we take this stand to show society that we are Christians - and you can see this by our love.

Telling victims to be Sarah is the wimps way out - no offense. Being warriors of the Lord Jesus would be on the man - reminding him that his prayers are not being answered due to his brokenness. They would wish to help him in ways he is not capable of doing on his own - and in the meantime harming his family. They BOTH need the fellowship NOW! ..why the 'season'?

Where is heaven's name is the priority today? Throw the roles to the side, and do what it is RIGHT in God's eyes!

Debbie Kaufman said...

Darby: To use your interpretation of the word submit, you are saying that the Bible is saying we should obey even if our husbands sin and that is not what the word means, and the passage is not being read as written in the first century.

Taking Ephesians 5:21 into account, that we are to submit to each other which in the original language means to hold each others feelings, wants, desires, above our own, that is what this passage is saying. Even when our husband sins, we are to hold his feelings, wants, desires, higher than our own. We do this so that he sees Christ in us and is won by our action of love, not obedience. That is a mistranslation of the word and God would not tell us to sin. That would be going against who he is.

Darrell said...

to ANON 12:38 pm

i don't want to get in a spittin match about glen beck. I believe the Creator of all men can prick becks hert and use him. I believe God is using him now because the fundy right cannot and/or will not
get behind one man like Huckabee. Isn't that verse in Romans that says the unbelievers are acting more like Christians than those who profess to be believers?

If I had to choose who seems to care more for God, Country, Freedom, Integrity I choose Beck.

Out the the heart the mouth speaks. As Beck tries to heol "right the ship" it seems the self rightous HYPERCALVINIST (not all calvinest) are so arrogant as to throw an election than to put a godly man in the whitehouse.

My God can call and use Beck and the prophet Deborah and anyone else He wants, in His time.

Where is the godliness of the leadership in leading this Nation?

Attacking all who disagree with them.

Just read wades blog and you can see it plainly. they soend more time attacking wade and all they disagree with than trying to tell people of jesus.

If I was reading this and knew nothing of Christ and the cross, I would never, NEVER follow SBC preachers like the radical blowhards here that approve and defend the Calvin post that wade put up.

Anonymous said...

There has to be a leadership structure in place for every facet of our lives.Whether we are talking about a company,a club,our churches or our homes someone has to be in charge or responsible. If not, there is chaos. God ordained leadership in every aspect of our lives to help us not to hinder us.
It has been well said that; anything with no head is dead and anything with two heads is a freak!

Bryan Riley said...

It is so good to know that Jesus set us free. Thank you, Wade, for demonstrating that freedom.

believer333 said...

Agreed Bryan, here is what Jesus came to do.....

1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

Kristen said...

"There has to be a leadership structure in place for every facet of our lives."

Yes-- but leadership can be shared. A joint venture or limited partnership is a business model where two people share leadership. It runs on a "meritocracy" system-- that is, whichever partner is best at something, takes the lead in that area, and the other partner defers to the partner with the most expertise.

And then there's friendship. I wouldn't keep my friends long if I insisted that we had to be in an authority-submission relationship. Are not husbands and wives supposed to be best friends?

This "you can't have two heads" complementarian argument seems to be to be weakened by the very real fact that every woman in complementarianism DOES have "two heads." Both her husband and Christ are her leaders/masters. But Christ said, "No one can have two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

Can you serve God and a human?

Lydia said...

There has to be a leadership structure in place for every facet of our lives.Whether we are talking about a company,a club,our churches or our homes someone has to be in charge or responsible. If not, there is chaos. God ordained leadership in every aspect of our lives to help us not to hinder us.
It has been well said that; anything with no head is dead and anything with two heads is a freak!

Sat Sep 25, 01:03:00 AM 2010

I agree with this in the worldly sphere but the Body is not to be like the world. What is our excuse when we all are to have the indwelling Holy Spirit?

But the visible church is like the world and it follows human leaders instead of Christ. So Matt Baker becomes a 'leader' because he has some title that folks think means instant holiness and authority.

The writer above misunderstands the word "Kephale" in scripture and thinks it means authority. Ignoring the Head/Body metaphors all through NT scripture. It is a common mistake. The writer would have us be perpetual children in the Body feasting on milk until we die. Can we not grow spiritually past some man appointed "leader"?

Anonymous said...

Quotes taken from Piper's Book, "What's the Difference":

To the degree that a woman's influence over man is personal and directive it will generally offend a man's good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God's created order. A woman may design the traffic pattern of a city's streets and thus exert a kind of influence over all male drivers. But this influence will be non-personal and therefore not necessarily an offense against God's order . . . . All acts of influence lie on the continuum between personal and impersonal . . . . Some influence is very directive, some is non-directive. For example, a drill sergeant would epitomize directive influence. It would be hard to see how a woman could be a drill sergeant over men without violating their sense of masculinity and her sense of femininity . . . . The God-given sense of responsibility for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal directive leadership of a female superior. J.I. Packer suggested that "a situation in which a female boss has a male secretary" puts strain on the humanity of both. I think this would be true in other situations as well. Some of the more obvious ones would be . . . . in professional baseball if a woman is made the umpire to call balls and strikes and frequently to settle heated disputes among men (pp.62-63).


The irony of this passage is that Packer's wife leans egal and does not even attend the same church.

Piper is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

"There has to be a leadership structure in place for every facet of our lives... If not, there is chaos."

This fallacy is called "false dilemma", because these are not the only choices. Any group of two or more people can determine who has the best skill in what area, and let them lead in that area. In other words, IF leadership is needed and not just cooperation, THEN the one with the best skill should lead-- and ONLY for that situation.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 248   Newer› Newest»