The CBE Scroll

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 19, 2006 @ 1:11 am

Well said. Thank you.

Comment by Lori

June 19, 2006 @ 5:38 am

Ah, yes. The old hermeneutical bug-a-bear. Paul says many things, and many of them have been used to justify restrictive policies.

“But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.” (I Cor 11:5)

I have seen Christians say that if modern women do not cover their heads in church they are sinning.

“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (vs. 14-15)

Many Christians say that it’s sinful for men to have long hair and women to have short hair.

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; (Eph 6:5)

I have heard a Christian say there was nothing wrong with slavery since the bible doesn’t forbid it.

“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,” (Eph 5:18)

Generations of Christians have preached it’s not right to drink at all.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae…Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” (Rom 16:1,7)

Here Paul is saying that a woman served as a deacon and as an apostle, yet many people deny modern women the same right.

So if modern women are forbidden from serving in leadership, then do any of Paul’s other commands apply today, also?

Comment by DP

June 19, 2006 @ 7:52 am

I might have known F. F. Bruce would have pointed the way clearly–decades ago! Thanks for this reminder of what evangelical hermeneutics can be.

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 19, 2006 @ 10:39 am

Sexism, enforced subservient roles based on gender, whether sociologically modeled or religiously imposed, kills women’s spirits. How can it be, then, of the Holy Spirit? Be of God?

What about the woman Episcopal priest who resigned from her position after studying Scripture and coming to a complementarian* position? Do you believe she would say her spirit was killed or that women are being forced into subservient roles?
[*Editor's note: This former Episcopal priest does not self-identify as a complementarian, she was compelled to step down from her position for theological reasons related to gender, but believes women can serve in nearly all areas of ministry.]

Comment by Craighton

June 19, 2006 @ 3:10 pm

I was not aware of Alice Linsley and I must say I’m quite intrigued by her. She’s a great reminder that the complementarian/egalitarian view on Biblical gender issues are not the only ones out there, that there is a wide range of differing belief on the topic. In the interview, she says, “I have no problem with women in ministry as preachers, teachers and pastors. This is beside the point, as we are not speaking here of catholic orders. My doubts surround women priests, and even on that matter I recognize that God’s call on a women to be a priest may be authentic. However, speaking from personal experience, it cannot be authentic if it is based upon a church’s dishonesty, manipulation and failure to deliberate openly.”

I’m not sure exactly what she’s saying here other than she is charging her church with dishonesty and manipulation. More to the point of this post is what she says about evangelical egalitarians: “The irony of Evangelicals is that they say they believe in the authority of Scripture but then allow cultural accommodation in their interpretation of Scripture. This happens because they do not maintain the proper tension between Scripture and Tradition, as did St. Paul and the other Apostles.” Personally, I would think Tradition (capital “T”) is quite a different thing than using the wisdom and morays of one’s society in communicating God’s message to your audience. Many evangelical denominations would say they are trying to maintain a proper tension between Scripture and cultural mandate and would not want to be painted by a “scripture only” brush.

Those who claim a sola scriptura may be fooling themselves. Many of the comments and posts on this blog are about the many sociological assumptions that creep into complementarian thinking.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 19, 2006 @ 5:32 pm

She must be concerned not with women priests but with the integrity of the process and discussion. Or maybe her doubts are really about the Episcopal priesthood itself (is such a priesthood scriptural? Does it interfere with the priesthood of every believer?), not the gender of the priest. She does not strike me as a complementarian. Comps say they want to win the world to Christ. Why would anyone want to forbid someone from preaching the good news of salvation to a lost world because that preacher is a woman?

Comment by Lori

June 20, 2006 @ 4:57 am

From yourdictionary.com:

Freedom: 1. The condition of being free of restraints… 3… b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action… 5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will…9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference

Contrast that with the following. The author of the article, A Different Kind of Women’s Lib, below was attending a complementarian marriage conference.

At the conference, I met women who couldn’t exercise some of their gifts because of their and their husbands’ interpretation of the Bible.

So the women mentioned above felt that they had certain spiritual gifts, but could not use them because their husbands felt it was sinful. This illustrates one of the fundamental paradoxes of complementarianism that I have never been able to understand. If women have been created equal to men in the sight of God, and if they have freedom in Christ like men do, then what are the definitions of “equal” and “freedom”? How can putting restraints upon them fit the commonly accepted definitions of those words? Is there some other definition that I don’t know about?

Comment by TeriLynn

June 20, 2006 @ 10:16 am

Re: post #6

It might be more likely that she is not in agreement with the Episcopal priesthood system. She said she had no problem with a woman being a pastor or a similar ministry.

Her words just weren’t very precise. Even in the message boards her written responses were just not clear enough. She may be an easy person to quote out of context and completely contrary to her intent.

Comment by Makeesha

June 20, 2006 @ 1:02 pm

Regarding comment #4: I would suggest that a woman being able to CHOOSE where she fits in the whole “gender debate” is in and of itself a testimony to how far egalitarian beliefs have brought society. I think that if a woman wants to live that way, all the power to her. But I don’t agree that it’s “Scriptural” to suggest that a comp. system is “God’s way” and anything outside of that is rebellion against God. In your statement, your employing fallacy that just doesn’t hold up.

Comment by Makeesha

June 20, 2006 @ 1:03 pm

Oh, and I LOVE the hermeneutic method of Bruce.

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 20, 2006 @ 7:27 pm

Comment #8 reminds me of the pro-choice response to Norma McCovey’s repudiation of abortion.

My point was simply that Alice Linsley—like millions of other Christian women—does not believe that just because Scripture limits her from certain roles that her spirit is being killed, as was stated in the original post. (In fact, concerning the aftermath of her resignation, Ms. Linsley writes, “My relationship with God is stronger now than at any time in my life.”)

Comment by Craighton

June 20, 2006 @ 8:32 pm

#11: The operative word in that sentence of mine that you referred to is “enforced.” I think that Ms. Linsley, whatever her reason, is choosing to give up her role as priest.

As I indicated in a previous comment, I wasn’t very sure what she was saying exactly either. It certainly was valid that the eighth comment was puzzling over her way of putting things. That said, I’m still intrigued with what she says and want to try to figure it out, specifically because it is not an evangelical way of saying things. Let’s see: if I believed like her that women could be preachers, teachers, and pastors, but not priests, then could the issue be apostolic succession? Or more likely, since she says even a call to a woman to be a priest can be authentic, then it sounds like she is calling her church inauthentic, that is, false. And a false church is a very bad thing, which brings me back to my first idea, that she really has more of a problem with her church, than with women’s ordination.

I certainly understand, like many others contributing to this blog, being ticked off at one’s church or one’s denomination. My heart goes out to her and I hope she can find her way in a manner that pleases both God and her spirit.

Comment by Makeesha

June 20, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

Brian - that’s fine for her. But the point I think that was made was that certain interpretations and methods of hermeneutic create beliefs that God desires to limit women… and people like me DO feel that that their God-given gifts and talents are being quashed.

So it’s a fallacy to say that because some women don’t feel oppressed that the ideas that put them in that position aren’t oppressive.

Comment by Lori

June 21, 2006 @ 2:13 am

#11: The operative word in that sentence of mine that you referred to is “enforced.” I think that Ms. Linsley, whatever her reason, is choosing to give up her role as priest.

Yes, that was the operative word for me, too. Ms. Linsley chose to become a priest, and now she has chosen to lay it down. She did so of her own volition, not because her husband or another man in her life told her that she was sinning. Again, I fail to see how telling a woman that she can only follow one path or else she will be outside of God’s will and rebelling against Him, can be reconciled with the definition of “freedom.”

In regards to #13, I completely agree. I grew up in a “red” state, in a very complementary culture, and I felt completely quashed, as well. I actually felt called into the ministry as a child but did not admit it to anyone until I was an adult, because I thought there was something wrong with me. :(

So it’s a fallacy to say that because some women don’t feel oppressed that the ideas that put them in that position aren’t oppressive.

I think it’s a very valid point that your feelings about a system do not validate the system. As somebody pointed out in a post about slavery, many people in the ancient world sold themselves into slavery for the “job security.” Just because they may have welcomed having a job, however, did not mean that slavery was a morally correct system.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 21, 2006 @ 10:31 am

#13 Makeshift,

you wrote: “So it’s fallacy to say that because some women don’t feel oppressed that the ideas that put them in that position aren’t oppressive.”

Exactly. There are a lot of angles to the subject.

If a person has no desire to play the trumpet, then a restriction that persons of his/her kind are forbidden from playing the trumpet would have no effect upon them. Nevertheless, such a prejudical favoritistic ruling is still oppressive to persons of his/her kind. Maybe several of their “kind” might not care about trumpet playing. But someone is bound to adore trumpets and for that person, to be restricted because of inherent design is the height of cruelty.

IMO prejudice is an insidious evil.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 23, 2006 @ 7:55 pm

The point is that Ms. Linsley had a choice: She could choose to be a priest, or she could choose to step down. Her church supported her. Many called and gifted women are given no choice by their church or denomination. That is oppression. As TeriLynn said above, if I choose to play (or not to play) the trumpet, that is a choice I have made. If I lay it down, that is also my choice. If I am denied that choice because of my gender that is injustice.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 23, 2006 @ 8:06 pm

Again, Ms. Linsley seems to be questioning the priesthood itself, not a woman’s ability to function in it. Her statement is not a validation of the comp point of view. How many men have given up their pastoral ministry because they themselves did not feel called to it any longer? I have heard of many such men in my lifetime.

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 24, 2006 @ 8:55 pm

Comment #17 misses the point. How many men have given up their pastoral ministry because they themselves did not feel called to it any longer?

Yes, many men have resigned from the pastorate because they no longer feel called. But that’s not the actual reason Ms. Linsley resigned. She resigned because she realized that the Scripture said that she was not to serve in that position because she was a woman. I doubt if any men resigned because they were men.

Comment by Lori

June 25, 2006 @ 2:31 am

In regards to #18, that’s NOT what she said.

In the interview, she says, “I have no problem with women in ministry as preachers, teachers and pastors. This is beside the point, as we are not speaking here of catholic orders. My doubts surround women priests, and even on that matter I recognize that God’s call on a women to be a priest may be authentic.”

So, Brian, do you ever recognize that a woman’s call to preach may be authentic? Do you support women being preachers, teachers, or pastors? If you disagree with any of that, then I don’t believe you agree with Ms. Linsley.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 25, 2006 @ 11:14 am

#18

If you read her statements thoroughly you will note that Ms. Linsley also said that she has no problem with women being pastors and in any leadership in the church. This would negate any idea that she thinks women cannot serve because of a patriarchal interpretation of Scripture.

This is why we are wondering if her real issue is with her denomination and their organizational system.

Comment by Makeesha

June 25, 2006 @ 8:53 pm

Comment #s 4, 11, and 18: As you can see, you are misreading Ms. Linsley’s comments to suite your own agenda…probably not something she would be ok with.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 25, 2006 @ 10:29 pm

I too believe her real problem is with the priesthood itself. Is it truly a biblical priesthood? It is no surprise that comps would seize her statement as almost Holy Writ to cover all women aspiring to pastoral ministry. It is a mistake to do so. Even if she had changed her mind on women in pastoral ministry, that would not have meant she was right to do so; her statement would only have reflected her opinion, not God’s truth.

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 26, 2006 @ 8:28 am

Comment #7 referenced a quote from an article written by egalitarian-leaning author, Agnieszka Tennant, who attended a complementarian conference. I wonder if Commenter #7 read the entire article, including the line that read:

One woman told me that complementarian theology is “very liberating.” “I’m free to exercise my gifts,” she said, adding, “within the context of God’s order, of course. When I submit, such a burden is lifted. I want to be in charge, but when I am, it’s confusion.”

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 26, 2006 @ 10:07 am

Comment #19: So, Brian, do you ever recognize that a woman’s call to preach may be authentic? Do you support women being preachers, teachers, or pastors?

Glad you asked the question! Let me start with an analogy. In the garden, God said, (and I wildly paraphrase): “Hey folks, I made lots of wonderful trees with awesome fruit. You’re free to eat from any of them. There’s only one tree whose fruit is bad. Stay away from that fruit; it’ll kill ya.”

I’m free to drive my car anywhere I want. But I’m not free to drive on the left side (U.S.), run red lights, or go over the speed limit. Freedom with restraints is part of God’s order.

The following is an attempt to answer your question. I don’t claim to speak for all complementarians.

Based on the Scriptures, I believe women are only excluded from those roles and functions wherein they would be teaching or exercising authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12-14). That would include the role of pastor (over men) and elder. That would also include being the sole leader of a mixed small group where the leader is seen as the shepherd of the group and the group is seen as a de facto “church.”

A woman may evangelize, prophesy, pray, counsel, share a testimony, cast out demons, speak in tongues, report on missionary activity, lead worship, (to name a few examples) in any setting with men or women. She may teach, disciple and pastor children, youth and women. She may “co-teach” a man alongside another man (like Priscilla and Aquila.) She may facilitate group discussions, read Scripture, perform baptisms and administrate communion, take offerings, lead a ministry to feed and clothe the poor, design and update the church website, minister to the sick and dying in hospitals, mow the lawn around the church building (I was actually accused of being against this!), and carry out many other forms of ministry within the church and outside the four walls of the church.

Undoubtedly, situations will arise which are complex. I don’t claim to have an answer for every situation that could come up. As a pastor, I have to make decisions about cases as best I can based on what the Scriptures say. But a woman who has a heart to serve the Lord in a complementarian fashion will certainly not run out of ministry opportunities.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 26, 2006 @ 10:36 am

re: post 23: One woman told me that complementarian theology is “very liberating.” “I’m free to exercise my gifts,” she said, adding, “within the context of God’s order, of course. When I submit, such a burden is lifted. I want to be in charge, but when I am, it’s confusion.”

You know there are many people, both men and women, who do not feel they are called to be leaders and would make the same statement. Leadership is a gift. Leadership in Christian ministries is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Leadership is not a physical attribute only given to males. Not everyone (not every male) in Christ is called to the ministries of Christian leadership.

As for “the context of God’s order,” I don’t know what she meant by the statement. However, in Christ there should be an orderliness of Christian love, deferring to others considering them before self. All Christians should so honor their brethren as to make sure their needs (emotional, physical, spiritual) are tended to and to encourage them to be more like Christ maturing into His fullness of character and being. That is what I consider to be “God’s order.”

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 26, 2006 @ 3:25 pm

Yes, as in comment #25, this is the definition of “God’s order” where I find no consensus among the so-called complementarians. Really, as I read their writings, they’re all over the map. About the only thing I find in common with them is that there is some degree of prohibition of women doing things that they don’t prohibit men from doing. I will acknowledge that probably most of them honestly think they’re finding their various prohibitions in Scripture and are honestly conforming to God’s order. But the fact is, they’re conforming to a tradition rooted in the world’s patriarchal practices, and baptizing them as though these preferences are also God’s preferences.

I agree with your description of God’s order. I would only add that within the body of Christ, the Holy Spirit must be absolutely free to call, anoint, and empower those of God’s choosing to all the various ministries of the Body. I believe that when the members are practicing the mutual submission that you describe (and which Christ taught and modeled), then and only then can the Spirit’s movement be discerned and embraced.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 26, 2006 @ 4:52 pm

Comment # 24: The constraints mentioned (the tree in the Garden of Eden, driving on the left side, etc.) are not gender-specific. Read Genesis 1:21 and 1 :27 where God gives woman equal authority with man. 1Timothy 2 12-14 must be interpreted in light of that. Read about Deborah the Judge who had God-given authority over men even though there were men available to do the job (Barak and Lappidoth come to mind as examples). If women could lead the nation of Israel, they can lead a church. Is it possible that there were two women judges named Deborah, and that may be why she is identified as the wife of Lappidoth? Thank God for men like Lappidoth who are strong and secure enough to encourage their wives in their God-given callings as leaders. We cannot praise them enough, for often they must endure as much criticism as their wives do. The “constraints” of 1 Tim. 2 are about learning before teaching and, when weighed with these other scriptures, do not prohibit women from serving as pastors. The reference to Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2 may have been concerning a doctrine being circulated at that time that Eve was created first. In the ancient world, women were often no more than chattel, and had little opportunity to learn. In all probability, Mary the mother of Jesus could not read or write. When women-or anyone else-grow learned and wise in godly doctrine, it is wrong to continue the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2. Furthermore, such continuance conflicts with the Apostle Paul’s-and God’s-own practice as revealed elsewhere (the scriptures mentioned above, Phoebe the deaconness, 1 Timothy 5:17 and other verses that reveal elders to be women as well as men, Gal.3, to name only a few).

Doctrinal purity has taken a huge beating, not from those who would set women free to be all they can be, but from those who have opposed that freedom for a thousand years or so. Yes, they were sincerely trying to follow God, but that was not enough. How many tragic mistakes in Christian history (the Crusades, slavery, lynchings, racial segregation, suppression of smallpox inoculation, etc.) could have been avoided if 1Timothy, Genesis 3:16 and other verses had not been used to silence women and restrict their service? It is as if one-half of the voice of God has been silenced. We have given Jesus a bad name because of it. People outside of Christ who are aware of this history may well be saying “Who needs Christianity? We can get this from the world!”

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 26, 2006 @ 5:03 pm

Comment #23 referenced the quote: One woman told me that complementarian theology is “very liberating.” “I’m free to exercise my gifts,” she said, adding, “within the context of God’s order, of course. When I submit, such a burden is lifted. I want to be in charge, but when I am, it’s confusion.”

Comment #25 responded: You know there are many people, both men and women, who do not feel they are called to be leaders and would make the same statement.

So if a person says that complementarian theology is “very liberating” or that he/she is free to exercise his/her gifts then that person is likely not a leader? Or is it that she advocates being in submission or not taking charge when it’s not her place? Even those of us in leadership must submit to those in authority over us. There have been times when I’ve been in leadership positions, but wanted to take charge in an area that wasn’t mine to do so. Things have always turned out worse when I didn’t submit to authority.

Is it so unfathomable to you that a woman could be leading within a complementarian context and may actually (gasp!) like it?

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 26, 2006 @ 7:59 pm

We can go only by what people actually say. The person quoted may well NOT be a leader. However, she may be willing to subsume her God-given leadership gifts or even a call from God to leadership, because she genuinely believes she does not have such a call and/or should not have such gifts. The former has no conflict with a system imposed on her based on an interpretation of Scripture that says no woman must ever teach men in the church. The latter will eventually have to reckon with God over the conflict her church created for her, or she created for herself.

This post was about freedom in Christ. Too many women are expected by their church’s patriarchal traditions to give exactly such a response. While the words might give a gloss of liberation (and the woman who made the comment might really believe she’s free), the situation is inherently anti-freedom if a woman cannot choose to obey a calling from God that would require her to exercise godly authority and/or teaching men. The point in comment #25 was, as I read it, that though most women–and most men–will not be called by God to such ministry, many of those women who are, are not free within their churches to obey that call. God doesn’t simply not call women simply because their churches’ leaders (and even the women themselves, initially) refuse to believe that God has the right, power, or prerogative to do so.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 26, 2006 @ 9:10 pm

I daresay that the authority you submitted to wasn’t based on your gender or the gender of the one to whom you submitted. At times it may even have been a transitory authority, such as an employee in a company where someday you could be promoted to manager or even president, and then they must submit to you instead. Male and female were created equal in authority (Genesis 1:21, 1:27 teaches their dominion over all the earth and the fowls of the air, but not over another human being). God did not give men authority over women by virtue of gender. The arguments you use to prove gender submission have nothing to do with gender at all. We must all submit to someone over us whether that person is a man or a woman. Barak refused to submit to Deborah’s authority at first, trying to call the shots himself (Judges 4:8), and as a result, he lost the honor of capturing Sisera the enemy general, as Deborah warned him he would (Judges 4:9). Of course, he was properly rebuked by this incident and went on to celebrate the victory with Deborah. They were both mentioned in the Hebrews 11 Hall of Faith. When a woman becomes President of the United States, you will need to submit yourself to her even as you do a male President. You say that women can lead in a complementarian context. Lead what? Complementarian women are forbidden to pastor a church or to lead in any way that involves authority over men in the church. This is not supported by scripture, as the example of Deborah cited above shows. If a woman does not sense a call to leadership that involves men, of course she doesn’t feel the oppression, at least not to the same degree. I came from a comp. background. You use 1 Timothy to place restrictions on women and to say women cannot have positions of authority over men because they are women. Then in comment # 28 you tell us they can? Ephesians 5:21 makes clear that submission, or making yourself available, is for all believers to one another. Your arguments simply don’t have anything to do with what you’re trying to prove.

Comment by Lori

June 27, 2006 @ 6:11 am

In regards to one woman saying she’s liberated by comp. theology, that doesn’t prove anything. I was raised in a comp. culture but now feel liberated by egal. theology. My feelings don’t prove the validity of egal. anymore than this other woman’s feelings prove the validity of comp., because human emotions can change and are often unpredictable. The only proper way to evaluate any belief or doctrine is in the light of God’s Word. Having studied this issue for many years, I choose to believe egal. not because of how I feel about it, but because that is what I truly believe the Bible teaches.

When it comes to what women can and can’t do in church, I hope this doesn’t sound offensive, but I’ve always found it slightly amusing. As Psalmist put it in comment #26, comp. restrictions on women seem to be all over the map. I believe it was elsewhere here on The CBE Scroll that somebody mentioned a church where women are not allowed to take communion unless they ask their husbands. I have heard comps. say that a woman who does not cover her head in church is rebelling against God. I heard a comp. say once that any woman who runs for any political office is sinning. Again, as Psalmist noted, the only common thread I’ve seen through all this is that it is men putting restrictions on women and justifying it in the name of God. Since God is not a God of disorder, I find it easier to believe that He wants women to follow His call on their lives, regardless of what others might say about them.

As for driving rules, I live in Great Britain, so our rules are different from yours! Every country has their own rules for their own roads, but, like patriarchalism, it is still a set of man-made rules imposed upon one segment of the population.

Brian, in comment #24, you mentioned that you believed women are allowed to prophesy. I presume you mean in church. So should a woman’s prophecy only apply to the women in the congregation? Doesn’t making a prophecy imply some sort of authority? I did a word study of “prophetess,” and 4 out of the 6 times the word is used in the Old Testament, it specifically describes a woman who had authority over men. Indeed, in 2 Kings 24, it says that the king sent a delegation of men to Huldah and she pronounced God’s judgment on Israel.

And finally, I can really relate to Kathryn’s sentiment in comment #30.

If a woman does not sense a call to leadership that involves men, of course she doesn’t feel the oppression, at least not to the same degree. I came from a comp. background.

I, too, come from a comp. background and I felt stifled, precisely because I felt a call to preach. However, I have known many comp. women who had no desire to lead anything and so were perfectly happy in their beliefs. Oppression only feels like oppression if you know that things are done differently somewhere else and you’re rather be in that somewhere else than where you are.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 27, 2006 @ 9:40 am

Re: post #26

Thank you for your thoughts, Psalmist.

I agree with your description of God’s order. I would only add that within the body of Christ, the Holy Spirit must be absolutely free to call, anoint, and empower those of God’s choosing to all the various ministries of the Body. I believe that when the members are practicing the mutual submission that you describe (and which Christ taught and modeled), then and only then can the Spirit’s movement be discerned and embraced.

The thing that gets me is that we ARE free in Christ and the Holy Spirit IS FREE to choose whomsoever He wills. But we must realize it. Until we do, we believe lies and give away our freedom.

When I first came to the Lord I saw and believed the freedom to hear and follow God. I knew nothing of the churches structures that forbid certain groups of people from participating. God spoke and moved through me amazingly. Then I became aware that it was thought that I had to be given authority by church leaders who doled support out with great bias. Of course this is a misuse of the concepts of submission, honor and respect among the believers. Leaders are leaders to discern and recognize God’s callings upon church members, and to assist in refinement, self control, wisdom, and encouragment in those gifts. It’s not about who can, it’s who IS God equipping and let’s be of help.

But there is shared responsibility in belief. If we believe a lie we are responsible for believing that lie and it’s fruit upon our lives. The one who put out the lie and seeks to enforce it is responsible for their part. We are ALWAYS responsible for what we believe even when we have been deceived. That is the first lesson Eve learned.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 27, 2006 @ 10:10 am

Re: post #28

So if a person says that complementarian theology is “very liberating” or that he/she is free to exercise his/her gifts then that person is likely not a leader? Or is it that she advocates being in submission or not taking charge when it’s not her place? Even those of us in leadership must submit to those in authority over us. There have been times when I’ve been in leadership positions, but wanted to take charge in an area that wasn’t mine to do so. Things have always turned out worse when I didn’t submit to authority.

If a woman says that hierarchical theology (which confines women to subservience to males) is liberating, then likely she has no desires for leadership, and no gifting for spiritual leadership. It has been my experience that even comp women who lead women do their leading from male direction. So when they teach, they teach what has been told to them they may teach. This is quite different from the comp males who lead from what God directs and teach what they are convinced that God is directing them. The comp women get their directions filtered through male headship. This is a very different “form” of leadership. Such “leadership” is a safety from the responsibilities of “getting it right” and/or making mistakes. The male leaders take the responsibilities because the woman is only following what she is told. For some this is liberating. IMO it is not true leadership.

Regarding submission to the authorities in our lives, everyone must do this. It is part of honor and respect. As Christians the correct arrangement of authority figures is an important discernment that is an ongoing growth process. Christ taught the disciples that leaders need to be servants, not downlording upon the believers. And Paul taught that we must be willing to be persuaded by those who lead us and not make their service difficult.

Unfortunately it has always been a huge temptation for many to want to follow the worldly order of masters and slaves, kings and subjects, bosses and employees. Most Shepards do their utmost to honor God by serving the needs of their flock as God leads. But the sheep still need to pray and discern even while honoring and respecting. I’ve seen pastors with the best intentions leading people astray. Each individual (including women) must listen to the sermons and teachings and be like the Bereans checking Scripture to sift what she/he hears with the ultimate authority, the Scriptures.

Comment by Chelsea

June 27, 2006 @ 11:44 am

In #28, Brian asks, “Is it so unfathomable to you that a woman could be leading within a complementarian context and may actually (gasp!) like it?”

My own experience growing up in a complementarian context (both church and home) was very positive. The men cared about their families and were very supportive. The women were active in the church’s ministry and their contributions were valued by all. I credit my church home for encouraging me to diligently study the Bible and apply it to my life.

It was diligent study of the Bible that led me to my current convictions about who God can call to what ministries. I was not very concerned with how complementarianism limited women, but rather how it limited God. If God is powerful enough to make sinners fit to serve him, then how could something as arbitrary as human gender determine his purposes for us?

I understand the desire to order our churches and homes as faithfully as we can to the biblical text. But the few passages in the pastoral epistles that seem to establish a biologically-based hierarchy for leadership do not play out in the examples of leaders God called throughout Scripture (including the examples named in the pastoral epistles) and even in church history.

Anyway, I’m sure we could both go on at length about the biblical support for our respective views. Back to the original question, I liked being in a complementarian context. In my case, it felt intimidating and uncomfortable to step outside it, and I wouldn’t have done so unless I felt led to by Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 27, 2006 @ 4:49 pm

Thank you Lori. I too came to the egal. point of view after much Bible study and prayer on this. Our complementarian brothers and sisters are indeed all over the map, and their illustrations often do not support what they are trying to prove. I have heard that women should be in submission to men because we all, men and women, have to submit to a boss, or even the President of the U.S. despite being equal to him in essence. If, however, the boss or President is a woman, do we still, men as well as women, have to submit to her? The submission of all to our nation’s leaders or a company boss is obviously not gender-based, and can even be considered transitory in that men and women both may from time to time lead our nation or company as President, Congressional members, mayors, managers, governors, etc. I may or may not have a call to preach on my life; I may still however feel the oppression of those who do and are not encouraged to do so because of a misunderstanding and mis-application of certain Scriptures, however well-intended. It is interesting but sad that words like “head” and “submit” have been used out of context for centuries, and have wound up with “meanings” that even contradicted what was taught in Scripture from beginning to end (such as “Let us make man in our own image….and let them have dominion,” “love one another,” “in honor preferring one another,” “submitting yourselves one to another,” etc.).

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 27, 2006 @ 9:48 pm

I too have heard of Christians who will not allow a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered. The male equivalent in that same passage is that men are ordered to cut their hair (1 Cor.11:14). Yet, Samson was commanded by God to wear his hair long as a sign of his covenant with God (Judges 13:5). It therefore cannot be a sin for men to wear long hair. How then are we to interpret the specific instructions of 1 Cor.11:14,& 15 except as a local matter involving customs peculiar to that time? Of course there are timeless principles taught in 1 Cor.11, principles of concern for what is considered proper behavior so as to not bring shame upon or unnecessary trouble to the Gospel of Christ in any given culture. This will differ from nation to nation. As always, “head” is used by comps in a way not consistent with it’s context or other Scripture. “Head” in Scripture does not mean “leader” but “source” or “origin”. How can a man, even a husband, be a wife’s spiritual leader when Jesus made it plain that the Holy Spirit dwelling in all believers would guide us into all truth? He, not our husbands or other men, is our spiritual leader.

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 28, 2006 @ 10:24 am

Re: Comment #31 Brian, in comment #24, you mentioned that you believed women are allowed to prophesy. I presume you mean in church.

Yes, in church. Women frequently prophesy in the church I pastor.

So should a woman’s prophecy only apply to the women in the congregation?

No, a woman’s prophecy does not only apply to the women in the congregation (unless, of course, she says something like, ‘I believe this word is specifically for the women.’)

Doesn’t making a prophecy imply some sort of authority?

New Testament prophecy does not imply some sort of authority. Authority in the church is not given to those who prophesy, but to the elders or pastors. Now, elders may prophesy (1 Tim. 4:14), but their authority lies in their position as elders, not in their ability to prophesy. Elders must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9), not prophesy.

If prophesying implied authority, then there would be a whole lot of people with authority running around. I’ve had “prophets” try to usurp my authority as the pastor, saying things like: “I have the word of the Lord, and you didn’t do/preach what I told you to do/preach.”

Comment by Craighton

June 28, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

#35 & #36: I was raised in a complementarian denomination that believed all those things, e.g., women’s hair had to be long and covered in church, etc. It was this over-concern with literalism, this blindness to the fact that local application in each cultural situation must be flexible or the belief system itself will become hard, rigid, and pharisaic, that drove me away from complementarianism (and that denomination). Of course it is possible to be stuck in a complementarian church within an egalitarian denomination, like I am now.

Making the flexible decisions within Biblical authority, as has already been pointed out, can be challenging, and Bruce’s principle of freedom does seem to make a lot of hermeneutic sense to me: if Paul, who was so convinced of the freedom that came with being in Christ, made a decision that limited some of his converts’ freedom, then that decision should be seen as local and not for all time. If a decision of his increased freedom, then feel free to apply it 2000 years later. But to see the New Testament as just a book of rules is not understanding what Christianity is all about.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 28, 2006 @ 11:41 pm

Can women teach men from a position of authority? If 4 out of 6 O.T. references to “prophetesses” describe a woman in authority over men, the answer is yes! Thank you Lori for the word study on “prophetess”. The mother of King Lemuel composed the entire chapter of Proverbs 31, and as a consequence she has been teaching men for thousands of years. Deborah had God-given authority over men (Judges 4). Comps have a very hard time talking about Deborah. She does not fit into their theology at all. God did not change from the O.T. to the N.T. Jesus sent women to tell men about His resurrection. Coming from a comp. background, I am all too familiar with the arguments frequently used to bar women from leadership, yet 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is about learning sound doctrine before teaching and does not bar women from authority. 1 Timothy 2:15 is actually about promoting women to authority once they have learned the sound doctrine and have demonstrated faithfulness in their lives (Remember the words of Jesus “He that is faithful in little…”). Some of the New Testament elders to which congregants were to “submit” were women. Phoebe was a deaconness, a place of acknowledged authority. These are but a few examples. Can they teach men? Yes they can! Did men have authority over women from creation? Not according to Genesis 1:26-28. The Holy Spirit dwells in every believer. A woman does not need a male “spiritual leader” to tell her how she may serve God, for her “spiritual leader” dwells inside her if she is a born-again Christian. This isn’t male-bashing at all; men, no matter how wonderful and good cannot be the “spiritual leaders” of women (John 14:16-17, 26), and it is at this particular juncture that comp. theology falls apart, for it is predicated on male “spiritual leadership”. I have heard it described as male “spiritual headship”. The “headship” in Ephesians 5:23 and other scriptures isn’t spiritual at all, nor does it mean “leadership”. It is a picture of what happened in Genesis 2:21 & 22, and means “source” or “origin”. It’s too dangerous to assert spiritual dominion where none is given (Gen. 1:26-28, no dominion is given over another person), for then we are playing fast and loose with lighted dynamite. Please don’t take these statements the wrong way. I am not saying these things to pass judgment on anyone’s church or ministry. The hard sayings above are food for thought. Prophecy isn’t primarily about predicting the future, but relaying the Word of God to the people. That carries authority, even if only for the moment in which the prophecy is delivered. You are being taught-and led-by a woman when she prophesies the Word in your church.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 29, 2006 @ 6:26 am

I must disagree with Brian, both in general on what I see as his misunderstanding of true authority, and specifically about prophecy carrying no authority. If prophecy is declaring truth from God (and if it is not, it is certainly not prophecy), then it had BETTER carry God’s authority! Authority always centers on the task God gives one to do, not around a position of prominence or power. Authority is a tool, not a right or privilege. Authority is given by God to get the task done. So a preacher preaches with God’s authority, but is not an “authority figure” as Jesus warned us about. A prophet prophesies with God’s authority. A pastor herds the flock with God’s authority, a teacher teaches with God’s authority, and any servant of God serves with God’s authority. We do what we’re called to do because God gives us the authority necessary to do it. This matter of declaring some “positions” as carrying authority and others not, is IMO the method Christians have used through the centuries to make the church more amenable to the worldly authority structures they end up emulating. God’s way is startlingly and effectively different than that.

Comment by PSoftly

June 29, 2006 @ 8:14 am

Re # 24: I can just see the women in my church running the Bible School, all the little kids sitting in the pews, hearing the Bible message. Two fathers arrive early to pick up their children. Oh no, now the woman who is speaking has to stop and decide if she is “teaching” or if she is “evangelizing.”

I’ve been at an informal women’s group that was a farewell to a woman moving away. One woman was praying. In walked the male pastor. She stopped praying and wouldn’t continue until he asked her to do so.

Many of these arguments seem to center around specific words, and they are words that are translated, and may mean different things to different people. Does Jesus ask us to get out our dictionary before we speak? Was Jesus a Biblical literalist? Obviously not. He was looking at the heart of the Law and laws.

What if a woman gets up to prophesy from the Lord in a church and her God given message is that we have been interpreting the scriptures on males and females not by God’s order but by man’s order? Prophesies, by their very nature, tell people to turn around from what they have been doing.

We currently have a woman pastor. She has many gifts, including one we didn’t expect: good administrative skills, but she isn’t “controlling.” This comes from her prior work experience. She said that these are not things taught in seminary. So she is actually bringing something to her pastoral office that our male pastors didn’t bring.

Comment by Lori

June 29, 2006 @ 1:08 pm

Here is the specific passage concerning Huldah. The young King Josiah ordered the Temple to be rebuilt, the builders find the Book of the Law and bring it to him. The king is distraught that God’s people have neglected Him for so long, so he sends a delegation to Huldah to find out what the Lord has to say.

14 Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Akbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophet Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter. 15 She said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, 16 ‘This is what the Lord says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. 17 Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and aroused my anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’ 18 Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: 19 Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people–that they would become a curse and be laid waste–and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your ancestors, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’” So they took her answer back to the king.

Here are a few points to ponder.

1. The delegation included Hilkiah the priest. In fact, earlier in the chapter, it specified that Hilkiah was the high priest. This was the man in charge of the entire nation’s spiritual welfare. He was the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies in the Temple and make sacrifices in the presence of God on behalf of the people. And yet he humbles himself and goes with the others to hear what Huldah has to say.

2. Huldah is married, but clearly her husband has no problem with her also holding a position of spiritual authority.

When it comes to New Testament prophecy, isn’t that a gift from the Holy Spirit? Isn’t the Spirit co-equal with God the Father and God the Son? Are we trying to say, then, that when God the Father commissions a woman to speak for Him, her words apply to the men who hear them, but when the Spirit speaks through a woman, His words do not? Did God’s authority as expressed through prophecy cease to exist during the four hundred years between the Old Testament and the birth of Christ?

And when I speak about “authority,” I’m not talking about authority in the worldly sense. I am not talking about one human being imposing their will on another. I mean the authority of God. If He has chosen a person to speak for Him, then His words convey authority to those for whom the prophecy is meant. If you choose to apply the words of the prophecy to your own life, then you are not submitting to any earthly person, you are submitting to the One who sent the prophecy. When Josiah’s delegation heard Huldah’s prophecy, they were not bowing to some earthly authority that she had over them. They did, however, recognize the authority of the One who spoke through her.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 29, 2006 @ 1:47 pm

Thank you Psalmist. Well said.

Comment by sally

June 30, 2006 @ 4:07 am

Just wanted to say I love reading this blog. You guys are great.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 30, 2006 @ 1:00 pm

Biblical authority is never an end in itself. “Authority” is akin to the word “authorize”. Authority, in God’s plan, is always about getting a job done.

Comment by Brian Andrews

July 3, 2006 @ 7:16 pm

From Comment #36: “Head” in Scripture does not mean “leader” but “source” or “origin”. How can a man, even a husband, be a wife’s spiritual leader when Jesus made it plain that the Holy Spirit dwelling in all believers would guide us into all truth? He, not our husbands or other men, is our spiritual leader.

Kathryn, please explain how a husband is the “source” or “origin” of his wife. My wife did not come from me. She did not originate from me. Neither the definition “source” nor “origin” makes sense here.

On the other hand, it is easy to see how “head” implies a position of authority. The reason Scripture gives for wives submitting to their husbands is that the husband is the head of the wife (Eph. 5:22-24). One submits to someone who is in authority.

Comment by Lori

July 5, 2006 @ 2:02 am

The reason Scripture gives for wives submitting to their husbands is that the husband is the head of the wife (Eph. 5:22-24). One submits to someone who is in authority. [post #46]

So in vs.21 believers have authority over each other? How does this work in regards to men and women? In earlier posts, we talked about “submit” in vs. 21 meaning “be available to.” Therefore, men are making themselves available to women. However, wouldn’t that mean that we are changing the definition of “submit” from one verse to another? It is literally eight words from be subject to one another in the fear of Christ (vs. 21) to the verse Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (vs. 22). So we are left with a problem: either Paul meant that all believers, including men, were to come under somebody’s authority, including that of women. Or we have to find a way to somehow make Paul say that men have authority over women, but not vice versa. Which is it?

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 5, 2006 @ 6:31 am

We can’t ignore that this metaphor of head+body is used in Paul’s version of the first century household code, which he absolutely turns on its head (pun intended), compared to the standard household codes of the day. He describes situations that simply ARE, not that God necessarily condones or prescribes. Husbands and masters had absolute authority in Paul’s day and time, yet God never in Scripture prescribes that anyone own slaves nor that husbands be rulers of their wives. That’s simply the way it was. We can see, if we’re willing to accept this fact, that Paul teaches a very different way of relating to one’s worldly subordinates (wives, slaves, and even children) from what the other household codes prescribe. And when two Christians enter into marriage, there’s nothing scriptural that requires them to set the husband up as the authority over the wife. (Nothing for vice versa, either. They’re clearly told to submit themselves to one another if they love Christ.)

Something we should never ignore is that “father rule” (i.e. patriarchy) is not the de facto model for families in the 21st century West. As much as some argue that it should be, it is not. Nothing in Scripture prescribes patriarchy as God’s way, any more than the numerous examples of multiple wives and daughter sacrifices are prescribed, though all three are described. God’s people have always had to figure out how to live in the world without being of it. Enforcing a worldly authority-driven, sin-motivated model of marriage and family that is largely fading from even the sinful world’s practices, is NOT doing the work of God. Defend patriarchy all you like, it is not God’s way. Neither is taking one’s preferred “implication” of authority as the meaning of a much more complex word out of a metaphor for unity (head+body), insisting that Christians must accept that as the only meaning. I will not ignore the full contextual meaning in order to defend a practice rooted in the world’s love of positional power (wrongly called authority).

Until and unless one is willing to require Christians to own slaves, one cannot logically or scripturally require husbands to usurp Christ’s authority by claiming that role over their wives.

Comment by Can Dance

July 5, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

What is amazing to me is that a body can’t function without a head and a head can’t function without a body! Without either one, IT WOULD DIE. Of course, this seems obvious, but hello, it also screams INTERDEPENDENCE. When this was written the “head” was not the brain. In fact they thought the HEART was the brain from which everything flowed. We read “head” in our modern context, understanding the brain basically controls the body (though we know, again, one could not survive without the other) and think “OH, they must mean the MAN is in charge.”

I also cannot escape the fact that if I was under my husband’s “authority,” I am and will always be a perpetual child. Because ultimately I am not in charge or responsible for my life or decisions because my husband is. Ummm, yeah. I don’t see a single Bible verse stating, “women, you are allowed to hide behind your husband’s authority when answering for your own life…” I don’t think so. We are all responsible for the choices we make or don’t make (thereby making a choice). When do women get to grow up in comp theology?

Comment by Can Dance

July 6, 2006 @ 5:18 pm

I didn’t think I was that bad last time… I really didn’t.

But anyway, to the source/origin question. I think it makes sense if you look at the garden, Eve was derived from the adham, so in a sense it is a source or origin. It makes just as much sense to me as trying to figure out which areas of my life my husband is supposedly in authority over me.

Comment by Brian Andrews

July 6, 2006 @ 5:33 pm

Re: Comment #47
So in vs.21 believers have authority over each other? How does this work in regards to men and women?

Paul makes a general statement and then gives specifics of how it is to be worked out in practice. If I say, “Everybody in the room line up behind one another. Taller ones behind shorter ones,” I’m giving a general direction followed by a specific application. Paul says, “Submit to one another. Wives, to your own husbands; children to your parents; slaves to your masters.” (Incidentally, Paul doesn’t say all women submit to all men; it’s wives to their husbands.)

In earlier posts, we talked about “submit” in vs. 21 meaning “be available to.” Therefore, men are making themselves available to women. However, wouldn’t that mean that we are changing the definition of “submit” from one verse to another?

This is part of the problem. You are changing the definition of submit. Give me a reference from even one Greek lexicon that allows you to give the definition “be available to” for hupotasso, the word translated “submit.”

It is literally eight words from be subject to one another in the fear of Christ (vs. 21) to the verse Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (vs. 22). So we are left with a problem: either Paul meant that all believers, including men, were to come under somebody’s authority, including that of women. Or we have to find a way to somehow make Paul say that men have authority over women, but not vice versa. Which is it?

Again, Paul is not saying here that men have authority over women. He’s talking specifically about husbands and their wives. You have to remember that authority structures look different in different situations. A policeman has authority over citizens. He also has authority over his children. But it’s going to look different. A husband’s authority over his wife is like Christ’s authority over the church: it’s an authority that is demonstrated by self-sacrificial love, devotion, and concern for her well-being and best interests. It is not self-serving, dictatorial, demeaning or heavy-handed.

Comment by Lori

July 7, 2006 @ 7:19 am

Paul makes a general statement and then gives specifics of how it is to be worked out in practice. If I say, “Everybody in the room line up behind one another. Taller ones behind shorter ones,” I’m giving a general direction followed by a specific application.

I find it interesting that you would use that illustration. To me it simply demonstrates once again the hierarchalist mindset that authority is something to be imposed from the top down by one person upon another person or group of people. Of course, Paul paints the exact opposite picture in vs. 21. He doesn’t tell the Ephesian church to submit to an external source of authority. He doesn’t say, “Ok, submit to me and do what I tell you.” Rather, he tells them to submit to an internal source: themselves. Rather than facing forward and waiting for someone to tell them what to do, the Ephesians are to face each other and ask what each other’s needs and desires are, then submit to that other person.

So again, the question is: should a male believer submit to a female believer? Paul does offer specific instructions to wives, but wives are only a sub-category of the larger group “one another.” Not every woman is a wife. So if husbands are not supposed to submit to their wives, then what about women who are not their wives? Should a man ever submit to one of these women?

This is part of the problem. You are changing the definition of submit. Give me a reference from even one Greek lexicon that allows you to give the definition “be available to” for hupotasso, the word translated “submit.”

I never said that “be available to” was the definition of submit. I said it was one definition offered in another post (#13 under “On Asking the Right Questions.”) As for lexical sources, I believe you offered several in that same thread.

“Be subject, submit to, obey, be under the authority of; take a subordinate place”—from A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 190), by Barclay M. Newman.

“To be subordinated, to be brought under a state or influence”—from The New Analytical Greek Lexicon(p. 423), by Wesley Perschbacher.

“Subject oneself, be subjected or subordinated, obey”—from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (p. 855), Walter Bauer, William Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich

You said these definitions of Hupotasso were the ones that applied in vs. 22, and thus from wives to husbands. Logically, then, we also have this: “and [be subordinated to, obey, subject oneself to, fall under the influence of] one another in the fear of Christ” in vs. 21. So the question still remains: is there ever a time when a male believer is to be subordinated to, obey, subject oneself to, or fall under the influence of a female believer? If the answer is no, that men are never supposed to submit to any woman (and not just their wives), then I believe that changes the meaning of vs. 21.

Again, Paul is not saying here that men have authority over women. He’s talking specifically about husbands and their wives.

And who is Paul addressing in vs. 21?

You have to remember that authority structures look different in different situations.

So how is submitting to one another in the church different from wives submitting to their husbands in the home?

Comment by Brian Andrews

July 7, 2006 @ 10:45 am

Comment #49:

I also cannot escape the fact that if I was under my husband’s “authority,” I am and will always be a perpetual child. Because ultimately I am not in charge or responsible for my life or decisions because my husband is. Ummm, yeah. I don’t see a single Bible verse stating, “women, you are allowed to hide behind your husband’s authority when answering for your own life…” I don’t think so. We are all responsible for the choices we make or don’t make (thereby making a choice). When do women get to grow up in comp theology?

You misunderstand the complementarian position. I don’t know of any comp who would say that a wife is not responsible for her life or decisions. She most certainly is responsible. After death comes judgment, and everyone will be accountable for all his/her actions, thoughts, words. We agree that women can’t hide behind their husbands to avoid responsibility.

But you wrongly assume that just because someone is under authority, then that person is not accountable. Every Christian is under someone’s authority in some way. The authorities over me will be held accountable for their actions and I will be held accountable for my actions.

Comment by Brian Andrews

July 7, 2006 @ 8:01 pm

Comment #50: But anyway, to the source/origin question. I think it makes sense if you look at the garden, Eve was derived from the adham, so in a sense it is a source or origin. It makes just as much sense to me as trying to figure out which areas of my life my husband is supposedly in authority over me.

God took a rib from the man, Adam and made the woman, Eve. I’m not sure why you referred to “the adham” as opposed to just saying Adam. I agree that Adam could be considered the “source” of Eve in the sense that God made her out of a part of him. But Paul is not talking about Adam and Eve in Eph. 5, he’s talking about husbands and wives in general. Paul cannot possibly be saying that a husband is the source or origin of his wife. That’s nonsensical. It’s like saying “a lamp is the source of a light bulb.”

It may be difficult to figure out how your husband’s authority plays itself out as it relates to you, but the idea itself is not nonsensical.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 8, 2006 @ 3:49 am

I think, Brian, that your argument about vs. 22ff illustrating how wives, children, and slaves must submit to their earthly authority figures, fails on three points:

1. If your presupposition is correct, then verse 21 applies only to these Christians, not to the entire body. This cannot be true, as verse 21 clearly pertains to *all* who revere Christ.

2. Your presupposition fails to take into account that verses 25-33, 6:4, and 6:9 also illustrate how those who held/may still hold worldly authority (husbands, fathers, and slave masters) must in turn submit to those over whom they, in these positions, wield earthly authority.

3. Nothing in Eph. 5:21-6:9 (the household code, Paul-style) mandates setting oneself up as an authority figure over wives, children, or slaves. If it did, the verses mentioned in point #2 could not read as they do. Instead, they would read as the other household codes of the day did, illustrating the exercise of temporal authority. Paul illustrates how Christians, no matter their worldly situations, practice the self-subjection Christ himself modeled: setting aside position and privilege and emptying self in godly love toward one another. In other words, while Christians today may in fact *be* authority figures in marriage and home (generally out of the mistaken idea that this tradition is God’s design), God does not command, commend, or even condone men grasping and exercising such authority anywhere in Scripture. Paul gave guidelines in his household code for the real-life situations in which Christians found themselves. Owning slaves, while described, isn’t commended. Neither is patriarchy.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 8, 2006 @ 3:57 am

Let me add a caveat to point #3 above, since I’ve seen debate derailed over this issue: Parents (both the mothers and the fathers) can and should be authority figures to their children, for the obvious reason that they are responsible for their children’s development from helpless infants to young adulthood. In fact, this points out the reason why men being authority figures to their wives and their slaves, is antithetical to the teachings of this passage in particular and Christian teachings in general. Fellow adults need no authority figures such as the world’s tradition of patriarchy demands. Men and women are peers when they marry. And because adults are peers in Christ, the institution of slavery is inherently anti-Christian. Authority is task-oriented and given by God for the proper working of the body. It is not given for the sake of one class ruling over another class. Even the authority of parents over children is given for the sake of bringing those children up “in the fear and admonition of the Lord,” not for the sake of positional power as the world practices it.

Comment by Can Dance

July 8, 2006 @ 9:07 am

Okay then, so how is the husband the woman’s authority — on what practical level is he so much more IN CHARGE of her than she is of her own self? Because the way I have heard it is the husband is ultimately responsible. That means, and I don’t see anyway around this, she is NOT responsible because HE (because of his maleness) is in charge.

I guess because males hold the power in your world, and it can be viewed as benovolent as you’d like, its not a big deal to be “your wife’s authority”; as I type this, it actually makes me want to puke. Sorry, but even Paul said that women have power over their own heads, and the only authority that is 100% clear is that where he was discussing sex. I don’t see how I have misunderstood anything, except that I can never escape being a woman, therefore never escape having to have someone parent me my entire life.
I don’t think so. Though I am sure in comp world that makes me “incredibly rebellious.”

Comment by Lori

July 10, 2006 @ 6:58 am

I mentioned this in another entry, but I’d like to explore the topic more fully here. Right now there’s a popular book on the market for Christian singles entitled, Getting Serious About Getting Married by Debbie Maken. The main thesis of the book is that women should remain at home, or move back into the home, of their parents and let their father screen their relationships. The main reason the author gives for women needing to take this course is that women living on their own might become too independent.

Think about that. What’s the opposite of independence? Dependence, of course. So the author is advocating that women stay at home, dependent on their parents for food and shelter and whatnot, until Daddy finds the right man for his little girl. Well, as somebody said above, if we’re going to be brutally honest here, then I have to say that I really don’t see any difference between this kind of teaching and Third World patriarchy. Or rather, for me it appears to be a difference of degree, not form.

I mean, it’s not just Maken. I’ve seen other comp. leaders like C.J. Mahaney saying the same thing. And when Mr. Right asks for permission to court the daughter, then everything should be done in the house in front of the parents. So what we have are people saying that a woman should be kept under the “protection” of some male authority figure for her entire life — first her father, then her husband. She should remain dependent on them, to provide for her basic needs and make decisions for her. I’m sorry, but how is this different from Third World countries where girls are kept at home until they are packed off into arranged marriages by their fathers? Is this closer to freedom or closer to slavery?

What’s really scary is that I’ve read comp. articles where the men writing said they were encouraging their daughters not to go to college. Since being a wife and mother is her highest calling, why should she need higher education? I see echoes of that in other countries where little girls are not given an education for the same reason.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 11, 2006 @ 2:55 pm

Lori, this is one of those attitudes that I think reveals more than those who hold it realize, or even recognize. The quest to learn is one of the things that marks the human race. It is not the exclusive attribute of men, or women. And subject matter for learning is not something that can rightly be divided into “his and hers.” Now I understand that not all humans experience this drive to the same degree; that’s one of the many things that make each individual unique. What the “girls don’t need as much education because they’re going to be homemakers” attitude says is that ALL girls should have little or no drive to learn those things taught in institutions of higher learning. And what *that* says, in a somewhat subtle way, is that girls should be brought up to deny this aspect of their humanity. It’s a very, very tiny jump to say that girls/women are less human than boys/men are.

When I’m feeling cynical, it’s easy for me to believe that a few patriarchalist writers recognize exactly what they’re saying. They know that denying the humanity of girls and women won’t sell as many books, so they “dress it up” a little and tie an apron on it so the anti-education for girls movement gets mistaken for a virtue.

Of course, I have no absolute proof that they know they’re doing this. What I know for certain is how the spin comes across to me. I’m not buying the sugar coating.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 12, 2006 @ 11:29 am

re: post #59

When I’m feeling cynical, it’s easy for me to believe that a few patriarchalist writers recognize exactly what they’re saying. They know that denying the humanity of girls and women won’t sell as many books, so they “dress it up” a little and tie an apron on it so the anti-education for girls movement gets mistaken for a virtue.

Frankly, I think most of them DO know exactly what they are promoting. They are hoarding certain things for themselves and using deception, flattery, and false promises to achieve it. In the cultural aspect of our lives many men will say anything to a woman to get what he wants from her. And really often women do the same to men. It’s an aspect of the system of this present world that is less than holy.

Comment by gortexgrrl

August 24, 2006 @ 4:26 pm

As much a I cringe at the “smug married” attitude of Maken’s book, I must say, parts of it are absolutely groundbreaking. In Part Two, she takes on the “shut up and be content” subtext of “the gift of singleness” message, shooting down all those prooftexted platitudes such as “Jesus will be your husband.” The “GOS” is more than just a platitude. For the past several decades it has pretty much become a rogue doctrine.

For those who have felt pressure to get married in their church experience, it can be hard to imagine that an equal number of us have encountered the opposite: a “better to stay single” message that twists 1Cor7 and discourages intentionality towards marriage (vestiges of the old sex-denying/celibacy-is-holier-than-fleshly-marriage, perhaps?). But this is what has happened since the mid 70’s “born-again fever” with all its promises of special revelations galore: God will either find you a spouse or he’ll give you “the GOS,” aka “called to singleness.” Almost all of the books on Christians and singleness published in the past several decades spew this stuff. And women suffer because of it, because they avoid the truth about the fact that there’s a shortage of Christian men and treats unwanted singleness as “God’s will.” This just keeps them on the spiritual self-improvement treadmill, buying more books, of course.

On Amazon.com, I have harshly reviewed some of these GOS books, such as “Choosing God’s Best,” that says “Before you can determine whom to marry, you must first answer an preliminary question: Does God want you to marry anyone, ever? Or is His plan for you to remain single?” Aside from the fact that no one in the Bible ever sought an answer to these kinds of questions– let alone got one– it’s just plain spiritually abusive to scare young people with this kind of hyperspiritualized teaching that orders them to wait on standby in case God wants to dash their dreams.

Sure, not everyone wants to get married, and some individuals may feel that their singleness is a gift. But just as Maken is wrong to prescribe marriage to everyone, she is the only one out there that seems to be questioning the family values pundits who have ironically been pushing singleness on those who don’t want it! She encourages men and women to act on their desire to marry, rather than oppress it in some kind of Abrahamic sacrificial exercise, and tells the GOS pundits where to go. She even gives that old biddy Elisabeth Elliot a kick in the pants– you gotta admire her for that!

Comment by Alice C. Linsley

February 14, 2007 @ 12:46 pm

Perhaps I might clarify my position. Raised as a Protestant I once believed that the priesthood is simply a specialized form of pastoral ministry. However, pastoral ministry and priestly ministry are not the same. One may be a pastor without being a priest. However, all priests must also be pastors. In other words, the problem is how one understands the Tradition and eclessiology. Why do Protestants not have priests? Because Protestantism does not hold to the sacramental tradition that characterizes the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Why is it that only The Episcopal Church has women priests, actively homosexual priests and heretical bishops? I left the priesthood when I realized that women priests are an innovation that has no precedent and an innovation that causes further division in the Church. I left the Episcopal Church when I realized that it was determined to follow a radical agenda and to proclaim a false gospel. I have subsequently joined the Orthodox Church where I’ve found women are honored and remembered as great saints of the Church.