The CBE Scroll

Comment by Hailey

March 3, 2010 @ 7:04 pm

We are talking about gender issues in my “Ethics” class at The Master’s College. Most of the current couples at my college will have marriages that function as egalitarian, although they would never say that. They just instinctively look at successful marriages around them, follow that pattern, and voila! But as I said, these marriages are the ones that function around in understanding of equality in everything, except they define the terms differently. This is fine in some ways, because they are doing the same thing, just with a different terminology, EXCEPT that there are those marriages, let’s say 10% of the student body, who will think that they are following the biblical model but will be frustrated by their own personalities in their marriages. For instance, I come from a home where my dad had the more “feminine” characteristics. He had a servant’s heart, was good with hospitality, took care of people, filling the void in menial tasks, upkeep etc., and he was the feeler/compassionate one. My mom on the other hand had the more “masculine” personality. She was the administrator, had the plan and was excellent with delegation, and she was a better thinker. My mom was obviously a leader in every sense of the word, but my dad was not a follower, although he ended up being seen as such because of the way his personality was- I didn’t realize growing up that my dad, too, was a leader- he was a servant leader. My parents’ marriage was beneficial to me in that I saw them fight and be frustrated and outright angry with each other, but they always worked out things enough that they were able to stay committed and married to each other. But at the same time, it was hugely detrimental to my opinion of both of my parents which affected my ability as a child in my home to obey and honor my parents- I was on a constant seesaw of respecting and not respecting them. I respected my mom for her abilities, but I was frustrated by my dad because he didn’t take advantage of them. I respected my mom for “submitting” to my dad’s leadership, even though I thought he made a lot of detrimental decisions. So I grew embittered toward my father because of how he was misleading the family- it was seriously messed up!- and I was frustrated because I knew my mom had the better ideas and leadership to actually carry them out. I couldn’t respect him. But then I grew up and realized that I had been unfair to my dad- I started to see things I could respect him in, and I started to get frustrated with things that my mom was doing that I thought was unfair. To top it off, my mom was also the stronger one spiritually. Growing up, I always tried to do marriage counseling with them, basically. I couldn’t understand what was so difficult- I was only 14 years old, but I could see that they each had what the other lacked. I couldn’t understand why they couldn’t see it too and function that way. But that’s when I realized this past year that the problem was that my mom was frustrated all the time with my dad, not because he was a bad husband, but because the ways in which he could lead were outside of the picture of traditional headship. So my mom, who filled those ideas of the traditional male role, was frustrated seeing those duties left undone in their marriage and always just wanted my dad to lead. My dad on the otherhand, felt henpecked by his entire family because we all just wanted him to “do the right thing” and be “the head of the family”. We basically emasculated him in our home because he was so discouraged and felt like such failure, he couldn’t do anything- which made him feel like he was worthless and ungodly. My parents are just now starting to figure their marriage out and my mom is starting to realize that she doesn’t need to wait on my dad to fill these duties, but that she lovingly does them for the benefit of their marriage while my dad does the same for her in the things he’s naturally gifted in.

This is what I’m fearful of in these young couples’ marriages and I fear how this will look in the church. We are all responsible for the unity, harmony, and function of the church. If God did not want a woman to have the gift of teaching, do you not think he would give it to her? Is he so cruel that he would bless her with the mind, words, and passion and say, “oh, just kidding! That’s for men only!” As Paul would say, “By no means!”

Comment by Lisa

March 4, 2010 @ 5:28 pm

This was a beautiful post! I am so tired of the comps saying “equal in value; different in role” because it makes no logical sense.

In complementarianism, women are always submitting to men in every area….that is not something I call equal in value. It doesn’t make any sense, and the more I think of it, the more illogical it seems.

Sadly, I am afraid this is deterring people from the gospel. God bring us to the truth.

Comment by jlp

March 4, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

So many comps say women are equal but treat them like they are inferior.

Comment by Abram Hess

March 4, 2010 @ 9:39 pm

If we want to make a principled argument about Scriptural teachings, it would be good to bring Scripture to bear on the issue. So let’s take as an example our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ, who being Himself God “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,” but submitted Himself to His Father’s will. This is central to the Doctrine of the Trinity, that Christ, being God and equal with God the Father, submitted Himself to the Father. See that? The Father and Son are equals, yet the Son submits to the Father. That’s how God created marriage, too: the husband and wife are equal, but God ordained that the wife would submit to the husband (as an aside, it’s much more productive to deal in terms of “husbands” and “wives” rather than “men” and “women,” because practically when a wife submits to her husband she is then free from submitting to any other man; but the way the author has penned this piece casts the biblical teaching of father-rule as a tyrannical system wherein every woman must submit to every man; which is lunacy, and absolute hogwash).

To attack the authority of a husband over his wife is to attack the authority of Christ over the church, and ultimately denies the authority of God the Father over God the Son. Feminist egalitarianism is an attack upon God.

Feminists like heart-string-tugging anecdotes, so here’s one: A friend of mine grew up in a Christian home where the father did not lead, because it’s so arbitrary that the man should lead just because he’s a man (please note my sarcasm). This created a power vacuum in this home, thus most decisions were resolved through conflict, that is, lots of yelling. So instead of the authority in the home resting on the arbitrariness of who is the husband, the authority instead rested on the far less arbitrary principle of who can yell the loudest (again, note the sarcasm).

If God ordained that “the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church,” then the husband’s authority is not arbitrary, it is God-given. If the wife, by the power of her lungs and the decibel capacity of her vocal cords, seizes that authority she has rebelled against God’s ordinance and is a usurper.

That’s what this Harvard grad student needs to hear: Christ submitted to His Father, the church submits to her Husband, Christ, therefore the wife must submit to her husband.

Comment by Deborah

March 4, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

Hello Abram,

Just because Mimi has focused here on other foundations of thought does not mean that CBE’s emphasis has ever been anything but Scripture as the infallible Word. Where you differ is in interpretation.

Here are some articles on the Trinity that may be of interest:

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/trinity

Western Orthodoxy has historically been interested in maintaining the eternal equality of both essence and function for the Father and Son while recognizing the temporary suboordination on earth amid the Son’s vulnerability. And then He was lifted up to equality. Even Calvin was careful about this if you look at his commentary on John 14:28 and Romans 11:3 but appealed instead to social order (and more generally to the supposed inferiority of women) as a basis for male hierarchy.

My deep disturbance over the Trinitarian theology I found in complementarian marriage helps was actually a prime motivator for my prayerfully studying the scriptures on topics pertinent to male/female relations and any Trinitarian applications to the same. And then I eventually read egalitarian materials once I got over my prejudices against them and the fear that I might be looking at something I “wanted” to be true and thus not see the truth. I had been taught a hierarchy in the Trinity long ago and had struggled to come out of that as well as other areas of religious confusion in the formative teaching of a splinter group. When I saw it staring back up at me from comp materials, I was speechless. I had not realized evangelicals were moving in this direction.

Jesus will always be Lord and King of the Church. Although she is not egalitarian per se, I recommend Dr. Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church for an analysis of the primary ways I had come to understand “head” and the Trinitarian relationship. She uniquely confirmed these for me.

Any marriage where one partner is passive is going to yield unhealthy dynamics. These will moreoever be outwardly “difficult,” tense dynamics unless the other is more than happy to dominate. In a society that tells the woman the husband should lead, male passivity in particular is difficult for a marriage to grope with b/c of the weight of contrary expectations. I could tell you plenty of stories about how a wife’s (often learned) passivity damaged families too–the sense of “nonbeing” the female children carried, the abuse it allowed for in many cases, the distorted and confused ideas the sons grew up with, the strikingly hindered intimacy some couples knew as a result, the drive of some of the husbands to look elsewhere b/c their “china plate” was just that, and on and on. The wives may have been active and seemingly exemplary in doing the jobs assigned them, but the void in the mothers’ lives had far-reaching consequences. But egalitarians aren’t calling for male passivity or for men to steward leadership less but for them to steward it better–as co-leaders who affirm the mutual leadership of their wives, nurturing a one-body relationship in every facet, and who can forge ahead or play second fiddle alike as situations and skill sets deem.

All best,
Deborah

Comment by PSanafterthought

March 5, 2010 @ 10:53 am

While I agree with, and live my life by, the last three sentences of the main posting, and I’m in agreement with the philosophy of CBE, I do find one red flag regarding the word LOGIC.

In the human realm, there are different systems of logic. And what is “logical” in one culture isn’t necessarily logical in another. Therefore logic can be a slippery thing, dependent on one’s background.

The other thing is that our logic isn’t necessarily God’s logic, and certainly, God’s mind and thought processes are greater than ours, so we can’t say that we can grasp God’s logic. If “logic” prevailed, God would not have sent His Son to die for our sins. The JWs come often to my door. When I’ve talked with them, I like to state my beliefs. Often they say, “That isn’t logical.” No, it isn’t logical that we do NOTHING to be saved. Even within the varieties of the Christian faith, there are groups that insist that we have to DO something to be saved.

However, I do believe that God gave us good minds for a reason, and I do believe that the Holy Spirit helps us discern what is right for us, based on scripture, using our minds. We don’t need to believe a specific way just because we are told to.

Regarding the marriage example given by AH, I can only say that to hold it up as an example of a specific type of non-submissive marriage is not consistent with either egalitarian nor “complimentary” marriage. If the husband and wife have issues (communication issues, self esteem issues???) that prevent them from speaking lovingly to each other when they disagree, the marriage isn’t successful under any model. Yelling is by definition abusive, so I doubt that either egalitarian or complimentarian marriage advisers would approve. One other form of “submission” is to be passive-aggressive, not uncommon among people have low self-esteem, who aren’t able to recognize or voice what they really think. This can lead to an underhanded abuse of the leader. Do you remember the famous book from about 35 years ago where the Famous Christian Woman wrote about getting her way within her marriage by wheedling, etc?

Comment by Deborah

March 5, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

Psanafterthought, I agree re: logic. For instance, some of God’s thoughts become morally unpopular in society, with quite an impetus of various logics to support them. As with prophetic revelations, our logic must be checked with scripture. But it can be a great tool. Blessings~

Comment by Abram Hess

March 5, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

Look, you’re wrong. Feminist egalitarianism is just like Socialism: it looks really good on paper, but played out in the real world it’s a complete disaster.

In every relationship–straight, gay, dating, engaged, married, cohabitating, common-law marriage–there is a leader, a head, someone “wearing the pants,” so to speak; and the degree to which that leadership is secure can be used directly to predict the amount of conflict that will be present in the relationship. In relationships where someone is clearly wearing the pants–whether that’s a man or a woman, or a sodomite or a lesbian–the level of conflict is very, very low, because everyone can rest secure about who is in charge. But relationships where it is unclear who is wearing the pants–egalitarian relationships, if you will–have an unbelievable rate of conflict, abuse, and violence, because there is a constant, simmering conflict among them as to who will be the greatest. So to use the biblical imagery of headship, every relationship is like a person, with a head; and the relationship that tries to have two heads is a two-headed monster, constantly fighting with itself, doomed to be its own undoing. (Incidentally, this is why lesbian relationships are far and away the most abusive–verbally, emotionally and physically–of all relationships; because God has hard-wired women to be submissive, so there is a never-ending struggle between two lesbians as to who will be the head, all the while they’re both trying to lead and submit at the same time; and it is the most ugly, brutal war you’ll ever see).

Every relationship has a head. If God has declared that such head should be a man (perhaps because God created men to lead, and has given men certain characteristics that help them on toward that leadership), then you are rebelling against God if you instead prop up a woman as the head. God has said “the husband is the head of the wife,” therefore it is not arbitrary.

You’ve rejected the clear teaching of the New Testament; so let’s take indicative examples from the Old Testament. All of the godly women of old are spoken of as submissive wives and mothers (Hebrews says that “Sarah honored Abraham by calling him ‘Lord’”). Every single woman that the Bible mentions in the indicative in a positive light is a submissive wife and mother.

Now, I’m going to put words in your mouth (and I’m sorry about that, but this will be my last post here, so I’m going to predict your argument since I won’t be able to come back and take it up against you), and guess that since your name is Deborah, you’re going to point to the Deborah of the Bible and say “What about her!? She led ARMIES of men, and God blessed her!” And I’d say, “Yes, there’s always an exception to prove the rule!” What there is to say about Deborah is that God clearly used her leadership–the leadership of a woman over the men of Israel, and particularly over Barack–to humiliate the Israelites for their cowardliness. The Bible says it explicitly: because Barack was a coward and didn’t lead the armies into battle God vindicated Israel in battle by the hand of a woman. And Deborah’s reward for her faithful service to God is that she was blessed with children.

I’m done. I’m sorry, the internet is full of vanity, but I have a life to live and will not return to this discussion. Egalitarian feminism is an attack upon the church and the fatherhood of God. See how you’re being duped: you’re just about 10 years behind the zeitgeist of America; ten years from now you’ll be embracing sodomy the way American culture is now, the way they embraced feminism just a few decades ago. And I’m sorry if you have sad stories about failed father-rule marriages, but that’s the nature of living in a sinful world: very often sinful men fail sinfully. But we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater; the illegitimate use of an institution does not negate its proper use. George W. Bush was a failure of a President, but that doesn’t mean we should abolish the presidency; in the same way, the recurring failure of God-ordained father-rule does not mean that we should abolish it, because that would be rebellion against God.

Comment by Jamie

March 5, 2010 @ 8:10 pm

Wow, so well said, Mimi!

The point about paganism was excellent.

When one person submits to another — and the other doesn’t (in other words, it’s not mutual) then it’s not equality. Period.

There is no getting around this. One can fuzzy it up all they would like, but facts are facts unless one wants to be deceived.

For example: a child submits to her parents while the parents do not submit to the child.

And that’s not equality (nor should it be).

And it wouldn’t be equality then if a wife submits and a husband doesn’t.

It’s as simple as that.

God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit <– They are all equal to each other.

They all mutually submit. They must, or logic would indicate they are not equal (of one Substance).

The heresy regarding this was settled over a millennia and a half ago.

We submit to God. God doesn't submit to us.

And we ain't equal either.

Which makes what Jesus did by submitting to the cross for our sakes all the more incredible!!

Substitute two things other than "wife" and "husband" and perhaps for some the point will be more clear. There is no getting around this. One can fuzzy it all they would like, but facts are facts unless one wants to be deceived.

A husband is not Christ either, or some kind of substitute for Christ. The metaphor certainly shouldn't be stretched as far as it has to justify self-servingly a system of dominance. God has not given husbands that authority.

Comment by Liz

March 6, 2010 @ 6:34 am

What a shame that Abram said some provocative things then went off the scene! (Unless of course, you are still watching Abram) For those who are following this discussion, I would like to affirm that egalitarian marriages should and are the most wonderful relationships. We have one of 44 years for a start and we know others. To quote that someone would always be wanting to be in charge, or the greatest is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. He said quite clearly that the last would be first and the first last, and that we should not be looking to see who was the greatest but to serve each other.

So sad that Abram hasn’t witnessed egalitarian friendships and marriage. There is absolutely no need for anyone to be the head in the sense of authority. With 2 adults walking with God in humility, it is a wonderful life of mutual submission.

Comment by Francine

March 6, 2010 @ 9:28 am

Although, Abram is no longer posting and probably not reading this, he may be surprised that it isn’t Deborah that might be answering his posting. By the way, Deborah, you have the name of a great lady in the Bible that was a prophet, judge, and, contrary to some beliefs, a military leader.

I have had the privilege of studying the great women in the Bible. I’m in the process of writing a book on many of the women in the Bible, many of them are the lesser know women. The section I’m working on now is about the women that stepped up to the plate to save their husbands, household, cities and country. Of course, the chapter I’m working on now is about Deborah and Barak, so Abram’s statement’s are of interest to me.

I am so tired of hearing that Barak was a coward because of the one statement he made. When he told Deborah he’d only go if she went it wasn’t because of cowardice but it was because he was a very smart man. He knew Deborah was a prophet and that God would tell her when it was time for battle. God used a man and a woman to work together as a team to get the 10,000 men needed for the battle and to completely destory the enemy. To me this is the example of what can happen when men and women respect each other’s strengths and work together as a team in the world, the church and in marriage.

I hope I didn’t sound too angry, but it does upset me when people put either Barak or Deborah down to prove their misguided point of male leadership.

Comment by Lydia

March 6, 2010 @ 9:40 am

Haily, Thanks so much for your comment. You have hit the nail on the head! The biggest problem with comp teaching is that it causes us to focus on the other person’s “role” instead of living out unity in the Spirit with our God given talents and spiritual gifts.

It is a human focus and not a spiritual focus and it causes huge problems when folks are not suited for the human role. (Roles are something folks pretend, anyway. They are not in the Word)

Abram, We have heard every single wrong point you have made. If you would stick around, we could go through them with scripture starting in Gen 1 and ending in Revelation.

But basically, you are defining “head” as authority over when it is a unity metaphor. IF the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate authority over, He would have used very clear authority words in the Greek. There are plenty of them. And He DID use a clear authority word for the marriage relationship in 1 Corinthians 7. The only problem is that it is for both male and female.

I have less problem with your patriarchal views than I do about your views on the Trinity. I fear for you and I say that in love.

The Lord of Hosts gave up His rights and authority to become a man. He did not claim equality with God while He was Incarnate but the Pharisees thought differently.
See John 5:18.

What you are suggesting is that the Lord of Hosts in the Old Covenant was in a chain of command structure within the Trinity from eternity past to eternity future. This would negate the ONE TRUE GOD with Three Persons in the Trinity and presupposes a lack of unity and seperate wills. The result is to lessen Jesus Christ and His sacrifice – all to have male preeminance. Dangerous stuff for your soul.

Comment by PSanafterthought

March 6, 2010 @ 10:36 am

Well, well, well. It is interesting that an “authority” can know what goes on in every single marriage all over but not be able to cite any references. Why the anger about how other people run their marriages?

And yes, if you want to use the Bible as a reference, use the parts in context.

Comment by jlp

March 6, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

Abram,

I do not feel you are interpreting scripture correctly. I hope you will listen to what the people here have to say to you.

Comment by jlp

March 6, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

“Do you remember the famous book from about 35 years ago where the Famous Christian Woman wrote about getting her way within her marriage by wheedling, etc?”

I remember the book and believe the woman ended up divorcing her husband – but I’m not sure.

Comment by jlp

March 6, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

Abram,

I have a question for you – if slavery was still legal in the United States – would you support it? And if you would, would you use verses from the Bible to justify it?

Comment by jlp

March 6, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

One more question Abram-

If you are against slavery, what would you say to someone who used Biblical verses to support it?

Comment by Deborah

March 6, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

Liz, I too have seen some phenomenal egalitarian marriages. In fact, they were the marriages that awed me the most before I realized how much they were going against the grain. I’ve seen some healthy hierarchical ones as well but not as great as the egal ones I have seen. And I’ve seen the vast majority of hierarchical ones in my experience to be troubled.

Oh, and I might as well throw out there that one of my areas of high interest is seeing folks find sexual healing including from addictive homosexual thought or behavior.

Francine, I guess Abram is not around any longer, but thanks for bringing that up. It is a pet peeve for me too. (Oh, and what is this idea about Deborah being blessed w/ children for her role?? Some extrabiblical text or imagination? I know that rabbinical commentators had a wide-ranging variety of ways of attempting to deal with her story, but I’d not heard that one before.)

Anyhow, Francine, I too am writing several books right now, and one of them focuses on Deborah. Here is a summary of thoughts related to the point you brought up:

In this story, Deborah—a prophet and the judge of Israel—calls forth a man named Barak that he might lead Israel into battle. He replies that he will go if Deborah will go with him. Then Deborah continues on to say that even though (in Hebrew “nonetheless”) she is calling him to this task for which he is willing, the crown of victory in this battle will go to the hands of a woman (see the New King James and the New American Standard Bible, for instance). Now some less literal translations, in their commendable attempt to make stories more readable, interpret this injunction the following way, “Barak, because of how you are going about this, the honor will go to a woman.” The idea is one of punishment for wanting a woman to go with him and for making this a stipulation for his service. The word “nonetheless” is interchanged for “because.” The two words, however, are worlds apart. In fact, they are antonyms (opposites).

Here, Deborah is continuing to give Barak the prophetic rundown of what will happen, and in this, God may be testing his pride to see if he will receive the words even when they are hard on his motives and ego. His reception proves his purity as a vessel and prepares him for potential offense. But Barak is no wet noodle.

If this interaction is a model for anything, it might be for how some of the coming kings of Israel would request the presence of a prophet like Samuel or the high priest at battle. They would wait for the high priest to determine God’s favor for each move before continuing on. It was a matter of dependence on God and His Word. And here, God’s proceeding Word happened to be most authoritatively alive in a woman.

The story of Deborah is actually a marvelous story of the partnership of the sexes and God’s victory in their combined hands as they receive one another in their personal spheres, whatever these may be. Note, for instance, how the leadership emphasis of the story and song passes between Deborah and Barak depending on which sphere is active. He is the military leader and she the spiritual and political advisor with the authority of God backing her up.

I do not claim to have knowledge equal to Bible translators, but I am not the only person who sees the evident meaning of this story. And we do have a long history in the Church of using presuppositions to interpret (and occasionally to translate) scripture. It is something we need to be aware of whether the story says what we would like it to and what makes sense to us or says something completely different.

In translations that try to interpret things phrase by phrase instead of word for word for readability, drawing on outside influences is not only natural but probably inevitable to bring meaning to the text. That is, in order to come up with natural-sounding phrases, the translators must often choose an overarching meaning to apply to the phrase. The problem is that sometimes outside sources, whether other texts or our own framework, are biased. For instance, Jewish society has served its women far better in some seasons than others. The same tradition which produced a Huldah who was called upon above the notable male prophets of her day (Jeremiah and Zephaniah) to interpret scripture has rabbinical commentary noting that it would be better for the words of the Torah to be burned than given to a woman and that for a father to teach his daughter the Torah would be like teaching her “sexual satisfaction,” opening her knowledge and experience to something harmful for her to know how to handle if not suggesting outright abuse of her. I love learning of oral traditions from the rabbis that might inform my understanding of either the scriptures or the times, but that doesn’t mean all such traditions are to be received.

Comment by jlp

March 6, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

I don’t think Abram Hess is around anymore either. But I have another question for him. Christ said he came NOT to be served, but to serve.

Mr. Hess, are you willing to be like Christ and serve – or are you using the Bible to be served instead?

Comment by ls

March 6, 2010 @ 5:33 pm

Two thoughts or questions that I have: for Abram, under your worldview, what do you do with celibate singles or divorced or widowed people who choose celibacy and singleness instead of marriage? What about Paul? Are you implying there is no honor or usefulness or ‘abundant life’ for these folks? Where and what is the value of friendship, under your worldview? Didn’t Jesus say to his disciples that they’d been let in on His business and as such they were not slaves, but friends?

Second thought: pertaining to the value of ‘exceptions’, as in Deborah as well as other female Biblical leaders. There is one Biblical/Historic event, only happened once…the resurrection. Since it is infrequent, does that lessen the value?

ls

Comment by Hailey

March 6, 2010 @ 7:50 pm

Another problem that I often have is how do single women find a place in their church where they can use all of their God-given gifts? Most of the submission/silence commands in the bible are directed toward married women. Why do they get placed in the same category?

Comment by Deborah

March 6, 2010 @ 8:44 pm

Hailey,

My personal experience has been that single women are often viewed as a bit dangerous in their state of not-yet-submitted-to-a-husband and are doubted for their motive in not yet having taken this path. Even among comp churches that welcome a woman’s leadership in most facets (and some soft comp churches do), it is frequently viewed as important that she first be married to ensure she is “covered” by her “head”-as-authority. It’s sort of proof that she’s not a rebel. Some regions of the country are better about this than others, and it helps if you are situated near a reputable college where they have to deal with more “overly capable” single women. But I have found this true where I have lived in the northeast, midwest, and (especially) in the south (where it almost seems one has a non-acceptable-adult-woman status until married oftentimes). Btw, welcome.

Deb

Comment by Deborah

March 6, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

p.s.–Also w/ it being considerably more normal (however abnormal one can feel w/in the church) for a woman to BE single these days than in most Bible times, every limiting (or perceived as limiting) thing about married women in relation to husbands is taken by many as the proper relationship between women and men in general. Therefore she needs that husband over her to relate to and/or must show her general submissiveness through not doing/speaking ___. The ambiguity of a Greek word for woman/wife (translator’s decision) may abet such readings.

Boy, that all sounds pretty harsh, but it seems to be the truth.

Comment by Deborah

March 6, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

I should have said non-acceptable-as-an-adult in the second to last posting. It’s a sort of non-status, in some places overt and in many places felt.

Comment by Liz

March 6, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

Separated or divorced women often face the same pressure or suspicion that they are aftersomeone’s husband. It’s as though the only interest of women is connected to getting a man, by any means! How demeaning to women and insulting to the GOd who made them!

Comment by Deborah

March 6, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

True, Liz! When it comes to the headship question if I am directly challenged re: who I am as a single woman in terms of not having sufficient “covering” (I am going through a lot, and some attribute single women’s problems to losing their “head”), I know they are too far to one side to start talking to about what I might consider a more proper definition of “head,” etc. So I just mention Church leadership I am submitted to in order to satisfy them as best I can. And if church leadership seems to have that question in mind, I mention other church leadership (or reiterate my honor for them if they are my primary) and Christ.

Comment by Larry S

March 6, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

Abraham wrote: ‘Every relationship has a head.’

So if he and I hung out together as friends. One of us would have to be the ‘head’ – leader? Or would there be mutual give and take? Hmmmmmmm……..

Comment by Deborah

March 7, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

Good questions, Larry and JLP. And, btw, good article Mimi. I think many raised in the church necessarily approach this from what does scripture say–as we foundationally and ultimately should–and may not have seen a lapse in logic if indoctrinated from the cradle in one interpretation. Those not of that background are most likely to come from the vantage point of this Harvard student, seeing what many in the Church are missing. While sometimes the morality that someone has assumed from society is not biblical, in this case it is. And certainly there is a tremendous lapse in logic when one is considering eternal equality as congruent with eternal functional suboordination. God made logic and asked us to give our minds to him. Sometimes we can come up with odd logic that is not His; here we see how logic can both support and lead us to His truth.

Comment by Hailey

March 7, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

I just consider what culture they were coming from and the relationship that Christianity has to Judaism where men wear head coverings. I think that Paul was making a point that we’re missing. I think that Paul was trying to include us under the covering of God, whereas is Judaism women were under extension of their husband’s covering. It’s like, here, you men don’t have to wear one- think of this! and you women, you can be under this covering too. It rather inclusive if you just take time to think about it.

Comment by Lisa

March 7, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

I am not responding to Abram for several reasons. Have you ever heard of pearls before swine?

Anyway, I just love how Comps respond to the Deborah argument xD. Funny how the Bible is just chock full of exceptions, isn’t it? As if Deborah, Huldah, Miriam, Philip’s four daughters, Junia, Phoebe and Anna and about two dozen other women were all “exceptions.”

What’s even more amusing is that today there are no “exceptions.” Like, in the Bible there were tons of exceptions, but suddenly all those exceptions just stopped magically. Weird…

Please. This is absolutely patronizing.

On the childbearing issue: this is sensitive for some women (me included) are not able to have children. I don’t consider myself any less a Christian woman as a result of this.

Oh, I’d also like to point out there is not a single “prohibition” against women preaching, teaching or having leadership in the O.T. Are complementarians reading another book that was just magically added on to the cannon we don’t know about?

Comment by Francine

March 7, 2010 @ 3:35 pm

Liz when you said that “separated or divorced women often face the same pressure or suspicion that they are after someone’s husband. It’s as though the only interest of women is connected to getting a man, by any means!” That seems to apply to widows also. I lost my beloved to cancer 2 1/2 years ago and some people have told me it’s time to get on with my life and remarry. It’s as if I am not capable of taking care of myself. Anyway isn’t it in I Corinthians where Paul tells the widow it is best for me to stay as a widow so I can concentrate on the work for the Lord?

Comment by Deborah

March 7, 2010 @ 7:10 pm

For that matter, Francine, Paul was a fan of singlehood. Sorry for your loss.

Comment by Amanda

March 7, 2010 @ 7:21 pm

Even more frustrating for the single woman is the prohibition in complementarian churches, whether spoken or implied, that it’s wrong for her to “pursue” a man. Basically, we’re looked down upon for being single, told to get married, and then prohibited from actually doing anything about our single state. Ugh. I’m not entirely sure how that’s supposed to work.

Comment by Deborah

March 7, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

True, Amanda. We’re supposed to master other arts that set us up to be manipulators, I think :-P.

Btw, I think a few of us are supposed to be starting a Facebook group soon for egalitarian singles. One of my friends was really interested in starting one and wrote around to some of us. But he’s gotten too busy, and I’m sort of half-hearted about it–willing to support and help, but it’s not “my deal.” Just a heads’ up if you’re interested.

Comment by LMcC

March 8, 2010 @ 11:17 am

Ah, another patriarch coming in, stirring up stuff, and leaving. *sigh* Typical.

I’m simultaneously disgusted by patriarchal arguments and in deep pity for the men who make them for one simple reason: They seem to have no place for love in their lives. It’s all about authority. I have yet to see or hear a patriarchal man make clear that since he believes women must submit, then he must give that passionate, life-giving love to his wife that Christ gives the church. They’ll never say it. It’s all about authority. If love is mentioned at all, it’s in passing, more like a throwaway statement and not something of any real meaning. The authority is what matters, not the love.

Such an argument is clearly self-serving, but it also reveals what these men miss by choosing authority over love. I feel sorry for them, for they miss the whole point of marriage. What a tragedy when so much pride prevents these people from knowing love.

Comment by Deborah

March 8, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

LMCC, to be fair, the pastor of my small group is a hierarchalist and also tries to guard the idea that leadership has to be tied to servanthood. Some do better w/ it than others in both teaching and praxis. But I wonder how many see the servanthood as crucial as the woman’s submission or something that is rather optional or mitigated (my overall sense).

Francine, I wanted to add a thought on widowhood. I’m sure it varies in different places, but a few times now I have seen widows take on really unusual leadership roles for their circles (e.g., senior pastor) b/c now they represent both their deceased husband and themselves in the eyes of the church (and have supposedly paid their dues in submission to him and learning from his wisdom). They are now “allowed” to do his portion. For some, I’ve seen the phase of widowhood, then, be by far the most empowering status they have lived through as a woman. An interesting phenomenon.

Comment by LMcC

March 8, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

I’m talking about the ones who are gung-ho about defending patriarchy (I refuse to call it the c-word). I’m sure there are patriarchal types who really do love their wives to the best of their ability; but it appeared to me in my pre-Biblical equality days — and it still does now — that even the love of the so-called soft patriarchs is tainted by the desire to stay in control. The super-patri guys who come on here or other egal-friendly places trying to put us in our places don’t even seem to know the l-word exists.

The weirdest thing to me is that the people I know in traditionalist marriages who have the best marriages are the ones who ignore the patriarchy doctrine to a large degree and act for all practical purposes like egalitarians. It’s weird because who ever thought the success of a marriage would depend on ignoring a key doctrine of one’s faith?

Comment by Deborah

March 8, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

Gotcha, LMCC. I do know soft-patris who are REALLY into their theology (that pastor would be an example). Yet re: the hard ones, I agree…. As well as re: those who have healthier marriages…. Blessings.

Comment by Frank

March 8, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

I would agree with Deborah that logic is the servant of biblical interpretation, for it helps us determine between those interpretations of Scripture which are rationally consistent, coherent and practically wholesome, and those which are not. And I think we pretty much agree on that.

But there is one rational and philosophical issue, whether it pertains to the Trinity or to men and women, where you can never seem to get a straight answer from the hierarchialists: Are authority and submission accidental properties or necessary properties to the Divine/human persons? Millard Erickson,referring to hierarchicalists as “gradationists” and egalitarians as “equivalentists,” puts the issue this way:

“One way of characterizing these two different views is to say that on the gradational view, the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father. He could not be otherwise. Under any and all circumstances…, the Father has authority over the Son and the Son is subordinate to the Father. On the equivalence view, on the other hand, the Son is only contingently subordinate. His subordination is contingent upon a certain state of affairs, such as his being incarnate, or being in the state of humiliation. If those conditions do not pertain, then he is not subordinate but is equal in authority with the Father. Another way of referring to the different views is in terms of the status of the attributes, or qualities, or properties involved. On the equivalence model, the quality of being subordinate is an accidental quality. It does not change what the Son is. He would be the Son, and the Father would be the Father, even if this attribute were not present, While it modifies the possessor of the property, it does not change the nature of the possessor in any essential way. On the other hand, to the gradationist, authority and subordination are essential properties. If they were not possessed, the Father would not be the Father and the Son would not be the Son, and this is exactly what Ware and Grudem (especially the latter) mean when they say that if this[hierarchical] structure were not present, the Trinity would cease to exist,or would not be the Trinity. The problem is this. If authority over the Son is an essential, not an accidental, attribute of the Father, and subordination to the Father is an essential, not an accidental, attribute of the Son, then something significant follows. Authority is part of the Father’s essence, and subordination is part of the Son’s essence, and each attribute is not part of the essence of the other person. That means that the essence of the Son is different from the essence of the Father. The Father’s essence includes omnipresence, omniscience, love, etc., and authority over the Son. The Son’s essence includes omipresence, omniscience, love, etc., and submission to the Father. But that is equivalent to saying that they are not homoousious with one another. Here is surely a problem for the gradationists, for they want to affirm the homoousious, in order to reject Arianism…however, the way the gradationists have stated their doctrine implies a view of the nature of God that seems to entail some sort of Arian or Semi-Arian position” (“Philosophical Issues,” WHO’S TAMPERING WITH THE TRINITY?,pp. 171-172)

And their view regarding the relationship between men and women as regards their essence and function is plagued with the same violation of the law of non-contradiction, which simply stated is that “A cannot be both equal and non-equal to B in the same way at the same time.” That why is the teaching of “ontological equality and functional subordination” as applied to the Trinity and men and women by CBMW is so objectionable.

Comment by Deborah

March 8, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

Frank, are you able to speak to the readability and usefulness (for sharing, etc.) of Erickson’s book in relation to Giles’ second book on the Trinity (which I’ve read; well, I gave up somewhere in Barth for lack of having read much of any Barth)? I am quite behind in my reading list but am wondering if this is an essential addition. Thanks.

This contradiction you bring up is well-stated although, of course, less careful readers might be prone to substituting a common definition of “accidental” for the one he sets up.

Comment by Frank

March 8, 2010 @ 11:50 pm

Deborah, you’re quite right. Sometimes I forget that some of those who read this blog haven’t had the training in biblical interpretation, history, philosophy, and theology that perhaps you, I, and some others have had. So, for their sake, I would point out that “contingent” and “accidental” are equivalent terms, indicating that a quality or action attributed to a being or person is non-essential–i.e it is neither definitive nor determinative of that being or person’s true nature. Such an action or quality may be taken up by a person to handle a situation in which the person temporarily finds himself, but it is solely for the purpose of dealing with that situation; it does not permanently change that person’s true nature.

And as to its readability and usefulness, I would give Millard Erickson’s book an excellent rating. Throughout the book, he defines key terms used by both groups in this debate; gives a fair critique of how both groups handle the biblical and historical evidence; points out the logical, philosophical, and theological strengths and weaknesses of both groups; the criteria to be used in determing which is the best view of the Trinity; and the practical implications of each view in terms of prayer and worship.

But most of all, I think that in his final review and summing up the two views, Erickson convincingly demonstrates why the hierarchical view of the Trinity is both defective and dangerous for the next generation of Christians. So, if you haven’t read any other book on the Trinity debate, then read this one.

Comment by margaret

March 9, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

just putting in my 2cents–people obsessed w/role really get under my skin because basically a role is a part in a play or a movie, that is fiction–i believe another comment said pretending and i have had about enuf of pretending in the church—i am not a role, i am a person

Comment by Deborah

March 9, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

Margaret–Amen, if trying to underscore my point, I often refer to hierarchical views of marriage as a husband with his role-keeper (man and “wife,” not a man with a woman or a husband with a wife).

Frank, what a fine explanation of the term! I am not formally studied in theology or philosophy though I hope to be. As for the book, thanks for providing an evaluation. I have now seen from a review elsewhere that it does not delve into the early church fathers, which I find disappointing when all try to grope for a historical basis but perhaps necessary for a simple and even-handed scope. I hope to read it.

Comment by Deborah

March 9, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

Btw, as for the practical implications for prayer and worship, I already experienced these in my church growing up. We were taught that it was a great ill (essentially a blasphemy) to sing or pray in address to the Holy Spirit. The idea was that the Holy Spirit would be offended, wanting all glory and attention to go to the Father and that the Father and Son would likewise be displeased for this misplaced attention. Verses of hymns were removed from our hymnbook to accomodate that. In prayer, only the Father could be addressed (closing with Jesus’ name); one could not talk to Jesus.

Comment by Liz

March 9, 2010 @ 8:28 pm

We experienced the same thing, including a list of recommended songs which passed the criteria. It made us wary of music which did contain concepts which were not biblical, but that was not one (the idea of the Holy Spirit somehow being ‘other’ than the Father or the Son)

Comment by Deborah

March 9, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

Wow, Liz. You are the first person not from my church to respond that way. It took me all of college until I was fully comfortable singing the praise choruses of the Christian fellowship (which often focused on the Holy Spirit).

Comment by Liz

March 10, 2010 @ 1:48 am

We were in a group of very conservative churches even though we ourselves fellowshipped with all sorts of Christians; mainly because Trevor spoke at youth camps etc. and we also represented Voice of the Martyrs for many years which embraced Christians suffering for their faith, not their individual doctrines.
By God’s grace we managed to not get too caught up with the legalism and tried to show a better way through. It took many years and misunderstandings at times, but we still have countless friends from those years (we just don’t discuss certain doctrines)

Comment by Deborah

March 10, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

Liz, I too maintain a respectful relationship with some. Once I publish more writing (I’m a writer) though, I’m not sure how many of them will find relationship tenable. We’ll see.

Comment by Deborah

March 10, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

p.s.–Good to see unity in action despite the “despites.” That’s sort of how all of my fellowship here is, actually….

Comment by Frank

March 10, 2010 @ 5:14 pm

Deborah,

A further word on Erickson’s book on the Trinity. While it is true he doesn’t deal with the Early Church Fathers and the Reformers to the degree that Kevin Giles does in JESUS AND THE FATHER, he does cover those most appealed to by both sides: Origen, Novation, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Augustine, Thomas Acquinas(not covered by Giles), Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

I also think his critique of the hierarchicalists’ teaching on prayer and worship being directed only to the Father is excellent, or as Aussies say, “Spot On!” I especially like his conclusion:

I take it that the difference between worship based on Ware’s theology at this point and that flowing from Gile’s theology would be this. According to Ware, the Father should be praised and thanked for those works attributed to him. The works done by Jesus should be the occasion of our praising Jesus, but also always praising the Father who is the source of the decision and therefore deserving of the ultimate praise. And, although Ware does not discuss the subject, I assume that he would say that the works of the Holy Spirit are works for which we should also praise the Son and, even more completely, the Father…Giles, and presumably other equivalentists, however, while especially praising the member of the Trinity who plays the primary role in any given work, would praise the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for all the works and blessings of God and thank him (them) for all gifts. Based on the texts that we examined in chapter 4, the equivalence view is more expressive of the biblical teaching. And the commonly sung doxology expresses more closely the equivalence view than it does the gradational view: “Praise God from whom all blessings flow, Praise Him all creatures here below, Praise Him above, ye heavenly host. Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” (Cf. “The Practical Implications,” WHO’S TAMPERING WITH THE TRINITY?, pp. 235-236)

And being the good Baptist that I am, I say, “Amen, Brother Erickson!”

Comment by Deborah

March 10, 2010 @ 9:12 pm

Frank, thanks for the additional thoughts! The other reviewer made it sound like he didn’t touch the fathers at all.

The funny thing is that the church I grew up in (a) was a housechurch super-opposed to hierarchy, refusing to even have “pastors,” only elders. (b)We did sing the doxology at meals…. I think b/c we were asking the creatures to praise God, and it wasn’t a direct address, somehow this was okay. (c) Most gender-and-Trinity-hierarchical churches I know of do address the Spirit a lot in song and prayer. They haven’t followed these aspects of the theology through. But clearly, this is quite possibly a future result.

Comment by Kate Johnson

March 11, 2010 @ 10:21 am

Maybe someone can answer this for me…. why are egals always referred to as “feminists” by hierarchicalists? I am an egal, I do not consider myself a feminist. Having worked for many years in social services, it was always a bone of contention with my fellow workers. They would say, how can you be doing what you are doing if you are not a feminist. (obviously, they paint with the same broad brush). My answer was and is always, I am an equalist – I believe all should be treated as equals deserving dignity and respect.

Another point, just to be clear. I do not know where Abram got his information about abusive relationships, but he is wrong on every count. It is not true that lesbian relationships have the highest rate of abuse, it is pretty much the same across the board, whether heterosexual or homosexual, at least in any research I have read. About 28% of all (intimate) relationships contain physical abuse, while the rate is closer to 50% for other forms of abuse. What is different is that hierarchicalists are more accepting of abuse happening in the first place. Research shows that those with an egalitarian view of relationships are less accepting of abuse towards another. Notice, I did not say it happens more in one “camp” than the other, just that they are less upset over it. Makes me wonder if that is because they view the husband as having that right or, as Ware has said, she brought it on herself.

I have to say, I also get tired of whenever the issue of egalitarianism comes up, hierarchicalists are quick to include SOMETHING about homosexuality… as if we are just as “sinfully deviant.” Pa -leease.

Comment by LMcC

March 11, 2010 @ 11:13 am

Kate: You’re considered feminist because you believe women should be treated better than a doormat :)

Actually, I’m not really joking. To a hierarchalist, it is assumed that someone must be in charge, and it must be the men. If women say they want equality, they accuse said women of using a code word that means “we’re taking over”. The idea that men and women can live and serve side-by-side without a permanent hierarchy does not compute. It’s too dangerous for their views of themselves and their world to allow it.

AFA the egalitarian-homosexuality link: The minute they can show me from Scripture that being a woman or behaving as a woman (assuming one is born female here) in and of itself is a sin just as homosexuality is, then I’ll give their arguments for a link some real thought. Until then, it’s one giant scare tactic. I go to an egalitarian church which teaches support for marriage and celibate singleness, but not homosexuality.

Comment by Frank

March 12, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

As anyone who’s ever participated in a debate knows, a common tactic to make your opponent’s view look bad and your own view look good, without any real debate of the issue at hand, is to engage in stipulative definition, or the use of slanted terms, where one side says,e.g., “We are true complementarians, and our opponents, the egalitarians, are not.” Of course, the difference between “hierarchical” and “non-heirarchical” complementarians never gets addressed, because by definition, or so it is assumed, the two groups are understood to be further apart than they really are. That’s why, before beginning any debate, the definitions of key terms must be established and maintained by both parties if any real progress in debate or dialogue is to be made. But if you want to avoid real debate and a real coming to a mutual understanding on an issue, that is the tactic to follow. Not that I recommend it, but I sure have seen it used more than once in a debate I’ve attended or been part of.

Comment by ls

March 15, 2010 @ 8:38 am

It also seems to me that the hierarchialists, by avoiding the debate, avoid presenting a clear picture of their true views to a larger audience so that that audience has quality information before they invest in local church’s, relationships. Something seems fishy to me here. For example, bring youth in sooner rather than later in this debate. Let young girls know that under certain ‘coverings’ they lose personal identity choices while their suitors do not. I’ve read others comments on this tactic, bringing up an integrity issue in how this debate is handled.

Comment by Kate Johnson

March 15, 2010 @ 9:03 am

Yes, my comments were more tongue in cheek. It always amazes me to what lengths someone will go to avoid really discussing the issues. They resort to name calling (feminists) or tarnishing your reputation (linking us with “sinful” homosexuals) rather than honestly looking at what they are saying. And then they say, of course women are equal. But every time I hear that I think of Animal Farm where the pigs, once they were in “power” said “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” Sound familiar? And of course, if we are not equal in all things we are equal in no things.

Comment by Liz

March 15, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

Yes….teaching younger people, including children is vital but it’s a bit like pre-marriage counselling – until you have experienced marriage for a while, it’s hard to imagine some of the things ahead. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach before maturity because the words will still be in their minds, but it won’t be fully appreciated until much later.

Just as hierarchy is taught by inference and demonstration, so we can teach mutuality in the same way by not perpetuating some of the stereotypical statements made to children and and purposefully using kids in different roles and encouraging them to be who God has designed them to be.

Comment by JC

March 17, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

I find it interesting that so little attention is paid to the second part of St. Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 5: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her . . . ”

How did Christ love the church? He gave everything–everything!–including his life for the church. What a challenge for the husbands of the world to love our wives in such a way!

We are called to be holy. That chapter of Ephesians tells us that living a life of complete sacrifice–giving up his own life for his spouse–is a way for a man to achieve holiness.

God calls us all to serve him, but not necessarily in the same way. While God loves us all equally with his infinite, merciful love, he does not “call” us to equality. He calls us to holiness. And, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, we may be called to live out that holiness in different ways: “To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.”

I might want to serve God as a preacher, or a writer, or a married man, or a celibate monk, or any number of things, but what I want does not matter: It is God’s will for me that matters. In the same way, God might very well call men and women to serve him in different ways, but He has created us all with a part to play in the body of Christ. To paraphrase Paul in 1 Cor 12: we might want to be an “eye,” so to speak, but being called by almighty God to be an “ear” in the body of Christ is no less worthy a vocation.

If we prayerfully listen to the Holy Spirit working in our lives, we can begin to die to ourselves and align our own wills with the will of God, and work toward the holiness that He demands of us. As Paul tells is before the wives and husbands section of Ephesians 5, we all must try to “learn what is pleasing to the Lord.”

Comment by Deborah

March 18, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

JC, I agree that it is all about obedience to God’s individual plans for our lives but not that these are dictated by our gender. Gender can play a part if God calls a woman to be a homeschool mom, for instance, or a man to do a type of manual labor that most women are ill-equipped for. I–and perhaps many here–was ultimately compelled to discard gender-based separate spheres for life on the basis of both scripture and God’s personal leadings for me since I was four years old (when He first started speaking to me about leading both men and women). Many, many times it would have been easier to assume a gender norm and far more appealing to my flesh-man. But it is about obedience for me too :).

Blessings,
Deb

Comment by Liz

March 18, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

Of course, it is quite OK for a male to be a homeschool dad :-)

Comment by Deborah

March 18, 2010 @ 7:10 pm

True! I do know one stay at home dad and have known several in the past. But it is more frequently the mom, particularly with infants’ dependence on the same. One friend of mine who is in the ministry w/ her husband was torn about what to do once they started having kids. They both felt like she was called to be just as active in the ministry as he but felt conflicted by their desire to breastfeed, etc. It turned out that the first baby just refused to nurse properly so that they had to use bottles. At first they felt terrible about it but then realized that it was God freeing her to do what they both knew she was called to from the beginning–to be as hands’ on in the daily ministry engagements as he. So they do everything 50/50, trading mornings, afternoons, and evenings at home.

Comment by Deborah

March 18, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

I should add that she TRIED breastfeeding during ministry appts, and that was a total flop. They work w/ college students who haven’t gotten used to that experience yet. Anyhow, the kids are thriving abundantly w/ both parents totally involved in their lives. I think the 50/50 is ideal really, though not something that is generally supported by work commitments or something that is every couples’ calling regardless.

Comment by margaret

March 19, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

I find it interesting that Jesus says in the next life there will be no marriage–maybe because it’s so problematic in this one?

Comment by Deborah

March 19, 2010 @ 1:10 pm

Margaret, I think it is because we will know a higher order of pleasures and relationships–as the Bride married to Him and in unparallelled transparency and oneness with one another.

Comment by Claire R.

March 26, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

We are talking about the roles of Women and Men in my Women and Men in American Society class at Messiah College. We have had many discussions about the idea of women being submissive to their husbands. We have also talked about society’s conceptualization that women should be placed under men in the societal hierarchy. I believe that men have taken this too far. Often, they make women feel as though their only purpose on earth is to raise a family and to take care of the house. Many great women are professionals and caretakers of their families as well. Women should be submissive to their husbands and respect them. However, men should not make women feel as though they are second best. We were all created equally in God’s image.

Comment by judy

March 28, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

I was recently surprised at a woman’s bible study to find women advising a wife to disobey her husband and to become content with the 1950s housewife role. (Her husband had said that he did not marry her to clean his house and was encouraging her to go on to further her education.) Since many women in the Bible worked outside the home, I was surprised to see the women more concerned that this woman remain a “housewife” rather than obey (submit to) her husband and follow her dream. (The church was not egalatarian.) How has such an unBiblical view of a woman’s role become the Christian standard? If a husband wishes for his wife to stay home, I could understand their advice… but even from an extreme complementarian view wouldn’t this be wrong? I think there may be a larger issue here, where women are getting comfort from being the same rather than exploring their giftings. Any insight?