Taken from this article by Bill Einwechter from Vision Forum Ministries:
The scriptural revelation of the creation of man and woman, and the scriptural commentary on their creation establishes the headship of the man over the woman. The text of Genesis 2:7 and 2:18-24 teaches us that man was made first, and then the woman was made to be man’s helper and companion. The Bible instructs us that this order of creation was by God’s design, and that it establishes the positional priority of the man over the woman in regards to authority and leadership. In setting forth the authority of the man over the woman in the context of the local church, Paul appeals to the creation order saying, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). In another passage, Paul states the divinely ordained order of authority and headship: “But I would have you to know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). Therefore, the Apostle Paul teaches that God has decreed that the order of authority be as follows: God-Christ-Man-Woman. Each one in this “chain of command” is under the headship (i.e., authority) of the one preceding him or her. Later on in this same text, Paul, as in 1 Timothy 2, calls upon the order of creation to show man’s headship over the woman. He says, “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8-9). The Bible explicitly states that the man has headship over the woman, and that this headship is not based on cultural factors, or even the fall; rather, it is based on the created order established by God Himself.
Now it is also plain in the Bible that God has ordained that the order of the headship of man must be maintained in each governing institution set up by God. There are three primary institutions established by the Lord for the ordering of human affairs. These are the family, the church, and the state. Each of these institutions has authority to govern within its appointed sphere. We could say, then, that there are three “governments” in the world: family government, church government, and state government. In each of these governments, God has commanded that men bear rule. The man has headship in the family (Eph. 5:22-24), the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 14:34-35), and also by implication and command, in the state as well (1 Cor. 11:3; Ex. 18:21; see point 2 below).
Could it be that the man has headship only in the family and the church but not in the state? No, this could not be, lest you make God the author of confusion, and have Him violate in the state the very order He established at creation and has revealed in Holy Scripture! If one is going to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the civil sphere, then to be consistent, he or she also needs to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the family and the church. Now it is true that some attempt to do just that; but their denial of male headship for the family, church, and state is really a rejection of the Word of God and is a repudiation of God’s created order. And it is not sufficient to contend that it is acceptable to support a woman for civil ruler when she is the best candidate, unless you are also prepared to argue that it is acceptable to advocate a woman for the office of elder because she is better suited than the available men in the church; and unless you are also prepared to say that the wife should rule over her husband if she is better equipped to lead than her husband is.
Jen's Gems -- Doug Phillips' Ecclesiastical Tyranny and Abuse 
August 20, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Einwechter:
“In setting forth the authority of the man over the woman in the context of the local church, Paul appeals to the creation order saying, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). In another passage, Paul states the divinely ordained order of authority and headship: “But I would have you to know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). ”
One thing to note is that Eve was created from Adam, and when God speaks to them He is referring to their relationship to each other in marriage, and not necessarily to a woman’s place in a whole society of myriads. To say that it is speaking about the latter is reading something into the text. When Paul uses the text with reference to church order in I Timothy, he is giving instructions to the church, not the temporal governments of this world. When he speaks in I Corinthians 11, Christ is every man’s head, but a human man (not Christ) is only one woman’s head, and a woman only has one human man as her head.
Einwechter:
“In each of these governments, God has commanded that men bear rule. The man has headship in the family (Eph. 5:22-24), the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 14:34-35), and also by implication and command, in the state as well (1 Cor. 11:3; Ex. 18:21; see point 2 below).
Could it be that the man has headship only in the family and the church but not in the state? No, this could not be, lest you make God the author of confusion, and have Him violate in the state the very order He established at creation and has revealed in Holy Scripture! If one is going to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the civil sphere, then to be consistent, he or she also needs to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the family and the church.”
This sounds like saying there is one God, therefore God is not the author of confusion, so there can’t be a trinity. God also gave commandment to Deborah to judge, and He raised up the Queen of Sheba, who Jesus said someday is going to put generation which saw Him to shame. She will rise and condemn the men and women who saw Jesus, because she traveled from the ends of the earth to hear Solomon, yet Jesus was greater than Solomon, and He was rejected by Israel.
In truth, men occupy the primary place in government, but not always, and Scripture speaks favorably of at least two female rulers, one in Israel, and one who came from miles to hear the wisdom of Solomon. It is arguing from silence to say that these women were in violation of God’s command, and it is absurd to say Deborah was violating God’s command when she judged Israel. She rose to leadership as a mother in Israel, and she wasn’t afraid to say so.
These examples don’t disprove the point of the article, but they make it appear forced. If he is headed in the direction, as Tim Bayly did, that any exception to the norm is a violation of the created order, in government, it is also an argument from silence, for to make the claim that the headship of a husband over one wife disqualifies her from civil office flies in the face of an OT example of such, and is not supported by actual commands forbidding women to government offices.
Not very convincing.
The truth is, in human government, *mostly* men rise to leadership, and always have. Scripture allows that there are *some* women who hold offices which are leadership offices. In fact, God raised one of them up for sure. And we have no command prohibiting women from government positions.
It’s a nice try at making what is normative into an absolute, but it just won’t fly.
Be careful when reading VF reasoning. Be very, very careful.
August 20, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Einwechter:
“In view of the biblical evidence presented above, it can be concluded that women ought not to be civil leaders; only men have been called of God to exercise rule in the civil sphere. For those who believe in the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, how can there be any other verdict than this? To assert that God’s Word permits a woman to hold civil office and that Christians have the liberty to support a woman for the position of civil magistrate means that one has to deny the biblical teaching on the headship of man,
[Which he didn’t prove with respect to civil affairs — it’s an inference he makes.]
reject the qualifications for civil rulers set down in the law of God,
[Where does it say a woman is not permitted? Where does it say what is normative is an ironclad absolute?]
ignore the biblical picture of the virtuous woman,
[Oh — DON’T get me started on Diana Fessler — a virtuous woman for sure. She can do both. What an insult!]
and close his or her ears to the biblical lament of women ruling over men.
[Again, I can see where if the norm is trashed, that there is a problem, but I still don’t see this as warrant to destroy all exceptions- not any good reasoning from him, I mean.]
The example of Deborah does not give sufficient evidence to prove that she held the office of civil ruler or to overturn the biblical doctrine that men alone are called of God to the office of civil magistrate.”
Lynn:
So he HAS to make his claim by destroying the exception — and can you see that his claim about Deborah begs the question — is circular reasoning? God raised her up as a married woman who was a judge, a prophetess, and an author of some of the didactic portions of Scripture, so how can he say “men alone are called of God” to civil offices unless he engages in circular reasoning?
Once again, I’m not convinced, and thanks for all the logic lessons, Mike!
August 20, 2007 at 12:50 pm
One other thing to note. Rarely, but occasionally, God raised up women as rulers and prophetesses. But when the people begged for a king, Samuel was displeased. God said it was because the people had rejected God from being king over them.
There is a lesson there, about wanting to be like the pagan nations around us, in addition to being wary of people who make claims about any woman in government being a bad thing, claims that just aren’t in Scripture.
August 20, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I don’t generally argue about “what the bible really means” but I’d just like to mention a really big hole in their argument that I documented in A defense against Patriarchy (part 3). The “standard” analysis of Genesis in a Christian context(and the one Calvin and Dort explicitly referenced is developed/invented by Augustine in The Confessions. Augustine supported female leadership in the church. What VFM is arguing here is that Augustine wasn’t properly able to apply Augustine. He also misapplies Augustine on other fronts; Augustine was opposed to the family as a degenerate organization designed to minimize the damage to the soul caused by sexuality. He most certainly did not see it as a divine institution created by God to order society but rather as a liferaft tossed to people unable to control their base animal needs and desires. The “good of marriage” is that it prevents the sexual active from being damned. Finally Augustine wrote a whole book on the relations between Church and State (City of God) and I don’t see him mentioning patriarchy anywhere in it.
August 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“Augustine was opposed to the family as a degenerate organization designed to minimize the damage to the soul caused by sexuality. He most certainly did not see it as a divine institution created by God to order society but rather as a liferaft tossed to people unable to control their base animal needs and desires.”
Quite… and though Augustine’s view became popular in its day, it is important to note that it never became an official doctrine of the church.
The family should neither be deified, a la Phillips and Rev. Moon, nor demonized, as it was by the Cathars (and to a lesser degree, by Augustine.)
Though good, sex and marriage are God’s arrangement for this present age, and will pass away with this present age; as with all other worldly things, it doesn’t do to get too attached to them, or base one’s religion on them.
August 20, 2007 at 2:47 pm
How is the Jovinian ruling not official doctrine? The synod of Milan and then the synod of rome and then the emperor himself argued that holding marriage to be coequal to virginity was heresy. I’ll quote Aquinas on the same topic (I’m using this quote in part 5 so I have it handy):
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Virgin. xix): “Both solid reason and the authority of Holy Writ show that neither is marriage sinful, nor is it to be equaled to the good of virginal continence or even to that of widowhood.”
I answer that, According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1 Cor. 7) counsels virginity as the greater good. It is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking “on the things of God” [Vulg.: ‘the Lord’], whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and woman who embrace the married life have to think “on the things of the world,” as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3152.htm#4
August 20, 2007 at 3:21 pm
FWIW…we have now reached the point of absolute absurdity when discussing vision forum/doug phillips.
August 20, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Certainly the Jovinian rulings were official doctrine, but there’s a world of difference between holding virginity to be superior to marriage (the correct view), and maintaining that marriage is a degenerate institution.
August 20, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I read Aquinas and Augustine as arguing that marriage barely avoids being sinful. That it avoids being sinful under limited circumstances (for example):
I answer that, If we suppose the corporeal nature to be created by the good God we cannot hold that those things which pertain to the preservation of the corporeal nature and to which nature inclines, are altogether evil; wherefore, since the inclination to beget an offspring whereby the specific nature is preserved is from nature, it is impossible to maintain that the act of begetting children is altogether unlawful, so that it be impossible to find the mean of virtue therein; unless we suppose, as some are mad enough to assert, that corruptible things were created by an evil god, whence perhaps the opinion mentioned in the text is derived (Sent. iv, D, 26); wherefore this is a most wicked heresy.
Moreover a good example of this is marriage between a believer and an unbeliever where the sacrament of grace is missing. Such a relations are harmful in and of themselves. That is, for the catholic, it is only because Christ grants grace to matrimony that it avoids its naturally disordered state.
Jen how do you feel about this topic going in the direction it is.? This does impact Patriarchy in the sense that it is the traditional Christian teaching. OTOH it has nothing to do with Doug…
August 20, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Morgan wrote:
“FWIW…we have now reached the point of absolute absurdity when discussing vision forum/doug phillips.”
Are you referring to the discussion between me and KW about IS. 3 — or between CD and Cynthia about Augustine and Jovinian.
I think we passed “absurdity” long ago during that discussion of the frog statue, myself. Jovinian looks like a huge improvement to me! Hahaha!
Maybe if we could discuss whether Augustine would approve of virgins voting?
August 20, 2007 at 10:38 pm
CD, thanks for asking. Let’s stick to the topic for right now. I’m working on something for topics like what you are wanting to discuss. Just be patient for a while. Thanks.
August 21, 2007 at 1:03 am
That article takes scripture concerning the office of Elder and makes a huge jump in an effort to prohibit women from serving in government. Weird & extra-biblical.
If I didn’t live in the United States it might be funny to see Mrs. Clinton in the Oval office, just to see these folks deal with it.
August 21, 2007 at 2:09 am
CD Host wrote: ” I read Aquinas and Augustine as arguing that marriage barely avoids being sinful. That it avoids being sinful under limited circumstances…”
Ah, and Augustine was so terribly neo-platonist… So many distractions of the base problems of the physical…
It’s a relavent point however, that even with his own personal “discomfort” with matters pertaining to “the problem of women,” he does not oppose the activity of women in the church or in civil roles. So not entirely off topic, here we have an example in Augustine who did not extravert his personal issues or create hegemonic doctrines to support his personal internal struggles.
Einwechter, like many Christians, embraces the party line primogeniture doctrine and weaves those ideas into headship based on those doctrinal presuppositions. Then he makes a series of successive associations about public offices and the civil sphere that (given some examples on the prior thread) that he projects based on his foundational beliefs. As with so many patriarchalists, he makes connections based on presuppostion and arguments from silence, all woven together through inference and connotation.
Well, as I’ve not been blessed with the secret, Gnostic knowledge about this expanded view of male headship, I guess that I worship a God of confusion. I must be worshiping the God of confusion then because of the many women named in Scripture and the practice of mutual submission within my own marriage. (My husband likes to have his prayers reach heaven unhindered…) But then, because I live by a complementarian standard (leaning to a more conservative interpretation of these Scriptures cited), embrace the American ideal of inalienable rights from the evil era of the Enlightenment which is essentially egalitarianism, by opinion and inference then, I stand condemned as a feminist and open theist for rejecting the order of God as Lord over His creation (per the CBMW and SBTS faculty and quoted by Phillips).
You know, I wonder if Howard Phillips realizes that he is baiting women into rejection of the Word of God by welcoming women into participation in the Constitution Party as local government candidates? I hope that Doug emailed a copy of this article to his dad so that he can stop inducing women and implicating their husbands into participation in this terrible sin! Doug needs to organize a VF sponsored re-education program for all the Constitution Party members all over the country. We had many female candidates when I lived in Maryland and I believe some Delaware candidates were elected. Gee, if that does not happen, I wonder if Doug will withdraw from Constitution Party participation? The article does call for consistency!
If Roy Moore ever decides to accept the invitation to run for US President on the Constitution Party ticket (turned it down in ’04), since he holds to these doctrines, I wonder if all those women elected on the Constitution ticket within their local governments will be required to resign?
August 21, 2007 at 6:22 am
“You know, I wonder if Howard Phillips realizes that he is baiting women into rejection of the Word of God by welcoming women into participation in the Constitution Party as local government candidates?”
LOL!!
But seriously, all of these guys are “baiting” non-Christians into rejection of the word of God altogether, both by their screwball ideologies and by their use of the scriptures to further their own political ends.
These Hyperpatriarchal and dominionist types tend to be rather visible, and non-Christians who see these guys get the idea that all Christians are a bunch of misogynistic nuts who want to create an American Taliban.
August 21, 2007 at 8:32 am
I have to agree with that.
I am sure Doug worked along side many women through law school who had as much brain power as he did if not more !!!
The more I try to want to understand him he continually disappoints me and I feel sad and embarassed to call him my brother . My respect factor for him goes down.
August 21, 2007 at 8:40 am
What I find funny is his use of the word virtuous.
“ignore the biblical picture of the virtuous woman,”
He says this in regards to those who would say that women can work in the sphere of civil government and not violate a man’s headship over his wife. (All men are not heads of all women as it seems from his use of 1 Cor. to “prove” that women do not belong in civil government.)
The word “virtuous” has this meaning:
1) strength, might, efficiency, wealth, army
a) strength
b) ability, efficiency
c) wealth
d) force, army
The Hebrew word “chayil” is used in Proverbs 31 and in Ruth and in Proverbs when describing a woman. Elsewhere it is translated army, man of valour, host, forces, riches, wealth, power, substanse, might, strong, valiant, fitness, integrity, uprightness and fitness. Who wouldn’t want this sort of woman in government?
It has the meaning of “strength, power, might (especially warlike), valour, to show oneself strong, to display valour.”
August 21, 2007 at 8:55 am
Mike asks:
Are you referring to the discussion between me and KW about IS. 3 — or between CD and Cynthia about Augustine and Jovinian.
Morgan: heavens NO!!! I am referring to the whacked out vision forum/doug p doctrinal refuse (as in garbage) that vf continues to propagate. Discussions here on the blog are what they are…..and lively as well.
Vision forum is nothing but a garbage heap and I agree with Cynthia Gee who said:
These Hyperpatriarchal and dominionist types tend to be rather visible, and non-Christians who see these guys get the idea that all Christians are a bunch of misogynistic nuts who want to create an American Taliban.
I want to distance myself as far away as I can from these whack jobs.
August 21, 2007 at 9:07 am
“Quite… and though Augustine’s view became popular in its day, it is important to note that it never became an official doctrine of the church.
The family should neither be deified, a la Phillips and Rev. Moon, nor demonized, as it was by the Cathars (and to a lesser degree, by Augustine.)
Though good, sex and marriage are God’s arrangement for this present age, and will pass away with this present age; as with all other worldly things, it doesn’t do to get too attached to them, or base one’s religion on them.”
Amen!!!
August 21, 2007 at 11:45 am
Well, taken all in all — Abshire’s comment that God does not allow women to vote, and Einwechter’s reasoning how the headship of man disqualifies a woman (and he means any woman) from civil office, I think Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach was spot on with his article on Vision Forum and its pagan conception of authority. The teachings of these articles is overreaching in telling women what they can’t do. And it seems to talk about who is in charge more than it talks about who can serve.
The eisgesis is more subtle in Einwechter’s article. Abshire’s prooftext was glaring in its lack of proof for what he was claiming. And Krieg’s comments that Isaiah 3:12 proves that women shouldn’t vote are on the same level, the foundation of which I am suspecting is circular reasoning. The reason I say that is because all three are saying: “Women voting and women in public office are bad because the Bible says so.” However, when I go to the Bible, I do not find what these men are saying being taught. They must then have their conclusion be one of their premises. And that is faulty logic.
Now, Einwechter did try to establish lines of inference from what is normative in Scripture, from Genesis, I Timothy, and I Corinthians. However, if you’ve just got one Biblical example of a woman teaching or giving counsel to a man in a leadership role within a nation, which God raised up and God approved of, then your lines of inference get very weak at that point. If the Bible acknowledges there are women who rule in society elsewhere, describing them and commending them, the lines grow weaker still. For although they were not normative, they still existed and were spoken well of. If, throughout history, you see women rising to levels of leadership and influence in nations, being accepted in an otherwise male dominated society, your lines grow weaker still (think Queens and one PM of England, but there are more examples).
Regarding Einwechter’s article — his reasoning is a lot more convincing, because of what we would call “the common judgment of mankind,” or perhaps “natural law.” And this is precicely what Isaiah 3:12 has to add to the argument as well — if a whole society is dominated by women, with women in charge in the civil government, and few or no men, that is an unnatural state of affairs. That is, if that is what the correct interpretation of the verse means.
I think we would all agree with that. However, the woman who rises to a position of leadership in a judicial role, such as Deborah, in a situation where male involvement in government is the norm, is the example brought forth to question the validity of the two articles raised. The answer we get is either to dismiss the exceptions, or to try to teach they were indicative of God’s judgment, based on Is 3:12.
But, Isaiah 3:12 is not talking about exceptions. It is referring to a wholesale reversal of the norm. And with Deborah, and with the Queens (of true influence and rule) and the PM of England, we don’t find a reversal of the norm. The women just are there, not in great numbers, but they are there. And really, if you are going to argue anything about government and use the Bible, the only thing you have to go on, really, is a decrying of a normal state of affairs. BUT YOU CAN’T USE THAT IDEA TO DESTROY EXCEPTIONS. You can’t chew your fingers worrying about a slippery slope, and try to make Scriptures say things they don’t mean, and then feel safe, because, now you’ve PROVEN the Bible forbids ALL women to either vote or assume roles in government. Because you haven’t done that. All you’ve been able to note is that in government, a reversal of the norm is not a desirable thing.
So my considered opinion is that in general, it is the NATURAL thing for men to assume leadership in government, and of course the military, because they are superior at that, and that some women may have roles of service in these spheres. I firmly believe the previous sentence is what the Bible recognizes, and allows for. By the way, I said, “service,” not “ruling,” in the first sentence of this paragraph, for in truth, all should seek higher places in order to serve, not “lord it over,” according to the words of Jesus. I think there is no biblical warrant for refusing to allow women to either vote on civic matters, or to bar them from seeking government offices. Especially, if, like Diana Fessler and other women I know of, they are seeking to serve those who elected them to office and fight for freedom, not government intrusion and restriction.
August 21, 2007 at 1:06 pm
You have to remember, too, that the “natural state of affairs” in the Old Testament is the state of affairs as it existed in a fallen and unredeemed world, which was NOTHING like the world as God created it to be. Ad to this the fact that practically all of the women who are well spoken of in the Bible were non-norative for their day, and, well…. you see where this leads. The “norms” of the natural world are mostly the result of the Fall.
August 21, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Good heavens — I need to get another keyboard. Tis one is leaving out letters that I know I typed.
August 21, 2007 at 1:11 pm
“Especially, if … they are seeking to serve those who elected them to office and fight for freedom, not government intrusion and restriction.”
I guess that would leave dominionist women out of the equation in ANY case then, even if their husbands and their theology allowed them to hold office. 😀
August 21, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Patty wrote: “The more I try to want to understand him he continually disappoints me and I feel sad and embarassed to call him my brother.”
You are not alone, Patty. Joe Taylor made it quite clear he did not consider Phillips a brother in Christ.
To be balanced, however, I think we need to look at the overall context of Phillips and his behavior over the last seven years. In the year 2000, I could easily say that Phillips was infused with godly wisdom. Since the time that Bob Welch left BCA and Phillips had his members sign a covenant, Phillips’ wisdom has devolved into confusion and illogic.
I can only see one reason for Phillips’ dissent — his tyranny resulted in God withdrawing His Holy Spirit, Who provides us with godly wisdom. If this be true, then Phillips has no hope of godly wisdom operating in his life until he repents.
God will not be mocked, and Phillips and his chums at Vision Forum, VFM, and BCA would be wll advised to publicly repent before it is obvious to all that it is too late.
August 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Praise the Lord. I’m not one of the norms. Gee that put a skip in my step!
August 21, 2007 at 3:13 pm
…wives be submissive to your own husbands…. ( and ) ….being submissive to their own husbands…. 1 Peter 3:1,5
God’s Word is very precise. Peter did not make a mistake, he could have said women are to be submissive to all men or the holy women of old were submissive to all men. But Peter does not say that, he says wives are to submit to their own husbands not to all men.
Can you imagine if women were to submit to all men? Think of the ramifications of that idea! Think about it for awhile and some very disturbing possibilities arise if women are to submit to all men.
If someone else already said this, then I just wanted to repeat it! Grin.
August 21, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“These Hyperpatriarchal and dominionist types tend to be rather visible, and non-Christians who see these guys get the idea that all Christians are a bunch of misogynistic nuts who want to create an American Taliban.
I want to distance myself as far away as I can from these whack jobs.”
I agree. The problem is that some of the ‘thinking’ is making its way into some evangelical circles and seminaries. It is a slippery slope of works and rules which only bring more questions.
SWBTS fired a woman professor who taught Hebrew. She had been approved by the trustees but the new president decided that a woman could not teach the Hebrew language to male students. Her reviews were great. Everything was fine and she was on track for tenure. It was simply that she was a gal.
This is the same seminary that just introduced a ‘homemaking’ certificate for women.
August 21, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Another story that made national news.. in Aug. 2006 in Watertown NY a city councilman fired his church’s sunday school teacher of 54 years of a new change in church policy about ” I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man she must be silent,”
It made Wikipedia for all the world to see. Baptist church… surprise. Hmm must be change in leadership there.
August 21, 2007 at 6:25 pm
SWBTS?
This is the same seminary that just introduced a ‘homemaking’ certificate for women.
This reminds me of the promotional video I saw a few years ago from Hyles-Anderson College. Creepy when Hyles said he was the “daddy” of his students. And hilarous when they showed a room with several dozen girls on sewing machines, no doubt getting a similar certificate.
August 21, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Hutch:
Can you imagine if women were to submit to all men? Think of the ramifications of that idea! Think about it for awhile and some very disturbing possibilities arise if women are to submit to all men.
Morgan:
I encountered this on an aircraft maintenance lease return/re lease. A male person told me that I HAD to do as he told me to because I was a woman and had to submit to him. (He actually had the audacity to get personal). The real uproar started when I gave him my travel sized bible and told him to show all of us here where God told him that he was in charge of me, a woman married to another man…….we would all like to know. His work mate reported him to their superiors..one of whom was an elder, the other was a woman…..he was removed from the project.
Talk about ramifications…yeah there are a lot. If females must submit to the whims of any male regardless of any other factors…consent…already married I am sure you get the scary point…..Women then become no better than refuse and garbage and men are then permitted any license with them…all boundaries disappear.
August 22, 2007 at 7:42 am
Morgan-
What an excellent example and an even better response. I guess he must have thought you were biblically illiterate! The truth is that anyone who demands submission from another is emotionally immature. These guys have no clue about the absolute equal value of women in God’s eyes. They also have no grasp at all on the love of God. Jesus Christ (The anointed salvation of God) was the only man that has ever lived who was qualified to demand submission and He said “if you love me, you will keep my commands”. Yes, there will be grave consequences for ultimately denying Christ, but the idea is that people submit to those whom they love. After Peter denied the Lord with a blasphemous curse, Jesus reinstated Peter by asking him three questions: Do you love Me? Do you love Me? Do you love Me? Husbands, love your wives like Christ loved the Church…you would be amazed what people will do for you if you truly love them and they love you! Give it a try, it works! On the flip-side do not be surprised that people resist your hateful attitude towards them.
August 22, 2007 at 7:46 am
“you would be amazed what people will do for you if you truly love them and they love you! Give it a try, it works! On the flip-side do not be surprised that people resist your hateful attitude towards them.”
Hutch,
It is truly amazing how simply the gospel really is, hey?
Man’s systems pervert and confuse the simplicity of the gospel.
August 22, 2007 at 7:55 am
“This is the same seminary that just introduced a ‘homemaking’ certificate for women.”
Lynn,
Do they have a similar certificate for the men? I would like to see men who can fix things and be adept around the house. Also, a short course on taking out the garbage and being aware of all the duties that a home demands upon ALL of its inhabitants, not just the female one. How about changing diapers and taking care of minor cuts, scrapes and bruises? Bathing babies? Of course, they would want to include in the certificate for men a course on cooking. After all, there will be times their wife will be busy with other things, sick with child or unavailable and they will need to jump in take care of things.
Instead of the Martha Degree, I would much rather get the Mary Degree. Do they have one for those of us who are trying to subdue our Martha and choose the BETTER thing??
August 22, 2007 at 8:38 am
“Do they have a similar certificate for the men? I would like to see men who can fix things and be adept around the house. ”
Don’t forget auto repair, fish-scaling, and dressing out venison — though some might have to start with driver’s ed, basic fishing and marksmanship.. 😉
August 22, 2007 at 8:47 am
Hey lets fight all sexism. Most men can cook, change/bathe a baby and using the iodine & bandaids take care of minor cuts and scrapes.
Things men would like to know for marriage
— How to tell the difference between a plant and a weed
— How woman find lost things (they are using some sort of a trick) but more importantly where they put them. Almost without exception men find their wife’s organization system bewildering.
— Practice fixing things. How to you can lookup online. What you don’t get are the safety tips everyone assumes you already know
And finally both parties:
— The tricks movers use to move things.
August 22, 2007 at 9:26 am
LOL….
“How woman find lost things (they are using some sort of a trick) but more importantly where they put them.”
That’s one trick I’d love to learn. Whenever I put something away “in a safe place where I’ll be sure to find it the next time I need it”, I never see it again…
August 22, 2007 at 10:28 am
Two year olds find things the best.
My husband bakes the best cookies and apple strudel on the planet. He has his certificate in ‘keeping Morgan happy’, when all the dust dies down…thats what it really is all about…husbands and wives loving each other and making lots of happy!
🙂
August 22, 2007 at 10:40 am
My husband’s good around the house, too — I can’t complain.
He may not know how to repair a car, but he works hard earning a living, cooks like a five star chef, yet appreciates my cooking, and even though he’s a city boy, he isn’t grossed out if I dress out a deer in the bathtub — he even helps me clean and disinfect the place afterward.
And, at nearly 50, he’s still doggone cute.
August 22, 2007 at 5:51 pm
“And it is not sufficient to contend that it is acceptable to support a woman for civil ruler when she is the best candidate, unless you are also prepared to argue that it is acceptable to advocate a woman for the office of elder because she is better suited than the available men in the church; and unless you are also prepared to say that the wife should rule over her husband if she is better equipped to lead than her husband is.”
I am fully prepared to say all three!
August 22, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Or rather, I should edit my response a bit – I believe in mutual submission, so I would NEVER advocate for a wife ruling over her husband, anymore than I would for the husband ruling over his wife. If both spouses love and honor each other and allow each other to exercise their judgment and abilities, then there shouldn’t be any need for either to rule over the other.
August 22, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Cindy Kunsman said:
You know, I wonder if Howard Phillips realizes that he is baiting women into rejection of the Word of God by welcoming women into participation in the Constitution Party as local government candidates? I hope that Doug emailed a copy of this article to his dad so that he can stop inducing women and implicating their husbands into participation in this terrible sin! Doug needs to organize a VF sponsored re-education program for all the Constitution Party members all over the country. We had many female candidates when I lived in Maryland and I believe some Delaware candidates were elected. Gee, if that does not happen, I wonder if Doug will withdraw from Constitution Party participation? The article does call for consistency!
Great point! Thanks for bringing this up!
September 6, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Secular Humanist does a great job of hermeneutics on the Mary Lambert (fired SS Teacher) case:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258038.htm
OT, he also offers a proof (that there are no atheist fundamentalists) that I’m still trying to wrap my head around:
http://atheism.about.com/od/fundamentalistatheists/a/AtheistDogmatic.htm