The CBE Scroll

Comment by Dave

August 24, 2009 @ 3:32 pm

Hi Hubert!

Although it strictly comes under your first example you did not specify it, so I thought I would add that being egal (as a male) I have the opportunity to ‘love’ the way that God intended me to through Christ.

I think this is worth mentioning because it is not a ‘me’ focused benefit, and it links to living the way Christ has enabled, empowered and called us to live!

Great post!

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 24, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

You know first of all Hurbert thank you so much for touching on this subject! I will say that the perks of being an Egal Guy is that we can finally, as men feel totally free to not like sports, hunting, and other “manly” things should we choose not to be interested. Should we choose a Celine Dion CD over Garth Brooks it’s totally acceptable. Being an egalitarian male frees us from gender stereotypical constraints. I now am able to be confident in being a man even though one’s perception of me may be that of an effeminate man. That word effeminate has no bearing on us any longer, to be egalitarian means to really walk in the freedom that Christ has afforded us through his atoning sacrifice and Victorious Resurrection. So this is what I believe is in it for me.
Also I believe you are so right in that we must be aware that abuse of husbands also occurs in christian homes. and male rape although less likely than female rape still occurs and leaves these men and boys deeply wounded. I would add that we should also never forget those ensnared by homosexuality for many, not all but many, have suffered from sexual abuse.
And finally, having been a male pre-school teacher ( for almost 4 years before I started working with school age) I totally hear ya on men who are gifted to do a non- traditional occupation. Let it be known that reverse sexism is just as much a problem to egalitarians as the other. We as Egalitarians should also be fighting for a time when men applying to teach young children are no longer seen as homosexuals or pedophiles. I am so thrilled that this issue has been brought up and I can’t wait to hear others’ thoughts. God Bless

Comment by Lin

August 24, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

There IS reverse sexism. Terribly so. I saw it all the time in my former career as a corporate trainer. Guys had a hard time getting in the door because no one would hire them for clerical positions.

My daughter’s preschool teacher was a guy changing careers to teach. He was fabulous. And both the girls and boys benefited from his presence. He is now teaching 5th grade at the same school and I am hoping he is her teacher as he is a very strong Christian.

Another benfit to egals is that it encourages us to look outward to help others – not constantly looking to see if they are performing their ‘role’, but to encourage one another to develop and use our spiritual gifts.

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 24, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

Amen Lin

Comment by Hubert Edgar

August 25, 2009 @ 10:21 am

Thanks so much for these good responses! I’m pleased so many are about advantages to give as well as to receive. Thanks!

Comment by jlp

August 25, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

We as Egalitarians should also be fighting for a time when men applying to teach young children are no longer seen as homosexuals or pedophiles.

We need more men teaching young children. Often people say that it is for the sake of the boys, but I think it benefits girls as well.

Comment by jlp

August 25, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

I am not a mental health professional, but I honestly feel the hierarchal view of relationships is not built on a solid mental health foundation. I think egalitarianism allows a man greater flexiblity in solving life’s problems because he isn’t confined to a pre-defined role or pattern of thinking.

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 25, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

I am so thrilled once again that this is being brought up. To be egalitarian means to be whole emotionally in the sense that one is no longer held in restraint by roles but instead is free to exercise their gifts and at the same time is free to accept their own weaknesses and not be ashamed. This is truly a way of life instead of a viewpoint. It is a whole worldview – a Biblical World view.

Comment by Darrell

August 27, 2009 @ 6:43 am

Thanks for this thoughtful column, and for the response about men teaching children. Our church hired a man as a “Parents Day Out” preschool teacher, and there were some raised eyebrows among some folks. Reverse sexism apparently is alive and well even among “liberal” Northeasterners.
Far more serious are the prejudices of the courts–Massachusetts has long granted custody to the mom, even in defiance of evidence that dad did an equal or greater share of the childcare. Perhaps the election of Family Court judges would add some accountability and help correct this outrage…

Comment by Hubert Edgar

August 28, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

In Junior High and High School I spent my summers working as a “summer missionary” with Child Evangelism Fellowship. It was quite an experience for me. There did not tend to be many guys who got involved with CEF and, to be honest, I think having a male teaching kids made some people suspicious, or at least a little nervous. I think as egalitarian Christians, we can help our society by helping our churches more to a more gender-neutral policy when deciding who should be doing what. There really aren’t a whole lot of jobs that need gender-specific people to do them. I also think it’s a good idea to let men, as well as women, try out nontraditional roles in our churches and in our homes.

Darrell, I know what you mean about Family Courts and custody. The law firms where I’ve worked/am working did a lot of family law and I saw this problem all the time. I don’t think it’s something the churches should get involved in. (Separation of church and state.) But, Christians informed by their egalitarian beliefs can certainly work toward effective change.

Comment by Trevor

September 1, 2009 @ 11:54 pm

Donald put out the challenge for others, perhaps more specifically men, to comment on what egalitarian beliefs do for them (comment 89756). I’m surprised that this has not generated more interest. As I’ve reflected on the topic I’ve come up with a couple of beneficial issues and observations on both a personal and pastoral level.

Firstly then, the personal level. Egalitarian beliefs are incredibly freeing in the working out of areas of expected roles and responsibilities within marriage. Instead of being bound by accepted norms and stereotypes, egalitarian partners are free to explore the giftedness and abilities that each brings into the marriage. The upside of this is that couples can ‘celebrate’ together the uniqueness of one another’s contribution without the fear of competition. The felt need to ‘compete’ can be a very real problem and impediment in many marriages. When competitiveness is not an issue each partner can encourage the other to develop and improve on their obvious giftedness and suitability for performing that particular task or responsibility. Also one partner may be able to identify in the other a latent ability and encourage that person to explore the possibilities. These are occasions for real rejoicing and do not need to be guided or limited by gendered expectations. It may also mean that each partner may at times need to defend the other, in the face of criticism, by those who misunderstand, or disagree, with the different dynamics evident in the out-working of an egalitarian marriage.

The second, is pastoral, and flows out of the first observation. So often I have heard men express that they feel threatened by their wife’s competence to do things and especially when those abilities encroach upon the accepted male domain. Some men have even gone as far as to say that their very maleness was challenged and that they felt a need to put their wives down rather than praise them. At times this led to abusive behaviors and an emotional roller coaster that resulted in the wife feeling incapable of doing anything constructive at all. I have witnessed time and time again incredibly capable women reduced to fearful and depressed emotional wrecks with a total loss of self esteem and sense of self worth. Sadly, very often the men who subject their wives to such a terrible existence are merely projecting their own impoverished sense of self worth on to their poor unsuspecting spouse. In such a situation a woman may feel that she is losing her sanity and even though she has the support of her family, friends and peers, who may well tell her otherwise, she may not be able to shake off the intensity of the abuse she has been subjected to.

I might add that this can also happen to men who feel that they cannot match up to the expectations placed on them by society and/or the church. It can be made far worse by a wife feeling that her man/husband doesn’t fulfill his perceived male roles and responsibilities. I think that the church has a lot to answer for here because in some circles it has enshrined maleness in a biblical interpretation that is believed to have originated with God. This can make a man or a woman feel doubly condemned in that they have failed humanly and theologically and that there is no escaping the condemnation.

This is where the good news of egalitarian belief comes in and we have been able to see people liberated and the heavy burden of social and religious pressure lifted from their shoulders. To discover that God hasn’t ordained it to be so is a tremendous relief and brings fresh hope to a failing marriage.

Comment by Liz

September 2, 2009 @ 6:55 pm

What is in it for men?? Grateful wives and children! Surely men are pleased when their efforts are rewarded with appreciation and their families are more contented because of freedom from unrealistic expectations of masculine/feminine roles.

Single men can also be themselves and enjoy becoming all that God designed for them to be without the pressure of trying to confirm to the expectations of others.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

September 3, 2009 @ 11:13 am

Let me share an experience that shows what you, Trevor, are talking about.

My wife and I were both complimentarian when we married. Four years into the marriage my father, a minister, asked me to come and take over his church because he was retiring and the church, which was very small, was trying to decide if they were going to continue in existence or break up and have the members go to different churches in the area. I felt God’s call to assist my father in this way even though it meant leaving my job of five years and moving back to Oklahoma from Minnesota, where my wife is from and where her family live.

Did I take this to Julie and pray together with her about it? Did I ask her what she felt and thought about it and why? Did I recognize from her anger and fear that there was a problem between her, me and God that needed to be discussed and worked out?

No. No. No.

Our marriage suffered for years and years because I did my leadership thing like I, and my wife, thought I was supposed to. Her parents did not want us to move but told her that I was the husband and she had to do whatever I said and live wherever I said.

I believe moving was God’s will and Julie now agrees with me. At the time, though, I had a responsibility to bring this to Julie and to decide together with her. A responsibility I wasn’t aware I had.

We paid a heavy price for that. We were already having marital problems and this exacerbated them terribly. Not following God’s Law has consequences, even if you’re unaware of that Law.

Liz, I like your comment about single men. I think the topic of how churches react to male child caregivers can be very harsh here because so many people fear a man who wants to work with children is either a pedophile, homosexual, or both.

Comment by leigh

September 3, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

My husband does not post here, but we’ve talked about this, so I feel comfortable posting about it.

Before we were married, we talked about it, and agreed that we didn’t want to follow the “husbands lead, wives follow” version of marriage that his parents had/have. But something occurred that caused a misunderstanding, and I thought he *did* want to make all the decisions for us, and that made for a miserable year or so for us both.

My husband pointed out that he married *me* for me. Not because it would be easy or always be fun, but because I am the person whom he wanted to marry. And that’s why disappearing like that–losing my own will, trying (and failing) to discern his–did not work. Functioning as egalitarians (though he has not studied the theology) has greatly improved our marriage and our lives as individual people.

Comment by Liz

September 3, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

Hubert: I’m interested to know how you came to understand the nature of biblical equality. Was it because of experiences like you described?

Comment by Frank

September 3, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

I think this is a great post, and since the comments made by everyone so far have been so good, I wasn’t sure what more I could add to what has already been said, but thinking about 2 Cor. 3:18, I think that being an egalitarian man enables me to put into practice, without the artificial restraints of patriarchialism, my freedom to fully express the glory of Christ, as the Holy Spirit perfects me as his image bearer. (And I think this would apply to women as his image bearers, too.)

Comment by Trevor

September 4, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

Since I commented earlier (89774) I have thought about how that looked for Liz and I in practical terms and this may be helpful to others.

We grew up in an era where it was fashionable for men, within the church scene, to manage the finances. Both of us managed our finances well as single people but I thought that because Liz came into the marriage from a banking background it would be far better for her to manage our financial affairs. Besides, I thought that it would give her an adult thing to do, (while being housebound with the children) along with its associated challenges, that would bring immense personal satisfaction. Even now we don’t spend anything, or engage in any financial project without consulting each other but Liz, with me being fully informed, does all of this and continually does it extremely well.

Also Liz had far more experience in Church life than I and had been a church worker for many years before we were married. It seemed incongruous to me to simply take up a leadership responsibility over Liz who had so much more to bring to the table. So we deferred to one another on this and more often than not I was the learner, even though engaged in Pastoral ministry. Liz’s Bible knowledge too far outweighed my own and so often sermon constructing was a consultative affair. Even though Liz’s contribution, in those early years, may not have been all that visible to the church we served, I knew just how much I came to appreciate and depend upon Liz’s input and wisely considered opinions.

Another area that Liz took up was the devotional input for our infant children. For a number of years we worked for a mission society which meant that I was away from home for weeks at a time. (Liz often planned and organized the mission itineraries.) In the economy of God we could see that how we had, under His guidance, constructed our way of doing things was ideal considering the ministry demands that we encountered. Our home could run smoothly and efficiently, both on a practical and theological level despite my absences. When we felt the need to change my ministry role so that I was home more for our growing children the transition was smooth because of the way we had been operating already. There was no way that I would take anything back from her.

So, despite the theological climate around us regarding ‘headship’ and male ‘leadership’ we naturally and painlessly developed a religious and domestic lifestyle that was fully egalitarian even though we did not understand the term. The basis of our relationship was simply to be considerate of one another.

I resonate with your comment Hubert re responding to your father’s request to take up ministry responsibility in another state and the disruption and tension that it brought to your marriage through lack of consultation. Even though I have related our experience above I personally felt the pressure by my ministry peers to conform to the status quo, especially from my Elder board, or other ministry colleagues from our Fellowship of churches. I even tried ‘headship’ for a few weeks to try and satisfy these expectations but it was a nightmare of an existence and hurt Liz deeply because it was so foreign to our inclusive way of considering one another. Thankfully it was about that time that we became aware of CBE and the resources available to justify our position.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

September 10, 2009 @ 11:38 am

Sorry I’m so long responding. A little illness.

Liz, the epiphany for me was reading the book “What Paul Really Said About Women.” My natural tendency is to be more assertive/agressive than Julie, my wife. When I’d read the book, Julie and I talked about it and realized that our upbringing had been wrong. So, I purposefully began deferring to Julie more and seeing her input on my decision while encouraging her to go ahead and make decisions for herself. God has worked through this to give us a happier home life and a better self-image for both.

A major problem I had while still complimentarian was that I felt I failed so much if there were problems in our family. This was especially true the first time I had a job loss that lasted several months.

Let me add that Julie and I both have depression/anxiety problems that significantly impact our daily lives. It was only God the Spirit who held us together before we learned God’s more perfect way of relating in marriage. We came so close to divorce that I had the papers drawn up. This is something that motivates me about egalitarianism. When living in a constantly stressful and threatening situation, you’re better off with a partner than an employee/employer. As I’ve often told members of both our families, I am not Julie’s supervisor. I’m her husband.

Comment by Don

September 11, 2009 @ 6:32 pm

I think an egal advantage is that a husband cannot play a trump card to get his way. The hierarchical model, even if the trump card is never used, can distort the discussion, as why would a wife stick to her guns if she knows she is going to eventually lose. This means that the man has the chance to grow up and be less of a child and more of an adult in his relationships.

Comment by Christensen low

September 18, 2009 @ 6:21 am

I would really like to hear from single guys and their experiences with being an egal guy. Mine have been full of difficulties, to be honest. It has been more women who have challenged my views on the equality of the genders than men! And this has always surprised me since I feel like I am trying to fight for the rights of women.

But one advantage of being an egal guy is that it frees us from the “role” of being the pursuer and initiator in dating relationships. I think that it is ludicrous how women are expected to give guys “hints” and never take any initiative to ask a guy out or take any direction in a dating relationship. This, in my opinion, creates a lot of guessing and drama. When men have to do all of the initiating, then it leads to a lot of miscommunication and hurt emotions.

I know for myself that it takes a lot of courage to ask a young lady out when I have no communication whether she likes me or not. I have to read the subtle messages that she is sending to guess whether or not I will get a “yes”. And, to be honest, I’m not really good at guessing. As a man, I haven’t been trained like women to read those “signals”.

If women were free to simply tell men their thoughts and feelings, it would leave all of this guess-work out. Two people could come together, say simply “I think you’re cool” and date to see if they are compatible. Women could actually pursue a guy that they liked instead of sitting at home hoping the guy will notice them!

And should I mention the financial burden?

But my thoughts don’t work in our current society. So, even though I have dated, I’m still single. And I have had a hard time finding someone who will allow me to be me – which is a man who respects women as equals. Sad. But in order to date, I feel I must view women as objects to pursue and conquer.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 20, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

Christensen: you’re having difficulty attracting women because you aren’t acting like a man. Whether or not you believe that gender is separate from biological sex and socially constructed or not, it is clear that most everyone else believes the latter. Most women desire a man as they understand him to be, and you have found that you do not fit that understanding.

The simple truth is that you’ll have to decide whether to submit yourself to the order of God as revealed to our fathers and marry or continue in your egalitarianism and remain single.

But before you decide, let me add that you don’t need to treat “women as objects” in order to pursue your future wife and certainly not in order to be a man. It’s just a non-sequitur. A father pursues his child running toward a busy street without treating her “as an object”. I don’t understand what you mean by this.

I know you didn’t ask for it, but I’ll give it to you anyway. Forget egalitarianism. It’s heretical, unbiblical and just plain false. It will destroy your manhood and leave you bitter and alone. Choose to be a godly man not a godly “human being” and honor and cherish your lady as a lady, just as God intended.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 20, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

You’ve misunderstood Galations 3:28. First let’s quote the passage in its entirety. It reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

You cut off the most crucial part and thereby misunderstood the entire passage (2 Peter 3:16). It is only in Christ that we are all one. Or do you think the writer added “in Christ Jesus” as a matter of style?

In every home, by a simple act of OUR will, we can abnegate our manhood (and women their womanhood) and become “one” all by ourselves; who needs Jesus? Your oneness is no longer a spiritual mystery but a physical reality and therefore one that is no longer dependent upon Christ to be realized. Do you get that? Do you understand what you’re doing? This is a terrible heresy.

Comment by Larry S

September 21, 2009 @ 7:08 am

So, Bartholomew following the notion that the Kingdom is spiritual and within, I suppose Jew/Gentile (various races) can all worship in separate churches since everything is ‘spiritual’

Comment by Donald Guffey

September 21, 2009 @ 7:43 am

Batholomew you have totally missed the point. We are not saying that we do this all by ourselves. It is because of what Christ has done for us that we are free. It’s true the spirit realm has no gender but the physical does, yet I seem to recall in the lord’s prayer that we pray that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven! We are to pray that the things in the spirit happen on earth. Telling us that we are heretics isn’t helpful to the discussion at all sir, but if believing in what the Bible teaches about equality makes me a heretic then I wear that name with pride Bartholomew. Funny that name has been used of most reformers throughout Church History ^_^

Comment by Donald Guffey

September 21, 2009 @ 7:44 am

brief correction i meant to say in line 3 the spirit realm has no gender but the physical does. thanks

Comment by Donald Guffey

September 21, 2009 @ 7:56 am

Batholomew just read your post to Christensen who is a good friend of mine.So let me just say thank you! thank you for making him feel like less of a man because he believes in biblical equality. Their are plenty of women who would love to be treated as equals. You know I’m glad you made your comments because while “men” like you are around we will still have a job to get done.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

September 21, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

Bartholomew, do you believe in slavery? If “slave or free” is only in the spiritual kingdom, then slavery on earth is okay. Of course, if you believe in slavery, there is a separate conversation we need to have. Also, “in Christ Jesus” means within the Church. It’s not just some spiritualization. It is acting out Christ in the world and in our own lives. If we don’t live out Gal. 3, we are not completely fulfilling our job to imitate Christ and live as He lived and lives.

Christensen, you’ll run into macho views held by Christians in the church. Further, you’ll run into macho views held by both men and women, along with the occasional opposite view that women should always be in charge and men should follow. You’ll also run into people who are rude and snotty. We’re still people, just saved people. You hang in there. From what I’ve read, there are more Christian women having problems finding a Christian spouse than there are men. The only other things I can suggest is that you continue petitioning the Lord for a mate and try to just relax around Christians regardless of gender. I don’t think you’re not “acting like a man.” You might be being a little too intense about your search. (And that happens all the time, too. Before my wife and I started dating, she had an extreme case of this. She went on a date with a guy who asked her to marry him the first date out. There was no second date, as I’m sure you can deduce.) God knows your needs and cares about yours and any woman He may have waiting for you.

To both Christenson and Bartholomew, it’s my personal belief, and I don’t know if CBE agrees with this or not, that if a man and a woman decide, of their own free wills, to live in a hierarchical relationship with the man or the woman making all the decisions, this is an egalitarian decision. It’s just a decision that says the other person has superior decision making ability or the other person does not wish to make her/his own decisions in the marriage. However, if a Christian starts teaching that one gender (usually male) must make the decisions because God’s Word teaches only hierachical marriage, then they are teaching a common error (“heresy” if you want to use a really negative term). I suggest you look at the many resources CBE has available and particularly the book “What Paul Really Taught About Women.” That book changed my mind and I really recommend it to anyone looking to understand what the New Testament says about women and their relationship with the church and with husbands and men generally.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 22, 2009 @ 10:58 am

Larry S.

“So, Bartholomew following the notion that the Kingdom is spiritual and within, I suppose Jew/Gentile (various races) can all worship in separate churches since everything is ’spiritual’”

Well, Larry, they already do, for the most part. How would you go about “fixing” this to make the Church conform to your image?

Comment by Bartholomew

September 22, 2009 @ 10:59 am

I don’t think I’m using the bolding function correctly. My apologies.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 22, 2009 @ 11:13 am

Mr. Guffey, I may have missed the point of your blog, but if you believe that freedom in Christ means freedom from God’s order, I’m afraid you’ve missed the point of Scripture.

Also, you don’t “seem” to recall anything from the Lord’s prayer. You do recall the Lord’s prayer. Sarcasm is unbecoming of a Christian; you will please drop it.

“we are to pray that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven! we are to pray that the things in the spirit happen on earth”.

This is another non-sequitur. Whoever said that it was God’s will that spiritual unity become physical unity?

Also, I neither called you heretics nor your friend Christensen a lesser man. I called your ideology a heresy; why personalize this? As for Christensen, how could you, as his purported friend, be so unconcerned about his misery? It ought to be obvious from his post that women don’t find him as a unisex-acting “human being” very attractive. Therefore it should also be obvious what the solution is: that he act like the man they do find attractive.

Since the dawn of creation, women have been attracted to men, and yet you pretend to be ignorant of this and instruct young men to act as women. Even more inexplicable, you are now surprised at the result: males don’t attract women.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 22, 2009 @ 11:26 am

Mr. Edgar,

You wrote, “If “slave or free” is only in the spiritual Kingdom, then slavery on earth is okay”

That’s false. And this too is a non-sequitur. There is neither slave nor free in Christ, but during Paul’s day there was certainly slave and free in the healthy, Christ-following churches. This fact alone shows your conflation of the spiritual with the physical to be false.

“Also, “in Christ Jesus” means within the Church”

No, it doesn’t; it means just what it says: “in Christ Jesus”. The Church is the Bride of Christ, not Christ Himself. Whoever heard of a bride marrying herself?

“If we don’t live out Gal. 3, we are not completely fulfilling our job to imitate Christ and live as He lived and lives.”

That’s not the issue. The issue we’re discussing here is what Galations 3 means, not whether we ought to live by it. Of course we ought to live by it and the rest of the Bible too!

Comment by Bartholomew

September 22, 2009 @ 11:36 am

Mr. Edgar, I’m not going to respond to the rest of your last post, because it is too long and you make essentially the same points the others have already made. What I will say, however, is that when discussing Scripture, I quote Scripture.

The idea that the apostles cannot speak for themselves but require a modern writer’s new interpretation to make sense contradicts the doctrine of Scriptural infallibility. The Holy Spirit through Paul does not need a 21st century writer to tell us “what he really said”; he needs only our open ears and obedient hearts.

Comment by Larry S

September 22, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

Bartholomew quoted Larry: “So, Bartholomew following the notion that the Kingdom is spiritual and within, I suppose Jew/Gentile (various races) can all worship in separate churches since everything is ’spiritual’”

And Bartholomew gave this response: “Well, Larry, they already do, for the most part. How would you go about “fixing” this to make the Church conform to your image?”

I have no idea what u mean by my wanting to make the Church conform to my image. Your response imo sounds like you think various races shouldn’t mix. The apostle Paul spent a great deal of time trying to get Jew/Gentile to function as one body.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 22, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

Larry wrote, “I have no idea what u mean by my wanting to make the Church conform to my image. Your response imo sounds like you think various races shouldn’t mix. The apostle Paul spent a great deal of time trying to get Jew/Gentile to function on one body.”

Why not stay on topic and respond to the points I have actually made rather than supposing about ones I haven’t? I’d like to understand how your position deals honestly with Galations 3:28 and thousands of years of Christian and human tradition.

Comment by Christensen low

September 22, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

Hello Bartholomew,

I find it quite funny (not in a ridiculing way mind you) that you have assumed that I am “unisex-acting ‘human being’”. One time, I was talking to a female friend and asked her to evaluate wether or not I was viewed as effeminate or masculine. To my shock, she said I was very much masculine (and she gave me an honest answer as she was a lesbian and had no motives but to tell me the truth). Though, as a man, I allow myself to be more whole. I allow myself to cry (which society says is not “manly”). I don’t find it beneficial to be aggressive (which I read today that American men seem to prefer aggressive jokes). So…no, I haven’t uni-sexed myself. I have just allowed myself to be who I am…which has been influenced by society. And, thus, many do view me as manly (except I hate watching sports…so maybe I’m not that manly). But who cares? I’m not in misery because I have chosen to be more whole (in Christ). I actually enjoy the freedom it has given me. Yet, I know you will most likely misconstrue everything I have just written.

You also wrote that I am “having difficulty attracting women because you aren’t acting like a man.” I find that also funny because I don’t really have that much trouble attracting women. I just have a difficulty and a frustration with women expecting me to be “manly” and pursue (but this might be more just the women who I have recently been attracted to). Like I said, I have dated plenty. In fact, I almost got married about a year ago to the woman I dated for four years. She wasn’t egalitarian, but she appreciated how I treated her as an equal (most of the time). She was a very strong woman and voiced her mind and heart with me! And I liked that! We broke up on other issues, but she still values how I treat women.

I was also telling my frustration to a female friend of mine recently because, it is true, I have had three women (the most recent ones I’ve asked out) who rejected me mainly for the reason that I am an egalitarian. My friend, who has known me since I was 19, told me that that wasn’t the real reason. She said it was because I tend to like women who either don’t like me (just because…maybe?) or who are “complicated”. She told me that I have had many women who have been attracted to me…but I just don’t notice it. A big reason I am still single is that I had a very troubled childhood…and so it prevents me from trusting people. I have had women ask me out and pursue me…but I usually don’t respond. So, don’t assume I’m not attracting women.

And in the end, I have learned that we are often attracted to different types of people. My best friend is always attracted to women I just don’t find attractive at all! I’m usually attracted to confident women…which might be why they so easily tell me that they aren’t interested. But haven’t you seen the squeaky-voiced, un-manly men married? What we appreciate in another person is so different.

What I have voiced is that I have been rejected by many women because of my egalitarian views. This was in Texas, at Moody and other places where traditional society ruled. So, maybe that makes sense. And in a class on dating that was offered by my church, I was shocked that none of the women had egalitarian views but wanted men to be leaders. I think this is a societal problem…not a Biblical one. I think the Bible teaches that both men and women are created in the image of God. I might be rambling a bit…I apologize.

I have also been priviledged to study a lot of different cultures. Daily, I interact with a plethora of cultures as an English teacher to international students (college students, to be exact). You said that “it is clear that most everyone else believes” that the gender roles are biological. Well, I can tell you that this is not true when studying different cultures. The image of what is manly and what is not is very blurred among the different cultures. Most Thai men I know would be considered very effeminate…but they just don’t have the same ideas of masculinity as Americans do.

Well…in the end, if I have the choice between treating my wife as an equal and a helpmate versus treating her as my subordinate and less-gifted, I will choose to be single. I do not desire to be like the masculine men I saw displayed in Texas, where I grew up. The “Christian” man that was projected there really disappoints me because I want to treat my wife as my fellow-struggler to know and love God. If I can’t find a woman who appreciates that (and I know I will…eventually), then so be it. I will remain single…and love God in the freedom He has given me to be more whole. I will never be bitter because He has shown me more of myself than society has ever shown me.

PS: Please do not call us heretics (or followers of a heresy). Many of us struggle with this view and look to the Bible constantly. For myself, I studied and prayed about it extensively when I was doing my Bible studies at Moody (I had to write a paper on my views). The early church shows that there can be differences in views of what the Bible says and still love will join us all. Won’t we be known by our love (John 15)? Then, respect our love for God, challenge us, but don’t use the charged word of “heresy”. Just my thoughts on things :)

Comment by Christensen low

September 22, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

Also…I chose to respond to your personal comments about me because they were really wrong assumptions. Off topic…sports are on the news now…so I’m changing the channel :) Yup…I’m still a man, though. :)

Comment by Bartholomew

September 22, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

Also, to Mr. Edgar,

In your note to Christensen, you wrote, “I don’t think you’re not ‘acting like a man.’”

By using quotation marks around “acting like a man”, it looks like you believe there is an essentially manly way to act.

But that’s strange. If you don’t even believe that manliness exists, how can you judge its presence in another?

For example, would you allow an atheist, for instance, to tell you he thought you particularly godless? Would that make sense?

If you believe in sexlessness, then you have no basis to say who is and who is not a good example of his sex.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 22, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

Correction: “By using quotation marks around ‘acting like a man’, you’re implying you believe there is NO essentially manly way to act.”

Comment by Christensen low

September 23, 2009 @ 6:46 am

Hello Bartholomew,

I’ll ask this gently. Please stop questioning my “manliness”. I am a man because I am genetically made by God that way. Therefore, I am “manly”. To me, your harranguing the point about my “manliness” is rather annoying, to be honest. Please drop trying to judge my “manliness” because I believe I am more of a “man” than most men. I allow God to teach me things that most men don’t even listen to because I don’t consider them male or female lessons.

If I am wrong in this, your approach to this discussion is just making me more sure that society pushes a “manliness” on men and that it is not from God (because I don’t see any Scripture dictating how a man should act “manly”). Thank you for your seeking God’s best…but it would be best if you actually showed God’s love and concern in all of this, which maybe you feel you are expressing but don’t communicate well to us in the postings you are putting here. I hope and pray that my postings don’t come across as combative but show the love that should bind Christians.

Feel free to gently show us Scriptures that you feel support your position, your thoughts on God’s best. We will listen to that instead of what seems to be attacks on what we believe and on us personally. We will be grateful if you don’t assume you know us and enter in a dialogue of seeking God’s love and His Truth. Sound good?

PS: I wish I could use the “I feel” statements well in this posting as I have learned these defuse arguments and make them into simply statements of what a person is feeling. I hope you see that I’m trying to defuse the argumentative feel of this discussion and make it more of a loving discussion.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

September 24, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

Hi, Bartholomew.

I used quotation marks around “acting like a man” because I was quoting you in your first email. I quite agree with your analysis that disproves what you said earlier.

Yes, I would allow an atheist to call me godless. The atheist would be discussing the fact that s/he feels I am not living up to his/her understanding of not being godly or my expressed views concerning my godliness. It’s all part of communication.

To interpret Scripture, a person has to discover the conditions in which those Scriptures were written and to whom (esp. in the epistles) the Scripture was written. I remind you that we are not just to read but to study Scripture. (II Tim. 2:15) One does not just read and await enlightenment. One studies to find enlightenment as the Spirit opens the Word to us. There is such a thing as what I’ve heard called “wooden literalism” that is rejected by most Evangelical scholars.

The Scripture in Gal. 3, however, is reasonably clear to even brief perusal. It says there is no male/female in Christ. We are therefore equal. To try to spiritualize it is to go against its simple, clear meaning. Neither of us wants to do that. While it is oversimplified, what I learned as the Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation is: If the clear meaning of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” I realize we are somehow reading this clear sentence to mean opposite things. You don’t seem to understand my interpretation, and I don’t understand your interpretation.

You’re correct in telling me I was wrong about “in Christ Jesus” means in the Church. My response was sloppy. Let me try to more accurately state what I’m trying to say. While the Church is the Bride of Christ, it is also the Body of Christ. As a part of that Body, my standing is the same as every other member of that Body, regardless of my race, gender, etc. Because of this, when I am serving God, I am to serve Him in any way He guides me. I am to accept service from anyone He sends to me. I am to treat my fellow Christians as at least my equals but preferably as above myself. We are called to the same God and given our directions by Him. In my marriage, that means that God can tell either one of us His will. He doesn’t have to use me to speak to us. Nor does He.

The “thousands of years of Christian and human tradition” you mention does have some impact about how we understand Scripture. I think you’ll find archeological evidence that women served in the First Century through about the Third or Fourth as ministers, so were seen as being in equal roles in those years. Jesus had female disciples. Mary Magdalene comes to mind – one of the two people, both women, He chose to communicate His resurrection to his other disciples, particularly the Twelve. Paul refers to many women as fellow laborers. Apollos was taught by both Priscilla and Aquila, and other proofs that can be provided if you want them.

“Human tradition” is not a very good source for interpreting Scripture. I think we can agree on that. It is a good source to see the environment in which the Scriptures were written and in which church tradition was, and is, formed.

Yes, I am willing to say that, when I read my Bible, I find that the 1500+ years of church traditions concerning women are wrong. I believe they are the result of mistakes in exegesis made by people, mainly men, who let the traditions of their societies color their understanding of the Word. Early on, I think Plato’s influence on the Church Fathers and others, such as Augustine, specifically caused misinterpretations.

There is historical precedent for saying hundreds, even a thousand plus, years of church tradition are wrong. It took the Reformation to clear up centuries of wrong theology in the church of its time. Between Bible and tradition, Bartholomew, I think you and I will stand together in choosing the Bible. Sola Scriptura.

By the way, my last name is Hix if you prefer to use the honorific. If you want me to use the honorific with you, I’ll be happy to. Just tell me what you prefer to be called.

I hope I’ve touched on everything. I tend to be a bit long-winded. Some 750 words this time…

Comment by Watcher

September 24, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

Wow,
I need to check back here more often.
I just caught up on some ‘manly’ conversation.

Joke. Okay. All I really meant was this.
I don’t remember a time when so many men and almost exclusively men talked about anything on the scroll. It’s kinda nice.
Okay, it’s really nice.

I knew I couldn’t say much on this topic being female and being married to a backslidden male who is buying into a ‘you’re not a man unless you cuss and drink like one’ culture.
So it’s good to see Christian men talking freely about this.

From my limited perspective as a female on this topic, in seems that egal men are entering the Kingdom of Heaven like a camel entering through the eye of the needle.
It seems to me that egal men really are laying aside the things of the world(think male privilege) taking up their cross and following Christ. It seems like they count all worldly things, like male privilege, as lost to them for the sake of Christ and they have stopped clinging to their earthly, carnal birthright of being the more privileged and instead embrace the higher calling of what God has to offer in the spiritual birthright.
And yes, I did say a mouthful, but even so, the unseen benefits of the superior, spiritual birthright of being born again in Chirst ought to make the seen benefits of the male privilege birthright appear as dung, rubbish.

Anyway. That’s the way it seems.

But then, what do I know?

I’ve never been a man with such a knowledge of such an earthly, carnal privilege, and if I had been a man born with that knowledge/privilege, I might cling to it and spiritualize it, make up doctrines to support it, and try to take it as extra baggage with me on the back of my camel into the Kingdom of Heaven too.

Comment by Mara

September 24, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

Sorry that last post was by me, Mara.
Watcher is an old name I discarded long ago but my home computer seems to like the old name better and won’t let it die.
I’ll try to do better next time.
P.S. Watcher was a name I used when I felt I needed to hide my gender, otherwise some men would not take me seriously. I’m over that now, matured. Don’t care if men some dismiss me anymore. The kind of men that would dismiss what I have to say because of my gender are not worth my time. (sez I with my nose in the air. Sorry if my humor stinks. I’m in a giddy mood tonight.)

Thanks again guys for having this conversation and letting me listen and learn.

Comment by Deborah

September 24, 2009 @ 10:59 pm

Hmm… I don’t stop by the CBE scroll that often, but this is interesting. I appreciate the topic. And I’ll add that I spent a couple of hours talking to Don and Christensen the other night, and they are indeed more gutsy than most men. A lot of what our society calls masculinity can just be bandaids on deep insecurities and fears that are never faced.

Comment by Deborah

September 25, 2009 @ 12:01 am

Ok, so I’m not exactly an expert on this question (being a woman). But it occurred to me that this teensy (albeit lengthy for a blog post) excerpt of a book manuscript I have sitting around hits points the men here might yay or nay. I wish I could provide the context for this excerpt, but it is part of an indepth Bible teaching that takes many steps to set up:

…Men and women need each other for receiving their fullness. If this word of the gospel is not received, it will be their children who cry out that the space allotted to them has not been big enough for them to live in. In one dream God gave me on this topic, I was paying $ 2.74 for my dinner order, my portion of a meal that was being shared in the neighborhood. Part of my dinner portion was a pile of bacon, but I hardly touched it if at all because before I had a chance a toddler boy hurried up to me and gobbled it up. God pointed me to Deuteronomy 27:4 where the daughters of Zelophehad asked for an inheritance. He told me that as I stewarded every penny of the trust of this breakthrough portion for women as best as I knew in His leading (1 Corinthians 4:1-5), the boys who are growing up, the men of the rising generation(s), would feast on the “bacon” brought home by it. Pigs represent what is considered unclean. But these men would gladly receive much from the women, no longer considering any part of the women’s portion “unclean” (Acts 10).

In a way it seemed like the “bacon” of this meal was especially for the boy— like it would feed men’s growth and catapult them even more than the women. In fact, it was as though the “bacon” would specifically appeal to the childlike heart (and tastebuds!) of God-focused men who would taste and see that this was good. They would recognize it as the prize and eat of it with no second thoughts (In the dream, I was left with a chicken breast to eat).

For generations, godly women have modeled being friends, practical servant-supporters, and prayer sentinels for their husbands and churches. They have quietly reaped the character growth and spiritual rewards of these positions before God, not man. Since men and the church as a whole, however, have often had false notions regarding the boundary lines for the roles of the women in their lives, they have not seen aright to correlatively aid the women in their portion. In doing so, they would reap not only from the teaching, leadership giftings, and financial gains which may be the intended portions of various women in their lives but also from the hidden spiritual purification and emotional and relational rewards of those who stand in this support posture for women walking in their full multi-sphered inheritance. I imagine this is one reason why a fuller release of women into their God-given callings would so facilitate men’s growth.

Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen describes a time when a fellow professor invited her to talk about gender issues in his sociology class. Prior to her arrival, he provided his students with a word association exercise to see which adjectives they might associate with femininity, which with masculinity, and which as gender neutral. “It included words like strong, submissive, patient, emotional, kind, self-reliant, self-controlled, nurturant, aggressive, gentle, ambitious, joyful, modest, faithful, tough, and loving.” The trick, as you may have noticed, is that adjectival forms of the fruit of the Spirit were sprinkled throughout. The results of the class exercise “parallel studies using more representative samples of the population.” There was a tendency to associate the fruit of the Spirit with femininity, and men in particular were more likely than women “to associate all of the ‘fruit’ adjectives with femininity.” Something is wrong here. These are “generic virtues to which all Christians should aspire…. The fruits of the Spirit do not come in pink and blue.” Why would we expect women to be more spiritual than men and to forbear and to nurture these fruit more than they? “Most individuals hold less stereotyped views of themselves than of their own sex as a whole,” yet “unconscious cultural assumptions are often at work alongside people’s surface rhetoric about the Bible.”

Manhood and womanhood are neither fixed blueprints for behavior nor arbitrary social constructions but something in between. It matters that we are embodied male or female… we cannot become completely human by pretending to ignore [this]. …But if we overascribe… various traits to men or women and endow them with a mystique that empowers or romanticizes one sex more than the other, or creates rigidly separate spheres of activity, then we have allowed the powers of manhood and womanhood to become idols, or “agents of tyranny.”

Van Leeuwen goes on to suggest needed change:

To reverse distorted manhood and womanhood, men will often need to be less assertive and women more. Philip Cary, a philosopher and theologian, put it well when he reminded women that “there is more to biblical morality than the sort of ethic that rebukes our pride and restrains our desires.” Women especially need encouragement to start living as God’s stewards, heirs, and priests, for “there is work to be done—servants work and healer’s work, hard work which nevertheless comes naturally to the heir of God, like fruit ripening on a good tree.” But if women need encouragement to start, Cary continues, “isn’t it time for men to stop? Isn’t it time for men to acquire a conscience about male prerogatives and use of power?”

Of course, we are “all quite capable of the full range of character distortion,” which needs to be evaluated and remedied by men and women alike. Diva personalities, for example, do nothing to help the kingdom of God. But I agree with Cary that there will generally be a unique calling for men in this rectification, even as there is for women to “activate,” if you will.

Getting more particular as to how this would facilitate men’s growth, I believe a certain courage, or “manliness,” will be required for many men to stick up for the women in their lives whose callings may challenge church or social culture or may challenge their own sense of identity and worth. For them to be at peace and to abide in such circumstances requires the fruit of the Spirit. For instance, I have known relational insecurities and tensions to develop when a wife starts earning more than her husband, particularly if the workplace had not been her primary sphere for many years so that they’d grown accustomed to a view of the man as the breadwinner. Change is difficult but also beneficial when the issues it brings up are healthily discussed and touched by the finger of God so that both are enabled to be and to thrive as God has determined for a given season. For men to be less assertive is not for them to fall into ungodly passivity but to take up the more challenging inner call, ruling their emotions, thoughts, and ambitions as the test of true greatness (Proverbs 16:32). They might also become assertive in an unaccustomed manner: outwardly promoting or defending change on behalf of their wives or women. Given the disparities that exist, such responses could be the truest demonstration of the culturally celebrated role of men as “rescuer,” if not a widely regarded application.

____

What do you men think? I’ve sprinkled this particular book manuscript with various thoughts like this… appealing to and challenging some of our society’s cherished notions about the sexes.

I’ve also written on topic about (speculative and not pigeon-holing) ways we may nurture each others’ growth as complementary genders. I actually found that deeply examining head and body images in scripture (I believe Eph 5 “head” has meaning for us today, unlike some egals, just not that of authority) led me to meditate, very cautiously, on potential applications to the complementarity of masculinity and femininity. But that’s neither here nor there aside from the fact that I believe an egal model helps us to more fully do that complementary nurturing–helping to draw different parts of one another to life even. Hope I managed the html blockquotes okay up there.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

September 25, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

Christensen, I forgot to mention that I appreciated your observation about egalitarian women being able to call egalitarian men for dates. This is a big advantage. I’m old enough to remember when a woman calling a man was no less than weird and thought by many men to be a sexual come-on. I hadn’t really thought about your observation and it’s a good one.

Mara, thanks for your thoughts. You know, since I’ve been learning to give up those “male privilege” things, I’m finding they were more of a burden than a blessing, more distressing that enjoyable. I thank you for your kind words to my gender. I also send up a prayer for your husband. It’s so true that when we misinterpret Scripture we pay a price in sin. I consider this misinterpretation of Scripture to have been one of the most destructive in the church and in the Christian home. With the increased relationship with God, our crosses become more comfortable than our couches.

Deborah, that was a lot of good stuff. It really gives me a different view of how we Christians emotionally interpret the Fruit of the Spirit. And yes, when egalitarianism encourages men to be more, for want of a better term, “spiritually feminine,” men are more blessed. God calls us all to the same fundamental things and ways of living. The more we, men and women, can be within His will, the more joy we have. Maybe not happiness, which is fickle and often fleeting, but joy in our Lord. Like teenagers talking to their parents, we often have a hard time understanding/believing that God knows what’s best and has our best interests at heart.

My father was a dyed-in-the-wool complimentarian. But he told me on several occasions that women are the backbone of the Church and of missions. Somehow, that never translated much into leadership for him, but he did accept my sister becoming a minister. It reminds me of some other things he taught me: you’re never too young to learn; an open mind is not an empty mind, and be willing to learn as the Spirit opens the Word. None of us has the whole Book down pat. (Most of us just pat the Book.)

Finally, I am also enjoying all these guys talking, both for and against because we need to hear as well as be heard. Still, it’s encouraging to see these other men in the ranks.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 25, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

Hello all,

I’m glad so many people have found this thread thought-provoking, but I’m afraid I can’t respond to each of your points, as I’m sure we all lack the time, and I’m overwhelmed by the number of ideas and points there are to answer. So allow me to hit a few important ones.

First, Christensen, as I’ve said repeatedly, no I was not calling you a lesser man. I was pointing out the connection between your ideas and your troubles (which you had offered up for consideration on a public blog…). Please quit raising this canard, as it is distracting from the main discussion, i.e. whether egalitarianism is heretical.

Second, allow me to boil down my argument to a few key points.

1.) Egalitarianism posits absolute equality, i.e. sameness.
2.) The world consists of diversity, i.e. difference.
3.) Sameness is not the same as difference.

Therefore,
4.) Egalitarianism requires change or the destruction of the world as it actually exists and the construction of a new one, i.e. from a diverse one to an equal one.

However,

5.) God has created the world as it exists.
6.) This means God has created diversity, i.e. inequality.
7.) Destruction of this world therefore means destruction of the world God has created.

Since,
8.) God has declared opposition to his law and order to be evil

Then
9.) Egalitarianism is evil.

And since
10.) Evil is inconsistent with holy Church teaching

Therefore
11.) Egalitarianism is inconsistent with holy Church doctrine, i.e. heresy.

When replying to this post, please be specific as to which point you are disputing. Also, concision saves all of us time.

Comment by Deborah

September 25, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

Bartholomew, since you rightly point out the diversity of the world (and, I would argue, wrongly point out that equality equals sameness), would you care to tell us what hierarchy you see between the diversity of races?

I am afraid you might just have an answer for that, but it is meant to point out that diversity and equality of rank can and should coexist.

Comment by Deborah

September 25, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

Thanks for your time, Bartholomew.

And Hurbert, thanks for your kind words. Interesting father. One female theologian I admire was raised comp but by a father who always did admire a “woman who could get things done” … and who made sure her bookshelves were lined with an exhaustive Bible commentary at a young age.

Comment by Deborah

September 25, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

On second thought, I am afraid that my tone in saying, Bartholemew, that “I’m afraid you might have an answer for that” could come off as an expectancy that you are racist rather than a fear that you could be (as could any stranger met on a forum). I’m sorry. I was much too quick a trigger finger on the keyboards tonight.

Grace and peace,
Deb

Comment by Mara

September 25, 2009 @ 11:17 pm

Bart.

Hi.

Your are mistaken from point one.

1.) Egalitarianism posits absolute equality, i.e. sameness.

No egal I know claims that equality equals sameness. Not one.
What you have quoted is a comp straw man that comps love to bash around a bit for dramatic effect.

So. I’m sorry. You lost me at point one. Not because it was such a good and over the top undisputed point, but because you have shown me that you really don’t know what cbe or egalitarianism is about.

You need to go back and actually read egals rather than read what misinformed comps say that egals say because you can’t make logical arguments when you have the basic facts so wrong and your first point so wrong.

I’d really like to just stop there but I have to point out that the following also appears poorly thought out.

4.) Egalitarianism requires change or the destruction of the world as it actually exists and the construction of a new one, i.e. from a diverse one to an equal one.

Not that Egalitarianism doesn’t requires change. That part doesn’t bother me. Jesus required change when He came into the world. So what is the point?

And as far as the destruction of the world. It’s already well on it’s way without any effort from any egal, any feminist, or any comp. Creation groans as our world deteriorates, waiting for the new heaven and new earth. And yes, God promised us that He would construct us a new one, a “Thy Kingdom come” earth as opposed to the spiraling into destruction earth we already live on.
And there you go again, assuming that diverse means inequality which is opposed to sameness, something I already told you is a straw man.

Again, I wish I could just stop here but I can’t. Your thought process may be a form of reasoning, but it is in no way sound logic.

5.) God has created the world as it exists.

Ah… no, there was this thing call sin that entered into the world. The world was perfect and pure and eternal. Now it is entirely corrupt and dying because of sin.

6.) This means God has created diversity, i.e. inequality.

Again, I have no trouble with diversity. But I still have to point out that diversity does not have to equal inequality nor does equality have to equal sameness. These are associations that you make for the sake of your argument that don’t really help your argument because you have it wrong from point one.

7.) Destruction of this world therefore means destruction of the world God has created.

We’ve already been here. The world is self destructing on its own. Nothing you do as a comp means a thing. Nothing an egal does as an egal means a thing.
If on the other hand, when you say world, you mean ideas… ideas come and go all the time.
If you mean order… People have different ways they order their world, one person to the next, one culture to the next.
If you mean something else that I haven’t thought of yet, please, go ahead and explain yourself because then maybe we can have a better conversation than this one

8.) God has declared opposition to his law and order to be evil

The above is an absolute leap from an unknown point (as in this is the first you have even mentioned God’s law. How are you inserting it here and expecting me to understand where you have come from to form a conclusion. Yes, opposition to God’s laws are evil. But how does that relate to anything you mention above?

I agree that opposition to God’s law is evil. But you have failed to point out or prove that the order you put forth is God’s law. All you have talked about is what you THINK egalitarianism is and what you think this world is. God’s law hasn’t even entered the picture yet in your explaining.

9.) Egalitarianism is evil.

Okay, since you have laid out a list of faulty points that have no real logical flow, your conclusion is based on faulty premises.

10.) Evil is inconsistent with holy Church teaching

Okay, are we talking about God’s laws or the traditions of men. I gotta know. Because there, at times, can be a huge canyon between what God says and what men say. Jesus ran into that one Himself with the Pharisees. They held up the traditions of men as equal to God’s law and God’s word and sometimes made God’s Word null and void for the sake of their traditions.

11.) Egalitarianism is inconsistent with holy Church doctrine, i.e. heresy.

Again. Are you actually talking about the law of God or the doctrines of men? because there is a difference.

You have not proven that Egals oppose the law of God in any way whatsoever. Nor have you proven that church doctine never, ever deviates from the law of God.

Instead you have made huge leaps and bounds from one assumption to another.

Please go back and find out what egals really believe, find out what God’s laws really are, and find out what evil really is.

If you need help with God’s laws, all I can say is, start with the two greatest commandments that Jesus gave as your foundation because in keeping them you keep the whole law.
Also the ten commandments are excellent.
And please don’t make the mistake others have made and try to make laws out of things that are not laws, like the order of creation, curses and what not.
It just confuses things and takes us off track away from the pure law and onto the speculations of men.

Comment by Larry

September 26, 2009 @ 9:04 am

Bart’s last post is helpful in layig out decaritive statements. However, he has not supported the statements.

#1. His starting point is wrong. Therefore his entire model moves in the wrong direction.

#4. “Egalitarianism requires change or the destruction of the world as it actually exists and the construction of a new one, i.e. from a diverse one to an equal one.”

This is actually an interesting sentence which with a little editing could actually be quite profound.
In my editing (not as part of his error-filled model) I would start by thinking about the New Covenant (the NT New Covenant). The New Covenant of Jesus changes the world as it actually exists …..

Bart, your posts do not indicate much familiarity with the basic premises of either complementarian or egalitarian theology. Making declarative statements without any support do not push the conversation forward.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 27, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

Hello all,

A number of people have taken issue with my first point

“Egalitarianism posits absolute equality, i.e. sameness.”

Mara even declared that “No egal I know claims that equality equals sameness. Not one.”

Now, that is strange. Let’s remember basic mathematics. When I say that 2+2=4, I am saying that there is no substantive difference between 2+2 and the number 4. They are equal; they are the same. I could, if I didn’t mind writing more, insert 2+2 everywhere I would normally write the number 4 and there would be NO change in meaning. Equality means, therefore, interchangeability. Sameness.

If you mean something else than sameness or interchangeability, then you should not say “equality”, or the French-derivative of the same “egalite”. You need a new word.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 27, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

Larry wrote,

“Bart, your posts do not indicate much familiarity with the basic premises of either complementarian or egalitarian theology. Making declarative statements without any support do not push the conversation forward.”

If that’s the case, then now is an excellent opportunity to prove it.

Your movement has chosen to use words–egalitarianism, “Biblical Equality”, etc.–which have certain meanings. You do not get to attach your own meanings to these words and then become exasperated with outsiders who understand you according to the normal and accepted meanings of those words. Surely, you can see that would be unreasonable.

Now, here is a link to the normal and accepted meaning of the word “equal”. Please tell me which part you do not accept. Pay particularly close attention to which word Merriam-Webster lists as a synonym.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal

Comment by Bartholomew

September 27, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

Deborah, I don’t believe I’ve mentioned hierarchy. I think you’d agree that we hardly need yet another controversial issue on this thread.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 27, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

Mara, you wrote:

“The world is self destructing on its own. Nothing you do as a comp means a thing. Nothing an egal does as an egal means a thing.”

You can’t really believe this. If nothing you do as an egal “means a thing” then why comment in its defense? Why does CBE have a blog? Why does it write the following under its About section?

“Through The CBE Scroll, CBE hopes to inform and clarify, for a variety of audiences, what biblical equality is and how God is CHANGING THE WORLD THROUGH ITS MESSAGE.” (emphasis mine)

Obviously, CBE and you believe that what you do as “egals” does mean something, indeed, enough to change the world. And it’s the particular change you seek that I’ve identified as evil.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 27, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

Mara,

“Okay, are we talking about God’s laws or the traditions of men”

You should not hold the traditions of your forefathers in such light regard. Thousands of generations of men are not wiser than God; but they are certainly wiser than you.

But, no, actually, I was talking about God’s law as revealed through the order of His creation. In other words, look around you.

Comment by Deborah

September 27, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

Bartholemew,

The core difference between theologies of egalitarianism (which I personally prefer to call mutuality–as of self-denial, leadership, etc., but I’m trying to use the prevalent language) and complementarianism (which I privately prefer to call hierarchy, again for simplicity and what seems more accurate a label, but I often try to honor the label that this group prefers) is that one believes in equality of “rank” or function, and the other believes in hierarchy of “rank” or function.

Egals explicitly do not believe in sameness nor in gender or racial hierarchy. Indeed, the most comprehensive contemporary book on the topic is subtitled “complimentarity without hierarchy.”

Comps do not believe in sameness either but do believe that the differences in gender rightly lead to or consist of an hierarchy of rank or function as it pertains to gender.

Thus, the key difference is not sameness versus diversity but is equality of rank in function versus hierarchy of rank in function.

Hope that helps,
Deb

Comment by Christensen low

September 27, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

There are some people who argue to simply argue (for various reasons). Some who discuss to benefit others and show them God’s love. Which one are you? This is not directed to anyone. It simply is meant to remind everyone that, no matter the issue or the personal mistakes, we should all seek unity in Christ (and maybe watch how we speak to each other). If you don’t like my message, then just ignore it. :)

Comment by Sonnet

September 27, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

Bartholomew,

Egalitarian – “asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarian

Equality – “the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.” synonyms – “equivalency, parity, correspondence, sameness; justice, fairness, impartiality.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equality

By equality, egalitarians are seeking justice, not sameness. Words can have multipe meanings and nuances. To focus exclusively on only one definition and one possible synonym ignores the other meanings these words convey and express to others.

Who would want a world where everyone is an identical clone of each other? Our world would be a much duller place if every crayon was the same color, if every sunset looked exactly alike, and if every library contained copies of only one book. “Variety is the spice of life.” Egalitarians are not promoting a bland world devoid of diversity. Instead, by using the light of God’s Word, we wish to expose and make visible injustice that harms both the oppressors and the downtrodden.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9 TNIV)

Comment by Deborah

September 27, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

p.s., Bartholomew–

It’s a bit like defining the camps on the abortion debate as pro-choice and anti-abortion/pro-life. If you only look at the meaning and etymology of the words choice, abortion, and life, you will not understand what the sides are really about. (Well, anti-abortion is clear enough, but it also loses the impact of all that the group stands FOR in terms of valuing life and promoting care for pregnant woman and babies through adoption.) Creating an argument about the values and detractions of “choice” and “life” in general would have limited application to the specific beliefs and causes of the “pro-choice” or “pro-life” group and largely just create confusion as to the point although the language has obviously been chosen by them as the most pleasant and appealing portrayal of their viewpoint.

Many egalitarians I have come across would favor a different appellation for our cause, although I think they’re mainly content enough. Complementarians have an especially P.R. friendly name which may tend to obfuscate the issue, since egalitarians see gender as complementary as well(I cannot speak, of course, for every single person who joins the egalitarian cause at wherever they are in exploring the issues…. Some may join recognizing an equality of rank in the sexes but not really knowing yet how much to consider the sexes different. The literature of Christian egalitarianism, however, definitely recognizes gender complementarity even if rightly being shy about defining most gender differences too prescriptively, since science shows us that we are far more alike than different. And scripture shows us that individual ranges in some areas of difference may differ considerably in men and women whom God anointed and approved, as does science).

Comment by Larry S

September 27, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

Bartholomew.

I mentioned that you don’t appear to understand the theological positions of the two primary ways of understanding the biblical materials around gender.

You’ve given me a dictionary definition of the word ‘equal’. I think the last few posts may begin to help you understand the basic theological differences – feel free to read the various articles from both the CBE site and the CBMW site.

blessings.

Comment by Frank

September 28, 2009 @ 12:18 am

I just reviewed some of the comments made by Bartholomew, and those who responded to him. In my judgment, Mara did a fairly good job in exposing the serious flaws in his twelve point syllogism; I believe Deborah and Larry also did a fine job in their exposing and countering his very clever misrepresentations of the egalitarian position. And I believe Hubert Edgar and Don Guffey gave Christensen Low much sounder advice than anything Bartholomew had to say.

But as for his unjustified, or unsubstantiated assertions that egalitarianism “is heretical, unbiblical, and just plain false”; that it opposes the law and order of God; that it will destroy your manhood or womanhood; that we should not lightly regard the traditions of our fathers–well, these are bare assertions that are made without any real Scriptural support and are made with the assumption that only his view of manhood and womanhood is true, while failing to demonstrate it is rooted in Scripture, rather in questionable human religious and philosophical traditions; and frankly, who cares about the traditions of men or even Church traditions, whether Catholic or Protestant, if they are without clear and irrefutable Scriptural warrant? That was the main point made by Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms, and it certainly applies to the issue being discussed here.

Well, those are the main observations and comments I wish to make for the present on the present posting. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen!

Comment by Mara

September 28, 2009 @ 10:22 am

Christian Low: “There are some people who argue to simply argue (for various reasons). Some who discuss to benefit others and show them God’s love. Which one are you? This is not directed to anyone. It simply is meant to remind everyone that, no matter the issue or the personal mistakes, we should all seek unity in Christ (and maybe watch how we speak to each other). If you don’t like my message, then just ignore it. :)”

No, I like it.
After my long post pointing out the holes in Bartholomew’s logic flow, Larry posted a much more gracious one.
I wish I had been more gracious.
Sometimes I do get a bit contentious.
When someone feels free to call another evil when that someone really doesn’t even understand the supposed ‘evil’ position and doesn’t use the Bible to support it, I admit, I was a bit snippy in my response.

Bartholomew, I wish I had posted what I did in a more gracious manner.

Yes, I can mean that the world is self destructing on its own. It is a long slow process bit by bit. You can see it in the death all around you. Some people call it a life cycle. But for being a life cycle, there’s an awful lot of death and decay involved.
We are losing species of animals all the time.
Some scientist say that we should just pull the plug on the panda. i.e. let it go extinct like other animals before it.
And as far as I know, I don’t see any new species replacing the ones we are losing.

I could say more. I actually did but deleted several things. Just know that I stand by what I said. Death and destruction are a part of our world. They were allowed in by original sin. Death and destruction are the laws of this world that rule us all. We all will die. Jesus came to swallow up death. And death is the last foe to be put down by Him.

I’m very interested in the LIFE that Jesus brings us. I’m very interested in HIS words. He was not bound by death. He had an indestructable life. He laid it down to give us an escape from the death and deterioration of this world. I give His words, as recorded in the gospels, far greater consideration than the words of men who came before or later (Though the words of other men that are recorded in the Bible also rank very high with me). I give His Words of Life far greater consideration than the destructive nature/order of this fallen world.

i.e. I take my cues from Jesus, not nature, not men.
If you think the natural order of this world speaks more to you than the the gospels or reflects some divine order, fine. You are more than free to do so. But please don’t mislabel what is perishing as God’s law. His laws are in the Book of all books. His laws are life. This world is steeped in and still ruled by much death.

If I sound the least bit snippy (I’m not trying to but I know sometimes things are lost when you write as opposed to speak) so, so sorry. I do feel strongly about it and want to express the strongness of it without being snippy.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 28, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

Deborah wrote,
“The core difference between theologies of egalitarianism…and complementarianism…is that one believes in equality of “rank” or function, and the other believes in hierarchy of “rank” or function.”

I wonder if you are aware that you have essentially proven my point. If you believe that the genders [do you mean "sex" here? I will assume you do] are equal in function (rank and function, by the way, are not coterminous), then you believe they are interchangeable in every significant way.

As I have already written, this is simply false. The masculine sex cannot function as a womb to an unborn child, and he cannot function as a nurse once it’s born. The feminine sex cannot function as an impregnator, nor can she function effectively as a defender of the household.

Those are just for starters. In the world as it actually exists and as God created it, the functions of the sexes are simply not equal or interchangeable. In the world as you would remake it, in defiance of God’s holy order, they would be. That is heretical.

Comment by Mara

September 28, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

Sorry, my words in paretheses third paragraph from the bottom should read, ‘the words of other men that are recorded in the Bible also rank very high to me.’

And all that means is that I take the whole Bible very seriously, but especially the words of Jesus and the direct quotes from God through his prophets. And as mentioned in my post before the one above, I take the ten commandments very seriously because they were enscribed by God Himself on earthly stone.

These God breathed words and the Word Who became flesh are the true sources of understanding of God, His nature, His will, and His law. These words in the Bible so outrank the order in the fallen world and damaged natural order, I’m just kind of concerned why you, Bart, put so much emphasis on the ‘order’ of this lower world and truly believe the fallen world reveals God’s law.

You have your reasoning. But in order for me to understand it, you’ll have to elaborate just a bit.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 28, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

Hello Frank, you wrote,

“we should not lightly regard the traditions of our fathers–well, these are bare assertions that are made without any real Scriptural support; are made with the assumption that only his [Bartholomew's] view of manhood and womanhood is true, while failing to demonstrate it is rooted in Scripture, rather in questionable human religious and philosophical traditions; and frankly, who cares about the traditions of men or even Church traditions, whether Catholic or Protestant, if they are without clear and irrefutable Scriptural warrant?”

First, concision. You mean to say this: “who cares about the traditions of men or even Church traditions…without clear and irrefutable Scriptural warrant?”

Fine. Just say that next time.

Now, the case for tradition is rather simple: two heads are better than one. It isn’t that two heads are better than God; but they are usually better than just you. The case for tradition extrapolates this over time. Thousands of generations of men mean billions of heads together and agreeing on certain truths and ways of doing things. Rarely, but sometimes, they are wrong. But an individual is much more often wrong.

So, the order goes roughly
God (via Scripture),
Tradition,
Individual.

Also, you cleverly keep setting this up as a controversy between my view (you wrote: “…assumption that only his view of manhood and womanhood is true”) and yours. But it isn’t my view vs yours. It’s the view of our forefathers vs yours. And it’s to our forefathers, not me, that you should defer.

As for Luther, why should his extra-Scriptural opinion hold so much weight in your eyes? It’s ironic.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 28, 2009 @ 2:28 pm

Mara wrote,
“These words in the Bible so outrank the order in the fallen world and damaged natural order, I’m just kind of concerned why you, Bart, put so much emphasis on the ‘order’ of this lower world and truly believe the fallen world reveals God’s law.”

This description is incorrect. The natural order is not fallen. Before the Fall, there was man and woman with unequal functions (Adam named the animals, etc.) and unequal creations (man was not ape was not bird was not fish was not plant, etc.). The natural state before the Fall was diverse functionally.

At the Fall, Satan tried to even things out a bit. He didn’t like his place in the order–a bit too low for his taste–and so he tried to make himself equal with God. Interestingly, he also told Eve that she would be equal with God by following him (Genesis 3:5).

Interesting that man was first seduced into sin by a promise of equality…

Comment by Bartholomew

September 28, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

I should have clarified, Mara, that it was at the Fall that the order of world was damaged and became less natural. Satan inflicted that damage by upending the divine hierarchy and telling Adam and Eve to be “like unto God” knowing good and evil just as He.

Comment by Bartholomew

September 28, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

Larry, you wrote

“You’ve given me a dictionary definition of the word ‘equal’. I think the last few posts may begin to help you understand the basic theological differences – feel free to read the various articles from both the CBE site and the CBMW site.”

Clever, but no. I’ve given you *the* definition of the word “equal”. As I said before, you do not get to make up your own definitions and then become exasperated when outsiders don’t understand you (if indeed I haven’t).

Finally, demanding that I read what your author-of-the-month or whoever else has written is not an argument. I’m not arguing with him, I’m arguing with you. If these views are truly your own, then defend them on your own. If not, let me argue with your intellectual masters directly.

Comment by Deborah

September 28, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

Bartholomew,

That should have read as rank OF function as I corrected later in the same post. Actually, one could also talk about “functional equality,” but it has to be understood that this means equality of rank w/in functions not sameness of all functions and w/ all the hair-splitting over words in this post, “rank of function” may be helpful. Were you or were you not ignorant that the main distinction between the theologies was hierarchy? For you seemed to claim ignorance of that with your post suggesting that I need not bring hierarchy into the picture, but now you seem to be brushing it off and quoting me on it as if you already knew that.

One side sees a hierarchy of function, and the other does not. Both sides see difference in and complementarity between genders.

Thank you,
Deborah

Comment by Deborah

September 28, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

And if you were aware of hierarchy as the main difference, I have to bring up my earlier point…. We have already (at least most of us in the Western world) established a belief in the equality of all races amid their diversity. There we go, diversity and equality in harmony. Your core point on which you base your 12 points does not hold up unless you believe in a necessary hierarchy of diversity.

Grace and peace,
Deb

Comment by Bartholomew

September 28, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

Deborah wrote,

“Were you or were you not ignorant that the main distinction between the theologies was hierarchy?”

Really? I thought the issue was equality.

“Both sides see difference in and complementarity between genders.”

Fine, then you have no business talking about equality. This is classic bait-and-switch. Have you even attempted to address my mathematics analogy?

2+2=4 because (2+2) and 4 are completely interchangeable and in no meaningful way different.

If you see difference (=/=), then you can’t have equality (=).

I have no idea what debate you think you’re having with the “complementarians”, but the debate you’re having with me and with the traditions of our forefathers is over this point.

As for this bit about hierarchy, it really is a separate issue. (2+3) =/= 4 AND (2+3) is > 4. Inequality and hierarchy are separate issues.

Comment by Deborah

September 28, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Sir, please see my point above about how we often cannot grasp the point of the main arguments of a group simply based upon the titles given to the core groups (e.g., pro-choice, pro-life or even republicans and democrats), certainly not just by tracing the etymology of their names. I personally would prefer if we were called non-hierarchical or mutualitarians versus hierarchalists, but then, that would not be a very appealing P.R. name for comps. And somewhere along the line these two names stuck. Pulling out the dictionary to try to make nonapplicable points doesn’t help the discussion. We ARE talking about equality of rank (hence the name) not sameness of persons, and that reality does address your equations. There’s really nothing more to be said on that point. I fail to see how throwing out these equations has the slightest relevance to the theological debate at hand, since that theology is decidedly not based upon a dictionary definition of equality.

For that matter, many comp theologians make very significant use of the term equality themselves in claiming that they DO see an equality of “essence” between the genders while distinctly claiming an inequality of rank of function. That part seems particularly untenable to me (even from a mathematical standpoint… one part being eternally equal and the other part eternally inequal) and perhaps a little more worthy of contriving such equations to make a point. Regardless, the point is that if you are going to make a fuss about the word equality, it is only rightly a fuss aimed at both sides.

Thank you,
Deborah

Comment by Bartholomew

September 28, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

Deborah wrote,

“We ARE talking about equality of rank (hence the name) not sameness of persons, and that reality does address your equations.”

Ah, but that’s not what the article at the top of this thread implies. There, the author complains that,

“There are jobs, inside and outside the church, which are difficult for a man to get. Having been a male secretary for 15 years, I can tell you that it’s only been recently that men have received equal consideration for this line of work.”

You see, he’s not just saying that female jobs (functions) should be equal in importance/rank as those of men. He is saying that there should be no specifically feminine or masculine jobs (functions) at all.

And that’s what I meant by my equations. When you say that men and women are equal, you aren’t just talking about equality of importance, etc. You’re talking about full and complete interchangeability (2+2 vs 4, etc.). Mr. Edgar implies that because men and women are equal, there should be no specifically “male” or “female” jobs/functions. Why? Because he understands that equality of the sexes means interchangeability of their jobs/functions too.

So you see, yes you ARE talking about the sameness of the sexes, i.e. all persons.

It is interesting how words take on a life of their own if you don’t tightly control their use. That is why I’m making “such a fuss” about this very potent word, “equality.”

Comment by Deborah

September 28, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

How did you decide that secretary is a female job? A lot of females have held the job, but it is not a female job or a female function. That’s where we see societal ideas imposing molds that are not inherent to a true gender difference (and these differences in terms of the RANGE of aptitude and psychology are very slight).

Comment by Deborah

September 28, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

To clarify, the language of function as used in sociological and theological debate has to do with what a person can do. In talking of rank of function we are talking about what can be done by a person. We are not talking about valuing a certain pre-prescribed role as equal to another pre-prescribed role (in fact, in a way, that would be much more in line with complementarianism). We acknowledge that a woman is more likely to bring giftings that are more prominent in women to her form of leadership in filling what might be the same job title. We acknowledge that physiological differences will prevent all men from bearing children and will prevent many more women than men from certain blue collar labor. Etc.

Comment by Deborah

September 28, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

Clarification: I should not have said what can be done by a person (since that could imply aptitude) but what a person is allowed to do if they have the appropriate gifting for it.

Comment by Larry S

September 28, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

Bartholomew

Regarding your post to me #89892

Since you are quite a stickler for definitions I’m wondering how you get from ‘feel free to read various articles from both the CBE site and the CBMW site’ to your comment to me ‘Finally, demanding that I read what your author-of-the-month or whoever else has written is not an argument.’

Since when does ‘feel free’ turn into ‘demanding?’

Further you may be interested to know I’ve recommended sites offering comprehensive theological articles from both sides of the debate – not my intellectual masters.

Finally, since your communication style appears to be intentionally abrasive and in my view subChristian I don’t plan to response to further of your comments.

Comment by Sonnet

September 28, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

Bartholomew,

Since “inequality” is an antonym for “equality,” their definitions mean the opposite, like day is the opposite of night. An understanding of what the opposite means helps in clarifying both definitions. Here are the definitions given for “inequality.”

1. the condition of being unequal; lack of equality; disparity: inequality of size.

2. social disparity: inequality between the rich and the poor.

3. disparity or relative inadequacy in natural endowments: a startling inequality of intellect, talents, and physical stamina.

4. injustice; partiality.

5. unevenness, as of surface.

6. an instance of unevenness.

7. variableness, as of climate.

8. Astronomy.
a. any component part of the departure from uniformity in astronomical phenomena, esp. in orbital motion.
b. the amount of such a departure.

9. Mathematics. a statement that two quantities are unequal, indicated by the symbol ≠; alternatively, by the symbol , signifying that the quantity preceding the symbol is greater than that following.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inequality

Please note that the mathematical definition is listed LAST. It is not considered *the* usual and well-known definition. For the definitions of “equality,” the math definition was also listed last.

On the same web page it states the word origin for inequality as: “1484, “difference of rank or dignity,” from O.Fr. inequalité (14c.), from M.L. inæqualitas, from inæqualis “unequal,” from in- “not” + æqualis “equal” (see equal).”

By the way, I’m not sure why you believe that Larry was “demanding” that you read other sources. It sounded like a very polite suggestion to me.

Comment by Mara

September 28, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

Okay, Bart, now that you have made yourself more clear, I’ll have to point out where we differ.

You are making assumptions and speculations on the motivations behind God’s actions which is very dangerous ground. God warns us that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. Yet you proceed to decide what God’s thoughts are where God says nothing more than whether something is good, not good, or very good.

The only, and I mean ONLY clear commands that God gave in the creation story were to both Adam and Eve together. 1.) He said that they, together, were to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Which makes sense since one of them, by themselves, neither one could do it. And 2. Together they were to subdue the earth. Nowhere is there any indication that the woman is stripped or removed out of this command.

Also, nowhere, anywhere in the creation account, does God command the man to rule and the woman to follow. And since He is not clear on it, it must be someone’s or many someone’s speculation. Something that is read into the text.

The ten commandments are not unclear nor do they need people to presume or speculate as to what they mean.
Also Jesus talking about the two greatest commandments is equally clear. No room for speculation.

You look at the creation account and place on it more significance than what God says to. You see commands where there are no commands and you think the order says something it does not clearly say. Then you accuse those who don’t care to make such speculations of being evil.

No. We just know that we cannot guess what God was thinking except where He tells us. We don’t want to read more into the creation account than what is actually and plainly there.

Where the creation story is concerned, the egals are the ones who rely on the plain reading or plain meaning of scriptures. The comps attach meaning to the text that is not clearly said. It’s the comps who say, God must have meant this or that or something more than what plainly written.

The egals are not trying to destroy any order or any commands. They are not fighting God. They just know better than to say that God said something God hasn’t clearly said. They have a better definition of what an actual ‘command’ from God looks like and know that if something is not clearly said it is best to not make more of it than what is deserves.

Comment by Sonnet

September 28, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

Bartholomew,

In the beginning God gave the same job assignments to both men and women. Men and women are different anatomically so that we can reproduce and carry out one of our job assignments. Not all Christians are called to marry, nor are all able to conceive, so this job assignment is not mandatory for everyone.

“Then God said, ‘Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’” (Genesis 1:26-28 TNIV)

Notice that these verses do not set up any kind of gender hierarchy. There are some who still believe that females were placed here in a lower functional caste system to males. They teach that this is necessary for males to achieve their full potential by having women subordinate themselves beneath men (not a mutual submission). One of their proof texts is based upon their interpretation of the word “helper” in the following verse.

“The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’” (Genesis 2:18 TNIV)

Instead of viewing helper as an equal partner, they teach that it makes women subordinate to men. What they fail to teach, or perhaps they just are not aware of, is that the word “helper” is used in other verses to describe God in relation to people. No Christian would declare that God is subordinate to people because He is called our helper.

The Bible mentions that Eve named both Cain and Seth, so apparently naming rights are not just a function for men. “Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” (Genesis 4:25 TNIV).

1 Corinthians 12:4-11 talks about the distribution of the gifts of the Spirit. No mention is made of gender-based giftings; therefore, women should not be prohibited from using gifts given to them by the Holy Spirit to build up the body of Christ.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

September 29, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

While this discussion has been primarily about egalitarianism generally, we have been specifically discussing Gal 3:28. In my favorite version, the King James, that verse and the one following read: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Now obviously, people are either Jews or non-Jews, what the KJV calls “Greeks.” That is a difference between them. Yet, they are identical in Christ. So, equal does not mean exactly the same. As the old saying goes, God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

But, this Scripture does not stand alone in the Bible to prove our status as different-but-equal. Here are a couple of other examples.

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” Rom 8:16&17 Here we are told that we are all the children of God if we have the Spirit in us. Regardless of our differences, if there is this single thing in our lives then we are a part of the group who are the children and joint-heirs with Christ. This is our standing in God.

One of my favorite verses is I John 3:2: ”Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” What a joy that is! You, Bartholomew, you, Christensen, my wife, Julie, and I are all sons of God. There’s nothing of the old ways where a daughter could not inherit but a son could. God says we are all sons. We can all inherit. We will all inherit because of grace through faith in Jesus.
I think this is an advantage to men that derives from God’s equality views. In the old ways, the men “took care of” the women. In Jesus, God takes care of all of us. We help each other because we are brothers together and because God wants it that way. But there is no special gender burden. Women are not limited when helping themselves and men feel no special calling to help the unemplowered women. What a relief for both!

Comment by Deborah

September 29, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

Hurbert, I love your comments. Although I know it is hard for some women to relate to, I’ve always relished being a “son” for the reasons you describe. I do have some thoughts, however, regarding your comment that men feel no special calling to help unempowered women. I understand that is within the context of an egalitarian view that releases her to help herself, but then, until Christ comes we may not see a fully egalitarian world.

Egalitarians agree that we support gender “complementarity without hierarchy,” not a sameness of the sexes. However, some might prefer to acknowledge that we have some physical differences and to shy away from defining further differences out of fear of producing prescriptions—cookie cutters—for male and female. Sometimes the poor fit of these stereotypes is what drew us to re-examine the scriptures as they pertain to gender roles in the first place. I agree with the danger but can’t help but ponder all that we do and don’t know about one another from my armchair, particularly when I find egalitarian friends confused as to whether they can or should consider the genders different in anything but body. With all the confusion around us in the world—and face it, in ourselves—I can only believe that part of the rich answer of freedom in Christ that we might offer as egalitarians tackles both the harmful stereotypes and the speculative (and sometimes scientific) realities of what our differences do entail and also how we can relate to one another in the most life-giving ways in light of the differences that society is attempting to impose on us.

I believe Christian husbands and men have a call to raise women up through the societal prominence that their advantage created in the fall. (I won’t get into it here, but I am among those egalitarians who see an ongoing meaning to headship, albeit not one of “authority,” and prominent in that understanding is the fact that bodies are relatively vulnerable, and so the heads use the power of their advantage to lift the bodies up to full authority when needed even as the Father did in heading the Son, 1 Corinthians 11:3. I recognize egals are split not only on whether to count headship but also on what it means.) For husbands, it is a unique sacrifice to submit wherever culture anticipates female submission and female relinquishment of goals and purpose. Thus, they might present a sort of initiative of receiving her that makes it feasible or easier for her to operate in her God-given leadership. They are generally more able to hold her down and keep her back with society and sheer physical strength empowering them, so there is a service in which her leadership may practically pass through his willingness “first” to receive it even though many single women rightly strike out in their leadership without the affirmation of man. His first receiving her may be outside the home where his support before society might be essential to her release. (This need may be far more apparent within certain subcultures–like here in the South–than others but is plenty common, particularly when a woman is married.) Or it may lie within the emotional and relational dynamics of their marital dyad, wherever the fall has left a stamp of distortions of feminine giftings—of response without initiative, of fear and “can’t”s. Sometimes the man here will be the one more devalued and traumatized in his childhood, but it may more frequently be the woman.

There is something inherently nerve-wracking and insecure for both parties in feeling out the initial possibility of their most intimate life relationship, and this iffy factor would naturally require more reassurance for a connective knower, which is frequently a woman’s gifted way of knowing. She is also dealing with the vulnerability of her own body in relation to the world–in strength, in potential for abuse, in potential for carrying a child in a state of heightened vulnerability, and in potential for delivering an eminently vulnerable human being who now needs care–whether or not she is consciously examining all of these factors. For all of these reasons, as well as the stamp of societal pressures and the centuries of female devaluation readily increasing insecurities, I think we may find that even in egalitarian relationships in societies which base marriage upon romantic love, a man who takes some degree of romantic initiative over and above her own may speak uniquely to her soul. It suggests the courage, gentleness, and determined desire of the one to whom she will become most intimately vulnerable. There is also the correlation in choosing a mate to a “father” (for the man, “mother”)—whether he was there and healthy or absent. Mental health specialists suggest that young children do not distinguish their own identities from mother. Father is, therefore, typically and ideally key in the initial calling forth of the child out of the circle of mother even if the mother might also call the child forth as she names and nurtures their unique personality and gifts. Perhaps sometimes in our mutual leadership there is a sequence of leadership and initiative that makes the most emotional sense to the couple at hand in arriving at that goal of mutuality. Of course, many societal expectations upon the dating relationship will not hold up to egalitarian scrutiny.

I do not see that acknowledging some responsive gifts as more prominent in women plays into the hands of ideologies that consider women unequal in function or role to men, although I do understand any nervousness over the correlation due to the caricatures that have been drawn and the molds that have been formed out of these. And our minds are prone to wrongly consider “responsive” attributes as less leaderly gifts when, in fact, these gifts pause to absorb an environment in order to then order it whollistically. Our leadership as men or women may look different in motive or style with *generalities* that are sometimes identifiable (typically shades of difference more than night and day reversals), despite the many *exceptions*, and this is something to celebrate when it appears. She may be no less wild at heart and strong in initiative even while approaching these dreams and goals through a potentially more responsive gifting.

Any thoughts about that? For some reason, I’ve been a dog on the bone with this topic and have written many dozens of pages exploring scriptures to come to proper speculative understandings (of mystery that rightly resists being pinned down and is constantly intent on proving how slippery it is). Jonalyn Fincher’s Ruby Slippers and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen’s My Brother’s Keeper, both egal resources, offer a lot to chew….

Comment by Deborah

September 29, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

Hmm… I’ve tried twice to leave a substantial comment, and it’s not taking. Testing, testing….

Comment by Deborah

September 29, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

Trying to break it into two:

Hurbert, I love your comments. Although I know it is hard for some women to relate to, I’ve always relished being a “son” for the reasons you describe. I do have some thoughts, however, regarding your comment that men feel no special calling when to help unempowered women. I understand this is w/in the context of an egal framework where the woman has power to help herself, but do we actually find egal society before Jesus returns?

Egalitarians agree that we support gender “complementarity without hierarchy,” not a sameness of the sexes. However, some might prefer to acknowledge that we have some physical differences and to shy away from defining further differences out of fear of producing prescriptions—cookie cutters—for male and female. Sometimes the poor fit of these stereotypes is what drew us to re-examine the scriptures as they pertain to gender roles in the first place. I agree with the danger but can’t help but ponder all that we do and don’t know about one another from my armchair, particularly when I find egalitarian friends confused as to whether they can or should consider the genders different in anything but body. With all the confusion around us in the world—and face it, in ourselves—I can only believe that part of the rich answer of freedom in Christ that we might offer as egalitarians tackles both the harmful stereotypes and the speculative (and sometimes scientific) realities of what our differences do entail and also how we can relate to one another in the most life-giving ways in light of the differences that society is attempting to impose on us.

I believe Christian husbands and men have a call to raise women up through the societal prominence that their advantage created in the fall. (I won’t get into it here, but I am among those egalitarians who see an ongoing meaning to headship, albeit not one of “authority,” and prominent in that understanding is the fact that the bodies are vulnerable relative to the head, and so the heads use the power of their advantage to lift the bodies up to full authority when needed even as the Father did in heading the Son, 1 Corinthians 11:3. I recognize not all egals have the same read of head, nor do they all see a contemporary use of head.) For husbands, it is a unique sacrifice to submit wherever culture anticipates female submission and female relinquishment of goals and purpose. Thus, they might present a sort of initiative of receiving her that makes it feasible or easier for her to operate in her God-given leadership. They are generally more able to hold her down and keep her back with society and sheer physical strength empowering them, so there is a service in which her leadership may practically pass through his willingness “first” to receive it even though many single women rightly strike out in their leadership without the affirmation of man. His first receiving her may be outside the home where his support before society might be essential to her release. (This need may be far more apparent within certain subcultures than others–like here in the South–but is plenty common, particularly when a woman is married.) Or it may lie within the emotional and relational dynamics of their marital dyad, wherever the fall has left a stamp of distortions of feminine giftings—of response without initiative, of fear and “can’t”s. Sometimes the man here will be the one more devalued and traumatized in his childhood, but it may more frequently be the woman.

Comment by Deborah

September 29, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

continuing on:

There is something inherently nerve-wracking and insecure for both parties in feeling out the initial possibility of their most intimate life relationship, and this iffy factor would naturally require more reassurance for a connective knower, which is frequently a woman’s gifted way of knowing. She is also dealing with the vulnerability of her own body in relation to the world–in strength, in potential for abuse, in potential for carrying a child in a state of heightened vulnerability, and in potential for delivering an eminently vulnerable human being who now needs care–even if she isn’t consciously thinking about all of this. For all of these reasons, as well as the stamp of societal pressures and the weight of history’s devaluations of her gender heightening insecurity, I think we may find that even in egalitarian relationships in societies which base marriage upon romantic love, a man who takes some degree of romantic initiative over and above her own may speak uniquely to her soul. It suggests the courage, gentleness, and determined desire of the one to whom she will become most intimately vulnerable.

There is also the correlation in choosing a mate to a “father” (for the man, “mother”)—whether father was there and healthy or absent. Mental health specialists suggest that young children do not distinguish their own identities from mother. Father is, therefore, typically and ideally key in the initial calling forth of the child out of the circle of mother even if the mother might also call the child forth as she names and nurtures their unique personality and gifts. Perhaps sometimes in our mutual leadership there is a sequence of leadership and initiative that makes the most emotional sense to the couple at hand in arriving at that goal of mutuality. Of course, many societal expectations upon the dating relationship will not hold up to egalitarian scrutiny.

As a side note, I do not see that acknowledging some responsive gifts as more prominent in women plays into the hands of ideologies that consider women unequal in function or role to men, although I do understand any nervousness over the correlation due to the caricatures that have been drawn and the molds that have been formed out of these. And our minds are prone to wrongly consider “responsive” attributes as less leaderly gifts when, in fact, these gifts pause to absorb an environment in order to then order it whollistically. Our leadership as men or women may look different in motive or style with *generalities* that are sometimes identifiable (typically shades of difference more than night and day reversals), despite the many *exceptions*, and this is something to celebrate when it appears. She may be no less wild at heart and strong in initiative even while approaching these dreams and goals through a potentially more responsive gifting.

Any thoughts about that? For some reason, I’ve been a dog on the bone with this topic of gender complementarity and have written many dozens of pages exploring scriptures to come to proper speculative understandings (of mystery that rightly resists being pinned down and is constantly intent on proving how slippery it is–haha!). Jonalyn Fincher’s Ruby Slippers and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen’s My Brother’s Keeper, both egal resources, offer a lot to chew….

Blessings!

Comment by Deborah

September 29, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

Now it won’t let me post the second half. I’d just like it to take so I can work on other stuff this evening. Doing another “testing” post.

Comment by Mara

September 29, 2009 @ 7:06 pm

Deborah,
I’m very disappointed it won’t let you post.
Perhaps if I put a post in between it will let you.

Been thinking about something else Bart said.
Really shouldn’t pursue because of time constraints.
But he said something about eating from the tree as being a form of going against authority, esp the woman against the man’s but ultimately against God.

Definitly going against God’s command.
Okay, I forgot to mention a command in my last post. It is: “Don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

But guess what? Eve (some say Adam) added to the command, more than what God had given. She said God said that they were not even supposed to touch it.
So what happened when she touched it?
Nothing.
Because God didn’t say she couldn’t touch it. She either misunderstood or Adam told her wrong.
But once she saw nothing happened with a touch, did that open the door in her mind that nothing would happen when she ate?

I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I can do no more than speculate.

Obviously the sin was eating from the tree that God said they shouldn’t eat from. That is plainly stated by God.

Speculating about the woman usurping authority when it wasn’t clear her husband had that authority before the fall anyway is pointless just as speculating that adding to God’s words “don’t even touch it” gets us nowhere.

But I still hold to the idea that interpreting commands out of scripture where no commands exist is walking on dangerous territory.

Comment by Deborah

September 30, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

Mara, thanks for feeling my pain ;-). It seems it still will not let me post any substantial comment. Grr. Would like to get that over with. Interesting musings on Genesis!

Comment by Frank

September 30, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

Larry, I agree with much that you and Christensen Low said in your last comments(89901,89879). And at first I was not going to make any further response to brother Bartholomew. But since he was so kind to notice me and correct my “apparent” errors, I feel that, as one who has been trained and served as a Bible teacher, writer, and sometime apologist, I should do him the courtesy of a final response. And I hope to do so in the spirit of 2 Tim. 3:14-17 and James 3:11-18.

Now, brother Bartholowmew, since your desire is that my responses be accurate, brief and clear, which is what I think you mean by your constant reference to “concision,” I will oblige you as best as I can.

1. As to your first criticism of my previous comments (89884), you wrote, “First, concision. You mean to say: ‘who cares about the traditions of men or even Church traditions…without clear and irrefutable Scriptural warrant?’ Fine, just say that.” I am sorry, brother Bartholomew, but you are mistaken. What I wrote was, “[A]nd frankly, who cares about Church traditions, whether Catholic or Protestant, if they are without clear and irrefutable Scriptural warrant?” Contrary to what you say, I wrote what I meant to say, and I meant to say what I wrote. Nothing more and nothing less.

Now it may be you don’t like my style of writing or it may be you think I should have written my last clause as an independent sentence. I wish you had made clearer what your true objection was. The primary point of what I wrote was that among the various branches of the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, there exist traditions (i.e., certain beliefs and practices) that are neither clearly taught or implied in any way by Scripture itself so they need to be reformed or eliminated. I fully agree with this statement made in the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, because it expresses what all Evangelical Christians believe: “No doctrine may be required as necessary for the salvation of Christians, nor any religious practice imposed on the Christian’s conscience, if it is not clearly taught or implied by the text of Scripture itself.”

However, your practice of “concision,” or your cutting and pasting of my sentence, leads me to suspect that you had a different agenda: Perhaps, very subtlely, to persuade me and others that “the traditions of the fathers” is to be equated with “[the]Tradition,” possibly the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church? And that is why you advise me to defer to the Fathers? Well, brother Bartholomew, if that is indeed what you are attempting to do, it is very disingenuous and dishonest of you. So I would advise you to give it up, here and now.

2. Your second major criticism was the pitting of my opinion against that of the fathers. You wrote: “Also, you cleverly keep setting this up as a controversy between my view, (i.e.,’…his assumption that only his view of manhood and womanhood is true…’) and yours. But it isn’t my view vs. yours. It’s the view of our forefathers vs. yours. And its to our forefathers, not me, that you should defer.” Again, you engage in misquotation and misrepresentation what I have written to give the false impression that yours is the stronger positon.

a. If anyone will take the time to check, on this particular Scroll posting, I have made only three comments, only one which was a brief and pointed criticism of your attack against egalitarians, and this one I am writing now, in response to your criticism of me. I think your accusation that I “cleverly keep on setting this up as a controversy between my view…and yours” is hardly justified. Perhaps you meant it as criticism of all of us who have responded to your comments? Then you should have addressed it to all of us, not just to me.

b. I notice that, more often than not, when you seek to use our own words against us, you make what you consider be selective but strategic quotes. I am somewhat impressed with your knowledge and practice of the art of rhetoric; but your honesty and sincerety in dealing with opponents and what they say impresses me far less. So let me kindly remind you of what I actually wrote: “…are made with the assumption that his view of manhood and womanhood is true, while failing to demonstrate it is rooted in Scripture, rather [than] in questionable religious and philosophical traditions.”

It is significant to me, and others who also have read what I have written, that you, as a representative of the Tradition, when I ask you to prove to me whether or not your view is founded on either Scripture, or on questionable religious and philosophical traditions, the best answer you can give me is that the Tradition is held by countless generations of men, and that is why I or anyone should defer to them? Poppycock! If I defer to anyone, other than the Lord Jesus Christ, it would be to the Apostle Paul, who knew God and his will far better than you and all the Fathers put together:

But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. You have been taught the Holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.

2 Timothy 3:14-17, NLT

Comment by Rob

October 3, 2009 @ 10:58 am

(Blog Admin note)
Deborah, I’m very sorry about your comments not showing up. I found them in the spam filter. I will release your first comment now. Again, thanks for your patience!

Comment by Deborah

October 3, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

Thanks, Rob. I’d just given up. I’d tweaked the post a lot since that initial attempt, but it’ll do–appreciate it!

Frank, you put it well. Again, it is good to hear more from the guys.