Gender Roles Not An Essential of the Christian Faith – Guest Post by Wade Burleson

“The gifts of the Spirit in the New Covenant are never differentiated on the basis of gender.”

Wade Burleson

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=74379&picture=face-man-and-woman

Faces of a Man and a Woman

The Role of Men and Women in the Home and Church Is Not an Essential of the Christian Faith

Wade Burleson

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/06/the-role-of-men-and-women-in-home-and.html

A Christian’s understanding of any alleged roles of men and women in the home and church often comes from listening to a pastor’s rote teaching rather than personal researched learning.

“Be diligent … to correctly handle the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15).

It seems clear through a casual reading of the Bible–much less robust research–that Jesus Christ treats men and women as equals, a behavior that was contrary to the views and practices of His fellow Jews during Old Covenant days (1500 B.C. to A.D. 70).

Though there’s disagreement among evangelical Bible-believers on this issue, to say someone who disagrees with your view is “preaching a false gospel” is foolish.

Sinners are saved by the Person and work of Jesus Christ, not by a proper, biblical view on the roles of men and women.

So those who wrongly teach that God designed only men to have “spiritual authority” and only women are to have “submissive attitudes” are directly contradicting the infallible teachings of the New Testament which state that Christ alone has all spiritual authority in His Kingdom (Matthew 28:18), that leadership in His Kingdom is humbly serving others out of the power of one’s spiritual giftings (I Peter 4:10), and that all Christians are to “submit to one another” and  to”love one another” (Ephesians 5:21; John 13:34).

But being unbiblical and restrictive on the roles of men and women does not mean these people lack the Gospel.

If, however, there is a demand for conformity to a particular interpretation on this issue, rather than granting the freedom to disagree over the role of men and women in the home and church, then we may be playing the fool.

Let me explain.

Spurgeon Says a Fool Focuses on the Non-Essentials

Charles Spurgeon once began a message on the text “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22) with an illustration of three fools.

The first fool, Spurgeon said, is the ship’s captain who goes below deck during a ferocious storm to read an encyclopedia on the nature of Atlantic winds rather than fighting to keep his boat afloat.

The second fool is the wounded soldier on the battlefield who asks the arriving medic all kinds of questions about the size, shape, and model of the gun that fired the bullet which wounded the soldier rather than asking the physician if he’s able to heal him.

The third fool is the religious person who continually argues the subtle philosophical questions about the origin and nature of evil while ignoring the absolute truth that Christ’s blood is able to cleanse his sins (Hebrews 9:14).

Spurgeon said all three fools have one thing in common:

They trifle with subtleties while they ignore certainties.

A fool is one who spends time and wastes energy on matters that shouldn’t matter.

The “role” of women in the church and home shouldn’t matter when it comes to Christian cooperation, mission work, and spreading the Good News to a world in need of deliverance.

Some Christian leaders advocate that God’s design is for men to rule and lead while women are to receive and submit. Fine. But when Christians demand others churches, evangelicals, and missions organizations conform to such beliefs, then they are in danger of “trifling with subtleties while ignoring certainties.”

A demand for conformity on the alleged roles of men and women is taking a non-essential belief and turning into a measuring stick for believing the gospel.

The Danger of Making the Gospel About Gender

The overwhelming New Testament teaching of the Bible regarding men and women in the church is clear — “gender differences are irrelevant in the church of Jesus Christ.”
The Apostle Paul says:

All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:27-28).

Paul is emphatic that there is no room in the body of Jesus Christ for racial distinctions, no room for class distinctions, no room for gender distinctions. You may disagree with this assessment, but to make faithful gospel preaching hinge on an agreement with your views on gender is foolish. People are dying.
God’s people in the New Covenant are called to serve based upon the giftings given to them by the Holy Spirit:

“I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17).

Men who refuse a woman to serve, read, lead, or teach (when men are present) seem to be twisting the gospel of freedom in Christ into a doctrine of bondage by gender.
To restrict a Holy Spirit gifted and empowered woman from edifying other believers through the free exercise of her Spirit given gifts seems to be a resistance to the Holy Spirit.
Some of the most gifted leaders, teachers, and role models are women!
The Old Hebrew Way Is Not the Christian Way

An ancient Jewish prayer from the Hebrew Siddur (prayer book) went like this:

“Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a Gentile. Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a slave. Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman.”

Hashem was the Hebrew name for the one true God. It meant “The Name” and was used by Jews to refer to God since the days of Ezekiel.
The same spirit ancient Jews possessed that caused them to believe that only men were created to rule and lead and that women were created to receive and submit is the same spirit now at work in more than a few evangelical Christian leaders.
Interestingly, the rise of the Hebrew Siddur (prayer book) coincides with the glory of God departing the Temple of Jerusalem in the days of Ezekiel (see Ezekiel 10). Jewish Temple worship continued, but it was during this Spirit-less intertestamental time period that you have the rise of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other male-only Jewish orders that were continually focusing on male “authority,” male “leadership,” and male “power.”
A preoccupation and fixation on authority (whether it be conservative patriarchalism or liberal feminism), is a sign that the Spirit of God has departed.
Jesus Christ explicitly forbids any one individual assuming authority over other adults in the Christian community (Matthew 20:20-28). In fact, after describing the imperialism of political rulers and the authority fixation of religious rulers, Jesus said to his disciples:

“It shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:26).

The New Testament covenant of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ totally turns the world’s concept of authority on its ear.

The world is concerned about position, power, authority, prestige, control, and ruling over others. Jesus Christ teaches His followers to serve, to love, to express their spiritual gifts to their fullest for the good of others, and to never fear what any person in so-called “authority” can do to them because “All authority … has been given to Me” (Matthew 28:18).

There is to be mutual equality, respect, and submission within the home between husband and wife (Ephesians 5:21-33). There is to be mutual equality, respect and submission of men and women toward one another in the body of Christ based upon the gifts that the Spirit gives to each male and female believer who has been baptized into Christ (Acts 2:15-21; Galatians 3:28).

References to the churches’ teaching ministry and other gifts are found in Romans 12, I Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4 and not one of those passages excludes females from being recipients of any one of those gifts. 

Let me say that again in a different way:

The gifts of the Spirit in the New Covenant are never differentiated on the basis of gender.

Paul’s Teaching about Women

“But what about Paul telling women ‘to be silent’ in the presence of men, and ‘to learn’ in quietness and submission from men?” you may ask. For example, Paul writes:

 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (I Timothy 2:11-12).

Scripture never contradicts Scripture. Therefore, if you believe Paul is giving a general and universal principle that no woman, at anytime or anywhere, may ever teach men or have authority over men, then you believe the Scripture contradicts itself.

All the other Pauline books, including Galatians, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, as well as the other New Testament books written by Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and other early disciples of Christ, never separate the gifts of the Spirit according to gender. 

So how does one understand I Timothy 2:11-12. I give one explanation for this text here, an interpretation that is consistent with the rest of New Testament teaching regarding men and women.

But for a fuller explanation, I’d encourage you to obtain Jon Zen’s book What’s With Paul and Women. After reading Zens, you will never again feel the need to restrict women in the home or in the church.


Spirit-Gifted, Humble Servant Leaders in the Home and Church

One of the advantages of being the pastor of a New Testament church where the Word of God is respected, believed, and practiced is that both men and women lead, serve, teach, and shepherd based upon their gifts.

We believe the concept of positions of power and authority held by “elders” is foreign to the New Testament. The word elder means “older.” Look to your elders for wisdom.

Again, the notion of some raw authority in an office of pastor or elder is foreign to the New Testament. Every believer in Christ is a priest in the Kingdom of Christ.

Our church has a Leadership Team composed of both men and women. I am a pastor, but there is no inherent spiritual authority in me or any “office” I hold.

Jesus Christ alone is the spiritual authority over his people. I serve people. I love people.

I lead people only if they are willing to follow–and frankly, if I do a poor job of serving and loving, they ought not to follow.

One of these days the church of Jesus Christ is going to wake up to the fact that we have so twisted and corrupted the concept of authority and leadership that what we have abandoned the clear and precise teachings of the New Testament.

The ancient Jews kept women in the courtyard and placed a fence around the Temple grounds lest a woman feel compelled to enter the Holy Place. The sacred rituals were performed by male priests. The sacred services were led by male priests.

Modern-day conservative evangelicals and liberal feminists often violate clear teachings of Jesus Christ and seem to wish to resurrect the Old economy of Temple buildings, gender priesthoods, and religious rituals.

Jesus Abolished all the Old Economy (Old Covenant) the New Agreement (New Covenant). 

The Temple of God is no longer a building, it is the soul of a believer (I Corinthians 6:19). The priests of God are no longer just male, they are both male and female (Galatians 3:28). The rituals of God are no longer holy days, sacrifices, and feasts, but faith in Christ and love for God and our fellow man (Colossians 2:16; John 13:3).

The body of Jesus Christ is to make no distinctions in race, class, and gender. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel that sets the captives free to serve as the Holy Spirit gifts.

To revoke the privilege of a gifted, believing woman from reading Scripture or teaching men, or to have leadership in the home or church is to violate the clear and certain teaching of the New Testament.

Is there room for disagreement on this issue among evangelical Christians?

Sure.

But if conservative, Bible-believing, Christ-loving, Spirit-filled, graced people demand conformity on over the “roles” of men and women in the home and church, then we are trifling with subtleties while ignoring certainties.

Comments

Gender Roles Not An Essential of the Christian Faith – Guest Post by Wade Burleson — 831 Comments


  1. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack, I have more respect for your understanding of the Bible than that of many evangelical Christians I know. You are moving down the path of truth, and I really appreciate that.

    Also, right on about toxic nostalgia. These are the good old days, with all the problems that we have.


  2. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ricco: Also, right on about toxic nostalgia. These are the good old days, with all the problems that we have.

    I tried to look for the time and place when “the church” got it right. Everything I’ve found so far tells me there was never a golden age of the church. There is nothing to return to. It’s always been a mess and each generation added to the mess in the various ways they dealt with the various pressures and persecutions. We are adding to this, whether for good or for bad. I’m beginning to think that maybe it’s supposed to be this way.


  3. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    I disagree.

    Then you are denying the doctrine of the Trinity and aren’t reading the Bible as a Christian. All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3), Jesus is God, ergo, all Scripture is Jesus-breathed.


  4. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    “husband of one wife” 1 Tim. 3:12
    “wife of one husband” 1 Tim. 5:9

    1 Tim. 5 is about enrolling the widows for supporting them financially, not church leadership.

    “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity” 1Tim. 3:8
    “Women must likewise be dignified” 1 Tim. 3:11

    Is Paul talking about deaconesses or wives of deacons. There’s actually legitimate debate to be had over this office.

    “He must be one who manages his own household well” 1Tim. 3:4
    “I desire therefore that the younger widows marry, bear children, rule the household” 1Tim. 5:14

    Nothing in 1 tim. 5 about church leadership.

    “Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father” 1Tim. 5:1
    “…the elder women as mothers” 1Tim. 5:2
    “…the younger men as brothers” 1 Tim. 5:1
    “…the younger women as sisters” 1 Tim. 5:2

    Nothing in 1 Tim. 5 about the church office of elder. This is about relationships within the church, not authority to teach and govern the church.

    “…”Whoever divorces his wife…” Mark 10:11
    “…”if she herself divorces her husband” Mark 10:12
    “…each man is to have his own wife” 1 Cor. 7:2
    “…each woman is to have her own husband” 1 Cor. 7:2
    “…the wife should not leave her husband ” 1 Cor. 7:10
    “…the husband should not divorce his wife” 1 Cor. 7:11
    The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus *said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” John 4:17-18
    Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. Mar 10:2

    Not sure how any of this is relevant to whether women may be ordained as elders.

    I could probably list many more scriptures that speak to the same issues surrounding men/women and husbands/wives in the NT. I think it’s obvious that polygamy, divorce, slavery, circumcision, idolatry, and assumed authority existed among both the Jews, Greeks, and gentiles who were new converts.
    It should be obvious that both Jesus and Paul were refuting those who were trying to continue these practices and teach mutual relationships void of a hierarchy that was so pervasive in that culture.

    If Paul and Jesus were trying to get rid of all authority, Jesus would not have told the Apostles that the sins of those whom they forgive are forgiven and Paul would not have had established elders at all.

    To continue to promote anything other than a system of mutuality and one-anothering is totally contrary to the Gospel.

    Do you go to a church that has no leadership at all? How does that function.

    Mutuality and one-anothering don’t violate the idea that there are ruling officers in the church. Your setting things at odds that the Bible never sets at odds.


  5. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    Jesus’ edicts of do unto others and love thy neighbour are far cry from an eye for eye.
    Did God make a mistake? Or change his mind?

    Nope. Eye for an eye was a principle given for legal and judicial settings and wasn’t intended to be applied to every personal slight. That’s Jesus’ point.

    Equality and tolerance are very much Christian attributes.

    Sure. Now define equality and tolerance according to an objective, transcendent standard. Saudi Arabia’s understanding of equality and tolerance is very different than yours. Why should I accept your understanding and not theirs?


  6. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ricco,

    Not so sure anyone should be ruling in the church.

    Then your problem is with the Apostle Paul (1 Tim. 5:17).

    There are many things I dislike about my Mennonite heritage and upbringing, but interpreting the Bible through the life of Christ is my favorite thing about Mennonites

    Wait, you said you liked the Nicene Creed, which affirms the deity of Christ. Since the Bible teaches that it is revealed by God, then you can’t set any part of the Bible against what Christ said.


  7. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    The people you’re talking about? They don’t believe in equality.

    According to Lea. Why should I believe you and not them.

    There is no male female, slave free, jew gentile. We are all one. THAT is my view of equality.

    That’s my view as well. But the biblical view of equality also includes the other letters Paul wrote, and he doesn’t know of women elders ruling the church. So somehow, equality means that women don’t have to be elders.

    Your default when people disagree with you is to accuse them of not being Christian. You need to stop doing that.

    No. My default is when people disagree with the Bible is to say that they are not thinking like a Christian on the matter where they disagree. You can be a Christian and have non-Christian views on some things. It’s inevitable. There are points in my thinking where I am not thinking like a Christian. My goal is to conform those areas to Scripture and think in a consistently Christian fashion.

    China and India have killed millions of girls because they do not consider them as important as boys. Maybe you should think about where inequality leads.

    Prior to the twentieth century, no one in the West held liberal feminist views of equality, and I do not know of an epidemic in the West of killing girls. Infanticide and sex selective abortion—abortion in general—were not a problem in the West like they are in China and India.

    More girls have been killed in the West since the adoption of liberal feminist ideas and policies than before such ideas and policies were in place.

    China and India’s views of equality and inequality did not match the Christian and Western view millennia ago. So your comparison is invalid. Christians who didn’t have liberal feminist views of equality went into India and effectively stopped the practice of widow burning. The West adopts liberal feminist views of equality and now we’ve killed upwards of 30 million baby girls in the past forty years or so.

    Looks to me like both the liberal feminist view of equality and the traditional inequality views of India and China lead to the murder of females.


  8. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    How do you know this?

    Because I’m a Trinitarian. Jesus is God. All Scripture is God-breathed. Therefore, every word of the Bible is Jesus-breahed. The words Paul wrote—they are no less Jesus’ words than those words in red.

    The Bible does not teach this, and ancient Christians filtered all the other books of the Bible through the four gospels. They considered the gospels more authoritative than the epistles.

    The Bible teaches that Jesus is the final, authoritative interpreter of Scripture, not that His words have more authority than the words of others. But where does Jesus deliver the authoritative interpretation of Scripture?—the New Testament.

    You’re overstating what the ancient church did. They did not consider the gospels more authoritative than the epistles, and certainly the church as a whole has not viewed them more authoritative than the epistles.

    But the fundamental point is that if you believe in the Trinity, you can’t view the words of Jesus in red as more authoritative than the words in black. So if you are a Trinitarian and you do believe that, you are not thinking consistently on this point.


  9. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Saudi Arabia’s understanding of equality and tolerance is very different than yours.

    Honey, Saudi Arabia doesn’t believe in equality. Many christian ‘fathers’ did not believe men and women were equal. This is apparently not penetrating.

    You think we have some crazy definition? No. Equality is equality. We don’t live in some crazy world where slaves are really ‘equal’. This isn’t complicated. You are making it so to try to make a point.

    If the standards of so-called equality were applied to you, you would be calling them out right quick. Bah.


  10. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert,

    What is your denominational background and current affiliation, and do they agree with you in what all you are saying?


  11. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: But the fundamental point is that if you believe in the Trinity, you can’t view the words of Jesus in red as more authoritative than the words in black. So if you are a Trinitarian and you do believe that, you are not thinking consistently on this point.

    What proof do you have for this idea? The vast majority of Christians throughout history have put the four gospels on a higher level than the OT and the rest of the NT. We see this even today in high church protestant services where people sit for the OT and NT readings but stand for the Gospel reading. This is not a red-letter/black-letter issue. It is not an issue of pitting some books of the Bible against other books. It is not an issue of saying some books in the Bible are less valuable than others. Rather, it is interpreting all of the Bible through the lens of the gospels rather than interpreting the gospels through the lens of other books. This is historical Christianity.


  12. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Do you go to a church that has no leadership at all? How does that function.

    Mutuality and one-anothering don’t violate the idea that there are ruling officers in the church. Your setting things at odds that the Bible never sets at odds.

    Robert, you missed the point entirely. I was showing the clear message of the mutual, equal, balanced, equitable treatment of members of the body of Christ regardless of gender, ethnicity, or status. If the male/female verses I posted don’t convince you of Paul’s and Jesus’ words of impartiality and adverse words regarding authority over others, I can believe you are reading them through a lens of your choice rather than the one where all members serve in the areas of their gifts, strengths, and talents. Some of those are naturally acquired and others are supernaturally provided via the Holy Spirit.

    Nowhere, for further evidence of God’s impartiality, is a man mandated to have authority over his wife other than 1 Cor. 7 where the authority is mutual and only after mutual agreement.

    Redemption in Christ brings freedom in all areas of relationships and behavior between members of the Body; none are mandated to subjugate another. This is totally foreign to the gospel.


  13. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Nope. Eye for an eye was a principle given for legal and judicial settings and wasn’t intended to be applied to every personal slight. That’s Jesus’ point

    In the context of the culture, the eye for an eye principle was taken to a personal level. The middle east has a long history of blood feuds. These would escalate into generations long tit for tats – look at the current situation in Israel/Palestine.
    Jesus meant for Christians to be the better people. The be the ones to stop the tit for tats, his followers would have no common cohesion if they were constantly at war over various perceived offences. We see Christians attempt to put this into practice through such initiatives as the Geneva Convention – attempting to civilize warfare.

    Muhammed also united the Arabian Peninsula the same way. Forgive your brother to achieve unity. He unified the tribes there as an army that conquered the Middle East and North Africa to Spain.


  14. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Sure. Now define equality and tolerance according to an objective, transcendent standard. Saudi Arabia’s understanding of equality and tolerance is very different than yours. Why should I accept your understanding and not theirs?

    The Christianity I was raised in viewed the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. Jesus wasn’t taken back through to the Old Testament.

    Saudi Arabia adheres to a very strict interpretation of the old testament laws, so yes their understanding of equality is different, and we don’t define it as Christian.

    Your interpretation of equality has more in common with Saudi morality than Christianity as most people practice it. Is that what your church is like?

    But if Jesus is to be interpreted through the lens of the old testament laws then everything Paul and epistles bolted on is simply “make it up as you go along” religion.

    Because Jesus didn’t come to reveal anything – and that means every Christian hitched their wagon to the wrong horse.

    Man, the Norse Gods of my forefathers are really going to be brassed with me. I’m never getting to Valhalla.


  15. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    The Christianity I was raised in viewed the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. Jesus wasn’t taken back through to the Old Testament.

    The OT should be read through the lens of the NT. But that does not entail setting the two against each other.

    Saudi Arabia adheres to a very strict interpretation of the old testament laws, so yes their understanding of equality is different, and we don’t define it as Christian.

    Saudi Arabia rejects the OT and receives the Qur’an. The Qur’an is not the OT.

    Your interpretation of equality has more in common with Saudi morality than Christianity as most people practice it. Is that what your church is like?

    It does? Because I don’t believe women should be ordained to the office of elder and that liberal feminism has a lot wrong, I also believe that women can’t drive, must walk around covered up, etc., etc.? Not the last time I checked.

    But if Jesus is to be interpreted through the lens of the old testament laws then everything Paul and epistles bolted on is simply “make it up as you go along” religion.

    No. But you need to understand the OT laws to understand what Jesus was actually teaching and revealing.


  16. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Robert, you missed the point entirely. I was showing the clear message of the mutual, equal, balanced, equitable treatment of members of the body of Christ regardless of gender, ethnicity, or status. If the male/female verses I posted don’t convince you of Paul’s and Jesus’ words of impartiality and adverse words regarding authority over others, I can believe you are reading them through a lens of your choice rather than the one where all members serve in the areas of their gifts, strengths, and talents. Some of those are naturally acquired and others are supernaturally provided via the Holy Spirit.

    I’m not denying that all members should serve in the areas of their gifts, strengths, and talents. What I am denying is that there is no authority structures in the church. If your church has leaders, it has people in authority over others.

    Nowhere, for further evidence of God’s impartiality, is a man mandated to have authority over his wife other than 1 Cor. 7 where the authority is mutual and only after mutual agreement.

    Eph. 5:22–24: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

    Col. 3:18 “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

    1 Peter 3:1 “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.”

    Redemption in Christ brings freedom in all areas of relationships and behavior between members of the Body; none are mandated to subjugate another. This is totally foreign to the gospel.

    Agreed. I’m not advocating that anyone subjugate anyone else. To exercise authority is not necessarily to subjugate.

    Does your church have leaders that can excommunicate abusive husbands who refuse to repent? That vote over the direction of the church? If the answer is yes, then your church has authorities.


  17. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    What proof do you have for this idea? The vast majority of Christians throughout history have put the four gospels on a higher level than the OT and the rest of the NT. We see this even today in high church protestant services where people sit for the OT and NT readings but stand for the Gospel reading.

    If they were on a higher level, they wouldn’t exist alongside other books in the canon. I agree that some Christians have seen the gospels as more important, but that’s more a reflection of bad theology than anything else. If your’e a Trinitarian, the black words are no less the words of Jesus than the red ones.

    This is not a red-letter/black-letter issue. It is not an issue of pitting some books of the Bible against other books. It is not an issue of saying some books in the Bible are less valuable than others. Rather, it is interpreting all of the Bible through the lens of the gospels rather than interpreting the gospels through the lens of other books. This is historical Christianity.

    Historical Christianity says that the New Testament is in the Old concealed and that the Old Testament is in the New revealed. Augustine said that if he thinks he finds a contradiction between any two Scriptures then he is wrong, not the Scriptures.

    You can’t accurately interpret what Jesus is saying unless you accurately understand what the Law and the Prophets are saying. Jesus came not to overturn but to fulfill.

    The basic idea that the Apostles are the authoritative interpreters of the OT is correct. The idea that you run everything through the grid of the gospels as if they are somehow more authoritatively God’s Word isn’t. Jesus himself told the disciples that He had more to teach them after His ascension. Where do we find that teaching of Jesus? The epistles.


  18. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    Honey, Saudi Arabia doesn’t believe in equality. Many christian ‘fathers’ did not believe men and women were equal. This is apparently not penetrating.

    What’s penetrating is that you have a particular view of what equality is that is colored by twenty-first century Western feminism and that if anyone disagrees with you, you don’t think they believe in equality. Now defend that according to some objective standard.

    You think we have some crazy definition? No. Equality is equality. We don’t live in some crazy world where slaves are really ‘equal’. This isn’t complicated. You are making it so to try to make a point.

    No, I think that your definition of equality, from what I can tell, isn’t what the Bible means by equality. You seem to think that men and women aren’t truly equal unless all offices in the church are open to both men and women. I say that is not how the Bible defines equality, that most people throughout history would not agree, and that in all likelihood, most Christians around the world would not agree either. The largest churches worldwide do not open the office of elder/bishop/pastor to women.

    Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe I’m wrong. What I do know is that those views of equality aren’t equivalent to modern Western definitions of equality.


  19. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    okrapod,

    What is your denominational background and current affiliation, and do they agree with you in what all you are saying?

    Grew up in the ELCA. Spent time in the Pentecostal movement and Wesleyan tradition. Became Reformed after studying Scripture and theology in detail. Now I’m in the PCA. Pretty much I’ve seen everything—fundamentalism, evangelicalism, Protestant liberalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.

    PCA agrees with me on what I have said about the ordination of women and the equal authority of all of Scripture.


  20. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    I said/asked for….
    Nowhere, for further evidence of God’s impartiality, is a man mandated to have authority over his wife other than 1 Cor. 7 where the authority is mutual and only after mutual agreement.

    And you gave me wife scriptures. I’m asking again for scripture that mandates a husband to be authority/leader over his wife.

    Robert: Eph. 5:22–24: “WivesM, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

    Col. 3:18 “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

    1 Peter 3:1 “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.”

    Please provide scriptural evidence for a husband to lead or have authority over his wife.


  21. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Maybe I’m wrong.

    Yes. This one.

    In addition to being incredibly obtuse about what I am actually saying and skipping right to pretend I said whatever you think I said.

    You think people in Saudi Arabia think they are practicing equality? Nonsense. You haven’t even begun to address my point, before circling around to your own accusations of ‘feminism’ and ‘western thought’. Sigh.


  22. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Then you are denying the doctrine of the Trinity

    No I don’t.

    Robert: and aren’t reading the Bible as a Christian

    Yes I do, unless your thoughts are the determining factor to everyone’s Christian status.

    Robert: All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3), Jesus is God, ergo, all Scripture is Jesus-breathed

    Yes. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

    But it does not necessarily follow that the letters that apostles wrote are on the same level as what Jesus said in the flesh.

    Experts do not agree as to which scriptures Paul was actually referring to since the Scriptures were not yet defined as we know them today.


  23. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: PCA agrees with me on what I have said about the ordination of women and the equal authority of all of Scripture.

    It seems more likely you joined the PCA because you agree with *them*.


  24. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: Muhammed also united the Arabian Peninsula the same way. Forgive your brother to achieve unity. He unified the tribes there as an army that conquered the Middle East and North Africa to Spain.

    Mohammed seriously reduced the blood-feud infighting and inter-tribal warfare of Arab culture by redefining all Muslim believers (his followers) as a single tribe and redirecting the blood feud and raid-and-pillage economy outward against the Infidels(TM). Brought relative peace among the Arab tribes and clans at the cost of us on the outside.


  25. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Saudi Arabia rejects the OT and receives the Qur’an. The Qur’an is not the OT.

    Both originated in similar Semitic tribal cultures.
    I would expect a lot of parallels.


  26. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea: It seems more likely you joined the PCA because you agree with *them*.

    Though he does throw around the word “Scripture(TM)” more like a Calvary Chapel bot.


  27. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: If they were on a higher level, they wouldn’t exist alongside other books in the canon.

    Good point. If the gospels were more important they would have been placed at the beginning of the NT rather than where they are…

    What you are really saying is PCA is egalitarian with respect to each of the individual words in the Bible, but not egalitarian with respect to each of the individual people in the church.


  28. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Augustine

    Speaking of Augustine, what is the PCA view of other ancient church “fathers” and councils? When I read reformed writings I get the sense that Augustine was the only viable church authority between the times of the origin apostles and the reformers? Is that what PCA teaches? My understanding is that Calvin rejected most of the ancient church fathers because he thought they were wrong.


  29. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: It does? Because I don’t believe women should be ordained to the office of elder and that liberal feminism has a lot wrong, I also believe that women can’t drive, must walk around covered up, etc., etc.? Not the last time I checked.

    In truth, no. I don’t think you have the same rigidity as Saudi Arabia’s law. But when we have a system that places one set of people above another we’ve got a situation in which abuse can and does proliferate. This has been seen time and again, to the point of being normal in many fundamentalist communities, Christian & others.

    Ultimately your view is a Christian view but not the only Christian view.

    No one has convinced me that the biblical view is infallible, inerrant or superior. As you said to me, why should I accept it your view over my own?

    The truth will not be found in a faith that subjugates and denigrates others.

    Thanks for the interaction.


  30. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: Please provide scriptural evidence for a husband to lead or have authority over his wife.

    They can’t unless they spin Scripture to mean what they want it to mean.

    It’s usually done by playing mix and match with what’s descriptive and what’s prescriptive.

    From there, circular reasoning and special pleading become the rivets so to speak for the machine they want to construct.


  31. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: Please provide scriptural evidence for a husband to lead or have authority over his wife.

    I just started reading “God’s Word to Women” by Katherine Bushnell. It’s fascinating. Based on what I read so far, I highly recommend it. I read “Eve” by Paul Young (yes, I know he is a confirmed heretic), and I think he read this book before he wrote his because the overlap is remarkable. If my opinion changes as I continue to read I’ll make a comment.


  32. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed): I just started reading “God’s Word to Women” by Katherine Bushnell. It’s fascinating. Based on what I read so far, I highly recommend it.

    Ken, some time in the early 1980’s, I found a little 100-page book entitled “The Magna Charta of Woman” by Jessie Penn-Lewis. (originally published in 1919 and republished in 1948.) She died in 1927.

    In Penn-Lewis’s Introduction, she tells the source of much of her book was found on the little known work of Katherine Bushnell whose book was last published around 1923.

    A gentleman from upstate N.Y. by the name of Ray B. Munson also was made aware of Bushnell’s work and he began the effort to find those who would help financing the republishing of her book. He offered the book for a $5 donation and I received mine somewhere around 1980 and it’s been on my bookshelf ever since. It’s tattered and torn, but I still reference it mostly on the internet now.

    Here’s the list of 100 lessons:

    https://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/100-lessons/

    Please note that the dates I’ve mentioned are as accurate as my memory allows….:)


  33. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: Here’s the list of 100 lessons:

    https://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/100-lessons/

    Just wanted to add the importance of Bushnell’s chart in which she skillfully traces the erroneous interpretation of the word “teshuqa” in Gen. 3:16 from “turning” to “desire” to imply some sort of lust. This is important in that many scholars? today use Gen. 3:16 as the impetus for Eve’s and all women’s subordination.

    http://godswordtowomen.org/chart_of_teshuqa.htm

    Chapters 16-18 deal with this issue.


  34. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Just wanted to add the importance of Bushnell’s chart in which she skillfully traces the erroneous interpretation of the word “teshuqa” in Gen. 3:16 from “turning” to “desire” to imply some sort of lust. This is important in that many scholars? today use Gen. 3:16 as the impetus for Eve’s and all women’s subordination.

    http://godswordtowomen.org/chart_of_teshuqa.htm

    Chapters 16-18 deal with this issue.


  35. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,
    I learned about the book here on TWW. It’s very different from what I was taught.


  36. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert and all other responders:

    I HAVE A VERSE FOR THIS!!

    23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. (NIV)

    10 days!

    Enough. Please.


  37. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    2 Timothy 2


  38. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken P.: Enough. Please.

    On the other hand, I’ve been pointed to some of the best resources and differwnt ways of thinking through off-topic discussions.


  39. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken P.: 10 days!

    Enough. Please.

    Ken, IIRC several topics have surpassed 1,000 and one even over 1,400! I don’t remember anyone monitoring the exact number of days involved, but this one has stayed on topic. The subject of gender roles does seem to generate much debate and this one has remained (in my opinion) civil so I think it’s been beneficial but in the event Deb or GBTC closes it or corrects those who are participating, I’m thinking you should feel free to ignore it if you’re find it annoying.


  40. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: I’m thinking you should feel free to ignore it if you’re find it annoying.

    I was just expressing an opinion.

    I will ignore any further discussion on this thread.

    Carry on!


  41. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: several topics have surpassed 1,000 and one even over 1,400!

    I saw one that had more than 1600. This has been an unusually quiet weekend on TWW.


  42. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    It seems more likely you joined the PCA because you agree with *them*.

    Just like you joined whatever faith community you’re a part of because you agree with them.


  43. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Speaking of Augustine, what is the PCA view of other ancient church “fathers” and councils? When I read reformed writings I get the sense that Augustine was the only viable church authority between the times of the origin apostles and the reformers? Is that what PCA teaches? My understanding is that Calvin rejected most of the ancient church fathers because he thought they were wrong.

    The basic view would be that ancient church fathers and councils are right wherever they agree with Scripture and wrong wherever they don’t. PCA would essentially view itself as ONE continuing branch of the true church that began with Christ and carries through to today.

    Calvin quotes Augustine more than the other ancient fathers, but it is not true that he rejected most of them. He had a dim view of a lot of medieval thought, but Calvin and the other Reformers thought they were restoring the church to the purer days of the patristics.


  44. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    You think people in Saudi Arabia think they are practicing equality? Nonsense. You haven’t even begun to address my point, before circling around to your own accusations of ‘feminism’ and ‘western thought’. Sigh.

    No, I think that the people in Saudi Arabia look at modern Western views of equality and laugh. In reality, they would see it as degrading of women. You just assume the Western view is correct without defending it.


  45. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    No I don’t.

    If you believe that the words of Jesus in red are more authoritative than the words of Paul, for example, then you are denying in practice that Jesus inspired Paul, which would go against the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Yes I do, unless your thoughts are the determining factor to everyone’s Christian status.

    It’s not my thoughts. It’s simple logic. If God inspired the Bible—which is what Christians believe—and Jesus is God, then Jesus inspired the Bible. Which means Jesus doesn’t say one thing more authoritatively or more true in one place than he does in another. Paul and Jesus have equal authority because Jesus is saying what Paul is saying.

    Experts do not agree as to which scriptures Paul was actually referring to since the Scriptures were not yet defined as we know them today.

    That’s not exactly true. Certainly he was talking about the OT Scriptures. Paul’s canon was the Jewish and Protestant canon. By extension, if the NT writings are Scripture, then Paul’s words apply to them as well.

    If you think the words in red are more important than the words in black, then you’re reading Scripture wrong. Frankly, words in red is a new thing and should be done away with altogether. But we do love our traditions.


  46. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    No one has convinced me that the biblical view is infallible, inerrant or superior. As you said to me, why should I accept it your view over my own?

    Well, you may deny biblical authority. That’s one thing. But if I’m right, it’s a transcendent standard, binding on all. What is your transcendent, binding on all standard? That’s really what I’m asking. We can put our standards up against one another and then compare.

    The truth will not be found in a faith that subjugates and denigrates others.

    What is your binding, transcendent standard that allows you to make such a statement? It’s not the Bible. It’s not the Qur’an. What is it?


  47. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    And you gave me wife scriptures. I’m asking again for scripture that mandates a husband to be authority/leader over his wife.

    1 Cor. 7 is about sex and prayer, so while it is relevant, it doesn’t say everything you think it says.

    If the Apostles mandate wives to be subject to their husbands, that is a mandate for the husband to be authority/leader over his wife. If that’s not good enough for you, demanding a Scripture that says specifically something like “husbands lead your wife” is silly. It’s like Muslims saying the Bible doesn’t teach the Trinity because the Bible never says “God is a Trinity.”


  48. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Good point. If the gospels were more important they would have been placed at the beginning of the NT rather than where they are…

    By this logic, Genesis is the most important book in the Bible. Even more important than the Gospels.

    What you are really saying is PCA is egalitarian with respect to each of the individual words in the Bible, but not egalitarian with respect to each of the individual people in the church.

    Nobody is egalitarian with respect to each of the individual people in the church except perhaps the Quakers. Once you have church offices, you have hierarchy. Even if you accept women’s ordination, if you have officers, your saying that individual people in the church are not equal in terms of authority. Some individuals have more authority than others.


  49. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Calvin quotes Augustine more than the other ancient fathers, but it is not true that he rejected most of them. He had a dim view of a lot of medieval thought, but Calvin and the other Reformers thought they were restoring the church to the purer days of the patristics.

    Robert,
    You come across as someone set in your ways with no intention of every reconsidering your views based on anything that does not conform with what you already believe. In particular, you are wrong about Calvin’s view of the patristics. This is what he actually wrote in chapter 2 of his Institutes (look it up yourself if you doubt me):

    Moreover although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings. It is needless, therefore, to be more particular in enumerating every separate opinion. It will be sufficient to extract from each as much as the exposition of the subject seems to require. Succeeding writers (every one courting applause for his acuteness in the defence of human nature) have uniformly, one after the other, gone more widely astray, until the common dogma came to be, that man was corrupted only in the sensual part of his nature, that reason remained entire, and will was scarcely impaired.

    From his own words there is no way that one can reasonably suggest that Calvin did not reject the early patristics. If you say that Calvin did not believe in something that he actually wrote in his most important work, then we have no way to communicate with each other. It’s becoming more and more clear that you are an ideologue with no interest in reasonable dialogue.

    For the record, I once believed much more like what you seem to believe. But the more I investigated historical Christian writings the more I became convinced that I was wrong. Much of what Calvin taught was not believed by Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity. If Calvin is right, then it means there were no true Christians until the reformers burst onto the scene. I find it hard to believe that Jesus lied when he promised to guide his church.


  50. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: If the Apostles mandate wives to be subject to their husbands, that is a mandate for the husband to be authority/leader over his wife.

    Really? So if the Apostles mandate slaves to be obedient to their masters, we should still be supporting slavery? But surely the mandate applies to female masters, right? I mean, if we’re going to use arguments from silence, we can make scripture say just about anything.

    If that’s not good enough for you, demanding a Scripture that says specifically something like “husbands lead your wife” is silly.

    Actually, if there is no specific mandate for husbands to assume they have authority over their wives is silly. The obvious problem is that we are reading something into scripture that’s just not there and refusing to see the 59 (or more) scriptures that mandate mutuality among all believers….and refusing to admit that a husband is not exempt. For example, Eph. 5:21 mandates mutual submission. Mutual means mutual, doesn’t it?

    Again, the challenge is to recognize that good hermeneutics and proper exegesis require evidence/support for application of scripture. That means considering the historical, cultural, and contextual aspects prior to arriving at the meaning the author intended.

    Since you’ve been unable to provide even one scripture that applies to authority of the husband over a wife and seem to marginalize the ones in 1 Cor. 7 where the authority is mutual, we are left with the fact that there is no such mandate for husbands to assume authority over his wife.


  51. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Paul and Jesus have equal authority

    What!?!?!?! Wow! If you truly feared God you would never say such a thing.


  52. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Dee, Deb, and GBTC,
    I have two comments in custom because I accidentally replied as my wife instead of me. Is there any way you can fix that in those two comments? Thanks.


  53. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed): I have two comments in custom because I accidentally replied as my wife instead of me.

    I suppose the lesson here is I should be more careful when using my wife’s laptop…


  54. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F’s wife,

    I know. All because one believes that every word in the Bible is infallible . . . Jesus/God/Holy Spirit ends up having equal authority as Paul 🙁 God is reduced to a Book instead of the book inspiring us toward Jesus.


  55. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: No, I think that the people in Saudi Arabia look at modern Western views of equality and laugh. In reality, they would see it as degrading of women. You just assume the Western view is correct without defending it.

    What ‘people’? Men? Do you realize how illogical you are being, when you ask me to defend the ‘western’ view of…being able to what, vote? Drive a car? Leave the house? You are still dodging my point, which is that those men are not trying to achieve equality between the sexes. I do not have to defend my ‘version’ against their ‘version’. Also? YOu live in western society. Maybe you should get used to it.

    I know women who live in the UAE and when they are there they are required to wear insanely hot garments and when they get to the us? They take them off. Because they are actually EQUAL and allowed to make their own decisions.


  56. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert:
    Lea,

    It seems more likely you joined the PCA because you agree with *them*.

    Just like you joined whatever faith community you’re a part of because you agree with them.

    I’m not the one claiming to be right, because my denom agrees with me.


  57. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: If the Apostles mandate wives to be subject to their husbands, that is a mandate for the husband to be authority/leader over his wife. If that’s not good enough for you, demanding a Scripture that says specifically something like “husbands lead your wife” is silly.

    Sigh.


  58. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: Really? So if the Apostles mandate slaves to be obedient to their masters, we should still be supporting slavery?

    It’s so creepy when you realize all the arguments used to keep people in slavery are the same used against women.


  59. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Well, you may deny biblical authority. That’s one thing. But if I’m right, it’s a transcendent standard, binding on all. What is your transcendent, binding on all standard? That’s really what I’m asking. We can put our standards up against one another and then compare.

    If you’re right, is the key statement. If you’re wrong? That’s Pascal’s Wager, I’ll hedge my bets, if I’m wrong, oh well…if I’m right, then I don’t go to heck. So if I’m dishonest enough to just pretend to accept the bible as written, no questions then the creator of the universe just doesn’t see through that?

    Anyways, if I’m reading you’re comment correctly, I need to accept a transcendent, binding on all standard in order to legitimize any assertions I make regarding equality…
    Doesn’t matter if it’s the bible, the quran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu scrolls, Bushido, Dianetics, the comic book code authority or the Boy Scouts Manual.

    I have to be a follower of something.

    Before I go down this road, let me ask you….in this smorgasbord of cosmic edicts…why the bible?

    My wife had the opportunity to work in Saudi Arabia…she declined to immigrate to Canada.

    Food for thought before we start comparing standards.

    Full disclosure – I am a member of the Archie Fan Club.

    Except for a tacit approval of bigamy, I think the standards are pretty high.


  60. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: she declined to immigrate to Canada.

    oops, She declined Saudi Arabia to immigrate to Canada.


  61. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    A couple of comments.

    First, as some on these threads reference the church as a 501ce, it is obvious they know about the state’s control of the church. When I originally rejected the hierarchical authoritarian structure of the church, and couldn’t find a ‘biblical’ church, I finally came across the tax laws churches must adhere to in order to be considered a ‘church’ by the state. In other words, having a leadership structure is required, even to ministers being required to undergo ‘training’, as well as having a formal statement of beliefs, etc. Due to historical events, churches have more recently been encouraged to have a former process of discipline, supposedly to avoid court interference in their affairs. Such things explain a lot about what has arisen in the modern church; and why it is nearly impossible to find a non-authoritarian church without formal creeds and ‘rulers’.

    Second, (and this I know even less about, so I welcome input from more qualified scholars), it is important to be aware that women had very few rights in biblical days. It is amazing that long before, Moses was willing to grant land to the daughters of Zelophehad, in a day in which women simply were not viewed as equal to men. I will quote from a scholar of the Roman era, so as to not reveal my own ignorance:

    “. . . Roman women were closely identified with their perceived role in society – the duty of looking after the home and to nurture a family (pietas familiae), in particular, to bear legitimate children, a consequence of which was an early marriage, (sometimes even before puberty but typically around 20 years old), in order to ensure the woman had no sexual history which might embarrass the future husband. The Roman family was male-dominated, typically headed by the most senior male figure (paterfamilias). Women were subordinate . . . This close dependence of women on their male relatives was also reflected in such matters as law and finance where women were legally obliged to have a nominated male family member act in their interests (Tutela mulierum perpetua).” (https://www.ancient.eu/article/659/the-role-of-women-in-the-roman-world/)

    Israel was under Roman rule at the time of Christ, and was, if anything, even more restrictive in its concept of the role of women. Thus, one must view Paul’s writings with such things in mind. A strong case can also be made that in his writings Paul was quoting and refuting the practices of individual churches in many cases, such as in the Corinthian practice of requiring headcovering and silence.

    All that to say, what we find is a culture in which all respectable women were, with very few exceptions, legally under the authority of some male relative, be it father, brother, uncle or husband. This could explain Paul’s writings as suggesting the woman transfer her loyalty from her father’s protection to her husband’s. What she did not have was the option of throwing off the shackles and setting up shop for herself, unless she was educated, witty and wealthy, therefore qualified to be a courtesan. Note that in this day men would marry the ‘proper’ sort of woman to be the mother of his children, but often seek ‘entertainment’, intellectual stimulation and some would say ‘true love’ in more beautiful, intelligent and witty courtesans, particularly in the wealthy class.

    It is impossible to even begin to understand Paul’s teachings without having at least some understanding of women’s position and lack of rights in the ancient world. It seems more than odd that the patriarchal movement in fundamentalist churches seeks to present the re-subjugation of women as a return to biblical standards; but perhaps is not surprising in a denomination that sought to defend the practice of slavery, until it became politically unfeasible. Those who dismiss all discussion of the ramifications upon scripture of historical realities would seem destined to misinterpret scripture in many cases.


  62. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    truthseeker00,

    I might add that strong patriarchy almost invites adultery and/or abuse, as men seek to have a subjugated wife for church approval, while longing for a more meaningful, freer relationship or perhaps a more ‘exciting’ sexual life than subjugation and mindless obedience allows.


  63. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea: It’s so creepy when you realize all the arguments used to keep people in slavery are the same used against women.

    That’s because both are arguments from the Haves about the Have-Nots.


  64. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    truthseeker00: What she did not have was the option of throwing off the shackles and setting up shop for herself, unless she was educated, witty and wealthy, therefore qualified to be a courtesan. Note that in this day men would marry the ‘proper’ sort of woman to be the mother of his children, but often seek ‘entertainment’, intellectual stimulation and some would say ‘true love’ in more beautiful, intelligent and witty courtesans, particularly in the wealthy class.

    Hetiarae.
    The highest class of high-class prostitutes, the only women in Hellenistic culture who were educated and cultured.
    Joss Whedon’s pattern for the “Companions” in his Firefly universe.


  65. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    Anyways, if I’m reading you’re comment correctly, I need to accept a transcendent, binding on all standard in order to legitimize any assertions I make regarding equality…
    Doesn’t matter if it’s the bible, the quran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu scrolls, Bushido, Dianetics, the comic book code authority or the Boy Scouts Manual.

    More that you need to accept a transcendent standard in order to rightly expect others to agree with you and to even tell the difference between right and wrong. Otherwise, it’s just your subjective opinion. As a finite creature, that doesn’t count for much.

    It does matter the authority because you want the right one.

    Before I go down this road, let me ask you….in this smorgasbord of cosmic edicts…why the bible?

    For starters, because Jesus rose from the dead. There’s also the case that Bible alone posits a consistently knowable, personal God who can be trusted. I could give other reasons.

    The ultimate transcendent standard has to be personal because only personal beings can hold someone accountable. I would contend that only the Bible presents a consistently personal God. But that’s starting to get pretty heady. The main reason is that Jesus rose from the dead.


  66. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Really? So if the Apostles mandate slaves to be obedient to their masters, we should still be supporting slavery?

    I wouldn’t reintroduce slavery where it has been abolished and Scripture clearly forbids race-based chattel slavery, but the Apostles clearly believe that at least some forms of slavery are not incompatible with Christianity. Are you embarrassed by that?

    But surely the mandate applies to female masters, right?

    Sure.

    Actually, if there is no specific mandate for husbands to assume they have authority over their wives is silly. The obvious problem is that we are reading something into scripture that’s just not there and refusing to see the 59 (or more) scriptures that mandate mutuality among all believers….and refusing to admit that a husband is not exempt. For example, Eph. 5:21 mandates mutual submission. Mutual means mutual, doesn’t it?

    Eph. 5:21 says to submit to one another and then goes on to describe what that means. For the wife it means submit to the husband, for the husband it means love the wife. If submission were identical in both cases, there would be no need to then tell the woman to submit and the husband to love. Submission is submission is submission.

    The way you read “mutual” necessitates no authorities whatsoever. Are you a Quaker, because they’re the only group I know of it that actually applies it consistently.

    Again, the challenge is to recognize that good hermeneutics and proper exegesis require evidence/support for application of scripture. That means considering the historical, cultural, and contextual aspects prior to arriving at the meaning the author intended.

    Sure.

    Since you’ve been unable to provide even one scripture that applies to authority of the husband over a wife and seem to marginalize the ones in 1 Cor. 7 where the authority is mutual, we are left with the fact that there is no such mandate for husbands to assume authority over his wife.

    1 Peter 3 says that holy women obey their husbands like Sarah obeyed hers. There’s one Scripture for you.

    1 Cor. 7 is about the husband and wives respective rights to one another sexually. You are trying to apply it in a context that Paul doesn’t. And you’re trying to make all relationships exhaustively mutual in the church, which the Bible doesn’t do and that you don’t do either if you have any leaders whatsoever in your church. My hermeneutic is far more consistent both in presentation and application. Maybe that says something in its favor.


  67. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    I know. All because one believes that every word in the Bible is infallible . . . Jesus/God/Holy Spirit ends up having equal authority as Paul God is reduced to a Book instead of the book inspiring us toward Jesus.

    Paul’s words in Scripture have equal authority because Jesus/God/Holy Spirit inspired them. I thought you believed in the Trinity?

    No one is reducing God to a book, but while we’re at it, how does the book “inspire you toward Jesus” when the only way you can know Jesus is through the book? Why are you setting Jesus against Scripture when Jesus Himself said that God’s Word can’t be broken?


  68. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F’s wife,

    You come across as someone set in your ways with no intention of every reconsidering your views based on anything that does not conform with what you already believe.

    Wrong. I’ve reconsidered lots of my views over the years when I’m presented with good arguments.

    From his own words there is no way that one can reasonably suggest that Calvin did not reject the early patristics. If you say that Calvin did not believe in something that he actually wrote in his most important work, then we have no way to communicate with each other.

    Calvin—and everyone writing in his era—was prone to overstating things at times. The same work you cite is filled with quotes from Christians from year 0 to 1500. He particularly loved Bernard of Clairvaux, who I know is later than the early patristics. In the same work he also talks about his appreciation of Gregory of Nazianzus’ work on the Trinity. You can’t just pull out one statement without also considering what else Calvin does with the patristics, particularly because Calvin’s work is very polemical and he’s going to go after his opponents when they use sources against him. Roman Catholics did the same thing at the time.

    For the record, I once believed much more like what you seem to believe. But the more I investigated historical Christian writings the more I became convinced that I was wrong.

    Funny, but the more I investigate historical Christian writings, the more they favor Protestantism.

    Much of what Calvin taught was not believed by Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

    You’d have to be more specific. Calvin believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, like the Christians before him, the doctrine of the Trinity, unconditional election (that one is admittedly rarer), justification by faith alone (found incipiently in some streams of the Christian tradition, though not all, just like the RCC doctrine is found incipiently in some streams ). Calvin wasn’t an innovator and never claimed to be.

    If Calvin is right, then it means there were no true Christians until the reformers burst onto the scene. I find it hard to believe that Jesus lied when he promised to guide his church.

    That’s just outright wrong. If you think Calvin, Luther, et al are some radical break with what came before, then you’re reading later ideas into the patristics. Are you Roman Catholic?


  69. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F’s wife,

    What!?!?!?! Wow! If you truly feared God you would never say such a thing.

    I mean the words of Paul in Scripture, not Paul himself. If you believe the doctrine of the Trinity, then Romans has as much authority as the Gospels. All Scripture is God-breathed, and both Romans and the Gospels are Scripture.


  70. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F’s wife,

    <i.For the record, I once believed much more like what you seem to believe.

    For the record, I was once an egalitarian. I became a complementarian after study and after seeing how the same approach that yields egalitarianism, when taken consistently, leads to heresy. Just look at the mainline denominations that can’t even figure out if Jesus is God anymore. It’s because of their hermeneutic.

    Now, many egalitarians are not consistent in the application of their hermeneutic, and they remain orthodox. I praise God for that.


  71. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: But surely the mandate applies to female masters, right?

    I saw this because Robert pulled it out, but it is interesting to the ‘women can never have authority over men’ defenders that Paul never went on any sort of rants about women who had male slaves not ‘exercising authority’ over them… I’m sure there were many.


  72. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Just look at the mainline denominations that can’t even figure out if Jesus is God anymore.

    Did you come to this conclusion because you accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of ‘not believing in the trinity’??? Goodness.

    You’re quite wrong about this point, and you keep insisting on it.


  73. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Eph. 5:21 says to submit to one another and then goes on to describe what that means. For the wife it means submit to the husband, for the husband it means love the wife. If submission were identical in both cases, there would be no need to then tell the woman to submit and the husband to love.

    My notations in the NASB indicate that the word “submit” does not occur in Ephesians 5:22 (and is in italics) but refers to the verb in verse 21. Therefore according to the NASB Paul’s intent is for all to:

    * be filled with the Spirit
    * speaking in psalms, hymns etc.
    * making melodies in your heart to the Lord
    * giving thanks for all things to God
    * submitting yourselves to one another
    * wives to your husbands
    * husbands love your wives

    If submission were identical in both cases, there would be no need to then tell the woman to submit and the husband to love. Submission is submission is submission.

    Are you saying the submission of the wife is different than the submission “to one another.”

    That leaves several important questions….(1)where do you find the areas or parameters you think the wife’s submission is defined in scripture?

    and

    (2)Where do find a scripture anywhere for a husband to have authority over his wife or to be her leader. (still waiting for this….:) And are you saying that the husband is exempt from the “submitting yourselves to one another” in verse 21.

    1 Cor. 7 is about the husband and wives respective rights to one another sexually. You are trying to apply it in a context that Paul doesn’t. And you’re trying to make all relationships exhaustively mutual in the church, which the Bible doesn’t do and that you don’t do either if you have any leaders whatsoever in your church. My hermeneutic is far more consistent both in presentation and application.

    You corrected me for applying 1 Cor. 7 in a context that Paul doesn’t (sexually only). And then you apparently think mutually doesn’t apply and leadership in the church equates somehow to leadership in a marriage.

    I don’t see that as consistent at all but rather selective literalism and certainly a stretch.


  74. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Are you Roman Catholic?

    Not RC. I think the dialogue between us has gone as far as it can because we appear to have different understandings on what words mean. Thanks for the discussion.


  75. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    You’re quite wrong about this point, and you keep insisting on it.

    Since in the ECUSA you can be a bishop in good standing and not believe in the deity of Christ (John Shelby Spong), then no, I’m not wrong.


  76. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    My notations in the NASB indicate that the word “submit” does not occur in Ephesians 5:22 (and is in italics) but refers to the verb in verse 21. Therefore according to the NASB Paul’s intent is for all to:
    * be filled with the Spirit
    * speaking in psalms, hymns etc.
    * making melodies in your heart to the Lord
    * giving thanks for all things to God

    Yes.

    * submitting yourselves to one another

    Yes, within the broader church. But clearly Paul has in view that this looks different within household relationships as evidenced by what he then launches into:

    * wives to your husbands
    * husbands love your wives

    Only husbands are instructed to love their wives. Does that mean wives aren’t supposed to love their husbands? Of course not. We’re supposed to love one another no matter who we are. But if Paul has to single it out, that says that there is something unique about husbands loving their wives. So there’s something unique about wives submitting to their husbands.

    Just keep reading the Ephesians passage. Paul next talks about children and parents and masters and slaves. If mutual submission entails what you are implying it entails, then parents have to obey children. That’s obviously wrong. I don’t obey my 3 year old.

    Are you saying the submission of the wife is different than the submission “to one another.”

    Yes.
    That leaves several important questions….(1)where do you find the areas or parameters you think the wife’s submission is defined in scripture?

    It’s not defined in every specific detail. This is where people like Piper go wrong. I would say that submission and leadership is defined broadly in Scripture, mainly with respect to spiritual matters, and more concretely in the natural order. As a rule, men are physically stronger. This points to them being protectors and providers.

    In practice, I think there is a good deal of freedom from couple to couple as to how the specifics play out.

    (2)Where do find a scripture anywhere for a husband to have authority over his wife or to be her leader. (still waiting for this….:)

    I cited 1 Peter 3, where Sarah is held up as a model for obeying her husband.

    You corrected me for applying 1 Cor. 7 in a context that Paul doesn’t (sexually only).

    Are we talking about the same chapter?

    Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    Maybe you mean a different chapter, because 1 Cor. 7 is all about sex in marriage, who should marry, divorce, etc. I see nothing in there about “mutual submission” outside of conjugal rights. Maybe the application is broader, but you haven’t made a good case for it.
    And then you apparently think mutually doesn’t apply and leadership in the church equates somehow to leadership in a marriage.
    I’m saying that if mutual submission means what you think it means, then there can be no leadership in the church. You keep saying that Christians are to submit to one another, and I agree. You then say that means that the wife’s submission to her husband is, essentially, no different from the mutual submission to one another in the church, which means there is no leadership in the home. But if that’s the case, then the submission of church members to elders is no different from mutual submission to one another, which entails no leadership in the church.

    If mutual submission means what you think it means, you can’t just apply it in the home. You have to apply it to church leaders as well. The only people doing that are Quakers.
    I don’t see that as consistent at all but rather selective literalism and certainly a stretch.

    No, it’s reading the Scriptures in context of the immediate passage and the entire canon. If there is church leadership, there has to be a way to combine “submit to one another” among Christians with the notion that there are some people in the church that have an authority that others don’t have. If one can do that—and one has to do that—it’s no stretch to combine “submit to one another” among Christians with the notion that there is an office of leadership in the home. In fact, all of us do that with children, for none of us believes children are the leaders of our homes. Why, then, can’t we apply it to husbands and wives when wives are told to submit and are told to follow Sarah as a model of obedience?

    Probably because we’re reading Scripture through the lens of twenty-first-century Western feminism.


  77. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: But if that’s the case, then the submission of church members to elders is no different from mutual submission to one another, which entails no leadership in the church.

    I think your biggest problem here is that you don’t understand fundamentally what leadership *is*. I think this is true of most people who focus incessantly on ‘authority’. It’s not just telling people what to do. That is hierarchy.

    True leadership can come from anyone, in any position. People chose whether or not to follow you, based on whether they respect you and your ideas are good and sometimes they will do something for you because they love you. If you demand these things, if you try to enforce demand, you wreck the relationships. That is what this focus on submission and authority has done – it wreck relationships.

    Refocus off this and you will be better off.


  78. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: If there is church leadership, there has to be a way to combine “submit to one another” among Christians with the notion that there are some people in the church that have an authority that others don’t have. If one can do that—and one has to do that—it’s no stretch to combine “submit to one another” among Christians with the notion that there is an office of leadership in the home.

    In fact, all of us do that with children, for none of us believes children are the leaders of our homes. Why, then, can’t we apply it to husbands and wives when wives are told to submit and are told to follow Sarah as a model of obedience?

    1. Wives are not children. I feel like this point has to be made *way* too often.

    All your other stuff is if, then statements that lead you in the direction you want to go, which is basically ‘I’m in charge’.


  79. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Also, if you understand what leadership really is, you would realize you cannot assign an ‘office of leadership’ and you cannot make women not leaders no matter how many offices you bar them from.


  80. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert, first I’d like to thank you for discussing this topic in such a civil manner even when there is strong disagreement. That’s not always been the case when it comes to the subject of men and women in any context.

    Robert: Only husbands are instructed to love their wives. Does that mean wives aren’t supposed to love their husbands? Of course not. We’re supposed to love one another no matter who we are. But if Paul has to single it out, that says that there is something unique about husbands loving their wives.

    Yes, there’s something likely unique about having to tell husbands to love their wives. I see this as Paul’s efforts to raise the status of wives and curtail the practices of harsh treatment toward them in an era and culture that previously permitted polygamy, concubinage, marriage by purchase or by capture in war, slave-marriage, and putting away wives for any cause. One cannot read history and deny the horrid treatment of women. I might add we see that beginning in Genesis when Adam tried to blame Eve and even had the audacity to blame God rather than confess to his sin of disobedience. Eve, on the other hand, did confess to being deceived and exposed satan as being the deceiver.

    Deuteronomy tells of the practice of husbands sending away or divorcing their wives “for any cause” and Moses’ effort to command a Writ of Divorcement to save women from being stoned for adultery should she marry again.

    Fast foward to the time of Judges when we clearly see Sisera’s mother concerned that he hadn’t returned with “a damsel or two” as the spoil of war.

    I don’t think I need to give a history lesson on the treatment of women, but when it’s taken into consideration, it becomes clear why both Jesus and Paul begin to “level the playing field” so to speak and teach an agape love that will assure mistreat anyone, but especially wives.

    So there’s something unique about wives submitting to their husbands.

    Yes, there is something unique but only if we admit we are misunderstanding the words submit and subject and how those words were meant as a turning-point for wives in a culture where previously they had little value. Paul knew of their treatment historically and would never endorse a power or authority that caused it throughout the history of his people and in particular the Oral Law which the Pharisees were still in favor of.

    Just keep reading the Ephesians passage. Paul next talks about children and parents and masters and slaves. If mutual submission entails what you are implying it entails, then parents have to obey children. That’s obviously wrong. I don’t obey my 3 year old.

    I want to speak to this, but I’m a bit short of time right now. I will be free in a couple hours and I hope you will find my “part 2” and hopefully see the subject as I do.


  81. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Ooops….a little problem with the last few paragraphs in my comment, but I think reading it will clarify which are your words and which as mine.


  82. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea: True leadership can come from anyone, in any position. People chose whether or not to follow you, based on whether they respect you and your ideas are good and sometimes they will do something for you because they love you. If you demand these things, if you try to enforce demand, you wreck the relationships. That is what this focus on submission and authority has done – it wreck relationships.

    That is a great, concise explanation of appropriate vs inappropriate leadeship!


  83. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    truthseeker00,
    leadership


  84. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Part 2…:)

    Victorious: So there’s something unique about wives submitting to their husbands.

    Yes, there is something unique but only if we admit we are misunderstanding the words submit and subject and how those words were meant as a turning-point for wives in a culture where previously they had little value. Paul knew of their treatment historically and would never endorse a power or authority that caused it throughout the history of his people and in particular the Oral Law which the Pharisees were still in favor of.

    So immediately following Paul’s short list of mutual “one-anothers,” he specifically mentions wives. Not for the purpose of reinforcing, endorsing, or maintaining a system known to have been historically abused by men…no. He is rather appealing to women to see their husbands with a new perspective; one of being the recipient of the agape love of her husband. That agape love is compared to that of Jesus’ for those he loved (the church).

    The church is “subject” to the love Christ poured out by humbling Himself; by emptying Himself; by nourishing her; by giving His very self up for her sake.

    So…since we have nowhere found commands or endorsement for husbands to have authority over their wives, but do find the meaning of being “subject” to the one who provides agape love to the extent of giving his very life for her, we can not justify employing an authority that is totally contrary to the whole counsel of God and the love Christ emphasizes as the focus for all believers.

    Up next….Words to slaves and children.


  85. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: Just keep reading the Ephesians passage. Paul next talks about children and parents and masters and slaves. If mutual submission entails what you are implying it entails, then parents have to obey children. That’s obviously wrong. I don’t obey my 3 year old.

    Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ…Eph 6:5

    We know from scripture slavery was rampant but from the beginning, this was never God’s plan nor did He establish a system of domination of one over the other among His people. We see, throughout scripture God’s efforts to protect the well-being of slaves and educate slaveholders how to treat them fairly. With the many scriptures in the OT that support fair, just treatment of slaves, we look at Paul’s admonishments to both slaves (weak and vulnerable) and masters (strongers and more powerful). Here we see Paul’s effort to “level the playing field” again…

    And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening…Eph 6:9

    So Paul is not supporting nor endorsing the continuation of the practice; on the contrary, he is appealing to the fair treatment one to another to ensure a peaceable relationship in an existing situation and time that permitted privileges to one to the exclusion of the other.

    We know he continued in this effort to eradicate the existing system and implement one that is patterned after mutual respect when he encouraged Philemon to change his attitude toward his slave to one of a brother in Christ. He further tells slaves that if they became a believer while being a slave, to remain in that position (because of the late hour) but if they could become free, to rather do that

    Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.

    we can briefly look at Paul’s admonishment to children and parents. Again, we know from scripture (and history) the harsh manner parents have treated their children; i.e. “Passing through the fire” and offering them to false idols, selling them as slaves. We see the relationship between Saul & Jonathan, Absalom’s rebellion against his father David, and the stoning of a rebellious son whose parents brought him to the elders of the city to complain that he was a drunkard and a glutton. Compare the treatment of the father to his son in the parable of the prodigal son.

    So Paul entreats children (weaker and more vulnerable) to be obedient to their parents (stronger and powerful) so it will be well with them in their care and then admonishes the father not to be harsh nor to exasperate the children but to instruct them in the way of the Lord.

    We see Paul hoping for a peaceable relationship between children and their parents. But we know that that obedience does not apply forever as children eventually leave the protection and guidance of their parents and as adults continue to honor but forsaking the necessity to obey.

    IIRC the average length of life in the first century was somewhere between 30-40 yrs. so what we consider an child or teen today may have likely been considered an adult in that culture. If it’s true that Mary gave birth at the age of about 14-15 and Jesus died at 30, this accounts for Timothy being trusted by Paul even at a very young age.

    That’s how I see Ephesians 5. I do think many have built doctrine by isolating a couple words, phrases, and/or sentences without taking history, culture, context, etc. into consideration; e.g. head, submit, and the idea that first is best.


  86. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Good points. I’ve mentioned it before, but I believe the definition of ‘submit’, or words translated thereas, have likely been distorted through the ages. To submit most likely did not mean to lay like a doormat and accept any treatment whatsoever. It seems to suggest more a voluntary, respectful choice to give up certain rights. Thus, calling a slave to submit, even though his soul is fired up by the injustice of someone ‘owning’ him, is a call to surrender his genuine right for freedom, due to cultural and/or individual circumstances. The same would apply to the other passages. A person being asked to submit is, often in specific instances, to voluntarily surrender the right to do something other for the sake of respect, etc. As you have explained, Paul makes clear he is not endorsing abuse or oppression.


  87. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: More that you need to accept a transcendent standard in order to rightly expect others to agree with you and to even tell the difference between right and wrong. Otherwise, it’s just your subjective opinion. As a finite creature, that doesn’t count for much.

    It does matter the authority because you want the right one.

    So without a holy scripture of some type, I don’t have any concept of right and wrong.

    Well, I guess me and my guppies have more in common than I thought.

    I used to be Christian and I’ve read the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon but not Dianetics.

    I feel more comfortable with edicts like the Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and UN Declaration of Human Rights than I ever did with any “holy” scripture.

    I give to charity, take care of my family, volunteer my time without any expectation of a divine reward. I don’t need a bible to treat my wife as my partner or be nice to all my co-workers and friends – Hindu, Muslim and Christian in addition to a whackload of unaligned folks like myself.

    If you need to be kept on the straight and narrow by the bible then to each his own.


  88. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: So without a holy scripture of some type, I don’t have any concept of right and wrong.

    I feel like Robert would benefit from taking a philosophy class or history of ethics or something. His perspective is so limited.


  89. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea: I feel like Robert would benefit from taking a philosophy class or history of ethics or something. His perspective is so limited.

    I’ve crossed swords with a number of religious folks both on this blog and in the real world.

    There are tons of great christians but there’s enough not so great ones for me to ever return to it.

    I know it’s supposed to be about ideas and not people here but this guy pretty much compared me to an animal.

    Time to break for a while and enjoy the articles.


  90. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: So without a holy scripture of some type, I don’t have any concept of right and wrong.

    That appears to be his thought, although it is contrary to scripture.


  91. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: but this guy pretty much compared me to an animal.

    So that means you can join us goats who are obviously not among the elect…


  92. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    I cannot remember ever reading an explanation as clear and concise as yours. I recommend you save these last few comments in a form that you can paste into future comment threads when this comes up again, as it certainly will.


  93. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: For the record, I was once an egalitarian. I became a complementarian after study and after seeing how the same approach that yields egalitarianism, when taken consistently, leads to heresy.

    Oh, so you used to believe in mutual submission in marriage, but don’t anymore. So perhaps you could explain something that’s been a puzzle to me since I first heard about gender comp doctrine.

    What exactly — in concrete terms, mind you — do you and your wife do now that differs from a healthy mutualistic marriage? What do you do now, which you didn’t do before? Or, what do you refuse to do now, that you used to do before adopting gender comp?

    All the gurus have different, competing and inconsistent ideas about how complementarianism (still not a word) is supposed to work in marriage. None of them can seem to explain it:

    a) in real, concrete terms;
    b) in a way that’s significantly and obviously different from healthy mutualistic marriage;
    c) in a way that makes sense and doesn’t sound horribly abusive

    If you can meet all of those criteria, I might find it helpful to understanding your case.


  94. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Scripture clearly forbids race-based chattel slavery, but the Apostles clearly believe that at least some forms of slavery are not incompatible with Christianity. Are you embarrassed by that?

    a) Where does Scripture “clearly” forbid race-based chattel slavery?
    b) Can’t speak for Victorious, but I know I’m embarrassed by that idea.

    Robert: I cited 1 Peter 3, where Sarah is held up as a model for obeying her husband.

    Except when she didn’t… specifically, when God told Abraham to do what his wife said. Twice.

    Robert: If mutual submission means what you think it means, you can’t just apply it in the home. You have to apply it to church leaders as well. The only people doing that are Quakers.

    If what you say is true, then perhaps the Quakers are the only ones doing it right.

    Robert: If mutual submission entails what you are implying it entails, then parents have to obey children. That’s obviously wrong. I don’t obey my 3 year old.

    a) A grown woman is not a child.
    b) Why should “submit” necessarily mean “obey”? Even though you won’t obey your children’s orders, if your 3 year old says that her stomach hurts badly and she needs help, you’d better listen.


  95. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Glad you found it helpful, Ken. And thanks for the suggestion….I’ll do that!


  96. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: I know it’s supposed to be about ideas and not people here but this guy pretty much compared me to an animal.

    I’m so sorry Jack. I don’t agree with him on pretty much anything, but especially that.


  97. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan: b) Why should “submit” necessarily mean “obey”? Even though you won’t obey your children’s orders, if your 3 year old says that her stomach hurts badly and she needs help, you’d better listen.

    Thank you! Yes, grown women are not children (man is it sad that this needs stating so repeatedly) but you should be listening to your children too! Treating them like you are the dictator of their life is deeply damaging to them. They are people too, even though they need guidance.

    I agree with the rest of your comment as well. We have to look at some things in the bible that we now see as deeply immoral and grapple with that. I do not see going back to the morals of previous generations on a number of topics as any kind of good.


  98. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea: I’m so sorry Jack. I don’t agree with him on pretty much anything, but especially that.

    No need to apologize for Robert. His mask really starts to slip at this point. Some forms of slavery are not incompatible with Christianity?

    This exchange has really given me some insights into the concepts that drive this branch of faith. While he disagrees with the Quran, he feels that at least it’s better than nothing, and maybe even admirable in it’s own way.

    It’s all about the hierarchy. God –> Jesus –> Pastor/Elders –> Man —> Women/children.

    A strict, controlled belief system with no room for query. Just a series of submissions. Saving your soul requires submission not to God but his representatives. This leads to a power imbalance and the old adage “crud rolls downhill” applies. Who’s at the bottom? Women and children. And now we see why this branch of the faith is prone to abuse.

    When we start going into the territory of rationalizing slavery then something has gone far off the mark. It’s a slap in the face to the sacrifice of those who have come before us and given their lives to fight and those who continue to give their lives to fight injustice in this world, now, not some ethereal future.

    It’s no small irony that the society that these people despise grants them the freedom and tax free money to continue their agendas.

    A society that actually finds it’s principles in the basis of Jesus’ concepts of “love thy neighbour” and “treat others as you would treat yourself”


  99. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed): So that means you can join us goats who are obviously not among the elect…

    Judging by the responses here, I’m in good company.


  100. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan,

    a) Where does Scripture “clearly” forbid race-based chattel slavery?

    Looking at the laws against kidnapping and calling it a capital crime is a good place to start.

    b) Can’t speak for Victorious, but I know I’m embarrassed by that idea.

    Are you embarrassed by Jesus, then? He didn’t command the centurion to free his slave. Paul didn’t command all Christian slaveowners to free their slaves. Apparently neither Jesus nor Paul thought every form of slavery was incompatible with Christianity.

    Except when she didn’t… specifically, when God told Abraham to do what his wife said. Twice.

    The idea of a wife submitting it to a husband does not mean that the wife is never wiser than her husband.

    If what you say is true, then perhaps the Quakers are the only ones doing it right.

    Or, the only people on the mutual submission side that are actually consistent.

    a) A grown woman is not a child.

    Agreed.

    b) Why should “submit” necessarily mean “obey”?

    It doesn’t in every context. But the question was where husbands are told they have authority over their wives.


  101. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    So without a holy scripture of some type, I don’t have any concept of right and wrong.

    No. You have a concept of right and wrong. You just have no reason to believe your concept of right and wrong should be shared by anyone but yourself.

    I feel more comfortable with edicts like the Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and UN Declaration of Human Rights than I ever did with any “holy” scripture.

    All produced by cultures shaped by the Bible, I’ll note.

    I give to charity, take care of my family, volunteer my time without any expectation of a divine reward. I don’t need a bible to treat my wife as my partner or be nice to all my co-workers and friends – Hindu, Muslim and Christian in addition to a whackload of unaligned folks like myself.

    Good. But I imagine you expect that all people should do this. Lots of people believe that being good doesn’t entail giving to charity. Why are they wrong?


  102. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: While he disagrees with the Quran, he feels that at least it’s better than nothing, and maybe even admirable in it’s own way.

    It was fascinating that he kept bringing up Saudi Arabia. I feel like that was some sort of tell. And he refused to address the concept that they don’t believe women are equal at all.


  103. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan,

    What exactly — in concrete terms, mind you — do you and your wife do now that differs from a healthy mutualistic marriage? What do you do now, which you didn’t do before? Or, what do you refuse to do now, that you used to do before adopting gender comp?

    I left egalitarianism before getting married. I don’t think my marriage is much different than a “healthy mutualistic marriage.” In general, the main area where I exercise my authority is in spiritual matters. I lead family devotions, take the initiative in figuring out where to give our money to missions, and similar things. If my wife vehemently opposed where I thought money should go, we wouldn’t give it, and she has input on everything. We agree on most things. If we didn’t, I wouldn’t have married her.

    All the gurus have different, competing and inconsistent ideas about how complementarianism (still not a word) is supposed to work in marriage. None of them can seem to explain it:

    Generally speaking, don’t most of them define it in such a way that the husband has the tie-breaking vote, as it were, when it comes to decisions where there is no agreement and when both options are not sinful. I think that’s a helpful shorthand.

    I don’t think such situations arise very often. They certainly don’t in my marriage. Sometimes I change my mind after input from my wife. Sometimes she changes her mind.

    Some of the differences break down along traditional gendered lines. Husbands, as a rule, should be the primary providers. Wives, as a rule, should primarily keep the home running well. That doesn’t mean there is no crossover ever; it’s a matter of general patterns. It’s a pattern that seems to be persisting despite the advances of liberal feminism. I’ve seen surveys that say that these expectations and role divisions continue to hold for most of the population.

    a) in real, concrete terms;
    b) in a way that’s significantly and obviously different from healthy mutualistic marriage;
    c) in a way that makes sense and doesn’t sound horribly abusive
    If you can meet all of those criteria, I might find it helpful to understanding your case.

    I did some of this above. I’m not sure why a complementarian marriage has to look “obviously different” from a healthy mutualistic marriage. Seems to me that if you get married to the right person, both will make an effort to get along and to compromise where there is disagreement.

    But there are situations where a decision MUST be made and for whatever reason, no compromise has happened or seems possible. What does a “healthy mutualistic marriage” do in that case?


  104. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    I feel like Robert would benefit from taking a philosophy class or history of ethics or something. His perspective is so limited.

    Was an undergraduate major in religion with a minor in history at a secular university. My masters thesis was on free will and determinism—heavy philosophical concepts if there ever were one. Just because I don’t agree with the prevailing cultural wisdom doesn’t mean I don’t know it.


  105. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    We know from scripture slavery was rampant but from the beginning, this was never God’s plan

    Agreed

    nor did He establish a system of domination of one over the other among His people.

    Agreed, as long as this is not opposed to the monarchy.

    We see, throughout scripture God’s efforts to protect the well-being of slaves and educate slaveholders how to treat them fairly. With the many scriptures in the OT that support fair, just treatment of slaves, we look at Paul’s admonishments to both slaves (weak and vulnerable) and masters (strongers and more powerful). Here we see Paul’s effort to “level the playing field” again…

    Agreed.

    So Paul is not supporting nor endorsing the continuation of the practice; on the contrary, he is appealing to the fair treatment one to another to ensure a peaceable relationship in an existing situation and time that permitted privileges to one to the exclusion of the other.

    If Paul thought that the practice of such well-regulated Roman slavery was incompatible with Christianity, he would have forbade it. He forbade homosexual conduct, murder, gossip, and a host of other practices.

    We know he continued in this effort to eradicate the existing system and implement one that is patterned after mutual respect when he encouraged Philemon to change his attitude toward his slave to one of a brother in Christ.

    I think this does provide a foundation for getting rid of slavery when better ways of dealing with the problem of slavery have been discovered, but it does not entail that Paul thought all forms of slavery were incompatible with Christian faith. If he did, he would have said so just like he does on lots of other relationships. Mutual respect and authority-subservient relationships are not incompatible.

    He further tells slaves that if they became a believer while being a slave, to remain in that position (because of the late hour) but if they could become free, to rather do that.

    Exactly. He believed that freedom was better than slavery. I agree. But he did not believe all forms of slaveholding were incompatible with Christianity. If he did, he would have ordered the release of all slaves. Instead, he tells Christian slaveowners how to treat their slaves righteously.

    we can briefly look at Paul’s admonishment to children and parents. Again, we know from scripture (and history) the harsh manner parents have treated their children; i.e. “Passing through the fire” and offering them to false idols, selling them as slaves. We see the relationship between Saul & Jonathan, Absalom’s rebellion against his father David, and the stoning of a rebellious son whose parents brought him to the elders of the city to complain that he was a drunkard and a glutton. Compare the treatment of the father to his son in the parable of the prodigal son.

    Sure. Paul’s admonition to obey does not include obedience to sin.

    So Paul entreats children (weaker and more vulnerable) to be obedient to their parents (stronger and powerful) so it will be well with them in their care and then admonishes the father not to be harsh nor to exasperate the children but to instruct them in the way of the Lord.
    We see Paul hoping for a peaceable relationship between children and their parents. But we know that that obedience does not apply forever as children eventually leave the protection and guidance of their parents and as adults continue to honor but forsaking the necessity to obey.

    Sure. Not sure how this is relevant to my point that if mutual submission is what you think it is, then children and slaves could not have been enjoined to obey. Believing children are just as much believers as adults. Christian slaves are just as Christian as Christian slaveowners.

    That’s how I see Ephesians 5. I do think many have built doctrine by isolating a couple words, phrases, and/or sentences without taking history, culture, context, etc. into consideration; e.g. head, submit, and the idea that first is best.

    You’ve brought a lot of good background information in. Most of which I already knew and agree with. But you haven’t really addressed my position.

    We know, for example, that a lot of ancient slavery was due to people getting into debt and having no other recourse to pay it. The very structure of the economy gave no other recourse. It wasn’t a market-based system. Slavery was the only way for some people to escape starvation.

    Was it an ideal system? No. But it was the only workable solution at the time, and what does God do? He doesn’t come thundering in announcing that all slavery is evil and incompatible with faith. He provides regulations to ameliorate systems that by design did not make slavery an inevitably permanent thing anyway. Both Jewish law and Roman law allowed for slaves to gain their freedom. This is most unlike American chattel slavery, which rarely if ever provided such a recourse.

    God doesn’t do this with other things. He says no to all sexual conduct outside of marriage. He bans murder and theft.

    What does all this suggest. It suggests that some forms of slavery and the obedience of slaves to masters are not at odds with Christian faith. And Paul says this AFTER enjoining mutual submission in the church. What does that tells us? That mutual submission and structures of authority aren’t incompatible.

    Which again brings me back to the point that if mutual submission means what you think it means, there can be no leaders in the church.


  106. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Oops, didn’t see this first.

    Robert, first I’d like to thank you for discussing this topic in such a civil manner even when there is strong disagreement. That’s not always been the case when it comes to the subject of men and women in any context.

    And I’ll return the thanks as well. You’ve been a delight to interact with.

    Yes, there’s something likely unique about having to tell husbands to love their wives. I see this as Paul’s efforts to raise the status of wives and curtail the practices of harsh treatment toward them in an era and culture that previously permitted polygamy, concubinage, marriage by purchase or by capture in war, slave-marriage, and putting away wives for any cause. One cannot read history and deny the horrid treatment of women. I might add we see that beginning in Genesis when Adam tried to blame Eve and even had the audacity to blame God rather than confess to his sin of disobedience. Eve, on the other hand, did confess to being deceived and exposed satan as being the deceiver.

    Agreed.

    Deuteronomy tells of the practice of husbands sending away or divorcing their wives “for any cause” and Moses’ effort to command a Writ of Divorcement to save women from being stoned for adultery should she marry again.

    I don’t think “for any cause” actually means what the Pharisees thought it meant. Moses wasn’t granting carte blanche permission for men to get rid of their wives for any and every reason. Jesus comments about what the Mosaic law really means in the Sermon on the Mount would entail this.

    Fast foward to the time of Judges when we clearly see Sisera’s mother concerned that he hadn’t returned with “a damsel or two” as the spoil of war.
    I don’t think I need to give a history lesson on the treatment of women, but when it’s taken into consideration, it becomes clear why both Jesus and Paul begin to “level the playing field” so to speak and teach an agape love that will assure mistreat anyone, but especially wives.

    Sure.

    Yes, there is something unique but only if we admit we are misunderstanding the words submit and subject and how those words were meant as a turning-point for wives in a culture where previously they had little value. Paul knew of their treatment historically and would never endorse a power or authority that caused it throughout the history of his people and in particular the Oral Law which the Pharisees were still in favor of.

    Agreed, as long as you don’t mean that the Mosaic law gave husbands permission to mistreat their wives. The problem was bad interpretations of the law, particularly in the oral law, as you point out.


  107. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    And now we see why this branch of the faith is prone to abuse.

    I can only speak from experience, but having grown up in the ELCA and seeing a messy church split there, I’ll tell you that I have seen far more abuse and leaders protecting their own at any cost in the egalitarian, liberal feminist leaning ELCA than I have in any complementarian circles I’ve been a part of.


  108. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Yes, there is something unique but only if we admit we are misunderstanding the words submit and subject and how those words were meant as a turning-point for wives in a culture where previously they had little value. Paul knew of their treatment historically and would never endorse a power or authority that caused it throughout the history of his people and in particular the Oral Law which the Pharisees were still in favor of.

    See previous comment.

    So immediately following Paul’s short list of mutual “one-anothers,” he specifically mentions wives. Not for the purpose of reinforcing, endorsing, or maintaining a system known to have been historically abused by men…no. He is rather appealing to women to see their husbands with a new perspective; one of being the recipient of the agape love of her husband. That agape love is compared to that of Jesus’ for those he loved (the church).

    Okay, but it’s not limited to that. Verse 23 calls attention to Christ being the Head of the church and then tells wives to submit to Christ in like manner that the church submits to Christ. The church does more than just receive the agape love of Christ when it submits.

    The church is “subject” to the love Christ poured out by humbling Himself; by emptying Himself; by nourishing her; by giving His very self up for her sake.
    So…since we have nowhere found commands or endorsement for husbands to have authority over their wives

    1 Peter 3

    but do find the meaning of being “subject” to the one who provides agape love to the extent of giving his very life for her, we can not justify employing an authority that is totally contrary to the whole counsel of God and the love Christ emphasizes as the focus for all believers.

    But a husband’s authority is not totally contrary to the whole counsel of God. Again, it would require that all systems of authority are contrary to it.

    I’ll also note that the last verse of chap. 5 has wives respecting their husbands. The word is actually “fear” in the sense of respecting and following a lawful authority (cf. v. 21, where the same word is used of Christ).

    I don’t disagree with much of your interpretation. I don’t think it goes far enough and takes into account the entire passage or its context.


  109. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: I have seen far more abuse and leaders protecting their own at any cost in the egalitarian, liberal feminist leaning ELCA than I have in any complementarian circles I’ve been a part of.

    Would you see complementarian abuse, considering it wouldn’t be directed at you? How do you even know?


  110. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: No. You have a concept of right and wrong. You just have no reason to believe your concept of right and wrong should be shared by anyone but yourself.

    Certainly explains why my kids don’t listen to me…
    Seriously, my concepts are solid and are shared by the majority of society. I share my concepts daily by my actions. And while it’s true that our society has been heavily influenced by the bible – being that a good chunk of the population is ostensibly christian or raised christian, we have been able to (at least in principle) move past some of the brutal aspects of the bronze age, like slavery (including “Christian compatible” slavery).


  111. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: If Paul thought that the practice of such well-regulated Roman slavery was incompatible with Christianity, he would have forbade it. He forbade homosexual conduct, murder, gossip, and a host of other practices.

    I think Paul, next to Jesus, is the most fascinating character in scripture. I can’t imagine what the revelation of Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus must have done to him. Well, actually we know somewhat of the effect the experience had on him as we are told he was blinded and neither ate or drank for 3 days.

    While I’m not very knowledgeable on the subject of slavery in the Roman Empire in the 1st century, I do know that as a Roman Citizen, Paul was familiar with the various types of activities they were engaged in. This study from Princeton University caught my eye and I may look into it later. For now, IIRC, some slaves could have been in chains, others in a wide range of occupations some of which were very elite and respected.

    While we get a glimpse of Paul’s heart reading the book of Philemon and in particular his affinity for Onesimus, we do know this area was not the primary focus of his ministry. Because of his background he was uniquely suited as an ambassador/missionary to both Jews and Gentiles and qualified to bring his knowledge to both upon their conversion.

    We know, for example, that a lot of ancient slavery was due to people getting into debt and having no other recourse to pay it. The very structure of the economy gave no other recourse. It wasn’t a market-based system. Slavery was the only way for some people to escape starvation.

    Was it an ideal system? No. But it was the only workable solution at the time, and what does God do? He doesn’t come thundering in announcing that all slavery is evil and incompatible with faith. He provides regulations to ameliorate systems that by design did not make slavery an inevitably permanent thing anyway.

    Agree. God doesn’t work in a vacuum. He stays on course toward His goal (of having a people to call His own) and systematically implements the necessary do’s and dont’s to accomplish it. Much of the Pentateuch served to correct the idolatry, nature/animal worship, sensuality, incest, etc. and other practices the Hebrews had been exposed to for a period of 400 yrs. Many Hebrews were also influenced by the ancient codes (Hammurabi for example) which were popular in Ancient Mesopotamia.

    God implemented strong, detailed boundaries to the desired end to make them a “God-focused” people rather than a politically focused people. That’s why some sins required immediate attention? more than others imho. The overall focus was holiness, justice, and love of God and neighbor.

    Some areas needing correction became progressive over a period of time and God made some allowances in order to teach the valuable lesson of suffering the consequences of one’s actions; i.e. wanting a king like the neighboring countries.

    OK…enough for now on the topic of slavery I think.


  112. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: He believed that freedom was better than slavery. I agree. But he did not believe all forms of slaveholding were incompatible with Christianity. If he did, he would have ordered the release of all slaves. Instead, he tells Christian slaveowners how to treat their slaves righteously.

    Sedition was one of the worst crimes in the Roman Empire, even to be accused was a death sentence. Jesus was crucified on that charge. The Roman Empire also ran on slavery, the cheap labour built and maintained the infrastructure that kept the empire a going concern. It’s no coincidence that the end of slavery came around the same time as the industrial revolution, when machines started to pick up the slack and were cheaper by far to run and maintain – and they didn’t revolt neither.

    As a Roman Citizen, Paul knew this. Had he called for the freedom of all slaves, he would have been executed for sedition early on. And that would have been the end of the version of Christianity that the majority of the world follows.

    By all accounts he was executed anyway probably on the charge of sedition.


  113. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: God doesn’t do this with other things. He says no to all sexual conduct outside of marriage. He bans murder and theft.

    This isn’t entirely true, however. While the ideal certainly seemed to be one man and one woman, outside of Uriah, I’ve yet to find such a marriage. If you know of one, I’d love to hear of it.

    Outside of traditional “customs,” I don’t even find a mandate/command for a service or ceremony that needed to be performed to legally enjoin a man and woman. Throughout the OT, we find so-and-so merely “taking” a wife in a variety of circumstances and that seemed to make it consensual. Until, that is, when the Israelites captured women as spoils of war and then they were designated as concubines and there were laws about her treatment. In fact, Deut. 21 speaks to a man who takes a wife from among those captured and not being pleased with her. Then there are regulations about how to deal with her departure. It further talks about
    regulations for a man who has two wives.

    So it, complicated I think and not so black and white as we would like to make these matters without serious consideration and study about the time in history, the circumstances, and the step-by-step progression of God’s wisdom in forming the desired end.

    He bans murder and theft.

    Again, not so cut and dried…God did, if you remember, establish cities of sanctuary which served to protect one accused of such a sin until which time it could be brought before a court to decide the punishment. God loved/loves justice.


  114. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: While I’m not very knowledgeable on the subject of slavery in the Roman Empire in the 1st century, I do know that as a Roman Citizen, Paul was familiar with the various types of activities they were engaged in.

    When I read Pauls instructions, I think he has to be aware that 70BC was the third servile war, where thousands of revolting slaves were slaughtered. This made a big impression on people. I read Paul as very practical with regards to the laws of the land. A Christian led slave revolt would probably have been disastrous to more than the slaves, but he did advise them to gain freedom if they could.

    I would focus on the statement that there is no slave or free, all are one. Same as women and men. And gentile and jew.


  115. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: I don’t think “for any cause” actually means what the Pharisees thought it meant. Moses wasn’t granting carte blanche permission for men to get rid of their wives for any and every reason. Jesus comments about what the Mosaic law really means in the Sermon on the Mount would entail this.

    My apologies for responding to your comments in segments, but in the interest of time, it’s easier for me. Hope that’s ok with you.

    Of course Moses wasn’t granting carte blanche permission. Jesus makes it pretty clear what Moses was dealing with…hard hearts. The practice had become prevalent enough for Moses to implement a safety measure for the women who were being put out for any reason deemed sufficient by her husband. Had the wife been guilty of adultery, she would have been stoned so we can be certain that was not the “indecency” translators have used in Deut. 24.

    The practice was so popular and evidently legally recognized that even into the NT, the Pharisees were trying to justify it. Jesus pointed to the heart as the reason for their cruelty toward the women just as the origin of other sins. (Matt. 15:19)

    Jesus also mentions the Writ of Divorce each time he is approached by the Pharisees. (Matt. 5:31; Matt. 19:7; Mark 10:4 God Himself mentioned having given the Certificate of Divorce to His people for their unfaithfulness. Jer. 3:8.


  116. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: That agape love is compared to that of Jesus’ for those he loved (the church).

    Okay, but it’s not limited to that. Verse 23 calls attention to Christ being the Head of the church and then tells wives to submit to Christ in like manner that the church submits to Christ. The church does more than just receive the agape love of Christ when it submits.

    You’re reading something into the word “head” that you think supports authority. But the entire passage from verse 18 to the end makes absolutely no mention of authority…not even a hint. The overall message is that relationships between all believers and husband/wife relationships included should reflect the same love and self sacrifice that Jesus demonstrates to believers. Jesus called called them friends; exhibited humility; emptied Himself; laid down His life for those He loves; and washed their feet….all as examples for us to emulate…husbands and wives included.

    In case I haven’t posted a link to the 59 one-anothers before…you can’t read through them and find even a whisper alluding to having authority over others.
    http://www.smallgroupchurches.com/the-59-one-anothers-of-the-bible/

    We just can’t interpret head as authority without a mandate for a husband to act as such. Jesus is the source or origin of the body of believers/church which officially came into being following His death and resurrection and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Paul summarizes that relationship in verse 32.
    This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

    What’s the mystery?

    Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

    Now, we normally hear that interpreted that BOTH man and woman leave THEIR PARENTS, but that isn’t what it says. It says the MAN shall leave HIS parents and cleave to his WIFE.

    That’s recorded 4 times in scripture and we still mis-read it. Why?
     


  117. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    I was initially thinking that discussion with Robert is futile because he appears to be nothing more than a right-fighter. But your well thought out replies to him have given me quite a lot to think about. You bring very good historical and cultural considerations to the discussion. Even though it won’t likely convince Robert it helps pea-brains like me. In this sense I am grateful for Robert’s arguments because without them you probably would not have had reason to post your thoughts.

    Maybe you should consider assembling all your thoughts on this into a potential guest post…


  118. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Thank you, Ken, for your kind words. Nearly everything I have posted regarding this subject I have learned from other sources; i.e. Wade Burleson, his father, Paul, Katherine Bushnell (God’s Word to Women) and from trying to be a Berean myself to see if what they’ve said is true. I cannot in good conscience take credit for most of what I’ve learned from those scholars.

    From the earliest days of my conversion I was amazed at the liberty taken by some to make scripture say something I did not see and that has led to my effort to find out how and why they arrived at such a different conclusion than I had. The internet has helped immensely and being retired has enabled me to have the time to study God’s Word.

    Again, I appreciate your kind words.


  119. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Oh my….forgive me for not including the Wartburg Watch in the list of those from whom I’ve learned so much as they have diligently provided evidence for everything they’ve posted.

    Thank you Deebs!


  120. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    JA posted an article on Ephesians 5 that is pretty interesting, particularly this piece to me:

    “”One of the assignments that we give our students is to Google churches that are writing manhood and womanhood curriculum or teaching that kind of curriculum,” recalled Glahn. “And they find, almost without exception, that churches creating these curricula have gone to the marriage verses to describe what’s manly and womanly. And consequently it sends the message that you’re not a complete man if you’re not married, you’re not a complete woman.”

    https://www.christianpost.com/news/does-ephesians-5-really-tell-women-submit-to-husbands-evangelical-seminary-professors-respond-225208/


  121. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: I’ll tell you that I have seen far more abuse and leaders protecting their own at any cost in the egalitarian, liberal feminist leaning ELCA than I have in any complementarian circles I’ve been a part of.

    Then, apparently, you’ve never been a part of Bethlehem Baptist (Minnesota), The Village Church, or anything run by Doug Wilson, Bill Gothard or Paige Patterson. I haven’t either, but everything I’ve read about them tells me not to touch them with a nine-and-a-half-foot pole.


  122. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Thanks for describing how you and your wife work things out, Robert. I still can’t see how it’s significantly better or more “biblical” than any other marriage between caring, mature Christians, though.

    Robert: Some of the differences break down along traditional gendered lines. Husbands, as a rule, should be the primary providers. Wives, as a rule, should primarily keep the home running well.

    Three questions:
    1) Those rules have been “traditional” for how long, really?
    2) Are those rules actually biblical, or just cultural?
    3) If a wife is the primary provider, and the husband keeps the home running instead, are they sinning?

    Robert: I’m not sure why a complementarian marriage has to look “obviously different” from a healthy mutualistic marriage.

    Piper and the other assorted “experts” at the CBMW seem to insist on it. Apparently, they’re convinced that this model of marriage is non-negotiably necessary for glorifying God and illustrating the relationship between Christ and His church. How can a gender comp marriage do that, if it’s not noticeably distinguishable from a healthy, happy marriage that doesn’t feature hierarchy?

    Robert: But there are situations where a decision MUST be made and for whatever reason, no compromise has happened or seems possible. What does a “healthy mutualistic marriage” do in that case?

    Not being married myself, I’ll have to defer to those who are married to answer this one. But having witnessed my own parents’ marriage for many years, I can’t remember a time when either had to “pull rank” over the other.


  123. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: a) Where does Scripture “clearly” forbid race-based chattel slavery?
    Looking at the laws against kidnapping and calling it a capital crime is a good place to start.

    Except in wartime, when Israelite men took women as plunder, or when the poor, poor Benjamites needed wives for themselves. I guess it’s not really kidnapping as long as the women are virgins…

    Robert: Are you embarrassed by Jesus, then? He didn’t command the centurion to free his slave. Paul didn’t command all Christian slaveowners to free their slaves. Apparently neither Jesus nor Paul thought every form of slavery was incompatible with Christianity.

    Or they figured that trying to eliminate an atrocity so deeply embedded in society was beyond the scope of their mission at the time, and concentrated on reforming the hearts and minds that they could reach, in order to stamp out slavery the long way around. Just a thought.


  124. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan: Piper and the other assorted “experts” at the CBMW seem to insist on it. Apparently, they’re convinced that this model of marriage is non-negotiably necessary for glorifying God and illustrating the relationship between Christ and His church. How can a gender comp marriage do that, if it’s not noticeably distinguishable from a healthy, happy marriage that doesn’t feature hierarchy?

    The only times they actually DO look different tend to be in negative ways, imo. And it’s not the egal marriages that come off badly either.


  125. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan: But having witnessed my own parents’ marriage for many years, I can’t remember a time when either had to “pull rank” over the other.

    Pulling rank on someone in an area where you disagree is bound to lead to friction in a relationship. This is one of those things that sounded fine as a kid that I now realize is incredibly, deeply stupid.


  126. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: In general, the main area where I exercise my authority is in spiritual matters. I lead family devotions, take the initiative in figuring out where to give our money to missions, and similar things. If my wife vehemently opposed where I thought money should go, we wouldn’t give it, and she has input on everything.

    All major decisions should be brought to the “decision-making-table” for discussion. All parties should be given the opportunity to present the reasons for their choice. If one party has very strong feelings or reasons for their choice and the other is willing to defer to the other on that basis, no problem. Both have had an equal seat at the table.

    If this process comes to a stalemate at some point, it should be “tabled” for the present time and scheduled for a future date after both/all have had time to reconsider the other’s choice.

    I’m wondering how many life and death decisions must be made within an immediate timeframe that would result in one pulling rank and discounting the other given the necessity of a final decision quickly.

    The important bottom line is agreement imo. If the process isn’t working at all within a relationship (not marriage only), then I suggest a course/class on the benefits of compromise and/or negotiating.

      Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1Cor.1:10


  127. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: I’m wondering how many life and death decisions must be made within an immediate timeframe that would result in one pulling rank and discounting the other given the necessity of a final decision quickly.

    My wife and I have been married 27 years and have never been confronted with this hypothetical situation. We have faced many painful and difficult decisions, but not ever one as postulated by Robert. In every case we have somehow managed to find a way to work it out. I think Robert proposed a non-real decision. I wonder if anyone has done any research on this to find out how often such a decision comes up in real life. I suspect very rarely.


  128. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: But there are situations where a decision MUST be made and for whatever reason, no compromise has happened or seems possible.

    Can you give a handful of real life examples from either your marriage or friends’ marriages where such decisions were actually made? What were the consequences of those decisions? I am thinking your argument is purely hypothetical. But I could be proven wrong by some solid examples.


  129. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: I cannot in good conscience take credit for most of what I’ve learned from those scholars.

    We could get into a philosophical discussion about whether or not there are any truly original thoughts. The value of your input is not based on whether or not you figured it out on your own. The value is in how well you have crystallized it. I think you could write an outstanding guest post on this topic, and you could provide references for where you got your ideas. Some writers are very good at filling pages with needed details. Others excell at boiling it down to the essentials to make it accessible. I think you are among the latter category of writers.


  130. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Can you give a handful of real life examples from either your marriage or friends’ marriages where such decisions were actually made? What were the consequences of those decisions? I am thinking your argument is purely hypothetical. But I could be proven wrong by some solid examples.

    Real-life example:

    I know several married couples who differ on things such as worship style preferences (contemporary vs. traditional) who could not agree on which church to attend, both of which being orthodox. So, the alternative was basically follow the husband’s lead and pick a church or attend different churches.

    In cases where the husband led, the result was peace and harmony about one of the most important decisions in life. In fact, the wife grew to love the church that she did not choose. In cases where the decision was made to attend different churches, there was schedule confusion, family separation on Sundays and other days of the week, etc.


  131. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan,

    Except in wartime, when Israelite men took women as plunder, or when the poor, poor Benjamites needed wives for themselves. I guess it’s not really kidnapping as long as the women are virgins…

    The fact that you can lift up a story of the book of Judges, where that story of the Benjaminites in context is given to shown the sin to which that tribe and the Israelites had descended, shows that you need to do some more research.

    Or they figured that trying to eliminate an atrocity so deeply embedded in society was beyond the scope of their mission at the time, and concentrated on reforming the hearts and minds that they could reach, in order to stamp out slavery the long way around. Just a thought.

    Possibly—and I think there is some truth to this. But other atrocities were also deeply embedded in society—homosexuality, prostitution, unjust weights and measures, husbands being harsh with their wives—and yet the Bible is not afraid to call believers to stop doing those things. Ergo, the Apostles thought particular forms of slavery (primarily to pay off a debt) were compatible with Christianity in a way that those other things were not. The Word of God is far more vehemently opposed to sexual immorality than it is to slavery, though both are inversions of the created order.

    I’m not calling for a return to slavery. In the ancient world, slavery was often the only alternative to starvation. There were also provisions for buying one’s freedom. Very different than the American scene. The Apostles could not have eliminated slavery in all of society. They could have mandated the release of slaves in the Christian community—a tiny part of the overall population. They don’t. But they do excommunicate people for sexual immorality. This indicates that the Apostles believed some forms of slavery were not incompatible with Christianity, though I don’t believe any of them thought they were ideal. The Apostles had to deal with the world as it is, not as the way you want it to be, and the way it was was that if you order the release of slaves, there is no way for many of them to feed themselves. So, they command Masters to treat slaves well and tell slaves to buy their freedom if they have the opportunity.

    If all forms of slavery were incompatible with Christianity, Jesus and the Apostles would have excommunicated Christian slaveowners or told slaveowners who came to them for healing/forgiveness to release their slaves. They don’t do that. Some people may not like that, but I’m not prepared to tell the Apostles that all forms of slavery are incompatible with Christianity when they are not willing to cast out slaveowners. I’m not prepared to claim to have a higher or better moral view than the Apostles. Are you?


  132. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan,

    Three questions:
    1) Those rules have been “traditional” for how long, really?

    Since the dawn of time. Men primarily went out to the fields or hunted. Women stayed at home and kept the home and children. In the move to an industrial society, this did not change much, though women frequently took positions in areas such as education and nursing. That’s not to say there was no overlap at all. We’re talking more about areas of major emphasis.

    2) Are those rules actually biblical, or just cultural?

    To some degree it is both/and. Scripture does command wives, for example, to keep the home (1 Tim. 5:14). But what is in nature/culture can be a sign of the way things should be. Men, on the whole, are stronger. Women, on the whole, are more interested in “nesting,” and very clearly are connected to children, especially when children are very young (infants), in ways that men aren’t or can’t be (I can’t nurse my baby). This suggests something.

    Our industrialized society has inverted some of these things, with many positive effects. But there have been many negatives as well. Things have not been going so well for men since the sexual revolution.

    3) If a wife is the primary provider, and the husband keeps the home running instead, are they sinning?

    I would say it depends on the circumstances and the reason why these roles have ended up this way. I’ll tell you that I see very few situations where this is happening and people are happy. I read a study recently of millennials that said millennials, even in this day of “equality,” tend to sort themselves out into the traditional man as provider, woman as keeping the home running roles. And this even when both parents work.

    Personally, unless I were ill or disabled, I would feel very guilty and ashamed if my wife were forced to be the primary provider.

    Piper and the other assorted “experts” at the CBMW seem to insist on it. Apparently, they’re convinced that this model of marriage is non-negotiably necessary for glorifying God and illustrating the relationship between Christ and His church. How can a gender comp marriage do that, if it’s not noticeably distinguishable from a healthy, happy marriage that doesn’t feature hierarchy?

    This is where I think Piper and those “experts” are not really dealing with reality. If you make a good marriage choice, there isn’t going to be “pulling rank” or any of that stuff very often, if at all. The husband isn’t going to Lord it over his wife, and he is going to think of her before he thinks of himself. The wife is going to trust her husband to do the right thing and let him take the initiative.

    Not being married myself, I’ll have to defer to those who are married to answer this one. But having witnessed my own parents’ marriage for many years, I can’t remember a time when either had to “pull rank” over the other.

    The idea of “pulling rank” assumes a particular view of authority that I don’t think the Bible has. Those who think pulling rank should happen regularly are assuming this view of authority. Both complementarians a la Piper and egalitarians do this.


  133. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: In the move to an industrial society, this did not change much, though women frequently took positions in areas such as education and nursing

    Not really. Women did work in the fields throughout time. Women have worked in factories since the start of the industrial revolution as did children. My immigrant grandmother worked in the textile mills.Nurses were in the combat fields as far back as the Crimean War. Within the home front, day to day life was onerous. There were no dishwashers, washing machines, prepared foods, etc. Women had the ability to accomplish tasks and also be in the workforce. “Through much to time” does not mean it was desirable.

    Robert: I’ll tell you that I see very few situations where this is happening and people are happy.

    If you *rarely*n seen it might mean that you are limited in your social contacts. I have seen it with an number of couples. So who is right?

    Also, what if you wife were not *forced* out into the working world. What if she actually wanted to do it? Would you then feel guilty if you *forced* her not to work?

    What is your reference when it comes to the millennials? Is the study quoting Americans? I am very close to a Norwegian//Swedish extended family, having visited them . In their society, all the women work.The women this family all enjoy their work. They are closely knit to their children and their grandchildren. One of the oldest women in the family told me that she wished she had been able to work.

    I have a problem with sticking to *that’s the way it has always been done.* Things do change. We now can eat shellfish and pork because we know how to deal with the bacterial issues. Are can now use mixed cloths in our clothiers because we have solved the shrinkage problem. Strength is no longer the prerequisite for many jobs since we have invented ways of doing things that do not require impressive strength. We are no longer an agrarian society with many small farms taken care for by generations of family members.

    Just in case you do not know this, I was a stay at home mother. It was what worked for our family. However, many women I know who worked, have3 equally close relationship with their now grown children and their marriages seem no better or worse than those of women who stay at home.

    There is nothing in the Bible that says a woman must stay home just like it doesn’t say that a dad cannot stay home with the kids if it works for their family.

    Finally, the strict complementarian viewpoint in which women submit and men rule is dangerous. Theoretically, it sounds really nice. In reality, it attracts people who rather enjoy being *in charge.* The church has not responded well to women who have been abused in marriages as recent events have exposed.

    Take away point: God is unchanging. Society is ever changing and we have to be careful we don’t take *culture* and imbue it with *this must be biblical since this is the way it has always been done.”


  134. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: where that story of the Benjaminites in context is given to shown the sin to which that tribe and the Israelites had descended, shows that you need to do some more research.

    Let’s start by being kind which is a fruit of the Spirit and does translate from generation to generation.

    Robert: . I’m not prepared to claim to have a higher or better moral view than the Apostles. Are you?

    Let me make sure that I understand you. If the Apostles didn’t speak against it, slavery must have been OK? You do know the trouble that Doug Wilson got into over that one, right? Could there be any other reason for the silence?


  135. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: So, the alternative was basically follow the husband’s lead and pick a church or attend different churches.
    In cases where the husband led, the result was peace and harmony about one of the most important decisions in life. In fact, the wife grew to love the church that she did not choose. In cases where the decision was made to attend different churches, there was schedule confusion, family separation on Sundays and other days of the week, etc.

    What about cases where the husband followed the wife’s lead? Were those equally harmonious and the husband grew to love the church?

    Or do comp husbands just never do anything if they can’t get their own way?

    Keeping a veto for everything in your backpocket is not helpful for relationship harmony.


  136. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: The Word of God is far more vehemently opposed to sexual immorality than it is to slavery

    Slavery involves sexual abuse of others. That is immoral.

    I don’t agree with your point, mind you. But it is disturbing that you think this way.


  137. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: In the ancient world, slavery was often the only alternative to starvation.

    I believe it was even more often a direct result of wartime taking of defeated people’s. This is what we see happening in the bible too.


  138. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: the way it was was that if you order the release of slaves, there is no way for many of them to feed themselves

    You keep repeating this point. I guess it helps you rationalize slavery, but there were not three servile wars in rome because the slaves wanted to be slaves. They were not put down brutally because rome was concerned they might not be able to feed themselves.


  139. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: and the way it was was that if you order the release of slaves, there is no way for many of them to feed themselves. So, they command Masters to treat slaves well and tell slaves to buy their freedom if they have the opportunity.

    What a load of —-! Slavery was a cultural practice that was economically beneficial. Cheap labour that ran the farms and fixed the roads. Slaves who went to the mines did not live long at all and lived short and brutal lives.

    The apostles commanded masters to treat slaves well out of Christian kindness in the society that they found themselves. Had they called for a release? The Romans would have executed them for sedition. Slavery was too critical to the economy – that’s why revolts were suppressed with maximum brutality.

    While Jesus and his disciples were aware of slavery, given the social strata they were interacting with – the common folk rather than the elite or captains of industry, they would not have come across it that often. The disciples were tradesmen and fishermen, Jesus came a tradesmen’s background – they probably couldn’t afford shoes, let alone slaves.

    Look, life has been short and tough for most of humanity throughout most of time. The ideal of “enlightened” slavery has about as much stock as “enlightened” feudalism or “enlightened” dictatorship or “enlightened” complementarianism.

    Humans owning humans is wrong, was wrong then, is wrong now. Civilized society agrees with me – to heck with what the bible, quran or boy scout manual may say to the contrary.


  140. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: What a load of —-!

    Exactly.

    fun fact that I picked up in a podcast but can’t find the source for at the moment, there was a period of time when letting your slaves go free got to be too ‘trendy’ and the govt wasn’t happy.


  141. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea: Slavery involves sexual abuse of others. That is immoral.

    I don’t agree with your point, mind you. But it is disturbing that you think this way.

    Once again we get an insight into how these churches can rationalize abuse.

    Oh but they’ll take the tax free money….


  142. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: I’m not prepared to claim to have a higher or better moral view than the Apostles. Are you?

    You mean, if the apostles really believed that there was a form of slavery compatible with Jesus’ stated mission of setting people free? Then yes. Yes, I am.

    I have more to say, but I need some sleep.


  143. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: I know several married couples who differ on things such as worship style preferences (contemporary vs. traditional) who could not agree on which church to attend, both of which being orthodox. So, the alternative was basically follow the husband’s lead and pick a church or attend different churches.

    If the only real life example you can provide is choosing a church then you are confirming my belief that this is a purely hypothetical situation. If it was really the case the the husband must serve as the tie-breaker in important decisions then you should have been able to easily provide numerous and varied examples – not just this one.

    You also failed to recognize other viable alternatives: let the wife pick the church, don’t go to any church, or shop around for a church that is palatable for both. Instead, the only alternatives you listed were ones where the husband wins and the wife loses.


  144. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: Once again we get an insight into how these churches can rationalize abuse.

    When defending your point means defending slavery? You might have a problem.


  145. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed): If the only real life example you can provide is choosing a church then you are confirming my belief that this is a purely hypothetical situation. If it was really the case the the husband must serve as the tie-breaker in important decisions then you should have been able to easily provide numerous and varied examples – not just this one.

    You also failed to recognize other viable alternatives: let the wife pick the church, don’t go to any church, or shop around for a church that is palatable for both. Instead, the only alternatives you listed were ones where the husband wins and the wife loses.

    Sorta reminds me of a story I heard somewhere in which an abused wife comes to her pastor and he instructs her to pray at her abuser’s bedside. After a couple of black eyes . . . they all lived happily ever after. Must have come from the same book of fairy tales.


  146. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    truthseeker00,

    A real world version: After trying a ‘compromise’ church for a year, my spouse and I both decided it wasn’t for us – too Calvinistic for me, not Calvinistic enough for spouse. In the end, spouse is back at conservative Calvinist church – I haven’t found a church that works. Happily ever after is mostly just for fairy tales.


  147. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Since the dawn of time. Men primarily went out to the fields or hunted. Women stayed at home and kept the home and children. In the move to an industrial society, this did not change much, though women frequently took positions in areas such as education and nursing. That’s not to say there was no overlap at all. We’re talking more about areas of major emphasis.

    Maybe in a rich man’s world, but in the rest (most) of the world women and children did all kinds of work.


  148. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: there is no way for many of them to feed themselves. So, they command Masters to treat slaves well and tell slaves to buy their freedom if they have the opportunity.

    There are other options. Give them their freedom, then hire them to do the work. Former slaves now won’t starve. There are usually more than two options.


  149. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    Maybe in a rich man’s world, but in the rest (most) of the world women and children did all kinds of work.

    I never said otherwise.

    There are other options. Give them their freedom, then hire them to do the work. Former slaves now won’t starve. There are usually more than two options.

    Ancient slavery and economies were more complex than that. No slaves to harvest and produce income, no money to pay freed slaves.

    But in any case, it is notable that even if that were an option, Paul never tells all Christian slaveowners to free their slaves. That means that Paul believed some forms of slavery are compatible with the Christian religion.


  150. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    If the only real life example you can provide is choosing a church then you are confirming my belief that this is a purely hypothetical situation. If it was really the case the the husband must serve as the tie-breaker in important decisions then you should have been able to easily provide numerous and varied examples – not just this one.

    That’s nonsensical unless you believe that authority must be resisted inherently and therefore there must always be lots of disagreement in a complementarian marriage.

    You also failed to recognize other viable alternatives: let the wife pick the church,

    My position doesn’t make this an impossibility. The wife can pick the church and if the husband likes it, there they go.

    don’t go to any church

    This is not an option for a Christian unless the only local churches are heretical bodies.

    or shop around for a church that is palatable for both.

    There are many regions in this country where it is very difficult to find a good church. Sometimes there is only one possible option.


  151. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    When defending your point means defending slavery? You might have a problem.

    I’m only defending slavery as the best option available for some people in pre-modern economies. If you think it was better for ancient people to starve or be homeless, that’s your business.

    But the point is that neither the law of Moses nor Jesus nor Paul nor any other biblical author calls for the abolition of slavery. They do, however, call for believers to cease engaging in all sorts of other behaviors. This tells us that Jesus and all the others did not view some forms of slaveholding as incompatible with Christianity.

    I’m not willing to argue with Jesus or Paul. If you are a Christian, you shouldn’t be either.


  152. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan

    You mean, if the apostles really believed that there was a form of slavery compatible with Jesus’ stated mission of setting people free? Then yes. Yes, I am.

    Please name one person whom Jesus freed from slavery in anything other than a spiritual sense. He had lots of opportunities to command people whom he helped to do so. He never once did that as far as I can tell from reading the gospels.

    If the Apostles believed that all forms of slavery were incompatible with Jesus’ “stated mission of setting people free,” they very easily could have told masters to release their slaves. They don’t. The closest they get is in Philemon, and even there Paul gives no command to free Onesimus.

    It has never been a Christian practice to oppose the teaching of the Apostles to Jesus. Anyone who does that is not reading the Bible like a Christian. They may be a Christian, but they aren’t interpreting God’s Word like a Christian should.

    I’ll go with the example of Jesus and the compatible words of the Apostles.


  153. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert,

    Robert: In cases where the husband led, the result was peace and harmony about one of the most important decisions in life.

    So what are you saying is the husband should lead on the *most important* decisions in the family?


  154. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    What a load of —-! Slavery was a cultural practice that was economically beneficial. Cheap labour that ran the farms and fixed the roads. Slaves who went to the mines did not live long at all and lived short and brutal lives.

    Yes it was economically beneficial. In a pre-modern economy, however, there were not other options.

    The apostles commanded masters to treat slaves well out of Christian kindness in the society that they found themselves. Had they called for a release? The Romans would have executed them for sedition. Slavery was too critical to the economy – that’s why revolts were suppressed with maximum brutality.

    The Christian movement was exceedingly small in the first century in proportion to the rest of the empire. If the Apostles had called only for Christians to release their slaves, it would not have been an issue. If they would have addressed all people calling for them to release their slaves, that would have been a problem. But the Apostles don’t engage in government advocacy.

    While Jesus and his disciples were aware of slavery, given the social strata they were interacting with – the common folk rather than the elite or captains of industry, they would not have come across it that often. The disciples were tradesmen and fishermen, Jesus came a tradesmen’s background – they probably couldn’t afford shoes, let alone slaves.

    There’s no reason to believe that Jesus’ Apostles were poor when he called them, at least not all of them. One of them was a tax collector. There’s good reason to believe that even the fishermen were successful businessmen.

    Look, life has been short and tough for most of humanity throughout most of time. The ideal of “enlightened” slavery has about as much stock as “enlightened” feudalism or “enlightened” dictatorship or “enlightened” complementarianism.

    I don’t know what “enlightened” slavery is.

    Humans owning humans is wrong, was wrong then, is wrong now. Civilized society agrees with me – to heck with what the bible, quran or boy scout manual may say to the contrary.

    So you are a snob. We moderns are much smarter and much more moral than past peoples. Do you look down on developing nations today as well? Their morals remain so much behind ours.


  155. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: Slavery was a cultural practice that was economically beneficial. Cheap labour that ran the farms and fixed the roads. Slaves who went to the mines did not live long at all and lived short and brutal lives.

    People who defend slavery have never had to live as a slave. It is a nice, philosophical exercise.


  156. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    I guess it helps you rationalize slavery, but there were not three servile wars in rome because the slaves wanted to be slaves.

    Having to be a slave for economic concerns and wanting to be a slave are different things. The issue becomes, if the revolt were successful, then what. The slaves are only going to be able to help themselves by stealing from others since they owned nothing. So they get their freedom but become thieves. Also forbidden by Christianity.

    They were not put down brutally because rome was concerned they might not be able to feed themselves.

    No they weren’t.


  157. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Ken F (aka Tweed): You also failed to recognize other viable alternatives: let the wife pick the church, don’t go to any church, or shop around for a church that is palatable for both. Instead, the only alternatives you listed were ones where the husband wins and the wife loses.

    There is a reason that anecdotal experiences are viewed with a jaundiced eye in the medical profession.


  158. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    truthseeker00: Sorta reminds me of a story I heard somewhere in which an abused wife comes to her pastor and he instructs her to pray at her abuser’s bedside. After a couple of black eyes . . . they all lived happily ever after. Must have come from the same book of fairy tales.

    You made me laugh this morning. Great comment.


  159. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    Slavery involves sexual abuse of others.

    Some slaveowners abused their slaves in this way. Not all. By the way, the principles Paul and others lay out would call for Christian slaveowners not to do this. But still, they don’t command the slaveowners to free their slaves.

    That is immoral.

    Yes, all forms of sexual abuse are immoral and contrary to God’s Word. The guilty should be punished to the full extent of the law.

    I don’t agree with your point, mind you. But it is disturbing that you think this way.

    You don’t agree with me that the Bible has more to say against sexual immorality than it has to say about the necessity of freeing slaves and the evils of slavery? Which Bible are you reading?


  160. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget: Maybe in a rich man’s world, but in the rest (most) of the world women and children did all kinds of work.

    Many people who defend *proper gender roles* as traditional, tend to limit their view. It centers around 1950s white, middle class America which apparently is the Biblical model.


  161. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    What about cases where the husband followed the wife’s lead? Were those equally harmonious and the husband grew to love the church?

    I’m not sure of a case where the husband followed the wife’s lead. If you mean that the wife suggested a church and the husband looked into it and approved, then things were great.

    Or do comp husbands just never do anything if they can’t get their own way?

    You obviously don’t know any complementarian husbands. You might know some tyrants. I know some tyrannical husbands myself. I also know tyrannical wives.

    Keeping a veto for everything in your backpocket is not helpful for relationship harmony.

    Not when you believe authority is inherently evil, it isn’t. Complementarians don’t believe authority is inherently evil. Neither do you. I’m sure if you’re given authority, you are not afraid to exercise it.


  162. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    dee,

    Let me make sure that I understand you. If the Apostles didn’t speak against it, slavery must have been OK?

    My position would be more complex. It’s not simply an argument from silence. The Apostles have lots to say about slavery. Masters be kind to slaves. Slaves obey Masters. Slaves buy your freedom if you can.

    What does that indicate:

    1. Slavery is not ideal (otherwise there would be no exhortation to buy freedom if you can). Thus, in a perfect world, freedom is better than slavery.

    2. But at least some forms of slavery must be compatible with Christianity because given the opportunity, the Apostles do not mandate Christian masters freeing of all slaves. The Apostles are quite willing to tell Christians to do things that would set them severely at odds with the culture (sexual ethics, not participating in pagan temple worship). Freeing slaves would put them at such odds. Yet they never tell them to free slaves. Unless you want to make the Apostles unprincipled pragmatists, I don’t see how to reconcile their teaching on slavery with their teaching on other matters. I’m not willing to make the Apostles unprincipled.

    You do know the trouble that Doug Wilson got into over that one, right?

    I’ve never read Black and Tan. From what I know of Doug, he glamorizes slavery in the American South and believes that the Bible does not outlaw all forms of slavery. I disagree with the glamorization of slavery.

    Could there be any other reason for the silence?

    I think there is some merit to the idea that there was no call to free slaves because of concerns over social unrest. But that cannot be the full explanation because telling Christians not to worship the pagan gods in the temple was also socially destabilizing. The Apostles are quite willing to introduce things to destabilize the existing order, but they do not do so everywhere. I don’t believe the Apostles were unprincipled pragmatists, so the only explanation I can figure is that the stuff they do not forbid must be compatible with Christianity in a way that sexual immorality and outright idolatry is not.

    There’s probably also the case that freeing the slaves would put many of them in a place where they would starve. That could explain some things as well. But, since the Apostles also call the early churches to care for their own, I could see them ordering the freeing of slaves alongside a command for the churches to help them take their next step in life to become self-sufficient. They don’t do that.

    Even with all that, we never see anyone calling for the release of all slaves. Paul very clearly believes it is possible to be a true Christian and to own slaves. I don’t think he would say it is the ideal setting. Slavery is contrary to the original created order. But we’re living in a fallen world, and sometimes we can’t reach the ideal but have to deal with what is there and do something to avoid causing more damage.

    Something analgous might be when the gospel enters a polygamous society. If a man converts, you don’t order him to divorce all his wives. You don’t allow him to be an elder. Polygamy is incompatible with Christianity in an ideal world, but the gospel doesn’t come to people in an ideal world. But for the new convert there must be some kind of allowance lest his wives starve. You tell converts going forward, no more polygamy.

    Something similar might be going on with slavery. The problem is, however, that the Apostles never say “stop having slaves.”


  163. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert,

    “Paul does not condemn slavery outright for practical reasons. Historians cannot agree on the population of first-century Ephesus, but some estimate that its 250,000 free citizens were outnumbered by anything up to 400,000 slaves. Paul is smart enough to see that calling for their immediate emancipation would actually destroy them, since Roman slavery at least ensured that the very rich had a vested interest in providing for the very poor. ”

    “Paul does not condemn slavery outright for theological reasons. He tells us throughout his letters that unbelievers are slaves to sin and that the Gospel frees a person from the inside out. He therefore helps the Ephesian slaves to see that they are freer than their masters if they work as willing slaves of Jesus Christ, and he helps the Ephesian masters to see that they will only know true freedom if they recognise that they have obligations towards their slaves because they are also slaves of Christ themselves”

    https://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/why_doesnt_the_new_testament_condemn_slavery

    Yes, some slaves in those days were treated OK. They Romans did just enough to prevent them from revolting. However, there were many slaves who were treated despicably, tortured and killed. One only has to look at the plight of the *houseboys.*

    If slavery was such a good deal, then why bother to overthrow the institution now? Some of the plantation owners in the South appealed to the economy for the reason that slaves were *necessary.* They claimed the world as we know it would end if slavery was abolished. How would that cotton get picked? By abolishing slavery, the US and other countries had to figure out better ways of getting things done that did not buying and selling men, women and children.

    I am involved in a medical ministry that beings health care to victims of human trafficking. Human trafficking is a scourge. Slavery, by its very design, stratifies people into the owners and the slaves. Human nature then tends to believes that owners are better than slaves. Maybe even that slaves must be being punished by God.

    Paul knew that the Jews and Christians were in big trouble. The Jews would eventually be overthrown and the Temple destroyed in 70AD. The Christians were already being persecuted by the likes of Nero for not engaging in emperor worship and those persecutions would continue (off and on) for a long time. I taught a class at my church about the persecution of the early church and outlined the various persecutions under the emperors.

    If Paul had declared that all men, women and children should be free, the wrath of the Roman rulers would descend on them. This would not have been tolerated since it would upset the entire apple cart. The Christians would have been wiped out.

    So thinking that because Paul didn’t condemn slavery meant that he thought it was just fine is not taking into account what was actually happening in the culture. I think it is important to understand the culture of the day, including the power dynamics, in order to understand what was and wasn’t said.

    It is a bit hairy to make judgements on what was NOT said.


  164. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Having to be a slave for economic concerns and wanting to be a slave are different things.

    This may have been a tiny % of slavery, but it is the only one you focus on. Is it just much harder to accept the reality of the rest of it? Rome imported a bunch of slaves through war. They refused to let them go home. They didn’t just use them in fields, they used them as gladiators. Sex slaves. Mines. We could get into a long discussion on the economics of this, but that doesn’t address the morality. If you weren’t trying so hard to defend it by saying they would all starve, I would be less concerned. However.

    You admit that many slaves were abused, but you defer to the law in defending them. Slaves had no standing under the law.

    You call Jack (IIRC) a ‘snob’ for thinking we are enlightening for not treating people as chattel. And you claim this is a Christian worldview.

    The same defenses of slavery are used to defend men controlling women. Your man friends who are only happy when they get to choose their church? They are selfish. Plain and simple. That’s not loving. They are told to love their wives and they are told what that means and ‘always get your own way’ is not it.

    You treat everything like a word game, when we are talking about people’s lives. You defend slavery because you know you will never be on the other end of the whip. You defend men in ‘authority’ because it benefits you. Selfish.


  165. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert,

    My interim comment was made not seeing your last comment. However, I stand with what I said.


  166. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: The fact that you can lift up a story of the book of Judges, where that story of the Benjaminites in context is given to shown the sin to which that tribe and the Israelites had descended, shows that you need to do some more research.

    Oh, Israel had fallen into the gutter at that point, no doubt about it. But they must have gotten the idea from somewhere that God thought kidnapping women was OK.

    Perhaps they learned it from passages like these:

    “If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.”
    — Deuteronomy 20:12-14

    That sure sounds like kidnapping to me. The law against kidnapping and enslavement only applied to fellow Hebrews — not to anyone else.

    So much for the Bible’s clear and unambiguous condemnation of race-based chattel slavery….


  167. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    I’m evidently in the minority here because I think the answer to forbidding all inequality and/or preferential treatment is found throughout the NT. Paul clearly, succinctly erases all distinctions based on status (slave/free), gender (male/female), or ethnicity (Jew/Greek.) (Gal. 3:28)

    James also clearly calls showing partiality among believers a sin. (James 2:8-9)

    Jesus denounces those who exercise authority over others and prohibits that type of superiority among believers. (Mark 10:42)

    And (at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam) the entire NT (as found in the list of 59 mentioned before) leaves no room for discrimination, favoritism, or partiality. To do so is totally contrary to the “Royal Law” of loving your neighbor.

    I’ve not found exemptions to those scriptures so perhaps we should show evidence that proves the equality and deference to one another rather than searching for evidence that permits inequality and preference.


  168. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: Paul clearly, succinctly erases all distinctions based on status (slave/free), gender (male/female), or ethnicity (Jew/Greek.) (Gal. 3:28)

    You would think that would be enough, but most of this crew explain that one away by saying it’s only about ‘salvation’ *eyeroll*


  169. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: But the Apostles don’t engage in government advocacy.

    I wish Christians today would take a hint from the Apostles (and Jesus) in this regard.


  170. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Something similar might be going on with slavery. The problem is, however, that the Apostles never say “stop having slaves.”

    They never said it is appropriate to have slaves either. They simply said that if you have slaves, treat them well.


  171. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: So you are a snob. We moderns are much smarter and much more moral than past peoples. Do you look down on developing nations today as well? Their morals remain so much behind ours.

    I know I’ve scored a direct hit when the name calling starts.

    Your position is only defended by using the mores of a long dead culture.

    I’ve been overseas to the “developing” world. And they are as much against slavery and subjugation as I am.

    Those that aren’t are the ones profiting from it. And those are the folks you seem to be most aligned with.

    Moral equivocation using the “cut n paste” bible because it suits your worldview.

    You dress up your words in a cloak of philosophic mumbo jumbo but you’re no different than anyone else who uses ‘god’ to rationalize their intolerance.

    So go ahead, invoke radical feminism or liberalism or the homosexual agenda.

    Robert…I just sank your battleship.


  172. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    “Would you see complementarian abuse, considering it wouldn’t be directed at you? How do you even know?”

    That’s a silly question. If someone reports sexual, emotional, or physical abuse you investigate and look for evidence of abuse. I’ve been trained officially to recognize sexual and physical abuse, and I know emotional abuse when I see it.


  173. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    “I know I’ve scored a direct hit when the name calling starts.”

    Nice interpretation. Meanwhile, I’m not the one looking down my nose at the past because of our greatly enlightened civilization. If we’re so enlightened, why is our military bombing brown people in the Middle East?

    “You dress up your words in a cloak of philosophic mumbo jumbo but you’re no different than anyone else who uses ‘god’ to rationalize their intolerance.”

    Where have I displayed intolerance?


  174. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    “They never said it is appropriate to have slaves either. They simply said that if you have slaves, treat them well.”

    Correct. But they don’t do this with other things. They don’t say, “If you have a homosexual partner, treat him well,” or, “If you are a thief, just make sure you leave some stuff behind so that the people you steal from don’t go broke.”

    One thing is not like the other.


  175. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan,

    <i.That sure sounds like kidnapping to me. The law against kidnapping and enslavement only applied to fellow Hebrews — not to anyone else.

    That’s not kidnapping. The text you cite is a text from regulations about war. The city against which war is waged was not innocent. The Israelites weren’t supposed to go out and take the whole world by force; only the Promised Land. The city is the aggressor, and the men of the city are not innocent. Frankly, it’s gracious that God does not tell the Israelites to kill everyone.

    And the same God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ gave that command to the Israelites. If you believe in Jesus, you should have not trouble at all with that passage. The best you can say is that it does not apply to the church in the same way under the new covenant, and that would be correct. But that law was fundamentally just and righteous. To say otherwise would be to claim to know better than God.

    Jesus did not come to abolish that law or any of the other passages we moderns find uncomfortable (Matt. 5).

    So much for the Bible’s clear and unambiguous condemnation of race-based chattel slavery….

    I see nothing in that passage about taking slaves based on race.


  176. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    I’m evidently in the minority here because I think the answer to forbidding all inequality and/or preferential treatment is found throughout the NT. Paul clearly, succinctly erases all distinctions based on status (slave/free), gender (male/female), or ethnicity (Jew/Greek.) (Gal. 3:28)

    If he was erasing all distinctions in the way that you seem to think, then Paul could not in other letters directly address all of these groups specifically. He would simply say, “Christians do this.” Paul is saying here that no one has a higher claim on God or on salvation than anyone else in the church, not that every single distinction is erased. It follows on the heels of passages asserting that Gentiles have just as much rights to be called children of Abraham as the Jews and that the possession of the law gives one no advantage.

    James also clearly calls showing partiality among believers a sin. (James 2:8-9)

    Sure. But having structures of authority is not partiality. If James means what you think he means, there can be no leaders in the church at all. Again, only the Quakers have accomplished this.

    Jesus denounces those who exercise authority over others and prohibits that type of superiority among believers. (Mark 10:42)

    Jesus does not abolish all authority; he abolishes certain ways of exercising authority. The same Jesus, in John’s gospel, gives the Apostles authority to forgive sins. Clearly he is not denouncing every one who exercises authority over others.

    And (at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam) the entire NT (as found in the list of 59 mentioned before) leaves no room for discrimination, favoritism, or partiality. To do so is totally contrary to the “Royal Law” of loving your neighbor.

    This is correct, but you need to define discrimination, favoritism, and partiality biblically.

    Is it discrimination to not allow recent converts to be elders? If so, then Paul discriminates. If not, how is it not discrimination?

    Is it discrimination for Jesus to choose only 12 men for his inner circle, and then 3 for an even closer relationship? Is it favoritism? If so, then Jesus sinned. If not, how is it not favoritism?

    Reading these texts as getting rid of everything that might be called discrimination, favoritism, and partiality according to our twenty-first century definitions of such things makes the NT unintelligible.

    I’ve not found exemptions to those scriptures so perhaps we should show evidence that proves the equality and deference to one another rather than searching for evidence that permits inequality and preference.

    You need to prove that having authority structures equals inequality and preference. Clearly, it doesn’t. I’m sure you don’t live your life as if it does. We are all under authority somewhere. I’m equal in worth and value and humanity with my boss, but I’m under his authority; he is not under mine.


  177. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Nice interpretation. Meanwhile, I’m not the one looking down my nose at the past because of our greatly enlightened civilization. If we’re so enlightened, why is our military bombing brown people in the Middle East?

    LOL!!! Dude! You lost the minute you stated Christianity and slavery are compatible. Worse, the owning of humans by each other (a choice made by people) is somehow more acceptable to “god” than homosexuality which is not a choice. You’re all over the place! The middle east is a heck of lot more complicated. The military has bombed people of all stripes for a long time. I’m not getting into U.S. military adventures – whole books have been written about it, and I don’t think there’s anything enlightened by war of any kind. That’s a red herring you’re tossing into the pond as a distraction.

    If we follow your logic then everything that has a holy book behind is able to be defended – The quranic laws of Saudi to the Khmer Rouge manifestos that led to killing fields of Cambodia. And I’m a snob to make any comments to contrary unless I believe in a biblical, slave endorsing deity. Gimme a break!


  178. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Where have I displayed intolerance?

    Sorry I guess I misinterpreted your whole argument against women leading men. You’re a regular bastion of loving kindness.


  179. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Lea,
    “Would you see complementarian abuse, considering it wouldn’t be directed at you? How do you even know?”

    That’s a silly question. If someone reports sexual, emotional, or physical abuse you investigate and look for evidence of abuse. I’ve been trained officially to recognize sexual and physical abuse, and I know emotional abuse when I see it.

    No it isn’t. There are SO many things wrong with this comment.

    You are assuming you would be *involved* in these discussions, first of all. That anyone would tell you anything, or report to you, this abuse, which is your first incorrect assumption.

    You are assuming you would see all sexism and comp abuse, even that that occurs behind closed doors. You wouldn’t. You won’t see any that you don’t see. It won’t be directed at you, because you are a man. Just as I don’t always see racism directed at others because it’s not directed at me and I’m not there for it. This is basic stuff.

    You are also full of hubris to think that you could recognize people who are abusive. Many, many men in church positions seem to think this. In doing so, they exonerate men they like, men they are friends with, men in leadership, because they think they can judge. They don’t realize their own bias. Beyond that, even someone with extensive knowledge of lies cannot pick out every good liar. These people are deceptive, they groom everyone around them, and if you think you’re so good at picking them out you are bound to miss them even more often.


  180. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack: Dude! You lost the minute you stated Christianity and slavery are compatible.

    This.

    Furthermore, YES we are more enlightened then our ancestors. We have built on generations of understanding and as humans, we need to keep building. We should be striving to be better, to do better, than our ancestors. We have recognized the evils of slavery and abolished it. That’s a good thing. That’s not ‘snobbery’ that’s progress. Let’s continue progressing.


  181. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: I see nothing in that passage about taking slaves based on race.

    Hhmmm- one guy said something about that if something is not mentioned, that means it must be kind of OK…

    Robert, you have been a bit of a snot here. Now that you have solved the issue of slavery for yourself, I think you should begin to focus on being a bit kinder which is mentioned in the Bible.


  182. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    dee: Now that you have solved the issue of slavery for yourself, I think you should begin to focus on being a bit kinder which is mentioned in the Bible.

    Assuming that he’s not trolling for the fun of it at this point, Robert’s comments have been very illuminating.

    If you want to know the interpretive thought process behind why people still follow clowns like Mahaney & Driscoll, where Andy’s standing ovation came from, look no further.


  183. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    dee: Robert, you have been a bit of a snot here.

    But he did cause this older thread to limp along to nearly 800 comments…


  184. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: One thing is not like the other.

    In your mind anyway. And you have the attitude of a man who is right if he thinks he is.


  185. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Sure. But having structures of authority is not partiality. If James means what you think he means, there can be no leaders in the church at all.

    Wrong. There can be all kinds of people with responsibility to do their service. They don’t have to have authority over other people though.


  186. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: That’s nonsensical unless you believe that authority must be resisted inherently and therefore there must always be lots of disagreement in a complementarian marriage.

    I don’t know where you come up with this thought. You had made quite a point about the importance of every marriage having a tie-breaker when the couple cannot come to agreement. I stated my belief that this is almost entirely theoretical, that there are almost no real cases where this is actually required. So I asked you for real life examples that you personally know about. It turned out that the only example you could give was choosing a church. And even then you went down the theoretical path of questioning what to do when only one church in town is not heretical. What this tells me is that your main point, the importance of a male tie-breaker, is purely theoretical and has no real life validity. You need a better main point if you want to convince people.


  187. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: That’s not kidnapping.

    Oh, no? And how did the women and children carted off as property to a foreign land feel about it? And how would international law see it today?

    Robert: If you believe in Jesus, you should have not trouble at all with that passage.

    Well, you’re wrong. I believe in Jesus, and that passage makes me very uncomfortable — along with many others like it. I find them very difficult to explain to others, or even to understand for myself, in a way that doesn’t feel callous towards the suffering of many innocents in ancient times. If that makes me a deficient Christian — or not a Christian at all — in your eyes, so be it.

    Dragging people away from their homeland by force is human trafficking. Keeping them as property in perpetuity is chattel slavery. Both are disgusting to me. If Jesus knows my heart as much as He claims, then I trust Him to understand why. If you don’t, Robert, then that’s your problem.

    Robert: I see nothing in that passage about taking slaves based on race.

    The Israelites could commit these atrocities on any nation or people other than their own. Any non-Hebrew people were fair game for kidnapping, trafficking and enslavement. That’s race-based slavery — anyone other than Israelites could be made permanent slaves.

    And I’ve always found it bewildering that a nation that was rescued from the horrors and humiliations of slavery could be so nonchalant about inflicting them on others.


  188. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan,

    Oh, no? And how did the women and children carted off as property to a foreign land feel about it? And how would international law see it today?

    I imagine that the women and children would be thankful that they weren’t killed. And frankly, I don’t care how international law would see it because international law isn’t divinely revealed.

    Well, you’re wrong. I believe in Jesus, and that passage makes me very uncomfortable — along with many others like it. I find them very difficult to explain to others, or even to understand for myself, in a way that doesn’t feel callous towards the suffering of many innocents in ancient times. If that makes me a deficient Christian — or not a Christian at all — in your eyes, so be it.

    Understandably it makes you uncomfortable, and I’m not going to say there are no questions about it. And it’s not easy. But if you are a Christian, then you must believe that God gave this law and that Jesus was perfectly fine with it. He came not to abolish but to fulfill. So regardless of how comfortable or uncomfortable this might make you feel, your conclusion must be: “This law was right and good even if I don’t understand it.”

    Dragging people away from their homeland by force is human trafficking. Keeping them as property in perpetuity is chattel slavery. Both are disgusting to me. If Jesus knows my heart as much as He claims, then I trust Him to understand why. If you don’t, Robert, then that’s your problem.

    Sorry, but Jesus gave this law. He is God and God inspired this law. And again, this law is self-defensive in nature. Israel was not supposed to go out and conquer anyone besides Canaan. Your problem is fundamentally not with the law but with God. You are judging him by your twenty-first Western standards of morality. You are claiming to know better than he did.

    Any non-Hebrew people were fair game for kidnapping, trafficking and enslavement.

    That’s incorrect. The Hebrews were not supposed to attack innocent people.

    That’s race-based slavery — anyone other than Israelites could be made permanent slaves.

    And any non-Israelite could become an Israelite by converting to Yahweh. See Ruth and Rahab, for example. At best what you have is a religiously based form of slavery, but even then it only happens when the other side is guilty.

    If you have a problem with this, then what Jesus says will happen to the wicked is even worse. Eternal punishment in hell. And Christians are going to rule and reign over creation alongside Christ, even over the people in hell. It will all come full circle. God is not a Give-peace-a-chance hippie.

    And I’ve always found it bewildering that a nation that was rescued from the horrors and humiliations of slavery could be so nonchalant about inflicting them on others.

    There’s nothing nonchalant about this. This is basic survival. Those other cities aren’t going to show mercy. Israel was first to offer peace to those cities and then to capture them if they refused. That’s exactly what we do in the gospel. The church—the new Israel—offers the peace of Christ to non-believers. If they repent, then they join Israel. If they don’t, then they will suffer the wrath to come.

    Jesus meek and mild is Yahweh, the Lord of hosts, who conquers His enemies and rules over them with a rod of iron. His enemies can become His friends, but if they refuse, they suffer the consequences. This is the biblical religion. I can understand why it makes you uncomfortable. We live in a very sanitized world. 2,000 years of Christian influence have mitigated some of the worst things of culture. But we live in a very unique situation that did not obtain until very recently. If you lived in a culture where your very survival was in question every moment of the day, you would likely feel very differently.

    But all that is to say, if you cannot accept these passages as divinely inspired and good and holy, then you cannot accept Jesus as good and holy either. What he says will happen to unbelievers is far worse than any of these OT passages.


  189. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    dee,

    Hhmmm- one guy said something about that if something is not mentioned, that means it must be kind of OK…

    You obviously didn’t read my response. What I have said is not based solely on an argument from silent.

    Robert, you have been a bit of a snot here.

    Because I have views that you find uncomfortable and disagree with?

    Now that you have solved the issue of slavery for yourself, I think you should begin to focus on being a bit kinder which is mentioned in the Bible.

    How have I been unkind? By stating that some of the responses are deficiently Christian? Isn’t that what you do every day against the “Calvinistas?”


  190. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    Wrong. There can be all kinds of people with responsibility to do their service. They don’t have to have authority over other people though.

    Except that Paul calls leaders in several cases to eject people from the church. That’s leadership with authority.


  191. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    LOL!!! Dude! You lost the minute you stated Christianity and slavery are compatible.

    I said Christianity and some forms of slavery are compatible. You don’t believe the Bible. That’s fine. You won’t get it.

    Worse, the owning of humans by each other (a choice made by people) is somehow more acceptable to “god” than homosexuality which is not a choice.

    It actually is more acceptable in the Bible. And homosexuals have just as much a choice to act on their lusts or not as anyone else.

    If we follow your logic then everything that has a holy book behind is able to be defended

    Nope. Incorrect. Simply having a holy book doesn’t make something defensible. Other holy books are wrong. But they do provide a transcendent foundation for morality that naturalism/atheism does not.

    And I’m a snob to make any comments to contrary unless I believe in a biblical, slave endorsing deity. Gimme a break!

    No, you are a snob for looking down on past peoples as uncivilized. You could be an atheist and not look down on other “less enlightened” folk.


  192. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: The Israelites weren’t supposed to go out and take the whole world by force; only the Promised Land. The city is the aggressor, and the men of the city are not innocent. Frankly, it’s gracious that God does not tell the Israelites to kill everyone.

    Wow. The city is the aggressor for what, existing where the promised land is supposed to be?

    And the children should be killed for being there too? Wow. just wow.


  193. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget: Wrong. There can be all kinds of people with responsibility to do their service. They don’t have to have authority over other people though.

    The idea that leadership can only be exercised through ‘authority’ is part of the whole problem with this line of thinking. They begin with the end in mind, and they make huge errors along the way.

    We have elders and deacons. They have position, but it is very clear that what they are doing is serving the choice. They are elected for that purpose. Entirely different mindset.


  194. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea: choice

    (Make that ‘Church’)


  195. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Except that Paul calls leaders in several cases to eject people from the church.

    He calls for the CHURCH, when they are assembled, to do this. Not ‘leaders’.


  196. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Jack,

    If you want to know the interpretive thought process behind why people still follow clowns like Mahaney & Driscoll, where Andy’s standing ovation came from, look no further.

    Except that I had problems with Driscoll long before this site existed. And my church had policies in place twenty years ago to safeguard against the stuff that happened with Andy. Oh, and my church has excommunicated several men who were abusing their wives in the course of my time there.

    So rest assured, I hate abuse as much as you do.


  197. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    The idea that leadership can only be exercised through ‘authority’ is part of the whole problem with this line of thinking. They begin with the end in mind, and they make huge errors along the way.

    Authority and leadership are inherently connected. The problem is that you seem to think authority and servanthood are incompatible. Do you have a problem with Jesus? He has authority over you. And He came as a servant.

    We have elders and deacons. They have position, but it is very clear that what they are doing is serving the choice. They are elected for that purpose. Entirely different mindset.

    Acts 15—The Assembled council, which includes church elders, has authority to tell the church which doctrines to believe.

    1 Tim. 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well.” Authority.

    2 Tim. 2:15: “Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority.” Titus was an elder/pastor.

    3 John 9 “I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.” John may have been an elder, but even if it is the Apostle John, you have an instance where someone in the church has an authority that others don’t.

    Very clearly some in the church have authority in the ways that others do not.


  198. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    “He calls for the CHURCH, when they are assembled, to do this. Not ‘leaders’.”

    Based on Paul’s other teachings on elder authority, the leaders have a representative role, though the church as a whole is to concur.

    But even on a fiercely congregational model, the people in the church who are living uprightly have an authority over those who don’t in this case. Once again proving that there are some in the church that have an authority that others do not have.


  199. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    dee,

    Many people who defend *proper gender roles* as traditional, tend to limit their view. It centers around 1950s white, middle class America which apparently is the Biblical model.

    That, unfortunately, is true. Which is why I think Piper and some others go astray in their application at times.

    Women have always worked. But historically, where has their primary sphere of labor been? At home. Cleaning house, making clothes, making candles, watching after the children, etc. There weren’t scores of female blacksmiths, journalists, doctors, political leaders, etc. that work outside of the home.

    In an agrarian society, you would have women joining men in the fields at times, but the assumption still would have been that the home was a woman’s sphere in a way that is was not for the man. Paul the Apostle certainly believed that.


  200. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Authority and leadership are inherently connected.

    No they are not.


  201. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    I know. All because one believes that every word in the Bible is infallible . . . Jesus/God/Holy Spirit ends up having equal authority as Paul God is reduced to a Book instead of the book inspiring us toward Jesus.

    Something just occurred to me. Those words of Jesus in red—it is very unlikely they are verbatim quotes from Jesus. They represent accurately what he meant, but they aren’t word for word dictation.

    Whose words are they, then? They are the words of Jesus in one sense. But in another sense they are also the words of the Apostles who wrote those books. The only way we have the words of Jesus is in the words of the Apostles, who had some degree of shaping influence on the words of Jesus that we now possess.

    The inevitable conclusion of this is that the words of the Apostles in Scripture are equal in authority to the words of Jesus. The words of Jesus in the Gospels are the words of the Apostles and vice versa.


  202. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Whose words are they, then? They are the words of Jesus in one sense. But in another sense they are also the words of the Apostles who wrote those books. The only way we have the words of Jesus is in the words of the Apostles, who had some degree of shaping influence on the words of Jesus that we now possess.

    The inevitable conclusion of this is that the words of the Apostles in Scripture are equal in authority to the words of Jesus. The words of Jesus in the Gospels are the words of the Apostles and vice versa.

    Are you not one of those ‘the bible is infallible and we should believe every word exactly’ people?

    Because this is a very interesting tack to take if so.


  203. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    This isn’t entirely true, however. While the ideal certainly seemed to be one man and one woman, outside of Uriah, I’ve yet to find such a marriage. If you know of one, I’d love to hear of it.

    Its true insofar that sex outside of marriage was banned but that polygamy was not outlawed outright. It was never the ideal, but it was compatible with the worship of Yahweh in a way that incest, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. were not.

    Outside of traditional “customs,” I don’t even find a mandate/command for a service or ceremony that needed to be performed to legally enjoin a man and woman. Throughout the OT, we find so-and-so merely “taking” a wife in a variety of circumstances and that seemed to make it consensual. Until, that is, when the Israelites captured women as spoils of war and then they were designated as concubines and there were laws about her treatment. In fact, Deut. 21 speaks to a man who takes a wife from among those captured and not being pleased with her. Then there are regulations about how to deal with her departure. It further talks about regulations for a man who has two wives.

    Sure. But if God regulates and allows one thing and not another, that means that one thing is compatible with true religion in a way the other thing is not. Even today, missionaries sometimes have to deal with the issue of polygamy. If the gospel comes to a polygamous culture, you don’t force the men to divorce their wives, as that creates greater social problems. You don’t make them elders and you admonish them to care for the wives. This ends up saying two thing: 1. Polygamy is not ideal and 2. Polygamy is not incompatible with the practice of true Christianity. I think something similar is going on with Paul’s words to slavemasters. Slavery is not ideal but some forms of slavery are compatible with the practice of true Christianity.

    So it, complicated I think and not so black and white as we would like to make these matters without serious consideration and study about the time in history, the circumstances, and the step-by-step progression of God’s wisdom in forming the desired end.

    Sure. But if God is willing to tolerate some things and not others, that implies that the things he is not willing to tolerate are inherently worse than those things that he is willing to tolerate.

    Again, not so cut and dried…God did, if you remember, establish cities of sanctuary which served to protect one accused of such a sin until which time it could be brought before a court to decide the punishment. God loved/loves justice.

    The cities of sanctuary were established in the case of manslaughter and the guilty party had to live there until the death of the high priest. The cities weren’t open to people who killed with intent. Manslaughter and murder aren’t equivalent.


  204. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    Are you not one of those ‘the bible is infallible and we should believe every word exactly’ people?
    Because this is a very interesting tack to take if so.

    I’m one of those “the Bible is inerrant and we should believe every word exactly as it was intended by the Apostle or prophet who wrote it” people. But standard definitions of inerrancy tell us that the words of Jesus do not have to be verbatim for them to be without error. The speeches of the Apostles in the book of Acts likely aren’t verbatim either.

    When Luke gives us a parable of Jesus he gives us the words of Jesus in Luke’s words, similar to how we might summarize a conversation when we are talking to someone else. The difference is that Luke doesn’t err in conveying what Jesus meant, and that’s because Jesus—as God—is inspiring his summary/shaping of Jesus teaching. Jesus does that with every word of Scripture, which is why the words of the Apostles in Romans, 1 Peter, Hebrews, etc. are no less authoritative than the words of Jesus in red.


  205. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: The inevitable conclusion of this is that the words of the Apostles in Scripture are equal in authority to the words of Jesus.

    Again, in your mind.


  206. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Serving Kids In Japan,

    Then, apparently, you’ve never been a part of Bethlehem Baptist (Minnesota), The Village Church, or anything run by Doug Wilson, Bill Gothard or Paige Patterson. I haven’t either, but everything I’ve read about them tells me not to touch them with a nine-and-a-half-foot pole.

    No I haven’t been a part of any of that. But the issue there isn’t the mere teaching of submission, it’s a misunderstanding of what submission means that is colored by an overreaction to our culture of easy divorce. In Piper’s case, it’s also connected to a very poor idea that remarriage is never acceptable after divorce. Another problem is that all of those churches you mention are independent bodies that have no accountability to anyone but the congregation and the pastor. In a denomination like the PCA, if you are Karen Hinkley you would have recourse to appeal to higher bodies when the elders make a horrible decision like they did at the Village Church, for example.

    Marrying complementarian teaching to an idea that divorce is never, ever right or never, ever the best course of action creates all sorts of problems. The issue is that such views on divorce are not biblical. Protecting the innocent party always should be the first concern whenever the church deals with these issues.


  207. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    dee,

    If Paul had declared that all men, women and children should be free, the wrath of the Roman rulers would descend on them. This would not have been tolerated since it would upset the entire apple cart. The Christians would have been wiped out.

    In Paul’s day, Christians were an insignificant minority. Paul’s telling only Christian slaveowners to free their slaves would not have been societally significant.

    So thinking that because Paul didn’t condemn slavery meant that he thought it was just fine is not taking into account what was actually happening in the culture. I think it is important to understand the culture of the day, including the power dynamics, in order to understand what was and wasn’t said.

    Yes on understanding the culture. As a result, you should see that Paul condemns things that were just as likely to incur society’s wrath—not showing up at the pagan temples for worship if you were not a legal religion is a quick way to incur Rome’s anger. This was especially true in the post-Apostolic period. Yet Paul is not afraid to give a rule that is just as likely to lead to the Romans wiping out the Christian church.

    This suggests that ameliorated slavery of some kind is compatible with Christianity in a way that outright idolatry is not.

    It is a bit hairy to make judgements on what was NOT said.

    Sure, which is why I’m trying to take into account everything—what Paul does ban outright, the fact that he regulates some practices and not others, etc. We have far more regarding the Bible’s teaching on slavery than what was NOT said. Evidently, neither Moses, nor Jesus, nor Paul thought that all forms of slavery banned one from the kingdom of God. They don’t hold these views on other subjects.

    I understand that people may not like that, but I can’t change what the Bible says and I’m a Christian. I have to believe what Scripture says even when it makes me or someone else uncomfortable.


  208. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: we should believe every word exactly as it was intended by the Apostle or prophet who wrote it”

    The problem is, we can’t know their intent. Do you know their intents? You have often claimed in your comments here that certain lines of thinking and conclusions are inevitable, or that the Apostle must have meant “such and such.” I believe you take much liberty with scripture, to the point of putting conclusions in the mouths of the the writers that are not actually there.

    We differ on how we view the scripture. For me, Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth. I believe the Apostles would say that Jesus words carried more importance than their own. No amount of your interpretations of the scripture will convince me otherwise.


  209. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    No worries on responding in parts. I’m sorry I didn’t get to these comments sooner.

    You’re reading something into the word “head” that you think supports authority. But the entire passage from verse 18 to the end makes absolutely no mention of authority…not even a hint. The overall message is that relationships between all believers and husband/wife relationships included should reflect the same love and self sacrifice that Jesus demonstrates to believers. Jesus called called them friends; exhibited humility; emptied Himself; laid down His life for those He loves; and washed their feet….all as examples for us to emulate…husbands and wives included.

    Actually, the final verse of Ephesians wives says that wives are to fear/respect their husbands, using the same word used to refer to fear of God. Fear of God isn’t a servile “God’s going to get me” fear but respect, reverence, and obedience. It’s a fear based on one having authority over another.

    What you say isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t go far enough. And Paul then launches into relationships between masters and slaves and parents and children after enjoining submission to one another. This demonstrates that some relationships of authority still obtain.

    In case I haven’t posted a link to the 59 one-anothers before…you can’t read through them and find even a whisper alluding to having authority over others.
    http://www.smallgroupchurches.com/the-59-one-anothers-of-the-bible/

    You have to prove that “one another” is incompatible with authority.

    We just can’t interpret head as authority without a mandate for a husband to act as such. Jesus is the source or origin of the body of believers/church which officially came into being following His death and resurrection and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Paul summarizes that relationship in verse 32.

    But he’s not only the source and origin of the body of believers. He is also Lord and Master. Other passages, such as 1 Peter 3, commend wives obeying their husbands. Now, we would have to parse out what obedience means in that context, but I suspect that so many have problems with this idea because we moderns think that obedience itself is inherently bad.

    What’s the mystery?

    It’s difficult, but in light of other biblical teaching, it would seem to point to a perfect union wherein the two become one unit in a very real sense. John’s gospel says our union with Christ means that the Father loves us in the same way that He loves the Son. That points to a closeness that borders on identity without it becoming identity.

    Now, we normally hear that interpreted that BOTH man and woman leave THEIR PARENTS, but that isn’t what it says. It says the MAN shall leave HIS parents and cleave to his WIFE.

    Right.

    That’s recorded 4 times in scripture and we still mis-read it. Why?

    Probably because in our society we have afforded greater freedom to women than in the biblical culture. Women typically remained under the authority of their parents and did not set up their own households. It was the man who did that, then taking a wife.


  210. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: If he was erasing all distinctions in the way that you seem to think, then Paul could not in other letters directly address all of these groups specifically. He would simply say, “Christians do this.” Paul is saying here that no one has a higher claim on God or on salvation than anyone else in the church, not that every single distinction is erased.

    I didn’t say erases “all distinctions.” The passage erases distinctions based on status, gender, and/or ethnicity. In other words, we are not to judge others based on their outward circumstances or physical appearances. Jesus admonished the Jews for criticizing him for healing a man on the Sabbath when the law commanded rest on the Sabbath. The lesson Jesus was teaching them was that we should live by the “spirit of the law” rather than the “letter of the law.” In other words, judge not by appearances, but by a righteous judgment.

    Your interpreting Galations 3:28 as a matter of salvation might be ok except that to assume the principle ends there is where I take issue. Here’s an example: while we see Jesus, knowing the status of the Pharisees and their desire to be recognized as prominent, calling them a brood of vipers and hypocrites! And yet, when a prominent Pharisee invited Him to his house to dine with him, Jesus accepted. He used the circumstance to teach a lesson about mercy and forgiveness.

    Of course there are distinctions and we would be remiss if we didn’t admit that. But we are not to judge based on those distinctions regardless of what they are.

    Another short example…Jesus knew the terms of the Oral Law regarding women and interacting with them in public. Yet He took the opportunity to publicly interact with the Samaritan women who came to draw water from the well. He didn’t judge her as a female nor as a Samaritan, but spoke to her of living water, and sparked her interest by saying she would never thirst again.

    Jesus always ignored pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous individuals and offered liberty, abundant life, peace and love to those who were oppressed, abused, and needed healing.

    Throughout scripture, he didn’t judge according to status (slave/free), gender (male/female) or Greek/Jew (ethnicity.) The principle is obvious throughout the gospel and Paul’s letters as well.

    I rest my case.


  211. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    The problem is, we can’t know their intent. Do you know their intents?

    We can in most cases, otherwise we can’t know anything at all. To rightly interpret anyone’s words, even in daily conversations, requires us to know intent. The reason for so much miscommunication is because we misread intent regularly.

    You have often claimed in your comments here that certain lines of thinking and conclusions are inevitable, or that the Apostle must have meant “such and such.” I believe you take much liberty with scripture, to the point of putting conclusions in the mouths of the the writers that are not actually there.

    That is possible. If so, try and refute my conclusions with a logical argument that takes into account all of Scripture.

    We differ on how we view the scripture. For me, Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth. I believe the Apostles would say that Jesus words carried more importance than their own. No amount of your interpretations of the scripture will convince me otherwise.

    I mean you no malice, but to think that the words of the Apostles in Scripture have less authority than the words of Jesus is not a Christian way of reading Scripture. The Apostles certainly believed they had authority on the same level of Jesus. Paul is very comfortable setting out rules for divorce where he has no teaching from Jesus. You only do that if you think your Apostolic authority comes from Jesus and is equivalent to Jesus’ because the words you are writing are inspired by Jesus. I would never say, “I don’t have any words from Jesus on this, but here is my opinion and you must follow it” like Paul does.

    If Jesus is God and if God inspired all of Scripture, the words of the Apostles are the words ultimately of Jesus. The only way around this is to deny the deity of Christ or to claim that not all the words of the Apostles are Scripture. Neither of those is compatible with orthodox Christianity.


  212. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Actually, the final verse of Ephesians wives says that wives are to fear/respect their husbands, using the same word used to refer to fear of God. Fear of God isn’t a servile “God’s going to get me” fear but respect, reverence, and obedience. It’s a fear based on one having authority over another.

    Until you give me a scripture that shows a mandate for husbands to have authority over their wives, it’s absurd imo to insist he does. Nowhere in the Ephesians passage is the word authority even mentioned. The virtues husbands are told to imitate are Jesus’ love, nourishing, and cherishing the church. The only thing men are ever how to relate to or treat their wives is to agape them.

    Since you’ve mentioned the end of Ephesians, I’ve asked for your thoughts about
    verse 31:

    Eph 5:31  “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh.”

    Why do most scholars interpret that to mean that “both” man and woman shall leave their parents? 4/5 times the verse is repeated in scripture and only mandates the man leave his parents to cleave to his wife. Your thoughts?


  213. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: If Jesus is God and if God inspired all of Scripture, the words of the Apostles are the words ultimately of Jesus. The only way around this is to deny the deity of Christ or to claim that not all the words of the Apostles are Scripture.

    Oh boy…we just had a major power outage and I lost my comment about this, but let me see if I can remember what I posted…. (no guarantees….)

    Of course the words of scripture are all inspired. That includes the words of Jesus as well as the words of the apostles. However, we would be remiss if we didn’t take into account the context, those the words were spoken to, and how the hearers would understand them. Scripture is replete with metaphors, similies, hyperboles, contrasts, etc. and it is our job to interpret those as best we can. Of equal importance is to understand why those words were spoken to those they were. We can’t just throw out verses at random and say they were for all people for all time under all circumstances. A simple but good example is Paul’s advice for Timothy to drink a little wine rather than water when he has an upset stomach. We can’t advocate wine for upset stomach’s for all people for all time, right?


  214. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Sorry about this, but I just remembered something the power outage lost….that I had posted.

    In interpreting and understanding the context of scripture and all that it involves, imagine how language has changed over the years and how those early believers might not understand some of our sayings; i.e.

    * don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater
    * I’m so hungry I could eat a horse
    * It’s raining cats and dogs

    There are hundreds of others and we generally know what is meant, but would they? The time factor makes some words difficult…inspired or not. Updates translations endeavor to clarify some, but often complicate them more as we have so many versions of the Bible today.


  215. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: passages, such as 1 Peter 3, commend wives obeying their husbands.

    1. Obey is only in some of the translations, like KJV.
    2. It does NOT ‘command’ women obey. It doesn’t command they call their husbands ‘lord’ either. It talks about Sarah doing so. Do you require your wife call you lord?

    Sidenote, the Complete Jewish Bible translation is interesting.


  216. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: You have to prove that “one another” is incompatible with authority.

    It is incompatible with requiring obedience from a loved one. It is incompatible with selfishness.


  217. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Bridget,
    The problem is, we can’t know their intent. Do you know their intents?

    We can in most cases, otherwise we can’t know anything at all.

    Nonsense. Paul says now we see through a mirror darkly. We don’t know everything. It is that arrogant belief that has caused much misery.

    Maybe there is a reason that PRIDE is discussed far, far more often than anything about gender roles.


  218. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious: There are hundreds of others and we generally know what is meant, but would they? The time factor makes some words difficult…inspired or not. Updates translations endeavor to clarify some, but often complicate them more as we have so many versions of the Bible today.

    And, we don’t have the originals of the scriptures, along with the fact that we have myriads of translations written by men of their own ages and cultures; some named after Kings, some named after themselves. Scripture is inspired, but interpretations are certainly not infallible.


  219. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea: Nonsense. Paul says now we see through a mirror darkly. We don’t know everything. It is that arrogant belief that has caused much misery.

    Yes. It also says that everything that Jesus said and did was not written down . . .


  220. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget,

    If the people who were *writing* the scriptures were uncertain, how insane is it to think we know everything?


  221. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Bridget: And, we don’t have the originals of the scriptures, along with the fact that we have myriads of translations written by men of their own ages and cultures; some named after Kings, some named after themselves. Scripture is inspired, but interpretations are certainly not infallible.

    According to this website, there are a total of 1741 versions and 1215 languages of the bible.

    https://www.bible.com/versions


  222. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: If Jesus is God and if God inspired all of Scripture, the words of the Apostles are the words ultimately of Jesus. The only way around this is to deny the deity of Christ or to claim that not all the words of the Apostles are Scripture. Neither of those is compatible with orthodox Christianity.

    You apparently do not believe in sola scriptura (no one does, but that is another topic) because the Bible does not teach what you are stating here. Since it does not come from the bible, from where are you getting it? It is interesting that you mention “orthodox Christianity” because Orthodox Christians believe that the gospels take priority, and all other scriptures must be viewed through the gospels. Protestant high church services carry on this tradition by sitting for the OT and NT readings but standing for the gospel readings. It is established fact that the vast majority of Christians throughout history have considered the gospels as more authoritative than the other books. You are entitled to believe otherwise, but you have no biblical or historical support for doing so.


  223. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: No, you are a snob for looking down on past peoples as uncivilized. You could be an atheist and not look down on other “less enlightened” folk.

    You’re right, I don’t get it. I’ve taken this argument as far as I can go.

    For me, whatever redeeming features the bible may have had have been superseded.

    After this exchange, I can honestly say I am well & truly done.

    Glad we could at least agree abuse is bad.


  224. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Ken F (aka Tweed),

    You apparently do not believe in sola scriptura (no one does, but that is another topic) because the Bible does not teach what you are stating here.

    And you evidently don’t know what sola Scriptura means, otherwise you would not make a ridiculous statement.

    Since it does not come from the bible, from where are you getting it?

    Logical deduction from the doctrines of the Trinity and biblical inspiration, both of which are biblical.

    It is interesting that you mention “orthodox Christianity” because Orthodox Christians believe that the gospels take priority, and all other scriptures must be viewed through the gospels. Protestant high church services carry on this tradition by sitting for the OT and NT readings but standing for the gospel readings.

    Actually, the traditional view is that the OT should be interpreted through the lens of the NT. See Augustine.

    It is established fact that the vast majority of Christians throughout history have considered the gospels as more authoritative than the other books.

    Can you provide any documentation from a creedal or confessional statement or even an orthodox theologian of note that the gospels have inherently more authoritative than Romans.

    You are entitled to believe otherwise, but you have no biblical or historical support for doing so.

    All I’m getting from you are vague assertions that “vast majority of Christians have.” Do you have survey?


  225. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Lea,

    Nonsense. Paul says now we see through a mirror darkly. We don’t know everything. It is that arrogant belief that has caused much misery.

    I never said we know everything.

    We know what Paul intended by that statement. And it wasn’t that we can’t know what his intent was.


  226. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    I didn’t say erases “all distinctions.” The passage erases distinctions based on status, gender, and/or ethnicity. In other words, we are not to judge others based on their outward circumstances or physical appearances. Jesus admonished the Jews for criticizing him for healing a man on the Sabbath when the law commanded rest on the Sabbath. The lesson Jesus was teaching them was that we should live by the “spirit of the law” rather than the “letter of the law.” In other words, judge not by appearances, but by a righteous judgment.

    And where are they eliminated in Galatians? With respect to one’s standing before God. All are equally heirs of God in Christ Jesus. The passage says nothing about authority in the church or in the home.

    Of course there are distinctions and we would be remiss if we didn’t admit that. But we are not to judge based on those distinctions regardless of what they are.

    Sure, but granting structures of authority is not judging based on distinctions.

    Another short example…Jesus knew the terms of the Oral Law regarding women and interacting with them in public. Yet He took the opportunity to publicly interact with the Samaritan women who came to draw water from the well. He didn’t judge her as a female nor as a Samaritan, but spoke to her of living water, and sparked her interest by saying she would never thirst again.
    Jesus always ignored pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous individuals and offered liberty, abundant life, peace and love to those who were oppressed, abused, and needed healing.
    Throughout scripture, he didn’t judge according to status (slave/free), gender (male/female) or Greek/Jew (ethnicity.) The principle is obvious throughout the gospel and Paul’s letters as well.

    Yes, Jesus offered the gospel to everyone no matter who they were and where they came from. He said everyone who is in Him is loved by the Father. I’m not sure why you think that is relevant to the issue of authority in the church and home. Everyone gets the same gospel and the same salvation. Not everyone gets authority or should get authority. The very fact that some are leaders and not everyone demonstrates this.


  227. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Victorious,

    Of course the words of scripture are all inspired. That includes the words of Jesus as well as the words of the apostles. However, we would be remiss if we didn’t take into account the context, those the words were spoken to, and how the hearers would understand them. Scripture is replete with metaphors, similies, hyperboles, contrasts, etc. and it is our job to interpret those as best we can. Of equal importance is to understand why those words were spoken to those they were. We can’t just throw out verses at random and say they were for all people for all time under all circumstances. A simple but good example is Paul’s advice for Timothy to drink a little wine rather than water when he has an upset stomach. We can’t advocate wine for upset stomach’s for all people for all time, right?

    Agreed.

    In interpreting and understanding the context of scripture and all that it involves, imagine how language has changed over the years and how those early believers might not understand some of our sayings; i.e.
    * don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater
    * I’m so hungry I could eat a horse
    * It’s raining cats and dogs
    There are hundreds of others and we generally know what is meant, but would they? The time factor makes some words difficult…inspired or not. Updates translations endeavor to clarify some, but often complicate them more as we have so many versions of the Bible today.

    Sure. That’s why we have to do the hard work of hermeneutics and especially to recognize our own biases. To be honest, one of the reasons I moved from egalitarianism to a more complementarian view is that the egalitarian view is nearly impossible to find historically. It coincides with the rise of twentieth century feminism and the sexual revolution. That strikes me as suspect. To be fair, one could make an argument that complementarianism is in some ways an overreaction to the rise of such things, but the traditional view of the male-only pastorate mitigates against that.


  228. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: Actually, the final verse of Ephesians wives says that wives are to fear/respect their husbands, using the same word used to refer to fear of God.

    With all due respect, Robert, you are grasping at straws and and engaging in selective literalism.

    I’ve provided ample scriptural evidence for mutual, loving, and reciprocal and respectful behavior and heart attitude between believers. I have noted that in the many scriptures provided, none exempt anyone for any reason in the interactions with each other regardless of status, ethnicity or gender.

    In all fairness, the onus is now on you to prove otherwise. In other words, provide scripture that designates one individual as the authority over another individual and the scope of that authority.

    That’s recorded 4 times in scripture and we still mis-read it. Why?

    Probably because in our society we have afforded greater freedom to women than in the biblical culture. Women typically remained under the authority of their parents and did not set up their own households. It was the man who did that, then taking a wife.

    Nothing in verses refers to authority. I find it interesting that you even read that into that verse. The verse obviously pertains to an adult man and an adult woman who is clearly defined as the wife to whom the man is to cleave. The adult man is to leave his father and mother but there is no such requirement for the woman to do so. The verse survives? a period of 6K years to surface twice as Jesus’ refuting the Pharisees’ questions about divorcing their wives and a third time as Paul’s comparison to Jesus and the church and the husband’s agape for his wife. But always in the context of the design for marriage in the beginning (Gen.2:24)

    ….to be continued….

    (my apologies for breaking my comments into “pieces” but it’s due to time constraints on my part.)


  229. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Robert: That’s why we have to do the hard work of hermeneutics and especially to recognize our own biases. To be honest, one of the reasons I moved from egalitarianism to a more complementarian view is that the egalitarian view is nearly impossible to find historically. It coincides with the rise of twentieth century feminism and the sexual revolution. That strikes me as suspect

    One quick word about how I see this “fear mongering” using the word “feminism” to launch a tirade of examples meant to invoke negative perceptions of women who endured much criticism, adversity, struggles, even imprisonment, and often loneliness in an effort to right the wrongs of particular injustices and abuses. We should recognize and appreciate their heroic work rather than denigrate it to justify a totally subservient arrangement for women today.


  230. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    I think we need to wrap up the discussion now. Robert has outlined his position.

    -Slavery in the Bible was not a problem whatsoever.
    -Racism is not mentioned in the Bible so it is probably not a problem
    -Women should fear their husbands like they fear God.
    -Women should stay at home, tending the hearth.
    -Men should be *in authority* and women should not.
    -Anyone who doesn’t agree with this obviously *gospel* erudition needs more education.

    Got it. Disagree.

    Robert: If Jesus is God and if God inspired all of Scripture, the words of the Apostles are the words ultimately of Jesus

    The problem with this statement is the problem illustrated by your entire commentary on this blog. If the words of the Bible were so clear, we wouldn’t have disagreement. I have no problem with saying Romans and the Gospels are equal in value and authority. I do have a problem when some people, you as one example, totally understand every intent of every verse in the Bible and then expect everyone to see it precisely your way because you somehow possess superior and godly wisdom and everyone else on the planet who disagree with it are stupid.

    Such thinking is naive and indicative of the root problem. You know what ALL of it means and you attend a church which agrees with you. Your simplistic explanations regarding slavery, the role of men and women in the home, racism, authority, etc. outline clearly why there is a need for people of good will and love for the Scriptures to have places for respectful discussion.

    You don’t discuss. You pontificate. Do you not understand that many people, people who love the Lord and the Scriptures, disagree on a number of issues? That may be difficult for you and may even be threatening to your personal faith because you may need to have everything tied up with a neat little bow. That’s OK.

    God did say we are to not cause a weaker brother to stumble.That is why this conversation is going to stop. I wish you peace in your journey.