1 Peter 3.7 and Wife Abuse

# on 16 Nov 2008
Current Issues in Theology & Dan Wallace - Contra Mundane & Gender issues

Comments (0)

Related Posts

• Doing missions when dying is gain
• What Complementarianism is Really all About
• Is the Threat of Divorce Ever Justified?
• God as My Husband?
• "God Comes Before My Wife" . . . And Other Stupid Statements

No Responses to “1 Peter 3.7 and Wife Abuse”

1. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 12:20 am #

   Thank you for writing about this. I hope that by quoting from Lundy Bancroft’s book “Why does he do that?” I can make a peaceful contribution. I have heard that this book has wide acceptance.

   In writing about the former legal system that did not enforce consequences, he says,

   “This legal history plays an important role in shaping today’s cultural views among males – and females – about the abuse of women. It is likely to take a number of generations to overcome the accumulated impact of hundreds of years of destructive social attitudes. The culture that shaped these laws, and was in turn shaped by them, is reflected in people’s continued willingness to blame women for “provoking” abuse, to feel sorry for men who face legal consequences for intimate violence, and to be highly skeptical of women’s reports of abuse.” page 321

   About religious beliefs he writes,

   “I have had numerous clients over the years who explicitly rely on religious quotations from scripture to justify their abuse of their partners. Similarly, religious prohibitions against divorce have entrapped women in abusive relationships. The book When Love Goes Wrong published in 1985, describes a study of conservative Protestant clergy that reported that 21 percent said that no amount of abuse would justify a woman’s leaving aher husband … ” page 322

   So a key points are:

   - talking about women as those who are “rebellious” or who “provoke”, is a key component of abuse.

   - religious quotations are used to keep women in obedience to their husband’s personal whims

   - a rigid non-acceptance of divorce is a great difficulty since women often do not want to publicize the role of abuse in their divorce

   Bancroft advises that a man cannot give up his abusive behavior unless he surrenders his sense of entitlement and accepts that his partner has rights that are equal to his. This comes from long experience.

   I highly recommend Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft.

   Thank you for writing about this. I hope that some time soon your blog may also feature a post by a woman who has survived this experience, as an encouragement to many readers here.

2. bethyada on 17 Nov 2008 at 3:00 am #

   As I mentioned recently, it is very important to realise that commands to a person to come under (any) authority are not commands to that authority. This is just basic logic.

   A command to obey my employee is not a command to an employer to enforce compliance. Even if it were right for an employer to enforce compliance, that do not get that knowledge from commands given to employees, they must get that from other commands.

3. AndyC on 17 Nov 2008 at 9:53 am #

   How anyone can think wife beating is biblical is beyond me. How anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus can think wife beating is even imagined in all His teaching is beyond me.

   I read Paul and I see that I am to die for my wife if necessary and I would . If I would give her my life, why would i ever give her the back of my hand?

4. Lisa R on 17 Nov 2008 at 10:01 am #

   Bethyada, I agree with you about authority and I think the misunderstanding and the misuse of the word wields a weapons for abuse. Authority equates to responsibility. If the man has authority over his wife, he is responsible for his obligation to her. That to me translates into service. So a man’s authority is really to serve his wife.

   The passage in Eph 5 to me paints such a beautiful picture of the outflow of authority and that is a man loving his wife sacrificially. Consider how Christ loves the church, His bride. As Dr. Wallace mentioned, its putting her needs before his own. It is a picture of nurturing and protection.

   Abuse is just the antithesis. Its the mark of extreme selfishness that wants control.

5. Cadis on 17 Nov 2008 at 10:03 am #

   Only a man who is not answering to the Lord would justify beating his wife.

   Luk 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
   Luk 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

6. Tom on 17 Nov 2008 at 10:29 am #

   I agree with Dr. Wallace, and will go farther and say that I don’t believe any man, believer or otherwise, who beats his wife loves her in the least.

   We had a neighbor who suffered this way for years. We called the police when they would get started, and I confronted him myself several times, just to get him to stop in each case. (he wasn’t as tough with men) However, she would not press charges, or even admit what had happened.

   It took a long time before she finally got the courage to have him arrested and get a divorce. Then she hooked up with another clown just like the first… it took that to finally make her realize her criteria for a husband was flawed.

   I don’t mean to cast any guilt on the woman, she was careless, but that in no way excuses any level of physical or emotional abuse. The point is, neither of these men loved her.

7. ttm on 17 Nov 2008 at 10:29 am #

   I was eager to learn more and to re-think the complementarian position until I got to the part where children were referred to as “little monsters.” That alone speaks volumes…

   Now I am having a hard time staying open to what you have to say on the topic of loving leadership. Do you suppose God refers to us as “the little monsters”? It is true that we are all depraved sinners, but I find it surprising that a loving leader would refer to his (or her) children with such a disparaging tone.

   This has been a stumbling block for me since I was a child. So many Christian men “lord” their so-called authority over their wives. When they finally believe that perhaps they have misunderstood the call to leadership and decide to treat their wives with some measure of respect, the domineering attitude is not tranformed into one of compassion; it is merely transferred toward children or employees.

   I have a hard time swallowing the idea that God designed families or churches (or even working environments) with a pecking order…but I’ll try to stay open to the dialogue here despite the “little monsters” image.

8. Steve Cornell on 17 Nov 2008 at 10:37 am #

   Here is another perspective:

   Misguided notions about submission in marriage abound. Some consider it a return to the Ozzie and Harriet homes of the ‘50s and ‘60s. Others picture a wife who allows her husband to order her around and force her to do whatever he demands. These ideas do not reflect the biblical understanding of wives submitting to their husbands.

   In scripture, marriage is viewed as a one-flesh relationship based on mutual self-giving love. It is a covenant of companionship between two spiritually equal human beings. Yet this doesn’t mean that the relationship is without roles. Nor do roles in marraige diminish equality and the call for mutual respect.

   According to scripture, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead the home in a God-glorifying manner. His leadership clearly involves authority and should be honored by his wife and family. This authority, however, should be based on love (see: I Corinthians 13:4-8a) and thoughtful consideration (see: Philippians 2:3-5).

   Scripture issues strong warnings against husbands who treat their wives with with insensativity (see I Peter 3:7). Husbands must never forget that they are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Cultural limitations should not be placed on this command any more than on the command for wives to submit to their husbands. Biblical requirements for male leadership in the home were not conditioned on cultural factors.

   In a similar way, scripture reserves the office of elder (spiritual overseer) in the church to men (see: I Timothy 2:11-14). This requirement was based on the order of creation not on cultural attitudes about women during earlier times. Those who try to limit this instruction to cultural issues during New Testament times are twisting scripture to make it more desirable to current attitudes.

   When considering male leadership in the home or the church, it is essential to understand seven distinctions about submission:

   1. Submission does not mean putting a husband in the place of Christ.

   2. Submission does not mean giving up independent thought.

   3. Submission does not mean a wife should give up efforts to influence and guide her husband.

   4. Submission does not mean a wife should give in to every demand of her husband.

   5. Submission is not based on lesser intelligence or competence.

   6. Submission does not mean being fearful or timid.

   7. Submission is not inconsistent with equality in Christ

   (Seven points from: “Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism” ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem).

   Steve Cornell
   http://www.thinkpoint.wordpress.com

9. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 10:47 am #

   I don’t think anyone anywhere believes that beating is biblical. However, It is surprising how many people believe that a woman enduring this is biblical.

   It is also surprising how many otherwise well intentioned people are not aware that making sexist comments or labeling some women as rebellious, is a powerful weapon that can be used to make a woman believe that she is in some way responsible.

   It is not enough to deplore this behavior. It is vital to understand how this behavior is enabled by placing blame on a wife or by placing the onus of obedience on her. The vow to obey is a strong weapon against a wife. Usually in this kind of situation the requests for obedience are random, arbitrary and and made simply to trap the wife into a situation where she is vulnerable and deserving of bizarre punishment.

   The rhetoric of the church feeds abusers, who may, in fact, be otherwise believing Christians, but damaged themselves by early abuse. They may use the teaching of authority for control.

   Any teaching that the wife has less rights, less authority, and is only to respond, empowers the husband and debilitates the wife.

   How sad that this crime is equally present among Christians as non-Christians. My sense is that the Christian community is unaware that the teaching of male authority is a key component of abuse among Christians. Among non-Christians there are those who believe in the superior rights of the male for other reasons.

   I appreciate this topic being raised, especially in view of the previous post about whether some people have married the wrong person. Perhaps this gives some insight into why a person may need to leave a marriage abruptly. It is an extremely difficult decision for any woman, and she may be reluctant to take on the new identity of a divorced person.

10. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 11:18 am #

    I think that people value enduring through suffering whether it is a woman or a man.

11. Dan Wallace on 17 Nov 2008 at 2:44 pm #

    ttm, it’s not always easy to see tone in a written document, but what you read into mine was clearly not what I intended. I called our children ‘little monsters’, as did my wife. Now I call them big monsters. They call me schmuck. It’s all in jest and we love each other deeply. Perhaps there are some good families out there who don’t know how to have fun or how to joke, but if so, dinner conversation must be a yawn.

12. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 2:49 pm #

    The first time your husband strikes you, take the kids and leave. I’m not saying get a divorce. That may be necessary. But I am saying show some self-dignity. If your husband won’t treat you with the respect you deserve, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t! And the longer you wait, the harder it will get.

    Dan,

    I really appreciate your writing this. I think it is clear that every woman needs to be equipped financially and emotionally to live on her own and support her family. The church needs to make sure it does not discriminate against those who are divorced.

13. Jim on 17 Nov 2008 at 3:12 pm #

    “Perhaps there are some good families out there who don’t know how to have fun or how to joke, but if so, dinner conversation must be a yawn.”

    Dan,

    I don’t think this really needed to be added. It came across to me as unnecessarilty provocative.

14. ttm on 17 Nov 2008 at 4:07 pm #

    Dan Wallace, Thanks for the clarification. It is hard to read “tone” in a written document without knowing the author.

    I really struggle with issues such as roles of men and women in marriage and in the church, male headship, female submission, authority, etc. While I am sincerely interested in what Scripture has to say about such things, it is difficult to do so without letting hurts from the past permeate the filter around my heart.

    When you have been bludgeoned with these concepts, you don’t see black and white, you just see red. I’m sorry if my previous comment was out of line. It’s nice that your family can “joke.” Some families don’t yawn through dinner; they scream. It really isn’t fun…

15. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 4:13 pm #

    My family screams. They never eat. A good gust of wind would take them all away.

    Sue, do you think that every wife should learn Karate? (Just to be further prepared!)

16. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 4:15 pm #

    The thought of joking around and teasing and playing is very lovely. Unfortunately some people have been so damaged by an intimate partner who believes that they are the leader not just in caring, but in making decisions, that they can no longer bear joking. It appears to be name-calling.

    I think we need to be more aware that some women have been cuffed and whacked for their so called “rebellion” and this word and others intended to deride and put in one’s place, are simply not appropriate.

    I think the notion that women are provokers and rebels, feminists and lousy drivers, mishandlers of Latin and Greek verbs, by virtue of being female, needs to be addressed. This kind of rhetoric displays what men really think and it is not pretty.

    As well as Lundy Bancroft, Evan Stark has written about coercive control, what happens when a woman loses her right to make fundamental decisions for herself.

    These two authors should be on the bookshelf of every pastor. We need to make Christianity a safe place for women.

17. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 4:21 pm #

    “I think the notion that women are provokers and rebels, feminists and lousy drivers, mishandlers of Latin and Greek verbs, by virtue of being female, needs to be addressed. This kind of rhetoric displays what men really think and it is not pretty.”

    Lousy driver, maybe, but provokers and rebels? Not able to handle Greek and Latin words? Is this what you get by virtue of being a women? I have, frankly, never heard of such a thing. I have seen this based on personality, not gender.

18. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 4:29 pm #

    I have rarely seen someone write about rebellious men in the family setting. It seems that women uniquely are called rebellious, because they are the ones who are supposed to under authority.

    I don’t think you have to look far. What is happening is that a number of women, clearly resentful, comment and participate in Christian dialogue. Are they rebellious women, or are they resentful of the way they have been mistreated? Who sets themselves up as judges? And why would anyone be called rebellious, just because they believe that authentein means “compel” “dominate” “commit violence” and “control.” If women can read as well as men, and this is the firmly established range, then why are women who hold to this rebellious? Why is this question even raised or suggested? Why is the image of the rebellious woman so common in Christian writing and sermons?

    Michael,

    What do you think of this sermon?

    “And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches,”

    Women, once again, are a threat to the authority of their husbands. Who says that a man has “authority?” I read here that he is supposed to provide. But even then women do a lot of providing and they have ever since the first woman planted a garden and kept chickens.

    I just don’t see how people feel good about this kind of talk, when they know that 25% of women, at least, suffer under belittlement, control, deprivation or normal rights, etc. Clearly there are some extremely unhappy women and I don’t think labeling them is good enough.

19. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 4:45 pm #

    I would say that it is about responsibility and leadership which allots authority in the respective areas. I would not put is so negatively.

    I understand the reality of abuse. But I don’t see it though your eyes. You seem to have a very subjective perspective that sees only one thing. Myself . . . I have been in the church for a long time (very conservative church) and around a lot of scumbags, but I have never seen any abuse of leadership the way that you describe. In fact, I have seen most males fear leadership and therefore keep their families from excelling in a balanced direction. From where I stand, this is just as big a problem.

20. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 5:11 pm #

    Michael,

    I appreciate your perspective. I certainly speak out of my own perspective.

    I have attended a conservative church where three of the wives of men who are in a leading (but not in pastoral positions), now attend other churches. They have been distressed that women used to preach occasionally from the pulpit, but now they don’t. Women have been brought down. The leadership of men has ensured that women perform less well than they used to. Women are dimished by conservative male leadership.

    So, I have seen strong male leadership suppress the gifts of women. This is just my perspective, of course.

    I do want to add that the pastor’s wife, when asked for a reading list on spousal abuse, just shook her head and said that the church did not have this problem. With 1000 members that seems rather unlikely. It is the invisible nature of this problem that makes it so difficult. The other difficulty is that leadership is almost uniquely from the perspective of men.

    When men label other men as scumbags, it does not really help anyone, that I can see. Labeling women doesn’t help either. The issue is, what is the problem?

    How can women excel when they are restricted from doing so many things and cannot do anything at all without the permission of their husbands. Clearly many many women are prevented from performing to their own potential in many different domains, including their own home, by this.

21. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 5:40 pm #

    Sue, thanks for the comments.

    I am a complementarian. What you are fighting against is what I would call “Radical Patriarchalists,” not complementarianism. As I said before, I am sure they are out there. To the degree that abuse is present, I am most certainly on your side.

    I would promote a complementarianism that elevates the role of women, showing equal importance. There is nothing but an honoring and protection of women in my theology of the subject. The same should be said about women honoring the role of men. Until there is a respect for humanity in God’s image, there cannot be a respect for the honoring of the sexes. This is the case whether you are a complementarian or egalitarian.

    As an aside, if a husband has the aggressive personality to such a degree where they beat those who are weaker, I suspect that it is not really the theology that is the problem, but a personality issue. In other words, if a man blows up and uses his strength to hurt his spouse, it probably does not matter whether he professes to be a complementarian or an egalitarian. He simply needs to be in prison.

    My view is simply a mutual honoring respect for roles (which includes leadership). All people should honor each other enough not to beat them up. In other words, I think you may be fighting the wrong battle by pointing your guns at complementarianism.

22. Lisa R on 17 Nov 2008 at 6:00 pm #

    Sue,

    I hope you don’t mind me saying this but I’ve listened to your comments for awhile now and have come to the conclusion that you seem to have a huge problem with the concept of authority. And perhaps even a distorted and unhealthy view about it. I can only surmise that if I’m correct, it’s probably due in large part to your experiences. If that’s the case, it is unfortunate. But it should not be the colander through which we sift biblical truth.

    There is nothing inherently evil about the authority. Authority creates order not self-serving abuse. Sure that what some folks do with it but we should let that taint what it is for. Without it, there would be chaos and I hate break this to you, you submit to somebody’s authority everyday. Do you work for someone? You are under that person’s authority. Would you consider your boss demeaning, abusive or derailing your rights simply because he or she is your boss? Who is the pastor of your church? You submit to that’s person’s authority. There is nothing demeaning about submitting to authority. There is nothing demeaning about headship.

    Jesus submitted to the authority of the Father, when he willing humbled himself, laid aside his rights to save us. That is the highest form of submission, for a man to lay down his life for His friends. It is a sacrificing ones rights for the sake of another. In fact, look at what precedes our problem passage, in I Peter 2:21-25 and Jesus’ submission, laying aside his rights for us. Then look at Eph 5:25-29 that is a man laying down his life for the sake of a woman. There is nothing at all derogatory or abusive about that. And yet, vs. 23 indicates that he is head. Again, headship is about responsibility not control.

    I don’t know what kind of examples you’ve been around but all men do not take their responsibility as head a license to abuse. I have witnessed some godly men take their responsibility to love, nourish and protect their wives quite serious and it shows in the great respect, appreciation and tenderness that is demonstrated towards her. Personally, I have never experienced this. But it does give me hope that there are men out there who look to Christ as head over him and take their roles serious as the highest form of love.

    I would really urge you to let go of the agenda of trying prove ascribing to authority is tantamount to abuse.

23. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 6:07 pm #

    I would promote a complementarianism that elevates the role of women, showing equal importance.

    Thanks Michael,

    I hear you. I am trying to mention particular features such as labeling that are present among all groups and do contribute to abuse. So, it is the particular behaviors that contribute, not necessarily the belief system. I am trying to dissasociate the two.

    I can say that in the church I attended, older single women missionaries and parachurch workers, used to be invited to preach. Some of them were very qualified. However, they were then relegated to the lounge at some other time.

    What I actually saw was not the elevation of women, or treating them as equals. Women with equal training to the men, sometimes preached at other churches but not ours.

    So, it is the behaviour, that I think all of us, everyone, has to confront within ourselves. Do we empower others or tear them down. Do we judge and label. These are real issues and abuse happens in all communities. But, the question is how does the labeling affect women?

24. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 6:16 pm #

    I was speaking to the physical abuse issue, not necessarily what you seem to think of as ministerial abuse.

    Equal training, from the complementarian perspective, does not necessarily mean qualification to cross gender roles for either men or women. So I am not surprised that a complementarian church would not let a trained woman preach.

    I, personally, have no problem with women teaching men so long as they are not the primary teachers or pastors.

    You must understand that these people, like me, are just following their convictions on what they believe the Bible teaches. I am not sure that your persistent insistence that they are committing abuse is not a form of abuse itself?

    Argue on, but be kind in your understanding that these are difficult issues and people have good reason for believing the way they do.

25. ttm on 17 Nov 2008 at 6:22 pm #

    I think Sue’s guns are pointed accurately. A belief system which “ranks the roles” in a militaristic way is bound to encourage abuses of domination. Any time someone is “under” another in terms of rights or responsibility, there is a greater likelihood that the higher ranked one will be tempted to succumb to pride, arrogance, and heavy-handed lordship while the lower ranked one will be tempted to succumb to anxiety, fear, and increasing dependence.

    While I agree with C. Michael Patton that personality traits are definitely determining factors in who will become an abuser or an abused one, we must go beyond the behavior and consider the traditions and beliefs allowing the behavior to flourish. On the surface, complementarianism seems to provide a more fertile ground for these abuses than does egalitarianism.

26. Minnowspeaks on 17 Nov 2008 at 7:19 pm #

    I have a few questions–How is your view of what true complementarianism is enforced within the Church? How are the women who are abused by their husbands who claim only to be following the dictates of their doctrine protected within the Church? It is all well and good to wax eloquent about what should be, but how and when does the Church ever deal with what actually is?

27. Kathy on 17 Nov 2008 at 7:30 pm #

    ‘Jesus submitted to the authority of the Father, when he willing humbled
    himself, laid aside his rights to save us. That is the highest form of
    submission, for a man to lay down his life for His friends.’

    That didn’t come out right…

28. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 7:34 pm #

    I will give it a try Minnow:

    “I have a few questions–How is your view of what true complementarianism is enforced within the Church”

    I think it takes place more naturally rather than being “enforced.” But, generally speaking, men are the leaders of any positions which require teaching and authority over other men. The same is encouraged in the family. Men need to be the leaders over the family as a whole, while the women lead in their respective areas. Setting examples is a leadership position for both, but when ultimate decisions are at stake (direction of the family, spiritual leadership, and provision), the husbands are in a position of first responsibility toward God and therefore will be held accountable in a different manner.

    “How are the women who are abused by their husbands who claim only to be following the dictates of their doctrine protected within the Church?”

    First, abuse is not protected…ever! But it will also depend on what you mean by “abused.” But if there is abuse on either side, it is dealt with. If it is physical abuse of a husband, the wife is encouraged to seek shelter while the husband would be removed from fellowship (relatively speaking) and the two should seek counseling.

29. Kathy on 17 Nov 2008 at 7:41 pm #

    Jesus willingly gave up himself and claimed no rights. Husbands claim to
    have authority over their wives, and it is their right to have this authority
    by virtue of being a man. If people knew that husbands do not have this
    right then scripture could not twisted to try and justifiy abuse.

    Did Jesus claim to have ANY rights when he gave himself up?

30. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 7:46 pm #

    Kathy, what you have said is important and wise. Husbands cannot abuse authority that they don’t have! Wives have to willingly submit. But if the husband does not love, does he really expect a wife to submit to his leadership?

31. Dan Wallace on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:06 pm #

    Friends, I’m heading out to Rhode Island in the morning for a week of conferences, and I won’t be able to respond to the comments again. But I wanted to leave a few thoughts before leaving. (BTW, I would appreciate continued prayer for my recovery from neck fusion surgery and for full recovery of feeling in my left arm; I won’t know for several months if I have done some permanent nerve damage.)

    I think we’re all agreed that abusing one’s wife is absolutely prohibited by scripture. So far, so good. But a thread that runs through the comments is that the complementarian view is the only one that enables a man to think that he has rights to abuse his wife. I disagree. It’s not just a psychological view of things, it’s also physiological. The fact is that wife abuse is far more prevalent than husband abuse. As long as men are men and women are women, it will be a constant struggle. The church must do its job to speak out against this evil, and we need to support shelters for battered women, have homes where such women can go for safety, etc. I frankly don’t see the church addressing this problem very much. Our silence is deafening.

    But there’s another side that I don’t know has been addressed. (I must confess, I’ve only scanned the comments because of time.) In egalitarian marriages, if no one person is ultimately responsible before God for the family, if the husband does not sense his deep responsibility to protect and provide for the family, then what does that produce? Is it not possible that families that have been abandoned by the fathers come from this kind of mixed message? Certainly, we can’t say that those who neglect child support are in any way thinking of marriage along complementarian lines! I think that this is a terrible evil in our society as well, and I have the sense that about 80% of marriages that break up are largely because of the fault of the husband. To be sure, that fault may be that he’s abusive. Or it may be that he’s passive-aggressive (the worst of complementarian and egalitarian mentalities combined in one!) or that he feels no sense of responsibility for his family.

    So, we have the situation of men falling out on either side of what is right and good and loving: either they abuse their authority and abuse their wives, or they neglect their responsibility and do not protect or provide for their families.

    I’d like to know what you all think of what the Promise Keepers are doing about these things. But from where I sit, it is a false connection to assume that just because a man is called the head of the wife that this lends itself to wife abuse. If his primary task is to protect and provide, than if he abuses his wife he has betrayed his prime objective and is way, way outside the bounds of his duties. He will answer to God for such actions some day. And if a husband’s primary task is to protect and provide, then to neglect this duty is also sinful. But the neglect cannot be charged to a complementarian mindset.

32. Kathy on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:11 pm #

    They don’t have authority OVER their wives yet it IS be abusive when
    husbands treat wives as if they do have this kind of authority. This is what
    many are taught. I consider it abusive to even TEACH that husbands have
    authority OVER their wives.

    Husbands do NOT have authority that their wivews do not have.

    Yes, abusive husbands who do not love their wives REALLY DO expect them
    to submit to it. (I can’t even call it leadership rightfully)

33. Lisa R on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:12 pm #

    Dr. Wallace, I just moved from the tiny state of RI (East Providence), which was my home for 7 years. Enjoy the ETS conference and get some Italian or Portuguese food there. Its the best.

34. Kathy on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:16 pm #

    ‘But from where I sit, it is a false connection to assume that just because
    a man is called the head of the wife that this lends itself to wife abuse.’

    It depends on how kephale is thought to have been used by Paul.

35. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:31 pm #

    Or, Kathy, better…it depends on your definition of “abuse.”

    In your opinion, is it inherently abusive for me to say and believe that I am the head (leader) of my wife if I treat her with love and admiration, seeking her interests above my own?

36. Dan Wallace on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:43 pm #

    I couldn’t resist. One last comment in three parts (besides a hearty amen to Michael’s):

    I think it’s axiomatic that responsibility without authority only leads to frustration and inefficiency. What hasn’t been addressed yet (I think) is whether the egalitarians think that the husband has any final responsibilities for the welfare of the family?

    Second, if a husband can err on the side of abuse (which could come from a rather twisted idea of complementarianism) or neglect (which finds a more fertile soil in egalitarianism), are not both of these sins? I would say that in today’s society abuse is the worse sin, but both are inexcusable. But what I don’t see in complementarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.

    Third, some on this post are so decidedly egalitarian that any argument, it seems, on the other side is categorically rejected. I would respectfully submit that that’s not a particularly open or honest approach to scripture. You have already made up your mind that the Bible can’t possibly affirm a complementarian viewpoint, so no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. That kind of closed-mindedness, even if born out of abuse, is not conducive to spiritual growth or healthy dialogue with other, godly Christians who may be of a different persuasion.

    I’ve already mentioned my tensions with complementarianism in another blog post, and I am trying to listen to egalitarian arguments. But I have to admit that those who come with a dogmatic position are the hardest to listen to (regardless of the topic). Why is it so hard to be open to complementarianism if even Sue has admitted that even a complementarian reading of the Bible does not allow for wife abuse?

37. Kathy on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:44 pm #

    ‘In your opinion, is it inherently abusive for me to say and believe that I am
    the head (leader) of my wife if I treat her with love and admiration, seeking
    her interests above my own?’

    No, not if she accepts that belief too.

    BUT for you to SAY or teach that the husband is the head (leaders) of his wife
    can be.

38. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:54 pm #

    Sure it can be. But complementarianism does not teach in a way that can be abusive. If they do, then they are not complementarians.

    That is the point that Dan was trying to make and needs to be understood. The complementarian view does not allow for abuse but protection and love, through a Christ exemplified leadership.

39. Kathy on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:54 pm #

    The only problem with complementarianism is when it is programmed into
    people’s minds because it has been taught as if it were the only way to
    arrange a marriage.

    There are Many kinds of ‘biblical’ marriages that we can read about in the
    bible, the question is which of them all is God’s ideal. In Genesis at creation
    we can see God’s ideal.

    When choices are taken away, that’s when the door to abuse opens.

40. Wallace on 1 Peter 1:3-7 and wife abuse | The Daily Scroll on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:55 pm #

    [...] on 1 Peter 1:3-7 and wife abuse November 17, 2008 At Parchment and Pen, Greek scholar Dan Wallace attempts to answer the question, “What does it look like for a [...]

41. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 8:57 pm #

    Michael,

    Let me clarify a couple of things. I did not say that to restrict women from ministry was abuse. (Although maybe it is to some women. I don’t know.)

    However, I meant, and clearly indicated, that I do not consider restricting women from certain ministries, or putting them under the authority of another human being 24 – 7 to be “elevating.” This is diametrically opposed to “elevating.” I am not saying it is abuse but it is disempowering. Women are not built up in the sense that Paul meant. They are not mentored into leadership roles by men as one male does for another man. They are kept in, or moved down to, a lower position. This is simple fact.

    Dan has so eloquently spoken to the need for some women to pack their bags and get out. But they also need to be empowered to do this. Then they will have to take on ultimate responsibility for their family. Widows likewise. Now half of all families have a single parent by the age of 50.

    If women just sat back and did not take primary responsibility, either on their own or alongside men, I dread to think of what the world would by like.

    The sad truth is that the rate of divorce and domestic abuse is similar across demographic groups. The conservative churches do not have a better track record than non-Christians. So, my take is that women submit and sacrifice many life goals, and live lives committed to their husband’s goal, and then may find themselves single and without a good pension, because they themselves were not the primary decision-makers.

    The problem is why should women accept the submissive role if statistically there is absolutely no payoff. I am also asking, how is God glorified by this situation?

    The only thing left to say by those who wish to convince, is that egals won’t go to heaven. And that is why this is being said by some. Because there is no other payoff.

    The rate of happy and fulfilling marriages is at least as good outside Christianity as it is within. This is an inconvenient truth if I understand the numbers correctly.

    So, perhaps the problem is not about shifting the belief system, although I would like that, but rather identifying components of abuse and dealing with that.

    In Lundy Bancroft and Evan Stark, I read

    - blaming of women
    - isolation
    - sense of male entitlement
    - non-acceptance of divorce
    - strict gender roles
    - silence and secrecy

    Actually, I wish that women not be called rebellious etc. “for their personality” since no one knows what they are rebelling against. And I wish that men not be called wimps, amoebas, ( as I read somewhere else recently) and scumbags. I don’t think that is necessary. If there were properly understood marriage frameworks taught, which did not give men so much power, then it would not be necessary to call men these kinds of names.

42. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 9:06 pm #

    I think it’s axiomatic that responsibility without authority only leads to frustration and inefficiency.

    The best thing said yet! How on earth are women to bring up their children, if they do not have equal authority to their husbands. And half of all women do provide for their families. If providing is all it takes, then we should take out our paychecks and compare them and allot authority to the one with the biggest paycheck. That seems to be the implication.

    No, there must be some form of authority that shares and respects others. To put someone under is simply that. One over and one under.

    I admit that complementarianism is not necessarily wife abuse. But authority OVER is a terrible evil and I ask someone, an adult white male, to live 24 – 7 with someone else who has all the rights, and to then tell about how wonderful it is. I challenge a man to accept such utter and total and incredibly dehumanizing humilitiation in his life. Why not? Christ did. But, no, men protect themselves from 24 – 7 underling status.

    And some day, there should be time for complementarians to do some research and find just one occurrence of authentein that refers to the normal activity of church leadership, near the time of the NT.

    And there should also be an opportunity to discuss why Chrysostom praised Junia as an apostle, but modern day non- Greek speakers will not.

    There should be an opportunity for the engagement of the mind. I would like to see that here.

43. Kathy on 17 Nov 2008 at 9:10 pm #

    Because complementarianism gives the husband Unilateral authority, and
    abuse thrives in such an arrangement, it does not sit well with me. Ofcourse,
    I see God’s ideal as egal.

    Partners are free to arrange their marriage however they see fit. It’s their
    marriage, and no one else’s.

44. C Michael Patton on 17 Nov 2008 at 9:48 pm #

    “The only thing left to say by those who wish to convince, is that egals won’t go to heaven.”

    With that, I will have to bail. This conversation is becoming a little to exteme for it to be profitable. I have tried to make some clarifications, but if this is what is going to come out of it, it is obvious that one side or the other has only their agenda, and this is not to understand and build up.

45. Sue on 17 Nov 2008 at 11:02 pm #

    “The only thing left to say by those who wish to convince, is that egals won’t go to heaven.”

    This has been argued. And women – I don’t know about men – but women are told to their face that they are going to hell if they reject their husbands authority.

    I am sorry. Really, I had no intention of provoking anyone here. I couldn’t help but think of this because it happened to me. To be told you are going to hell is something that I have observed happen to others, and have experienced myself. It is not that I believe it but it is very painful to realize that someone else wants to say these things. I did not know that this would be seen as provocative. It is a typical part of what happens and just comes to mind as a common part of the overall experience for women in this situation.

    I have been trying very hard to focus on the discrete elements of abuse. I don’t see why a complementarian Christianity could not really offer something here. Dan has several good suggestions that I have not seen enough of.

46. Matt Turner on 18 Nov 2008 at 12:06 am #

    It fairly obvious to point towards physical abuse because it’s easily identifiable. But I think verbal abuse is just the same, just not quite as obvious. My mother had to deal with verbal abuse for a long time throughout my parents’ marriage and I almost think she stayed with him just for me and my brother’s sake, which, in my opinion, is a rather poor reason because we were exposed to the abuse sometimes. My mother finally left my dad high and dry in 2001 and filed for divorce. However, to this day, she still has issues doing certain things on her own. It took a violent shove from God to get her to live on her own and not with my grandparents. I can easily say that seeing it first hand at times and seeing the after effects of verbal abuse, I can’t even imagine that this piece of scripture would be construed to mean something that is completely opposite to the message of Christ and to a smaller degree, the context that Peter writes in his letter that Mr. Wallace has pointed out.

    Thank you very much for writing this, Mr. Wallace, and I look forward to more writings like this one here.

47. the things we sometimes say… « my contemplations on 18 Nov 2008 at 12:23 am #

    [...] Dan Wallace, ever since I did some advanced Greek grammar using his textbook. Did I miss something in what he writes? Seems like he is linking difficulties with health and mistreating your wife? Husbands, if you’re [...]

48. Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Nov 2008 at 1:38 am #

    Sue:: “I admit that complementarianism is not necessarily wife abuse. But authority OVER is a terrible evil and I ask someone, an adult white male, to live 24 – 7 with someone else who has all the rights, and to then tell about how wonderful it is.”

    White guys in the military live under authority.

    Lisa R.: “I would really urge you to let go of the agenda of trying [to] prove ascribing to authority is tantamount to abuse.”

    I second the motion.

    Dan Wallace: “[S]ome on this post are so decidedly egalitarian that any argument, it seems, on the other side is categorically rejected. I would respectfully submit that that’s not a particularly open or honest approach to scripture. You have already made up your mind that the Bible can’t possibly affirm a complementarian viewpoint, so no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. That kind of closed-mindedness, even if born out of abuse, is not conducive to spiritual growth or healthy dialogue with other, godly Christians who may be of a different persuasion.”

    An interesting observation.

49. Sue on 18 Nov 2008 at 1:57 am #

    White guys in the military live under authority.

    My point exactly!

50. Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Nov 2008 at 2:03 am #

    Sue: “My point exactly!”

    No, not at all. Quite the contrary, in fact.

    White guys in the military DO NOT, as a general rule, say that the fact there is an institutional system of authority OVER them is a “terrible evil.”

    Lisa R’s exhortation bears repeating again: “I would really urge you to let go of the agenda of trying [to] prove ascribing to authority is tantamount to abuse.”

51. Sue on 18 Nov 2008 at 2:07 am #

    They don’t have to share sleeping quarters with their commanding officer.

    They have comrades in misery.

    They are protected by bylaws and safely regulations.

    They get leave.

    They get to retire.

52. Dan Wallace on 18 Nov 2008 at 2:34 am #

    correction to comment #36:

    I wrote “But what I don’t see in complementarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.”

    What I meant was “But what I don’t see in egalitarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.”

53. Susan on 18 Nov 2008 at 2:36 am #

    Sue, You have said: “authority OVER is a terrible evil”

    How do you feel about God’s authority over you?

    Do you feel the need to submit to Him in all things?

54. scott gray on 18 Nov 2008 at 8:28 am #

    susan–

    you asked my why i engage here, as an agnostic. do you have a blog somewhere? i’ll be happy to think out loud with you about it.

    scott

55. Sue on 18 Nov 2008 at 10:34 am #

    What I meant was “But what I don’t see in egalitarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.”

    Being the protector and provider was never assigned uniquely to men in the scripture. Phoebe as prostatis was named a protector. Ruth, Lydia, Nympha, and many other women were clearly the providers. The woman of Proverbs 31 is a provider.

    The reason that egalitarians do not exclude women from being protectors and providers is simply because the scriptures do not exclude women from being protectors and providers. This would take a terrible toll on society if women did not take equal responsibility for their families. I would suggest chaos would ensue if women were not also protectors and providers.

    Thanks for the question, Susan, but I would never compare the role of God and the role of a husband. It would not enter my head to do so.

56. Minnowspeaks on 18 Nov 2008 at 11:09 am #

    CMP–Your answer (#28) to my questions (#26) focused entirely on decision making. The only decision making difference in complementarian and egalitarians that I see is that the final decision of how a family should go (if they cannot agree) is left up to who it impacts the most. In a perfect world little is “wrong” with either point of view but we do not live in a perfect world. What I was trying to get at in my question was how do we teach the complementarian position better? How do we hold men accountable for putting this doctrin into practice correctly? My experience is that Church leadership is too timid to confront men from the Church when woman come to them for help. Instead the women are reminded that divovce is a sin and they need to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Some are even told to their black eyes that it can’t be all that bad. They need to think about the pressure their husband is under. Granted those cases are rare but seem even more rare because the women involved are too intimidated, embarrassed, or depressed to report their abuse. As for neglect being more a problem of a egalitarian position I do not accept that as true. I have watched a friend go without needed shoes so that her husband could have a new suit. I have seen a family live on potatoes so the husband can get fast food every day at lunch instead of be embarrassed by bringing a sack lunch to work. And yes, I understand that these are not examples of how true complimentarianism is supposed to look but the behavior was defended with arguements of “But the husband is the head of the home”. In the Church women ARE taught much more frequently to obey in love then husbands are taught to sacrifice in love. We are reminded that Eve was decieved but rarely told Adam was standing right next to her and said and did nothing.

57. Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Nov 2008 at 11:15 am #

    Sue: “But authority OVER is a terrible evil…”

    A shorter synopsis of the spirit behind and in egalitarianism I have not read.

58. Minnowspeaks on 18 Nov 2008 at 11:40 am #

    Dan you said: “But what I don’t see in egalitarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.”
    Sole provider/protector? You are correct. The expectation is that those responsibilities are shared. As Sue has pointed out, many woman are in those roles by default (50% divorce rate). I do not believe either doctrine is to blame. Applying them selfishly is the biggest problem.

59. Susan on 18 Nov 2008 at 11:55 am #

    Sue, I honestly wasn’t trying to draw that parallel…. not assuming that you would compare the role of the husband to the role of God. I can see where you might have thought that that’s what I was getting at.

    I mean, if you can step outside of this whole discussion about husbands and wives, and answer the question only considering your relationship with God. How then would you answer my questions?

    How do you feel about God’s authority over you?

    Do you feel the need to submit to Him in all things?

    Please believe me when I say that I do not have some subversive motive for asking (in fact, I probably can relate to the pain of your life more than you might guess). I’m not trying to trap you with my questions. I won’t USE your honest answers against you…. hopefully no one else would either. I realize that these are deeply introspective questions.

60. Lisa R on 18 Nov 2008 at 12:03 pm #

    “Thanks for the question, Susan, but I would never compare the role of God and the role of a husband. It would not enter my head to do so.”

    Why not? Do you not see scriptural commandment for submission as submitting to God?

    Consider what Paul says in relation to human government in
    Romans 13:1-2

    vs. 1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority expect for God, and those which exist are established by God.

    vs.2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

    Now you may be saying that’s different because its talking about government. But the same principles are applicable to God’s requirements to any earthly head.

    Consider these passages:

    I Corinthians 11:3 – But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of every woman, and God is the head of Christ.

    You see the order? the ultimate submission is to God

    Col 3:18 – Wives be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

    Again, submission to Christ who submits to God

    Eph 5:21-24 – And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ (see here is the result of that). Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

    So you see, I believe these passage point to that fact that ultimate submission is to God. And if there is a problem with a submission to godly ordained authority, then that equates to a lack of submission to God.

61. Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Nov 2008 at 12:19 pm #

    o We are called as women to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church. (Mark 9:35; 10:42–45; Gen. 2:18; 1 Pet. 5:1–4; 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12–3:7)

    o When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ’s submission to God His Father. (Eph. 5:22–33; 1 Cor. 11:3)

    Excerpted from True Woman Manifesto.

    Read it all.

62. Susan on 18 Nov 2008 at 1:58 pm #

    Scott, No blog ….but you can catch me at Facebook or Theologica. My name is Susan Stribich. Will that work?

63. Sue on 18 Nov 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    Susan,

    Do you feel the need to submit to Him in all things?

    We live in vain if we do not submit to God. But my view of God’s action in our life is not the same as Dr. Wallace’s. He writes,

    if you mistreat your wives, you have no guarantee that God will answer your prayers. Husbands, if you’re having a multitude of difficulties in life—difficulties at work, difficulties with your children, difficulties with your relationships, difficulties with finances, difficulties with health, difficulties with sexual temptation (the list is endless)—maybe you should look at how you are treating your wife. Maybe God’s not answering your prayers because you’re not honoring her.

    I appreciate the spirit in which this was written but I feel he would not teach that God will, of necessity, fulfill our prayers if we live a blameless life. So, it is not our submission to God that is in question, but the action of God’s sovereignty in our lives that many people hold varied opinions on.

    Lisa,

    You write,

    Now you may be saying that’s different because its talking about government. But the same principles are applicable to God’s requirements to any earthly head.

    I have a complex answer with two avenues of thought for myself. Forgive me for boring you but I have been castigated first for not answering questions and then for going on too long.

    It is one of the most visible consequences of Christianity through history that society has moved in the direction of valorizing the individual and creating equitable laws and mores. In the area of reflection, Augustine’s Confessions became the first full autobiography and opened the door for the expression of the inner soul in narrative form. This is an important gift that Christianity made to western civilization.

    In terms of government, as the Roman church centralized its influence in the late Middle Ages, pressure for freedom built up and various so called heretical movements attempted to break away. After some time, Luther and Calvin were successful in establishing new beliefs about the church. The two important points were this.

    1) The church as the one body of Christ is an invisible entity and is not one united earthly institution.

    2) Authority within the church is authority on behalf of and not authority over.

    On these two principles, Christians were able to separate from Rome. From that time on the concept grew that

    - there is no earthly spiritual institution which is obligatory, you can dissent, move from one church to another or in any way distance yourself from a spiritual organization.

    - authority is from the people who appoint officers to act on their behalf, only God has authority over

    These things clearly applied first to the spiritual realm, to the church. However, the Peasant War happened at the same time. Why should the peasants be asked to do some impossible thing by a callous hierarchy?

    The end result, after several centuries, was the establishment of a government which we all must be subject to, which is also government by the people, for the people. The people, as a collective, are in a relationship of reciprocal responsibility with the government. There is no person in government who cannot be sent down.

    These historical developments are the product of Christianity. Within the Quakers, the Salvation Army, the Pentecostal churches, with mission organizations here and elsewhere, in service and mission oriented Christianity this concept of authority on behalf of, and for the purpose of fulfilling a task for God, was maintained. Women were treated as equals. The first missionary to Turkey in the 16th century was a young woman Quaker who had been in the US and was stripped and beaten in the market place by the Christian municipal government. She packed her bags and went to take her testimony to the Sultan of Turkey and was successful in her mission to witness to God there. She found him more ready to listen.

    More later.

64. Susan on 18 Nov 2008 at 6:17 pm #

    Sue, again I would ask: How do you feel about God’s authority over you?

    Do you believe that He has full authority over you?

    And again, lay aside this current topic (husband/wife issues). In all other areas of scripture, do you believe that you are to submit to God’s directives and commands in scripture?

    What you have called “Dan Wallace’s view of God’s action in our life” is simply, GOD’S word.

    Dan was expounding on what God said in 1Peter 3:7 The verse is making the statement that if husbands don’t treat their wives with honor and consideration, their prayers might be (or, are) hindered. So, God is essentially saying ‘don’t come to me in petition if you are not treating your wife properly, and expect that I will respond to your prayers,’

    As you point out, that doesn’t mean that God will answer all of our prayers to our liking because we are obedient. The text doesn’t say that.

    The 1 Peter text definitely DOES teach that there are consequences for the husband who does not submit to God in the proper treatment of his wife.

    Do you read scripture as God’s word?

    This text is not addressing God’s sovereignty. It is a statement about the consequence of not submitting to God in the proper treatment of your wife. Sowing and reaping.

    You say, ‘I appreciate the spirit in which this was written, BUT…’

    Is that how you approach God’s word? Dan was expounding on God’s word.

    He was saying: ‘husbands, if it seems that nothing is going right in your life, and God doesn’t seem to be hearing you….. maybe you need to assess whether you are treating your wife properly’. Maybe your prayers are bouncing off the ceiling for a reason…. reason being disobedience to God.

65. Sue on 18 Nov 2008 at 8:33 pm #

    Susan,
    Dan wrote,

    “if you’re having a multitude of difficulties in life— difficulties with finances, … maybe you should look at how you are treating your wife. … A man should always look at how he is treating his wife.”

    As I said,

    I appreciate the spirit in which this was written ….

    I do not want to argue over how prayers impact on one’s finances or heath. I will refer you to the blog owners who previously wrote,

    “Join Michael Patton and Lindsey Price as they discuss reason #4 on the Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian series.

    #3 If I become a Christian, God will make me healthy and wealthy.

    During this lesson, Lindsey and I draw from the Bible and personal experience concluding that the health-wealth Gospel is not only a different Gospel, but it represents a different God.”

    So, I do not believe that financial difficulties are in any way affected by how a man treats his wife. I simply do not think that wealthy men treat their wives better than poor men. If Dan wishes to expand on this statement of his that is his prerogative.

    What interests me much more, with respect to the question about authority is this,

    At ETS this week the doctrinal statement is up for discussion. However, one of the statements, which I believe will remain the same is this.

    2. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

    So, how can the ESV Study Bible say that the father plans, directs and sends, and the son is subject to his authority and obedient to his will. … And this is how human relationships should be modeled.

    Is the son equal in power/authority to God or less than? How does ETS handle this?

    When I say that authority over is an evil, curiously I am only repeating what has been confronted over and over again throughout history. First, the “one” church on earth, then the divine right of kings, then slave owners, and colonial powers. But Christian men have faithfully brought about a form of democracy, and self-government, and have laid a basis for equitable employment practices. The workplace continues but slavery is not legal. Marriage should continue but women should not be treated as creatures of lower status under the authority of their husbands.

66. Luke on 18 Nov 2008 at 9:31 pm #

    Sue,

    You’re proving how badly you misrepresent people and neglect to read everything apart from what you want to. Nowhere did Dr. Wallace say what you say he did (you obviously don’t know Dr. Wallace if you think he’s a health/wealth guy). That’s why Dr. Wallace prefaced his statement with “MAYBE” and did not describe it as an absolute. Financial difficulties may not be a result of treating your wife bad, but they very well may be.

    Listen Sue, I’m not a complementarian, and even I get really tired of your vitriol and misrepresentations. You criticize in places that don’t even need it and you miss the point all together. You go places with an agenda. You don’t go to seek truth and dialog honestly with others, but you go to put them down and try to prove them wrong at all costs. I understand you may have been hurt in your past by a very bad complementarian or something, but don’t take it out on the rest of the guys who believe in a more complementarian position. Chances are, the doctrine isn’t what creates the abuse, it’s the sin and evil in the man’s heart. The doctrine, then, just becomes ammunition for him.

67. Kathy on 18 Nov 2008 at 9:32 pm #

    Love your neighbor as yourself.

    I don’t think it’s complicated.

68. Kathy on 18 Nov 2008 at 9:52 pm #

    Neighbors are different but equal.

69. Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Nov 2008 at 10:05 pm #

    #66 Luke.

    I don’t recall ever agreeing with Luke, but if even Luke makes those observations about you Sue, then it’s GOT to be pretty bad.

70. Sue on 18 Nov 2008 at 10:54 pm #

    Luke,

    I think you missed what I said,

    I do not want to argue over how prayers impact on one’s finances or heath. I will refer you to the blog owners who previously wrote,

    I was referring Susan back to Dr. Wallace, who is one of the blog owners. Isn’t that clear. I refer a discussion of Dr. Wallace’s statement back to Dr. Wallace. That is appropriate. Somehow, my oblique reference to Dr. Wallace was misunderstood. I suppose I was using a little irony, but I did not mean to use it against him. The issue was peripheral.

    I don’t want to debate this and it I said quite clearly that I would leave it to Dr. Wallace to expand on this. Somehow, I was asked more than once to comment on God’s authority and I should have declined.

    That’s it.

    And yes, I am quite aware that there are some who are not complementarians who don’t want to confront this. I understand.

    However, I do agree with what you have said,

    “Chances are, the doctrine isn’t what creates the abuse, it’s the sin and evil in the man’s heart. The doctrine, then, just becomes ammunition for him.”

    That is why I quoted Lundy Bancroft. The doctrine becomes ammunition. The conclusion is not to give men so much ammunition. This is why I recommended Lundy Bancroft’s book. Because he points out that these beliefs are ammunition.

    I think we agree intellectually but it is true that many do not want women’s issues to come between people of different convictions. I understand.

71. Sue on 18 Nov 2008 at 10:59 pm #

    TUAD,

    I won’t bother quoting what others say about you. And I think I would miss you if you stopped being the one person who quotes me the most faithfully.

    Cheers Brother! I wish you well.

72. ttm on 18 Nov 2008 at 11:15 pm #

    I think it’s interesting that there are comments and questions about Sue’s willingness to submit to the authority of God and questions of whether she does or doesn’t consider Scripture to be God’s word–even a little character assassination; but, no one is really addressing the issues she is raising. Hmmmm….maybe it’s easier to just attack the person rather than deal with the problems at hand. Hey, that sounds a lot like wife abuse!

73. Kathy on 18 Nov 2008 at 11:21 pm #

    ttm, you read my mind.

74. Kathy on 18 Nov 2008 at 11:51 pm #

    ‘vs.2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of
    God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

    Now you may be saying that’s different because its talking about government
    But the same principles are applicable to God’s requirements to any earthly
    head.

    Consider these passages:

    I Corinthians 11:3 – But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of every woman, and God is the head of Christ.

    You see the order? the ultimate submission is to God’

    The order Paul wrote is, Christ – man – God. God is on the bottom (last), not
    the top (first).

    How many earthly heads do you think there are? Man is the only earthly head,
    and Paul placed him in the middle, of Christ and God.

75. Sue on 18 Nov 2008 at 11:56 pm #

    I have to say that one of the most shocking things to me has been that some people have tried to call into question my education. For example, someone said that I gained my knowledge from surfing the internet.

    The fact is that the papyri databases which Dan Wallace referenced in his Junia article are almost all on the internet. As is almost all the evidence for authentein. What is so amazing is that the evidence that authentein means “to have authority” has not surfaced, either on the internet or off. I think the method of using electronic searches is misunderstood.

76. Kathy on 19 Nov 2008 at 12:08 am #

    ‘vs.2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of
    God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon
    themselves.’

    There is no place for kephale in the passage.

77. Kathy on 19 Nov 2008 at 12:10 am #

    Therefore there cannot be a kephale-authority-opposition-condemnation, link.

78. Susan on 19 Nov 2008 at 12:34 am #

    Sue, you respond to me in post#65:

    “I don’t want to argue over how prayers impact one’s finances or health.” and then you go on to discuss the health and wealth gospel (?)…..(?) ..

    Are you accusing someone of attempting to make that argument????

    Is that honestly supposed to be a response to what I said to you??

    Interesting.

    Are you trying to twist my words, or are you attempting to make it look like I said something I didn’t say? Or is this illogic?

    I don’t get it.

    I find it interesting that you still have not answered my simple straightforward questions:

    Do you believe that God has full authority over you? Yes or no?

    Do you believe that you are to submit to God’s commandments and directives in scripture? Yes or no?

    It seems that your arguments are almost always from history, never from the Bible.

79. Susan on 19 Nov 2008 at 12:47 am #

    ttm and Kathy, The questions I ask of Sue are entirely sincere. I am trying to figure out what she really believes.

80. Sue on 19 Nov 2008 at 1:15 am #

    Susan,

    I am sorry to say that I have lost the thread of your questions. I do feel as though your are trying to lead up to something. Here is what you first asked me.

    How do you feel about God’s authority over you?

    Do you feel the need to submit to Him in all things?

    But then you asked,

    Do you believe that you are to submit to God’s commandments and directives in scripture? Yes or no?

    Clearly, when I answered your first question I did not answer your second.

    So, I took it that you were asking how I feel about God’s authority over me. I accept God’s authority. It is to me coequivalent with his power. It is absolute and I live in it.

    Next, do I submit to Him in all things?

    As anyone does, who has someone that they love who suffers, I wrestle with God.

    Third, Do i believe that you are to submit to God’s commandments and directives in scripture? Yes or no?

    I do. With this explanation. Every single person who responds to scripture, responds to an interpretation of scripture. So do I.

    In practical terms, I provide for my children and attend a church with an all male clergy. I don’t do anything at all in my life that a complementarian women would not do. Okay, I took apart the pipes under my bathroom sink once – but that’s it!

    The problem is that I am committed to the truth. I read the authentein study, and the Junia study and the kephale study. The pastor of my former church told me to read them. I don’t know what to do about it.

    The evidence just does not justify the conclusions.

    For example, in the kephale study, there are only two citations where a person is called the kephale of his own people, as a leader. One is Jephthah in the LXX. Jephthah is not a favoured character in Judaism. I doubt this was the model. Jephthah was an exception as a tribal leader in many ways.

    The other is in the Shepherd of Hermas, a second century document written in Rome. This is considered to be influenced by Latin and is clearly not evidence for Paul’s use of kephale.

    The church fathers considered the meaning of kephale in depth. Chrysostom in his homily of 1 Corinthians wrote some interesting things about kehpale. He was emphatic that it was not the role of ruler over governed. Cyril of Alexandria thought that it was to have the same nature as. He thought that Christ became the kephale of man when he came to earth. So, Christ shares his nature with man, man with woman and God with Christ.

    I don’t know the answer to these things. But I do know very clearly that what we now are taught is not the historical interpretation of the church.

    Another huge divergence is that some church fathers thought that woman was put under male authority by the fall. This is also what egalitarians believe. So, in fact, in terms of the interpretation of many passages, egalitarians are more faithful to the traditional interpretations than others. In the Vulgate, Gen. 3:16 says just that. “you shall be under the power of your husband and he will dominate you.” This is the curse.

    I honestly believe that women were restricted not by scripture but by tradition, just as slaves were. I believe that the overwhelming command of God and Christ consistent through the entire scriptures, is that we must each love our next one as ourselves. This is Christ’s clear command and the clear and most consistent directive in scripture. I do not think that Christ could have made this more clear. I believe that men and women are to love each other as we love ourselves.

81. Lisa R on 19 Nov 2008 at 7:14 am #

    Kathy,

    The point of my comment is that submission is at the heart of authentic Christianity. God does require it in reference to earthly heads and that point will get lost very quickly, as it has in thread, if we start dissecting it to focus non-essential details and try to justify how we shouldn’t submit.

    I think it’s interesting that commands for us to submit are generally preceded by a description of what allows us to do that and why we should. Consider our submission passages in context

    I Peter 3 in relation to I Peter 2:21-25
    Eph 5:22-23 in relation to vs. 18-21
    Romans 13:1-2 in relation to Romans 12

    Also consider Phil 2:8

    “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross”.

    You see, Jesus gave up His rights for us. He submitted to lowering himself and endured torture and ridicule so we could have a right to be with God. But we want to make much of our own so-called rights.

    So again, the point of my earlier comment is that WHEN we submit to whatever earthly head Scriptures commands us to it is unto the Lord and really submitting to Him rather than trying to make much of our rights.

82. ttm on 19 Nov 2008 at 7:41 am #

    Since Lisa brings up the issue of “our rights,” how do the complementarian and egalitarian perspectives differ, if at all, when it comes to “rights”?

    In my experience, people in complementarian marriages always seem to be fussing over who has which/more rights and who’s trying to usurp rights while those in egalitarian marriages seem to celebrate the rights of each partner without too much of a tussle. Just by virtue of being a structure based on rights/authority to decide/power, complementarian marriages appear to create unneccesary problems. And doesn’t God desire harmony in our homes? And to extend it further, in our churches?

    If a complementarian husband is truly Christlike wouldn’t he give up his “right to authority” once and for all? Why is it that complementarians apply this “they ought to willingly giving up concern for their rights” concept to egalitarian women instead of to complementarian men?

83. minnowspeaks on 19 Nov 2008 at 8:35 am #

    Amen ttm! #72 and #82
    I have notice that while Sue has not once questioned someone motivation or character as rational for the point of view that person expounds others have not hesitated to call Sue’s motives and character into question.
    Lisa and Susan, you both have shared enough of your own situations for us to know that you have suffered through what I personally would call abusive situations. You had your reasons for the choices you made. I am not fit to judge whether or not they were wise reasons or correct choices. I think we can all agree that your spouses were not living out what a true complimentarian or true egalitarian would expect of them. Your defense of CMP and Dr. Wallace as men and scolars is enthusiastic to say the least. Had either of these men mentored your spouses perhaps your lives would not have included quite so much suffering. That said, the vehemence with which you defend your positions is every bit as strong as Sue’s and mine. Perhaps we all need to take a deep breath.

84. Sue on 19 Nov 2008 at 10:47 am #

    I would like the focus to remain on some of the very good advice that Dan gave.

    And my advice to wives who are caught in a marriage like that is this: RUN! Get out before it gets worse. The first time your husband strikes you, take the kids and leave. I’m not saying get a divorce. That may be necessary. But I am saying show some self-dignity. If your husband won’t treat you with the respect you deserve, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t! And the longer you wait, the harder it will get.

    This is a healthy piece of writing. Another commenter wrote,

    It fairly obvious to point towards physical abuse because it’s easily identifiable. But I think verbal abuse is just the same, just not quite as obvious. My mother had to deal with verbal abuse for a long time throughout my parents’ marriage and I almost think she stayed with him just for me and my brother’s sake, which, in my opinion, is a rather poor reason because we were exposed to the abuse sometimes.

    I appreciate both of these paragraphs and I wish that I had been exposed to Christians writing things like this when I was younger. I think a lot of people, women, and sometimes men, remain in their marriage beyond its due date by these standards.

    I think complementarians can deal with this issue if they talk more about the safety and dignity of those involved in a marriage, including the children.

    Submission, according to Clement, writing not long after Paul, is an attitude that the strong have to the weak and the weak to the strong. It is a reciprocal attitude of one to another, each from their own place. And this is modeled in Phil 2, for both men and women.

85. Valdimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 11:14 am #

    Two real life examples of a wife abusing her husband.

    1. Wife leaves working husband and two small children for no other expressed reason by her than that she does not want to have anything to do with any of them anymore.

    She makes about $60,000.00 a year in her career. Her child-support obligation will be about 1,500.00 per month.

    2. Wife and mother of four has repeated clandestine affairs with various men. She is an educated woman and has work experience amounting to about 6 months as a waitress during college, but during the marriage stayed home to care for the children. All four children are the husband’s biologically. They both attended church untill she filed for divorce.

    This woman left the home, rented another house, furnished it, and asked the court for $3,000.00 per month alimony (not child support)! All of this was done illegally.

    She then, again illegally, bought a house with her father’s co-signature and demanded that the husband support the children living in it.

    During the first three years of the separation and divorce this woman did not work, but went to the local university to attain another degree (again against the law). She is now self-sustaining making about $65,000.00 a year, while her ex-husband continues to pay child-support (not alimony) of about $2,000.00 per month.

    I could cite other instances – even far more gruesome than these.

    There is a reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is not a pratting fool.

    Vladimir

86. Valdimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 11:38 am #

    Let me give you one scenario of how a marriage relationship works from the financial perspective.

    Husband and wife sit down together and discuss finances; their respective incomes, their income to debt ratio; their agreed upon amount for savings, etc.

    Husband gives wife latitude to spend their money for the household expenses, i.e., food, cleaning supplies and necessities. There is an established and maintained separate account for this. The husband does not need to see it. She has her own account for this and is required to budget the designated funds for the entire month or week. She must make ends meet. She clips coupons and goes to sales. She goes not shop at needless-markup!

    Husband goes to work everyday and brings home the bacon.

    They have both already agreed that they would not spend money senselessly, so they only eat out once a week and the husband takes his lunch with him to work. The spend money only on necessities.

    After about two years the couple has saved about $18,000.00 in their savings account!

    Such a plan had a beginning. It was when they both sat down together and discussed the issue together. Both agreed to the plan. The result is a shared effort.

    This is an complementarian household.

    Vladimir

87. There’s no escape from your husband « Lingamish on 19 Nov 2008 at 12:26 pm #

    [...] Dan Wallace has published a great article: 1 Peter 3.7 and Wife Abuse. [...]

88. Susan on 19 Nov 2008 at 2:54 pm #

    Sue, thanks for answering. I really wasn’t leading up to anything with my questions. I was only trying to get more of a feel for where you are coming from…i.e. how you relate to God, and how you view scripture. Even though you have provided answers it is of course impossible for me to know the condition of your heart before God. Only He knows that.

    If I take your answers at face value….. in answer to “How do you feel about God’s authority over you? You said that you accept it, he is all powerful…. you live in it. What I hear in that, is that you are resigned to it, but it is not exactly something which you joyfully embrace. You recognize that He has some say in your life, but perhaps there is some distance in your relationship with him ?

    When I asked if you submit to Him in all things, you said that you wrestle with God (especially because there is someone in your life who suffers). And, I would add, that YOU have suffered much. Suffering with no end in sight does tend to test our faith, and cause us to question God. We wonder when we will see His mercy, and why He seems not to see or hear.

    When I asked if you believe that we are to submit to God’s commands and directives in scripture, you say that you do, but qualify that by saying that everyone interprets scripture differently, and responds accordingly. So you don’t see scripture as being particularly clear and strait-forward? Do you suspect that scripture is mistranslated in many areas, outside of the aforementioned discussion? Do you consider scripture to be 100% God’s word?

    I’m trying to make sure that I am ‘hearing’ you correctly.
    I have no negative agenda. Truthfully, I’m sure that we could have a long talk about what it is to live in a painful marriage….. one in which you are often treated as if you are worthless. If you are committed to remaining in the marriage, as I have been, there are times when life becomes lonely survival (and maybe that’s a ‘good’ day).

    You go on to say: “The problem is I’m committed to the truth”
    I don’t ever see being committed to the truth as a problem…. as long as we are defining the truth as God’s word, and humbly seeking to understand His meaning. Sometimes I have to stop, and get down on my knees before God, and ask Him to help me to be fully submitted to Him….. it isn’t always my natural inclination. And, just so you know, I am not talking about the E vs. C debate when I say this (so please don’t take offense). On that note, personally, I really don’t care that much about the E vs. C thing. That is why I don’t really jump into the fray.

    At our church that has not been a big issue. It has not been a big issue for me. On the church front, I was asked by some men who rotate turn in teaching an Adult SS class, if I would consider teaching. When I asked my pastor, he said that he didn’t have a problem with that, as long as my teaching was in line with his teaching. I declined, but who knows…. maybe some day? Our church is complimenterian— but not to the extreme.

    When our pastor last addressed the subject of the submission of the wife, his emphasis was definitely on mutual submission. He strongly warned husbands that they were NOT to use this passage a a license to lord it over their wife. I’ve heard him make these sorts of statements often. He knows the problems which exist….. and Sue, I will say that the REAL PROBLEM is SIN….. not the comlimenterian possition. If husbands live with their wives in peaceful, loving, self-sacrificial unity, wives do not feel the least bit dominated nor cheated by their position of leadership. It really amounts to the husband bearing the greater responsibility before God. Frankly, I think that your husband is a real jerk for constantly throwing scriptural verbiage at you to accuse you, when He is treating you in a way which God disdains.

89. Vladimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 4:00 pm #

    I just now dawned on me, although this association is not new to me, that if one considers the advice St Paul gives to Philemon and how he should conduct himself toward Onesimos, one can gain valuable insight into how relationships as Christians should be conducted.

    Dr Wallace noted the continuity in being submissive to others in various capacities in 1 Peter.

    Vladimir

90. Sue on 19 Nov 2008 at 4:09 pm #

    Even though you have provided answers it is of course impossible for me to know the condition of your heart before God. Only He knows that.

    Let’s move beyond the interogation of my soul. I don’t think it is in any way appropriate.

    So you don’t see scripture as being particularly clear and strait-forward? Do you suspect that scripture is mistranslated in many areas, outside of the aforementioned discussion? Do you consider scripture to be 100% God’s word?

    This is a major issue. I do see that there is significant divergence between translations. This is one reason for my interest in the little known Reformation Bibles.

    If you are committed to remaining in the marriage, as I have been, there are times when life becomes lonely survival (and maybe that’s a ‘good’ day).

    And if some were to live that way for their entire life, the question becomes whether that was honouring God, or was it was simply damaging to everyone involved, as some here suggest.

    Vladimir,

    Your example of a good marriage transcends egal and comp. Thank you. It’s great.

    Your examples of abusive women are timely. Yes, women do behave like that sometimes.

    But let me summarize.

    “Some women behave badly. There is a reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is not a pratting fool.”

    “Some men behave badly. There is no reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is a pratting fool.”

    I don’t mean to offend. Please understand that I am playing with the logic. How would you now redefine your reasons why man is the head of the family. ( A term found in the Bible, only with reference to the wife in 1 Tim. 5:14.)

91. Vladimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 4:24 pm #

    Sue,

    But let me summarize.

    “Some women behave badly. There is a reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is not a pratting fool.”

    “Some men behave badly. There is no reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is a pratting fool.”

    I don’t mean to offend. Please understand that I am playing with the logic. How would you now redefine your reasons why man is the head of the family. ( A term found in the Bible, only with reference to the wife in 1 Tim. 5:14.)”

    Compare 1 Corinthians 1:18-22.

    Re: 1 Tim 5:14

    14βουλομαι ουν νεωτερας γαμειν τεκνογονειν οικοδεσποτειν μηδεμιαν αφορμην διδοναι τω αντικειμενω λοιδοριας χαριν

    I thought we already observed eleswhere that the complementarian position, which is based on the Bible, recognizes the complementary nature of the diversity of areas and capacities for mutual labor and benefit within the family nucleus as well as the Church herself?

    BTW, I think Susan can help you iron (pun intended) things out and be a real asset to you in coming to grips with various issues on various levels.

    Vladimir

92. Vladimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    Sue,

    BTW and for the record – I can iron too – and that quite well.

    Vladimir

93. Sue on 19 Nov 2008 at 6:04 pm #

    Valdimir,

    If some men behave badly, why should men be the head of the family?

    And does the Bible ever say that the husband is the head of the family? Certainly it says the wife is the leader within her domain. So, in this sense we see a shared leadership in the family.

94. Valdimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 6:14 pm #

    Sue,

    My father raised three boys. And yes, boys we were! He used to read the Bible to us. Sometimes he would give advise.

    “If you think your tough, there is always one tougher; and if you think your smart, there is always one smarter.”

    My impudent remark was, “I haven’t meet Him yet.” (i.e., God). But in reality I had. It was my Dad. He was the authority figure over me which God and instituted and ordained and blessed when He designed marriage and its fruits. It is a serious thing. Remember the fifth commandment.

    As a father, I have raised my children from the Christian perspective. It’s funny. I gave them the choice of which Bible version they preferred to read. They all ended up choosing of their own volition the NIV. Dad reads various non English versions. (Can’t very well have them going around adressing others with ye, thee, thy, and thou; although I understand we’ens and you’ens is acceptable in western Tennessee and ya’ll in the South). Do you think national television will unit the English language or is it too youth culture biased? Yo!

    Vladimir

95. Susan on 19 Nov 2008 at 6:19 pm #

    Sue, I suppose this sort of ‘interrogation’ would be entirely inappropriate if there was anything malicious in my motives. I think that Vladimir understands my heart more than you do. You may choose not to believe me when I say this but, I actually care about you. I tend to feel compassion for others who have suffered as I have. I would not mind if someone asked me the questions I have asked you.

    You didn’t answer one question: Do you believe that the Bible is 100% God’s word? This is a valid question to ask of any commenter, for any thread posted here. Some who comment here definitely don’t believe that the Bible is 100% God’s word, and they freely admit it.

    I think that it is a bad practice to find something in scripture which you have a hard time with, and then search to find a translation or person in church history who sees it otherwise and then decide that they got it right… even if main stream translations and conservative scholars don’t agree with those conclusions. You are standing on thin ice if you follow that methodology. Thin-ice misinterpretation can be very hazardous to your spiritual health….. and possibly to your very salvation.

    This methodology also reflects a lack of submission to God…. a lack of humility before Him. “God opposes to the proud, but he gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6 I fear God enough to know that I don’t want to be found lacking humility before Him. It is a very bad thing to have God opposing you. All of this to say, I think that the best way to read God’s word is in prayerful submission to it…. even to the parts which at first might seem unpalatable. Usually I find that if I see something is scripture which I have a hard time with it is because I am not understanding it from God’s perspective, but rather from my own limited perspective.

    Also, If we truly understand the Bible to be ‘God breathed’…..’living and active…powerful’, then we will make it our PRIMARY source of spiritual learning. Not other books, or commentaries, or church history, nor past church leaders. Knowing scripture really well is the ONLY way a person can become truly spiritually discerning…. able to recognize false ideas. The majority of our time and attention should be given to studying the Bible when we are seeking to know the truth.

    I’ve been reading your comments for days, and it seems that you almost always refer to past church fathers, examples from history, other writers and theologians (who are often in the minority among conservative scholars)…. other sources. One gets the impression, that you decide what you want the text to be saying, and then search until you find someone or something which confirms your thoughts. That is not a God honoring approach to scripture. It is not humble submission before God. If you hear some warning in my words, then I would say that you are beginning to understand me.

    Oh, and BTW, comlementarians don’t have a problem with women working outside of the home (except for a few radicals)…. and I think that most complementarian men would be happy if their wives could handle the household plumbing problems …. way to go! In fact, Dan Wallace’s wife has a job.

    Vladimir, I’m impressed that you iron well. I gave up on that a long time ago. If it isn’t knit, or can’t drip dry reasonably well, I don’t buy it. You’re a better woman than I !

96. Valdimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 6:23 pm #

    Sue,

    “If some men behave badly, why should men be the head of the family?

    And does the Bible ever say that the husband is the head of the family? Certainly it says the wife is the leader within her domain. So, in this sense we see a shared leadership in the family.”

    We have addressed these issues already. Yes, it explicitly does. And yes, the two shall become one flesh.

    Your logic amazes me. You say:

    “If some men behave badly, why should men be the head of the family?

    This is like saying, “If a man’s origins are from the water-mellon patch should he be President of the US?”

    I know the analogy is not perfect, but after promising change during his campaign and then on election night burst the American audiences hopes with, “Change will not happen overnight; it may not happen in a year or two or even in MY FIRST TERM…”

    So, is Obama bad because he is black or bad because he is male?

    Vladimir

97. Valdimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 6:33 pm #

    Susan,

    “You’re a better woman than I !

    Ha Ha! – I better not be.

    Vladimir

98. minnowspeaks on 19 Nov 2008 at 6:36 pm #

    Susan–To put it bluntly, I found your psychoanalysis of Sue’s answers to be offensive.
    I suggest as ttm did back in comment #72 that you stick to addressing the issues she raised.
    I also wouldn’t mind someone bothering to suggest how the Church should confront the misapplication and resulting abuse of the complementarian position. How do we protect women from such abuse rather than guilt them into taking more of it?

99. Truth Unites... and Divides on 19 Nov 2008 at 7:15 pm #

    Excerpts from Wife abuse: evangelical feminists’ useful lie…:

    “Feminists who use suffering wives as a tool to attack father-rule avoid the inconvenient fact that the violence and victims literature fails to corroborate their world view. Rather, it contradicts them and demonstrates that, once more, social revolutionaries have found a useful lie.

    Evangelical feminist dogma that patriarchy leads to spouse abuse is denied time after time in scholarly studies. After analyzing a number of studies of domestic violence, Canadian psychologist Donald G. Dutton of the University of British Columbia concluded, “no direct relationship exists between patriarchy and wife assault,” and that feminists will have to find another explanation of wife abuse. (footnote 6) He wrote “…patriarchy does not elicit violence against women in any direct fashion.”

    Finally, who is willing to speak up for God? It is He Who has decreed, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”( footnote 10) To lay the blame for domestic abuse at the door of patriarchy, then, is to slander the Lord of Hosts.”

100. Valdimir on 19 Nov 2008 at 7:18 pm #

     Minnowspeaks,

     “…I also wouldn’t mind someone bothering to suggest how the Church should confront the misapplication and resulting abuse of the complementarian position. How do we protect women from such abuse rather than guilt them into taking more of it?”

     In America, a violent rape happens every two minutes. Most are unreported. The civil penalty for this crime is 25 years in the federal pen.

     Generally speaking, the nature of the abuse can be either verbal or physical, and it takes on many forms. The origin of evil is man’s own heart (regenerate or not) or an external suggestion from the Devil.

     This last fact is something the Devil himself wants the people of God to forget, i.e., that he is real.

     I think the problem lies primarly with a lack of proper Biblical instruction and a lack of “aptness” on the part of the instructor/teacher to develope and unveil the content of the biblical revelation. Instead, a quick citation and a look that assumes you “got it” suffices.

     For example, the wife of an alcoholic is too ashamed and wishes to keep up good appearances that everything is ok. But, instead of believing that the Bible is the truth and that there is real hope and real solutions, the Church has forgotten its former manner of life and has become entertainment driven. There is no time to think, reflect, hash out issues, pray, see God act! No, it is only assumed He will. Everything will be ok. Really?

     We are not robots – we are children of God.

     Vladimir

101. Susan on 19 Nov 2008 at 8:24 pm #

     minnow, Actually, it’s spiritual-analysis, not psychoanalysis.
     Sue continually puts herself out there as a well-studied authority on matters of Biblical interpretation. I think that before I or anyone else allows her conclusions to help us decide these important matters of God’s word, it is legitimate to determine where she stands spiritually. Don’t you think?

     1 John 4:1 “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God….”
     The corresponding footnote (NET) says: “…It appears highly probable that this concept of testing the spirits is drawn from the OT concept of testing a prophet to see whether he is a false prophet or a true one. ”

     If you find it offensive, then I might begin to wonder where you stand spiritually as well.

102. Seeking and Discovering Life on Other Blogs « Thinking Out Loud on 19 Nov 2008 at 8:40 pm #

     [...] possibility that a certain theological view on the role of women could actually be fertile soil for wife abuse.   Or better yet, on the same blog, same page, Michael Patton’s discussion (confession?) [...]

103. Sue on 19 Nov 2008 at 8:56 pm #

     TUAD,

     You write,

     “no direct relationship exists between patriarchy and wife assault,” and that feminists will have to find another explanation of wife abuse. (footnote 6) He wrote “…patriarchy does not elicit violence against women in any direct fashion.”

     Are you aware of these facts?

     In the fall of 1994, Ms. Blank registered for a year-long course in applied psychology with Dr. D. of [University near me] D. invited Ms. Blank to his home to discuss the possibility of her participation in one of his research projects. …. When D. …. Ms. Blank filed a complaint of sexual harassment against him based on what occurred during those two visits. A tribunal found that both D. and M. lacked credibility. …. Based on this tape, the Tribunal found that D. had sexually harassed M. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected D’s appeal, upheld the decision of the Tribunal and supported the remedy suggested by the Tribunal. …. The professor was ordered to cease his illegal conduct.

     I would not use any information produced by this man myself. I have read his books, and they have a few good thoughts, but basically they are marked by his agenda. Not a Christian agenda.

     I am really tired of patriarchal blogs citing this researcher (many do cite him) because we are well aware here of who he is.

     TUAD,

     I think sometimes you should become more familiar with people whom you wish to cite.

104. Sue on 19 Nov 2008 at 9:26 pm #

     Susan,

     Actually, it’s spiritual-analysis, not psychoanalysis.
     Sue continually puts herself out there as a well-studied authority on matters of Biblical interpretation. I think that before I or anyone else allows her conclusions to help us decide these important matters of God’s word, it is legitimate to determine where she stands spiritually. Don’t you think?/

     I came here first to ask if anyone could cite evidence for authentein meaning “to have authority.” No one has done so.

     Don’t you think it might be worth interrogating the souls of those who seek power over someone else without being able to back that up? I want to know the basic facts and no one is interested in facts. It doesn’t matter what the state of my soul is.

     For example, if I discuss Latin verbs with someone, does it matter who I am, what my education is, whether I got the information off the internet, or whether I am a Christian or not? No, not at all. All that matters is what the accurate form of the verb actually is. That is the only concern when discussing Latin verbs. Either it is or it is not.

     So, likewise in discussing many of these things about authentein and other passages, it really only matters who is revealing their evidence, and whether evidence is accurate or at least agreed upon to be accurate. As it happens, I cite the examples from the BDAG which Dan Wallace mentioned to me. There is no “to have authority” among them.

     Here is what is in the BDAG,

     to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to

     To assume a stance of independent authority is not the role of the Christian leader, in my view.

     I will not be able to answer all your other questions, but no, I don’t look until I find the translation that suits me.

     Let me give you an example why I study this.

     On the CBMW website, there is a discussion of something Chrysostom wrote, and then these words,

     “The text he [Chrysostom] directs us to is Genesis 3:16, “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (NASB).”

     But, in fact, the text that Chrysostom had in front of him was likely

     καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου
     καὶ αὐτός σου κυριεύσει

     and your recourse will be to your husband,
     and he will dominate you.

     So, why did the CBMW article cite NASB? I don’t know. But every time I read about a theologian I like to have in front of me the text they used in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, French or German. It just makes a lot more sense that way. It is easier to understand what you are reading if you know what these men were looking at in the text.

     As it happens, “desire” was introduced into Gen. 3:16 by Pagnini in 1526. I have been studying his Bible for some time since it is one of the translations which Coverdale used to make the first full translation of the bible into English in the King James tradition. (along with the Vulgate and Luther)

     I find that the state of my soul, spirit or whatever is irrelevant to these facts. It is simply not fact that Chrysostom read the text as it appears in the NASB, so let’s establish a few facts first. This is my quest. I am surprised that others are not drawn into an equivalent quest.

105. Sue on 19 Nov 2008 at 9:30 pm #

     Oops. Italics should end after the first paragraph.
     PS,

     I don’t think TV has the influence it once had. The internet has taken over and encourages diversity rather than homogeneity.

106. Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Nov 2008 at 12:45 am #

     I read Luke in #66, “You [Sue] criticize in places that don’t even need it and you miss the point all together. You go places with an agenda. You don’t go to seek truth and dialog honestly with others…”

     Then I read Sue in #103, “they are marked by his agenda. Not a Christian agenda.”

     And I get whiplash. And I think of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

     Also interesting is that your “rebuttal” of Dr. Dutton is an ad hominem attack because you don’t address the substance of his argument. Interesting that you would employ such a rhetorical device when you are so quick to levy the exact same charge against those who disagree with you.

     ——————-

     Sue: “TUAD, I think sometimes you should become more familiar with people whom you wish to cite.

     Then tell me more about yourself (or at least answer Susan’s questions to her satisfaction) because I do cite you. As you said to me earlier:

     “And I think I would miss you if you stopped being the one person who quotes me the most faithfully.”

107. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 1:32 am #

     You could say it was ad hominem, true enough, but it was the decision of the tribunal that he did not tell the truth. I think that factors into it. That is, not just that he behaved in an inappropriate way with women in his workplace, but that he did not tell the truth about it. That is what I feel is important.

     On the other hand, Lundy Bancroft’s book is widely recommended in the US and a complementarian woman told be it was highly respected.

     Or you could read this article.

     The demographics are very hard to interpret. As far as facts are concerned, in raw terms we know that men commit violence and partner homicide at a ratio of at least 4 times greater than women.

     We know that conservative Christian communities have as much domestic violence and divorce as any other demographic. Since patriarchal communities do not have more violence on average we cannot say that patriarchy causes violence. I don’t think it does.

     I do believe that patriarchy/male authority teaching gives men who abuse ammunition, and causes women who are abused to stay past the due date.

     These are pretty basic down to earth parameters. I think they can be verified fairly easily. So really we should just draw back to basic simple facts that can be verified. I speak to myself here.

     My sense is that

     - male authority as a paradigm does not benefit women (or men) by lowering domestic abuse and divorce

     - protecting and providing is not the domain of men more than women (Proverbs 31) and authority goes with these roles

     I think these things are verifiable. I also believe that the evidence for authentein meaning “to have authority” does not exist. This also is verifiable.

     at least answer Susan’s questions to her satisfaction

     You know I can’t possibly do that. maybe I could get used to it, if you decided to stop citing me.

     -

108. minnowspeaks on 20 Nov 2008 at 2:31 am #

     Susan you said, “Actually, it’s spiritual-analysis, not psychoanalysis. Sue continually puts herself out there as a well-studied authority on matters of Biblical interpretation. I think that before I or anyone else allows her conclusions to help us decide these important matters of God’s word, it is legitimate to determine where she stands spiritually. Don’t you think?”
     Actually I do not agree for the very reasons Sue cites herself. She is citing fact, offering references, and asking questions. She offers both scriptual and experiential evidence to support her point of view. You may agree with her, as I do, or disagree with her as others do. But to attempt to cast a shadow on her (spiritual) character neither honors God nor advances the debate.
     You also said, “If you find it offensive, then I might begin to wonder where you stand spiritually as well.”
     I am not surprised in the least.
     Sue–Thank you for your patience and your restraint. There are eavesdroppers who are interested in the information.

109. Susan on 20 Nov 2008 at 2:53 am #

     Sue, you still haven’t answered that last question:

     Do you believe that the Bible is 100% God’s word?

     I’ve asked two other times, and each time you skate around the question by bringing up something irrelevant … or maybe your response IS relevant:

     Sue: “It doesn’t matter what the state of my soul is.”

     Sue: “If I discuss Latin verbs with someone, does it matter who I am, what my education is,….. or whether I’m a Christian or not? No, not at all”

     * interesting statement since you DON’T only discuss Latin verbs. You accuse Bible Scholars of causing wife abuse because they teach what God’s word says. You pull out all the stops in an attempt to lead and teach others to deny God’s word…. to look for an alternate because of your false premise that Complementarianism is the cause of wife abuse. You are on a mission, and it is NOT a mission to honor the Bible as God’s word.

     Sue: “I find that the state of my soul, spirit or whatever is irrelevant to these facts. ….. This is my quest. I’m surprised that others are not drawn into an equivalent quest”

     Sue thinks that the state of her “soul, spirit or whatever is irrelevant to these facts”…. a very revelatory statement from one who preaches a strong doctrinal statement which is contrary to God’s word. And, it should not be missed that Sue has made a life mission of trying to convert others to her belief system….. have you seen her web sight? Follow her if you wish. Don’t bother to bring your Bible…. you won’t need it.

     And, if you can follow the illogic of her responses, then I guess you’d be in good company if you tag along with her.

110. Kathy on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:21 am #

     ‘The point of my comment is that submission is at the heart of authentic
     Christianity.’

     Male authority is at the heart of hierarchal complementarianism.

     God’s economy is different from governemnt…

     Submission has never been the issue or point of discussion. It’s always been
     male authority and how a husband’s unilateral authority can be ammunition
     for abuse. Proper authority cannot lead to that, and men can never be perfect
     so the door to abuse will forever remain open as long as abusive husbands
     are told that they have authority over, which is one reason why husbands
     were not given ordained authority OVER, because as rebels in sin (Gen 3:16),
     they cannot exercise it properly.

     It cannot be proven from the Genesis text that Adam had authority over Eve.
     That’s a fact, and needs to be DEALT with. Enough with all the opinions already.
     What are the facts, period. It’s like claiming that Adam taught Eve God’s
     command. How silly. It can’t be proven but it is concluded because it’s a way
     of thinking. Eve said what God commanded them both, which obviously
     wasn’t the same exact thing he told Adam. And it cannot be proven that she
     was wrong.

     When Paul calls husbands and man kephale, the context he provides
     doesn’t support the notion that it means ‘authority’. Except it’s always
     claimed that since a wife is called to submit that therefore it must mean
     that the husband as kephale has authority. That cannot even be proven
     and it’s just a patriarchal systematic way of thinking.

     Personaly, at this time I am tired of all the opinions, though they can be
     beneficial, I want just the facts, becasue those are safe ground to determine
     doctrine on.

     It cannot even be proven that Paul prohibited more than 1 woman from
     teaching! The facts literaly destroy the comp doctrine, but no one wants to
     hear about it.

     If you want it, and you want it to be doctrine, then come out with the facts,
     ALONE. Let’s all just face the cold hard facts. Well, they are pretty fuzzy for me.
     And after the facts are established then let’s discuss interpretations.

111. Kathy on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:29 am #

     If the last was to cut and dry, well what can I say? I like facts. I love Truth.
     I won’t depart from them. I can’t. Someone would have to cut me in half in
     order to seperate the two.

112. Kathy on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:00 am #

     Let’s all SUBMIT to the facts.

113. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:07 am #

     I’ve changed my translation of verse 12. It more properly and literally translates:

     “I do not permit a woman…to have the authority of a man…”

     Vladimir

114. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:21 am #

     Sue,

     If you are going to be an exegete of Gen 3:16 then you really need to look at Gen 4:7:

     If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”

     The Hebrew verb is the same here as is used in 3:16. The idea is simple. Like sin, which desires to have dominance over the individual, the woman will desire to manipulate and override her husband’s authority/his role in creation. Like sin, it must be mastered and like the woman’s manipulative maneuvers, the husband will say NO!

     Chrysostom missed the point of the passage. You have too.

     Vladimir

115. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:27 am #

     Susan,

     Every time I answered you, you expanded the question. Clearly we are not reading the same text as God’s word in any case.

     Regarding my website, I do have such people as Catherine Booth and F. F. Bruce in my sidebar. I count Al Pietersma, Bruce Waltke and Gordon Fee among my teachers.

     And yes, we did discuss Latin verbs. Dr. Wallace wrote,

     I will leave with this one note: Jerome did not use the word ‘dominari’ (no such word in Latin); he used ‘dominare.’ Look it up in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, definition 1.

     But the fact is that Jerome did use the word dominari. The Vulgate is an established text which has been used for theological purposes for 2000 years. The text which superseded this was the Pagnini Beza text which Dr. Wallace has also mentioned. This is of equal interest, although few seem to be familiar with it. There is a copy in Toronto which I have started photographing but I have too little time and resources.

     I am not bringing in anything that is not accepted by Dr. Wallace.

     Where we differ is that Dr. Wallace believes that Tyndale had a superior knowledge of Greek that the 40 translators of the KJV, because Tyndale translated authentein as “to have authority” and the KJV as “usurp authority” both working from the Erasmus/Beza Latin.

     But, I disagree. I have a different view of how well non-speakers of a language read a language. Note our disagreement over the Latin verbs. I believe that Tyndale jumped to an unfounded assumption and that the 40 translators of the KJV did not.

     I am not going to say that the KJV is overall the best translation, but the intent of this text was to be as literal as possible, to be unbiased and faithful.

     For authentein,

     the Vulgate has dominari
     Luther has herrschen
     Erasmus autoritatem usurpare
     KJV has usurp authority

     Only Tyndale has “to have authority.” Tyndale worked from Erasmus Latin translation as did the translators of the KJV. What evidence did Erasmus have? And who better interpreted what he intended, Tyndale or the KJV? That is my question.

     In going back to Greek literature to find evidence to support “to have authority” instead of the negative “to usurp authority” Baldwin referenced occurrences of authentein in ancient Greek literature.

     I have mentioned, “compel” “dominate” “control” and so on. The connotations were negative in each case. There are no examples of authentein which support the notion that it is something a church leader should do.

     However, there was one case, in the Philodemus fragment where the phrase “those in authority” was found in the English summary description of the fragment. But, it is important to point out that “those in authority” had never been intended as a translation of authentein. This is now clear and the Philodemus fragment, although cited by Baldwin, Grudem, and originally Kostenberger and Schreiner, is now simply dropped out. But there has been no dialogue about the remaining evidence. And no recognition that the evidence for “to have authority” has virtually disappeared.

     Linda Belleville and Gen Witherington, to my knowledge, are two authors who attempt to bring this to the wider public. But complementarian scholars do not engage.

     A very basic difference between the way many complementarians read the Bible and the way others read the Bible is this,

     Most scholars agree that Phoebe was a deacon, Junia was an apostle, and the daughters of Philip were prophetesses. These scholars believe that women had the gifts of being apostles and prophets, and church leadership in general. I am agnostic on whether there were women overseers or whether Paul thought there would be.

     I am absolutely certain that Paul was not excluding women like Phoebe, Junia, Chloe, Nympha, Lydia, and the elect lady from being providers and protectors, or from having church leadership alongside men.

     My question for this website is why these questions, the evidence for women in leadership cannot be discussed openly. And why does conservative Christianity have the same rate of divorce and abuse as any other community. I perceive this to be a vivid concern of this website, and I have felt the empathy towards women’s issues here, but I want to see it be open to examining the scholarship.

116. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:30 am #

     I think one thing that will help us all become better followers of the Biblical teachings is if we conceptualize doctrine as a skeleton and the fleshing out of it as broader and practical understanding.

     When we were children, we did not know how to act – even as children. How do children act? So we learned from playmates and our parents oversight.

     When we became married, what did we really know about being married? So we read some books perhaps, interact with other married couples and learn and grow.

     When we became parents, what did we really know about being parents? So we ask our own parents, perhaps, interact with other parents, and we learn and grow.

     We learn and grow; we expand our horizons; we make mistakes and learn from them.

     The Scriptures are our only infallible rule of faith and practice.

     Vladimir

117. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:39 am #

     Vladimir,

     I’ve changed my translation of verse 12. It more properly and literally translates:

     “I do not permit a woman…to have the authority of a man…”

     What is your evidence for this? I understand your use of “of a man” but where do you get the notion of “authority? ” From autodikein? I think it is odd that you have come up with something completely novel but I want to look at this verse through the lens of history.

     Regarding Gen. 3:16, I have not missed the point of the text. I am simply stating that Chrysostom did not have the same meaning in front of him as we have today in the NASB and why pretend he did. That is what I said very clearly.

     Exegete away. I don’t know what Gen. 3:16 means, but I do know that the way it is often exegeted by complementarians today has been around for 30 to 40 years and that’s it. It is not in line with the traditional interpretation.

     Complementarians cannot appeal to church tradition throughout history to claim that women were under the authority of man from creation. Chrysostom and Augustine do not support this. They believed that male authority came about with sin, and to cope with “contention.”

     Although there has been a consistent bias against women in leadership, the interpretation of the scripture verses relating to women have had many permutations. Just think of Junia!

     There is fidelity to the notion that women should be under authority, but there is no fidelity to a single interpretation of the scriptures.

118. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:41 am #

     Vladimir,

     Thanks for your comment #116 – very nice.

119. minnowspeaks on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:44 am #

     Disclaimer: My next comment in no way reflects on CMP or Dr. Wallace. I would not read their blog if I did not respect them as scolars, teachers, and persons of integrity.

     Susan–Have you studied out these issues for yourself or are you simply taking the word of a man because he has a PhD or MDiv? Sue has studied these issues. They are not her only passion or her primary passion (her testimony from earlier on this thread). She has a couple questions but no one is willing or able to answer them. This FACT leads me to believe that the conclusion Sue has come to must be correct. Since I have also studied out this issue, though not nearly as thoroughly as Sue (I don’t read four different languages) I am satisfied with her conclusions.
     You ask Sue: “Do you believe that the Bible is 100% God’s word?” I assume by your question that the only correct answer is yes. So, may I ask you which version is God’s? NKJ, NIV, NAS, NRS, Living, THe Message, Amplified, Contemporary English, Young’s Literal Translation, etc. Or are you more interested in the original Greek and Hebrew? Even that could be problematic because there are often multiple ways some words can be taken and without punctuation there are multiple ways some passages can be read. I caution you, be careful how you answer this question. Even P&P is willing to admit that the doctrine of inerrancy needs some nuancing (Check out the posts on inerrancy).
     Susan–you make this accusation against Sue: “You accuse Bible Scholars of causing wife abuse because they teach what God’s word says. You pull out all the stops in an attempt to lead and teach others to deny God’s word…. to look for an alternate because of your false premise that Complementarianism is the cause of wife abuse. You are on a mission, and it is NOT a mission to honor the Bible as God’s word.”
     I find these statements to be completely false and inflamatory. The closest Sue comes to blame is to suggest that the Complementarian view creates an environment in which abuse can more easily happen and is more difficult to combat. To my recollection she has not accused any scolar of causing abuse, and certainly not by teaching what God’s word says. She is also not teaching others to deny God’s word. She IS offering an alternative translation for consideration and we are free to take it or leave it. She has repeatedly agreed that it is sin and not a doctrine that CAUSES the abuse so no she is not promoting a false premise that Complementarianism causes wife abuse. It appears to me that you and not Sue is on a mission. When you get to heaven, since you seem to think you may be the only one of us who will get there perhaps you can ask God about what honored His word and what didn’t.

120. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:51 am #

     Sue,

     In biblical studies the sine quo non for real research and study is the Greek New Testament. It is not translations, whether Russian, Romanian, English, German or Latin. The NT was penned in Koine Greek and the OT in Hebrew. The Greek OT (LXX) is a Greek translation from the Hebrew. There are four different translations of the OT in Greek – three of them are by Jews hostile to Christianity.

     Your knowledge of Koine Greek is weak. I already know this. You have blurred the boundaries and mixed the issues with separate issues. English translation philosophy is a secondary consideration to Greek biblical exegesis.

     In Latin, dominare and dominari are synonyms.

     Conservative biblical scholars have always understood correctly the biblical passages in question. The Church has always adopted the complementarian position.

     Did new insight dawn with the Charsmatic movement in the 1960’s? Or did it dawn with the liberals in the 1920’s or so?

     Is Ben Witterington afraid of losing his job? The United Methodists won’t change. They have already been seduced -long ago.

     Do you really think knowledge and discussion of these issues is late blooming – with Grudem, Witterington, et al?

     This constant grating of this issue has been worked over and re-hashed ad nauseum.

     Vladimir

121. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:58 am #

     Sue,

     My translation is not novel, rather it is what the text says.

     There are boundaries between the sexes – civil, ecclesiastical, etc.

     You write:

     “There is fidelity to the notion that women should be under authority, but there is no fidelity to a single interpretation of the scriptures.”

     Is their fidelity to authorial intent? Do you want to understand what a person is saying or do you want to understand what you want him to say?

     Vladimir

122. Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Nov 2008 at 10:02 am #

     Minnowspeaks: “It appears to me that you and not Sue is on a mission.”

     I respectfully disagree.

     “When you get to heaven, since you seem to think you may be the only one of us who will get there perhaps you can ask God about what honored His word and what didn’t.”

     Susan has NEVER given that impression, much less stated that. Minnowspeaks, that is an extremely offensive statement to make about Susan because it is so false.

123. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 10:36 am #

     In biblical studies the sine quo non for real research and study is the Greek New Testament. It is not translations, whether Russian, Romanian, English, German or Latin. The NT was penned in Koine Greek and the OT in Hebrew. The Greek OT (LXX) is a Greek translation from the Hebrew. There are four different translations of the OT in Greek – three of them are by Jews hostile to Christianity.

     The only way to know what Chrysostom or Luther thought the scriptures said is to have a copy of the Bible they used in front of them. Of course, if you don’t want to know … that is your choice.

     You seem to have missed the fact that it is Dr. Wallace who references the Beza text as the source of the KJV translation of 1 Tim. 2:12. So I ask what Coverdale, Tyndale and others had in front of them as well. Dr. Wallace has written the opening lines in this debate. Perhaps you have not read it at Bible.org.

     Your knowledge of Koine Greek is weak. I already know this.

     What evidence do you have for this?

     My translation is not novel, rather it is what the text says.

     So you are the first person in history to understand this verse! And here I thought I was being obtruse!

     In Latin, dominare and dominari are synonyms.

     Yup, that’s right. That is why it is not true to say that there is no such word as dominari.

     Is their fidelity to authorial intent? Do you want to understand what a person is saying or do you want to understand what you want him to say?

     Very nice. Men understand the mind of GOd, but they don’t agree on what He actually had written down. They can just intuit what God wants.

124. Minnowspeaks on 20 Nov 2008 at 11:28 am #

     TU&D–I usually do not respond to you directly but since your accusation is directed toward me…the following are statements by Susan toward Sue or myself that caused me to think she had doubts that she would see either of us in heaven.
     Susan to Sue # 95: “Thin-ice misinterpretation can be very hazardous to your spiritual health….. and possibly to your very salvation.”
     Susan to Sue: # 109 “You pull out all the stops in an attempt to lead and teach others to deny God’s word…. it is legitimate to determine where she stands spiritually.”
     Susan quoting scripture and comentaries to imply that there is a need to test the “spirit with which Sue or I make our statements #101: “1 John 4:1 “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God….” The corresponding footnote (NET) says: “…It appears highly probable that this concept of testing the spirits is drawn from the OT concept of testing a prophet to see whether he is a false prophet or a true one. ””
     Susan to me #101: “If you find it offensive, then I might begin to wonder where you stand spiritually as well.”
     Susan to Sue with another scriputal and personal warning #95: “This methodology also reflects a lack of submission to God…. a lack of humility before Him. “God opposes to the proud, but he gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6 I fear God enough to know that I don’t want to be found lacking humility before Him. It is a very bad thing to have God opposing you.”

     If I misinterpreted her very direct warnings (for example: “hazardous to your spiritual health…and possibly your salvation”) I apologize.

125. ttm on 20 Nov 2008 at 11:43 am #

     I wonder if this thread would have evolved differently if the commenter most challenging the “status quo” of the doctrines/ideologies presented was named “Sam” instead of “Sue.”

     I’ve often wondered what it would be like to be in the mind, body, and soul of the opposite gender. If women and men could trade bodies, expected roles, minds, societal benefits/challenges even for just one day, our assumptions and expectations would certainly be challenged. I think our post-experience conversations might be revolutionized for the better. I suspect our hearts might be permanently transformed, as well.

     Wouldn’t that be nice? Maybe God should stop the class discussion and take us all on a field trip of grand proportions…I suppose I ought to be careful what I wish for because sometimes I get it.

126. Minnowspeaks on 20 Nov 2008 at 1:03 pm #

     ttm–A welcome thought.

127. Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Nov 2008 at 1:37 pm #

     Minnowspeaks: “When you get to heaven, since you seem to think you may be the only one of us who will get there perhaps you can ask God about what honored His word and what didn’t.”

     I interpreted the word “us” to mean all the people participating on this thread.

     If you meant the word “us” to refer only to yourself and Sue, then I understand your statement.

     However, to Susan’s great credit, I believe that she’s uttering such warnings out of tender love and concern.

128. Susan on 20 Nov 2008 at 2:49 pm #

     To all,

     Actually, whether you are a Christian (true, Spirit in-dwelt convert of Jesus’) does matter for this discussion, because if you are unwilling to submit yourself to God’s authority, then that would seem to obviously bias you with reference to the egalitarian/complementarian issue.

     minnow,

     This may not be Sue’s only interest in life, but it is clearly her #1 passion with regard to the Bible.

     As to how I’ve come to my conclusions on this passage….
     I’ve just read the word of God, and taken Him at His word. It’s pretty straightforward. I understood this passage before meeting up with the likes of DBW and CMP.

     Now I will address your most amazing statement:

     The ‘FACT’ that no one has ‘answered’ Sue leads you to “believe that the conclusion Sue has come to must be correct.”

     WOW! Is that how you decide Biblical doctrine? You might wind up believing a slew of false doctrines with that methodology.

     minnow, here’s a question for you….
     Who do you believe Jesus is?

     Sue,

     You said: “Every time I answered you, you expanded the question. Clearly we are not reading the same text as God’s word in any case.”

     Actually, I asked the same, simple, yes or no question three times and you skirted it each time. My question again…. for the forth time, is, Do you believe that the Bible is 100% God’s word?

     At this point I can see that the above response is as close as I’m going to get for an answer, so here’s my next question:

     * Which translation do you accept as being 100% God’s word? Or, do you not see any of the translations as meeting that criteria?

     And, if you wouldn’t mind answering one more question:

     * Who do you believe Jesus is?

     Also, Sue, I’m not surprised that you list Gordon Fee among your preferred scholars, since he made the shocking statement in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that 1Cor. 14:34-35, which speaks about the silencing women, should be removed from the text. He admits that no manuscripts omit the verses. Since all witnesses to this passage have the verses, Fee’s agenda, rather than the evidence, seems to be driving his conclusions. That would fit with your agenda. Did you happen to discuss this with Fee?

     And, I have two suggestions for the question you ask about why the divorce rate is so high among conservative Christians:

     1) Sin, we are all sinners.

     2) There are many in the church who claim to be Christians but who are only self-deceived, or pretenders. Such persons do not have God’s indwelling Holy Spirit at work within them. They are referred to by Jesus as the ‘tares’, who are ‘planted by the enemy’. They are in the church (buildings and groups) but are not true Children of God. Satan strategically uses such people to do his dirty work of deceiving.

     Readers beware!

     TU and D, thanks for calling minnow on her rather slanderous remark toward me. You know my heart.

129. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:15 pm #

     Also, Sue, I’m not surprised that you list Gordon Fee among your preferred scholars, since he made the shocking statement in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that 1Cor. 14:34-35, which speaks about the silencing women, should be removed from the text.

     The Net Bible has a long note on this passage, referencing Fee. It then says,

     “What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the original text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), ”

     “The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text.”

     Please read the entire note for this verse in the NET Bible online notes so that you do not think that I misrepresent this note. I just don’t want to cite the wole thing.

     I think Fee’s point is that these two verses should not be added into the text. This would be a more accurate representataion of Fee’s position.

     I have a meeting. –

130. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:20 pm #

     Sue,

     1. I know what Dr Wallace meant by Theodore Beza’s edition’s of the Greek NT. I also undertsand its text-type.

     2. I have 33 years experience reading Greek and Latin texts. From your mistakes I make informed inferences.

     3. The nuance of St Paul’s prohibition and against that which it is directed is brought out in my rendering more pungently than (although still correct) “have authority over.”

     4. Since Proposition 8 in Califortnia failed and now awaits review in the Supreme Court, it seems quite apparant that Californians are now happy with role reversals either.

     5. The text of the Greek NT is 99% pure. We know exactly what the NT writers wrote.

     Vladimir

131. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:29 pm #

     Sue,

     Chrysostom used Greek manuscripts and Luther used an edition of Eramus’ printed Greek NT. I know. I speak German too and have read much of Luther.

     Vladimir

132. Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:34 pm #

     Minnowspeaks: “To my recollection she has not accused any scolar of causing abuse,

     I have. I have seen her accuse Dr. Bruce Ware that his teachings are causing abuse. (Incidentally, Dr. Bruce Ware has just been elected President of the Evangelical Theological Society).

     Then in response to Sue’s false accusation about Dr. Ware, I saw Dr. Denny Burk rebuke her.

133. C Michael Patton on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:42 pm #

     Hey, I was just standing beside Ware and Denny!

     It is unfortunate that people make such accusations in such a novel way. In fact, this is a very illustration of the abuse that these are trying to avoid.

     (Sorry, just saw this last comment…I don’t really know the context.)

134. Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:52 pm #

     “(Sorry, just saw this last comment…I don’t really know the context.)”

     CMP, your apology is accepted.

135. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:10 pm #

     Vladimir,

     Chrysostom used Greek manuscripts and Luther used an edition of Eramus’ printed Greek NT. I know. I speak German too and have read much of Luther.

     Please cite where I disagree with this. You have not indicated even one error that I have made. You simply state without evidence that I make errors. Please cite one or admit that you have no basis for your comments.

     For the record. this is what Ware said,

     “The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;

     and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.”

     He appears to be saying that abuse is a response to a threat to the authority of the husband by the wife. But it is well known that acquiescing women are abused. This statement should be retracted because it gives some men ammunition against their wives.

     Dan was right to say that women should save their dignity and get out.

136. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:17 pm #

     Sue,

     In biblical textual criticism there are four major text-types, i.e., according to Westcott and Hort. Others limit them to two (so Aland). They are the Neutral (Alexandrian), Western, Caesarean (so Streeter), and the Syrian (Byzantine).

     One principle in textual criticism is that if a reading is well testified across all four geographical boundaries, i.e., Alexandria, Rome, Caesarea, Constantinopole, the reading is original.

     As the Net Bible affirms, the reading in the Western tradition is stable, but even if the reading at 1 Cor. 14:34-35 where omitted, the other text-types have it and therefore it is original to the autographic text from the pen of the biblical author.

     Please don’t perpetuate Dr. Gordon Fee’s fallacy and don’t pretend to do textual criticsm without proper understanding of the goal, principles and history of the textual transmission of the NT.

     Vladimir

137. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:24 pm #

     Vladimir,

     I cited the NET notes with reference to the whole thing and then I mentioned Fee. Are you trying to start a fight between Fee and Wallace. Good luck. I will not play. I did not bring this passage up, Susan did. Talk to her about it.

     Cite one error that I have made in Koine or text crit or whatever you think. But if you don’t cite it then don’t invent something.

138. C Michael Patton on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:42 pm #

     Ironically, Wallace called Fee out on this inconsistancy today during his plenary address at ETS. I will be published soon by Crossway. Fee is a great scholar, but this suggestion brings into question his credibility based on theological agendas.

139. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:42 pm #

     Sue,

     The penal code recognizes that “an assault on a female” is a crime.

     Most understand that rape is not about sex, but power. It is a crime.

     If a teenager (Christian or not) “date rapes” his date, is he a criminal? Yes. Did St Paul put him up to it. No, he just wanted some.

     If a husband (Christian or not) belittles, strikes, demeans, degrades his spouse, she should get out, as Dr Wallace said, just like the lungs should flee cigarette smoke or the alcoholic’s liver sirosses.

     2 Thess 2:7

     For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

     Vladimir

140. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:49 pm #

     Sue,

     Not between Fee and Wallace, but Fee and me!

     Sue, with all do respect in Christ Jesus, you are an amateur.

     Don’t be ashamed though, I once was too!

     Vladimir

141. Susan on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:03 pm #

     Michael, it’s SO ironic that I just might have read that speech already (!).

142. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:04 pm #

     I want it on record that 1 Corinthians 14 is Susan’s topic, not mine! But not ironic. Anything at all that relates to women is important to everyone, not just me. Somehow, Susan talks of my interest in these passages, but it turns out I am not the only one.

     Vladimir,

     Sue, with all do respect in Christ Jesus, you are an amateur.

     You have used a lot of labels and said a lot of things about me. You have not introduced one piece of evidence or any example of something I have said that justifies it.

     Is this your style? Do you just call names and to heck with everything else.

143. Susan on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:05 pm #

     Vladimir, That’s the problem. I don’t think that Sue is in Christ Jesus. Have you read our conversation?

144. ttm on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:14 pm #

     Why is it that dialogue between believers who disagree on interpretations of Scripture and church doctrine almost always ends up with someone’s salvation or spiritual maturity questioned, with a couple of compassionate believers standing alongside the accused, and the rest of the “more spiritually mature” (HA!) pointing guns of judgment at the one who doesn’t acqueisce to “orthodox group-think”?

     I think we shall all be surprised when we get to Heaven…Surprised at who’s there, surprised at who’s not, and really surprised at how God answers our pet doctrinal questions (if we even ask them at that point…We shall probably be so in awe of His majesty that we forget to worry about who was “right” and who was “wrong” while passing through this place.)

     Is it possible for believers to agree to disagree without attacking one another’s salvation, spiritual maturity, credibility, and ulimately souls? No wonder so many people want a relationship with God but not with those who follow Him!

     Just for clarification: Sue, I don’t have nearly as much knowledge in this area as you possess, and I don’t know if I even agree with all of your well-supported opinions on the topic; but, I will dare to stand quietly beside you and minnowspeaks in facing the firing squad. Christ WAS and IS the harbinger of freedom and love not of fear and coercion, isn’t He?

145. Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:17 pm #

     CMP: “Fee is a great scholar, but this suggestion brings into question his credibility based on theological agendas.”

     Wow. Powerful statement CMP.

146. ttm on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:25 pm #

     Susan, even if Sue isn’t “in Christ Jesus” as you say, don’t you as one who claims to love Christ have an obligation to love her? Doesn’t that mean that you have an obligation to listen without attacking or labeling her? Doesn’t that mean that you have a responsibility to lead her to “your God” gently (much like a believing wife who craves her husband’s salvation leads by example–not with “fighting words”)?

     Is it possible that she IS in Christ Jesus but simply has a different opinion than you do on this topic? Is it possible that God ALLOWS us to have different opinions? Is it possible that Scripture is actually less black and white and more, I don’t know, tie-dyed?

     Surely there is a better way to draw people unto Him than a proclamation that someone is “IN” or “OUT”…

     My heart aches for what Sue must be feeling today. ACHES. That happens usually in the body–when one part hurts, the other parts try to compensate and often end up in just as much pain. (As you can probably surmise from the last sentence, I think Sue’s “IN.” Does that mean I’m “OUT” too?) ;^)

147. Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:26 pm #

     ttm: “Is it possible for believers to agree to disagree without attacking one another’s salvation, spiritual maturity, credibility, and ulimately souls?”

     #1. Yes. I see this happening all the time.

     #2. A key word in your question above is “believers”. Not everyone who professes to be a believer … is … actually … a believer.

     #3. Paul rebuked Peter.

     #4. Jesus rebuked Peter.

     #5. Iron sharpens iron.

     #6. Look at this post about whether President-elect Obama is even a Christian: Obama’s Heterodoxy.

148. Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:40 pm #

     ttm, this might be of interest to you. It’s from John Piper regarding his Desiring God Pastor’s Conference for 2009:

     “I was listening (online) to Matt Chandler preach about the challenges of evangelizing church members who think they are saved but aren’t. I was moved by the insight and courage of what he said. Matt is the Lead Pastor at The Village Church in Highland Village, Texas. He has agreed to come and help us think about that issue in our churches—saving those who think they are saved.”

     There are some people who self-deceptively believe and profess themselves to be believers, but who aren’t actually believers.

     And Piper and Chandler are saying that it behooves pastor-shepherds to evangelize church members who think they are saved but aren’t.

     By necessity, that implies that the pastor-shepherd HAS TO make a discerning judgment about whether someone is “In” or “Out” and this discernment will then guide the pastoral approach.

     If the pastor-shepherd doesn’t do this, then arguably the pastor-shepherd has shirked one of his most sacred responsibilities.

149. Vladimir on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:51 pm #

     Sue,

     Whether Susan (with whom I agree often) introduced 1 Cor 14:35f to the discussion or not, is not the point. The point is she introduced a relevant piece of data that exhibits the continuity of St Paul’s theological understanding. 1 Cor 14:34f and 1 Tim 2:12 compliment one another (pun?). They are not diametrically opposed. St Paul is consistent with himself.

     Yes, Sue, a spade is a spade; a deceiver a deceiver; a toddler a toddler; a sex pervert a sex pervert; a fag a fag.

     Labels identify – rightly or wrongly, they identify.

     I agree with Susan in that an unbeliever cannot rightly understand the Bible. But I will go so far as to say they can’t even understand anything else righty!

     If you are a learner/neophyte/inquirer, then you should ask a question and in silence wait for instruction. I would, if I were in the dark or had doubts about something. Were not the disciples learners (MAQHTHS/MANQANESQE)?

     You offer questions instead of Godly edifying. I don’t forbid you to “grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” but to do so is not to come a mouthing but to listen, reflect, learn and grow.

     Vladimir

150. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:01 pm #

     If you are a learner/neophyte/inquirer, then you should ask a question and in silence wait for instruction.

     This says far more about you than about me. Clearly you have found nothing that I have written that you wish to cite as evidence of these things.

     I feel sad for people who do not wish to talk about words, ideas and the scriptures but rather use labels against other people.

151. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:05 pm #

     PS I don’t feel bad about being labeled as OUT. My heart does ache for a Christian community that resorts to this kind of behavior.

152. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:18 pm #

     The funny thing is that I actually am just representing what is already in the NET Bible notes, as things that are recognized traditions.

     Some of the opinions I hold are this:

     - Junia was an apostle, whatever that means
     - Phoebe was a deacon – as the Greek says
     - Women were prophets throughout scripture
     - Apostles and prophets are among the “greater” gifts, whatever that means.
     - Lydia was the head of her household
     - Chloe was the leader of a group of Christians
     - 1 Tim. 2:12 authentein means to dominate
     - Gen. 3:16 – Eve desired her husband
     - 1 Cor. 14:34-35 were in the margin oper the NET bible
     - women are intended by God to be primary protectors and providers for their family alongside men per Proverbs 31
     - women are to be strong themselves, as well as affirm the strength of men
     - in the gospels and 1 Corinthians women are to be oriented towards the kingdom of God rather than towards a husband and family

     Actually I am orthodox after all. What a relief!

153. Susan on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:23 pm #

     ttm, I did not attack or label Sue. I asked a series of very pertinent questions, because I wanted to figure out where she was coming from. Biases are often bred in spiritual lostness. As I began to notice that Sue repeatedly averted these simple questions (which true believers would be happy to answer) it became increasingly apparent to me that she is probably not in Christ. At that point, it is rather important that other commenters notice the conversation and consider the possibility that her comments may indeed be coming from one who has no spiritual understanding. A nonbeliever does not have spiritual understanding, it is therefore inappropriate for such a person to teach or persuade others about Biblical matters. Do you not agree?

     I do care about Sue. I would love to see her come into a relationship with Christ. At the same time, I care about all who read her and might be falsely led by one who is not lead by the Lord Jesus. I make no absolute judgement of her. Only God knows her heart. Again I ask, did you read our entire conversation, and note the questions I ask and how she repeatedly avoids and diverts. Something tells me that this is because she knows she will loose her audience here if she tells the truth about herself, and answers all of my questions forthrightly. Decide for yourself. I have an obligation to my brothers and sisters in Christ who are here, to warn them and, to caution them.

154. Sue on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:33 pm #

     Susan,

     You did rephrase and ask extra questions in every interaction. This can be revisited.

     Like Dan Wallace you criticize me for not answering one question in ten, questions that are thrown in later. Like him you do not acknowledge the questions I do answer, so you discourage me from following the questions.

     Now, this one thing is clear. You are arguing from silence about the state of my soul.

     I then must assume that you and others who argue against me from silence all agree on one thing – there is no evidence that authentein means ” to have authority.” There is silence on this one point.

     Thank you all, for confirming what I thought.

155. C Michael Patton on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:38 pm #

     This thread is closed. No explanation needed! Continue the discussion at http://theologica.ning.com. God bless you all.

156. There’s no escape from your husband | lingamish on 26 Oct 2009 at 11:54 pm #

     [...] Dan Wallace has published a great article: 1 Peter 3.7 and Wife Abuse. [...]

Trackback URI |