The CBE Scroll

Comment by tiro

October 16, 2007 @ 11:25 am

Good point about the second set.

Actually, both of them illustrate Ephesians 5:21. It’s interesting that some people think about the wife’s body belonging to the husband and forget the husband’s body belongs to the wife. This demands mutual submission. If one requests one thing and the other doesn’t want it, then they simply request the opposite of the other person. This challenges the one who thinks to demand that they must rather woo and persuade.

Comment by Jester

October 16, 2007 @ 12:28 pm

We need to be careful about how we approach this request for discussion and dialogue, I think. Everybody is quite eager to pull out verses that, for better or worse, to proof-text their point.

But much in the way that the abortion dialogue (such as it exists) is not about pro-choice versus pro life (except in the minds of each opposing party), we are hung up here on words like ‘head’ and ‘submit,’ rather than their context.

Complementarians (such as Driscoll) are very loud about how the man should be the ‘head’ and the woman should ‘submit’ (which is interesting right there… the man is something, the woman does something. What is the woman?), but any attempt to say ‘Well, but is the man, as the head, also submitting himself? Is he accountable? etc. is met with a solid, unbudging ‘He is the head!’ cry, which devolves quickly into ‘What is the cost of a soul?’ and other somewhat puzzling follow-ups.

We’ve seen this in dizzying repetition within the last several major threads.

What we learn from this is that, somehow, the complementarian argument has become tied up in titles rather than concepts. This is also clearly illustrated in how the fundies have painted Rob Bell as an Emergent member in the same class as McLaren, despite his denials, because he stands in favor of mysticism and not being able to declare for certain that we know things, like how the world was created, or how the Spirit got Mary pregnant. There’s a fear that the Emergent church is liberal (denying that there is any absolute truth) and so we have to fight this by being absolutely certain, and by words having only one absolute meaning, and refusing to discuss them.

When we talk about the verses above, as Liz has, what we’re talking about is context… in the context we see these verses, in context with what Christ told us, in context with what these other verses say, this is the case.

But the argument the complementarians are using against these refuses to accept context. We see terms being bandied about like ‘The Bible says what it says’ and ‘the plain truth’ and other statements that regard only the words themselves (and assumed meaning) out of context with actual history, language, and the rest of the Bible.

The result, we fear, is that though these verses do seem to speak very clearly to egalitarian expression from an apostle who, in fact, was very much in favor of people staying single and serving Christ without the bounds of marriage holding them down, and equally at that, that those who will not allow for evidence which defies or dilutes the state of the head (which, we see, is in fact idolatry) outside of total mastery, will not hear or regard these verses except in how they back up their already solid views.

People who are absolutely sure of themselves and their answers have no need for dialogue, because they know they’re right. Ah, that they would be willing to crucify the need to be right on the cross, along with their pride and judgment, but we fear this will never be the case in this life.

Comment by LMcC

October 16, 2007 @ 12:56 pm

Tiro (see comment 70989), I had a professor in college who twisted 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 into something that probably ruined marriage and sex for a lot of his female students. He kind-of, sort-of semi-acknowledged the mutuality in the verse, but then he said that men had higher sex drives than women, so the verse was really telling women they could never say no to husbands in bed. Too tired? Rough day? Sick? No excuse. What hubby wanted, hubby got. He was anti-woman in a lot of ways. His examples in class always featured a woman to blame for something. The guys were always kings of the castle. (He also didn’t have any grace for people from broken homes and abuse survivors, but that’s for another post.)

I couldn’t wait for that semester to end. And remember, this was over a decade before I ever even heard of biblical equality, so any egalitarian thoughts didn’t exist in my head. I just recognized something was wrong with his teaching. I didn’t care if this man was considered the best at the school. He was impossible to handle.

Someone once told me that the divorce rate is higher than normal among people who graduated from the school. With that kind of one-sidedness being taught, not just in the bedroom but in the whole of marriage, should it be a surprise?

Comment by Tami

October 16, 2007 @ 1:48 pm

Those first couple of lines bother me. I agree that if God had intended certain things to be very clear, it seems logical that he would have made them so.

But take another that one would think crystal clear, for example: salvation. While most agree that salvation is a gift of the unmerited favor of God that we cannot buy, there are still some who use, in particular, the James passage to support a works-doctrine. Even this most basic message of the Scripture isn’t apparently crystal clear.

Why would we then assume that anything else, and despite my own passion for this subject, it is on the ‘everything else’ list rather than on the ‘essentials’ list?

That said, I like the thought you’re putting out. There is so much support, though indirect, for a relationship between men and women marked by mutuality and side-by-side-ness rather than by superior/inferior, one-over-the-other-ness.

Comment by michael

October 16, 2007 @ 2:13 pm

Hello y’all! I am researching biblical equality and need some help! I have been introduced to the concept by the Osborns, who are a part of CBE.

I come from a health/fitness background and I would like to use that metaphor to relate how I am approaching this ‘biblical equality stuff’ When my goal was to have great health and fitness (lots of energy, clear skin, athletic, and a certain body weight and body fat…) - instead of trying to read all the books by all the health experts that are equally smart and who all disagree… what I decided to do was to find some role models - people who had the health and fitness that I wanted - and I found out how they thought, what actions they took, what books they read, etc. and when I duplicated them, I got the same results. I found out many of the authors/doctors of these books did not live long energetic lives and did not have the fitness I wanted, so I didn’t listen to their advice.

Now I come from a ‘moderate complementarian/submission’ background - and I have a good feel for the rewards and challenges that exist in this model. Now what I am looking for is what the results/fruit/rewards are for a ‘CBE married couple.’ I am simple minded - If the CBE study of the Bible is on-target, then it’s common sense that the results/rewards ought to be better.

The Bible I read says stuff like: ‘a good tree has good fruit,’ ‘…know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,’ ‘…and Jesus said, believe me for the works/miracles sake,’ ‘I came that you might have life and have it more abundantly,’ and ‘the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, [etc.].’

Now if I see a CBE couple that has an extraordinary marriage, where both are empowered, both feel valued, both are better off because of the marriage, more peace, less stress, easier burden, lighter yoke, more happy and successful kids, more productivity in ministry, entire community strengthened because of strong families, etc.
then I will do what I did with health - I will voraciously read all the books, study, and put into practice the beliefs that make that marriage awesome!

Make sense? If it does, please tell me the name of a book or video or couple I can interview… so I can learn how the CBE model can produce rewards better than the ‘CBMW model.’

‘Be not slothful, but be imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.’ Amen!

Comment by tiro

October 16, 2007 @ 3:00 pm

Michael (see comment 71006), I suggest this woman and her husband, here. You can probably post a comment and ask them if they’d be willing to be interviewed by you.

Comment by Light

October 16, 2007 @ 3:38 pm

Michael, you can also look to some of Dennis Preato’s research. He looked at mega-studies of traditional (i.e. hierarchical) marriages and egalitarian marriages - literally tens of thousands of marriages over decades. The bottom line is that egalitarian marriages are happier, healthier, and more durable. Hierarchical marriages have more divorce. Sadly, atheist marriages are more stable than Christian hierarchical marriages!

You can find this article here. It’s the second article under the ‘Marriage’ heading.

It makes sense to me. A marriage that models God’s best is far more likely to endure than one that does not model God’s best.

Comment by sally

October 17, 2007 @ 2:31 am

Michael (see comment 71006), my experience may help.

I married a wonderful man more than ten years ago. We were young and the same age and approached everything as equals and together. As time went on, we began to notice that we had some problems. I couldn’t seem to work out what the difficulty was. I began to think about marriage a lot from what we were taught at church, and I heard a few things like, ‘respect him unquestioningly,’ ‘give him the last word,’ ‘don’t nag,’ and ‘submit to his leadership.’

I have always had a strong personality whereas my husband is quieter and takes more time to speak. I thought perhaps that was the problem - I was not being properly feminine and he was not stepping up to leadership, so I started to pull back, to try really hard to be quieter and to let him make all the decisions. It was a complete disaster. I ended up a very, very angry person. I felt I had lost myself and if this was how marriage was supposed to work, then I was the wrong person for it because I just didn’t fit the right framework for a ‘wife.’

You may be seeing that it didn’t seem to work well with the equal way we started out, but it didn’t work with the complementarian-type style either. That’s true. But we discovered ten years into our marriage that the cause of our problems (which were severe, including depression and sexual difficulties on my part) were because both of us had dysfunctional relating styles! He is passive-aggressive, and I tend to be co-dependent - exactly what a passive-aggressive man does not need!

It was a shock for us both to find this out and to adjust how we were living and loving together so that we weren’t both in pain. Really, the only way to live with a passive-aggressive man is to have very strong, loving boundaries, and to confront him on his (often unconscious) lying by telling the truth and not allowing your words to get twisted around. (Google passive-aggressiveness for more information if you’re interested.)

It was a hard adjustment, and I don’t think I could have made the necessary adjustments to set my boundaries and be the strong person he needed unless I had worked out that it was okay by God for me to be this way. I did struggle with some doubts as to whether me appearing to be ‘unsubmissive’ was really Christian or not, but I got over them as I studied more, and also as I saw just how much happier we both were!

An egalitarian marriage gives us the freedom to tell the absolute truth to each other, to hold out when we need to (and I have needed to – passive-aggressiveness is a very insidious characteristic) and to do the best by each other because we are interested in helping each other become more wholly and more healthily human, rather than fulfilling a ‘husband or wife role.’ We are a whole lot happier this year than we have ever been, because we understand ourselves and each other and we are committed to telling the truth in love.

Comment by Robin

October 17, 2007 @ 5:54 am

These two passages are two of my favorite regarding marriage because they focus on what spouses should ‘do’ rather than what spouses should ‘expect’ or ‘demand.’ I think that often we are so focused on what is our right in a certain situation that we often forget that the other part of right is duty (not really a bad word, after all). If both the husband and wife are focused on pleasing and serving the other, then God is pleased, and isn’t that the point?

I know that initially (years ago) I went into marriage expecting my husband to meet my needs. I was very disappointed and very angry. When I realized that my focus was all wrong, things changed. When I realized that marriage is a triangle where God meets my needs and I need to worry about ministering to and serving my husband, things began to quickly turn around.

Comment by Liz

October 17, 2007 @ 6:37 am

In response to Michael (see comment 71006), I would say that you are on the right track in wanting to see people who live out the principles of biblical equality. Since we live in Australia, it is a long way to come, but I pray you will find some couples near where you are in the United States who can demonstrate to you how appealing this lifestyle is. We have videos of a previous CBE marriage conference where couples spoke of their experiences. If you contacted CBE, they could point you in the right direction. We were privileged to be at one such conference a few years ago, and the freedom in fellowship was amazing as everyone had the liberty to be themselves without the pressure of being ‘watched or appraised’ We hope that our marriage of forty-one years is a testimony to the way of mutual submission. If you are able to visit Australia, you are most welcome!

Comment by Mary

October 17, 2007 @ 8:53 am

Wow, Sally (see comment 71126)… I couldn’t help but think as I read your description of what it takes to relate in a healthy way to a passive-aggressive person, that it’s not only a problem in marriage. Anyone who’s spent much time in churches, or online venues, can see that it applies just as well in other relationships.

I was also thinking that both parties have to want to have healthy communication. Setting and insisting on boundaries does no good if the passive-aggressive party won’t honor those boundaries. (Some passive-aggressive persons are stronger on the agressive when pressed about boundaries, I’ve found!)

But, at least in marriage there is (or should be) a strong motivation to make it work and desire a healthy relationship. Thanks again for describing how it works for you and your husband.

Comment by Wayne

October 17, 2007 @ 11:15 am

Important post. Helpful comments. I have linked to both at the Complegetarian blog, here.

Comment by Sue

October 17, 2007 @ 6:33 pm

Michael, I just wanted to say that there are probably a fair number of egalitarians such as Sally and myself who tried the patriarchal approach at some point in our marriage thinking it’s what God wants from us, and it ended up disastrous. When my husband and I stopped trying to impose an authority structure on what before our marriage had been a strong friendship, it made a dramatic difference in our relationship. We put our concentration on treating each other with love and respect. My husband says he would never want to go back to the other way. That’s what makes us so passionate about our beliefs. It’s hard when some Christians say egalitarians just don’t want to do God’s will or they don’t respect the Bible or they have a spirit of rebellion, etc. That’s just not what’s in our hearts at all.

Comment by LMcC

October 17, 2007 @ 7:48 pm

Sue (see comment 71183), I could have said a lot of that about my husband and I when we were dating. We started dating while we were both complementarians (but neither of us knew that). Some difficult situations almost ended our relationship. No matter how hard I tried to be the good, unilaterally submissive Christian woman, things got worse and worse. When I discovered biblical equality, he claimed not to have a problem with it but actually fought the change every step of the way. Once he realized I was serious about my newfound faith changes and wasn’t going back to the way things were, he started to accept me as I was and change his own life for the better as well. He even quit the ‘I’m the man’ appeals when he realized they no longer worked.

The difference in both of our lives is like night and day. He’s still not what I’d call an openly committed egalitarian yet, but he is a practical one. He lives as egalitarian, and he even quoted Ephesians 5:21 in the wedding ceremony; but he has some friends who are more assertive than he is who will give him problems if they discover how my beliefs differ from theirs. For his sake, I do not make a big deal about biblical equality around them, and they haven’t noticed the CBE pin yet. I just keep telling him that it takes more courage to marry an egalitarian and live as one in Nashville than it does to follow the crowd.

So are we rebellious and turning against God? No. We’re both more secure in who we are in Christ. We aren’t jumping through the hierarchal hoops trying to cram ourselves into ill-fitting ‘roles.’ We are free to love each other, care for each other, and do what we need to do for the sake of our marriage without worrying if it’s ‘manly’ or ‘womanly’ enough. I can’t imagine how much more work a hierarchal marriage would be, especially for two people who don’t fit the traditional molds at all. We can just be ourselves and bring everything we are into the marriage.

Comment by Liz

October 18, 2007 @ 1:05 am

Hi Sally (see comment 71126), thanks for sharing your very personal story. It is encouraging to hear how your firmness (in love) brought fruit and good times for you both. So often wives won’t take a firm stand because they are afraid (sometimes with good reason) and fear rejection but many husbands will respond well and it’s all about what is best for the two of you. It can’t be good for a marriage for a wife to always be hesitant and complying even when she knows some things are not the best or even totally wrong. Each partner in a marriage needs to respond to what God is prompting us to do and trust him to work out the results in the partner’s life.

Comment by fjs

October 18, 2007 @ 8:33 am

We are in the process of moving from a traditional marriage to an egalitarian marriage. We both hold an egalitarian position but are learning to work that out in the context of daily life. It’s very challenging and requires that we both grow, both give and receive, and that we both grow spiritually and emotionally.

We are learning to share with one another what our hopes, dreams, and desires are in relation to God, work and call… to communicate to one another the emotional/physical needs we each have with one another.

Under the former model… daily life was prescribed for us by an authority figure representing God. We were commanded to do particular things deemed right by that authority. And a particular authority determined what our needs were according to their take on what Scripture prescribed.

Now we are invited to engage with God and one another and live out kingdom ethics in the context of our own relationship. It necessitates that we each become whole, holy people intimately acquainted with the Holy One - who is our new model. It is he of whom Scriptures speak and the One who reveals what living in the kingdom is like.

Comment by tiro

October 18, 2007 @ 10:46 am

Well said, FJS (see comment 71226).

Living the traditional model that is all mapped out, divided and segregated leaves the soul hidden within each person’s prescribed box along with all the troubles dealing with the boxed roles. When one can just be themselves then both can better related to each other and God. Life becomes real.

I’ve watched different couples living the prescribed role models and feel sorry for their hidden pains. They think no one sees, but some of us do. So often when a few words are mentioned, or a subject comes up that causes them to realize someone sees, they quickly change the subject just like running away in fear, usually turning their face away as well. I wonder what will it take for them to want freedom from God.

Comment by Mary

October 18, 2007 @ 10:52 am

That’s one of the inherent problems with patriarchy, I think, Tiro. It makes the human ‘authority figures’ who impose patriarchy onto the Christian faith more immediately important to people than God. By this, I mean that if they were to buck patriarchy, they’ve been taught that they’re bucking God. This gives the human authors of the system more power to control their lives than they permit God to have.

But God is a God of miracles. Sooner or later, if they’re in the least bit willing to follow the more excellent way, God will break through and they’ll understand the truth.

Comment by LMcC

October 18, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

My husband has ADD and is extremely shy. I’ve always had to be independent by necessity, and my home and financial skills are much better than his. I owned the home before we even got married, and he moved in with me after the wedding. We start out not fitting traditional ‘roles.’

The way I see it, we could have done marriage three ways:

If we tried to go the traditional route, we’d be in a mess and I’d be powerless to fix it. There are some things he just cannot do, and I wouldn’t be allowed to teach him under many forms of patriarchy. Even if I were allowed to do so, I’d have to do it in a way that wouldn’t ‘threaten his manhood.’ If unintentionally using a wrong word or phrase while teaching him the books would cause that much damage, how could I look up to him as a leader when I know my femaleness is not that fragile? No, thanks.

We could do the pseudo-traditional route: We could look all traditional on the outside while I pulled all the strings. He’d have to look in charge, and I’d have to look like I’m not in charge. I’d have to be ‘the neck that turns the head.’ Uh, no. That involves manipulation, and I cannot manipulate anyone even if I wanted to. It would be living a lie to talk traditional sex roles in public and do something different at home. He’d have no incentive to learn to improve home and financial skills. Again, no thanks.

Instead, we do what works best for us: He’s more the homebody behind the scenes, and I’m more the go-getter and planner. We divide up responsibilities by who’s better at something and/or who can take care of it first. Sometimes it falls along normal sex-based lines. Sometimes it doesn’t. We don’t care either way. When the chance arises, I try to teach him some of the home management skills he would need if something were to happen to me. Some might call that control on my part. I call it instruction so either of us will eventually be able to take care of business when the need arises. The issue is never ‘who’s in charge?,’ but ‘what has to be done?.’ It’s not authority, it’s not control, it’s working together with all of our strengths toward the common goal of making a home and family.

Comment by Light

October 18, 2007 @ 5:19 pm

The issue is never ‘who’s in charge?,’ but ‘what has to be done?.’

E-zactly! And in a good marriage, the follow up question is, ‘How can I best help accomplish this? How can I support the mission?’ In my marriage, if it has to do with health issues, I’ll take the lead. If it has to do with planning vacations, my husband will lead. And so on and so forth. The other one willingly follows, because we know the other person is better at it, knows what needs to be done and why and how. In a mature Christian marriage, there is no room for ego or position.

Comment by Liz

October 18, 2007 @ 8:12 pm

I have just loved the recent posts about what egalitarian marriage looks like - the practical issue of everyday. Thanks for writing so clearly. Maybe comments like these will give many couples the confidence to go ahead and try living as best friends and share the excitement of discovering each other.

Comment by Sue

October 19, 2007 @ 7:32 am

In reference to Liz’s comment 71272, can two people be best friends if one claims authority over the other?

Comment by leigh

October 19, 2007 @ 3:54 pm

LMCC (see comment 71246), I am so glad that you mentioned the ‘pseudo-traditional route’ and manipulation.

Even when a husband and wife are genuinely trying to operate within a ‘headship’ model, I believe manipulation comes into play, as there is no other way that the woman can have any power in the relationship.

I’m not going to be satisfied with the way that I am wording this, as obviously ‘who has power’ is not the point of a marriage relationship.

Since the wife can see, in some situations, that her options are to express herself until her husband ‘decides’ that the couple are going to do it his way anyway, or to be more subtle and possibly get her way in the end; sometimes she will choose the latter.

I don’t understand how the situations created by believing that the wife is the only member of the marriage who has to submit can be viewed as loving. Unilateral submission of one party to another does not lead to real relationship, in my opinion, for many reasons - not the least being that the person in control can simply cut the conversation/discussion/relating off short. Some would argue that this is merely poorly practiced headship.

Comment by LMcC

October 19, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

Leigh (see comment 71307): Thanks!

Even though I know others at my old church were able to control their husbands through manipulating the daylights out of them, I never learned how to it. It’s not part of my mindset or my nature. I’m too direct. Maybe if I were a successful neck-type, I’d still be in hierarchy because it really wouldn’t affect me negatively as far as I could have been able to tell. But… I can’t do it, hierarchy was bad news, and I’m out of there.

Your last paragraph is dead-on. If I asked a hundred married Nashville women how to finish a particular sentence, they’d all give almost the same answer. The sentence is ‘I’m the man, and…’

Would the answer be along the lines of…

1. I love my shiny new power tools?

2. I’m supposed to love my wife as Christ loved the church, so I’m taking her to a special dinner tonight?

3. what I say goes!

No chance for reason, no chance for compromise, no chance to stop a very big mistake. So much for ‘best friends,’ ‘lovers,’ and ‘partners.’ Rank pulled, unity broken.

Comment by leigh

October 19, 2007 @ 7:25 pm

Thanks!

You know, it struck me that the other side of the situation that doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to (to be equitable) is that the husband is probably guilty of sometimes making up his mind about a situation before talking with his wife. This includes deciding that they are going to do what he thinks is best, regardless of what she has to say.

So then he just goes through the motions of listening to her…

Comment by tiro

October 19, 2007 @ 7:44 pm

See comment 71325.

That is exactly what happens. Heard it said too many times. The temptation is just too great. If there’s no law against it, and they can do it, and the woman lets men do it… then few will go the harder route. And that is where patriarchy falls apart in real ‘one flesh’ unity.

Comment by Liz

October 19, 2007 @ 10:41 pm

Talking of best friends (see comment 71293), I have a wonderful piece by Patti Ricotta which poses the hypothetical of two friends (not married) where one assumes that for the health of the relationship it is best if she/he takes the lead. I use it a lot to illustrate the nonsense of this way of working but it’s amazing how people think that it’s somehow different once a couple are married. Why should things change just because you are now related sexually. Now this is another good topic for a thread! By the way, if anyone wants a full copy of the fictitious scenario, please e-mail me.

Comment by Christy

October 20, 2007 @ 7:35 am

No matter how kind a husband naturally is (as is mine), when he is expected to always be the leader (regardless of his giftings), he begins to relate to his wife as a dependent in need of constant supervision (a half child/half adult.) The ’submissive’ wife also falls into this role, either resenting the perpetual overlording/supervision (producing internal anger) or learning to work around it (manipulation). Such interaction is very destructive to a relationship between two mature adults.

Comment by Christy

October 20, 2007 @ 8:41 am

Just to clarify… a parentally supervised teenager should be subject to his or her parents until independent adulthood is developed. This is to protect that child until he or she is experienced enough to protect themselves. Rebellion against this kind of godly authority commonly produces internal anger and/or manipulation on the part of the teenager. However, because this supervision is designed to protect the welfare of the child, when that child openly rebels, he or she often comes to harm.

But in a patriarchal marriage, supervision is not used as a tool to protect the immature until maturity is attained. Instead its use perpetually quenches the mature to conform to the state suited only for the immature. Patriarchalists even use the same arguments that are used for having parental supervision over teenagers to justify the subjugation of wives. God supposedly designed it for the wives’ own good and protection. They warn that to rebel against it will lead to great harm. Obviously, these two situations are not comparable unless one also assumes that adult women are perpetually immature.

Also, in describing how a wife might react to being quenched as a mature adult, she may gradually disconnect from her own adult personhood by relinquishing to others all personally reasoned thought and personal accountability. She begins to live passively, disengaged from herself.

Comment by fjs

October 20, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

Well said, Christy. That was my experience to some degree. I wish complementarians could grasp that.

An egalitarian view was the scriptural backbone I needed to begin to take self-responsibility. Prior things got so confusing about what I should take responsibility for and how I needed to submit. Then a bucket full of emotions. Torment. Enmeshment. Fear of God’s wrath. Lots of unhealthy stuff. I could never return to that way of living.

Comment by Mary Ann

October 23, 2007 @ 3:03 pm

Wow, great insight, Liz! I had never really looked at these verses in that light before. But you’re right! Both husband and wife are called to please one another - there’s no inequality or hint of sole authority of one above the other.

Adding to everyone else’s story - my husband and I also attempted the hierarchical pattern for marriage at the beginning. (This was before we had done any real study of the Scriptures regarding this issue.) It did not work. The problem with having ‘assigned’ roles in marriage is that it becomes very much so a 50/50 marriage. It’s like you’re making a deal, ‘If you do this, then I will do that.’ When you don’t do that, then I get upset and complain, ‘Hey, that’s your job!’

I know of a couple who had sat down and defined their roles and tasks and responsibilities at the beginning of their marriage. (He would be the leader, she would be the follower. He’d take care of the car and finances, she’d cook and clean.) Everything went along fine until she was pregnant. Then she was physically unable to fulfill all those tasks - and yet, he still expected her to keep the house spotless and cook all the meals. Needless to say, they went through a lot of tension during this time. It was a lot of ‘that’s your job’ - which I don’t think is a good picture of what Christ meant when he called all his followers to have a heart of a servant and to be servant of all.

My husband and I sat down and wrote some ‘rules’ too. Except they were the opposite of the aforementioned couple:

Marriage is not about giving 50/50, but 100/100. We must give 100% of ourselves.

When we serve the other, we are not just serving the other, we are really serving the ‘us.’

We should never keep a record of wrongs or of rights (i.e. Once we’ve reconciled and forgiven each other for an issue, let’s not bring it back up again. And just because I do x, y, z does not mean that you must do a, b, c - in order to even the score or ‘make things fair’ - and vice versa.)

Marriage is not about fairness but oneness.

Our motto is not, ‘How much can I get away with not doing’ but ‘How much help can I offer and how many ways can I serve the other?’

‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ applies especially to your spouse.

Housework is a shared responsibility. It’s not one person’s responsibility (i.e. wife) and the other is ‘helping her out.’ We are helping the ‘us’ out by keeping the house in order.

‘Helper’ or ‘helpmate’ does not mean ‘junior assistant’ or a subordinate but means a companion equal to Adam, given as a gift, specifically to work together with him as his equal partner.

A wife is a wife; she’s his wife, not his mother, not his maid, not his housekeeper.

We are leaving behind the way our parents did things and the way the world does things and cleaving to each other - establishing a family and a way of doing things in the way God would lead us.

No complaining about housework. Nobody likes housework, nobody. But it’s so much more fun when we do it together with a cheerful heart and servant attitudes (Philippians 2:14-15).

We need to do whatever it takes to make things works for us as a family. If you see a need, then fill it. Rather than saying, ‘But that’s your job,’ say, ‘Let me do it for you, I volunteer, I choose to serve.’ It’s ‘our job,’ ‘for our sakes.’

Appreciate, affirm one another. Be each other’s number one fan! ‘I am with you, heart and soul.’

Respecting each other and our marriage means not slandering, ruining each other’s reputations, pointing out our spouse’s negatives/weaknesses or ‘airing out our dirty laundry’ in front of others, and it means refraining from passive-aggressive sarcasm or snide remarks which would cut each other down. (Sarcasm is a joke at the expense of another.)

Headship means sacrificial servanthood. Submission means yielding to the heart of a servant. And the key to marriage is Ephesians 5:21 - both submitting, yielding to one another.

Comment by Trevor

October 23, 2007 @ 8:47 pm

Thanks Mary Ann for your comment (71711). As I was reading down through the previous posts I was thinking to myself, knowing of your experience, that it would be good to see your story elaborated here - and there it was. I couldn’t agree with you more in your closing remarks about, ‘refraining from passive-aggressive sarcasm or snide remarks which could cut each other down. (Sarcasm is a joke at the expense of another.)’ For me personally it is one of the more distasteful things that I’ve experienced among complementarian associates.

It really bothers me that proponents of headship often speak unkindly of their spouses and think nothing of repeating mother-in-law jokes or indulging in careless gender banter. To add insult to injury we egaliarians are often accused of being disobedient to the plain teaching of Scripture in respect to the roles of men and women and yet, in this area I think that we behave in a far more Christ-honoring way.

My desire for mutuality in marriage encourages me to consider the other person and think before I speak or do something and, when I do slip up, to be quick to own that unacceptable comment or behavior and seek the forgiveness of my wife, or any other person to whom I may have been offensive. This whole scenario seems to me to be first base when it comes to right living in community, meaning the church. For me, the working out of our relationships within marriage are a necessary precurser to harmonious living in all other relationships. If we can’t get it right there then the truth is that we may well have failed everywhere. What I mean is, failed as a servant of Christ. Now there’s a sobering thought!

Comment by Donna

November 3, 2007 @ 5:38 pm

It really bothers me that proponents of headship often speak unkindly of their spouses and think nothing of repeating mother-in-law jokes or indulging in careless gender banter.

Are you equally offended when women make sarcastic remarks about men? Our culture is increasingly given to painting men in a very bad light. Are you bothered by sexist jokes aimed at males?

This is an equality test I guess.

Comment by Donna

November 3, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

Surely these two sets of verses would have been ideal opportunities to state roles of husbands and wives if that had been Paul’s intention and belief.

How do you define ‘wife’ and ‘husband?’ What are the differences between the two besides the obvious physical ones? Are there any differences between a wife and a husband that go beyond mere physicality?

Comment by tiro

November 4, 2007 @ 10:16 am

See comment 71755.

My desire for mutuality in marriage encourages me to consider the other person and think before I speak or do something and, when I do slip up, to be quick to own that unacceptable comment or behavior and seek the forgiveness of my wife, or any other person to whom I may have been offensive.

This is an attitude far more common in those who believe mutual respect is due all humans (until proven otherwise). Perhaps when we truly consider another equal in value we finally see that we want to treat them as we want to be treated.

There is a thread of disdain, even hatred, resorting to extreme mockery, falsely accusing, making of inaccuracies, even outright lying that often bothers me about those claiming traditional patriarchal gender hierarchy. It seems they think that because they have the ‘right’ ordering, that this entitles them to stand above and look down on others who don’t hold the same opinions.

And yet, it has been my experience that finding truths in God’s Word tends to cause one a certain humbleness that gives more mercy and grace to others instead of less. And really if anyone is going to convince anyone else of truth, I believe it must come from such a place of humility.

Comment by LMcC

November 4, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

See comment 72749.

You got that right!

I was looking through an old Bible (okay, I bought it pre-biblical equality, so it’s not old old, but you get the idea). I look back through it at the hierarchal footnotes and get disgusted at the attitudes displayed toward women. Even when the footnote writer had to admit a woman did something in leadership, he had to tear her down. When, for example, he had to admit (through gritted teeth and with much pain, I’m sure) that Deborah was a prophet, he had to make sure to mention that there were two false women prophets as well, just to make sure other women didn’t get ideas. Did he do the same at the mention of a male prophet? No. He even found a way to make Adam look noble at the Fall while making Eve seem like she was completely evil. How much work did that one take? I was disgusted with myself for believing what I had been taught.

If these patriarchal attitudes were really so godly, the footnote writer wouldn’t have to whitewash Adam’s actions or tear down Deborah’s. If patriarchy is so great, there’s no need for a man to cut down a sister in Christ.

I’m sure hierarchal men would not take kindly to their faith and ministries being minimized or discredited improperly. I know I would not accept it if someone tried to treat my husband or brother that way! Yet… oh, a woman is involved? No respect given, none deserved. But of course they’ll still say men and women are equal!

On the other hand, when the ministry field is leveled and the opportunities are there for all, there’s no need for cutting down those who are ‘different.’ There’s no need for disdain, false accusations, egos, lying, etc. It’s easier for men and women alike to be Christlike in all ways. The humility and submission come naturally, without a struggle. The love is just there. Peace shows up. Those willing to give biblical equality a chance, as opposed to going in negatively biased and looking for a fight, will see that it works.

Comment by Liz

November 5, 2007 @ 4:07 am

Donna (see comment 72705), I’m not sure why you asked the question about my definitions of ‘wife’ and ‘husband’. I was quoting the words of the apostle Paul so it would be best to look at how he would define the words. At the time of writing 1 Corinthians, marriages were largely marriages of convenience to raise legitimate children, so Pauls’ admonition to consider each others ‘rights’ would have been most unusual.

Wives were considered mere extensions of their husbands and easily discarded.

In the second passage I quoted, the thought of being preoccupied with pleasing the other partner would also have been a new way of looking at marriage in that setting. We must always read these instructions of Paul’s in context of other passages of Scripture and bearing in mind the conventions and customs of the time.

Your other question about ‘difference’ I would answer that God does not describe ‘difference’ but Genesis talks about the fact that both humans were made in the image of God and that they were of the same bone and flesh, just made male and female so they could enjoy each other and make new people.

Comment by Trevor

November 7, 2007 @ 7:14 am

In response to your questions Donna (see comment 72704), the short answer to both questions is yes, I am equally offended when women make sarcastic comments about men. And, I am bothered by sexist jokes aimed at males. I would have to add this rider, that I have never experienced such humor from a woman (or a man) that I’ve known to be an egalitarian and genuinely concerned for equality. Also, as a male, naturally I’m more familiar with comments that men make to other men about women. It is assumed that everyone feels the same. My usual response is to state clearly, ‘I’ll pretend that I didn’t hear that,’ and let the person figure out where to go with it from there. Which brings up a question of my own. If hierarchy is so right and God ordained, why is it that some men and women of that persuasion feel duty bound to continue to joke about one another in this way? Is it that, in reality, they feel awkward about the forced relationships and have to make light of it?

I guess that I just passed the equality test.

Comment by Terri

November 7, 2007 @ 7:59 am

After reading comment 72755, I remembered a site that I visited a while ago called momof9splace.com (I never went back). Some friends of mine had commented on it so I took a quick peek. Her take on women in leadership was far from complimentary to say the least. There was one article that I read and I never forgot the principle that was put forth about so-called women leaders. I suppose like the one poster said earlier, some preachers just don’t know what to do with Deborah. There is really no satisfactory way to discredit her, because her ministry as a judge and prophetess was done in accordance to Gods leading and produced forty years of peace for Israel thereafter. What she did was to isolate Deborah’s service in Judges 4, 5 and connect it to the very last verse in Judges 21 (verse 25 - ‘In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes.’). She did not deal with the judges in sequential order nor did she condemn any other of the judges as being false, just Deoborah. It amazed me how she took that last verse out of its context which had been dealing with the Benjamite’s wife stealing of the daughters of Shi-loh and applied it to Deborah’s judgeship of the nation of Israel to implicate her as a false prophetess and judge. The Bible never alludes to any wrong doing or disobedience on the part of Deborah (unlike Samson) but that does’nt gain her any respect or honor from the majority of male and some female Bible expositors of our day.

And we can say what we want but, it is true that the great women of the Bible have been marginalized and criticized just by virtue of thier gender alone. I can say this because Deborah did nothing and said nothing out of the will of God (because the Bible never says that she did) and we must go by that. The favorite quote that they like to apply to Deborah is, ‘God just couldn’t find a man so he had to use a woman.’ I think everybody has heard that one before.

Comment by LMcC

November 7, 2007 @ 10:19 am

See comment 72870.

I hate seeing and hearing what happens to Deborah in churches. I know what I grew up with, and some things being taught now are even worse. The whole ‘God couldn’t find a man’ line is completely wrong. For one thing, Deborah was married to a man named Lappidoth. He had to have a lot of courage and strength himself not to stand in the way of what God was clearly doing through his wife, and/or maybe he was doing great things on his own that Scripture doesn’t mention. In any event, he was there. Barak had to be imported from another district of Israel, but God could easily have brought him in without Deborah if her leadership was supposedly so sinful. Surely among the men and women coming to Deborah for advice had to be one man God could have used instead (the Bible never says Deborah only worked with women). I’m sure God had plenty of men to work with, but He wanted Deborah; and he blessed Deborah’s obedience with forty years of peace. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Using the verse in Judges 21 to discredit Deborah is nothing short of perversion of Scripture by distorting the context. The events of Judges 21 took place at least 100 years after Deborah’s rule, long after she and many judges following her had passed away and society had changed. For comparison, imagine applying description of our modern public school system to the schools back in the 1920s or 1930s. The teachers and principals of those days are long gone, and the schools and society have changed drastically. The descriptions would be inaccurate and misleading, not even talking about the same people, and would misrepresent the older generations completely. But it’s okay to do that to a servant of God who just happens to be a woman (shakes head)?

Comment by Mary Ann

November 7, 2007 @ 12:07 pm

I know we’re getting off topic now, sorry Liz, but since we are on the topic, maybe someone can add to my understanding regarding Deborah. About a year ago, there was a great deal of debate on my blog dealing with women and the idea of ‘teaching.’ One of the complementarian guys wrote these comments which I never knew how to respond to:

Something to think about: In Judges, Israel lived in a period where even the appointed judges just kept getting worse and worse. They became more cowardly and wicked. It got to the point where God raised up Deborah to do the job that the guys were totally botching up (please finish reading before you call me a bigot). After hand-holding Barak into battle, Deborah says, ‘the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will hand Sisera over to a woman.’ This is not a way of saying, ‘Look, even a girl can do a better job than you.’ But it was said to rebuke the guys for not stepping up to the positions of authority and leadership that they were supposed to hold. Perhaps this says something about how God operates when men aren’t stepping up.

The Deborah passage is more tricky, yes. It’s a narrative and exegetical approaches change. There is a downward spiral in the sequences of judges. Contrary to what is often taught in Sunday School, Gideon was pretty cowardly to keep asking God for signs, when God already ordered him to go out and fight. The last judge is the Nazarite long-haired dude, who broke all the Nazarite vows, slept around with Gentile women and ended up dying a shameful death as he killed the Philistines. There is a strong sense to the anomaly of Deborah’s role in all this. Put yourself in a Jewish male’s shoes, when you read about a woman hand-holding a warrior into battle. Deborah’s statement about the honor going to a woman is a pretty blatant rebuke at Barak’s cowardice. Why would she mention a victor’s gender, if that wasn’t part of her point?

Thoughts?

Comment by LMcC

November 7, 2007 @ 12:49 pm

See comment 72879.

Deborah was an early judge, and Barak is listed in the ‘faith hall of fame’ in Hebrews. That guy’s argument fails miserably and way too easily.

Pulling this somewhat back to topic while staying with Deborah: her husband was clearly there. Was he a godly man? If he had been and Deborah was right, it took courage to stay out of God’s way and accept a wife with a strong presence. If he were godly and she was wrong, he would have stepped up and stopped her. If he were ungodly, he would have put a stop to her public activities regardless of whether she was right or wrong in order to save face and keep his pride intact. Somehow, when it comes to women doing anything outside the norm, I find no room for apathy for Lappidoth (or any other man) in any situation.

Assuming that Deborah and Lappidoth were both godly people since Scripture does not indicate otherwise, I’m sure that she had to do a lot to make sure Lappidoth could trust her to be faithful to him, and I’m sure he had to have a lot of humility and trust in God and in her for her to be free to judge as she did. It’s a shame we don’t know more about Lappidoth, because I can’t see how Deborah could have had the freedom to do as she did in her culture without his support.

Comment by Watcher

November 7, 2007 @ 1:39 pm

Mary Ann, you’ve hit on a nerve for me in your comment (72879).

The first church I went to, where I was originally saved, taught it this way - that Barak asking Deborah to go with him was, in essence, asking her to hold his hand. And I accepted it because I didn’t know any better.

The first question I would ask anyone who puts this forth is, ‘If the system of the Judges was deteriorating so bad, why was God so angry with Israel for asking for a king?’ When Israel demanded a king, Samuel was their last judge. And, God specifically told Samuel that Israel was not rejecting Samuel, but God himself. The judge system was the way God wanted it to be, and He did it the way he wanted it and raised up judges as he saw fit. He raised up a coward, Gideon, and made him a mighty man of valor.

Anyway, I digress.

I did a deep and thorough study on the alleged ‘hand holding’ Scripture more recently to question that earlier teaching. I used the King James Version and my Strong’s Concordance and worked out the exact meaning of nearly every word in that passage. Unfortunately, I’m at work now. I don’t have my Bible or notes, but I feel I want to share my findings and encourage others to search out the meaning on their own to see if what I’ve found makes sense to you.
When I did the word study, I found that that particular verse is actually very vague, and you had to twist things quite a bit to make it say that Barak was a coward and that God was displeased with him for asking Deborah to come along with him. Looking at that verse head on and twisting it quite a bit less, it could just as easily be made to imply that - even though Barak would so honor Deborah by asking her to come along, God was still going to give the victory into the hands of a woman. Because this is a woman’s story and would not be handed over to a man.

And I would add, that this could be taken to mean that just as God showed us that he could use the coward, Gideon, and make him a mighty man of valor, so also he can take a woman and, by his Spirit, have her rise up to a place of leadership. To me, the story of Deborah is God’s stamp of approval that, yes, God does move mightily through women. And yes, this is a stumbling block to many.

Those of you who wish to study this one your own, I suggest that you also look up the meanings of the names of Deborah’s husband and Barak. I can’t remember what both of them meant, but at least one implied ‘light’ or ‘enlightened’ and the other meaning was just as profound, as in, these men were no ordinary men of their time. They were quite exceptional men to allow God to move in this woman and to set the example to the men under them that, yes, God indeed is working through a woman this time.

But please, do not take my word for it. Get your King James and Strong’s Concordance and see what you come up with.

Comment by LMcC

November 7, 2007 @ 2:09 pm

See comment 72881.

Great post! Hadn’t thought about the judges that way before.

I was first taught that Deborah and Barak were co-judges. Only later did I get exposed to the nasty stuff people said about Deborah. Even back in my bad old complementarian days (shudder), I knew Deborah didn’t deserve to be trashed.

I did a quick name search with an online Strong’s. Lapidoth was ‘torches’ and Barak was ‘lightning’ or ‘lightning flash,’ both names associated with light. We don’t think much of name meanings today generally, but names were important and had a lot of meaning. Torches could supply useful light and warmth, and we all know about the power of lightning. These men had good names.

Comment by Watcher

November 7, 2007 @ 2:52 pm

LMCC, no, Deborah doesn’t need to be trashed and neither does Barak. He was not a coward. He didn’t need a mother figure to hold his hand. He was wise to recognize the vessel God chose to use at the time. Plus, he was far more interested in the deliverance of Israel than whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Wait, I mean, whether it’s lawful for God to move through a woman. Wait again, I really mean, whether God chooses to move through a woman.

Thanks for pointing this out about Barak being in the faith hall of fame. I’m definitely going to remember that one.

Neither he nor Deborah deserve to be put down. They both lived good and honorable lives before God and need to be remembered for their faith and obedience.

Comment by Donna

November 7, 2007 @ 8:03 pm

In response to your questions Donna (see comment 72704), the short answer to both questions is yes, I am equally offended when women make sarcastic comments about men.

Hey, Trevor, thanks for your response. I appreciate that. Yes, I agree.

And, I am bothered by sexist jokes aimed at males.

Good for you.

I would have to add this rider, that I have never experienced such humor from a woman (or a man) that I’ve known to be an egalitarian and genuinely concerned for equality.

Actually, I have. That is why I asked. On the complementarian-egalitarian dialogue group there was quite a long thread at one time where the women made many sexist jokes about men. I was a little surprised, since these same women are terribly offended at the least little sexist insinuation when aimed at women. That’s why I ask. Maybe they were not concerned about equality?

We have had different experiences. However, I agree with you that cruel, sarcastic, sexist jokes are not appropriate.

Also, as a male, naturally I’m more familiar with comments that men make to other men about women. It is assumed that everyone feels the same. My usual response is to state clearly, ‘I’ll pretend that I didn’t hear that,’ and let the person figure out where to go with it from there. Which brings up a question of my own. If hierarchy is so right and God ordained, why is it that some men and women of that persuasion feel duty bound to continue to joke about one another in this way?

Well, I am not sure what you are talking about specifically. What I see in the media is joke after joke aimed at degrading males. Think Homer Simpson here. There are many other programs where men are presented as idiots. So if you give me a specific example of what you are talking about, then maybe I can respond.

Is it that, in reality, they feel awkward about the forced relationships and have to make light of it?

I doubt that.

I guess that I just passed the equality test.

Yes, you did, Trevor. I am not so sure about others on this blog! Even so, it is something we should be careful of. Men are human too, after all; we all bear the image of our creator.

No, I am not innocent, so I hope that you don’t think I am trying to say that I am lilly white.

Thanks for the dialogue, Trevor. You are a brave man. God bless, and please take care.

P.S. I appreciated your comments in the post about fathers.

Comment by Trevor

November 7, 2007 @ 8:12 pm

Responding to your comments, Mary Ann, regarding Deborah and the bad press she cops from complementarians. Thoughts? (see comment 72879).

Those remarks that you’ve cited in full are pretty standard stuff, unfortunately. I appreciated the research and responses of LMCC and Watcher by the way, all good and quite inspirational material. I would just like to add that here (the Deborah incident) is another classic case of a lot of extra biblical stuff being inserted into the text to make it fit a complementarian take.

Egalitarians are so often accused of being overly influenced by culture and context when it comes to interpreting some of the more difficult passages of Scripture. Here we have a passage that’s plain speaking but the plain sense is sanitized to make it fit the conclusion that God couldn’t possibly have used a woman so it must have been that no man would stand up. And, to add insult to injury to infer that Deborah’s leadership in this instance is allowed by God as a ’sissified’ rebuke to cowardly men. All conjecture, not to mention gender bashing! As has been rightly said, the text neither implies nor allows that.

When I was studying for the ministry the interpretive adage was, ‘if the sense of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.’ In this case, for us, as egalitarians, it’s no drama. We have no problem with God doing that, (i.e. using a woman to judge Israel and orchestrate a victorious battle). But for hierarchialists, who place leadership from women outside of God’s gifting and calling it’s a huge dilemma, one that requires an acceptable (to them) explanation. The offerings of which we have already noted above.

I only wish that they, complementarians, would own that they do their own fair share of Scripture twisting when it comes to what are for them, difficult passages. Difficult in the sense that they do not fit their interpretive paradigm. We (as egalitarians) are so often the ones who are left standing as accused and often times even branded as heretical for not taking a strictly literal reading of Scripture. That’s my biggest disappointment about this ongoing debate, the fact that you can’t dialogue and speak openly of these anomalies.

Comment by Liz

November 7, 2007 @ 10:47 pm

Donna, in your comment 72905 you said there had been a lot of sexist jokes aimed at men by egalitarians on that particular forum. I’m sorry you have had that experience. I have no idea whether those people were concerned about equality but I imagine they were or they wouldn’t have been participating in that forum.

That’s why it is so important for us all to speak after God has healed us of our hurt, anger, and bitterness toward other people, then we can speak more objectively about our experiences. We are all a ‘work in progress’ and at different stages of being conformed to the image of Christ.

Comment by fjs

November 8, 2007 @ 9:10 am

Regarding the comment about God not being able to find a mand so he used a woman, that has been said to me by a man who did not feel it was right for me to pastor a church. It was his way of accepting my role without actually validating it. It was the best he could do. I remember feeling mixed emotions. He had given up the fight against me for which I was grateful. But the feeling of being second choice, not God’s best for the church, an inferior choice because no one else was available left me feeling rather empty, sad and invalidated. It spoke volumes about the kind of God he understood.

Does God ever call a second best? Or does he just call another great choice?

Comment by tiro

November 8, 2007 @ 11:01 am

See comment 72928.

God knows us from the womb. In the very beginning God instills in us things he will use us to do when He calls us as He plans. It is impossible for God not to find someone he wants, because he creates us, he puts personality, gifts, skills he needs in us right at conception. In addition, what we are lacking he has the Holy Spirit to do with and through us.

Thus there is no second choice with God. We are always his first choice, just as he planned from the very beginning.

All the hoopla about Deborah being second-best is just woman bashing by the patriarchalist gender preference mind. I suspect though that some female patriarchalists don’t really believe it either. They just know that they need to keep exhorbitantly genuflecting the men in order to keep ‘in their place’ with their patriarchalist gang.

Comment by fjs

November 8, 2007 @ 4:33 pm

I agree Tiro, God doesn’t rank people, best or second-best. We are his creation, fit for his call. I believe that. The Deborah ambilvelence reveals our ambilvelence about women in ministry and leadership.

I think it is a human construct to rank people.

Comment by Donna

November 8, 2007 @ 6:24 pm

See comment 72913.

Donna, in your comment 72905 you said there had been a lot of sexist jokes aimed at men by egalitarians on that particular forum. I’m sorry you have had that experience.

Thank you, Liz. Yes, I did have bad experiences on that discussion group. Very bad ones. I appreciate your empathetic expression of goodwill.

I have no idea whether those people were concerned about equality but I imagine they were or they wouldn’t have been participating in that forum.

Liz, I had thought that, too. I have my doubts though. Sexism seems to go just one way for many. So does concern about abuse victims, especially when the abuser has been a female.

That’s why it is so important for us all to speak after God has healed us of our hurt, anger, bitterness toward other people, then we can speak more objectively about our experiences. We are all a ‘work in progress’ and at different stages of being conformed to the image of Christ.

Yes. I agree. We are all a work in progress. It is important to change, to recognize how we have hurt others, to seek forgiveness where we have offended, to try to make amends, and to accept apologies when offered.

No, we are not perfect. What we do after we have blown it shows whether or not we really understand. I think that Saul and David are a good example of that. Both of them failed God in many ways. It was what they did after they failed that showed what was really in their hearts.

Why do I participate on this blog? I’m not sure why. I think that I am a reminder that no one is perfect so we may as well just drop all the pretense. I think that for testimony’s sake we should and can try harder to dialogue in a reasonable way. We cannot change the past. I cannot make those who offended me admit to their offenses. I can own up to my own and seek peace where I can - and I have done that as best I know how. My conscience is clear. No, not because I am perfect, but because I am forgiven.

Also, I am interested in these topics. I believe in what Will is trying to do - provide a safe place for people from different sides of this issue to come and dialogue. He has shown me kindness. He has been gracious to me. I think that all of us can follow his example.

Liz, I understand the message you are trying to tell me indirectly. You are telling me that I am bitter and angry so I am not able to dialogue with you as I should. Maybe you are correct. However, if you are, then show me the more excellent way. Thank you for your time. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Trevor

November 8, 2007 @ 8:58 pm

See comment 72905.

Thanks for the ongoing dialogue, Donna. You made just one comment to which I need to respond.

Well, I am not sure what you are talking about specifically. What I see in the media is joke after joke aimed at degrading males. Think Homer Simpson here. There are many other programs where men are presented as idiots.

Donna, I was speaking from my own personal experience. Meaning actual people with whom I am in relationship within the Christian community. Liz and I have a wide ranging group of Christian friends and ministry colleagues spanning forty-plus years. It is from among this group that I made the assessment mentioned in my earlier comments. The majority of our friends and colleagues would still subscribe, albeit softly, to the hierarchialist position. So this is the exclusive sample group that I had in mind. I’m sure that you are right about the media portrayals, but Liz and I are not big on television watching, so I couldn’t comment on that. When I made the earlier comment I wasn’t thinking about secular attitudes and their sexist jokes at all, sorry. Blessings.

Comment by Liz

November 9, 2007 @ 1:59 am

Donna… in my post regarding people being in a better position to dialogue when they have been healed of bitterness, etc. I certainly wasn’t thinking of yourself. I have no way of knowing what things you have been through apart from your comments regarding another forum and I don’t know if you are bitter or angry, etc. I am not in the habit of saying things ‘indirectly’ as I like my ‘yes to be yes and my no to be no’ and if I can’t say something helpful I try to be quiet.

Comment by Donna

November 10, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

See comment 72966.

Donna… in my post regarding people being in a better position to dialogue when they have been healed of bitterness, etc. I certainly wasn’t thinking of yourself. I have no way of knowing what things you have been through apart from your comments regarding another forum and I don’t know if you are bitter or angry, etc. I am not in the habit of saying things ‘indirectly’ as I like my ‘yes to be yes and my no to be no’ and if I can’t say something helpful I try to be quiet.

Thank you, Liz, for your clarification. It seemed as though you were talking to me, since your whole comment was directed to me. I understand and accept your clarification.

I am a bit gunshy. However, as I said, when Will extended the olive branch, I took hold of it. He has not let me down and I don’t expect that he will. I appreciate good dialogue and believe that it is possible. I tend to learn more from those with whom I disagree, if we can do it in a way that is reasonable. For me, it is healing to do that, and a good testimony, in my opinion, of course. Thank you, Liz, for trying. I appreciate that. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Donna

November 10, 2007 @ 6:59 pm

Donna, I was speaking from my own personal experience. Meaning actual people with whom I am in relationship within the Christian community.

Thank you for your clarification, Trevor. That is why I asked you for specific examples.

I also shared that I don’t think this problem of coarse jesting - I’ll put that label on it - is exclusive to patriarchalists. I think that it is a problem in our society that is actually getting worse. What to do about it without losing our sense of humor altogether?

Thank you for your reasoned response, Trevor. God bless.

Comment by Richard

November 11, 2007 @ 10:53 pm

1. As part of the curse, God said (paraphrasing) ‘your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you.’

2. Paul proclaims that husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.

3. Deborah was a judge over Israel, but had a husband. How was she his judge if he was to rule over her?

4. Some women are ordained as pastors (shepherd of the flock) and their husbands sit in the congregation. (How then is the husband the head of the wife if she is his shepherd?)

How do we reconcile point three with point one? We must be able to because both are in the Bible. Can we reconcile point four with point two? Can we accept the fact that maybe Deborah’s husband ruled over her in every way implied by points one and two, and yet she was still free to be a judge of Israel? (If we cannot accept this fact, then we must conclude that the Bible lies.) How does a husband carrying out the implications of points one and two stop Deborah from being a judge of Israel? How does a wife being a pastor stop her husband from being her head? (Note that Paul says ‘I’ do not permit a wife to have authority over her husband. He did not say, ‘thus saith the Lord.’)

Why is everyone assuming that heirarchical rules out egalitarian? Who said they cannot co-exist? The Bible clearly shows that they do co-exist.

Comment by Richard

November 11, 2007 @ 11:11 pm

I have just recently stumbled upon these discussions. I have not read everything in all of the threads but I have read a lot, quickly. I may not be remembering correctly but I don’t think I have seen anywhere the acknowledgement that Christ is head of the husband - only that husband is head of the wife, and a tyrant to boot.

But, if husband is subject to Christ (because Christ is head of husband as husband is head of wife), and Christ says to wife ‘I want you to be a judge or a pastor,’ and Christ says this to husband also - isn’t husband obligated to obey Christ?

Heirarchical and egalitarian. Husband can rule over wife and be her head. But husband’s final authority over wife must give way to Christ’s authority over him and Christ’s plans for his wife. If wife is committed to Christ, God is going to use her. Because husband is subordinate to Christ’s headship over him, he cannot get in the way of God using his wife. Unless we want to accept that husband’s headship of wife means that he can tell God to leave his wife alone.

I don’t see how a man honoring God’s claim on his wife’s life, and that man living out the responsibilities to his wife implied in Points one and two above are mutually exclusive.

Comment by tiro

November 12, 2007 @ 1:44 am

Richard (see comment 73207), why is it important for you to hang onto the idea that a husband can rule over his wife? If a husband is of the opinion that he rules in his wife’s life, then he decides whether or not God is talking to his wife. And who is to say if he is right or wrong?

Comment by Liz

November 12, 2007 @ 6:04 am

Hi Richard - good to hear from you.

In your comment 73206, you quote what God said to Eve after she and Adam had sinned to make your point of a husband’s headship over his wife. Could you consider that this was a prediction of what would happen now that they were both not in their sinless state as at creation? And could you consider that part of the redemption that Christ attained is that women and men now have the potential to return to fellowship with God and each other without anyone ruling?

Also, where is the verse you quote of Paul saying ‘I do not permit a wife to have authority over her husband’

Comment by fjs

November 12, 2007 @ 8:15 am

Richard, I appreciate your desire to reconcile the story about Deborah and the other teachings in a more positive way than I have seen - in a way that seeks to affirm Deborah’s call to leadership.

CBE has a great article written by Walter Kaiser called Correcting Caricatures. Kaiser is an expert in evangelical biblical interpretation (I had to read his book in seminary) and wrote a fine article tracing the biblical teaching about women, including some of the passages you referenced. It is lengthy but very accurate and he deals with some of the reconciling of texts that you are examining.

The questions you raised are excellent and need to be examined because they do pose challenges to the headship issue. Please study more because there are many great ways of thinking such questions through. Usually when such questions are approached, and when one takes care to do the study… the Spirit yields much treasure.

Comment by fjs

November 12, 2007 @ 8:29 am

Richard, here is a link.

Comment by LMcC

November 12, 2007 @ 12:16 pm

See comment 73206.

As part of the curse, God said (paraphrasing) ‘your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you.’

That’s part of the curse, not part of the original design. It was also spoken to Eve. Adam was not told ‘rule this wicked and deceived creature’ at any point. Eve was being warned that the intimacy she and Adam shared before the fall would be gone, and that Adam would use her desire for that love against her. If a Christian man loves his wife and believes we are set free from the curse of sin, why would he want to perpetuate the curse for his wife?

Why would a godly and gifted mature Christian woman need a male ruler in the first place? What mental or other deficiency do women have that requires that they must be ruled by a man at all times? Do women never mature? Do women have less intelligence? Are women just hopelessly incapable of living life alone? For rulership to be necessary and good, there has to be a need for it. If it is not necessary, it is not good.

Worse, why would a grown man want to have to rule another adult for her entire life? There can be no true intimacy between the ruler and the subject. There is a gap that can never be crossed. Speaking as a married person myself, I know I would not want sexual union with someone who saw themselves as permanently above or below me because the emotional intimacy cannot be there. True intimacy in marriage can only exist between two equals. There would also be the worries of what this person who needs ruling might do if left alone. There couldn’t be any real trust given to the subject except for in areas of less importance than the ruler would handle himself.

At least when parents are raising children, they are training the kids to be independent and responsible adults eventually. If a woman requires permanent rulership, she can never reach true maturity.

Paul proclaims that husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.

Legally, the man did rule his wife in Greek culture. Paul transforms that ruling and controlling loveless headship into the sacrificial and elevating loving headship of Christ. A man loving his wife as his own body was unthinkable in those days because that meant elevating her to equality with him.

Deborah was a judge over Israel, but had a husband. How was she his judge if he was to rule over her?

So Lapidoth must have been the real judge? So much for the ‘no man available’ theory. I’m kidding on that one, but maybe Lappy had the good sense to realize that God called his wife and led both of their lives and didn’t worry about who was ruling what.

Some women are ordained as pastors (shepherd of the flock) and their husbands sit in the congregation. (How then is the husband the head of the wife if she is his shepherd?)

Hubby recognizes the call and trusts God and his wife for it, just like wives have to do when their husbands are called. Or do you think these men are really controlling the church behind the scenes?

Reconciling point one with all of the rest: male rulership is the curse, and not part of God’s real design for humanity. We were meant to live in unity and mutual submission, not in a two-tiered society. Through God’s grace, we are free to drop the worldly power structures and restore that unity. It’s not that hard.

See comment 73207.

I have just recently stumbled upon these discussions. I have not read everything in all of the threads but I have read a lot, quickly. I may not be remembering correctly but I don’t think I have seen anywhere the acknowledgement that Christ is head of the husband - only that husband is head of the wife, and a tyrant to boot.

I can answer this one from personal observation. When a man who believes in male rulership over women says ‘I am accountable to Christ,’ he really means that he is accountable to nobody for his actions toward women. These guys are free to treat their wives as badly as they wish because Jesus is not going to knock at their doors and stop them. Often, their pastors will actually know about the spousal abuse and send the wife back for more, which gives him a greater stamp of approval for his actions. This is why I believe in mutual submission and mutual accountability.

Also, do orphaned, single, and widowed women have no head? Can married women not go to Christ directly?

I believe that sexual hierarchy completely ignores sinful tendencies in men and exaggerates them in women. Men are seen as noble. They would never (or almost never) consider misusing their authority over their wives. Women are seen as trouble waiting to happen. They need to be constantly ruled and watched, or something bad might happen (yet these same women who are dangers to themselves and others are left to raise the children, go figure). These ideas don’t match reality. If sexual hierarchy as taught in churches really allowed for men to recognize that God could give women positions of power and honor it, I might have a better opinion of it today. I lived under hierarchy for thirty years and realize that there is no room for men who believe it to accept that God may make their wives rulers. It would overturn what they call ‘God’s order’ and corrupt society.

Trying to combine sexual hierarchy and biblical equality is like a guy introducing his wife to his mistress. It doesn’t work.

Comment by jlp

November 12, 2007 @ 5:24 pm

Richard, have you ever heard that many people believe that the word translated ‘head’ in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 3 had a metaphorical meaning of ’source’ or of ‘origin’ in the original Greek, rather than of ‘leader’ or ‘authority,’ as some believe?
Check it out here. Go to the section on Ephesians 5:23.

Comment by Richard

November 13, 2007 @ 3:02 am

I composed some lovely words that were pithy and to the point in response to the responses above, then clicked on the ’submit’ button. I had not typed in my name and e-mail, and got an error page. I lost what I had typed, because I did not submit properly. I’ll not try to reconstruct that response, but here is a brief overview.

Richard (see comment 73207), why is it important for you to hang onto the idea that a husband can rule over his wife?

Some of you got what I was doing with my questions. Some of you obviously didn’t - Tiro. (See comments 73206, 73207) I don’t think there is anything in the Bible that requires us to think that hierarchical and egalitarian are mutually exclusive. We were placed under the curse, the curse is still with us - it was not done away with at the cross (or have you women stopped having pain with childbirth yet?). Paul says ‘I’ do not permit - he does not say ‘thus saith the Lord’ (1 Timothy 2:12), so I think that it is dangerous to presume this is God’s view of how men and women should relate. The curse says ‘he will rule over you;’ the New Testament says the man is the head of the wife; but yet the husband is subject to Christ. Christ’s death means that he is our high priest, men and women go to him directly - wife does not get to God through her husband - yet he is her head, but he is subject to Christ as his head. =

All of the issues are much more complicated than most folks, including this thread, make them out to be. That was my point in the questions I asked. For example - to ask how could Deborah’s husband be head over her when she is judge of Israel was meant to point out that these two conditions did exist together at the same time. A woman being the shepherd of the flock while the man who is her head sits in the congregation does happen at the same time (assuming the woman is genuinely called of God to be pastor). These examples were presented to point out that, since these situations do exist simultaneously, there must be something more to what the Bible says than how many have interpreted it.

I am a fan of doing what works, of the sort that can be seen in the link presented here. I think the Bible supports that notion - particularly since God created us and should know what works. We need to pay attention to what the Bible says. We just need to be a bit more careful with the ‘what it means’ part.

Comment by tiro

November 13, 2007 @ 11:53 am

Richard, thank you for your response, comment 73265.

I am a fan of doing what works, of the sort that can be seen in the link presented here. I think the Bible supports that notion - particularly since God created us and should know what works. We need to pay attention to what the Bible says. We just need to be a bit more careful with the ‘what it means’ part.

That was well said. And I agree.

However, I did not entirely not understand you. I get that you believe that hierarchy and mutuality can co-exist, and I even agree to some degree. My question has to do with your interpretation of Genesis 3:16.

Of curses, we have the serpent and the ground upon which the serpent was to crawl. Nothing and no one else is cursed. Genesis 3:16 is neither a curse nor a commandment. God is speaking to the woman warning her of what is to come now that they are to live outside of the Garden and now that death has come upon them. God is not telling the woman that she must desire her husband (wrongly or rightly). Neither is God telling the male that he must harshly (mashal) rule over the woman, his wife. God never curses a human’s actions so that he must do that which is evil or wrong. There is a Hebraic pattern for stating curses which occurred in relation to the serpent and the ground, but which did not occur for God’s words to the woman.

Thus we are left with the fact that God’s words to the woman were not a curse and not a requirement. Death upon the earth and those that live upon it tends to bring these things: pain and harshness. Exactly what God meant when he said that the woman would suffer an increase in births and sorrows, I’m not sure. But not all women experience it. Equally, I am not certain (no one is) as to what God meant when He said that the man would harshly rule over the woman in response to her desires. But God was not requiring either, only saying that it would happen.

With that in mind, it is an encouragement to Christian men and women that redeemed from the curse of separation from fellowship with God, that they can redeem their own relationships and seek closer more intimate relationships rather than the divisiveness of inordinate adulations of various kinds and rulerships (dominations) of various kinds. Even a benevolent ruler is still a ruler and as such creates a distance rather than a melding of souls.

So my question, again, is why would you want to hang onto the idea that husbands are to rule over their wives? There is a better way in Christ… in my opinion.

Comment by jlp

November 13, 2007 @ 4:29 pm

Hey Richard, you said: ‘or have you women stopped having pain with childbirth yet?’ Medical science has done a lot to alleviate women’s pain in childbirth, just like science has done a lot to reduce men’s painful toil in the field. Not that this is a big issue, but God has allowed scientists to take some of the pain out of the fall.

Why don’t you also check out this site once again, here, and see what it has to say under 1 Timothy 2:12.

Comment by jlp

November 13, 2007 @ 4:39 pm

Richard, it’s me again. Some say that Genesis 3:16 is prediction rather than proscription. In other words, God is telling Adam and Eve what will happen as a result of the fall, not what his will is as a result of the fall.

Here’s another opinion on the verse. Linda Belleville in her book Women Leaders in the Church, page 107, says:

A plausible suggestion is to read the pronoun hu as ‘it’ (neuter), rather than ‘he’ (masculine). The wife’s desire will be for her husband, and ‘it’ (the desire) will rule her. This fits nicely with the context. It is also quite close to the wording of Genesis 4:7, ‘Sin’s desiring (tesuqa, same noun) is for you but you will master it (masal, same verb)’ (AT).

Comment by jlp

November 13, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

Richard, my third comment to you, sorry. Your question:

…to ask how could Deborah’s husband be head over her when she is judge of Israel was meant to point out that these two conditions did exist together at the same time.

Deborah’s husband was her head in the sense of ’source’ or ‘origin’ or ‘prominent,’ the most likely metaphorical meanings of head used in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5. Head in those verses did not mean ‘leader’ or ‘authority’ according to several Bible scholars that I have read.

Comment by tiro

November 13, 2007 @ 7:17 pm

Actually, when Deborah was leading Israel, no one thought of husbands as being head of or over their wives. In fact, I don’t think that particular metaphor was compared to husbands at that time.

A lot of hierarchical domination thinking seems to have risen up in the 400 years of prophetic silence just before Christ was born. Before that, there was patriarchal thinking because of the cultural times. It just wasn’t couched in terms of hierarchies. At least that’s the way I’ve been seeing it. Not sure exactly how accurate that is.

Comment by Donna

November 13, 2007 @ 8:16 pm

It’s me again. Some say that Genesis 3:16 is prediction rather than proscription. Anotherwards God is telling Adam and Eve what will happen as a result of the fall, not what his will is as a result of the fall.

Was God in control of the consequences of the fall? If he had a different will about it, why didn’t he express it at that time?

Comment by Mary

November 13, 2007 @ 8:23 pm

There are all kinds of sinful things that God is recorded in Scripture as not having prevented. The man presuming to dominate (rule over) his wife was just one of many of such sinful things. For God to have prevented sin would have prevented human beings from choosing not to sin. For reasons God does not disclose to us, God gives us the choice to sin or not. Far too often, especially when it comes to wielding power over other people, human beings choose sin over righteousness, hence our universal need for a Savior.

Comment by Mary

November 13, 2007 @ 8:27 pm

God is obviously not obligated to disclose in detail what the divine will is. It is enough that God never commanded any man to rule over/lead his wife. We are on very shaky ground to presume that God’s silence about not commanding such a thing gives freedom to sin in that regard.

Comment by jlp

November 14, 2007 @ 5:17 pm

Richard, I think you would enjoy the Kruse Kronicles, here.

You would probably enjoy discussing the questions you have with him. You can e-mail him.

Comment by Watcher

November 18, 2007 @ 9:05 am

LMCC stated in comment 73241:

I believe that sexual hierarchy completely ignores sinful tendencies in men and exaggerates them in women. Men are seen as noble. They would never (or almost never) consider misusing their authority over their wives.

Along these lines and in refering back to trashing Deborah, Barak, and every breathing, adult male of their day, basically calling them all cowards for having to rely on a woman’s leadership, I want to address the trashing of Sarah over Abraham that went on on another thread as further example of this.

I won’t get into the details except that it was mentioned that God encouraged Abraham to obey the voice of his wife and send Ishmael away. I’ll not debate on whether egalitarians can use this as a proof text or not but rather point out the outrage a couple of visiting complementarians had with this verse.

They went into tirades over Sarah’s sin of lack of faith concerning the promised child and how she blew it beyond reason for ever suggesting such a faithless thing as Abraham producing a child through Sarah’s maid.

They forget (or perhaps never understood) that Sarah was actually honoring Abraham according to the standard