Top Ten Reasons I am a Chauvinist
In response to Ruth’s “Top Ten Reasons I am a feminist,” I thought that I would have some fun with one of my own.Â
10. I like to smoke cigars.
9. I am a completmentarian and by default that what we are supposed to be.
8. The woman made me do it.
7. If Jesus and Paul were here today, they would be smoking a cigar with me.
6. God’s name is masculine.
5. I don’t like pink.
4. If it weren’t for women, lust would not be an issue (for most 
)
3. Jack Bauer.
2. The thought of Hilary as president.
1. My wife thinks its a turn on (yeah right!)
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Top Ten Reasons I am a Chauvinist
- Feminists and Traditionalists in the Real World
- In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part I: One in Person?
- Women, Slaves, and Homosexuals
- The Bent of a Woman
Ruth Tucker on 06 Jan 2008 at 7:35 am #
I better be careful how I say this, Michael, but bottom line, you’re the greatest! I love you, dear friend.
richards on 06 Jan 2008 at 7:38 am #
what’s really funny is that carrie probably had to help him with this list!
Carrie Hunter on 06 Jan 2008 at 1:24 pm #
LOL!!
No Richard, I did not in any way contribute to this Top Ten.
I did however craft my own and posted it last night.
See ya bro….
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 8:57 pm #
I thought that I would have some fun with one of my own.
I want to laugh uproariously too! I’m not a chauvinist, but that other thread just has me rolling on the ground in hysterics.
No matter what methodology is used, no matter how irenic the tone, there are just some implacably staunch egalitarian horses which will not ever be led to the Living Water of Truth.
What makes me so amused is that Charles and Jugulum have just been detoured into the Briar Patch by the whinnying Egalitarian horse. In the Briar Patch both of them have gotten irretrievably entangled with the Tar Baby and there’s no getting out. When intractable Tar Baby tags them with bad reasoning and illogic, Charles, Jugulum, and Thomas Twitchell all gamely and nobly try to show the error and move on. They think they’ve escaped Tar Baby. No way!
And that is just a continuous source of bemusement. I confess that I stayed too long in the Briar Patch myself. Now that I’ve extracted myself (by the Grace of God), I’ll be watching from afar, chuckling by myself in The Laffin’ Place.
You go Charles! You go Jugulum! You go Thomas Twitchell! Let’s see if you can dissolve Tar Baby! Cuz I don’t think that prideful Egalitarian horse is gonna drink any water.
Ruth Tucker on 07 Jan 2008 at 9:55 pm #
#4, I think you’re fooling yourself if you imagine you are extracted from the Briar Patch. Your tone and your defensiveness in your long string of responses reminds me of a line from Shakespeare: Me thinks thou protesteth too much.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 Jan 2008 at 11:06 pm #
#5 The Tar Baby who started it all!
It’s most certainly humorous and I’m enjoying myself immensely in The Laffin’ Place!
John W. Loftus on 08 Jan 2008 at 1:33 pm #
Number four is hilarious! Take that Tucker…it’s YOUR fault!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2008 at 4:13 pm #
These wonderful exemplars of an irenic reply to disengage from Tar Baby are simply a delight to behold when one is in The Laffin’ Place:
o I am not sure if you really understand the point.
o If all you are saying is that a particular interpretation is not “in†the text, then I would say “so what?â€
o I appreciate the clarification, but your conclusions appear to exceed the evidence in a number of ways.
o I’m not sure that your Christological conclusions are valid and might prove to be unorthodox.
o So your argument appears to be predicated on an apples and oranges comparison and not an apples and apples comparison. At this level I would suggest it fails.
o As far as your assertion that the “Creation order should not promote ‘headship,’†I would note that someone forgot to tell the apostle Paul this fact (e.g., 1 Cor 11:8-9).
o I would also take some issue with your understanding of the Bible. While the Bible was clearly written in the context of a culture and to a people in a culture that is not to say that language of the Bible is culturally relative. This is particularly true if one believes in the doctrine of inspiration and thus the divine superintendence of the writing of Scripture. I would also suggest that your understanding of prescriptive and descriptive is a bit simplistic here.
o I hear your concern and I do not doubt your sincerity, but frankly you sound quite confused by a number of issues. In responding I am not even sure I can even untangle your thoughts.
o I would also encourage you to avoid exaggerating the issue. For example when you write, “. . . when a unredeemed male is taught this and thinks he is being a Christian just because he is exercises what he belives is Christianity, really unnerves me,†it is hard to take your point seriously.
o I am, not sure that you are staying on the point here. … But instead of sharing your experience, you practically raise a straw man.
o Again you are not staying on point.
o I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. I do not think that you can sustain your assertions biblically. Ephesians 5 simply does not support the view(s) that you are advocating.
o It’s an interesting suggestion, but I can’t make out how to reconcile it with what Adam actually said, or how to make heads or tails of the logic of your vision of the passage.
o You say that he was just using “the name which woman already hasâ€. How on earth did he know that word? He’s seeing one for the first time!
———
The best post by far was this one by Kaye:
I was really shocked to learn that Ruth traces the source of her feminist thinking to–as she put it–her upbringing and “genetics.†Her genetics, after all, are tainted by her sin nature and God’s curse on women because of Eve’s direct disobedience.
I believe it is my biblical duty before God (and that it can be truly my joy) to obey Him by fighting against my desire to not be “ruled over†by my husband. That rebellious desire is sometimes strong but it is not admirable, and I sadly have not seen biblical femininity modeled by my mother, grandmothers, mother-in-law, or any other woman in close relationship with me.
There is so much more I could say, but I’ll end now, and refer you to http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Confessions-of-a-Recovering-Feminist
and say that it IS possible to change even when you’ve been steeped in feminism!
Sue on 08 Jan 2008 at 8:15 pm #
TUAD,
It’s an interesting suggestion, but I can’t make out how to reconcile it with what Adam actually said, or how to make heads or tails of the logic of your vision of the passage.
I’ll admit that I don’t fully understand how to interpret the theology of this word play. However, The notion that naming is indicative of authority is somewhat obscure in the Hebrew.
This is the word for:
1. naming
2. calling someone by their name
3. invoking the name of God
4. inviting someone for dinner.
This word was used when Esther invited the king for dinner.
I do believe that it is like pulling an elephant out of a hat to say that when Adam calls Eve “woman” this is a clear indication of male authority. It is perhaps with greater reason that we can say that the first thing Adam said to Eve was a pun. I wonder if she groaned.
I don’t see any mention of male authority until Gen. 3:16.
To extrapolate and say that authority is mentioned in 1 Tim. 2:12 is not accurate. The word there is authenteo, and is used twice in antiquity aside from this place.
BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): “I had my way with him [authenteÅ ] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.”
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos III.13 [#157] (second century A.D.): “Therefore, if Saturn alone takes planetary control of the soul and dominates (authenteÅ ) Mercury and the moon …”20
The first quote is the one that is listed in the original study by Baldwin under “compel, to influence someone.” and Grudem agrees with this assessment. Ev. Fem & Biblical Truth. page 677 - 680. According to Grudem other translators suggest “prevail” and mention that this is a hostile relationship involving insolence.
So we are left with the second century citation where authenteo means “dominate”.
There are no other examples. I regret if Baldwin’s study is misleading in this matter.
IMO there are three possible ways to describe the roles of man and woman,
a) functional inequality between male and female
b) functional equality with interdependence
c) functional equality and independence
I believe the Bible teaches the equality and interdependence of man and woman.
The studies of the word kephale (head) have only proven that authority is one possible meaning for kephale, not that it is a probably meaning.
One example may interest you. Philo did use the word kephale for a ruler and Plutarch for a general. However, in the Septuagint (Job 1:17) the kephale was a small raiding party, and in Arrian’s Anabasis, kephale was the small and mobile unit of the right hand flank of the army.
I know of no way to arbitrate between the meaning of #1 “head”of the line, and #2 “head” of the organization. Both are possible, but in Greek #1 would be quite common and #2 only occurs a few times. It is not mentioned in the classical lexicons.
I am sure you can see that the head of the army, that part which is out front, is not necessarily the part with the greatest authority.
I hope this helps explain where I am coming from. If there is any evidence that this information is not accurate, I am sure that someone will offer it.
Sue on 08 Jan 2008 at 8:40 pm #
I did make a mistake - it was in Arrian’s Tactica, not his Anabasis (which, BTW is not the same as Xenophon’s Anabasis, nor the American Anabasis.)
Truth Unites... and Divides on 09 Jan 2008 at 2:14 pm #
There is a voice in the Briar Patch calling for Charles, Jugulum, and Thomas Twitchell!
————-
(Sigh. I thought I was out of the Briar Patch.) On a serious note, I am utterly serious that “equal rights” egalitarian feminism is a terribly aberrant doctrine. I’m with Kaye, I think it’s my biblical duty to show how “equal rights” feminism is a false teaching. But biblical duty does not say to be forever stuck with the Tar Baby.
Furthermore, it matters not one bit, and not one iota to me about who the person is that is espousing “equal rights” feminism, nor the length of their c.v., or what they have done, or what terrible circumstances they had to overcome. If a proponent of “equal rights” feminism is a renowned professor with many accolades for his/her pubs, who overcame difficult situations in his/her life, and also saved 20 lives in the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, it would not make any difference to me. In the end that person is still propagating false teaching about what God is teaching through His Word.
Loving your neighbor means to help them love the true God. To love the true God, you have to know the true God through His divinely revealed Word. This requires honest exegesis and obedience. To correct a neighbor about a misconception that they have about God’s Word is a very unappreciated (and often rudely dismissed) instance of sacrificial, costly love.
I have more than a casual knowledge of the complementarian vs. egalitarian debate. There is no way that I can substantively show how the Bible addresses and refutes the claims that “equal rights” egalitarian feminists make in a blog thread or a forum.
Doctrine of the Trinity, linguistic studies (such as kephale), hermeneutical methods (feminist trajectory vs. grammatical-historical et al), etc…. are all tied into this debate. Furthermore, I interact with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox on this issue. They are staunchly against priestesses for a variety of theological reasons, too complex for this thread. (Except for the liberal Catholics and Orthodox who are really raising the ire of others.)
Where am I at on this aberrant doctrine of “equal rights” feminism that’s intruded upon the Church? Well, assuming that you can have an ordering or hierarchy of doctrines (which I’m not sure that the Bible teaches, but it may be. See the thread about “Are all sins the same?”), I regard “equal rights” feminism as a non-salvific doctrine. Just because someone is an “equal right” egalitarian feminist doesn’t mean that they aren’t a brother and sister in Christ. As such, doing joint ministry is fine. However, the rotten fruit of “equal rights” feminism is that it does harm to the corporate body of Christ. It is really, really bad. Look at the liberal mainline churches who’ve wholesale bought into “equal rights” feminism. They are hemorraghing badly with this cancer. And “equal rights” feminism has also helped pave the way for other cancers to invade the Body of Christ.
Quick summation. You want to be an “equal rights” egalitarian feminist? Okay. I’ve done my duty by informing you that it’s a very aberrant doctrine that has, is, and will continue to do harm to the Body of Christ. Let’s still fellowship and minister together. But know that we’re not sweeping this under the rug and pretending that it’s adiaphora. It’s not.
Sue on 09 Jan 2008 at 10:53 pm #
You are very gracious and I appreciate your words here.
Many of the word studies are too tedious to repeat, I grant you that, but I do have a question that I have never seen a response to. I wonder if this is a good place to ask it.
It seems to me that the church fathers and all the theologians which I have read (not all that many) up until well after the reformation, thought that woman was subordinated by her transgression and the fall.
This is because Bibles up until after the Reformation said “she will submit to her husband” in Gen. 3:16 in Latin and French, the LXX simply has “turn” - she will turn to her husband.
Here is Chrysostom on woman in creation,
“In the beginning I created you equal in esteem to your husband, and my intention was that in everything you would share with him as an equal, and as I entrusted control of everything to your husband, so did I to you; but you abused your equality of status. Hence I subject you to your husband:”
Homily on Genesis
and on why woman does not have the image of God,
“The image has rather to do with authority, and this only the man has, the woman has it no longer,”
Discourse 2 on Genesis
Why would he say “no longer” if woman was created with less authority? I am sure he believed that woman was created with equal authority. I believe that this was the widely held belief even by many of the Reformers. They believed that because of the transgression of Eve, woman is subordinate.
So, my question is, did any theologians up until recently have a doctrine of gender that reflected the doctrine of the trinity?
I don’t see how this could be possible. If subordination comes through sin, then Christ could not be subordinate. I assume that the comparison between the members of the trinity and gender is very recent, but I don’t know.
I have never seen any major writing that treated this. Do you know of any? I was brought up in a very fundamentalist environment, but I don’t remember the comparison between gender and the trinity when I was young.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 10 Jan 2008 at 2:07 am #
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Tim. 2)
These verses then naturally have you turn to Genesis 3:16 to see what Paul was referring to:
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
You have encountered two arguments previously for a Pre-Fall Headship: The Creation Order argument and the Naming argument.
For what it’s worth, I will give you a third argument which I hope, when coupled with the other two, will be sufficient in having you CHANGE YOUR MIND and YOUR HEART that God had (and still has) a Divine Design for the specific roles of men and women before the Fall.
To begin, let’s go back to the Bible, shall we? Excerpts from Genesis 3:
[The serpent] said to the woman, “Did God really say…
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. …
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”
Sue, take your time and read this part in Genesis 3 over again. I have a couple of questions for you and then I’ll give you something to ponder about. Ready?
(1) Who ate the Forbidden Fruit first?
(2) (Although God knew what happened) Who did God call upon first?
Obviously, you got the right answers. But the real insight is whether you caught the true import of those answers.
Pre-fall, Pre-fall, Pre-fall. PRE-FALL, Adam had headship responsibilities for Eve. God called upon Adam first because God held Adam responsible for any misconduct that Eve committed because that was God’s DESIGN for the roles of men and women. A Divine Design that was Pre-Fall.
God could have easily called upon Eve first since she transgressed first. But nooooooooooo. He didn’t. Why not? Because Adam had headship responsibility per God’s divine design. A design for the roles of men and women that was designed BEFORE THE FALL. A conceptual understanding of authority, responsibility, and submission that accords to what we are given in the Bible today.
Let’s now turn to the real world for some exemplars. If I had an older son and a younger daughter and I left them at home with specific instructions for my son to be the authority and for my daughter to obey her older brother’s authority. Something happens. My daughter breaks a lamp by playing ball inside the house, breaking a long-standing rule. Do I exercise displeasure at my daughter? Yes, of course. But do you know who I hold responsible and will address first? My son because by design I gave him the authority and the headship responsibility for my daughter and her obedience to house rules.
There are other examples I could give about authority and submission to authority that are intentionally designed, but they all follow roughly the example I gave above.
So now you have 3 biblical arguments for God’s Pre-Fall Design for the distinct, non-interchangeable roles for men and women.
I asked this on the other thread, and I’ll ask it again:
For “equal rights†egalitarian feminists, the question must be sadly asked: Do you wish to worship the true God of the Bible or do you wish to worship a God of your own making and of your own desires?
C Michael Patton on 10 Jan 2008 at 2:23 am #
Please take this to the forums.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 10 Jan 2008 at 2:50 am #
(CMP, with your kind permission, I’d like to try and answer one or two of Sue’s questions before signing off.)
Sue asks: “So, my question is, did any theologians up until recently have a doctrine of gender that reflected the doctrine of the trinity?”
Such a question is best responded to by another question. When did the aberrant doctrine of “equal rights” egalitarian feminism arise?
With regards to some published works in this area of the doctrine of the Trinity and role distinction, I offer the following from Bruce Ware’s book, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”:
“The most marked characteristic of the trinitarian relationships is the presence of eternal and inherent expression of authority and submission.
Both authority and submission are good, for both are expressive of God himself. This principle is about as countercultural as we can imagine, though some will simply dismiss it as old-fashioned. But it is the truth.
We live in a culture that despises authority at every level. Whether the authority of police, or of government, or of parents, or a husband’s authority in marriage, or pastoral authority in our churches - our culture has programmed us to despise authority. We find it hard to think positively about authority for one very simple reason: we are sinners who want to be in charge of our own lives. We want to be captains of our own destiny. We want to govern our own futures. And here, one of the lessons of the Trinity is that God loves what we despise; namely, God loves, exercises, and embraces rightful authority-submission relationships. God loves this authority-submission structure because God embodies this very structure in his trinitarian relations of Persons. If we have difficulty embracing authority and submission, we can be helped by two things: 1) recall that it is our own sinful urge for independence that leads us to despise authority and want our own way; and 2) reflect on the fact that in the very eternal relations that are true of the Persons of the Trinity, authority and submission are lived out with love and joy. We must learn to embrace what is eternally true in God, and this means, among other things, embracing rightful authority and rightful submission.
…. Second, the clearest example of how the egalitarian argument fails is in relation to the Trinity. The commonality and equality of nature shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is even greater than the commonality of nature shared by two human beings. For in the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each possess the identically same divine nature. There are not three natures, but one; there are three Persons, each of whom possesses the identically same divine nature fully and eternally. And yet there are eternal role distinctions among the members of the Trinity. Therefore, just as the role distinctions characterized by relationships of authority and submission do not compromise the complete equality of the triune Persons of the Godhead, so is this the case with us, who are made in God’s image. Men and Women are fully equal in essence, worth, value, and dignity, even though God has ordained that there be male headship in our relations in the home and in the church. Equality of essence does not conflict with distinction of roles. In God, and among us, both must be embraced and honored.
….. We live in a culture that despises submission as much as it despises authority, but God calls us to a different mind and heart on this matter. And here, wives can benefit enormously from the doctrine of the Trinity in realizing that the submission required of them as wives is itself reflective of the very submission eternally given by the Son to His Father, and by the Spirit to the Father and the Son. In this sense, God calls wives to be what He is, just as He has also called husbands to be what He also is. Therefore, in obeying Scripture’s command that wives submit to their husbands, it is not enough before God simply to grit your teeth, buck up, and say, “Okay, if you insist, God, even though I don’t like it and I don’t want to do it, I’ll submit.”
Truth Unites... and Divides on 10 Jan 2008 at 2:52 am #
(continuing)
Why is such begrudging submission insufficient? It is insufficient in part because it fails to understand the nature of submission as reflective of the Son’s submission to the Father, and the Spirit’s submission to the Father and to the Son. In the Trinity, just as the Father takes his responsibility of authority seriously and exercises it with impeccable wisdom and goodness, so the Son and Spirit render joyous and glad-hearted submission, always longing to do just what is asked or commanded of them. In addition, begrudging submission also fails because it does not express what a wife’s submission to her husband is meant to reflect, according to Paul in Ephesians 5. Just as the husband’s thoughtful and loving headship reflects Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-27, 31-31), so the wife’s glad-hearted and consistent submission reflects the church’s responsibility and privilege of absolute submission before the lordship of Christ (Eph. 5:24, 31-32). …
…
Trinitarian roles and the church; both equality of essence and distinction of roles are designed by God to be expressed among pastoral leaders and congregations, and this dynamic is reflective of the Trinity.
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor: 11:3). Role relations between men and women, generally, and role relations in the church, particularly, are important to Paul because they are meant to reflect the more ultimate realities of Christ’s headship over mankind, and the Father’s headship over Christ. Can we not see from this that the current despising of male authority in pastoral leadership positions in the church undercuts and undermines the very design God has intended for the church? Just as marriages are to reflect Christ and the church, so churches are to reflect the Father’s relationship to Christ and Christ’s authority over mankind. …
This is confirmed, of course, in 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 are simply reaffirmed here, to a different church. Because God has granted the right to serve as elders or pastors in the church only to qualified men (1 Tim 3:1-7), so he also prohibits women from the two main activities and duties involved in being an elder or pastor. ….”
Sue on 10 Jan 2008 at 3:39 am #
Thanks for responding. I have seen some of Ware’s work. However, it does not review historic beliefs, except for the Athanasian creed, as far as I can see.
I have been reading the Bibles that the Reformers quoted along with some of their theology and I just don’t see this comparison of gender and the Trinity as an historic belief of the church, since the Vulgate and other Bibles said that women was subordinated in the fall.
I understand your position, from current exegesis, and you give examples which support your interpretation, but, this interpretation is relatively recent.
I thought someone would have written about it. That doesn’t mean it is not true, I just want to know if anyone has done any historic study of this, and really thought through how much at odds the current exegesis is with historic exegesis.
My understanding is that Calvin taught that God was first in order. But I don’t think he said more than that - “the beginning and fountainhead of the whole divinity” - just as Adam is for humanity, but still it doesn’t mean that Adam was our ruler. It is more a statement of the divine nature of Christ and his unity with God, that he is not two separate Gods.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 11 Jan 2008 at 12:36 pm #
I saw this on another blog. Thought it might be relevant and on-topic to this thread:
Here is the 2 minute video on the woman question for Huckabee.
A MUST view for all Christians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWyjvLmiMjI
Sue on 11 Jan 2008 at 3:30 pm #
Thanks,
I wonder if the segment that I saw when I followed your link was doctored or altered in any way.
Huckabee was asked it he had affirmed the statement that wives should submit graciously to the husband’s servant leadership, and he said that he believed that wives should submit graciously to their husbands and men also should submit …….. (my question is about what went in this blank - to God? or to their husbands? What was removed from the segment)
Huckabee then goes on to make clear that he believes in mutual affection and submission.
How should we parse this sentence? Does he mean mutual affection, and submission (of the wife) or mutual affection and (mutual) submission?
The scriptures are pretty clear on mutual submssion, but they are not clear on the teaching of some complementarians that submission means “some people” submit to ” other people.” It is this doctrine of complementarians which I find contrary to scripture.
Sue on 11 Jan 2008 at 5:00 pm #
Huckabee was asked it he had affirmed the statement that wives should submit graciously to the husband’s servant leadership, and he said that he believed that wives should submit graciously to their husbands and men also should submit …….. (my question is about what went in this blank - to God? or to their husbands? What was removed from the segment)
I need to correct my typos. It should read,
Huckabee was asked it he had affirmed the statement that wives should submit graciously to the husband’s servant leadership, and he said that he believed that wives should submit graciously to their husbands, and husbands also should submit …….. (my question is about what went in this blank - to God? or to their wives? What was removed from the segment?)
That is, isn’t Huckabee affirming mutual submission, wives to husbands and husbands to wives? And isn’t the idea of mutual submission called a “myth” by complementarians?
Huckabee seems to be affirming a submission - submission relationship, and Bruce Ware, a submission - authority relationship.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 11 Jan 2008 at 5:20 pm #
Dear Sue, let’s not test the patience and kindness of the blog moderators anymore, shall we?
But to answer your question, both Huckabee and Prof. Ware are both affirming Scripture which clearly teaches a complementarian viewpoint with respect to role distinction between men and women. Huckabee affirmed the SBC statement in the video above. Ware affirms it too. Both of them believe in and teach what Ephesians 5 clearly instructs:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives and Husbands
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
——————-
Sue, the Scriptures are clear: From Pre-Fall to the New Testament and beyond, God’s Divine Design is for Role Distinction between men and women. Just because there are distinct roles for men and women does not mean unequal. Don’t fall into that fallacious trap.
Let’s end here. We’ve already exceeded the patience extended to us by the P&P blog owners.
Sue on 11 Jan 2008 at 9:44 pm #
Curious. I didn’t actually think that we were off topic.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 14 Jan 2008 at 4:20 pm #
“Curious. I didn’t actually think that we were off topic.”
Please take this to the forums. by CMP, post #14.
Sue, it’s becoming somewhat apparent to me that you’ll eventually realize that your real argument is not with complementarians, but rather with God and His Word.
Professor Dan Wallace wrote this on another thread on another topic, but it applies here: “But I’m beginning to think that you’re not paying much attention to what any of us is saying. You ask for examples after we already gave some; you ask for sources, and we supply numerous sources.”
By how you’ve responded, you’ve indicated that you’ve not really absorbed the refutation to the aberrant doctrine of “equal rights” egalitarian feminism. It’s a little bit trying for those who are biblical and see the Bible as the Authority. Especially in redeeming the Fall of “equal rights” feminism back to the Divine Pre-Fall Creation Design of distinct roles for men and women.
It is a bit challenging to wrap your mind on how Equality, Authority, and Submission can all cohere and co-exist peacefully by Divine Design, but it does. See these verses:
o “He withdrew about a stone’s throw and prayed, ‘Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done‘” (Luke 22:41-42).
o “Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken away from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will‘” (Matthew 26:39)
o “He went away a second time and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done‘” (Matt. 26:42).
o “‘Abba, Father,’ he said, ‘everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36).
o Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, (Phillipians 2:6)
——————
Sue, the Bible is abundantly clear about the enduring and distinct roles of men and women in the home and in the Church. Your other approach, as you wrestle and rebel against God (for I am done), is for you and your fellow Egalitarians to join arms and lock hands with the PostModern Emergents and remark that much in God’s Word is unknowable and uncertain. Adapt a PoMo epistemology and use it as a foundation and launching point for “equal rights” egalitarian feminism. I strongly don’t recommend such an approach, but if you’re determined to wrestle with God about Authority, Submission, and Equality, that is a possible avenue for you to explore.
Like the serpent asking Eve in the Garden: “Did God really say…?”
Sue on 15 Jan 2008 at 12:33 am #
I am trying to understand the origins of the term “eternal functional subordination” for both woman and Christ and how that got started. Woman was subordinate because of sin, the scriptures taught that for 16 centuries, and Christ was subordinate for some other reason, I suppose. But what? I can’t figure out how these two relate.
I thought this blog was called reclaiming the mind. But apparently it isn’t about real questions like this.