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.

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.

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.

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.

Robert,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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….:)

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.

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.

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.

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!

Ken F (aka Tweed),

Here’s one on Wade’s blog that he posted in 2014 and there was a comment in 2015, another in 2016, and today in 2018! LOL! And that topic only generated 37 comments that covered a period of 4 years!!

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2014/03/the-increasing-divorce-rate-among.html

Oh fun….

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Robert: Paul and Jesus have equal authority

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

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

truthseeker00,
leadership

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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…

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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…

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.

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 . . .

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

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.

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.

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.

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.