Also, and I’m not trying to be mean, honestly, but I was reflecting back on my debate with Lydia and it occured to me to ask you to consider looking into and writing on hyper-ANTI-authoritarianism. If there’s one extreme, there’s bound to be the other extreme.

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.

I’ll get back with you on it. I Corinthians 11 is a can of worms.

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.

I find this statement just placed on our blog under the “CEEJ” post interesting.

Beyond verifying what I saw when I visited one of the local SGM churches, I am interested in how this subject is addressed at SGM churches.

Comments?

acme says:
Wed, Jul 28 05:44 pm at 05:44 pm (Edit)
I went to CJ’s church from 1986-2007.

There were a few women who wore head-coverings. I remember when Wendy Virgo came to speak a long time ago — and she said it was up to our husbands whether we covered our heads or not.

My neighbor asked me just recently if I still attended CLC and said she had visited it recently. I told her I didn’t–and that I could not in good conscience recommend it to anyone, primarily because of the hyper-authoritarian control, extra-biblical requirements, and CBMW.

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.

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.
”

You have answered your own question as to what is the problem. There is NO AUTHORITY in the situation.

All you have done is redefine what authority means. That is exactly what CBMW does when they are cornered. One does not “lead” with humility. There is no “servant leader”. I was around in mega marketing circles when that was coined. And it was coined for a specific reason. Long story.

One is either an example of humility or not. The wording in the whole pericope of scripture is “servant”. They don’t lead, they sacrifice.

“Forget trying to redefine authority as something more palitable and acceptable. It has been done to death.
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.”

I mentioned this passage a few times. The same teaching is in Romans. But anyway…it is not just about Salvation but inheritance. And that is significant. He does not limit women’s full inheritance of any gifts or functions. It is a FULL inheritance. If we did not inherit it all, that would be a good time to have told us.

Michael, you claim to agree with most of what I say, then what is the problem? I fully agree that wives are to submit to their husband. What I do not agree is that it is submission to an earthly authority. It is voluntary and it was a huge step up.

To really undestand this from the perspective of those reading the letter at the time, it is interesting to read the Roman Household codes and understand the Roman idea/law of Pater Familias.

“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.

Michael, you might enjoy this analysis

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.