Good post, Dee. Especially those comments by Junkster — he’s quite a guy! 🙂

I’m wondering where the definition you provided of complementarian and egalitarian came from. I’m not so sure I agree with the part of the complementarian definition that says “It is rooted in more literal interpretations of the Creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture.” Perhaps that’s how complementatrians see their own viewpoint, but Bible-believing egalitarians would not agree that there is anything in the Genesis creation account that places men in a hierarchical relationship over women. And they would also dispute whether the “roles” that complementarians often speak of are presented in Scripture.

I’m also one who dioesb’t want to use the either term (com or egal) for myself. I realize that most committed comps would probably call me an egal, and I’m fine with that. But even though I don’t think there are rigid distinctions of “roles” for men and women in the church and in the family, I normally don’t call myself an egal because I think that term can still involve a misunderstanding of nature of the kingdom of God as service instead of rulership.

That is, many people hold to the comp position, at least partly, because they believe pastors have some sort of authority over the other members of the congregation and husbands have some sort of authority over their wives. They don’t women should have that authority over men, so they hold to the comp position.

But there are also some egals who would say that there can be positions or roles involving authority over others in churches and in families — they just believe that it is ok for women to have that authority over men.

Because of that, I would say I’m neither comp nor egal, because, in either viewpoint, there can still be room for some believers to exercise authority over others in God’s kingdom, which is something I do not believe the Bible teaches. Some egals would agree with me on that, but not all.

So the reason I would have no problem with a woman as a pastor/elder is because I do not see the position of pastor/elder as containing inherent ahthority over other members of the body, as has traditionally and historically been the case. Rather it is one function and gift among many spiritual gifts, and all members are supposed to use their gifts whenever the church gathers to build each other up.

I’m all for exercising your 2nd amendment rights, but there’s no need for guns in this battle. Just put on the full armor of God, take up the shield of faith, and pray — and you will be just fine!

Dee,

Since you asked, here’s a link that will be of interest to you:

http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/we-are/led/deacons-deaconesses/deacon-deaconess-bios/

I don’t understand something. Some folks who say that the phrase “husband of one wife” in 1 Tim 3:2 means that pastors/edlers/overseers must be men, will also allow women to be deacons, even though 1 Tim 3:12 says that a deacon must also be the “husband of one wife” (same phrase). I don’t see how it can mean pastors must be men if it doesn’t also mean deacons must be men. I know that some folks do say that deacons must be men, but there are also some who say deacons can be either men or women, but pastors must be men. I don’t get that.

Junkster,

How observant of you! Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

The passage says “and the women likewise”. The English translation leaves out a great deal of meaning and replaces it with other meaning, a problem with translation generally. Many terms in languages other than English are always masculine in the plural or if one or more could be male. E.g., in the latin derived languages, one brother and six sisters become seven “brothers”, and a group of 19 women and 1 man becomes a group of 20 “men”. One must tread carefully.

Why not just reason and common sense? Do Paul’s epistles have to be forged into a religion of micro-managed do’s & don’ts? It’s one thing to want to be Biblical in practice, but simply because Paul’s letters mention deacons, elders & such, does that mean that one’s church must absolutely have them?

The same can be asked of Paul’s letter to his protege (Timothy) in Ephesus in which he tells him that he doesn’t allow a woman to teach. Teach what? A pagan creation fable? The same sound doctrine he (Paul) taught?

If it’s a pagan fable, then it was a one time admonishment to a specific problem at Ephesus, the doggie wags its tail, the Church universal moves on and everything’s cool.

If on the other hand, one accepts as law that women cannot even teach sound doctrine to men, the amount Scripture that must be ignored or glossed over in order to get the tail to wag the doggie becomes monumental.

Here’s my question…

When Christian leaders isolate verses in Paul’s letters to establish a Biblical mandate, aren’t they just as guilty of proof-texting as the prosperity preachers?

Paul used the personal pronoun “I” in that regard. It was his personal rule, not necessarily God’s rule. And it is contradicted elsewhere in his own writings.

BTW, Priscilla taught Apollos who apparently was a fantastic preacher.

Arce,
Well, the translation of gunaika hosauto in 1 Tim 3:11 can be translated either “women, likewise”, or “wives, likewise”. Normally context determines whether forms of the word gune should be translated “women” or “wives”. Unfortunately, in this case, there are no direct grammatical clues, such as the use of aner nearby, which would make the translation of wives more likely. But the absence of aner in proximity doesn’t always mean it has to be translated “women”. So we can’t be dogmatic on the translation either way based on Greek grammar alone.

Thus, the translation chosen is often determined by one’s prior views on male-female roles in the church. Comps who say that women can’t be either pastors or deacons would say it must be referring to deacon’s wives and translate accordingly. Egals and less strict comps who say deacons can be women prefer the translation of “women” over “wives”.

But my original point was that there are those who allow for women deacons, and they say “husband of one wife” in reference to deacons doesn’t mean that a deacon must always be a man (and they would most likely translate gune in 1 Tim 3:11 as “women”. Yet some of those same people still say that “husband of one wife” in reference to an overseer/elder/pastor does limit that function to men. That’s an inconsistent position that I don’t understand.

If there are any folks reading this who believe it’s ok to have women deacons but not to have women pastors, I’d appreciate it if they can explain their reasoning to me.

Junkster,

I was wondering, based on your comments, when you write the translation could refer to wives, is there anything here that would disallow the meaning to be that they minister together, husbands and wives in these roles as elders or deacons?

Michael,
In a previous thread you asked for my views on where on authority exists, since I had been stating that I did not accept the notion of a person or group having authority over in the body of Christ, or the idea of husbands having authority over their wives. I just noticed that question, so I decided to post my response in this thread.

My view of authority is similar to what you described as your own in subsequent comments — it goes along with the responsibilities given to us. Thus, as parents, we have the authority to fulfill our responsibility to protect, train, and correct our children. A government has the responsibility to ensure its citizens well-being, and thus has the authority to reward good behavior and to punish bad behavior (particularly that which harms another). Any authority that people have in their jobs (whether it be as a ditch digger or a medical doctor) extends to their areas of responsibility and influence.

Any authority in the church and in marriage relates to responsibilities we all have to one another as followers of Christ, in mutual love and submission. I do not see God as having given specific responsibilities solely to one person and other responsibilities solely to another, in either the church or in marriage. Thus a pastor has no more authority over the congregation than the congregation has over him, and a husband has no more authority over his wife than she has over him. As the saying goes, the ground is level at the foot of the cross. Thus there are no hierarchical relationships in God’s kingdom.

He has given all of us specific capabilities (gifts, physical attributes, psychological attributes), and we are responsible to use them accordingly. But He hasn’t, for the most part, locked into stone whether those responsibilities must be fulfilled by men or by women — except in purely biological functions, such as impregnation or child-bearing. But I don’t see those distinctions as having any relevance to any other aspect of our responsibilities or relationships.

That’s my take on it. Yours?

“It is rooted in more literal interpretations of the Creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture. It is also known as the Traditionalist or Hierarchical view”.”

I am with Junk, I do not agree with the comp definition. Where are these “roles” outside the obvious biological ones, listed specifically? Not in one single place does God tell Adam he is in authority over Eve. Not one. It is read INTO the account. That is not literal.

“Likewise, most people in churches want a human ruler, a “king” of sorts — the pastor. But they don’t get the loving shepherd, spiritual overseer, and spiritually mature elder in the faith that God intended that function to be; instead they get an authoritarian CEO of Church, Inc.”

Junk, we are mental twins! I am constantly astounded at how our churches resemble Israel of the OC.

As one authoritarian pastor said, people need to be led. It is their nature. I agreed with him that Christians need to be led by the Holy Spirit not another human.

But I wondered who led him? We can look around us at the big entertainment temples come call church and wonder who is leading the leaders?

It says…if anyone desires…

Anyone is ’tis’…which means ANYONE.

The Greek for husband of one wife actually translates better as “Faithful Spouse” and was seen on tombstones of women in Ephesus from archeological digs.

Some of us do. We are just not official within the “systemized” church. Nor do I ever see the need to be. I believe the Body is a living organism. Not a system with org charts and ‘offices” (which was added by the translators)

Yep, mental twins. I’m honored that you think I think like you, ‘cuz I like the way you think.

(No relevance, but “I like the way you think” is a great line from the movie Back to School, spoken by Sam Kenison to Rodney Dangerfield.)

As to who is leading the leaders — that’s why they are so big on who is who’s mentor, and on promoting each other on their preaching circuits, and its why so many of the wannabe pastors look up to the mega pastors. It’s all very Catholic.

“Me”, no one here has associated authority with superiority, so your point is kind of a red herring. The real problem is that the Bible doesn’t say that God wants pastors to be men, but that idea has been promoted for so long that people can’t imagine that the Bible might actually teach something different.

I wonder what kind of frenzy a newly elected female President would stir up…

“I think a lot of the problem in this area is a misunderstanding that authority implies superiority. But anyone who has ever had a job realizes that the two do not go together. Very often those in authority are inferior to those who they lead.”

Authority may not confer superiority, but authority requires superiority.
The incompetent boss is a reality, but certainly not an ideal of how an organization should run. Authority without ability is a joke.

I notice that you left out the female deacon who serves with her husband in member care or the female who serves as church treasurer, but facts make your sarcastic quips more difficult. Plus, did you read their bios, it makes your stereotype of the women in complementarian churches even more difficult to sustain.

Junkster,

Thank you for your response. We seem to be pretty much on the same page. I would say that in some ways wives have authority over husbands, like the verses referring to her authority over her husbands body, and his over hers. But I think we would agree that there is no blanket authority. We are given specific authority in relation to our duties, as you wrote. I would part from you in that I think we do have different duties, but as I wrote in my very first post on the last thread, that does not make one more equal than another.

I went back and saw that I had written the word, “complement,” before I even knew the word complementarianism.” Who was to know that was a hot button word and would open the gates.

But with the distinctions I’ve made here, I think we are generally in agreement.

Lydia,

Elder is not a spiritual gift, it’s an office. And Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers are not spiritual gifts in that passage, they are offices.

I completely agree with you regarding Corinthians, that they, as a congregation were rebuked for not taking collective action to boot the guy out of the church. They, as a congregation had the authority to do that. If they did not have the authority to do that, then the guy could have blown off their discipline, because, after all, “who are they and what authority do they have to kick me out of church?”

If you all want to see how bad it is in some pastor circles, read these blog comments by mostly pastors on the subject of women:

http://sbcvoices.com/the-struggle-of-women-in-the-sbc/

Don’t let the irenic title fool you or the author. He thinks it is his job to get his wife to submit. Read the comments and understand what is going on out there.

Michael,
I would very much like to know on what you base your view that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are “offices”.

The passage you referred to (in Ephesians 4:7-13) says:

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. his is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men.” (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Seems pretty clear to me that “apostles …prophets…evangelists…pastors and teachers” are called “gifts” in this passage, given by Christ to the church, to edify the church. I see nothing there about offices.

In fact, I’d like to see any passages, correctly translated, that speak of church offices.

Many wrongly interpret these as gifts because gifts is mentioned in the earlier verse. I can’t get my hands on my study at this time, but when I studied this before, I discovered the word,”and,” in, “and He gave some Apostles,etc.” means, “and also.” You can use, “and,” to continue a thought like, “We went downtown and went to the movies,” or you could use it like, “I gave a ball to Jim, and Paul,” meaning I gave a ball to Jim, and I also gave a ball to Paul.

This passage means, in my opinion based on my earlier study, He gaves gifts to men and He also gave some apostles, etc. That makes them separate from the gifts, not a description of the gifts.

The Greek word for, “gave,” could be interpreted as giving some to be in offices, as well.

I agree with you that authority does not mean superiority. But the whole tone of the arguments used by others seems to imply superiority. The very first question asked me was, “How can there be different roles and still be equality?” And there have been others. But, that question alone implies to me that unless you are able to fill the same roles as others, you’re not equal to them…you’re inferior. What about the passage about various gifts and how can one say to the other,etc.? So, in my opinion, his comment was right on.

Hi Michael,

I did not realize there was a question aimed at me. Sorry about that.

As to authority…I recognize civil authority, government instituted by God. And I think there is a parental authority over children.

When it comes to believers in the Body, Jesus Christ is the authority and adult believers (note, I said adult) are given the indwelling Holy Spirit. Some believers are more spiritually mature than others and act as shepherds for others but their goal should be that the “milk” believer starts eating meat and will also exercise their spiritual gifts to edify the Body.

In the Body, I can only find lowly servants in scripture. Overseers are the lowliest who care for souls. Paul described himself as an underrower, the lowest of the low on a slave ship.

In the earthly system we invented that we call “church” we have people following humans and can hardly grow past what they think are their earthly authorities. It is a scandal.

As far as authority in marriage, the only place I can find that clearly taught is in 1 Corin 7 and unfortuantly for comps, it is given to wives, too.

“Regarding Lydia’s logic that there is no authority in the Body accept Christ’s authority, therefore anyone can be a leader in the church, that just does not wash.”

Michael, I missed this one earlier. Could you define leader? And believe me, anyone can be a “leader” in many of our churches and organizations. Should we mention Ted Haggard, Ergun Caner, Matt Baker (who killed his wife) and a host of others were “leaders”. So, maybe you can tell me how this “leadership” thing works. I am assuming you do not believe in Apostolic succession?

” Using the same illogic, I guess I don’t have authority over my kids because they are saved and are in the priesthood of believers.”

This is a bit Freudian but by the same illogic, it would mean you think of followers of the leaders at church as children. Perhaps, wives are viewed as perpetual children?

I don’t know about you, but I definitely have authority over my kids until they leave home and are on their own.

” I guess we don’t have to obey the instructions of our Christian bosses because they don’t have any authority over us, since we are a priesthood of believers.”

What if my “authority” was Ted Haggard? Or Matt Baker? And their sin was hidden for a long time. In effect, I could be supporting evil by obeying them. Thanks, but I will stick with Christ. It is safer than obeying humans in the Body.

“I guess Deb and Dee don’t have the authority to kick us off the blog they started, since we are all in the Body, right?”

Nice to know you think this is a church? They must be the elders!

“That’s hogwash. We are all under authority in areas of our lives and have authority in areas of our lives. That includes in the church and in our family. And I think it’s just not convincing enough to use one verse and use the exception to say what the rules are. No, there is no need to strain over the word rule. Nor is it convincing proof of one’s point to keep crying foul and translator bias because one can’t accept what is written.”

I totally accept what is written. I just disagree with your interpretation of what is written. Do a deep study on Hebrews 13:17 to see how badly the translators mangled that one. But, who would want to lost his head over a translation?

Will you answer a question? Are you a pastor or in seminary or in some ministry position. Are you an elder or deacon. Thanks.

Dee,
You have my personal permission to share your knowledge with men, women, children, and various clean animals. But not the unclean ones; that’sd just not right. I hope this settles your mind. 🙂

Dee,
You’re right — the dogmatic assertions of certain conservative evangelicals on secondary and tertiary issues can definitely be a stumbling block for intelligent, thinking non-believers. The message cross already has enough of an inherent offense to sinful human nature, in that it says that none of our efforts are good enough to satisty the holiness and justice of God, so we must trust in and rely on the righteusness of Someone Else to be right with God. We don’t need to add aditional offenses like ignorance and arrogance on the part of Christians.

Welllll … all dogs are unclean under Jewish and Muslim law, but that only means you can’t eat them, not that you can’t teach them, and since Jesus declared all foods clean, I guess that extends to dogs, or at least to Christian dogs, but just don’t teach them at church, unless they are puppies, in which case you can teach them until they are 3, which is 21 in dog years, the age at which they have full adult rights, such as voting and consuming alcohol.

I think there is an example of a deaconas (sp?) in the New Testament. That seems normative to me.

Totally aside from the comp/egal debate, it seems to me that what are called “elders” in most churches today that espouse elder rule are nothing at all like the concept as described in the Bible.

In Scripture, the function is variously called elder and overseer and pastor (shepherd), all different words to convey different aspects of the same function. They are called elders because they are supposed to teach and promote sound doctrine to the less spiritually mature. They are called overseers because they are supposed to provide spiritual guidance and oversight (like a mentor) for others. And they are called pastors (literally shepherds) because they are supposed to care for the spiritual needs of others. All of these concepts center on service, not rule or authority.

But in the churches I see with elders today, “elders” are mainly a board of decision makers in the business and management of the church as an organization and corporation. Some elders are set up to keep the Sr. Pastor (preacher) in check and hold him accountable; others are set up to be the pastor’s support squad and point men for making sure his vision and wishes are carried out by the rest of the staff and the church members (volunteers).

Other than the use of the term “elder”, I see nothing in common between the biblical concept and the common modern practice.

Michael,
Ok, cool.

So what are these specific duties that husbands and wives have that are specific to one and not the other, and where in Scripture are they found?

Anonymouse is someone in the house! :o)

Junkster,

I don’t think that the scripture lines up a bunch of duties for husbands and wives. Multiple times in various places, scripture tells the woman to submit to her husband or be subject to him as we should be subject to Christ. I also understand that we are to be mutually submitted one to another, as in the case where each has authority over each other’s body.

There is an emphasis on husbands loving his wife the way Christ loved the church and laid down His life for it. But, the wife is also to love her husband.

There is the passage where it tells the husband to live with his wife in an understanding way, as with someone weaker. In the same passage, husbands are to show wives honor as a fellow heir.

A couple of other disctinctive roles at my house are that I am responsible for taking out the trash and if someone breaks in our home in the middle of the night, I’m the one carrying the bat. My wife tends to do more dish cleaning and laundry than I do, but I do some, and she occasionally takes out the trash. I don’t consider myself superior, just because I carry the bat. I honor her by trying to protect her, if needed. She works the garden and I balance our checkbook. So, she’s the boss in the garden and I’m the boss in the checkbook, but, neither of us lord it over the other in those areas.

Either one of us can bring up an idea, but we agree on what we decide to do, accept in areas where one or the other has the greater weight of responsibility and authority, being able to make the decision all by ourselves.

The last two paragraphs are not found in scripture, but they make a lot of sense, as we’ve chosen to use our brains and don’t need instruction from the bible to decide who must take out the trash or tend the garden.

So, I hope you can see that at our house the man and the woman have distinctive roles but are considered equal, as my first post a gillion posts ago said.

I believe you could take the same template, in general, and lay it over the church, in terms of distinctive roles and equality.

Junkster,

That’s about right. I would say that when one is functioning as a pastor, apostle, etc., he has authority in what his responsibility is, though. But, there is no superiority or heirarchal structure. I would also point out that the authority is not forever. When I rear my children, I have authority in their lives. But, the whole point of rearing is for them to stand on their own; that’s my goal. If I’ve done my job adequately, at some point that authority ends because my responsibility ends.
In addition, anyone who has ever reared children knows that there are times we need to take correction from our young ones. The fact that we have authority is irrelevant. We need to humbly acknowledge that rebuke and submit to their correct words. The same applies in the church. Leaders need to be open to and accept the correction from those in their care, that they are equipping.

Michael, good point about authority not being forever. When people view certain roles in the body of Christ in an institutional or hierarchal way rather than in terms of the function, they can mistakenly assume that there is permanence in that role. But it’s entirely possible for a believer to start out at the one who need an elder to help them grow in the faith, and then that person grows beyond the level of knowledge and sanctification of their former spiritual elder.

When there is a focus on the position rather than the function, the level of spiritual maturity is not always taken into account as to who should be submitting to who’s wisdom and guidance. But I think our current system of having a paid professional clergy class within the church mitigates against how things really ought to be.

Michael, I am also not a dispensationalist, but I still think the passage is equating the gifts with those roles. But that’s a minor point that doesn’t change the validity of those roles in my opinion.

However, I would be cautious if someone claimed to be an apostle today, as it would be difficult to ascertain on what authority they made that claim. (Catholics make it in reference to their leadership on the basis of direct succession, but I consider that highly questionable as their doctrine is out of line with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.)

Perhaps, if someone’s ministry was attested to by miracles and such, that might lend validity to their claim to be an apostle, but we also know that there is such a thing as false miracles, so we’d have to be cautious about that as well.

Maybe it could be a matter of appointment by a local church or denomination, just like evangelists or pastors and teachers, but that doesn’t seem much like the way apostleship was determined in the Bible.

There’s a similar problem with the idea of being a prophet. It also raises the question, says who?

I’m not saying there aren’t or can’t be the roles of apostle and prophet in the church today, but I can understand why it would pose difficulties to determine who really is one.

What do you think?

Michael, Your responses are confusing. In this thread you also said that we are under human authority in the Body and my view was hogwash. There are more examples but that one stands out.

Unless there is another Michael?

“That was not a red herring. You were absolutely right on. From the beginning of the original thread they have implied that one can’t have a different role and still be equal.”

But we are not talking about “different roles”. We are talking about prohibitions for women in the Body.

You call it a role and say it is not unequal. That is the red herring.

Maybe this will help you to see it from another perspective. What if I told an African American he was were totally equal to me, a white woman, except he cannot teach/pastor white people? Would he consider that equal but having different roles? Of course not.

This example is not far off since many used the same type of proof texting to justify slavery. After all, Jesus did not abolish it.

Dee,

No contest here about God’s laws making sense. After all, I damn near had a rope around my own neck for stabbin’ the good Dr. Robinson til’ they found out ’twas Injun Joe done it!

Anyhoo, I cannot speak for you on whether it’s right or wrong for you to teach men in a corporate setting. That is a matter for your own conscience to resolve.

I will say this though, there is NO law anywhere in the Old Testament that silences women (1 Cor. 14:34). Dr. Wayne Grudem in his lengthy Jeremiad -Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth- makes the claim that even though verse 34 has no specific Old Testament statute that silences women, the Old Testament teaches this concept by inference as a whole. This to me amounts to special pleading arrived at through circular reasoning (Grudem 246)

Even though the consensus among many other scholars is that Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians in part was to refute the teachings of the Judaizers, Dr. Grudem denies that Paul is refuting Talmudic teaching about women in verse 34.

Here is where the doggie and his tail show up again. Is Paul refuting the Judaizers or has he become our new Moses legislating anew from Sinai? Which makes more sense?

BTW, I’d love to hear your lectures on the history of Western Protestantism!

Lydia,

I think you get my point. Just because we are a priesthood of believers, without a need for a mediator besides Christ, that does not mean people don’t have areas of responsibility within the church. And with that responsibility comes the authority to fulfill that responsibility. Yep, those that minister within the church do bad things, men and women. That does not mean they did not carry with them, at that time, the authority to do their jobs. The fact that someone does evil does not mean that one who listens to the evil-doer’s teaching is supporting evil. You use the word, “obey.” I would not use that word. But, when someone has the responsibility of teaching, he’s not calling me to ask what he should teach on. He has the authority to teach, not authority over the ones he’s teaching.

No, I’m not a pastor, seminary student, elder, deacon, (or at least not one that is recognized as such). I traveled across the country for nine years singing and ministering in churches. I’ve sung in hundreds of Southern Baptist churches, Calvary Chapels, Assemblies of God, Bible Churches, etc. Some of the places I’ve sung are FBC Dallas, Fellowship Bible, Dallas, Prestonwood BC, Southern Baptist Convention, as well as many small churches. I’ve had a few top 10 songs on Christian radio. So, I have a unique insight into the church because I’ve been in so many and I’ve been exposed to many pastors. I found that about 1/3 are just turds. A few of them have no moral compass at all.

My dad was an Episcopal priest and I accepted the Lord at a Young Life summer camp. I went to a somewhat charismatic church in college where the pastor started manipulating students into homosexual behavior with him. So, I’m well-acquainted with scum that fill our pulpits. I was in public accounting before singing and now I’m a Certified Financial Planning professional and manage investments for clients.

A couple of years ago my membership in our church was terminated by an insecure pastor who is a manipulative liar, who had a bunch of doofus deacons in his back pocket. You could find several of this, “pastor’s,” shallow books in the bookstore. The reason I was ousted was because of their lack of understanding regarding the things we’re talking about on this blog. The pastor, I call him, “The Author,” lied repeatedly to our congregation and I called him on the lies. Then, he lied to me about the lies. Then, he slandered me to a business client. Finally, he told our church we ended in the black, when we really ended the year $70k in the hole, and they were borrowing from designated gifts and not telling anyone. When I told some of these facts in a private conversation to a visitor, acquaintance of mine, who had just left a church for some of the same type of financial offenses, word got back to the gang. Three weeks later I received the call from the church’s attorney. The rest is history. It was the most hurtful, difficult time my family has ever been through.

I know I gave more information that you asked, but I want you to know how much I appreciate where you’re coming from. I agree with much of what you’ve said. I could have dropped a bomb and exposed the dishonesty of the creepy author, but God has not allowed me to up to now. God has been incredibly redeeming in our family and we’re in a wonderful church, where I get to contribute by singing on the praise team. I also teach within our small group.

I think we’re on the same page. Within the church,I don’t see the bible defining roles between men and women.

But, there is a cultural thing there that I can’t deny and wonder how much should play in today’s church. I also wonder why Jesus did not choose any women in the 1st 12. Jesus didn’t mind blowing the old views out of the water. I wonder why He didn’t in choosing the 12.

And since He didn’t and there were so few women who were named pastors or elders or apostles, if women do fill those roles in the church today, should it be the exception and not the rule, as it was back in the day?

These are questions, not statements.

Michael, I had a similar experience as a child because my mom was in music ministry and I was in hundreds of churches, at tons of events, etc.

“And with that responsibility comes the authority to fulfill that responsibility.”

Where does that authority come from? A title? This really needs to be delved into. The human has no authority. The authority is in the truth of the Word. If they are a false teacher they are an orator.

” Yep, those that minister within the church do bad things, men and women. That does not mean they did not carry with them, at that time, the authority to do their jobs.”

This seems strange to me. It just does not fit into a spiritual framework. Think of the implications of what you are saying. Take Matt Baker for example. he is pastoring and having affairs. This ends in him killing his wife. All this time he is claiming he has the indwelling Holy Spirit and acting as if people should listen to him as a preacher/teacher. All that time he was not convicted of his heinous sins until he was caught.

All authority in the Body comes from Christ through His Word to us. The human is only a messenger or instrument. They are actually servants. As part of the priesthood, we should want accountability and we should judge what is taught based on what the Holy Spirit has taught us through our study.

” The fact that someone does evil does not mean that one who listens to the evil-doer’s teaching is supporting evil.”

Yes it does because they are “paid professionals” being supported in their evil with the money of those trusting them. We do not get to declare we are innocent in this. They could not continue evil without followers supporting them. We must take responsibility for what we promote and support. This is an area of discernment that is lacking. And I blame the lack of teaching on the indwelling Holy spirit in a believers life.

” You use the word, “obey.” I would not use that word.”

Then what is the use of using the word “authority” if obedience to that authority is non existent?

” But, when someone has the responsibility of teaching, he’s not calling me to ask what he should teach on. He has the authority to teach, not authority over the ones he’s teaching.”

Actually, if we look at 1 Corin closely, Paul advises a model that those who do teach are judged on what they teach. If we did this, it would stop a lot of false teaching and the idolatry of celebrity preachers. But then, it would require that folks are in the Word and not depending on one person to teach them what is in it. They would depend on the Holy Spirit.

“But, there is a cultural thing there that I can’t deny and wonder how much should play in today’s church. I also wonder why Jesus did not choose any women in the 1st 12. Jesus didn’t mind blowing the old views out of the water. I wonder why He didn’t in choosing the 12.”

They are prophetic and map to the 12 tribes. There are no Gentiles, either. And only one was considered educated for the function of a ‘rabbi’. (they were not the cream of the crop but definite ‘losers’ in the rabinnical mold). Only Paul fit the rabbinical mold and he was sent to the Gentiles!

Another reason is that a woman in the 1st Century were not considered by the culture a legal witness. (If you remember, Peter did not believe Mary M about the resurrection)

However, we see things in scripture that defy what is taught today as doctrinal truth. Jesus had women following Him around and supporting Him financially. One, Joanne, was married at the time. Jesus appeared to a woman first after the resurrection. Why? Coincidence? there is more, but you get the picture.

That’s why there were warnings not to lord over.

I’m not talking prohibitions, I’m talking roles and practicality. I maintain that there are different roles and they are not unequal.

Theory aside, how many white people do you think will attend a church with an African/American pastor? They would be in the minority. That would not make him inferior, though.

How many men do you think would attend a church with a woman pastor? I guarantee, they would be in the minority; a smaller minority of men than already exists in the church. That wouldn’t make her inferior, though.

The African American pastor might find that it makes more sense to minister to those whom he’s more alike because of what they share in common, culturally. Same goes for Mexican pastors. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

And a women might find that there’s another place that she can reach more people and be more effective, than to be the lead pastor in a church. But, if she chooses not to, that’s her choice, there’s no prohibition. It just may not be that wise. Yet, she’s still equal.

There’s also no prohibition against long-haired tatooed ex-bikers who want to minister in white-collar wealthy areas. But who are they more likely to reach and relate to effectively? To say they might fit better in a different role is not to say they are unequal.

Good thoughts, Michael.

Amen again!

Have you checked those passages in an interlinear?

Micheal, you say you are talking about roles but then do not define them specifically in the Body. What are they?

I think your problem is that IF you do actually describe them specifically, there are actually prohibitions in most churches which means the “roles” are not equal.

What you are really telling women is to get out of the system if they want to exercise these functions. They can pastor/preach but not for pay in the system.

Lydia,

Do you have scriptural evidence that they map from the twelve tribes?

Also, Jesus was a culture-buster, so I’m not so sure He was locked in to not appointing a woman apostle; he appointed a thief.

By doing so, Jesus could have cleared up this whole conversation. Well, He would have had to appoint 1/2 women because anything short, people would say there should be more men than women in these types of roles.

Yes. They still check out, in my opinion.

Yeah, that’s crazy. They may disagree doctinally, but it’s not a sin. However,
I am glad they disfellowshipped a Nashville church because the woman pastor was living in a lesbian relationship.

And the churches that were not disfellowshipped should have been if they were unwilling to bring correction to these situations. If they were willing, then there would be no need to disfellowship them.

Lydia,

I’ll answer the roles question this way:

Do you think it’s wise to have a 22 year old college boy teaching high school or junior high school girls? How about spending time with them discipling or mentoring them?

I don’t think it is wise. The older women are to teach the younger women, right?

Does that make the 22 year old college boy less or inferior than an older woman who teaches the girls? I don’t think so. Different roles, but equal.

I’d have to give that some thought. The point is in all this, where there may not be scriptures pointing out all the do’s and don’ts, there is some obvious wisdom related to gender within the church, related to accountability.

I don’t think it would be wise for a man to counsel or teach a married woman regarding intimacy issues with her husband in a private setting. To me, it’s clear that a woman should fill that role. As a result, I don’t think men would be crying foul that they don’t get to do that and that they are being considered inferior or unequal because they don’t get to counsel the woman.

“I don’t need to rewrite the ones that do because they have already been mentioned multiple times and debated.”

They have? I am not clear on what scriptures you think are clear on gender roles.

I do agree about ministers being paid. Christianity is big business in America.

Absolutely.

“Nothing like going off on some rabbit trail and missing the whole point.”

Michael, It is not a rabbit trail. What passes for “counseling” these days is ridiculous. It is also a money maker for churches because many charge and have large counseling staffs. The last mega I consulted in had 2 counseling departments. One for members and outsiders and one for staff only. The former had 10 full time counselors who stayed busy. The latter had 2 full time and 2 part time for a staff of 500 employees. And they stayed busy.

In one of Vanderhoven’s books, he talked about a woman who came to him with some serious problems. Her home was not a safe place so he called a couple in his church that he totally trusted and they came and got this woman and she lived with them for a while until they helped her get on her feet. During this time, they “pastored”/discipled her. This is the Body at work. this is “counseling” as it should be in the Body.

“irst, to deal with the rabbit trail, people DO need counseling, even when they are strong believers seeking God’s kingdom. And maybe that counseling is pointing them to a spiritual focus when there has not been one.”

I only wish it were! That is not the norm. Usually it points to the comp rules, roles and formula’s for pink and blue Christianity. It only makes the situation worse with a work based Christianity.

“itus 2:3,4 says, “OLDER WOMEN likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the YOUNGER WOMEN to love their husbands, …”

A. Older women are to teach and encourage younger women. – That’s a ROLE!”

Where was Titus?

“: “Encourage,” in the Greek means, “To restore one to his senses, to moderate, to control, to hold one to his duty, to cause to be of sound mind.” I don’t know how that would exclude some level of counseling, not necessarily in the formal sense.”

But those older women did not have backgrounds in counseling. And how do you know those older women actually loved their husbands? The older women could have been a problem in another church. They might have all been fertility priestesses or something.

(This is why one must not proof text for specific roles. Paul knew the audience and the problems in Crete.)

“.Part of loving one’s husband DOES involve intimate relations. I Corinthians 7:5 says, “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

So, why not have them read 1 Corin 7 and pray? What is to talk about? I am a big prude when it comes to this because the discussion about sex is way out of hand. It is now a money maker for most mega churches.

“es, the apostle Paul thought it was important enough to include. It obviously is not a new hot topic, but one that has been around for thousands of years.”

Yes, he was writing to Titus about a situation in Crete…with the Cretins. I wonder why the Corinthian women were not given the same advice? Or the Philippian woman? Suppose they did not have the same problem? Let’s say you have a new church plant and most of the older women were converted Muslims but the younger women in the church were raised as believers. Would you send the older women to teach the younger?

“he point is the appropriateness of whether a woman should counsel another woman or a man should counsel her, especially regarding delicate issues. And in my earlier post, whether it would be wise for young boys or men to be teaching young girls. Both were in response to your question about roles of men and women.”

I don’t have a problem with what you are saying. It is natural for a woman to ask another woman about intimate issues. My point is that we set up unrealistic expectations in marriage with comp teaching and then we have huge counseling needs. Trust me when I tell you the #1 topic for counselors in comp churches are marriages. And their advice only makes the situation worse.

“y conclusion was, it’s wiser and more biblical for women to fill those roles.”

It is not a role. It would be a discipling function.

“nd as a result, men should not be crying foul and saying that women are acting superior and men are less equal than women, just because they don’t get to function in those womanly roles.”

Nice try but silly. They are not crying foul because the men have set themselves up as the authority over all the functions anyway. :o)

Lydia,

I think it is a rabbit trail. I give you two valid scenarios about how women vs. men might function within a church and you launch into some side issues regarding sex and counseling, all the while not really addressing the main point. The point made, in case you missed it was, women can, “function,” “disciple,” “fulfill a role,” whatever YOU want to call it, in a different way or in a way that a man shouldn’t, and the man should not be considered less than the woman. And it works the other way around, too.

But you’re right, no Christian should ever get counseling because of all the evil comp infiltrators trying to brainwash believers. They are all motivated by the desire to suppress women. None of them has any desire to see people well. All their years of training and money spent learning how to counsel was all so they could be instruments of Satan, keeping men as the head and women from advancing, under the lordship of her husband and the wicked brute pastors.

Next time I see my friend who was sexually abused by Satan worshippers when he was a kid and was foolish enough to go to counseling for help, I’ll be sure to remind him that his counselor really had a secret agenda, you know, to make sure he was still keeping an iron grip on his wife and to make sure he was supporting men in the pulpit who would support the comp view. Yeah, that’s it. That’s what I’ll tell him.

Your right, I was just taking one verse and applying it far too liberally. How foolish to presume that an older woman believer would love her husband. She probably hated his guts for his widespread comp views. And the instructions to Titus by the apostle Paul was just that ornery wicked apostle trying to force those suppressed women to teach the younger women to be doormats as well.

Lydia, I think I’ve come to the right solution. What needs to happen is YOU need to translate the bible and then add your footnotes. You can instruct all of us ignorant men exactly when and where former translators were bias, how instructions to one group of people should not be misapplied to another, and when we should be aware that certain scriptures are written specifically to suppress women. You can call the version, Lydia’s Living Comp Version. Make sure you let the reader know that men must have the new version read to him by a woman certified in comp detection methods.

Right, Lydia, it’s a discipling function, not a role. Just change the word and then you don’t have to deal with a valid point. Deconstruct it. Uh, isn’t the whole thing about discipling? Let’s go down another rabbit trail, shall we?

Okay, let’s call it your word, discipling. Should a man or woman “disciple” a younger woman, if the younger woman needs discipling? (Let’s pretend for a minute that you can’t think of some extreme off-the- subject, irrelevant argument to squirm out of and avoid this question). If the answer is a woman, should I say you’re being unequal, or should I start developing an attitude about the superiority of women because they get to disciple young females and I don’t? I’m asking the question again because you copped out last time.

“Next time I see my friend who was sexually abused by Satan worshippers when he was a kid and was foolish enough to go to counseling for help, I’ll be sure to remind him that his counselor really had a secret agenda, you know, to make sure he was still keeping an iron grip on his wife and to make sure he was supporting men in the pulpit who would support the comp view. Yeah, that’s it. That’s what I’ll tell him.”

Michael, Now we are talking about sexual abuse? I thought we were talking about intimacy between husbands and wives in the Body. First of all, I hope the Counselor called the authorities. Sexual abuse is a whole other ballgame, friend. And unfortuantly, the church, pastors and even many counselors in the churche are not really equipped for this type of counseling. Many times they make it worse by telling the victim they need to forgive right away. I have seen that over and over. Then the victims becomes the sinner. It is very sad to see that more damage is often done. Many times the abuse happens within the church Body and the church is the LAST place they should go for counseling.

Other than that, I think I hit a nerve. Sorry about that. I just do not think you can take a situation in Crete that Paul was writing to Titus about and make a blanket assumption. Not all OLDER women are going to teach the younger ones the right things. Haven’t you ever met a bitter old woman in any church you have ever been in? We have to apply discernment to any passage we are trying to make one size fits all that is not in and of itself, salvic.

Deb,

I don’t have a problem. I am light. I thought my last post was appropriately sarcastic and it made me laugh. I needed a good laugh to maintain sanity.

I think Lydia has been avoiding answering honestly valid points I’ve been making. She has done this by:

1. Claiming translator bias.
2. Answering questions with questions.
3. Just not answering the question at all, even though asked multiple times.
4. Changing the subject by chasing a rabbit that has nothing to do with the focus of our conversation.
5. Claim proof texting for every scripture that proves a valid point.

I’m not fooled by these shallow tactics, just tired of them. I would prefer a dialogue with more humility, transparency, and honestly. But I don’t think I’m going to get it with her. I will no longer attempt to place the magnet on top of the other magnet because I know it’s an exercise in futility.

“1. Claiming translator bias.”

Surely you do not think translators are inerrant? Some even describe the virgin Mary as a “young woman” in Isaiah. For a reason. That is a Jewish translation. There are tons of other examples.

“2. Answering questions with questions.”

When someone asks the equivalent of “how long have you been beating your wife”, it is best to ask more questions instead of answering. When a wrong assumption is made in a question, it is foolhardy to answer the question.

“3. Just not answering the question at all, even though asked multiple times.”

I sincerely thought I had made my position clear.

“4. Changing the subject by chasing a rabbit that has nothing to do with the focus of our conversation.”

I sincerely thought that counseling included your idea of roles for genders. I do have serious reservations about what passes for “counseling” in most churches. So, I did not want to discuss something giving the impression I was endorsing something in the church that I know has caused many more problems.

“5. Claim proof texting for every scripture that proves a valid point.”

I cannot imagine receiving a long letter giving advice to a specific situation then taking out that one passage and declaring it as applicable to every situation for all time. I would also have to seek to know the Letter Writer in light of all the letters He wrote and other narratives He Inspired to be written by others.

For example, if the letter writer told me to take a bit of wine for my stomach, I would not presuppose that all adults in the Body for all time should drink wine.

Alright, I’ll lighten up on these points. Without knowing you, it’s hard to know if you’re doing some things intentionally or unintentionally. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Lydia,

“How can I commit when I do not know the specific situation? ”

That’s the point. It looks like you missed it. You DON’T know the situation in Titus, so it’s an invalid argument to claim proof texting. If you did know the specifics, you could actually make a VALID argument.

“So, what about the Holy kiss for men greeting other men. Does that apply or not apply? And why not?”

And you called MY earlier question silly? No need to answer the question. The answer is obvious.

“The teaching in Titus might not have applied well in Ephesus,for example…”

Another example of the proof texting argument. When will you accept that I get the point? I’ve told you multiple times, WE GET IT! No need to keep reiterating the proof texting argument, ad nauseum.

“Actually you are NOT under the 10C. But you are also not free to murder, either. We have a new commandment of Love…”

I already know what you’re referring to regarding the New Covenant, so I’m not going to get off topic to chase another rabbit, discussing the New Covenant. The point is, you can take almost any verse and claim proof texting, and not provide any substantiation for it. And that’s what you’ve done multiple times, all the while using one verse as the foundation for your beliefs.

“Why on earth would you respond like that? It makes no sense for believers to behave such.”

Right, thus giving credibility and more weight to my view that the scripture we’re discussing does apply to women outside of Crete. Your proof texting argument doesn’t wash.

Frankly, the more you try to teach me stuff I already know, the more open I’ve become to the verse where Paul says that he doesn’t allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.

Lydia,

I love the example in, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, where Josh McDowell talks about a woman, I believe, who honestly believes that she is dead. She goes to a therapist who convinces her, over time, that dead people don’t bleed. Finally, when the therapist thinks the time is right, he pricks her finger and she starts bleeding. Then she says, “Wow, dead people bleed after all!”

The point is, there was no way that she was ever going to accept evidence that was contrary to her presupposition. I’m not trying to be mean, but I think that’s true of you, regarding this issue. I don’t detect any openness to valid points that contradict your already established beliefs. Please consider whether or not this is true.

“Michael, what on earth does that have to do with your insistence of the role of ONLY older women teaching the younger women in the Body for all time? ”

Lydia, you are adding to what I’ve said. I never wrote, “ONLY,” and I never wrote, “for all time.” And that’s what’s frustrating, because you’re reading into something that’s not there, then arguing over the part you added. I quoted the verse verbatim and the verse doesn’t contain, “ONLY,” or, “for all time.”

Then I presented a couple of scenarios and asked YOU for YOUR opinion. I did not dictate the answer. So it’s hard to have a stimulating debate when points are missed and words and different meanings are added to what I’ve written, only to have you argue with words and meanings you’ve added.

“Paul never said all women for all time are not to teach men. The grammar in that passage is singular. ONE woman in Ephesus…”

Again, Lydia, neither am I laying down any prohibitions. I’ve said that repeatedly. So, I’m not adding any legalism to the NT. The point is, there are situations where it is more appropriate and more beneficial that a women minister than a man. A man should not fill that ministry opportunity when it’s more appropriate that a woman fill it. And there’s no legalism in that either.

I’m not a Greek scholar, so you may be right about the grammar being singular. But, it’s clear that the meaning is plural. If you said, “An aged woman should teach a young woman,” it’s understood, especially looking at the context, that the writer is not speaking specifically of a certain old woman and a certain young woman. It’s understood that he means, “Aged women and young women,” plural.

I think that the modern church, with paid ministers and their hierarchical structures cloud out what we should be seeing in scripture. We’ve seen a wrong template for so long, it has become a point of reference for us, when it shouldn’t. And I think you have been arguing against what you think I’m writing, thinking I’m deriving my truth from that wrong, modern church template. I’m not.

I think you’re right about “authenteo,” but I think you’re wrongly dismissing other words like, “hypotasso,” used in Col. 3:18 which means to arrange under, to subordinate, put in subjection, obey, submit to one’s control. I don’t think you could argue proof texting, effectively, because the passage is just a general list of instructions that don’t seem to be dealing with anything particular, except godly behavior. And, although slaves are mentioned and I do not agree with slavery, it was a reality then and the passage was godly instruction to them, as well. Obviously, it would not apply to those who are not slaves, then or now.

The word, “hypotasso,” is also used in Titus 2:5, again instructing wives to be subject to their husbands, further debunking a proof texting argument. I Corinthians 14 uses the word, as well, related to a woman speaking in church. Admittedly, the context there is harder to grasp, since we don’t have a clear concept of what was normal then.

But, this word, “hypotasso,” was used throughout the NT and it’s meaning is clear throughout and the meaning should be clear in relation to wives, as well. These instructions do not nullify the, “one another,” verses; they are applicable, as well. But, let’s be clear, they are not mutually exclusive. Wives, according to these should subject themselves to their husbands, AND there are instructions to mutually submit. It’s not either, or.

The reality is, whether we like it or not, ( I know Lucifer did not like it), some are above and some are below. We all are under Jesus. Jesus is under the Father. Kids are under their parents. Employees are under their employers. Slaves are under their masters. Wives are under their husbands. Youth are under the old. And the overseen are under those who oversee. I’m not saying in all things at all times, but, in their proper places at the right times. And experience has shown that it does not go well when people do not understand where they should be in subjection or they just reject proper subjection. (Let’s be clear, I’m not talking about lord it over situations or abusive situations).

Finally, the last paragraph of my last post was me writing out of frustration. It was tongue in cheek, but nonetheless, I’m sorry. Honestly, I have been challenged to consider your points of view and others who posted, so I’m truly grateful to you and others for the challenging debate. I hope it will allow me to be more of a solution than a problem concerning this issue. I’m comforted to know there are thinking and studying believers out there, because they seem to be in the minority around here.

Dee,

Thank you for your kind words.

I think you pinned the tail on the donkey when you talked about humility in your more recent post. I think what we all object to is someone trying to lord over us and compel us to submit to them, because it IS so objectionable, in marriage and in our church relations.

When we have love sown into us by someone, though, and we know they are laying down their life for us, we are much more willing to serve them, voluntarily, as well. Isn’t that closer to what God intended; pure love from willing hearts?

I’m hopeful that Lydia and I will agree upon some of these things by understanding one another more.

Lydia,

“it cannot be voluntary and have someone…as in human demanding it.”

Again, you’re missing the point. No one is demanding it. Where are you coming up with that? If you’ll read my last post, in response to you saying, “It is a voluntary action,” I said, “Valid point about stepping up AND VOLUNTARY ACTION.

You don’t have to subject yourself to your husband if you don’t want to. It’s your choice. Don’t, for all I care. Neither do I have to love my wife. It’s voluntary. But I’d be stupid not to love my wife. It benefits me to love her and it benefits her that I love her. Can you not see that I agreed with you that subjecting is an exercise of the wife’s free will, her choice, her authority? How many ways do I have to say it?

“There is NO submission to an authority in these verses between husband and wife.”

There you go again, changing the words, thus changing the meaning, so you can argue with the addition you came up with. The word in the verses referenced is “subject,” not, “submit,” and the word, “authority,” is not mentioned.

“It is actually a chiasm. The word “submit” is not in verse 22. It was added there by the translators. So, the submit in verse 21 is for everyone. ”

Show me clearly the pattern, if you call it a chiasm. That’s speculative, in my opinion, and irrelevant.

You’re right, the word, “submit,” is not there in the Greek. But, it is a continuation of the thought presented in the preceding verse, meaning, “be subject to one another, wives to your own husbands,…husbands, love your wives.” So, I stick to my earlier comment, “Paul gives the general instruction, …then lays out more specifically how to do that…”

“It is not being filled with the spirit to want authority over someone. ”

Let me write, again, where I agreed with you in my last post. I wrote, ” I agree with your statement that wanting authority over others in the Body is unseemly. We should all seek to serve.” And, I agree with you that it is about being filled with the Holy Spirit. If we are filled with the Holy Spirit, we will submit, one to another, wives being subject to their husbands and husbands loving their wives, not under compulsion, but voluntarily.

I do agree with you that where there is a works-based religion, there is naturally hierarchy, resulting in condemnation. The gospel I know is a gospel of grace, equality before God, resulting in justification.

Finally, your judgment about people’s motives for believing in this eternal submission of Jesus to the Father is unfounded. There is no way you can make that claim, not knowing what is in their hearts. These people have valid arguments that they are wrestling with and many are just honestly seeking the truth. I believe, like you do, that Jesus is God. But, He’s not the Father. Jesus didn’t send Himself into the world, the Father did. There are plenty of valid points on both sides of this issue to discuss, but I’m not going into it here.

Anonymous,

There are many reasons why we started TWW, but I have to say that the ESS heresy is what really got me fired up! Let’s continue to refute these false teachings.

Blessings!

Anonymous, I assume you’re Lydia?

Again, you MISREAD what I wrote and then argued based on what your template says to you. I said, “your judgment about people’s MOTIVES for believing in this eternal submission of Jesus to the Father is unfounded.”

You can listen to their words and refute their theology. And you can listen to their words that tell you what their motivation is.

But, in the absence of them telling you what their motives are, you can’t know them. You don’t know my friend who is wrestling with these questions. To make an accusation like that, and it IS an accusation, (and I know where accusations come from, and they’re NOT from God), is just arrogant, wrong, and ungodly.

“They, themselves, map the Trinity to hierarchical human relationships.”

Hogwash. Maybe as few that you’re aware of do, but not most. Your statement is an overgeneralization, based on your template. In fact, my friend whose questions have lead him down that road of seeking doesn’t even believe in the trinity, so how in the heck is he mapping?

“Jesus Christ is to be elevated.”

Yes, He is, but He was careful not to elevate Himself, but to lower Himself. He elevated the Father. Don’t forget, He came, not to bring us to Himself, but to God the Father.

Ephesians 5-6 Pericope Structure
Draft 1.1 by Don Johnson, November 1, 2008

The pericope is from Eph 5:15 to Eph 6:9. I use my own translation below to highlight some aspects.

There are multiple chiasms that contain phrases that are in an inverted parallel form. The chiasms allow one to pair up the appropriate phrases (A with A’, B with B’ and so on) as they are related in some way, I underline the related concepts in each line of the pairing. The most important part of a chiasm is in the middle, which is not often the way we do things today; we usually use either the newspaper form with the most important thing first or the math proof form with the most important thing, the conclusion, last. To assist in the discussion, I gave a unique letter number code to each phrase, so a specific phrase or set of phrases can be discussed easier. Brackets indicate words implied by the Greek text and inserted for clarity.

A1 Then watch carefully how you walk
B1 not as unwise
B1′ but as wise
A1′ redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

A2 For this reason,
B2 do not be foolish,
B2′ but understanding
A2′ what the will of the Lord is.

A3 And do not be drunk with wine,
B3 which is debauchery,

A4 but be filled by the Spirit,
B4 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
C4 singing and praising in your heart to the Lord,
C4′ giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
to God the Father,
B4′ submitting to one another in the fear of Messiah;
A4′ wives, [submitting to one another] to your own husbands as to the Lord.

A5 For a husband
B5 is head of his wife,
C5 as also Christ
D5 is Head of the church,
E5 and He is the Savior of the body.
D5′ But even as the church
C5′ submits to Christ,
B5′ so also wives
A5′ to their own husbands in everything.

A6 Husbands, agape-love your wives,
B6 even as Christ also agape-loved the assembly and gave Himself up on its behalf
C6 that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of the water in the Word,
D6 that He might present it to Himself as the glorious church,
C6′ not having spot or wrinkle, or any such things,
B6′ but that it be holy and without blemish.
A6′ So, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.

A7 He who loves his wife loves himself,
(for no one hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it)
B7 even as also the Lord the church for we are members of His body,
A7′ “For this (reason), a man shall leave his father and mother,
and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24)
B7′ The mystery is great, but I speak of Christ and the church.

A8 Nevertheless, everyone in particular, let each one
B8 be loving his own wife as himself
B8′ and the wife
A8′ respect/fear her husband.

A9 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
B9 “Honor your father and mother,” (Ex. 20:12a, with Ex. 20:12b following )
C9 (which is the first commandment with a promise)
B9′ “that it may be well with you and you may be long-lived on the earth”.
A9′ And fathers/parents, do not provoke your children,
but nurture them in the discipline and admonition of the Lord.

A10 Slaves, obey your masters according to flesh,
B10 with fear and trembling,
C10 in singleness of your heart,
D10 as to Christ;
E10 not with eye-service as men-pleasers,
D10′ but as slaves of Christ
C10′ doing the will of God from the soul,
B10′ with good will
A10′ serving as slaves to the Master and not as to men.

A11 Each one knowing
B11 that whatever good thing he does,
C11 this he shall receive
D11 from the Master
E11 whether a slave or a freeman.
D11′ And masters,
C11′ do the same things toward them,
B11′ forbearing threatening,
A11′ knowing that the Master of you and them is in Heaven
and there is no partiality with Him.

Notes on each numbered section:
1. Herein lies wisdom.

2. Herein lies understanding the will of God.

3. Being filled with the Spirit can appear like drunkenness, but it is not that at all.

4. Here are 4 “-ing” verbs the inner 2 are to God, the outer 2 are to the church. It is important to notice that just as speaking to one another is mutually speaking (each one to others), so submitting to one another is mutually submitting (each one to others), contra Grudem (who correctly points out it might mean some to others, but not in this case). B4′ serves as the header principle that will be explained further with examples in the remainder of the pericope. In A4′ the verb is omitted and Paul carefully crafts the verb that is to be brought down in the previous phrase, it is reflexive (voluntary), it is to one another (mutually), it is in the middle voice (which does not exist in English but the idea is the action of the verb reflects back on the subject) and it is submitting. That is, the wife is to submit to her husband and the husband is to submit to his wife.

5. C5-C5′ is about Christ and the church, the body of Christ. Both (A) husband and wife and
(B) Christ and the church are unity examples using a head/body metaphor. Notice that all the examples of Christ as head in sections 5 and 6 are serving examples, a husband as head is on solid Biblical ground by using those examples in his relationship with his wife to serve her.

6. Again, a husband is to consider his wife as his own body and treat her accordingly, that is, with agape-love. Note that agape love per 1 Cor 13 “does not insist on its own way” contra the non-egal claims that the husband has final decision making power.

7. The metaphor of the wife being one flesh with her husband is continued.

8. This section is the summary and recapitulation of the spousal mutual submission theme in A4′.

9. In B9 and B9′ the common theme is that it is a quote from Exodus.

10. In A10, A10′, D11 and D11′ the common theme is kurios which I translate as Master (instead of Lord) when referring to Jesus and master when referring to humans to show this easier. Section 10 is about slaves, and contains the infamous proof text of slaveowners “Slaves, obey your masters.” so we know we need to be extra careful with this pericope.

11. This section is sometimes thought to refer to only slaves (that is, it contains a sometimes missed reference to freeman and slaves) but the structure shows what is going on. C11′ contains a symmetry reference “Do the same things” when referring to masters, such symmetry in the hierarchical relationship of masters and slaves is strikingly countercultural.

Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Bruce Fleming, Nils Lund, Kenneth Bailey, and David Instone-Brewer for their insights into this passage.

“However, the meaning is still obvious to me that the following verse expounds on the preceding verse, meaning “wives to their husbands,” because, although we understand what the verb is saying in the reflexive middle voice, regarding mutual submission, (referring to the earlier verse), it does not continue by saying, “and husbands to wives,” as it should, if it were to mean that.”

Then I would need to assume that wives should not love their husbands because it does not say so explicitly.

Sorry, but you were covered in v21 if you are a believer. Remember, voluntary submitting was a step UP for the 1st Century wife whether Gentile or Jew.

“Sorry, the instructions for wives to be subject to their husbands still stands. It’s a shame that you fight so hard to reject God’s intended blessing.”

And husbands are to submit to their wives. YOu do not seem to get that part. those that teach it is submission to “authority” kill the blessing and make it a work of salvation. They are the ones who miss the blessing of vs 21/

The word in verse 21 is for all believers…that includes you. It does not exempt husbands and the further instructions to husband means that there is no way they can do that in a marriage except by submitting. But many have turned it into leadership/authority stance when it is not. That is not what the passage is referring to.

That teaching is a big sin trap for men

“That’s an invalid conclusion and faulty logic. When someone gives another instructions about what to do, his lack of explicit instructions regarding anything else, neither means that he shouldn’t nor should do something else. Nice try, but no cigar.”

You need to let CBMW know because that is what they teach. Husband as prophet, priest and king.

One of the hottest comp authors out there is Emerson Eggerich who teaches the “love and respect” model. a pink and blue model. And he is one of the softest comps out there and makes a ton of money.

The entire foundation of comp teaching is what you describe as faulty logic.

Lydia,

“And husbands are to submit to their wives. You do not seem to get that part.”

Uh, yeah, I have written that multiple times; the last sentence in my last post ended with, “and yes, willingly being subject to her.” Did you miss that one, too? See, I have agreed with you about that many times, but you can’t agree with me regarding wives being subject to their husbands, and if you give a slight nod of your head to it, it is followed by some qualifier. This seems like it’s a very personal issue to you that must hit pretty close to home. What’s the problem?

Let me just recount how many times, just on this thread, I have written about mutually submission, making your statement, “You do not seem to get that part,” ridiculous.

1. To Dee, Sat, Jul 17 12:45 am at 12:45 am – I think authority in that situation was leading with humility, preferring her over myself, and setting a right example of laying down my wrongly-perceived right to demand her compliance.

2. To Dee, Sat, Jul 17 12:45 am at 12:45 am – But with that power comes another responsibility; to love. And if one has the responsibility and authority to love, then he will choose ways where he and his wife are in agreement or wait until they are in agreement. He is not to lord over his wife.

3. In response to you Thu, Jul 22 09:32 am at 9:32 am – You wrote, “As far as authority in marriage, the only place I can find that clearly taught is in 1 Corin 7 and unfortunantly for comps, it is given to wives, too.” I responded, “I agree with your post positions….They also think of their leaders as superior, opening themselves up to abuse by empowering leaders who would lord over them. All believers need to rise up and recognize their intrinsic authority and value in Jesus Christ.

4. To Junkster, Wed, Jul 21 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm – I would say that in some ways wives have authority over husbands, like the verses referring to her authority over her husbands body, and his over hers. But I think we would agree that there is no blanket authority. We are given specific authority in relation to our duties, as you wrote.

5. To Junkster, Thu, Jul 22 09:57 am at 9:57 am – I also understand that we are to be mutually submitted one to another, as in the case where each has authority over each other’s body….So, I hope you can see that at our house the man and the woman have distinctive roles but are considered equal,…

6. To Me, Wed, Jul 21 01:15 pm at 01:15 pm – I think one thing we can ALL agree on is that there is to be no allowance for superiority or lording over in the Body of Christ.

7. To Lydia, Tue, Jul 27 10:42 am at 10:42 am – In response to you writing, “And don’t forget that Eph 5:21 applies to you, too,” I wrote, “I haven’t forgotten,; it was contained in my last post, when I wrote, “These instructions do not nullify the, “one another,” verses; they are applicable, as well. But, let’s be clear, they are not mutually exclusive. Wives, according to these should subject themselves to their husbands, AND there are instructions to mutually submit. It’s not either, or,”

8. To Lydia, Tue,Jul 27 10:42 at 10:42 am – In response to you writing, “It is a voluntary action. What Paul was counseling was a step up for believing women in the 1st Century,” I wrote, Valid point about stepping up and voluntary action, making it a heart issue.

9. To Lydia, Tue, Jul 27 10:22pm at 01:22 pm – No one is demanding it…You don’t have to subject yourself to your husband if you don’t want to. It’s your choice. Don’t, for all I care… Can you not see that I agreed with you that subjecting is an exercise of the wife’s free will, her choice, her authority? How many ways do I have to say it?

a. “those that teach it is submission to “authority” kill the blessing and make it a work of salvation. ”
b. “But many have turned it into leadership/authority stance when it is not.”
c. “You need to let CBMW know because that is what they teach. Husband as prophet, priest and king.”

I’m glad you continue to reference others’ teaching, because it confirms my belief that you’re not able to objectively process my valid points without running them through comp-resistant filters you’ve erected because of others’ erroneous teaching. Those are just not going to fly as valid arguments in this debate.

“The word in verse 21 is for all believers…that includes you. ”

Thank you for agreeing with my last post which stated, “Let’s back up a minute. First, verse 21 isn’t talking to just husbands and wives. It’s talking to the whole body of believers in Ephesus. Then he narrows his instructions and talks to wives and husbands…Wives be subject to you husbands,… Husbands, love your wives.

“It does not exempt husbands and the further instructions to husband means that there is no way they can do that in a marriage except by submitting. ”

Right, that’s what I just wrote in my previous post, but the author uses the word, “love,” not submit, when he writes to the husbands. Yes, he uses, “subject,” to everyone in verse 21, in a generic sense, but more specifically, “love,” to the husband, later.

“The entire foundation of comp teaching is what you describe as faulty logic.”

First, I’m not teaching comp, although you seem to be reading comp when you process my points through your filter.

Lastly, you seem to have as the foundation, of all the beliefs we’ve been discussing, regarding men and women, Galatians 3:28, which states, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

You have alluded to or paraphrased a portion of this verse multiple times in your posts.

Talk about faulty logic. This is an example of taking one verse, grossly out of context, and applying it to something the author wasn’t even addressing. He was talking about salvation through faith vs. the law, and that the way of salvation is the same for everyone, Jews, Greek, free, slaves, men, and women. What he’s NOT addressing is authority or submission among men and women or among church overseers or the overseen.

You and all the other people in your camp, who use this verse to rest their arguments on, are way off base. And you dare to lecture others about proof texting. Take this misapplied scripture away and more than half your arguments fail. Sorry.

Thanks for conceding that wives are to submit to their husbands.

We’ll just have to disagree about earthly authority. I believe there is authority related to specific responsibilities, but not the kind you imagine that is compulsory or lording over. It’s serving, as you wrote. It’s voluntary, asking, not demanding, for voluntary co-laboring.

Regarding Romans, yes, it talks about salvation through faith there, as well, but I believe hanging your hat on those scriptures and Galatians as foundational truths to argue your points about men and women is misapplied. It’s out of context.

“Regarding Romans, yes, it talks about salvation through faith there, as well, but I believe hanging your hat on those scriptures and Galatians as foundational truths to argue your points about men and women is misapplied. It’s out of context.”

Michael, I was referencing our full inheritance if we are saved. It is the same for male and female.

” It’s serving, as you wrote. It’s voluntary, asking, not demanding, for voluntary co-laboring.”

How is a servant an authority over others? You are not Jesus Christ. You are simply trying to redefine authority as many before you have done.

Earthly authority is civil government, parents to children, etc. Women are not perpetual children needing a daddy figure in marriage. And believers are not to remain immature but to eventually feast on meat. By having an earthly authority they are under such as with a title of elder or pastor, it could be someone like Ted Haggard. Now, wouldn’t you agree that one should have spiritual discernment about who they are listening to? Fruit is not just doctrine but mainly about behavior. And that comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit.

If we were to follow human authorities in the Body, then Paul would not have commended the Bereans for what they did.

Lydia,

I know you were talking inheritance, which comes with salvation through faith. Still not a good foundational verse. It’s just the same basic concept as the Galatians verse. The point I made was, it’s out of context.

And even the Galatians verse recognizes that there is earthly authority. He contrasts slave and free, knowing there’s an authority structure. He contrasts men and women, knowing there’s an authority structure. And he contrasts that earthly authority structure with, we’re are on a level playing field with regard to salvation. Everyone has to come to the Father by faith in Jesus Christ. And, yes, we all have an inheritance, without regard to our earthly authority structures. Free and men do not have an advantage over slaves and women.

But, just the fact that he contrasts these is evidence that Paul recognizes that, on earth, there ARE authority structures. We may still be the Body of Christ, but we’re the Body of Christ, ON EARTH. There is authority in the heavens, as well.

“How is a servant an authority over others?”

If you had read my posts carefully, thoughtfully, you would understand that I have referred to specific authority regarding what your responsibility is; NOT authority OVER PEOPLE. If 7-11 stores hire a person to operate the cash register, he is a servant to the company who employs him. He also has authority to accomplish his work duties. Someone off the street can’t come into the store and demand that he give him the key to the cash register. The servant has authority, there, specific to his responsibility, and will control access to the register. The servant, being a man under authority of the employer, carries the same weight of his employer, and carries that level of authority in relation to others, while carrying out his duties.

“You are simply trying to redefine authority as many before you have done. ”

No, I’m not trying to redefine authority. You’re choosing not to recognize obvious authority that, even the immature intuitively know is there.

“Women are not perpetual children needing a daddy figure in marriage.”

Now, look who’s trying to redefine authority. You mention, “parents to children, etc.,” followed by the above statement. Who made age or maturity a criteria for what defines authority? The U.S. President doesn’t need someone younger or less mature than him, filling the office of the Vice President, to have authority over him. Authority relates to the responsibility, and women do not have the same responsibilities in marriage as men and visa versa. So they both carry authority related to their responsibilities.

In the church, those who just show up do not have the same responsibilities as an elder or pastor, so they don’t carry with them the same authority related to that church. They don’t get to call the pastor up and dictate to him what he has to preach on Sunday. The pastor doesn’t get to call that person up and tell them how to educate their children, since that is not his responsibility; it’s the parents’. (no need to respond with a tangent about the pastor being a keeper of the soul).

“Now, wouldn’t you agree that one should have spiritual discernment about who they are listening to?”

Yes, of course. The reality is, so many don’t because of their immaturity. But, as I wrote earlier, there is no way for us to be infallible in discerning all that someone does in their private life. There was no way for Ted Haggard’s congregation to know what he was into.

“If we were to follow human authorities in the Body, then Paul would not have commended the Bereans for what they did.”

First, who said anything about following human authorities?

Are you talking about Luke commending the Bereans for testing all that Paul was saying by searching the scriptures? Testing or questioning what someone has to say does not mean that he does not have authority. In my earlier example, if someone walks into the 7-11 and picks up an item that clearly has the wrong price on it, the fact that he can potentially have a conflict over that price with the cashier, does not mean the cashier doesn’t have authority.

Likewise, if the Bereans had a disagreement with Paul regarding the scriptures, that doesn’t mean Paul doesn’t have authority to carry out the mission God assigned to him.