The CBE Scroll

Comment by Mary

September 25, 2007 @ 11:58 am

This is a really good topic, Liz, one that I think goes straight to the heart of why equality is biblical. I have two responses on first reading of your entry:

1. I do think that under certain common circumstances, some people are responsible for others. Parents are of course responsible for their children’s growth and nurture. I think it’s also safe to say that we are to care for the sick, the aged, and the poor. I agree that the responsibility is always to serve, and not to be authority figures ‘over’ others. Jesus made an important distinction between positional authority (such as the Gentiles had, who ‘lorded’ over others) and the servant’s authority to serve others by the power of God. I believe that in God’s reign, it really is possible - and commanded - for us to serve one another, regardless of how much worldly power each of us may or may not have based on our places in work, societal, social, and familial relationships.

2. I have a couple of times read where Christians have stated that the Great Commission was given to men only, because Jesus’ disciples were all men. I disagree, because that is not consistent with the texts being quoted or with the full scriptural context. I mention this only because that is occasionally a response given when we say that all of us - male and female - are responsible for obeying the general commandments you have listed.

Comment by David

September 25, 2007 @ 4:18 pm

Almost everywhere I look in the Western Christian community, I read about ‘leadership,’ but rarely do I find discussion about ‘serving.’ Perhaps one of the problems we currently face in respect of males and females together in the kingdom of God, is that we stress, seek and extol ‘leadership,’ whereas Christ demonstrated sacrificial serving. I look forward to the day when the church stops aping the world and ceases its seeming obsession with ‘leadership’ and embraces the leadership of the Holy Spirit, seeking instead to show his fruit in our lives and live out the gifts he has given us for each other.

Comment by Mary

September 25, 2007 @ 4:55 pm

I agree, David. Sometimes it’s downright humorous (probably not intended) to read all about ‘servant leadership,’ when leadership is stressed so much more than servanthood is. A friend of mine says that she thinks too often it’s code for ‘leading the servant,’ especially when applied to husbands’ ‘servant leadership’ of their wives.

I think we make far too much distinction, in general, between the concepts of sacrificial love, submission, authority, and leadership. Trying to do or obtain any of these, outside Christ’s teachings on serving others, warps them into something more suited to a very secular world than to Christian relationships.

Comment by LMcC

September 25, 2007 @ 7:04 pm

(Chimes in from the amen corner for David and Mary…)

I just found a novel in the comments for one of my blogs from a hierarch accusing me of wanting power. Me? Power? The ones here who know who I am would laugh at that, since I’m actually a mousy character who is happiest behind the scenes.

The church is a place to serve. It’s not a place for power trips… well, it’s not supposed to be. I feel pretty safe from that in my current church, but I haven’t always been that blessed. I wish my schedule allowed me to do more as a result, and I’m not talking leadership (although I wouldn’t mind being available as a ‘big sister’ for the college kids). I just want to make myself useful.

A former church had a ‘one another’ creed that we would recite four times a year at special church services. It was made (obviously) of all of the ‘one another’ verses in Scripture. It’s a great argument for mutual submission. Too bad the denomination of my former church is now teaching so actively against it (sigh). Too bad. If the church stopped focusing on power and control, practicing instead the ‘one another’ verses, a lot of the battles in churches would vanish immediately and we’d all be better off.

Am I asking too much?

Comment by Cindy

September 25, 2007 @ 8:57 pm

See comment 68988.

2. I have a couple of times read where Christians have stated that the Great Commission was given to men only, because Jesus’ disciples were all men. I disagree, because that is not consistent with the texts being quoted or with the full scriptural context. I mention this only because that is occasionally a response given when we say that all of us - male and female - are responsible for obeying the general commandments you have listed.

Well, if the Great Commission was given to men only, why was the first evangelist a woman? (I love to interject this whenever possible, so here it is! With great joy, I couldn’t resist.)

Comment by Mary

September 25, 2007 @ 9:30 pm

Ah, but she wasn’t a ‘real’ evangelist, Cindy (see comment 69018), because she wasn’t an ‘authority over’ other people. Or, maybe she was a ‘real’ evangelist, but evangelists are never ‘authorities over’ other people (like pastors and teachers and song leaders are - you know, the leaders who have to be men if they’re on the ‘platform’ or if there are any men in the ‘auditorium.’)

It depends on where that nebulous line in the sand is being drawn; just how okay people express that they are with Mary of Magdala being referred to as an evangelist.

Oh, and I just remembered one other ‘proof’ that she wasn’t really an evangelist or that other even more shocking (though ancient) title, ‘Apostle to the Apostles.’ Why, the men just didn’t believe her! It’s not natural for men to accept the teaching of a woman! They were the apostles because they were of the Twelve (remember what one of the Twelve did…), and because they spread the good news (evangel) after they saw and believed. Their initial doubt about the good news that Mary reported to them, in obedience to the very messenger of God, was proof-texted to demonstrate that God never calls women to lead or teach men. (I know – ‘say what?’)

There is some awfully screwy eisegesis going on in the church, but I have to admit that’s just about the screwiest I’ve ever read!

Poor Mary of Magdala was serving these guys by direct divine mandate, by telling them the best news they’d ever receive in this life, but their doubt overrode what the Bible said she did? I guess it’s to be expected, though. Phoebe served the church as Paul’s emissary, but being a woman meant that she served ‘differently’ than any man described exactly as she was described (a deacon/servant of the church). Priscilla wasn’t a teacher like men were permitted to be, because her husband was with her when she (and he) served Apollos by teaching him and/or because they weren’t ‘in the church’ when they served him with their teaching. Junia wasn’t serving the church as an apostle like any apostle with a male name, or else she wasn’t even a woman (despite no man attested anywhere else in ancient literature, over several centuries, with the corrupted name ‘Junias’), simply because from the medieval period until fairly recently, most people never read closely enough to realize that she was both female and an apostle. The men who served by co-laboring with Paul were apostles and church-planters and evangelists, but Mary of Rome merely served by helping Paul, though she was described exactly the same way as the ‘titled’ men did.

I’d say the doubts about what Scripture says women did is certainly proof of something, but it’s not proof that they didn’t really do what the Bible says they did. I think if we stopped making the named commended men of the New Testament out to be authority figures and recognized that, like the named women, they served the church, people would settle down about ‘women can’t do thus and such.’ No, women aren’t supposed to grasp for authority or teach (anyone) before they themselves have been taught. The rub is, neither are men permitted to do such things. We’ve been putting up with way too many authority-graspers and ill-taught teachers in the church, and commending the practice when they’re men. (I’m thinking of a well-known preacher who I heard a snippet from on television a couple of days ago. Right there on ‘his’ show, while preaching, he dared to say, ‘God helps those who help themselves!’ And people buy this guy’s books and send him money! Have they no discernment?)

Comment by Mary

September 25, 2007 @ 9:43 pm

I think you’re asking for exactly the right thing, LMCC (see comment 69004). ‘One another’ doesn’t mean ‘only if you’re a woman’ or ‘only if you’re a man’ or ‘only if you’re married’ or ‘only if you’re a leader’ or any other loophole-ish cop-out.

It’s sad, really, about your commenter. He’s been busy lately. Most of what he posts in the comments here and in several other venues is the same old religiously-popular patriarchy-as-law-code. There may simply be no one listening to all that tired proof-texting in the physical world. It’s very telling that he made it all about power. ‘It is not to be so among you,’ is a very important commandment from the Lord Christ himself, in my opinion.

Comment by Donna

September 26, 2007 @ 1:11 am

It is interesting that Jesus is not recorded as having said anything which even remotely suggested differing roles for women or men.

Liz, I have one question. Do you understand the whole New Testament as containing Christ’s commands, or only those things found in the Gospels?

Then, one statement. See what you think. Isn’t the very word ‘wife’ a statement about a woman’s role when she is married? The words ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ and ‘husband’ also speak to specific gender-based roles. These are all words that Jesus used as recorded in the Gospels. ‘…and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”’ (Matthew 19:5, NIV)

Comment by Donna

September 26, 2007 @ 2:56 am

Meanwhile, there are countless places within Scripture where our responsibilities towards one another within the body of Christ are encouraged, and there can be no argument against those plain statements.

Liz, lest you think that I am only disagreeing with you, I want to say that I agree with this statement and others you made in the post. There are many ‘one anothers’ in Scripture that are not directed at men only, or women only, or children only, or Jews only, etc. They are meant for all believers.

I think that Ephesians 4:32 is one of the most significant. I think that it is one of the best for husbands and wives, or brothers and sisters, or any relationships for that matter.

Comment by fjs

September 26, 2007 @ 7:38 am

See comment 69074.

Do you understand the whole New Testament as containing Christ’s commands, or only those things found in the Gospels?

I think that the Gospels should lens the rest of the New Testament because I believe that Paul and the apostles took the message of Jesus revealed in the Gospels and sought to apply it in their world, which is how we got the Epistles. They sought to apply the teachings of Christ to questions and issues that arose during their time.

For example: one of the biggest controversies had to do with eating and drinking with Gentiles, slaves, women, and other sinners, reflecting the question of who God’s people were - the new community created in union with Christ? The book of Galatians was addressing that controversy…

The Epistles reveal that to follow Jesus had implications in how God’s people lived together in community and served the world as God’s agents on the earth. We must wrestle with how to apply Christ’s teachings today.

Comment by LMcC

September 26, 2007 @ 9:17 am

Mary (see comment 69032), the question then would be, ‘How can these loopholes be closed?’

(An aside to Mary: You know who I am, off-list, right?)

Comment by The Happy Rock

September 26, 2007 @ 9:35 am

But, the normal argument is that no one claims inequality, but rather that we are all equal, with different roles - just as the president is equal to us, yet we still listen to and obey his laws.

I am not totally sure how to respond to this.

Comment by LMcC

September 26, 2007 @ 10:00 am

Welcome, Happy Rock (see comment 69115)!

I hate that argument. Part of the problem is that the hierarchs tend to use a different and very limited definition of equality that only applies to one’s spiritual status before God. The novel writer (see comment 69004) kept denying inequality, yet he kept putting men above women and trying to silence me. The hierarchs do not seem to know how to tell the difference between ‘being’ and ‘function.’

The best response would be that the president does not have permanent authority. In the United States, nobody can serve for eight years. After that, a new person steps in, and the former president has to submit like everyone else. It truly is a matter of function, a job with a definite beginning and end. In sexual hierarchy, there is no room for men to step down and let godly women be in charge or even share responsibilities for a while. (Speaking for the guys, that places too much of a burden on a good man in a hierarchal church and isolates him from his wife. Hierarchy can be a bad deal for good men as well as women.) Even if the woman is perfectly capable of leadership, she is excluded. Because of function? No, she can function fine. It is her being which excludes her from leadership.

Does someone’s position determine his or her worth? Certainly not. That said, banning someone with the right gifts and talents from a position for reasons completely unrelated to the position at hand makes no sense. We’ve already been through this battle with skin color, and many churches took the wrong side on that issue as well. The lessons from that battle, sadly, have not been learned by many churches.

Comment by Mary

September 26, 2007 @ 10:20 am

Hi, LMCC (see comment 69114). (Aside answer is yes; I’m thinking you also know who I am.)

I believe the best way is to conduct ourselves without the loopholes and to teach those willing to learn the Scriptures in-depth why the religiously-popular loopholes are in opposition to the Scriptures. It can be tough, because proof-texting and eisegesis are such ingrained practices in some traditions. In other words, people are so used to reading patriarchy into the Scriptures, that they honestly think it’s scriptural.

Regarding comment 66197, those are some really good points about being versus function. It’s good to remember, too, that the president is subject to the same laws the rest of us are. He can’t impose laws, either; United States presidents must work together with the legislative branch if laws are going to be made, enacted, and enforced. With patriarchy, submission is demanded of women to their husbands without husbands ever having to submit biblically to their wives as their fellow members of the body of Christ. Husbands are not exempt from the submission ‘law’ when it comes to submitting themselves to their wives, but patriarchy teaches that they are. So that’s another way that the ‘president’ analogy breaks down in a hurry.

Comment by Lolly

September 26, 2007 @ 10:58 am

See comment 68999.

Almost everywhere I look in the Western Christian community, I read about ‘leadership,’ but rarely do I find discussion about ‘serving.’ Perhaps one of the problems we currently face in respect of males and females together in the kingdom of God, is that we stress, seek and extol ‘leadership,’ whereas Christ demonstrated sacrificial serving. I look forward to the day when the church stops aping the world and ceases its seeming obsession with ‘leadership’ and embraces the leadership of the Holy Spirit, seeking instead to show his fruit in our lives and live out the gifts he has given us for each other.

Amen! That has always been one of the biggest turn-offs for me of the patriarchal church. With their obsession over who has power and authority, I see no difference between them and the world. What’s hilarious (and sad) is that this obsession completely contradicts the Gospels. For Pete’s sake, Jesus rebuked the disciples when they argued who would be greatest in heaven! And, the entire life of Jesus was a model of humility and sacrifice. I mean, we’re always told that women have to submit to their husbands because Jesus laid down his authority and submitted to the Father on earth. We’re also told that Jesus’ enduring of all that physical punishment, including the cross, is a model for women. So does that mean Jesus doesn’t provide a role model for men? Just how exactly are men supposed to relate to Jesus? I have a sneaking suspicion that the favorite story of most patriarchs concerning Jesus is his throwing the money-changers out of the temple. Yeah! Power and aggression! Anger! Now that’s macho! After all, most of the rest of the Gospels show Jesus acting pretty feminine. I mean, most of the book of John consists of nothing but long speeches by Jesus, and isn’t talking a lot supposed to be a woman’s characteristic (that men like to make fun of)?

Speaking of women… see comment 69027.

Ah, but she [Mary of Magdala] wasn’t a ‘real’ evangelist, Cindy (see comment 69018), because she wasn’t an ‘authority over’ other people.

That’s exactly what I said in a comment under another post here. Patriarchs can tolerate Mary of Magdala because she was ‘just a woman.’ She didn’t have any power or authority like the male disciples did, so it was okay for her to talk about Jesus. Theoretically, any woman can do that today - notice the high number of female missionaries, especially in patriarchal denominations. I know from my own experience that I sought to become a missionary precisely because my denomination wouldn’t let me talk about God within my own church walls. Somehow, I thought it would be okay to talk about God as long as it was anywhere but within a Western church. Only once I stepped behind a pulpit, there would it suddenly become wrong. After all, pastors have all that authority to discipline people, while missionary doctors, nurses, and evangelists don’t! (Of course, when you think about it, this kind of thinking also reveals a world of assumptions about Western culture versus ‘primitive’ ones.)

And of course, in that same post, Mary, you also made other excellent points. Patriarchs twist like a wind chime in a tornado rather than admit that any woman in the Bible could have had any authority (or if the Bible clearly says she does, then they excuse it - the proverbial ‘there were no men available’). I remember once some guy on another blog claimed that Junia must have been an apostle to women and children! So much for the ‘plain reading of Scripture’ (which is only plain except when it comes to women).

See comment 69117.

The best response would be that the president does not have permanent authority. In the United States, nobody can serve for eight years. After that, a new person steps in, and the former president has to submit like everyone else. It truly is a matter of function, a job with a definite beginning and end. In sexual hierarchy, there is no room for men to step down and let godly women be in charge or even share responsibilities for a while.

Thank you for that. I’ve heard a variation of the same question: the CEO of a corporation is equal, just like his employees. They have the same human rights. However, the CEO has more power and authority than the ordinary employee. This, of course, assumes two things:

1. Most people believe CEOs got to where they are because they’re better than the rest of us. They’re smarter, more aggressive, better entrepreneurs, etc. So, using that analogy, does that mean men are better than women?

2. And, as you pointed out LM, a job is something finite. Many boards of directors oust their CEOs if the company isn’t doing well. Women, however, are never, ever allowed to say anything or in any way try to fix their situation. They’re expected to submit and endure. If corporations had to do that with their CEOs, a lot more of them would go bankrupt.

3. And, as a side point, notice that patriarchs always seem to use worldly examples of power to compare themselves to. See my first comment…

Comment by Donna

September 26, 2007 @ 1:56 pm

See comment 69107.

I think that the Gospels should lens the rest of the New Testament because I believe that Paul and the apostles took the message of Jesus revealed in the Gospels and sought to apply it in their world, which is how we got the Epistles.

Do you see the Gospels as more authoritative than the rest of the New Testament? I am wondering if you take every word of the New Testament as equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, or whether there are degrees of inspiration. Then, is there an ongoing revelation on the same authoritative level as the New Testament?

FJS, please feel free to respond or not respond as you wish. I am curious.

They sought to apply the teachings of Christ to questions and issues that arose during their time.

Actually, in the case of the apostle Paul, who was not one of the original Twelve - he received direct revelation from Christ. So, his gospel is the gospel of Christ, and he is speaking with Christ’s authority. So, all that Paul says as recorded in the New Testament is Christ’s words.

‘I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord.’ (2 Corinthians 12:1, NIV)

For example: one of the biggest controversies had to do with eating and drinking with Gentiles, slaves, women, and other sinners, reflecting the question of who God’s people were - the new community created in union with Christ? The book of Galatians was addressing that controversy…

Galatians is addressing the issue of the true gospel of grace versus the false gospel of works righteousness. It also clarifies to a large extent the place of the Old Testament law in the life of the New Testament believer.

The Epistles reveal that to follow Jesus had implications in how God’s people lived together in community and served the world as God’s agents on the earth. We must wrestle with how to apply Christ’s teachings today.

Yes. We must have wisdom to apply the truth of Christ’s teachings today. I agree with that. I think that I disagree with you on the function of the rest of the New Testament. It is on a par with the red letter words recorded in the Gospels and in the book of Revelation.

Thank you for your kind response. I appreciate it. God bless you and all of us as we seek to understand him as he has revealed himself.

Comment by tiro

September 26, 2007 @ 2:44 pm

Lolly (see comment 69122), good post.

The hierarchical ladders of authority portrayed by patriarchalists and gender hierarchalists are elevating and privileging those who should have a mind to serve. All ministry is serving in the body of Christ.

And, the ways this is transferred into marriage is just disgusting sometimes. I’ve heard the one about husbands being the CEO or president while the wife is everything from assistant, secretary? The problem with that is that corporations are for the benefit of the owners, not the employees, thus making the marriage for the benefit of the husband, not for the wife who is there just to fulfill the husband’s wishes. Not a pretty picture. The one where husband is captain and wife is first mate isn’t much better.

But the one I will never forget is the one where the husband is compared to car and driver and the wife is compared to the wheels of the car. The husband decides what to do, where to go, etc. and the wife is the major assistance in getting there. Blech!

The corporate world is arranged to exist in a world system that is surrounded by sin. It has to be the way that it is in order to survive and achieve profit for everyone. The church is not a corporation and should not operate in the same vein. The church is to be an ekklesia of brethren all working together, as a team - gifted for the gospel of Christ, helping one another to mature into the fullness of the perfect man, Christ Jesus. There is just no comparison.

Comment by Donna

September 26, 2007 @ 4:18 pm

See comment 69170.

The problem with that is that corporations are for the benefit of the owners, not the employees, thus making the marriage for the benefit of the husband, not for the wife who is there just to fulfill the husband’s wishes.

I’m not sure that I would use the CEO example, but I think that the example would involve CEO and executive vice president, or something. I prefer the king and queen example. The husband is the king of his household, but the wife is the queen. The children - princes and princesses they would be - must obey both the king and the queen.
Even so, I am sure that you will not like that example, either, and that is your privilege.

I was wondering, though, if you see any benefit from a company for the employees. Think of one of the better corporations that gives good pay and good benefits for its employees. Think Microsoft or Starbucks, for example - both companies from the area we live in.

Comment by Sue

September 26, 2007 @ 6:59 pm

Lolly (see comment 69122), I understand what you were saying when you said you are turned off with the patriarchs’ obsession with power and authority because you see no difference between them and the world.

For me, unfortunately, I have seen a difference between them and the world. I have gone to college with guys, gone to graduate school with guys, worked on teams with guys in the work world; I have supervised guys in the workplace, and I have been supervised by guys. Overall, I feel that the way I am typically treated by guys has been with respect. That is why it saddens me that from my experiences, it has only been Christian guys who have the patriarchal mindset who have treated me with condescension. One of the toughest experiences I had as a manager was with a Christian guy who told me loudly and clearly that he knows the Bible, believes in the Bible, lives according to the Bible and he therefore believes in patriarchy. He resented the idea that I, a woman, had authority over him, and he made my job so much harder.

I often wonder how Jesus must feel when men in American culture who are not Christians treat women with greater respect than Christian men do. It is just so hard to fathom that the Bible has been distorted to the point that Christian men actually believe their condescension towards women is biblical!

Comment by tiro

September 26, 2007 @ 7:24 pm

Well, Donna (see comment 69189), as far as benefits, one can even find benefits from being in jail. But, I do not consider that an ideal situation. And, God does have ideals.

The ideals for being in ministry are far, far different than those of secular corporate business. The ideals for ministry are found when those called and gifted work together as a team for the common goals of doing God’s works. As each individual works within the framework of their gifting, they overlap in their spheres of influence, supporting and encouraging each other in service. None is better or more privileged than the other, although some may be more public than others. The source of their harmonious unity lies in their individual and communal connection to the inspiration and unction of the Holy Spirit. Those in God’s ministry are a more fluid and flexible than the rigid structures of secular corporations.

The ideals for marriage are similar in that they are melded in their likeness of being very human (as Adam exulted, ‘now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’) and beneficially supportive of each other in their differences of man and woman. The common goal is to function as one entity (teamwork) without loss of individuality. With Christ as their mutual lifeline and source for everything, and the Holy Spirit as empowerer and very real guide to receive God’s directions, this can be achieved.

In my opinion, those who settle for the hierarchical privileged and subjugated models are missing out on not only huge blessings, but a means for God to assist in bringing each person to a closer relationship with Christ.

Comment by tiro

September 26, 2007 @ 7:31 pm

Sue (see comment 69218), you said:

It is just so hard to fathom that the Bible has been distorted to the point that Christian men actually believe their condescension towards women is biblical!

This is true. Through the ages the Christian church has been involved in some very destructive attitudes in the name of religiosity: witch trials killing Christians, fighting for slavery instead of setting them free, and many wars over things we shouldn’t be fighting over. So far we have managed to rise past these things. It is my hope that with prayer and much Christian affection, we can stand strong to become more like Christ instead of more like the world.

Comment by Donna

September 26, 2007 @ 10:28 pm

See comment 69229.

Well, Donna, as far as benefits, one can even find benefits from being in jail.

You are self-employed, then? I really don’t think that all egalitarians are so anti-hierarchy, per se.

I understand the idea that qualified women should be allowed to be in positions of leadership in the corporate world, in politics, in the church, and even in the home. I am not in total disagreement with that idea. I liked Margaret Thatcher, after all. However, I don’t understand the anti-hierarchy that you seem to be promoting. It does not make sense. That would become anarchy, after all. Surely you don’t see the Bible as anarchical, do you?

I know that CBE does not, since they do have a president and CEO and other employees. I am sure that the egalitarian style would make it different from hard hierarchies, but even so, there is some structure. Then, there is a woman president and CEO, which would be a distinctive of egalitarianism, of course. However, to imply that egalitarians believe in no hierarchy whatsoever as you seem to be doing is non-standard, is it not? I don’t see egalitarianism and some kind of hierarchy as mutually exclusive or even contradictory. I could be wrong, though. It’s the gender-specific element that egalitarians reject.

By the way, most of us traditionalists also reject oppressive forms of rule. I am happy to see the servant model of leadership being emphasized in all quarters.

In my opinion, those who settle for the hierarchical privileged and subjugated models are missing out on not only huge blessings, but a means for God to assist in bringing each person to a closer relationship with Christ.

Well, not every hierarchical model is all about subjugation. Of course I agree that there are hierarchical forms that are oppressive. We lived several years under Pinochet in Chile. I have also visited Cuba five times. I know what oppressive leadership is, and I oppose it. However, the world cannot function at all without leadership.

I think that CBE understands that, if I am not mistaken. No, they do not believe in male-only or oppressive, dictatorial leadership, but they have to support some kind of leadership or the organization cannot function. I just can’t believe that you are presenting the views of egalitarianism in general.

Comment by Sue

September 27, 2007 @ 12:04 am

It seems that there is a presupposition by patriarchalists that there are only two choices in the structure of a marriage: hierarchy or anarchy. A marriage is not a corporation; it is a partnership. If both members of the partnership practice, as the original post says, sacrifice, servanthood, submission, and holiness, then there is neither hierarchy nor anarchy. There is no power struggle. When there are two adults who both believe that they are called by God to serve the other and put the other first, then there is no need for one person to boss, control, or exact obedience from the other. There are many successful business partnerships without a designated boss, and there are many, many successful marriages without one person claiming to deserve obedience from the other based on maleness. Two mature adults who love each other can agree to work out their decisions by putting the other first. That is hardly anarchy.

Comment by Liz

September 27, 2007 @ 12:28 am

Hi, Donna (see comment 69265).

Ephesians 4:32 is our favorite marriage verse, and we put it in all our cards when people marry. It’s the epitome of how we should relate to one another, so it’s great to read that someone else uses it too.

Yes, ‘wife’ does denote a role, just the same as sister or daughter, but there are no specifics as to what that role entails - no descriptions of actions or attitudes at all.

In respect to your question about Christ’s commands, I would say that obviously we don’t have recorded all that Christ said. The Scripture itself says that if all the works were recorded there would not be enough books to hold the accounts. However, when I say Christ’s commands, I do mean those which are recorded in the Gospels. The verses I quoted were said when Jesus was returning to heaven after the resurrection, and I understand he was referring to all he had taught his followers in the time he was on earth.

I notice that in another post you suggest that the apostle Paul’s words are equivalent to those of Christ, and here I would beg to differ. Those words were stated to be Paul’s words, and at times he said that it was him speaking and not the Lord. Surely there is much to obey in what is recorded of Jesus’ words in the Gospels and the world has yet to see what would happen if we really did do all that Jesus commanded us to do as recorded in those four small books.

Comment by Liz

September 27, 2007 @ 1:02 am

I perceive that much of what is being said is related to the notion that God has invested ultimate leadership in males. Talking about CEOs in business is a far cry from how we’re created. As someone else said - a business situation is temporary and based on a person’s ability to do the job, not their gender (hopefully).

Now, if we could just see each other as God sees us. Unique, valuable, much loved children of the one family. The preoccupation with someone having to be in charge, especially in marriage, is so damaging, and it falls far short of God’s ideal for his people.

While we’re talking marriage - we like to think of it as a merger with each company closing off and forming a new one with all the benefits of the previous ones.

We’re going away tomorrow morning so won’t be around to comment until Tuesday (United States time).

Comment by Mary

September 27, 2007 @ 7:20 am

Hierarchy is a power structure. It’s what human beings, on their own, tend to do to organize groups of themselves. It’s ‘natural;’ that is, the stronger lording over the weaker is how humans have always tended to arrange things when sin is in control. It is the world’s way. We Christians live in the world, so it’s inevitable that we will be affected by the world’s hierarchies. Scripture is chock-full of descriptions of the world’s hierarchies at play.

But consistently, God has presented us with a radically different way. We remember, for example, that a monarchy for Israel was not God’s intention, but the people wanted to be like their neighbors and ruled by a flawed human being instead of God. God let them have their way, along with all the tragic consequences of having their way.

Even in the world, however, pairs and small groups of friends do not declare a ‘leader.’ There’s no need. When there is unity, hierarchy is an artificial impediment to that unity. So how much less necessary is hierarchy to small or even large groups of Christians, to whom unity is a prime principle? Nowhere is this more obvious than in marriage, yet that is a battleground in some circles! Christians are being taught that despite all the scriptural teachings, husbands must be ‘leaders’ of their wives and wives - only the wives - must submit in marriage. They liken marriage to a worldly model, such as a corporation or a military unit, instead of the one flesh that Scripture declares a husband and wife should be!

Yes, I am aware that it requires a radical shift for many people to trust that submitting to one another in marriage can ‘work.’ That makes no sense in the self-worshiping worldly paradigm that’s a part of our daily lives. But, we are Christians. We are not to be of the world, merely in it. We are free from bondage to the sin-rooted power structures of this world. We already have a leader: Jesus Christ. All of us are called to be his servants as we serve one another, even in marriage.

Comment by fjs

September 27, 2007 @ 8:51 am

Hi Donna (see comment 69160), here’s an explanation: I believe that Paul’s writings are informed by Christ and cannot be separated from the teachings of Christ. I believe they are as authoritative as the Gospels. However, I approach the Scripture with a view of the whole story of God expressed in the Bible. Any verse or application must be informed by the story.

In regards to Galatians: Galatians is reflective of the gospel of grace but Paul is addressing a community of people who were being taught that their identity rested in their keeping of the Jewish traditions, food laws, and circumcision. He was livid because they added something to the gospel embodied and taught by Jesus Christ. This affected community. In Galatians 2, Paul retells a story of Peter, who would not eat with the gentiles, and how that was dividing community into the clean (those who we are permitted to eat with) and the unclean (those who defile us when we eat). The grace of Christ was not embodied in the community relations. Then Paul goes on to argue that it is not through the flesh that we are made right with God (clean) it is not by circumcision but by the sufficiency of Christ. He argues that Abraham was made right with God through faith because righteousness was granted before circumcision; therefore it is not according to the flesh. The righteous, or the ones clean before God, are granted righteousness through faith in Christ by the grace of God. Then Paul argues that the way of the flesh (works of the flesh) is part of the former way of being God’s people. The new way of being God’s people is through faith in Christ. Then he states that the true sons of Abraham are those in union with Christ. This is illustrated by baptism in which the sons of God are united with Christ in his death and resurrection all becoming sons (inheritors) through union (faith in) with Christ. This affects community and our relations within community removing the barriers between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female.

Then he makes another argument and states that the way of the flesh is the way of children (like children under the guardian of the law). The implication is that Christ is the mature adult son and those united with him must live according the spirit. After all, we are not sons of the slave woman but of the free.

All in all, they are to live according to love - faith working itself out in love as free people. They are to keep in step with the Holy Spirit and bear not the fruit of the flesh but the fruit of the Spirit.

Galatians is about the sufficiency of Christ, the barriers in community and becoming God’s clean people through faith in Christ. In that light we cannot continue to divide groups according to status or hierarchy because such is according to the flesh. That has implication for roles in the community of God’s people.

Sorry it is so long. I need you to know that I love the Bible, I love Jesus and I love the people of God. Because of Christ, I am free, a child of the free woman. I am righteous and being made righteous through the work of Christ. And, my roles and behaviors are informed not according fleshly custom or external workings, but through the gospel of Jesus.

Comment by Donna

September 27, 2007 @ 9:30 am

Hello, folks. Hey, thank you for your reasoned responses. I will try to respond as time and interest allows. I understand that this is your group, one where you need to feel safe to discuss things that are of common interest. I will try not to be a bother.

I think that this can be mutually beneficial. So, thank you for your responses. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by fjs

September 27, 2007 @ 9:58 am

Donna (see comment 69371), love your input and authentic sense of what you believe. I love your commitment to obey God and his Word. We are better for dialogue - iron sharpens iron. I have observed the debate for some years now between the two points of view regarding the roles of women. Both sides have matured and grown from one another.

Comment by LMcC

September 27, 2007 @ 10:35 am

Hi, Donna (see comment 69265).

Egalitarians are not opposed to hierarchies, per se. Sometimes organization is necessary, and people with the right gifts are needed to bring some direction to whatever project or group exists.

The big difference between sexual hierarchy and an egalitarian hierarchy is that we look at the gifts and talents of the people involved and fill positions based on that. Sexual hierarchy looks at the sex of the person first, and if the sex isn’t right, then no amount of gifting will make that person an acceptable candidate.

Another difference between sexual hierarchy and an egalitarian hierarchy is that egalitarians cannot have a permanent underclass. Men and women alike can rise in church or ministry positions, they can take lower positions, or they can even resign. In marriages, men and women can lead when needed, follow when needed, or (as is normally the case) do life side by side without either one leading or following. In sexual hierarchy, only men will have the top positions and women are locked out for good. In a hierarchal marriage, the man is always in charge and cannot resign or step back. The woman is always the one to submit and any effort to take initiative is limited.

That brings me to a third difference between sexual hierarchy and egalitarian hierarchy: egalitarian leaders do not have comprehensive authority over anybody. Say Joe Smith and I worked at the same office. He’d be my boss at work, but not once I’m off the clock. In fact, under some situations, I could have authority over him. Say I taught a class on computing on weekends and he decided to take it. Then I’d be the authority figure - but not once he left my class. We would both have leadership positions, we would both be the followers, and we’d know when both of our positions stopped and ended. Even in marriage, my husband knows I’m better with some things than he is and vice versa. I take his direction on his strong points, and he does the same on mine. Usually, we don’t even bother with leading or following and just do what we’re going to do together. If one of us is about to make a big mistake, the other can stop it. We both have an equal say.

A limit on authority doesn’t exist in sexual hierarchy. A man has complete authority over his wife. Maybe he’ll be a nice guy and not exercise it, leaving his wife with some or even a lot of autonomy. Maybe he won’t, and he’ll tell her how to do everything or even forbid her to do normal activities. No matter how strict or lenient he is, the wife in a hierarchal marriage is completely at the mercy of her husband. It’s not so bad when he’s a decent guy about it all, but she can’t stop him if he’s about to do something detrimental to himself or the family.

So, we don’t oppose all hierarchy. We just oppose hierarchy that is not based on merit, that does not allow for mobility of position as circumstances change, and that does control every aspect of the lives of the subordinates.

Comment by Donna

September 27, 2007 @ 3:12 pm

See comment 69386.

It’s not so bad when he’s a decent guy about it all, but she can’t stop him if he’s about to do something detrimental to himself or the family.

So, we don’t oppose all hierarchy. We just oppose hierarchy that is not based on merit, that does not allow for mobility of position as circumstances change, and that does control every aspect of the lives of the subordinates.

Hey, thank you for the response. Yes, what you describe is what I understood to be the egalitarian position. Some of what Tiro (see comment 69231) was saying can be interpreted as anarchy, not egalitarianism.

Let me play the devil’s advocate here. Some may say that is typ casting, but I do wish to know. Do you in your understanding of men and women and authority see the possibility of an egalitarian woman abusing her power? I mean, if a guy can be a bad leader, can a woman be a bad leader? Yes, I know that many do not live up to their ideals. There is no room in biblical patriarchy for a Christian husband being a ‘bad guy’ either. However, if an egalitarian woman were found abusing her position of leadership, how would you deal with her? Or does that woman exist in your thinking, even in potential?

Comment by Donna

September 27, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

See Comment 69364.

Hi Donna (see comment 69160), here’s an explanation: I believe that Paul’s writings are informed by Christ and cannot be separated from the teachings of Christ.

I understand. I would say though that all the New Testament is inspired by the same Holy Spirit. So, I guess that I am egalitarian as far as the equality of authority and source of every New Testament book.

In fact, it was the Spirit of Christ speaking through the prophets as they prophesied about his coming. ‘…trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.’ (1 Peter 1:11, NIV) And, of course, the following blanket statement about the authority of all Scripture. ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness…’ (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV).

So, to make a hermeneutic that puts priority on the ‘red letter’ words of Scripture could lead to problems of interpretation. It is the similar error that many make in writing off the whole Old Testament in order to establish their theology - removing the offensive portions.

How do you avoid those kinds of problems if you don’t see all the New Testament as equally authoritative and binding on the conscience of all Christians? Or maybe you don’t see a problem, and that’s okay. Don’t feel you have to respond to everything or think that we will get into a kind of never-ending wrangle over this.

I believe they are as authoritative as the Gospels. However, I approach the Scripture with a view of the whole story of God expressed in the Bible. Any verse or application must be informed by the story.

If every verse or application must be informed by the story, you are saying that the story is superior in rank to the rest of the Bible. I don’t think that the Bible presents itself that way.

In regards to Galatians: Galatians is reflective of the gospel of grace but Paul is addressing a community of people who were being taught that their identity rested in their keeping of the Jewish traditions, food laws, and circumcision. He was livid because they added something to the gospel embodied and taught by Jesus Christ.

He said that the Judaizers were preaching a different gospel.

This affected community.

It cut them off from grace and took away their freedom in Christ, as per the first few verses of chapter 5. It also was affecting their relationship with God.

In Galatians 2, Paul retells a story of Peter, who would not eat with the gentiles, and how that was dividing community into the clean (those who we are permitted to eat with) and the unclean (those who defile us when we eat). The grace of Christ was not embodied in the community relations.

Peter was being a hypocrite by siding with those who were preaching a false gospel.

Then Paul goes on to argue that it is not through the flesh that we are made right with God (clean) it is not by circumcision but by the sufficiency of Christ.

Amen!

He argues that Abraham was made right with God through faith because righteousness was granted before circumcision; therefore it is not according to the flesh. The righteous, or the ones clean before God, are granted righteousness through faith in Christ by the grace of God.

Yes.

Then Paul argues that the way of the flesh (works of the flesh) is part of the former way of being God’s people.

I agree, mostly. However, remember that Abraham is not only the father of the Jewish race, but he is also the father of all who come to God by faith.

The new way of being God’s people is through faith in Christ. Then he states that the true sons of Abraham are those in union with Christ. This is illustrated by baptism in which the sons of God are united with Christ in his death and resurrection all becoming sons (inheritors) through union (faith in) with Christ. This affects community and our relations within community removing the barriers between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female.

Okay. Even so, the apostle Paul who said that there is no difference also gave gender-specific instructions to husbands and wives.

Then he makes another argument and states that the way of the flesh is the way of children (like children under the guardian of the law). The implication is that Christ is the mature adult son and those united with him must live according the spirit. After all, we are not sons of the slave woman but of the free.

We are free of the old system of law. We are not free of all law. We are still under law, under the law of Christ. Following the law of Christ is following the Spirit. We are free of the Old Testament law with its demands and condemnation. We are free from sin. We are free to serve God from the heart. We are not free to pick and choose our way through Scripture in order to find a kind of freedom that is not biblical. I assume that you agree on that.

All in all, they are to live according to love - faith working itself out in love as free people. They are to keep in step with the Holy Spirit and bear not the fruit of the flesh but the fruit of the Spirit.

Yes.

Galatians is about the sufficiency of Christ, the barriers in community and becoming God’s clean people through faith in Christ. In that light we cannot continue to divide groups according to status or hierarchy because such is according to the flesh.

Paul does that very thing by giving gender-specific commands in his other letters. Surely he is not acting according to the flesh when he says that woman was made for man, but not man for woman, and man comes from woman. Surely he is not speaking from the flesh when he says that a woman must have something on her head while praying or prophesying.

There is interdependence and balance, but not redundancy.

That has implication for roles in the community of God’s people.

It does indeed.

Sorry it is so long. I need you to know that I love the Bible, I love Jesus and I love the people of God. Because of Christ, I am free, a child of the free woman. I am righteous and being made righteous through the work of Christ. And, my roles and behaviors are informed not according fleshly custom or external workings, but through the gospel of Jesus.

I appreciate your taking the time to clarify and answer some of my questions. I know that takes some time, thought, courage, and prayer. Thank you for your kind and reasoned response. I appreciate it.

I’ll just say that I am a free woman in Christ, and free to be who God created me to be. I rejoice at who I am, and who I am in Christ. Thank you again for your time, and please take care.

Comment by tiro

September 27, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

See comment 69427.

Some of what Tiro was saying can be interpreted as anarchy, not egalitarianism.

Anarchy:

1. A state of society without government or law.

2. Political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: ‘The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.’

3. A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

4. Confusion; chaos; disorder: ‘Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.’

Nothing that I said has anything to do with anarchy of any sort. The topic for this thread is ‘Responsibilities Within the Body of Christ.’ Some basic responsibilities would be the following list, which was taken from Listening to the Spirit in the Text, written by Gordon Fee.

In the early church everything was done allelon (‘one another’). They were members of one another (Romans 12:5; Ephesians 4:25), who were to build up one another (1Thessalonians 5:11; Romans 14:19), care for one another (1 Corinthians 12:25), love one another (1Thessalonians 3:12; 4:9; Romans 13:8; 1 John), bear with one another in love (Ephesians 4:2), bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another (Ephesians 4:32), submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21), consider one another better than themselves (Philippians 2:3), be devoted to one another in love (Romans 12:10), and live in harmony with one another (Romans 12:16).

Comment by Liz

September 27, 2007 @ 5:47 pm

Couldn’t resist having a peek before we drive off on our break!

An egalitarian woman in a leadership position has the same potential for misuse of authority as a man in the same place. The Scriptures regarding the ‘one anothers’ and about serving apply to all. That’s what being ‘equal’ is all about.

Comment by Mary

September 27, 2007 @ 5:57 pm

Tiro (see comment 69439), that is true. When God leads, there can be no anarchy. It’s no wonder that Christ has given us the Holy Spirit, to guide and teach and correct and lead and inspire… and all!

I also agree with you, Liz (see comment 69442), that there is equal possibility for abuse of leadership when the leader is a woman as when the leader is a man. As I’ve seen it work, egalitarian Christians have no different methods of dealing with those who abuse the trust of others for women than they do for men. I think that’s for a very simple reason: egalitarians don’t choose their leaders based on gender, and they don’t censure or remove leaders on that basis, either. The preoccupation with ‘roles’ and ‘differences’ just doesn’t happen when biblical equality is taken seriously. Gender becomes one of the many ways we’re different from and like others. It’s not the lens through which we read the Bible or order our relationships.

Comment by Donna

September 28, 2007 @ 1:30 am

Thank you for your responses about the possibility of a woman abusing her power. So, can I assume that you are not among those who believe that women will actually do a better job of leading than do men?

I saw Mary (see comment 69443) and Liz (see comment 69442) respond to this, and maybe there were others that I missed.

Thank you, Tiro (see comment 69439), for your response to me on anarchy. I still think that some of your statements in the original post sound more like the old anarchists, but I would imagine that was not intentional. My grandfather was a Wobbly - who were anarchists. It is a very extreme form of egalitarianism and would correspond most to the third definition that you gave.

I appreciate all of your responses. God bless, and please take care.

P.S. This has been very interesting, though I already knew much of what you are telling me. Thank you for clearing up a few questions that I had.

I am going to try to give you good folks time off for good behavior. You have been quite kind to me, and I thank you for that. I know it is not easy to deal with someone who challenges you - and whom you think has been unduly critical of the egalitarian position. So, thank you. I hope to pop in from time to time to ask questions, express my disagreement in as respectful a way as I am able, and - at times agree! However, I know that this is your blog where you can discuss these issues with like-minded folks, with friendly visits from some of ‘us’ …or maybe we are ‘them?’

Comment by Mary

September 28, 2007 @ 7:13 am

Some women will do a better job of leading than some men, just as some men will do a better job of leading than some women. It has nothing to do with being male or female, but quite obviously everything to do with whether a person is gifted for leadership.

Equality is no more related to anarchy than patriarchy or complementarianism is. Anarchy opposes law and government. Equality opposes the worldly practice of men being rulers (in any sphere) simply because they’re men.

Comment by fjs

September 28, 2007 @ 10:03 am

Donna (see comment 69431), I need to work the next three days, so cannot respond. But, I will when it is possible.

Just need to say though that in Ephesians 5 and other texts that speak of wifely submission, there is also a story informed by the whole Bible and a people and historical context being addressed. When I use story, I am not saying it is not true, I am saying that all interpretation must be in context with the whole counsel of God’s Word.

Comment by Donna

September 28, 2007 @ 11:40 am

See comment 69477.

Donna (see comment 69431), I need to work the next three days, so cannot respond. But, I will when it is possible.

Just need to say though that in Ephesians 5 and other texts that speak of wifely submission, there is also a story informed by the whole Bible and a people and historical context being addressed. When I use story, I am not saying it is not true, I am saying that all interpretation must be in context with the whole counsel of God’s Word.

Thank you for your kindness, FJS. Please do not worry over this. Thank you for your clarification. If you are using the word ‘story’ as a synonym for ‘the whole counsel of God’s Word,’ then I understand you and agree. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by tiro

September 28, 2007 @ 12:17 pm

Donna (see comment 69475), I understand your need to bait and antagonize. And, in this you give me smiles because of your cleverness. However, I’m going to disagree again.

When those who are called and gifted by God work in humble partnership to lead the people of God, there is no chaos or confusion.

The ideals for being in ministry are far, far different than those of secular corporate business. The ideals for ministry are found when those called and gifted work together as a team for the common goals of doing God’s works. As each individual works within the framework of their gifting, they overlap in their spheres of influence, supporting and encouraging each other in service. None is better or more privileged than the other, although some may be more public than others. The source of their harmonious unity lies in their individual and communal connection to the inspiration and unction of the Holy Spirit. Those in God’s ministry are a more fluid and flexible team than the rigid structures of secular corporations.

It is when people are chosen to lead the body of Christ simply because they are male (or white, or tall, or strong, or anything preferred by humans) and available that we end up with confusion and sometimes a loss of faith. People lose faith because the non-anointed individual seeks to lead by coercion, demands, and charisma instead of the Holy Spirit moving the person to speak and direct according to what God knows the people need. Further confusion arises when one individual seeks to be the head of the whole church and delineates directives for all other ministries. In effect he removes them from the line of Godly authority in the Holy Spirit.

God’s ways of leading are different than the corporate business world. In the corporate business world there is a top and a bottom. The top gives directives to the person(s) on the rung below him, who in turn are authorized to give directive/demands to the person(s) below them. The top leads according to what he deems is beneficial and fulfills his purposes. God’s ways of leading are to get under a person and lift them up so that they are benefited, and God is benefited by benefiting us. God’s ways of leading are to call, equip, anoint, and gift. God does this in teams. The five-fold ministry is a team of leaders who have different functions. The apostle does not direct or demand from any of the other team leaders. The original apostles had a different job in that they established the church, so to a degree they were more directive as God led them. Today’s apostle does not direct the prophet, who does not direct the evangelist, who does not direct the teacher, who does not direct the pastor/Shepherd in their individual giftings or responsibilities. The team gets their directives both individually from God, and in joint counsel with humble petitions to God. Their job is always to serve and not be served. They are servants of God, serving his people.

The response of those being ministered to is to listen with a mind to being persuaded of the truth and to honor, respect, and assist them in whatever they need. This is the humble ‘one anothers’ of Christianity. Those who lead are responsible for what they say, do to, and teach others. Those being ministered to are responsible to be willing to receive and to go to God for confirmation. Each individual is responsible for what they choose to believe.

The ‘law’ of the body of Christ must be God always first and foremost with devotion of the whole being, body, mind, and soul. The necessary results of obedience to that are that we love ‘one another’ (check again the allelon’s of Scripture) with the same honor and respect we have for ourselves. Remember ‘no man hates his own body but loves and cherishes it.’ In this, all the laws and requirements are fulfilled. No anarchy. No confusion. No chaos. The body of Christ is not a ‘dead’ corporate organization, but a living organism.

The ideals for marriage are similar in that they are melded in their likeness of being very human (as Adam exulted, ‘now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’) and beneficially supportive of each other (submitting one to another in the fear of God) in their differences of man and woman. The common goal is to function as one entity (teamwork) without loss of individuality. With Christ as their mutual lifeline and source for everything, and the Holy Spirit as empowerer and very real guide to receive God’s directions, this can be achieved.

The differences in the marriage is that two shall become very one. The idea is not for one will to be given full activity while the other will is subjugated and thus must die, but that both wills must die to the degree that is required for them to harmoniously become as one. This is achieved by both partners individually and jointly seeking the One who is the source of their being, Christ. When there is confusion, they seek God. When there is trouble they despair of, they seek God.

And again I say: in my opinion, those who settle for the hierarchical privileged and subjugated models are missing out on not only huge blessings, but a means for God to assist in bringing each person to a closer relationship with Christ.

Comment by teknomom

September 28, 2007 @ 3:16 pm

Hi, Tiro (see comment 69480), that was a good, concise summary of all that has been wrong with ‘churchianity’ from about 200 A.D. to the present. If you have a website or blog of your own, I would like to link to this. If not, I’d like to post it at my website and of course put your name on it. I’ve written bits and pieces on these two issues but it always helps to have a birds-eye view.

I should point out also that even though many house churches recognize the lack of hierarchy among believers, they still suppress women even more than the institutional church. The women are not allowed to make a sound in the meetings and must wear head coverings. Pathetic (or is it satanic?).

Comment by tiro

September 28, 2007 @ 4:33 pm

See comment 69487:

You may post it on your site and give my name as Tiro. You may link my email address at tiro333@yahoo.com. And, thank you for the kind words. I may ask my friend to post it on his blog.

It is sad that in house churches, which in the early church often were held in women’s homes where they likely led them (Lydia) and which were likely co-led by some couples (Priscilla and Aquila), modern Christians would restrict women. Such restrictions would be much more difficult for women to bear because of the intimacy of the relationships.

Pathetic and sad, yes. Satanic, maybe in some cases. I actually experienced a satanic attack from a group of young, zealous Christians about thirty-seven years ago. The young men were mocking the idea of women having anything worthy to contribute in various unkind ways. One brother finally spoke up that he had seen, in the Spirit, a demon sitting cross-legged throwing darts at me, laughing. After some very poignant confessions and repentances, we came together against Satan as a group and lifted our voices in very sweet worship of the Lord together. It didn’t solve the problems for that group, but it did slow them down and loosen Satan’s grip. That might have been more information than some can handle. But, it is a truthful portrayal of what happened. My apologies if anyone is offended by discussing the satanic elements.

Comment by teknomom

September 28, 2007 @ 5:27 pm

Thanks, Tiro (see comment 69495), but are you sure you want your e-mail posted? You could get spam that way.

Comment by teknomom

September 28, 2007 @ 6:14 pm

Here’s the link to your article at my site. Just let me know if you want the e-mail added. Thanks!

Comment by Janet

September 28, 2007 @ 9:05 pm

Hi all, I have been trying to find a new church now that I have moved to the United States. Recently, I attended a church where the pastor taught Judges 3. Based on the football and basketball analogies, I thought I would not attend again. But, curiosity got the best of me, because the next week he was teaching on Judges 4 and I just had to hear what he would say about Deborah.

So, after the basketball video and analogy that probably only a select few men could relate to, he then presented Deborah in leadership. Well, he said ‘sort of’ leading, but ‘not very well, since all the people were sinning.’ By the time he finished with Deborah (including skipping over the song of Deborah), we were all thoroughly convinced women made poor leaders.

Oh woe, on to the next church… Laughingly sad, but glad in Christ.

Comment by Jackie

September 29, 2007 @ 9:19 pm

See comment 69346.

Even in the world, however, pairs and small groups of friends do not declare a ‘leader.’ There’s no need. When there is unity, hierarchy is an artificial impediment to that unity. So how much less necessary is hierarchy to small or even large groups of Christians, to whom unity is a prime principle? Nowhere is this more obvious than in marriage, yet that is a battleground in some circles! Christians are being taught that despite all the scriptural teachings, husbands must be ‘leaders’ of their wives and wives - only the wives - must submit in marriage. They liken marriage to a worldly model, such as a corporation or a military unit, instead of the one flesh that Scripture declares a husband and wife should be!

In terms of social relationships including friendships, fellowships, marriage, and family relationships among adults, I totally agree with you that it is misplaced to assign or interject any hierarchy into those relationships. Yes and amen! The world does equality in relationships better than many Christians here in the United States. Even Christian friendships become hierarchical in the name of ‘discipling,’ ‘Titus 2’ and ‘accountability’ sometimes. Any hierarchy in those relationships would be 24/7 and be a form of slavery to those positioned ‘down the ladder.’

However, in functional (versus purely social) relationships, such as teacher/student, boss/employee, business owner/employee, etc. there is not a total democracy or partnership. The functional relationship serves a major objective, such as serving customers in a financially viable way and probably also to provide long-term financial provision for the business owner. This cannot be accomplished by the employees having an equal say in the business decisions as the owner, who risked his/her life savings or collateral in the business. Responsible capitalism can be a biblical response to the Great Commission in this world, and the hierarchal organization in it would be appropriate and necessary, and should facilitate rather than serve as a barrier to unity.

In a business partnership, the partners carefully specify what each partner’s roles and responsibilities are and the partners submit to each other according to this drafted agreement.

I agree with you that the Western church errs when it compares the marriage relationship to a functional organization such as a business, when in reality a marriage is primarily a friendship and secondarily a partnership in whatever activities go on in the marriage that require organization (running a household, raising kids, and perhaps running a business or ministry together), with the terms defined by the husband and wife themselves, not by anyone else in the church claiming superior knowledge regarding ‘spousal roles.’ (The fact that I have ever ‘submitted’ to the dictates of others telling me what my ‘roles’ as a wife were makes my skin crawl, and I hereby receive my healing down to my inner core on this issue.)

I guess I could contradict myself by saying there might be an occasional marriage where the hierarchy model would be appropriate: only during work hours; when one spouse owns a business or is a supervisor and the other works for her!

I have really enjoyed yours and all the others’ stimulating and well expressed points made on this thread. Very cathartic.

Comment by Donna

September 30, 2007 @ 7:51 pm

See comment 69480.

Donna (see comment 69475), I understand your need to bait and antagonize. And, in this you give me smiles because of your cleverness. However, I’m going to disagree again.

Huh? You may feel free to disagree, but I can’t help but point out your personal attack. You are accusing me of baiting you and antagonizing you. Somehow you are trying to make me feel responsible for your reactions.

By the way, I did not compare marriage to a corporation. In fact, I said that I probably would not use that example myself. I prefer the king and queen analogy. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain are kind of what I think of. The children would be princes and princesses.

And again I say: in my opinion, those who settle for the hierarchical privileged and subjugated models are missing out on not only huge blessings, but a means for God to assist in bringing each person to a closer relationship with Christ.

In my opinion, this is evidence of what I mean by some egalitarians feeling themselves to be spiritually superior. We are not just wrong in your estimation, but we are missing out on a blessing. I am clever in a way, but not that clever. I am not satanic, either, in case you want to go that direction, too!

I could ask if Jesus wasn’t missing out on a blessing by submitting himself to the will of his Father…

Comment by fjs

October 1, 2007 @ 9:00 am

To all generally, I wonder if the biblical debate about roles is essentially a debate about what God created when he created a man and a woman. Our assumptions about that then inform out scriptural findings and interpretations.

Often I note that strict roles for women spring from the assumption that when God created a woman, he created someone with all of the necessary emotional and physical equipment for child rearing but little or nothing else. And, that somehow to tamper with that means that one does not respect God’s design.

Balswick and Balswick have a cute diagram in their book that I use a lot. It shows a picture of God-designed differences with a narrow gap of difference between men and women which provide for the necessary emotional and physical complimentary differences between men and women. They are still of the same human species, but neighboring sexes as suggested in the book My Brothers Keeper. Balswick and Balswick then show the wide gap between men and women in terms of socialized differences. I like the diagram because it takes into account the differences created by God and the differences that have evolved over time due to socializations.

My point is: what we believe about the essence of men and women, especially the part that is God-designed, informs our reading and interpretation of the Bible and hence our understanding of God-ordained role expectations.

Personally I am a mom, was for twenty-some years - much of that time was spent as a full-time homemaker. However, I discovered that while I was indeed a mom and valued my role as such, I was also gifted to teach and preach in a pastoral role. Much of what makes me a good mom also makes me a good pastor.

I have been created a woman, when I chose to have children I chose to be responsible for their well-being as did my husband… but being a mom is not all that I am. God also designed me to have other gifts and abilities.

Sometimes we use God’s created design of a man and woman to limit both men and women, which I believe is more a human construct than a godly one. My thoughts for the day.

Comment by fjs

October 1, 2007 @ 9:28 am

Regarding the two books I mentioned, in The Family, by Jack O. Balswick and Judith K. Balswick, the diagram is on page 200, in the second edition. My Brother’s Keeper is by Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen (regarding neighboring sexes). I didn’t mean to imply that Balswick and Balswick wrote My Brother’s Keeper.

Comment by Donna

October 1, 2007 @ 11:36 am

See comment 69608.

I have been created a woman, when I chose to have children, I chose to be responsible for their well-being as did my husband… but being a mom is not all that I am… God also designed me to have other gifts and abilities.

Don’t feel that you have to respond to my query. I was wondering, though, about this. It seems that you recognize that you have a female nature by creation, and that even includes being a mom. You say that you chose to have children. Why did you choose that role? Why did you want to be a mother?

I like the diagram because it takes into account the differences created by God and the differences that have evolved over time due to socializations.

Why did things ‘evolve’ as they did?

My point is: what we believe about the essence of men and women, especially the part that is God designed informs our reading and interpretation of the Bible and hence our understanding of God ordained role expectations.

Shouldn’t the Bible inform what we believe about the essence of men and women?

I do appreciate the fact that you believe that being a mother is part of God’s design and is part of your nature.

Comment by tiro

October 1, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

Whenever we are inclined to inordinately applause our male and female biological ‘functions’ as parents, it’s a good idea to reflect on Christ’s words as to what is really important in the grand scheme of things.

‘And it happened, as he spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts which nursed you!” But he said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it!”’ (Luke 11:27-28, ?)

Comment by Donna

October 1, 2007 @ 8:45 pm

See comment 69635.

Whenever we are inclined to inordinately applause our male and female biological ‘functions’ as parents, it’s a good idea to reflect on Christ’s words as to what is really important in the grand scheme of things.

Well, I don’t see anyone here inordinately applauding themselves for biological ‘functions’ any more than for spiritual gifts. Besides, I for one do not see how people can divorce themselves from their biology. I don’t think that all egalitarians think as you do on this, Tiro. I see myself as a whole person, including my biology and my spiritual gifts and my roles and whatever else I left out.

…and now I will keep my promise and leave you good folks alone for a day or two at least. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by fjs

October 2, 2007 @ 8:13 am

Funny how complementarians seem to suggest that egalitarians do not believe in innate differences. So erroneous. I believe that difference does not mean subordination… Difference is a code word for men and women being so different that they must adhere to strict role assignments in which women are always in the subordinate position - which feels significantly inferior.

Biological difference only means that men and women will bring all of who they are into what they are doing.

Comment by tiro

October 2, 2007 @ 11:41 am

See comment 69654.

Well, I don’t see anyone here inordinately applauding themselves for biological ‘functions’ any more than for spiritual gifts. Besides, I for one do not see how people can divorce themselves from their biology. I don’t think that all egalitarians think as you do on this, Tiro. I see myself as a whole person, including my biology and my spiritual gifts and my roles and whatever else I left out.

Actually, when it comes to women, most gender hierarchalists inordinately applaud the biological functions of women as the primary ‘gifts’ that women need to exercise negating their need in participating in the powerful anointing of the Holy Spirit. I see you doing the same thing in constantly talking about motherhood being the most important part of being a woman as is noted in this statement:

I do appreciate the fact that you believe that being a mother is part of God’s design and is part of your nature.

Whatever importance we find in ourselves as humans is secondary to the importance of our responsibilities as Christians. As Christ said: ‘More than that, blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it!’ And yet, we must not leave the first undone in order to do the second. We must keep them both in balance. That is the dichotomy of being fully human and participating in the spiritual of being in Christ by the Holy Spirit. We are fallible fragile beings and yet God has called all Christians to do the very works that he did by his Holy Spirit.

It is not necessary to divorce oneself from their biology in order to fully serve God, which, by the way, is what gender hierarchalists preach. Gender hierarchalists preach that women cannot fully serve God (their gender limits them) simply because they cannot divorce themselves from being female. Female trumps the Holy Spirit.

Those who believe in biblical equality believe that the Holy Spirit trumps being male or female. God is able, is the wild card. There is no frailty of humanity that is too great for the Holy Spirit to overcome. God uses us all in spite of our imperfections, fragilities, or inadequacies. Moses was a prime example as he was fearful of being God’s spokesman. Deborah the prophet-judge of the nation of Israel, was another prime example, as she was mother (as best we can tell) and wife, and yet mightily used of God to the lead and judge the nation under God’s directions, bringing them peace for forty years.

All things are possible in Christ. God will use whosoever is willing. And, that is our primary responsibility - to be willing.

Comment by Sue

October 2, 2007 @ 11:49 am

FJS (see comment 69684), you have nailed my thoughts so well. When I read Donna’s comment (69625) to you that said, ‘I do appreciate the fact that you believe that being a mother is part of God’s design and is part of your nature,’ I felt insulted, perhaps unjustifiably. It bothered me because I resent the implication that is sometimes made by patriarchalists that being an egalitarian is incompatible with valuing the privilege of raising my children and esteeming my marriage. For instance, I once had a patriarchal co-worker who couldn’t believe that I, an egalitarian, cooked meals for my husband and cleaned our house!

To me, being an egalitarian means that I had the privilege of raising three wonderful children to adulthood, and when they were young, I was pleased to do it full-time. Being an egalitarian has meant that I have had the privilege for thirty-one years of cooking meals for my husband, doing laundry, and cleaning our home. Being an egalitarian has meant that for some of those thirty-one years I was also working full-time, and my husband and my children pitched in. Being an egalitarian has meant that I have loved my ‘roles’ as wife and mother more than all the other roles I have acquired in my life.

Most of all, and best of all, being egalitarian has also meant that when I was carrying out my ‘roles’ with my family, I did it with a husband and not someone who was my father, part two. He was not a person my own age who I must obey as an authority figure. Rather, he is my best friend and partner in this life.

The patriarchalists are the ones who believe that raising children and doing home related work is equivalent to subordination. But the egalitarians who choose to have a spouse and children don’t see it that way. Being a wife and mother is a blessing and an honor, and for those of us so blessed, it is also a blessing to being able to enjoy our children alongside our husbands, not ‘under’ them.

Comment by fjs

October 2, 2007 @ 1:58 pm

Thanks, Sue (see comment 69694). Being egalitarian means I am free to listen to the Spirit in the context of our marriage and economic situation and family needs. Each family will choose accordingly. Being free does not require that I escape the call to love - that includes my family. I also know that the way we did it is not the only way to love children and family. There are many other ways.

Being an egalitarian Christian means that my spouse and I will choose to live ethically and responsibly toward our children and one another - however that best works in the marriage and home. We decide together how we juggle the needs of the children and the household tasks. At a time in our lives, I did a greater share of household chores, now we are pretty equal because I am also working. My spouse also shares in ministry, leading worship and ministering in a variety of ways he enjoys.

It is by gift and skill and time allotment/financial concerns that we organize our life - not by gender and genderized role assignments.

Comment by fjs

October 2, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

Tiro (see comment 69693), great post. I, too, think that strict role assignments limit the Holy Spirit. I would add to that that asserting that women may not teach or lead because they are easily deceived also rejects the ministry of the Holy Spirit who leads us into truth. The Bible does not say that men have more of the Spirit than women.

The Spirit determines giftedness, not the flesh.

Comment by Donna

October 3, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

See comment 69694.

FJS (see comment 69684), you have nailed my thoughts so well. When I read Donna’s comment (69625) to you that said, ‘I do appreciate the fact that you believe that being a mother is part of God’s design and is part of your nature,’ I felt insulted, perhaps unjustifiably.

Well, I think that your feeling insulted is unjustified, but I think that branding all patriarchalists as you good folks have is insulting and unjustified, too. So, I guess we’re equal on that. This is what makes mutual discussion between egalitarians and complementarians so difficult.

Let me share my experience in another group which had been advertised as a safe place where egalitarians and complementarians could dialogue. When I said that I believed I was a wife and a mother by nature, I was told that I should not ever think that way because I was opening myself up for abuse. No, I am not just a wife and a mother, but I can relate very well to what you said. I’m sorry that you chose to feel insulted. That is sad, I think, but it is probably a reaction because of years of misunderstanding and mutual mud-slinging. I am truly sorry about that for both of us.

Comment by Martin

October 3, 2007 @ 1:39 pm

Donna (see comment 69762), would you please explain how these good folks have wrongly branded patriarchalists? I would like to be clear in what is incorrect that has been said.

Comment by Donna

October 3, 2007 @ 3:15 pm

See comment 69765.

Donna (see comment 69762), would you please explain how these good folks have wrongly branded patriarchalists? I would like to be clear in what is incorrect that has been said.

Well Martin, in my opinion, most of what is said about patriarchalists on this blog fits into that category. I could begin a list of what I believe to be mischaracterizations, and you and others would counter with the ‘fact’ that it is all true. So, why not just skip all that and just get to the main point. Patriarchy is evil in all its forms, all the time, and is the cause of all human suffering. Anyone who defends it is not just wrong, but evil and maybe even satanic. There. Isn’t that better? It saved us a lot of time.

Comment by Donna

October 3, 2007 @ 5:48 pm

P.S. Martin (see comment 69765), you will see that I am not one patriarchalist who believes that all women must bow to all men. That may be one misconception. Nor am I a mousy woman who is afraid to express herself or defend herself. That’s another misconception, in my opinion, of course. Nor am I a patriarchalist woman who does not leave the home. I get out and about a lot. I wear a lot of hats - even at times to church.

…and I have a sense of humor. Now I gotta go do the ironing and finish the dishes.

Comment by LMcC

October 3, 2007 @ 5:52 pm

Wow, Donna (see comment 69770), that’s how you think we think?

We must be letting the hierarchalists off easy then, because they think we’re not even Christians (I’ve never heard an egalitarian go that far), that we’re all a bunch of man-hating feminists (explain the married women and the guys who post?), we’re somehow into both obliterating the differences between the sexes and pushing female domination (how we do both, I can’t figure out), that we’re closet lesbians (wait until we tell our husbands… and the wives of the guys), that we oppose women staying home with their kids (even though several are doing exactly that), and… oh yeah, we’re all either deceived by Satan or in league with him, and we just need a good man to whip (or something else) us back into shape.

If you want to play that game, don’t. You’re not doing yourself or those who agree with you any favors. By the way, I’ve heard or read every single one of those objections I just gave. I highly doubt, for example, that any egalitarian has said that patriarchy is ‘the cause of all human suffering.’ We can all think of some diseases, injuries, political regimes, etc. that also do a lot of that. I also don’t think that any egalitarian thinks that all patriarchy defenders are ‘evil and maybe even satanic.’

Speaking as a known ex-hierarchy defender myself, I know many (including most women there) have good motives, and I know that many have been told vicious lies about what biblical equality really is. Some have also been so scared off of any other view that they will defend hierarchy because they believe their Christian lives depend on it. I don’t think evil, and neither do those who know my story or who have been there themselves; I just think misinformed and maybe even afraid of change because I’ve been on the other side myself - as have others. You’re not just dealing with people who don’t know patriarchy and never lived it. Some of us know it very well.

Instead of painting us all with one broad brush, have you considered asking why some of us don’t believe in patriarchy and giving us a fair chance to answer, instead of assuming the worst about us? I grew up in one of the worst forms, but there was a time in my life in which I defended one of the milder forms (and then paid dearly for that). Others grew up in biblical equality their whole lives. Some came to it through discovering their spiritual gifts, some came to it when looking for answers to other important issues, some saw it in Scripture immediately, and some took some serious convincing. I think that if you would be fair to us and let us answer you without assumptions, you’d find we’re really not bad after all.

Comment by Mary

October 3, 2007 @ 10:22 pm

Would it be possible to discuss the actual responsibilities we all have to the body of Christ?

I especially appreciate Liz’s mention of the ‘one anothers’ that permeate the New Testament. It seems to me that dividing responsibilities along gender lines means that we frequently must ignore many of the ‘one another’ commandments. For example, I have yet to read any logical or spiritually sound interpretation of Ephesians 5:21 from anyone who advocates wife-only submission in marriage because of their interpretation of Ephesians 5:22ff. I believe this is a critically important point, for you can’t even get the verb for Ephesians 5:22 when you divorce it from Ephesians 5:21 - well, in English you can, but the original text doesn’t do that. Besides, in the original text, we don’t have the verse divisions as we know them anyway. So what does it mean for all of us to submit ourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ? Who is really exempt from ‘one another’ there? Can we really appeal to some nebulous ‘wives submit differently than husbands?’ What does it mean for a husband to submit to the Christian sister who is his wife? What does it mean for any of us to submit to another? Can there really be limits to our submission if we take Ephesians 5:21 seriously?

I’m not proposing to answer these questions at this time. I would simply prefer that we deal with the topic at hand rather than give in to further destructive deflections of the discussion. (In that weakness, I am undoubtedly the chief of sinners!)

Comment by Liz

October 4, 2007 @ 1:54 am

I would endorse what Mary has just said about keeping the posts to the original topic and to not be drawn in to personal differences and misunderstandings.

Someone earlier asked if we thought women led better than men. In reply I would say that leading is not a gender issue but one which depends on gifts, opportunities, and esteem. If a leader is esteemed, they usually do a better job than if they’re doubted, ridiculed, ignored, or patronized. These things can happen to men or women leaders, I would hasten to affirm!

Once again, if we esteem others as better than ourselves, we would go a along way towards unity and real equality.

Comment by fjs

October 4, 2007 @ 9:33 am

Donna (see comment 69762), I don’t think I said I felt insulted.

I think also that stereotypes abound on both sides. There is a range of what complementarians believe a woman could and should do.

Some of my professors in seminary were complementarian by the skin of their teeth and felt women had the freedom to serve in any capacity except the lead pastor in a church. Other complementarians think women should only teach other women and children and take roles that affirm male leadership.

On the flip side… sometimes I think egalitarians are also misrepresented as extreme feminists who are liberalizing the church and do not take the Scripture seriously. There may be some who are doing this… but I don’t personally know anyone - I travel in pretty conservative circles… but I think most egalitarians take the Bible very seriously and see themselves as liberated to any role that is fitting to their gifts, talents, training, and ability - and most importantly, sense of call.

I think the debate gets pretty dysfunctional and at times hurtful when we make narrow stereotypical assumptions about one another. Forgive me if I fell into that and offended you.

By the way… we have been in community with Spanish-speaking people… I’d love to learn Spanish better.

Comment by fjs

October 4, 2007 @ 9:42 am

Thanks, Mary (see comment 69787), for bringing us back on task. Regarding roles, I think Christians have many roles in the church, but our main role is to fulfill our v