St. Paul’s dictum in Ephesians 5: 21, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” is commonly used by egalitarians as a nullification of what follows, rather than a summary introduction: the command for wives to be subject to their husbands as to the Lord and for husbands to love their wives as Christ, the church’s Lord, loved it and gave himself for it. This is Paul's application to married couples of a common theme of his writing, as in Philippians 2: 3f: “In humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also the interests of others.” In Eph. 5, he is applying this attitude, which in Philippians he identifies as “the mind of Christ” to the specific relation of husband and wife. The Lord gave his own illustration of this principle when he washed his disciples’ feet, emphasizing that this one who was their servant was also their Lord and Master, indicating that they (who would soon enough be lords and masters in their own courses) were to do and teach the same.
We should be careful of two mishandlings of scripture here, first of denying that the concept of “submission” applies to the relation of each Christian to every other, including husbands and wives, and second, that the character of this submission doesn’t vary with personal situation. The submission of the husband to the wife is principally that of sacrificing his prerogative of independent self-actualization (as Christ did for the church) for her good, that of the wife to the husband a submission of her will–her own prerogative of self-actualization– to his. The resulting unity in diversity are acts of faith and a great mystery, but cannot be consummated unless they are effected by two distinctly different personal kinds in the character of greater and a lesser, each of which receives the other into itself, thus partaking of and exhibiting the being of the other. Those who characterize this mutual self-giving as “mutual submission” in the sense of a something that looks exactly the same in each partner would destroy not only Christian marriage, but the bond of love in which the church is founded by the Spirit of God.
The conceptual problem they have arises from refusal, hence inability, to understand the nature of God as Trinity in which there is both perfect equality of deity and perfect hierarchy of Persons, a God whose creation, and redemption of that creation, bears the stamp of his eternal being in the ordered equality of Father, Son, and Spirit. Indeed, the same people who have been struggling so valiantly to give us egalitarian churches and marriages, that is, the nullification of marriage and church, are the ones who are now attempting to give us an egalitarian Trinity, and thus the nullification of God. Many of them call themselves Evangelicals, but their gospel isn’t Christian.
“hat of the wife to the husband a submission of her will–her own prerogative of self-actualization– to his. “
This is one of the most dangerous and unChristlike statements of all time. No human being should ever give their will over to another human being. Only Christ is pure, Holy, without blemish and capable of guiding us into maturing into the fullness of the perfect human, Christ Jesus.
>This is one of the most dangerous and unChristlike statements of all time.
If, as God says, a wife’s relationship to her husband is that of the church to Christ, what do you think that means?
Steve Hutchens: “Indeed, the same people who have been struggling so valiantly to give us egalitarian churches and marriages, that is, the nullification of marriage and church, are the ones who are now attempting to give us an egalitarian Trinity, and thus the nullification of God.“
Yow! That’s hot. Like in radioactive hot.
Having conversed with staunch egalitarians (just like you have, Steve), you know that they are “True Believers” in egalitarian Christianity. No way would they ever stipulate to the charge that they are nullifying marriage or the Church, much less nullifying God.
The reality is… is that, by and large, it’s irreconciliable differences. Very few egalitarians become biblical complementarians. Kamilla is one of the very few.
“If, as God says, a wife’s relationship to her husband is that of the church to Christ, what do you think that means?”
This is another curious statement, although I’ve heard it often enough.
“31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
I’m not sure if this is what you are referencing to, but you can see that the marriage is not mirroring Christ and the church. Rather, Christ’s love of the church is mirroring a relationship which is to be as “the two shall become one flesh”, which is a picture of human marriage.
“23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. “
You should be able to tell that Paul is talking about a wife arranging herself under her husband in a manner similar to how we as trusting believers (the church) submit (arrange ourselves under) our Messiah. It does not say that that is the totality of her relationship with her husband as you suggest. It also does not tell husbands to be Christ or savior to their wives.
Other than that I don’t know what you are inferring. but thank you for the response.
I’m no egalitarian (though I don’t see how it’s helpful to tell such they’re not Christians), but wasn’t the church wrong about slavery for almost two millennia?
Depends on what you mean by “the church.” Generally speaking, though, I’d say no.
Depends what you mean by “slavery.” And the answer is still no.
“Depends on what you mean by “the church.” Generally speaking, though, I’d say no.”
The Baptist church was wrong about their beliefs that black skinned people were meant to be slaves and keeping slaves was acceptable to God. There were Christians on both sides of that war.
The church in general has been wrong on some issues. Thankfully, we are not gods, only mere fallible humans.
It’s a poor witness to the world for Christians to be maligning other Christians because of disagreements over doctrines and interpretations. But it isn’t likely to go away since the church is full of fallible humans. The hard subjects of serving one another, submitting to one another, loving one another, supporting one another, learning humility, etc. too often take second and third place to the question of who is right and who is wrong in a persons thinking and interpretation of Scripture.
Regardless of its grammatical function, the definite article does not confer existence. What is “The Baptist Church” anyway?
“It’s a poor witness to the world for Christians to be maligning other Christians because of disagreements over doctrines and interpretations.”
Oh, the irony!
Kamilla
“And, TUAD, sorry to say, is wrong to call you an egalitarian Christian.”
Uh, my comment above wasn’t referring to TL in particular. It was really a comment to Dr. Hutchens.
Carry on.
TUAD,
I’m sorry, I misread your comment.
Kamilla
Touchstone, the journal of mere Christianity, — love the journal, but I have to stop reading the comments to blogs whenever men/women issues are addressed. In the past I read so much hyper conservative Lutheran material that went along a line such as: If XX group, does not believe YY doctrine the way it is spelled out in the Book of Concord, then clearly XX does not believe in this, or that, and thus logically they cannot believe in the incarnation, consequently, they are not Christians. This seemed to have led many laymen to really believe that only a certain brand of Lutherans plus the apostles would be found in heaven.
>What is “The Baptist Church” anyway?
The one in my town…
Messianic Jews reject a hierarchical Godhead for good reason, as it results in a denial of monotheism. If you wear hierarchical lenses, you will see hierarchy in many places it ain’t.
The solution is to take them off, that is, repent.
Don Johnson: “If you wear hierarchical lenses, you will see hierarchy in many places it ain’t.
The solution is to take them off, that is, repent.”
Don,
Did you read Steve Hutchens when he wrote: “The conceptual problem they have arises from refusal, hence inability, to understand the nature of God as Trinity in which there is both perfect equality of deity and perfect hierarchy of Persons, a God whose creation, and redemption of that creation, bears the stamp of his eternal being in the ordered equality of Father, Son, and Spirit.”
If XX group doesn’t believe YY doctrine that way it is spelled out in the Book of Concord, XX group isn’t Lutheran.
The idea of equality and hierarchy cannot exist in the same relation at the same time. There is one will of God, God’s will, it simply makes no Biblical sense to claim the Godhead has different wills such that one is subordinate to another. It is true that the Word, while incarnate, had a human will as well and he submitted this to God’s will.
Another way the Bible expresses the idea of the plural unity of the Godhead is in perfect mutual submission as an expression of love.
In other words, regardless of the fancy big words, what the original poster wrote is not aligned with what the whole Bible teaches.
“If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
Seriously?
Brief Note on Mutual Submission
Hmmmmmm….
I don’t see the Biblical Patriarchalists submitting to the Egalitarians and I don’t see the Egalitarians submitting to the Biblical Patriarchalists.
There’s no mutual submission on that score….
So on a positive note, given the absence of agreement, at least we have some helpful clarity about the nature of the strong disagreement. To wit:
Steve Hutchens: “Indeed, the same people who have been struggling so valiantly to give us egalitarian churches and marriages, that is, the nullification of marriage and church, are the ones who are now attempting to give us an egalitarian Trinity, and thus the nullification of God. Many of them call themselves Evangelicals, but their gospel isn’t Christian.”
vs.
Don Johnson: “In other words, regardless of the fancy big words, what the original poster wrote is not aligned with what the whole Bible teaches.”
Steve Hutchens always makes perfect sense to me. Why do we resist hierarchy so strongly in church (and in the Godhead) when almost no human organization exists without it? Businesses have CEOs, the nation has a president, the military has generals, colleges have administrators, people have cats, etc. Why should a family not have a head, as well? Mutual submission (in the sense egalitarians understand it) works right up to the point where one spouse says “let’s spend a thousand dollars doing this” and the other says, “no, we have to save it.” And the vote comes out 1 to 1.
Like it or not, there has to be a decider. And one who either supports the decision, or fights the relationship, which is the other option. Enough fighting will destroy it.
And in the case of the Godhead, I keep reading that Jesus did nothing except what the Father willed him to do. So perfectly that, when you looked at Jesus, you saw the Father. Yet he was truly tempted, and thus could have disobeyed. Submission means nothing to a slave, who MUST submit. But it means everything to a son, who CAN submit.
Michael, I’m with you completely, except for one minor detail — people don’t have cats, cats have people. :)
”Did you read Steve Hutchens when he wrote: “The conceptual problem they have arises from refusal, hence inability, to understand the nature of God as Trinity in which there is both perfect equality of deity and perfect hierarchy of Persons, a God whose creation, and redemption of that creation, bears the stamp of his eternal being in the ordered equality of Father, Son, and Spirit.”
Athenasius had no trouble understanding the nature of God as Trinity, yet without hierarchy.
“Why do we resist hierarchy so strongly in church (and in the Godhead) when almost no human organization exists without it? Businesses have CEOs, the nation has a president, the military has generals, colleges have administrators, people have cats, etc.”
Hierarchies in themselves are not bad. They are needed in the world because the world has wicked people in it and always will.
What is bad is when people determine that only people with certain physical characteristics can be leaders (even if they do not have the internal moral character or skills for it) and all who don’t have those certain physical characteristics must be followers and yield to the decisions of the others.
Ontological value does not equate to roles vis a vis authority. They are coequal, but they are not cofunctional. Lazy thinking is no one’s friend, least of all yours.
No serious patriarchal hierarchialist believes this.
Specific comments deleted at the editor’s direction for violating the ground rules.
“Lazy thinking is no one’s friend, least of all yours.”
I’ve actually never heard anyone refer to Athenasius’s writing in those terms. Interesting.
Fascinatingly enough, I was referring to Don’s interpretation that showed a gross use of eisegesis and a lack of critical thinking, not Athanasius himself.
“I’ve actually never heard anyone refer to Athenasius’s writing in those terms. Interesting.”
TL, Michael was certainly not referring to St. Athansius’ writings as lazy, rather he was referring to your interpretation. You should perhaps read more carefully before accusing someone of attacking such a great saint.
“TL, Michael was certainly not referring to St. Athansius’ writings as lazy, rather he was referring to your interpretation. “
John, I didn’t give an interpretation. I just quoted pertinent sections. I can quote the whole thing if you like. But you can find it on google.
“Fascinatingly enough, I was referring to Don’s interpretation that showed a gross use of eisegesis and a lack of critical thinking, not Athanasius himself.”
Michael, you said you were referring to Don? Sorry, since you quoted part of Athenasius and addressed it to me, I thought you were commenting on Athenasius. That was a bit confusing. :)
At any rate you will not find Athenasius differentiating between functionality and equality.
Why would he? He wasn’t combating feminist egalitarianism, he was combating anti-Trinitarianism. More importantly, the idea that Athanasius wrote the Creed didn’t come about until the late middle ages, and the creed as such probably didn’t originate in Egypt.
Frankly, the Apostles, the fathers after them, the early bishops…no one in the early church testified to the kind of gross leveling of human identity that the likes of you and Don are promoting. I’m glad after 2000 years of church history (and 1500 years of Jewish history from which it is born) that we FINALLY have wise people pointing us back to the God Who said that the wife’s husband “shall rule over you.” [/eye roll]
“People with certain physical characteristics…” TL, do you honestly think the only difference between men and women is their sexual organs?
“gross leveling of human identity”
Perhaps, you’ve been making some assumptions without warrant. Please quote what I have said that is “gross leveling of human identity”.
“we FINALLY have wise people pointing us back to the God Who said that the wife’s husband “shall rule over you.”
Ahh, so you like the idea of husbandly rulership. OK. Perhaps, you can explain to me where God told husbands to rule over their wives.
“”People with certain physical characteristics…” TL, do you honestly think the only difference between men and women is their sexual organs?”
No, I don’t. However, if you have done any research on the subject of male and female differences, you will find that the only firm universal differences are physical. Other differences seem to be on a sliding scale influenced by culture, personality, education and other outside influences. In the same way that all men are not alike, all women also are not alike.
TL: “Perhaps, you can explain to me where God told husbands to rule over their wives.”
You should read or re-read the beginning of this post by Dr. Hutchens whereby he mentions Ephesians 5. Let me provide the rest of the verses that follow verse 21 and are *not* to be negated by it.
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
TL, the answer to your question of “where” is that it’s in Scripture.
TUAD, it is not in the Scriptures you provided. One must read it into the metaphor, and by doing so leave out the other part of the metaphor.
Do you have any Scriptures where the husband is specifically told to rule over his wife?
“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18)
You mean the metaphor of the wife being to her husband as the church is to Christ? Wow, talk about laziness…though, here, I’ve answered this question before–with Don no less!
This discussion is a long one, but it might address most of your concerns: http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2008/08/sanctified-inco/comments/page/1/
As for verses:
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16
I’ve heard comps ask if there was any Scripture that specifically tells husbands to submit to their wives. It’s a reasonable question.
So now I ask, is there any Scripture that specifically tells husbands to rule over their wives. Its a reasonable question.
sed et uerbum missum ut homo fieret quia non secundum imparem potestatem uel substantiam uel aliquid quod in eo patri non sit aequale missus est, sed secundum id quod filius a patre est, non pater a filio. Verbum enim patris est filius, quod est sapientia eius dicitur.
I understand Augustine as saying here that there was no inequality between the Son and the Father in authority, or substance or any other thing, but that the Son is of the Father and not the Father of the Son. But Augustine still very clearly says that there is no difference in authority between father and son.
Q: “TL, do you honestly think the only difference between men and women is their sexual organs?”
TL: “No, I don’t. However, if you have done any research on the subject of male and female differences, you will find that the only firm universal differences are physical. Other differences seem to be on a sliding scale influenced by culture, personality, education and other outside influences. In the same way that all men are not alike, all women also are not alike.”
TL, everything you wrote after the ‘No, I don’t’ nullifies that and implies ‘Yes, I do.’ Which is it? And by the way, it is only a very short step from acceptance of this sort of male/female radical equality to acceptance of homosexuality. The one logically follows on the other.
I do believe that the talk here about husbands “ruling over” their wives is ill-advised. The Pauline teaching overrides this statement which is, after all, a pronouncement related to the curse of the fall. It is not necessary to resort to that idea in order to combat the error of egalitarianism.
“I understand Augustine as saying here that there was no inequality between the Son and the Father in authority, or substance or any other thing, but that the Son is of the Father and not the Father of the Son.”
One must, however, maintain the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father, even in Augustine’s schema of the Trinity. The Father is the fount of divinity, the “one source,” which is what the word monarchy means. And it’s incoherent to say that such a monarchy, indeed patriarchy, isn’t a hierarchy.
If hierarchy is present even in the Godhead, then it stands to reason that it’s not an aberrance among us mortals, but instead is an inevitable feature of human life. Yet hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism, as the Pauline teaching indicates. Also, Christ said that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over their subjects, but that in the Church “it shall not be so with you.” Hence, despite there being a definite authority structure in the home, the Church, the local parish, etc., authoritarianism is excluded despite the presence of a hierarchy, just like it is in the Godhead.
TL,
Your question has been asked and answered. Just because you don’t like the answer or don’t accept the answer doesn’t mean that you haven’t been answered.
Pretending that you haven’t been answered isn’t polite.
Here’s a both delightful and serious post (and ensuing thread) that meshes quite well with Dr. Hutchens’ post. It’s titled “Mutual Submission is bunk…” and here’s an excerpt:
Foolish Christian: “The Bible tells me to submit to my husband.”
Wise Christian: “Yes, but the Bible tells your husband to submit to you, also.”
Foolish Christian: “Oh, you mean in 1Corinthians where it talks about me having authority over my husband’s body, sexually?”
Wise Christian: “Well yes, there’s that; but also in Ephesians 5 where it commands us all to submit to one another.”
Foolish Christian: “But that ‘submit to one another’ isn’t a command for my husband to submit to me, but for me to submit to my husband. Look at the rest of the passage–it tells us how we’re to submit to one another: Wives to husbands, and then children to parents and slaves to masters. That’s what it’s talking about when it tells us to submit to one another; not everyone to everyone else, but every believer in whatever subordinate position God has placed him, to the superior God has made him subordinate to. It’s not willy-nilly, but ordered submission.”
Wise Christian: “No, you don’t get it. ‘Submit to one another’ is the heading of that entire section, it’s what holds together everything that follows. Lots of Bibles separate it from the rest of the passage, but it shouldn’t be separated. It’s the principle through which we’re to interpret the rest. Look at the rest of the passage; it doesn’t just give commands to wives, but also to husbands; not just children, but also fathers; not just slaves, but also masters. A wife isn’t the only one given a command, but also her husband. Both husband and wife are to do what Scripture says: They are to ‘submit to one another.’”
Foolish Christian: “You think that’s saying a wife should submit to her husband? I don’t get it. If that’s what it’s saying, why doesn’t it say it? But it never anywhere tells husbands to submit to their wives–only wives to submit to their husbands.”
Wise Christian: “What do you mean it doesn’t tell husbands to submit to their wives? I already showed you where it says it. Right there at the beginning. ‘Submit to one another.’ That’s where it says it!”
Foolish Christian: “But that’s ridiculous! If we’re to take that verse as a command for every Christian to submit to every other Christian, what you’re really saying is that every Christian in every relationship is equally a superior and a subordinate. And that’s pretty convenient since it really amounts to saying that no one’s a subordinate. The way you make it out to be, there’s no authority at all and no Christian has to submit to anyone!”
Wise Christian: “Absolutely not! I never said there’s no authority! All I said is that the wife isn’t the only one who’s supposed to submit in the marriage relationship. Her husband’s supposed to submit, too!”
Foolish Christian: “Well yeah. Duh! Of course he has to submit. He’s got a boss at work, a cop on the highway, the IRS April 15th, the pastor preaching, the elders correcting. Yeah he has to submit–all the time! I never said he doesn’t have to submit. Everyone has to submit! What I was saying was that my husband shouldn’t submit to me, his wife. That’s wrong!”
Wise Christian: “What do you mean ‘That’s wrong?’ That’s not wrong! It’s right! Read the Bible: It says right there at the beginning, ‘Submit to one another.’”
Foolish Christian: “Yes, ‘submit to one another’ by wives submitting to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters–those are the one anothers we’re to submit to!”
Wise Christian: “I can’t believe you. The words are as plain as the nose on the end of your face, but you won’t see them! It says right there, ‘submit to one another.’ One another! Don’t you get it, you dolt?”
Foolish Christian: “Well if I’m a dolt, you’re a rebel. But let me ask you a question. If my husband’s supposed to submit to me, does that go for children and slaves, too? Does the “submit to one another’ mean parents are supposed to submit to their children and masters to their slaves? I mean, that’s ridiculous!”
Wise Christian: “Of course that’s not what it means!”
Foolish Christian: “Why not? Seems clear enough to me. It says ‘submit to one another.’”
Wise Christian: “Well, what kind of an idiot says parents should submit to their children and masters to their slaves! Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anything about parents or masters–only husbands.”
Foolish Christian: “Yeah, I know you never said anything about them, but why not? I don’t see how you get that husbands should submit to their wives from the text and stop there. If husbands are to submit to their wives, it’s got to be–it absolutely HAS to be–fathers and mothers submitting to their children and masters to their slaves, too! Can’t you see it?”
Wise Christian: “Don’t be ridiculous! You know very well what I mean!”
Foolish Christian: “I’m not being ridiculous. I asked you a question and you’re not answering it!”
Wise Christian: “Why should I? You’re being ridiculous! Whoever heard of a mother submitting to her baby? Are you a nincompoop?”
Foolish Christian: “Sure, I’m a fool; that’s fine with me. I don’t need your kind of wisdom.”
“One must, however, maintain the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father, even in Augustine’s schema of the Trinity. The Father is the fount of divinity, the “one source,” which is what the word monarchy means. And it’s incoherent to say that such a monarchy, indeed patriarchy, isn’t a hierarchy.”
So, for Augustine, kephale means “source” and not “authority.” Is that what you are saying?
If mutual submission is bunk, then how should we interpret Galatians 5:13, that we are to be slavse to one another?
“For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”
Christ set the model of service. Is he not our King? Or are you such a committed egalitarian that Christ is not your King, just your bud?
1. Masters do submit to slaves and parents to kids. This does not mean they obey them, but they are to serve them if believers in ways that Paul says. So TUAD’s example falls apart, all 6 examples in the Eph5-6 pericope are submission examples as they are all subordinate to Eph 5:21. The SPECIFICS of what submission looks like differs.
2. Jesus was and is MANY things, savior, Lord, rabbi, Jew, apostle, prophet, lamb, etc. Just because Jesus is used as a SERVING example in Eph 5 does not mean ANY of the other aspects of who Jesus was can be imported into the text. Paul is telling husbands to serve their wives, which was a radical command in that culture, but some want to convert it into lead their wives, but they must be resisted.
3. It is only by discarding some of the Biblical revelation that anyone might even think there is a hierarchy in the Godhead. I choose to accept all of it and I invite others to do so also.
Sue: “If mutual submission is bunk, then how should we interpret Galatians 5:13, that we are to be slavse to one another?”
Sue, is it safe to assume that you are the same Suzanne McCarthy that commented in the “Mutual Submission is Bunk…” thread that I linked to earlier?
**So, for Augustine, kephale means “source” and not “authority.” Is that what you are saying?**
No, what I’m saying is that the bugaboo here is not what the egalitarians are making it out to be; it’s not hierarchy that’s the problem, it’s unjust hierarchy or unjust exercise of a just hierarchy. Feminists and other egalitarians would be on firmer ground if they challenged abuses of hierarchy rather than hierarchy per se.
“It is only by discarding some of the Biblical revelation that anyone might even think there is a hierarchy in the Godhead.”
You need to take this up with the Church Fathers. They’d disagree, methinks.
Rob:”TL, everything you wrote after the ‘No, I don’t’ nullifies that and implies ‘Yes, I do.’ Which is it? And by the way, it is only a very short step from acceptance of this sort of male/female radical equality to acceptance of homosexuality. The one logically follows on the other.”
No it doesn’t. It may be that you are only capable of thinking in black and white. Life is simply not black and white. If you had done any serious research on male and female differences, you would find it difficult to tie down any specific differences to all women, or all men. While there are differences they are not the same differences for all women or all men. There is a sliding scale. And then the problems are that we have influences that contribute. It is impossible to separate all of that into solid immoveable differences such as what there are in the physical, although there are other differences. In the end all, I suspect that the differences that are there are simply not the type of differences that you would like there to be. Just a guess. Perhaps, you might put forward what some of the differences you think are immoveable and the same for all women and men besides the obvious physical differences.
And the evil rumor that if one believes in equal value, opportunities, education, achievements, etc. for women that will lead them to believe in the same for homosexuals (which is sin) is just so obtuse and foolish it is briefly hysterical.
Rob: “I do believe that the talk here about husbands “ruling over” their wives is ill-advised. The Pauline teaching overrides this statement which is, after all, a pronouncement related to the curse of the fall.”
I agree. Perhaps, TUAD will note your statement since it is coming from a fellow comp.
Bit of a pithy statement. I wouldn’t say that Christ is our King, although its certainly OK to think so. Christ is our Lord and God and Messiah, much more than king. As well, yes He is our friend and brother. Christ said that He no longer calls us slaves but friend.
Here is the kicker in crazy thinking from the infamous Bayly brothers comment section:
” To expand on a point, “one another” does not always mean “each to every other reciprocally.” Yes, it may mean this, but contexts usually indicate when the sense is “some to others.”e
When we are commanded to love one another or pray for one another or submit to one another, or carry one another’s burdens, etc, it does indeed mean that we are to seek to do this to every Christian, not just some.
Sue:”Should we not as Christians, yield to one another? When we love our next one as ourself, when we submit to our next one, to the degree determined by that person’s gift, we fulfill the law of Christ.”
Thank you for some sanity on this subject.
More crazy thinking:
”In all human affairs, whether inside or outside the church, someone has to have veto power in the end–otherwise there’s anarchy and inertia. You want society to be like the comic sketch where two people can’t walk through a door because they’re forever mutually submitting to one another.”
In society we have government because humanity is evil. When the veto power is assigned to one half the race, do we then assume that the other half is inherently evil and needs governing? Mutual submission isn’t about letting people get away with things. It is a law given to Christians that embodies the whole of God’s Law, similar to loving God first and our neighbor as ourselves. Most are able to understand that loving one’s neighbor is not equal to letting them get away with murder.
I just wanted to thank Rob G for his reply to TL’s comment on my query to him. Rob, you covered all the bases and did a better job than I would have. Thanks.
>I wouldn’t say that Christ is our King
Enough said.
“And the evil rumor that if one believes in equal value, opportunities, education, achievements, etc. for women that will lead them to believe in the same for homosexuals (which is sin) is just so obtuse and foolish it is briefly hysterical.”
First of all, radical egalitarianism isn’t just about “equal value, opportunities, education, achievements, etc. for women.” The vast majority of complementarians, traditionalists, etc., believe in those things. Let’s not fog the real issue, which is the notion that there’s no real difference between men and women other than the biological, and that any other differences are culturally determined, and the concomitant belief that male headship is some sort of artifact of patriarchal culture and thus is to be rejected by modern Christians.
Re: Homosexuality, witness the course of almost all the mainline denominations in the U.S. First you get egalitarian thinking (usually expressed by the approval of woman ministers) and it’s not too long before you’re calling God ‘mother’ and blessing same-sex “marriages.”
Thanks, but no thanks.
First of all, Rob, no one is discussing radical egalitarianism whatever that is. Neither are we discussing feminism. And I’m not associated with either. We are discussing mutual submission.
“Let’s not fog the real issue, which is the notion that there’s no real difference between men and women other than the biological, and that any other differences are culturally determined, and the concomitant belief that male headship is some sort of artifact of patriarchal culture and thus is to be rejected by modern Christians.”
Please quote someone that said there are no real differences between men and women other than biological. It does not good to try to paint someones words into what you want them to be saying instead of trying to understand what they are actually saying.
The biological is inextricably linked to everything you might imagine. The thin layer of body fat that women can never get rid of that enables them to bear children affects their perception of the world in a very literal physical sense. The varying degrees of body chemistry affects the behavior of the nervous system, including the activity of the brain–where neuron connections are made, and thus how information is processed (and how reactions are triggered, e.g. emotion).
And even so, there is more qualification to being a bishop or priest or elder than merely being male. Paul writes to Timothy that only males having certain qualities are qualified. (See Titus.) If you can tell me how a woman can be a “husband of but one wife”, I’d love to hear it.
Certain people are called to serve God in certain ways. Take that up with the Lord your Maker, the one God and Father of us all.
Don Johnson gave an excellent example of what I was referring to as “the conceptual problem” when he wrote: “The idea of equality and hierarchy cannot exist in the same relation at the same time.” This is the center of the matter, and one cannot understand why egalitarians argue as they do unless he understands what they think simply “cannot exist.” To the egalitarian–and his hierarchalist counterpart who commits the equal and opposite error of denying the Divine Persons’ equality–these relationships are contradictory.
But orthodox Christianity demands full acceptance of many contradictions, and consigns the denial of either side’s affirmation to heresy. Equality and hierarchy in God and man is only one (or, viewed alternatively, two) of them, and stands with other impossibilities such as the threeness and oneness of God, the Person who is fully God and fully man, human free will and divine predestination, virginal conception, justification by faith and works, bread and wine which is the body and blood of Christ, the receiving of life in its losing, the perfection of strength in weakness, the killing of the One who is Life, resurrection of the dead, and numerous others.
In Orthodoxy Chesterton speaks of “the morbid logician who seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious,” concluding that, “The cross, though it has at its heart a collision and contradiction, can extend its arms forever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox at its center, it can grow without changing.”
Whenever one is dealing with the kind heresy Don–and the scholars who seize upon passages from the Fathers which teach with great power (against the Arians) the essential equality of the Divine persons, while they “deal with” the passages and the Fathers that teach the monarchy of the Father–an illusion is created: that those who are teaching sound doctrine are themselves heretics because they are called upon to defend the side of the truth that the heretic is denying. With respect to the instant issue they appear to be “hierarchalists” standing against egalitarians because, in the face of egalitarianism, they defend hierarchy.
An egalitarian, however, is not a person who affirms the equality of man and woman or the equal Deity of the Persons of the Godhead, for all orthodox Christians hold to these. Rather, he is someone who denies the primacy of the man or the Father in created or uncreated relations, someone who says “The idea of equality and hierarchy cannot exist in the same relation at the same time.”
Now, do we deny these people are Christians? If that means do we presume to know and proclaim the destiny of their souls, of course we do not. But we can state, as I think Kamilla did in a post that was removed but should not have been, that so far as they are egalitarians they are not Christians is inescapable logic, and not of the morbid variety.
Egalitarianism has proven to be a particularly viral heresy, moving quickly through the tissue of Christian doctrine from anthropology to theology proper on the strength of feminism’s inroads in the culture and the acculturated churches. It is necessary to resist it with strong words, and as long as they are true, in my judgment they can be as strong as anyone cares to make them.
”The biological is inextricably linked to everything you might imagine. The thin layer of body fat that women can never get rid of that enables them to bear children affects their perception of the world in a very literal physical sense. The varying degrees of body chemistry affects the behavior of the nervous system, including the activity of the brain–where neuron connections are made, and thus how information is processed (and how reactions are triggered, e.g. emotion).”
Agreed and more. Yet, with the influences of family, personality, education, nationality and a slew of other things, not all women respond the same.
”Paul writes to Timothy that only males having certain qualities are qualified. (See Titus.) If you can tell me how a woman can be a “husband of but one wife”, I’d love to hear it.”
The Grk. Phrase is an idiom, which expresses a moral quality. Paul is not making a physical requirement here, in the midst of all the moral and character requirements. You can see it for yourself if you note all the requirements.
more in a bit….. back to work!
TUAD,
Is it safe to assume that you don’t have an answer to my question about Augustine and Christ’s equality with God in both substance and authority.
“Sue, is it safe to assume that you are the same Suzanne McCarthy that commented in the “Mutual Submission is Bunk…” thread that I linked to earlier?”
was followed by…
“TUAD,
Is it safe to assume that you don’t have an answer to my question about Augustine and Christ’s equality with God in both substance and authority.”
How is your question related to mine? I asked you first.
Steve Hutchens: “Egalitarianism has proven to be a particularly viral heresy, moving quickly through the tissue of Christian doctrine from anthropology to theology proper on the strength of feminism’s inroads in the culture and the acculturated churches. It is necessary to resist it with strong words, and as long as they are true, in my judgment they can be as strong as anyone cares to make them.”
Don’t hold back Steve. Heresy is a strong (enough) word to use to describe egalitarianism.
The Trinity is of one substance (Gr. ousia). Every confessing Christian since Nicea has attested to that, and most of the fathers before (arguing against the Arian heresy). The Cappadocian fathers insisted and elaborated on the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, which was a fairly obvious distinction prior to and leading up to Nicea.
The authority isn’t about the sort of authority one wields within the relationship. Two parents hold the same authority over their children, and thus are co-equal in their authority. And yet they cannot be co-equal in their own relationship in terms of authority, for disagreements have no resolution if the vote is 1-1. One must submit to the other for the relationship as such to work. It is unfortunate that we must talk of God in terms of metaphors, but this is the a clear distinction that is important. The idea that the Son does not submit to the Father is heresy, and it runs contrary to Philippians 2 and the scene of Christ in the Garden.
Brief apologies: the Garden should not be capitalized, as it tends to imply Eden. It is meant, of course, as a reference to Gethsemane.
What a shame that there are so many Christians today that feel free to malign and accuse other Christians they don’t even know, of horrible things. The Bayley Brothers have done an excellent job of setting such a standard. Perhaps, they think that in the end God will just forgive them and everything will be fine. However, I suspect that such unChristlike attitudes and actions will influence ones present life in negative ways. Certainly, such an attitude quenches the Holy Spirit’s activities.
” And yet they cannot be co-equal in their own relationship in terms of authority, for disagreements have no resolution if the vote is 1-1.”
I have found that there are better ways to make decisions than votes and better ways of settling disagreements than one person always ‘winning’. Talking out the problem, and coming to something both can live with is one step in bringing two people into unity, real unity.
TL: “Talking out the problem, and coming to something both can live with is one step in bringing two people into unity, real unity.”
When it comes to false teachers and their false teaching, I don’t see the OT Prophets, the Apostles, or Jesus doing what you’re suggesting above.
For example, Steve Hutchens has defined and declared the problem: The problem is that egalitarianism is heresy.
Can you, TL, live with that? Can you talk it out with him so that you can move one step closer into unity, real unity, with Steve Hutchens? How long will you talk with someone who staunchly insists that egalitarianism is heresy, and so by logical extension, those who promote egalitarianism are heretics?
Christians who believe in Biblical equality are not heretics.
Having a marriage of two equals who discuss issues and decide together is not heresy.
And you are a fool to think that there is no issue that actually might not have an appropriate compromise. Sometimes there is no compromise on a given issue. And if you think it’s “one person always ‘winning’”, then you are all the more a fool. You have set up a dynamic where the man and woman are in constant competition. That is disgusting.
I challenge you to find a complementarian (or even a patriarchalist) who doesn’t believe in two spouses discussing things.
Egalitarianism has its root in Enlightenment thought. I find it interesting that those Christians (pomo’s, ‘Emergents’, etc.) who regularly bash the Enlightenment in other regards don’t apply that critique equally to this facet of modernist ideology, but instead swallow it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, and tackle box.
“I have found that there are better ways to make decisions than votes and better ways of settling disagreements than one person always ‘winning’. Talking out the problem, and coming to something both can live with is one step in bringing two people into unity, real unity.”
Very true, and exactly why such a caricature of complementarianism is ridiculous. The decisional buck has to stop somewhere. In the relationship between parents and children it stops with the parents. In the relationship between pastor and parishioners it stops with the pastor (in most regards). In the relationship between husband and wife it stops with the husband (again, in most regards).
Egalitarian democracy is no less an error in the Church and the family than it is in the political realm. Hierarchy is an inescapable concept; modernist levellers who attempt to eradicate it are in the position of those who’d try to sink a beach ball in water. It has a funny way of escaping one’s grasp and surfacing again.
Of course it can be sunk by force. Egalitarianism can lead just as quickly to gas chambers and gulags as it led to guillotines.
TL: “Having a marriage of two equals who discuss issues and decide together is not heresy.”
Might have been something that Satan said to God.
“I have found that there are better ways to make decisions than votes and better ways of settling disagreements than one person always ‘winning’. Talking out the problem, and coming to something both can live with is one step in bringing two people into unity, real unity.”
Again, this might have been what Satan suggested to God. God did not talk out the problem; instead He rejected this suggestion of what “real unity” is and cast Satan out of Heaven and into Hell.
So much for egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is a drug for the soul. Just say no.
One of the practical reasons I have found for frankly applying the word “heresy” to egalitarianism (beyond the fundamental one–that it is a heresy in classic form) is because I believe the consideration of the matter in the churches has now proceeded far enough for this to be evident even to fairly inattentive observers, who may now be able to perceive the reasonableness of anti-egalitarian arguments against it.
I wish to do what I can to make it evident to people who are considering cooperating with the egalitarian program for the churches to understand that there are reasonable, “biblical Christians” out there who consider it heresy–that one cannot be a “good Evangelical” or a “good Catholic” and an egalitarian, so that casting one’s lot with them may be a weighty and portentous thing that needs to be considered carefully for the good of the soul, and that those who persist in presenting biblical arguments (always the devil’s strongest suit: “hath God not said?”; “it is written”) for it may possibly be among the deceived and the deceiving, no matter how pious they sound.
An Observation ………
There is something that I have noticed in online discussion with complementarians. Many Comp Christians appear to feel no need to respect fellow Christians who disagree with some of the comp dialogue. It does not seem to bother the conscience at all to call other Christians “not Christian” or fools or heretics and combinations of same. It’s almost like a hatred. Interestingly, I remember when it blossomed into the freedom there is in it now. It was several years ago after a conference. Many came away from that conference believing they had the freedom to call other Christians heretics and other more nasty names if they didn’t believe in gender hierarchy as Biblical. Some of the more prominent leaders (a handful) backed off from it. Now it appears to run from the leadership down and any comp thinks it acceptable to call Christians who believe in Biblical equality any kind of disassociating vile name and to approach discussion with us in a harsh aggressive manner.
I’ve often wondered what anyone hoped to accomplish by this. Does it give God honor? IMO it is an exceedingly poor witness to the world. I’ve never been led to talk to an unbeliever like that. It also can stop discussion. And it frees the maligner from having to actually listen to what is being said. Instead, one can just pick pieces out of sentences in order to use them to slam the speaker. In that way one doesn’t have to pay any heed at all to what is really being said.
A couple of quick notes TL:
First, if you honestly believe that any conference in the last decade has allowed one group of Christians to call the other heretics you really are missing two-thousand years of history. After all, we didn’t invent the word in my generation.
Second, you state that, “Life is simply not black and white,” which is of course, to a Christian, bunk. That you may not know what is black and white is fine. We are after all fallible. However, yes, there is a wrong way to stir your tea.
Third, you have failed to address any points regarding the monarchy of the Father.
Nick, if I might point out a massive failure of your analogy right at the get go–of course there is no wrong way to stir your tea. As for the rest, no doubt Christians and other believers enjoy (sometimes) casting words like “heresy” and “idolator” and “satan” and all the rest at their close friends, near neighbors, co-religionists and of course always and eternally at women and their defenders. Its not really something to look back on 2000 years of history and rejoice over. You might want to remember that the founder of your own religion was, of course, a heretic pursuing an unorthodox set of religious beliefs within someone else’s montheistic tradition and that when his followers (very much against his teachings) strongly applied their version of orthodoxy they ended up killing their own fellow christians over and over again as well as their own jewish bretheren. Really, I started out calm but I tell you to your head that your post is disgusting.
aimai
TL,
I would likewise observe that you made the first attack by beginning the discussion with the following accusation:
“This is one of the most dangerous and unChristlike statements of all time.”
If you read carefully, you will note that the most careful participants in this conversation are simply turning that accusation upon your positions. They may be right; they may be wrong; but they are doing no worse than responding with the same level of discourse that you initiated. The sauce that is good for the goose is likewise good for the gander.
Granting that there have been some less charitable responses to you, I would again point out that in accusing your interlocutors (implicitly or otherwise) of opposing equal education, etc. for women and of viewing the relationship between a husband and wife as a matter of winning and losing you also have failed to live up to a dialogue in good faith. I don’t think those who oppose you are the only ones not listening to the other side!
Also, I may be wrong, but I suspect that most of use have no more idea who the “Bayley Brothers” are than you have of what “radical feminism” is. It sounds like a circus to me, and perhaps, in a sense, they both are. In any case, if you are assuming that they are the guiding lights of your opposition in this discussion, you may find it beneficial to drop that assumption.
Nick,
A good Christian knows that while believing in Christ as Savior and Messiah is seemingly easy enough, and believing that Scripture is true even when we don’t understand if fully, life is much more complicated and mysterious than our finite minds can comprehend.
The fact that Christ is God, always existed, was participant in creation, etc. and yet Eloheim took of Himself and put His ‘seed’ into a virgin woman who birthed Christ, the God/Man, should be enough to show us how little we know of life.
As to your claim to the monarchy of the Father, would you please explain more. Are you claiming that God the Father has all final authority and is greater than the Son (YHWH) or the eternal Ruach.
“and yet Eloheim took of Himself and put His ‘seed’ into a virgin woman”
Straight out of the Arian, if not the Gnostic, libretto.
TL, Amai:
One does not simply call people heretics; the word itself simply means one who is cut off from the traditional body of the Church by their belief in a teaching contrary to its unified thought. To a Catholic, I’m a heretic as a Lutheran. The fact that 2000 years of Church history has no agreement with your positions makes the heresy apparent across all lines. It’s not an insult; it’s a descriptive statement. The fact that you have the nerve to call it uncharitable when to the complementarian/patriarchalist crowd you aren’t just disagreeing with us, but fundamentally undermining the truth of God revealed through, in and with the written Word and its human Incarnation (that is Christ) is the caterwauling of a wounded feline trapped in a corner, the incessant whining of a failed militant campaign with no way out, or, put less sensationally, it is an ad hominem attack that in no way engages the arguments.
So you’re feelings are hurt? I’m sure Peter took it so well when Jesus said “Get thee behind me, Satan.” Frankly, there’s a fitting response here:
Heresy is as heresy does–Get thee behind me, Satan.
I wash my hands of this postmodernist madness.
Fortunately, complementarianism will eventually rot on the dunghill along with other ancient and archaic and anachronistic ways of imposing false but strongly-held views of males and females on society and religion.
The Orthodox, Catholic and Episcopalian churches (represented by Touchstone and its writers and readers – “mere” Christians all) and their male-hierarchical repressions will exist and subsist in physical numbers, but also in spiritual apathy and weakness.
Ivory-tower theologians and pontificating pastors and blogging faux-philosophers of religion will please and placate their colleagues as they preach and parade the complementarian pabulum, but the man and woman in the church and in the world will give them mere lip service and simply drop their dollar in the collection plate before going back to life as usual.
Whereas those Christians who take up the cause of Christ without regard to the gender of the person displaying the anointing and power and gifts of the Holy Spirit will prevail over the world, the flesh and the devil.
” The fact that 2000 years of Church history has no agreement with your positions”
What exactly are you saying that of my “positions” church history as no agreement with? What truth am I undermining. You’ve made a ton of false claims about what I’m saying…. so if all of your twisting of my words is supposed to reveal to me something I’ve got wrong, you haven’t done it. All you have revealed is an inability to hear someone who disagrees that women should give their whole persona, their will, over to another fallible human being, their husband, for life. And I do not find that concept in Scripture.
but fundamentally undermining the truth of God revealed through, in and with the written Word and its human Incarnation (that is Christ)”
And that I am not doing. I love the lord God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. If it were not for Jesus Christ reaching out to me and saving my soul, I would be dead a few times over. Life without Christ as Lord, Master, Messiah, Healer, Deliverer, God, friend and brother would be worth nothing. I have studied His word for 40 years and am amazed at the awesomeness of God. God has only brought me goodness all of my life.
And no Michael, you have not hurt my feelings. Rather you have hurt the testimony of Jesus to the world by railing false accusations against your own brethren.
I am willing to be called a heretic, God is my judge.
One of the reasons I repented from non-egalism is that I saw it made me, a male, priviledged; and that such a concept is foreign to the Kingdom which deals with spiritual matters.
I thought I posted this, but I don’t see it…..
” TL,
I would likewise observe that you made the first attack by beginning the discussion with the following accusation: ”This is one of the most dangerous and unChristlike statements of all time.”
LOL good point, TIMC. While I do strongly believe that advocating the giving of one’s will over to another for life, is indeed crazy dangerous for both, I could have picked some things I found enlightening first. Good observation and thank you!
“Whereas those Christians who take up the cause of Christ without regard to the gender of the person displaying the anointing and power and gifts of the Holy Spirit will prevail over the world, the flesh and the devil.”
Boy, someone’s been drinking the Gnostic kool-aid.
Rob G:
The kingdom of God is not a matter of words, but of power.
You can label it “gnostic” or goobledy-gock or whatever, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your anemic, slavish, misogynistic dehumanizing patriarchal hierarchalism is already antiquarian, elitist and dead in the water. Enjoy your life sharing your “enlightened” views with your other plantation-running theologically-effete snobs.
Rob,
I’ll join your plantation anytime!
It is a joy to read you and the other good brothers here defending the Faith which was once, for all, delivered to the saints. It gives me strength.
Kamilla
>> While I do strongly believe that advocating the giving of one’s will over to another for life, is indeed crazy dangerous for both <<
Indeed, TL! Submitting one’s will to another is always a risky business. Christ called it “counting the cost” and warned against all who would take up the yoke of obedience carelessly. Those who would not renounce themselves completely (“yea, and his own life also”) were not fit to be his disciples. But of course, it is important to remember that “crazy dangerous” is not incompatible with “exceedingly good.”
As for the “for both” part of your comment, I do not think you will find many here who disagree with you. What husband who honestly takes Ephesians 5 to heart does not tremble at the thought that he is responsible before God not simply for himself but for his wife also? “Crazy dangerous”, indeed! But the glimpse of beatitude that such an arrangement affords to both husband and wife is worth that risk many times over.
Kamilla:
The faith was once for all delivered to the saints, but it wasn’t preserved, protected and transmitted in its truth and fullness by the Orthodox or Catholic churches. They have encapsulated the Gospel and the people in a patriarchial and hierarchical Levitical-style sacerdotalism and sacramentalism that also denies the New Creation and the freedom of the children of God by relegating half the Kingdon’s citizens to second-class status as if they were still enslaved to the stoicheia.
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall free you. If the Son makes you free, you shall be free, indeed. Not free to be lawless, but free to be filled up to all the fullness of God and Christ.
You folks really love to throw around that word “heretic,” don’t you? Does it make you feel good to use it on anyone who doesn’t think just like you?
Are you thanking God that you are not like other men (or women)? Certainly not like those egalitarian heretics over there. You follow THE BIBLE.
But are you following Christ?
Do you love your male privilege? Do you love being right? So did the Pharisees.
TIMC, while I agree with what you said, I do not agree that it all includes women giving up their will to their husbands.
Indeed living life as a Christian who is to put God first and foremost in everything and then to love his neighbor as he would himself is indeed risky business as you say. It’s not an easy task. The only One we should consider giving over our wills to is God. And God doesn’t ask us to do that. He only asks us to obey His directives. That is difficult enough. God does not want puppets or He would not have given us choice. God desires for us all to mature into the fullness of maturity of the man Christ Jesus.
Men who take unto themselves privilege that is not theirs, that of making the choices for their adult wives, deprive both of them of learning and spiritual growth. It also deprives them of ‘becoming as one flesh’. Frequently, I hear the stories of the denials and directives that gender hieralchalist men give out that is astonishing. Equally astonishing are those women who do not stop and call their husbands to account for their pride, selfishness, arbitrariness, and sometimes tyranny. The loving wife is in the best place to help the man who loves her see his failures. But instead, these poor men are taught that the final say is theirs (without Scriptural backing) and thus when push comes to shove they will do as they wish no matter if they should or not. Men are after all, just like women, human and fallible fighting sinful tendencies.
I agree with you that some (IMO few) Christian men take such a concept seriously and really try to not wound their wives, and lead them with godly charity. What I find interesting is that most of such men are in effect living mutuality more than they are male leadership (dominance). So, they talk comp talk, and live Christian egal concepts. Figure that out. However, the one thing they cannot do while thinking that they are the leader, final decision maker, director, holder of God’s wisdom, is lead their wives to maturity. They have taken an essential element of maturity out of her hands and left her dependent upon another human being more than God.
>You folks really love to throw around that word “heretic,” don’t you? Does it make you feel good to use it on anyone who doesn’t think just like you?
No, we wish you were not heretics. Remember, orthodoxy is as close to you as repentance…
Here is a wonderful quote I found on Frank Viola’s article Deep Ecclesiology:
And here, the anonymous “your name” has brought us back to one of the core questions, one for which we must have an answer if religious feminists are to have any sensible dialogue with orthodox Christians.
In its post our anonymous correspondent has accused the Holy Spirit of a great dereliction of duty when it writes: “but it wasn’t preserved, protected and transmitted in its truth and fullness by the Orthodox or Catholic churches.”
So, I repeat my initial question:
Where has the Holy Spirit (the One charged with guiding us into all truth) been for the past 1900+ years?
Please, “your name”, TL, Don, Wordgazer or any other religious feminist, feel free to answer.
Kamilla
Kamilla asks: Where has He been?
Why, leading and guiding into all truth those who listen to and follow Him, of course!
Let him or her who has ears to hear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches!
>> So, they talk comp talk, and live Christian egal concepts. Figure that out. <<
You’re right, of course, but figuring it out isn’t too hard. It sounds like a perfect union (no pun intended) of Ephesians 5:25-27 and Philippians 2:1-8. You’ve encountered Biblical marriage!
And in fact, God does ask us to give over our wills. That’s exactly what it means “to obey his directives.” Just as Christ prayed “not my will but thine.” Just as the disciples “left their nets” and followed him.
You’ll have to explain how the headship of a husband prevents a wife from reaching full spiritual maturity, because there is nothing logically and mutually exclusive about those two concepts. You indicated that you’ve been a believer for many years, and I expect you’ve known many who you would classify as mature Christians. Would you say that those who most exemplified a life of maturity were those who lived in humble submission to others or those who were living for themselves alone? The question, I suggest, answers itself, and demonstrates that the submission to a husband is in fact a net spiritual benefit to a wife. 1 Peter 3:4 affirms this.
Look at yourselves, folks. You have jumped to the snap judgment, accurate or not, that I am both an egalitarian and a heretic– merely because I called your attitudes in this discussion into question.
If you must judge, at least do it in the humility of wisdom, according to James 3:18. Follow Jesus’ teachings and check yourselves for eye-beams before you look at anyone else. And please, let’s all remember that without love, we are accomplishing nothing.
Kamilla asks: “Where has the Holy Spirit (the One charged with guiding us into all truth) been for the past 1900+ years?”
Well, with respect to the issue of egalitarianism and women’s ordination, the late Dr. Gordon Clark penned the following:
“The Protestant Reformation, for all its opposition to Romanism, never questioned the practice of ordaining men only. Now, if this practice has continued from the time of Abraham down to 1960 or thereabouts, those who are innovators surely must bear the burden of proof. The Westminster Confession indeed says, ‘All Synods…may err, and many have erred.’ Therefore it is theoretically possible that the Reformed Presbyterian Church is in error. But when the agreement is worldwide over 4,000 years, it is, I repeat, extremely improbable. Therefore a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate the ordination of women.”
“Kamilla asks: Where has He been?
Why, leading and guiding into all truth those who listen to and follow Him, of course!”
Funny it took him so long!
Of course, the Mormons, the JW’s, the Adventists, and loads of other heterodox say the same thing. How are we ever going to figure out which bunch is right?
“The faith was once for all delivered to the saints, but it wasn’t preserved, protected and transmitted in its truth and fullness by the Orthodox or Catholic churches.”
Then who, pray tell, preserved it? For hundreds of years there was one Church; if we forget the Schism for a minute, and stop ecclesiastical history, say, at the year of Our Lord 1000, where in that first 1000 years do you find egalitarian, anti-hierarchical, feminist doctrines? Like St. Athanasius demanded of the Arians, where are the Fathers for your beliefs? Where is the flippin’ pedigree?
” And in fact, God does ask us to give over our wills. That’s exactly what it means “to obey his directives.” Just as Christ prayed “not my will but thine.” Just as the disciples “left their nets” and followed him.”
Not the same at all TIMC. The context was that Jesus would suffer a death He knew would be horrible. So, yes, not His will but His and God’s Will, because that is the purpose He was born for.
” You’ll have to explain how the headship of a husband prevents a wife from reaching full spiritual maturity, because there is nothing logically and mutually exclusive about those two concepts.”
Part of our maturity as humans and as Christians is to make right choices, using wisdom, insight, and understanding. We are guided by the Scriptures, but we must learn to rightly divide the Word of God with the help of the Holy Spirit. That is one of His jobs while on earth. If a human is always kept in a ‘protected’ state where another’s insight, wisdom and understanding is their guide and never grow to struggle themselves, then they simply do not mature in these areas. The major point about a child growing up is when he/she learns to think for themselves. Letting someone else do those things for us, which eventually includes telling a person what to believe, stagnates them at a lower level of maturity.
” You indicated that you’ve been a believer for many years, and I expect you’ve known many who you would classify as mature Christians. Would you say that those who most exemplified a life of maturity were those who lived in humble submission to others or those who were living for themselves alone?”
Absolutely one picture of maturity is one who is a submissive type of person in all areas. As Jesus said, He did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many. And Christ did this willingly. It was not forced upon Him. In fact, it was all planned from the beginning as shown right there in Gen. 3 where God promised that the woman’s offspring would crush the head of Satan.
But the picture you paint of a wife giving over her will – “that of the wife to the husband a submission of her will–her own prerogative of self-actualization– to his” – not meaning of one chosen instance but of her whole life in every aspect, does not even remotely resemble the choosing to yield in some instances and not in others that a mature Christian has gained the wisdom to discern, all in as respectful a manner as possible.
” demonstrates that the submission to a husband is in fact a net spiritual benefit to a wife. 1 Peter 3:4 affirms this.”
I disagree. And that is not what 1 Peter 3 is about. 1 Peter is about suffering through persecution and maltreatment of various sorts in a submissive manner as Christ suffered when He was walking among us. The reviled does not revile back. The slave has a submissive and obedient attitude toward both the good master and the abusive. The good Christian wife with a nonbelieving husband (disobedient to the word) seeks to win his heart with a gentle submissive demeanor. The husband with a disobedient wife seeks to live understandingly and with prayer otherwise his prayers may not be answered.
”
8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous;[a] 9 not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing.”
Rob “Talk Show Host Alex Trebek” Grano: “[W]here in that first 1000 years do you find egalitarian, anti-hierarchical, feminist doctrines?”
Contestant: “Ummm, where is Hell?”
TUAD, this post isn’t about women’s ordination. And FWIW, ordination is a new creation, not found in Scripture. At any rate, I suggest you save that discussion for another post.
I think I’ll go ahead and close the string, but not without reminding Don that the Kingdom is full of privilege–of the inequality he dislikes so much. Dante did not invent the idea. Given your present views, Don, I doubt you would like the Kingdom as Jesus describes it, not one little bit.
We classical Christians do not deny that all who receive the flesh and blood of Christ partake equally in his being any more than we would deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God. There are, however, those who receive ten talents, those who receive five, and those who receive one–and differing rewards for their employment. If there were not, there would have been no reason for the Lord to tell us that from those who receive much, much shall be required. Submission brings elevation, for there are some who through obedience to the Word of God as doers and teachers shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven, and some who through disobedience will be called least. One has to torture Jesus to make him an egalitarian.
Reading what Don and TL in particular have written, I wonder if either of you have read the New Testament. There is a great deal of evidence in your postings here that you have not, since you cannot have drawn your faith from it. You certainly instead subscribe to a religion of Niceness and Equality that ignores the (very unpleasant, by your standards) Jesus and apostles you would find there. Yet here you take upon yourselves the mantle of Christian teachers, accusing those who are trying to instruct you of impatience, ignorance, and abuse for simply and gently (given the Lord’s example in such matters) telling you that you are teaching heresy.
I have gone through periods where I was too depressed to post to the blog because it gives voice to people like Yourname, an astute observer and data-gatherer who is on one hand sure the egalitarians will win, and on the other proves his steady grasp of the issues by identifying the Episcopal Church as exemplary of the Touchstone viewpoint. We have obliged ourselves to accommodate this sort of thing as long the writer is reasonably polite. Uggh.
To those correspondents who chide us for not behaving like Christians–who seem to judge points of doctrine very largely on how they make people feel–I can only ask them to read the gospels and stop imagining them. Read with attention to how the Lord treats those he identifies as false teachers: the names and metaphors he applies to them, the spiritual parentage he assigns them, and their warmly-appointed destiny. I, with Kamilla, would ask them if they really wish to believe that the Holy Spirit has only seen fit to enlighten the church on these matters in the last few decades.
When I was in the pastorate I was preaching my way through one of St. Paul’s epistles. I had almost finished the series when several women approached me and told me they didn’t like Paul and wanted to hear Jesus instead. Could my next series be in one of the gospels? I had planned this anyway, so readily granted their request. They quit attending church when they found out that Jesus was even worse.