The CBE Scroll

Comment by Brian

July 30, 2007 @ 11:21 am

Every complementarian I know would affirm that God does speak to men through women. God speaks to me through women.

Comment by JLP

July 30, 2007 @ 3:21 pm

It depends on the complementarian. I’m glad that you (see comment 62533) do affirm that God speaks to men through women.

Comment by JLP

July 30, 2007 @ 3:40 pm

Brian (see comment 62533), what inspired me to put together this series of Scripture of God directing men through women was that some complementarians (not all, as you can well attest) believe that God inserts men as a layer between himself and women. Instead of God directly speaking to a woman, he speaks to a woman through her husband or another man. And, they also believe that God never directs or speaks to a man through a woman. But, as Scripture attests, this is not so.

It seems strange to me that Jesus should appear first to Mary, a woman, and then tell her to tell the disciples (and the twelve were all male) to go to Galilee if he puts men as a layer between himself and women.

Or, why would the first recorded announcement of Jesus identifying himself as the Savior have been made to a woman, who then went and told all her townspeople (many of whom had to have been men) if he puts men as a layer between himself and women?

So this is the issue I’m addressing here - that God does not care about gender when giving directions or speaking to people. Thankfully there are complementarians like you who realize this.

Comment by leigh

July 30, 2007 @ 3:41 pm

I think the question is, ‘Does God ever speak to men through women in ways that don’t fit in line with the way that complementarians would expect God to use women?’

Does God ever speak to men through women who have authority?

And, if so, how is that reconciled with the understanding that women were created to follow, and for a woman to lead (men) is sinful?

Comment by HistoryLoverAlways

July 30, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

Some complementarians believe that God only gives guidance to the church through men, and guidance to the family through the husband.

Yet, when Christ chose to give his first guidance to the church after he rose he gave it not to a man, but to a woman.

Comment by Mary

July 30, 2007 @ 9:09 pm

See comment 62533.

Every complementarian I know would affirm that God does speak to men through women. God speaks to me through women.

Just not ‘in the church,’ or ‘with authority,’ or by various other contradictory ‘yeah-but’ (dis)qualifications. These are a rather obvious attempt to explain away the fact that God still does choose, often, to speak to men through women. The fact is, some Christians have built an entire theology around their preference to pick and choose what and when they will listen to God speaking through women, claiming that God conforms to their sensibilities of when/what God couldn’t possibly be speaking through women. Some restrict God far more than others, but such restriction is one of the defining characteristics of what is currently called ‘complementarianism.’

Comment by Terri

July 31, 2007 @ 10:49 pm

I was just listening to a young pastor today that called the husband the head of the home (which is incorrect because the husband is only called the head of the wife). He also made reference to the husband being priest of the home (this, too, has no scriptural basis). I was quite surprised by his statements on account that he and his wife co-pastor their church together.

I thought to myself: this man is so intelligent, and I learn a lot from his teaching, so why is he quoting things about men that have no basis in Scripture as if they were foundational spiritual truths? The headship doctrine ranks with salvation in most complementarian camps, and if a woman rejects the myths associated with this doctrine, her salvation most often will be questioned. I took the time to reference the word head/kephale (#2776) in my Strong’s Dictionary and it simply said, ‘in the sense of seizing; the head (as the part most readily taken hold of), lit. or fig.:-head,’ and that was it. Here was not a hint of authority or leadership in that definition. To imply that the Greek word kephale connotes authority is to destroy the true Greek meaning completely.

As for husbands being the priest of the home, there is no corroborating Scripture that I have found to back this up. The male ego demands that men be respected and revered by women. What better fabrication could men invent than to interject themselves (create a second priesthood) between a woman and her God (that will surely get him the respect and honor he deserves), but what does the Bible say? ‘[T]here is one God and one mediator between God and men [or humankind], the man Christ Jesus.’ (I Timothy 2:5, NIV, emphasis added)

I ask: how do these scholarly, theological seminary graduates that can speak eloquently on Salvation and the Trinity get away with such faulty/wrong understandings and teachings on women?

I personally believe it’s intentional. With all of the biblical wisdom that we have acquired through the ages, I find it impossible to believe that the faulty translations (and doctrines that have arisen from them) of important words pertaining to women was purely accidental.

Comment by Trevor

July 31, 2007 @ 11:23 pm

I’m so glad that you began this thread, because for me the fact that God speaks to men through women is proof positive that patriarchy and headship, as God’s preferred option in marital and church relationships, is contested in Scripture.

Consider also this notion, which I believe, which follows. There are a significant number of times, throughout both the Old and New Testament records when God spoke by divine visitation to women without the agency of a man. A prime example is Mary, the mother of Jesus. Her father wasn’t involved nor was Joseph before the event. If headship and patriarchy were indeed God’s rule then Mary should have been advised by her father or fiancé that this was God’s intention for her. This would have cleared up the issue of her being an unreliable witness and a candidate for stoning under Jewish law. But no, the angel spoke directly to her and she confirmed it’s reality by speaking with another woman, her cousin Elizabeth. No headship evident here! In fact, when Elizabeth’s husband does come on the scene he is struck dumb because of his inability to receive the angel’s testimony. Frankly, I can’t see God breaking his own rule if it is indeed as important as most complementarians would have us believe. There has to be another God-honoring way of interpreting all of this.

Comment by JLP

August 1, 2007 @ 11:58 am

In regard to Diane’s comment (see comment 62607),

I was just listening to a young pastor today that called the husband the head of the home (which is incorrect because the husband is only called the head of the wife). He also made reference to the husband being priest of the home (this, too, has no scriptural basis). I was quite surprised by his statements on account that he and his wife co-pastor their church together.

I’m sad that the young pastor was not aware that the word translated as ‘head’ in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 generally wasn’t used in the original Greek to mean ‘leader’ or ‘authority.’

Comment by Lori

August 2, 2007 @ 4:32 am

See comment 62929.

I think the question is, ‘Does God ever speak to men through women in ways that don’t fit in line with the way that complementarians would expect God to use women?’

Does God ever speak to men through women who have authority?

And, if so, how is that reconciled with the understanding that women were created to follow, and for a woman to lead (men) is sinful?

Ah, now that’s the real question!

I remember a few years ago attending my mother-in-law’s Anglican church for Easter. The vicar, a woman, proclaimed at the beginning of the service ‘Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!’ This is, of course, exactly what Mary Magdalene said to the disciples on the first Easter. Ah, a patriarch will tell you, the difference is that the modern vicar has authority. She is the head of a church, therefore she is sinning against God. Mary Magdalene had no power, no authority. She was ‘just’ a woman who happened to be in the right place at the right time. The disciples refused to believe her, and so we too, in the modern church, can set her aside as ‘just a woman.’

This is the central obsession of the headship movement: somebody has to have authority. Somebody has to be responsible for disciplining people if they stray. Never mind, of course, that this is the exact opposite of the model given by Jesus and Paul. Yes, Jesus exercised authority - by criticizing the religious leaders. He also demonstrated, however, that leaders are supposed to humble themselves and serve their followers. Paul talked about discipline in the church, but he spent far more time emphasizing unity and humility among its members. This insistence on emphasizing the worldly values of hierarchy, power, authority, etc. is precisely why most of the Western world doesn’t take Christianity seriously. Why should they, when it’s not much different from the world?

So the question is not ‘Does God speak to men through women?’ The questions is, ‘When you continue to insist that there is a qualitative difference between the words of men and women (one has authority, the other does not), can you see why that might be considered as idolizing men - as offensive to women, especially non-Christian women?’ If you say ‘no’ or ‘I don’t care,’ then you have just explained why the church will not have a significant impact in the Western world.

Comment by Kathryn

August 5, 2007 @ 11:45 pm

I think another good question is: ‘Does God speak to any of us in ways that don’t necessarily fit our theological “boxes”?’ If he can and does, what does that say to the ‘headship’ movement which seems to try to put God into a theological ‘box’ which tells him to whom he can or cannot speak?

Comment by Mary

August 6, 2007 @ 6:42 am

Lori (see comment 62682), you mentioned the offensiveness of the ‘headship’ message. I’ve heard ‘headship’ proponents respond to this. The problem is that they equate ‘headship’ with the gospel and therefore take no little pride in being ‘offensive’ to people they’ve decided are not true Christians (namely, anyone who doesn’t swallow the ‘headship’ pseudo-gospel whole). Even some of the kinder ones claim that the women who are offended by their message just need to get over the offensiveness because headship is ‘God’s way’ and just a part of being a woman.

There is zero respect for women or for the Holy Spirit who lives in Christian women, unless we deny our God-given holy authority as children of the Most High God and accept the sham of a human man’s ‘headship authority’ over us. They refuse to believe that we all have a real authority as Christians: the authority to serve one another as fellow members of Christ’s body. It’s all about which human being gets to be in charge, according to ‘headship.’

I think it’s terribly ironic that there’s this ‘I have authority over you because I’m the man’ mentality, when the passages describing a husband as the head and a wife as the body teach us that marriage is an inseparable unity. Why divide that unity into an authority figure and a unilateral submitter? That is the world’s historic way. Anybody can do that; it’s neither godly nor Christian. But, two spouses humbly submitting to one another out of their mutual reverence for Christ - now that’s uniquely Christian. Perhaps that’s even why some Christians rail so vehemently against it. It’s a stark contrast to the ‘way we’ve always done it,’ which is a common excuse for refusing to set aside the world’s ways in order to live Christ’s way.

Comment by Terri

August 6, 2007 @ 7:14 am

I believe that Kathryn (see comment 62394) makes a good point. I was amazed at how the judgment and prophecies of Deborah were minimized in my Sunday school lesson this week. I was excited as I began my study on Deborah, but it did not take long to see that the curriculum that I teach from was ever so gently subtracting from Deborah to add to Barak (or really anyone else in the story). At the beginning of the lesson I read that ‘God will use anyone who is willing to be used by him.’ I thought, amen. But, just a few paragraphs later this is what I read: ‘Deborah was a prophetess and a judge in Israel. She belonged to the tribe of Ephraim. It seems that God had to raise up a woman for this important position of judge because no man could be found for the task. This is not to imply that a woman was God’s second choice, but rather to emphasize that men should have been better spiritual leaders.’

What I have found is that women’s accomplishments and spirituality have to be toned down and sometimes even diminished by preachers to maintain this male headship principle. I remember one woman making the comment, ‘Women get credit for being whores and witches but not for being teachers and disciples.’ Needless to say, in my teaching I gave Deborah the credit she was due.

Comment by JLP

August 6, 2007 @ 9:10 pm

I’m glad to hear that Terri emphasized the true contribution Deborah made, instead of dismissing her significance.

Here’s a verse about Sarah I have noticed no one pays attention to, but which I think is important to consider:

‘God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”’ (Genesis 17:15-16, TNIV)

God didn’t just establish the nation of Israel through Abraham, but through Sarah also.

Comment by JLP

August 6, 2007 @ 9:13 pm

Here’s another verse about Sarah that is also ignored:

‘And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise.’ (Hebrews 11:11, TNIV)

Comment by Terri

August 7, 2007 @ 11:36 am

I was curious after JLP posted some Scripture concerning Sarai/Sarah (see comments 62956, 62958). I went to my Strong’s Greek Dictionary to see what I could find out, and what I found was quite interesting. I will give you the exactly what I found in order.

1. Sarai (Strongs # 8297) saw-rah’-ee; from (8269) dominative; Sarai, the wife of Abraham:- Sarai.

2. (Strongs #8269 from above)sar; from 8323; a head person (of any rank or class):- Captain (that had rule), chief (captain), general, governor, keeper, lord, ({-task-}) master, prince (-ipal), ruler, steward.

3. (Strongs #8323 from above) saw-rar’; a prim. root; to have (tran. excercise; refl. get) dominion:–x altogether, make self a prince, (bear) rule.

1. Sarah- (Strongs # 8283) saw-raw; the same as 8282; Sarah, Abraham’s wife:–Sarah.

2. (Strongs # 8282 from above) saw-raw’; fem. of 8269; a mistress, i.e. female noble:–lady, princess, queen.

3. (Strongs #8269 from above) sar; from 8323; a head person (of any rank or class):–captain (that had rule), chief (captain), general, governor, keeper, lord, ({-task-}) master, prince (-ipal), ruler, steward.

4. (Strongs #8323 from above) saw-rar’; a prim root; to have (tran. excercise; refl. get) dominion:–x altogether, make self a prince, (bear) rule.

Reading these definitions I would think it is safe to say that the importance of Sarah has been distorted through the ages, like a lot of other biblical sisters. The definitions seem to imply that like Abraham, Sarai/Sarah also had authority and rank, or am I wrong?

Comment by Lori

August 9, 2007 @ 2:56 am

Terri (see comment 62930), it’s called ‘cognitive dissonance.’ Basically, when you come across something that contradicts what you believe, then you either deal with the contradiction or you explain it away so that it doesn’t threaten your belief. America wrestled with this between the Revolution and the Civil War. They had preached fine words about liberty and freedom, and yet continued to enslave Africans. How to reconcile that? Well, obviously the Africans ‘deserved’ it. They must be inferior to whites somehow. Thus, the invidious system of racism was perpetuated to uphold something whites knew to be untrue.

It’s the same today with the church and women. Deep down, I believe that many men who believe in this system know that it’s wrong, but they dare not admit it. Just like the slave owners (and later segregationists), this would mean the loss of power and status. Their entire world would change and they wouldn’t know where to fit in the ‘new order.’

Therefore, to perpetuate the system, they must diminish women who are a threat. They must find a way to reconcile women who contradict their teaching with what they believe. Ta da! God didn’t have a choice! He had to use a woman because a man wasn’t available! Phew. Everything’s OK. Women like Deborah are just a fluke, and men still rule. And, because secular society has moved on and given women true freedom, then a headship man must put a further gloss on it to convince himself that he’s really not so bad. To quote Terri’s manual: ‘This is not to imply that a woman was God’s second choice…’ No, of course not. God would never discriminate against women. He just prefers men. Rather than being angry at the headship movement, we should be sad. It takes a great deal of energy to sustain a delusion, since you have to constantly defend it and shut out anything unpleasant that would contradict it.

Thank you, Terri, for having the courage to resist this system.

Comment by Lori

August 9, 2007 @ 3:11 am

See comment 62929.

Lori (see comment 62682), you mentioned the offensiveness of the ‘headship’ message. I’ve heard ‘headship’ proponents respond to this. The problem is that they equate ‘headship’ with the gospel and therefore take no little pride in being ‘offensive’ to people they’ve decided are not true Christians (namely, anyone who doesn’t swallow the ‘headship’ pseudo-gospel whole). Even some of the kinder ones claim that the women who are offended by their message just need to get over the offensiveness because headship is ‘God’s way’ and just a part of being a woman.

Oh, yes, I’ve seen plenty of that reaction. And I repeat: that’s why the headship church will not have a significant impact on the West. As I said in another post, why do you think mega-churches are very careful not to dwell on gender relations? Because they know darn well that their congregations, most of whom come from a non-churched background, would evaporate if they did.

I think it’s terribly ironic that there’s this ‘I have authority over you because I’m the man’ mentality, when the passages describing a husband as the head and a wife as the body teach us that marriage is an inseparable unity.

I remember an article from a while ago in Christianity Today, profiling a headship couple. The wife said that every time her husband overrode her desire she was eventually able to forgive him. She said nothing about forgiving him at the moment he ignored her. This leads me to believe that she probably harbors frustration at being ignored. (And of course, she’s taught that it’s all her problem so she’s the one who must ‘deal with it.’) How can that possible be a picture of unity, with one partner continually frustrated?

Why divide that unity into an authority figure and a unilateral submitter? That is the world’s historic way. Anybody can do that; it’s neither godly nor Christian.

I believe the greatest sin the church has committed since its founding is laziness. From the beginning of time, man has found a way to dominate the rest of mankind–from controlling women, to enslaving people, to wars of conquest. It just feels natural, when you’re bigger and stronger, to dominate something. It is much easier to go along with this system, then to swim against it, as Jesus and Paul tried to show us. Ironically, it’s also harder to justify. But, because our sinful natures want to give in to our craving for dominance and hierarchy, we do. And throughout the church’s history we have seen the tragic results.

Comment by Tenerife

September 26, 2007 @ 10:11 pm

Here is what I find contradictory about the traditional ‘husband-headship’ model:

Check out Galatians 4:21-31. In particular, ‘the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.’

Abraham was a free man, but in the case of Isaac and Ishmael, they both inherited their respective mothers’ status of free versus slave, not their father’s status. Isaac inherited the promise due to his birth to Sarah, the free woman, while Hagar’s slave status took precedence over Abraham’s free status. Even to this day, most Jews define Jewishness according to the mother being Jewish, not the father.

Comment by anonymous

July 27, 2008 @ 10:01 pm

Looks like I’m a year late in commenting, but thank you for posting these verses. I just finished perusing the internet about women and their Christian relationship to men, and I’m extremely troubled by my findings. It seems that far too many denominations are happy to have women take up subordinate roles in church life lest they exert any kind of authority over men. That’s a terrible thing to enact in a church and can have a serious impact on a woman’s self image.