Part II of the same article by Bill Einwechter:
Every time the Scripture speaks to the subject of the necessary qualifications for those who will bear rule in the civil sphere, it always speaks in terms of men and never in terms of women. This is significant, and based on point number 1 above, it is not hard to understand. The consistent assumption of Scripture is that men are to be the civil magistrates; and, as we have seen, this is not based on culture but upon the created order. Since God is both Creator and Lawgiver there is never any contradiction between the created order and the law of God. And as creation establishes the headship of man in the civil sphere by means of man being created first and the woman being created for man, so the law of God sets the headship of man in the civil sphere by means of the stated qualifications for civil rulers. God set forth the essential qualifications for civil magistrates for all people and for all time when He spoke through Jethro to Moses: “Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers…” (Ex. 18:21; emphasis added). And Moses himself said to the people as they were about to choose their civil magistrates, “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you” (Deut. 1:13; emphasis added). Importantly, the word for “men” chosen by the Holy Spirit in both of these texts is the Hebrew, gender specific word for a man, i.e., a male as opposed to a female.
Furthermore, the directions that God gives concerning the establishment of a king in Israel requires that a man, and not a woman, be chosen (Deut. 17:14-20). The king was to be a “brother,” and he was not to “multiply wives to himself.” Clearly, a man is in view here. The law of God commands us, therefore, to choose men to be our rulers! Likewise, in every other passage of Scripture dealing with the civil magistrate and his qualifications and duties, men are in view (2 Sam. 23:3; Neh. 7:2; Prov. 16:10; 20:8, 28; 29:14; 31:4-5; Rom. 13:1-6; etc.). Therefore, the standard of God’s law that men be our civil rulers upholds the order of creation. God has spoken to us in His Word, and there He commands us to set men, not women, into positions of civil authority. To consider these texts (Ex. 18:21; Deut. 1:13; 17:14-20) irrelevant in regards to what they say about setting men in civil office, would logically require us to consider the other qualifications listed as being of no account as well. The rejection of these Scriptures would leave us with no biblical standard for citizens in choosing their rulers. This may suit some, but for those who are the disciples of Jesus Christ and love the law of God, such a position is abhorrent.
Jen's Gems -- Doug Phillips' Ecclesiastical Tyranny and Abuse 
August 21, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I haven’t read this yet, but it doesn’t seem like anything John Knox wouldn’t say.
Suppose they’re wrong. Isn’t that the normative Reformed view since the time of the Reformation? Correct me if I’m wrong here.
August 22, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Actually, this position makes much more logical sense to me than does the complementarian one (which says men rule in the home and church, but ruling/leading in the civic and business spheres is not restricted to men). In other words, Doug is saying, in essence, that men were created to rule, and women were created to be ruled. (We’ll just ignore that pesky creation account, where both men and women were given dominion over the creatures and the earth, but not over people.)
To buy into this position requires that you believe men are ontologically created as leaders/rules/initiators, and women are ontologically created as followers/ruled ones/responders. Grudem and Piper also essentially believe this. I believe the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood details a list of “non-directive tasks” for women in the workplace that are permissible, so they are not in a position to rule over/have authority over men.
Of course, this creates all kinds of problems, like this scenario I posed that got me kicked off the Bayly blog. My cousin, who owned a ranch out west (in the family since the Civil War), died, leaving behind a wife and three daughters. According to people like Phillips, Bayly, et al, since women are not permitted to ever have authority over a man, my cousin’s wife would be forced to sell the ranch, since it would be impermissable for her to direct the male ranch hands.
If women are never to rule over men, period, we have the problem of servants, of the workplace, etc. If women are ontologically created to be ruled, and men ontologically rulers (based on the Creation order), why limit it just to marriage and church? If we truly believe that in a woman’s core identity she is not to rule, but to be ruled, how is it possible that we believe she can, in fact, lead and be in charge in any situation?
IMHO, to hold the position that women were created to be ruled and men were created as rules means that the complementarian position is untenable – it’s got to be flat out hyperpatriarchy to make sense.
It was the absurdity of this postion that began my journey out of bondage and into egalitarianism.
August 22, 2007 at 1:16 pm
This begs the question, what is it that makes women “made to be ruled” and men “made to rule”? If subservience is an essential to the state of being female, we would see this system in operation in the animals as well, since they are also male and female, but we don’t. (Ever tried to put a burka on a tiger?) Thus, any so-called natural female subservience must be a product of the Fall and the Flesh, and as such, we have been and are being redeemed from it and are duty-bound to rise above it.
August 22, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Cynthia Gee: (Ever tried to put a burka on a tiger?)
Morgan: (Ever tried to put a burka on Morgan??? 🙂 ) Ok I am through laughing…how about those female spiders that eat their mates afterwards…and lets not forget those female PRAYING mantis’ either. (chomp…off with ‘is head!!!)
Pass the salt….please.
August 22, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Light,
I’d never argue that the ruler/ruled distinction is absolute. I’d prefer to call it normative. I agree, the way you cast it makes it impossible for women to raise their own male children. Seems to me like you might have a straw man on your hands here.
Cynthia,
I’m not so sure we can draw those parallels to the animal kingdom. Paul’s argument is based on the fact that male was created first, then female, and female from the male. We have no record of that happening in the animal kingdom. Besides, nobody would argue that wives aren’t meant to be helpmeets; however, if we look to our friend the Praying Mantis, we could argue that females are really supposed to eat their mates. Or something. Or maybe, if we look to frogs, we could argue that the gender roles are entirely interchangeable. Don’t even get me started on worms.
I dunno. I think that Paul’s first/second argument applied here is pretty solid, and certainly ontological. I’d be open to discussion of that passage, but I think the issue for me rests there and not in any comparisons to the rest of the natural world.
Of course, I probably missed that discussion in the last thread. If this is the case, I’ll accept a dismissive wave of the hand as your response.
Alternately, I’ve seen a theologian or two try to derive concepts of male and female from The Trinity. I’ll stop before I say anything heretical *grin*, but again I’d rather look for answers here than in the animal world.
August 22, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Red Ink:
Alternately, I’ve seen a theologian or two try to derive concepts of male and female from The Trinity. I’ll stop before I say anything heretical *grin*, but again I’d rather look for answers here than in the animal world.
Morgan: It was a joke…vision forums’ twisted logic taken to its ultimate absurdity…..
August 22, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“Paul’s argument is based on the fact that male was created first, then female, and female from the male. ”
Yes, but then there’s the other creation account, which simply states: “So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ”
Taken at face value, the two accounts of Creation are mutually exclusive: Genesis 1:27 has man being created on the sixth day, AFTER the plants and animals and everything else, whereas Genesis 2:7 has man being created before any of the plants or animals.
Why do you think that this is?
August 22, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“If subservience is an essential to the state of being female, we would see this system in operation in the animals as well, since they are also male and female, but we don’t.”
I wouldn’t use this argument if I were you. I don’t know of any animal species that requires ANY clothing for the females!
There are quite a few animal species among which the males are quite dominant. There is a wide variety of relationships found in animal species, of course, but among mammals, the male dominance is pretty widespread — much as you described the tribalism of the Sodomites.
If we’re going to use animals as models, I say we make sure NOT to use the bees — with one queen and a bunch of male drones. No, no no! We need to emulate the kangaroos, where all the mommies carry their babies for a long time, and all the daddies box each other for dominance! Yeah, that’s it! POW! WHAM!
As for me, personally — I’ve seen *Jungle Book* many times, and I think Louie, the king of the apes, should be my role model!
I-I-I,
I wanna be like You-ou-ou!
I wanna walk like you!
Talk like you!
Whoo-oo-oo!
August 22, 2007 at 4:33 pm
LOL… but seriously, the males in in many of the higher mammilian species jockey for dominance among themselves, but do not dominate the females.
Of course, ALL of this could be the result of the Fall: “Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now”, etc.
And Mike — what do you make of the disparity between the two creation accounts?
August 23, 2007 at 4:28 am
Red Ink wrote: “Alternately, I’ve seen a theologian or two try to derive concepts of male and female from The Trinity. I’ll stop before I say anything heretical *grin*…”
Red Ink,
Can you give solid, Biblical evidence for this stuff? I’ve read Douglas Jones’ articles and the various touches on the subject in “Federal Vision” and it sounds like speculation and lack of hermeneutics. We know so little about the Trinity and we have very limited perspective (no man but Jesus –who was God — has seen God at any time), and we should not form doctrine around things that are not explicit.
What would you say is the most compelling and/or convincing source of support for this male/female roles provided in the Trinity? I just ordered a copy of the “Federal Husband” by Wilson since these ideas (within FV) seem to all come from Moscow, Idaho and probably origniate with Doug Wilson. Is there a particular chapter or description in that book or elsewhere that might help me understand this concept to be non-heretical?
Also, if you have attended these teachings, does anyone cite Bruce Ware or have any connection to his seemingly similar doctrines about the Trinity? I would like to know if there is some connection.
Jen,
If you find this grossly off-topic, could you email my questions to Red Ink or if you moderate the comments off due to “topic drift,” could you email Red Ink’s responses to me?
August 23, 2007 at 4:31 am
BTW,
I ordered USED Wilson and Ware books from amazon… “So Much More” didn’t fall down into my price range yet, so I still have not ordered that one! Ha, ha, ha.
August 23, 2007 at 8:56 am
Cindy, thanks for being sensitive to the topic. I would appreciate it if you and Red Ink kept this offline. Let’s stick to the politics and religion of women in office for these threads, please.
August 23, 2007 at 8:58 am
Hi Redink,
I was wondering if you could show me the scripture that teaches your assertion that husbands are to “lovingly discipline” their wives. I would like to know why you see this as part of a husband’s God-given role. I would also like to know what “loving discipline” of a wife would look like. An example or two would be great.
You made that statement a while back and I have waited for your answer to my questions. Maybe you did answer my question and I missed it. I have been quite busy lately.
It is *your* assertion and a major one at that and I think it is important that we understand what you mean by that and what it looks like and where you get this from. I have heard other patriarchalists (very extreme in their views) make this same assertion but I have never heard Doug Wilson or Doug Phillips or Wayne Grudem or other big name patriarchalists say that a husband is to lovingly discipline his wife and that the Bible tells us that is his role.
Cynthia K., I have the “Federal Husband” book by Wilson. I will look through it for any such references on the Trinity and male/female relationships derived from the Trinity.
August 23, 2007 at 9:19 am
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter16.html
Here is a Chapter in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood concerning all the similariites between male/female animals and humans.
Interesting.
Cynthia G, looks like you aren’t too far off! 😉
August 23, 2007 at 11:16 am
Corrie –
I sure did make that assertion, and never answered you. Never saw the question. I haunt around here infrequently, hiso I’m not surprised I missed it. I’m sorry you’ve waiting so long.
I was surprised you brought it up – I think that’s one of the comments I posted, waited on, and almost deleted (I had assumed I deleted it, really, which is why I was surprised). It was hard coming up with a good wording for that, and I was afraid – however I put it – that it would have baggage.
Maybe an example is better. And please, be kind. I’ve said here that I’m unmarried, and I feel way way way unqualified to talk about this stuff. I’m sure any of you here could provide a landslide of anecdotal evidence that would stop up my yam trap in a hurry.
I am very good friends with a young married couple. Early on in their marriage, two major issues came up: the wife was clingy and over-dependent on him, and she had extreme difficulties punishing the children effectively (she wouldn’t spank hard enough, was not consistent, et cet).
What I mean by “loving discipline” is the way that he dealt with both issues. He had to instruct her how to spank the children. He had to practice “tough love” by teaching her to be independent while he was away at work. He could not shirk his responsibilities and cuddle her all day.
Now, disclaimers. I know this is an isolated incident. And I know not all women have these problems. And I know men have problems that their wives must also approach them about. But I think I would side with Doug Phillips in saying that the way a husband addresses his wife’s sins is different than the way she addresses his. I suppose I chose “loving discipline” to highlight that difference; I suppose also that it was a poor choice of words.
Also: I’m quite sure I’m not out of the woods yet on this one. While I disagree on paper with most people here, I’m sure I would benefit from your comments nevertheless, so please keep it up if you find something I’ve said offensive or confusing or wrong or whatever.
Corrie, I have no explicit scripture for what I said. I was probably just shooting from the hip. If you wouldn’t mind providing me with a link to what I said (I have a hard time finding such things on this blog), I can try to give you a more rounded and biblical defense, maybe.
August 23, 2007 at 11:32 am
All:
My comment on the Trinity was an aside. I was not referring to Jones or Wilson when I said “a theologian or two.” I was actually talking about a rather obscure Orthodox fellow (can’t remember his name off hand) about whom a good friend of mine wrote his senior thesis. And, if you’re curious, he ends up coming dangerously close to violating Chalcedon, so I don’t really grant his work a lot of weight.
The impulse to derive male/female from the Trinity shouldn’t really be surprising, if you ask me. All of creation testifies to God’s character. That he made male and female implies something of his character. That there is no female person of the Trinity is thus curious to me, and leads to other questions. The marriage relationship is a unity and diversity, just like Christ and his church, kinda like the hypostatic union (this all per Paul), and maybe sorta like the Trinity. That’s all I meant. If Trinitarian doctrine informs the problem of the one and the many, it might help in this discussion too.
I’m not a Wilson sycophant. I’m pretty widely read, and have my disagreements with each of the men who make headlines out here. So, I’m not sure that The Federal Husband will help you understand my aside about The Trinity. And I’d never heard of Ware before I read this blog. I’d be happy to answer questions you have about their Theology (where it falls in line with discussion), but I’d encourage you all not to draw immediate connections between me, FV, Wilson, et cetera. It’ll inhibit more than it will help, and force me to spend a lot of time talking about stuff Jen doesn’t give a rip about.
August 23, 2007 at 11:41 am
Cynthia wrote: “But seriously, the males in in many of the higher mammalian species jockey for dominance among themselves, but do not dominate the females.”
Like I said, I don’t think you can support your point through reference to “higher” animal behavior patterns. But just to respond to your point:
1) The reason the males compete for dominance is that this is in their nature. They are driven to reproduce, and they are driven to seek dominance over other males because that gives them priority in reproduction in the “tribe,” and they can “lead” the group. There are some species in which the dominant male will even kill all the babies produced by other males.
2) The reason the males do not fight with the females in the same way is that the females are not driven to dominate and control reproduction as the males are. The males do not sense any threat from the females along these lines. females present no challenge to the leadership of the dominant male. In fact, they are often made into a harem for the dominant male.
I also believe that a careful reading of that chapter Corrie linked to will support my contention that you cannot point to animal behavior to support your claim concerning male-female roles. IF we are going to use animal behavior — then it could more reasonably be used to support very strong male dominance patterns.
“Of course, ALL of this could be the result of the Fall: “Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now”, etc. ”
It is stretching that passage beyond the breaking point to claim that it supports the idea that animals were once egalitarian, but only became hierarchical as a result of the fall.
“And Mike — what do you make of the disparity between the two creation accounts?”
There are two possible answers:
1) The conservative answer is that Gen. 2 is just a re-telling of the sixth day of creation — in more detail. This view maintains the integrity of the scripture as non-contradictory — without violating the sense of the passages.
2) The liberal [I’m not calling names. This is the correct technical word] view is that these are two entirely different stories told by two entirely different scribes — and then put together by later scribes who didn’t seem to notice — or care about — the contradiction. If you are not familiar with this view, look up the JEDP theory.
August 23, 2007 at 11:45 am
“The impulse to derive male/female from the Trinity shouldn’t really be surprising, if you ask me. All of creation testifies to God’s character.”
Then — as one scientist remarked — we can be sure of one thing: God is inordinately fond of beetles!
August 23, 2007 at 11:48 am
Finally:
Cynthia, it’s been a while since I practiced my answer to the conflict in creation accounts, so I can’t give you one right away (4 years since I looked at Framework, Literalist, Gap, stuff like that).
I can say this: Paul uses the passage in question to make his point (man has authority over woman), and we can too without worrying too much about the difficulty you brought up. If it’s good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me. I also think Einwechter is right: Paul is making a pre-fall, Ontological argument. While it’s used specifically in the context of Church order, it would seem his principal could be applied outside of that context. And if you take the whole passage into account, Paul uses another Ontological argument, saying it was Eve was deceived and became a sinner. He uses this as further proof for his point.
Even conservatively, it seems that Paul is saying women are more easily deceived, so shouldn’t practice Theology in authority over a man. This makes my egalitarian sensitivities uneasy, but that’s how I read the plain English. Why this wouldn’t apply outside of the immediate church context is beyond me.
Jen, sorry to suck up so much screen Real Estate today. I’m done for a bit. Thanks for putting up with my long posts and squirrelly topic choices.
August 23, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Red Ink:
“While [I Timothy 2 is] used specifically in the context of Church order, it would seem his principal could be applied outside of that context.”
I would like to know how, taking into account the whole counsel of Scripture. That is one of my concerns with the VF articles Jen just posted. They extrapolate into silence, and there are biblical examples which mitigate such a black and white view of the matter.
Red Ink:
“And if you take the whole passage into account, Paul uses another Ontological argument, saying it was Eve was deceived and became a sinner. He uses this as further proof for his point.
Even conservatively, it seems that Paul is saying women are more easily deceived, so shouldn’t practice Theology in authority over a man. This makes my egalitarian sensitivities uneasy, but that’s how I read the plain English. Why this wouldn’t apply outside of the immediate church context is beyond me.”
I remember when this subject of women and deception was brought up on the Complementarian Christian Coalition forum. A man named Michael Marlowe kept saying that no theologian ever argued against the idea that women are more easily deceived. It was, he implied taught universally by the church.
I was somewhat confounded by the passage myself, because it doesn’t say outright that women are more easily deceived than men are. It is a possible interpretation. But after the fall, all are under the deception of sin until God converts their hearts, and that threw a monkey wrench into my conviction either way about this passage.
BUT, I do remember answering this man (the archives there are public, so I’m not telling tales out of turn) who kept insisting that all theologians interpreted I Timothy 2 as meaning women are more easily deceived —
That this wasn’t true, number one, and number two — the point I want to make here — a good Calvinist would not believe that I Timothy 2 teaches women are more easily deceived than men are:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom43.iii.iv.iv.html
“Again, this passage has given to some people an occasion for affirming that Adam did not fall by means of error, but that he was only overcome by the allurements of his wife. Accordingly, they think that the woman only was deceived by the wiles of the devil, to believe that she and her husband would be like the gods; But that Adam was not at all persuaded of this, but tasted the fruit in order to please his wife. But it is easy to refute this opinion; for, if Adam had not given credit to the falsehood of Satan, God would not have reproached him:
“Behold, Adam is become like one of us.” (Genesis 3:22.)
There are other reasons of which I say nothing; for there needs not a long refutation of an error which does not rest on any probable conjecture. By these words Paul does not mean that Adam was not entangled by the same deceitfulness of the devil, “Qu’il ne donna lien a aucune persuasion du diable.” — “That he did not yield to any persuasion of the devil.” but that the cause or source of the transgression proceeded from Eve.”
August 23, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Before the fall the lion layed down with the lamb. I thought when we are born again the process of restoring all things to Himself should be made evident … that’s why creation groans to see this. As homo sapiens we should be the first to manifest this and be a testimony to the world how men and women relate to each other,starting with the individual,church then family.
Why do we try to resurrect men and women who maybe have not died and force them to wear clothes and act in a way that they have no power to do so.?
I know that’s flowery but its how I think and have been taught to speak.
It’s easier to just start over than effect a change – new wine into old wineskins?
I don’t like to be forced into clothes that don’t fit and thats what I feel like when I’m around people that major on this. I hate to say it but I wonder if there has really been a conversion,or at the least they have forgotten who they are in Christ.
August 23, 2007 at 12:38 pm
RED INK wrote: “I can say this: Paul uses the passage in question to make his point (man has authority over woman), and we can too without worrying too much about the difficulty you brought up. If it’s good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me. I also think Einwechter is right: Paul is making a pre-fall, Ontological argument. ”
I completely agree.
RED INK: “While it’s used specifically in the context of Church order, it would seem his principal could be applied outside of that context.”
This is where we disagree. I think it is stretching the point to apply it outside that context.
“Even conservatively, it seems that Paul is saying women are more easily deceived, so shouldn’t practice Theology in authority over a man.”
That is not “conservatively.” Conservatively, we take it to say just what it says — that the woman was deceived, and that the man sinned deliberately, with full knowledge. If we are to take this to mean that all women are more easily deceived, then we should take it to mean that all men are more inclined than women are to sin deliberately, with full knowledge. And I don’t think that makes any sense.
“This makes my egalitarian sensitivities uneasy, but that’s how I read the plain English.”
Again — agreed, on both points. I tend to lean slightly egal, but I just can’t read the passages the way the egals want me to. Too forced.
“Why this wouldn’t apply outside of the immediate church context is beyond me.”
And here we disagree again. My view is that we should be extremely careful about extending applications beyond context. And since we have several “non-normative” examples of females in leadership in society, seemingly with God’s blessing and imprimature, it seems to me we cannot make a blanket statement that the Bible forbids such.
Some may find it inconsistent to insist that the Bible teaches male leadership in the home and in the church, but doesn’t say anything about this issue in the public arena — but that is what the evidence shows. All this proof-texting of other passages to show that women are barred from public leadership is scripture twisting to fit an agenda, in my opinion.
August 23, 2007 at 12:49 pm
“Before the fall the lion lay down with the lamb.”
Could I have a scripture for this, please?
Thanks.
August 23, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Sure,
Isaiah 65: 17-25 and 11:6
August 23, 2007 at 1:21 pm
“Before the fall the lion lay down with the lamb.”
Could I have a scripture for this, please?
Mike, standard argument for no death before the fall is:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Rom 5:12)
For the creation was subjected to frustration (futility) not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up till the present (rom 8)
Now there are pretty good counter arguments about taking these verses literally.
More interestingly (though not quite direct) is:
Fall of Satan is realized in the lower realms as the fall of the prototypical man (Adam is Hebrew for “the man”) is realized on earth as death. And that one I do think there is very strong scriptural support for.
However, before we could even discuss this verse we would need to agree that Paul constantly uses the language of middle Platonism and thus Paul’s statements should be interpreted / translated as per middle Platonism.
August 23, 2007 at 1:23 pm
The smiley face in the above is a automatic sub in for an eight followed by a right parens.
August 23, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Genesis 1:30 might help also.. every green herb for food
August 23, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“Sure,
Isaiah 65: 17-25 and 11:6”
Both of those passages are about the future. Neither of them supports your claim.
August 23, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Well then what happens at the new birth?
August 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm
“Well then what happens at the new birth?”
Quite a lot — but nothing that has anything to do with animal behavior. People done been gettin’ born again for 2000 years, and I haven’t noticed any lions switching from mutton to tofu yet.
What any of this has to do with women voting or holding office, I haven’t a clue.
August 23, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“Even conservatively, it seems that Paul is saying women are more easily deceived, so shouldn’t practice Theology in authority over a man. ”
Hi Redink,
Where are the words “more easily deceived” in the Greek? I can only see that the scripture says that THE woman [EVE] WAS deceived (no adverbs or modifiers between was and deceived). I don’t see where it is talking about all women being more easily deceived. It is referencing a specific woman from a specific point in time during a specific incident.
If anything, the prohibition against women teaching in the church has to do with Eve’s particular sin and not with some inferred read-into-the-text idea that women are more easily deceived. This (not being able to teach) may be just part of the consequence of the Fall. Just like pain and suffering in childbirth.
In other times, women have been the ones who have sinned willfully and men have been the ones who were deceived (Tamar and her father in law for instance).
I think just a plain reading of the text is in order without adding to it something that is just not there nor is it inferred.
In all my understanding and reading of the Bible, I hope only to go as far as scripture goes- no more, no less.
I do wonder how the concept of primogeniture fits into Paul’s argument against women teaching in the church.
August 23, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Ok I guess I have some assumptions that I thought you held but its tough on line to discuss and try and figure out.
Try some word studies in the original language when Jesus is speaking about making things “new” and comparing them in Genesis and othere areas where the same word is used. It is not just future it is now also.
My only point being that we have liberty and enmity between men and women is broken through Christ ….although I don’t take this as far as the domioninsts (on the Earl Paulk side of things do.)
I am going kayaking kind of would like to stay but I think I’d rather paddle.
:>)
August 23, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Mike,
The reason why I am tempted to extrapolate the first/second argument out of the immediate Church context is because it is an ontological argument. Paul does not say “Because in the church…” but rather “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” His reasoning isn’t explicit – I think we need to be careful – but the point he is making is bigger than the church. It’s about the difference between men and women, and how we are to behave as a result. I imagine we’ll continue to disagree on this point, however. My hermeneutics have been heavily influenced by NT Wright and James Jordan. Namely: unsound. *grin*
By the way, I appreciate your tone. Not that the others here are unruly or unfriendly, but I feel very small and alone on this blog sometimes, and it’s good to hear the words “I agree” come from somebody every now and again.
I also said:
Even conservatively, it seems that Paul is saying women are more easily deceived…
and have been called out. I was pretty wrong there. I thought up another possible explanation: If Eve was deceived by the Serpent, and Adam by Eve, it could follow that women shouldn’t be over men because men’ll do anything women want them to (which to me sounds true…). I dunno. I wasn’t being conservative at all, in hindsight. Still, the ontological point is the sticking one and I stand by all of that.
Patty, Paul’s argument stretches back to pre-Fall realities about Adam and Eve. Christ’s coming would not change those realities in the same way The New Covenant changed other OT conventions; in fact, I’d rather think that Christ’s coming (as the New Adam) would restore the world to be closer to that pre-Fall state. The fact that Paul invokes this argumentation, in the New Testament, to support distinguishing roles between men and women, is further proof of this. Paul was writing to a changed, born-again, and Baptized world, and thought it perfectly consistent that women should not have authority over men in church.
Mike said:
If we are to take this to mean that all women are more easily deceived, then we should take it to mean that all men are more inclined than women are to sin deliberately, with full knowledge. And I don’t think that makes any sense.
I think, demographically speaking, very generally, that it could actually make sense to me. Everybody is different, but the different genders do exhibit different sins on a broad scale.
I can’t help but think of Augustine and the pears. I can’t help but wonder if that’s a distinctly masculine sin to commit.
Lynn, I am so not a “good Calvinist.” I don’t even own his commentaries on Genesis (though I have used them and they are awesome). Sure, I hold to the five points, but if being a good Calvinist means turning to Calvin for every interpretive issue or minor theological debate, I think I’d rather be Arminian. And while Calvin’s thoughts here are very good and applicable to the situation, I don’t see how they refute my own. Paul says the woman was deceived first, not that they weren’t both deceived. That firstness apparently has anything and everything to do with why women should not be vested with authority over a man. Ahem. A man in church.
August 23, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Red Ink:
“Lynn, I am so not a “good Calvinist.” I don’t even own his commentaries on Genesis (though I have used them and they are awesome). Sure, I hold to the five points, but if being a good Calvinist means turning to Calvin for every interpretive issue or minor theological debate, I think I’d rather be Arminian.”
I know, Red Ink; I was just shootin’ the breeze.
Red Ink:
“And while Calvin’s thoughts here are very good and applicable to the situation, I don’t see how they refute my own. Paul says the woman was deceived first, not that they weren’t both deceived. That firstness apparently has anything and everything to do with why women should not be vested with authority over a man. Ahem. A man in church.”
I agree. 😉
August 23, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Cynthia :
“And Mike — what do you make of the disparity between the two creation accounts?”
Mike
“There are two possible answers:
1) The conservative answer is that Gen. 2 is just a re-telling of the sixth day of creation — in more detail. This view maintains the integrity of the scripture as non-contradictory — without violating the sense of the passages.
2) The liberal [I’m not calling names. This is the correct technical word] view is that these are two entirely different stories told by two entirely different scribes — and then put together by later scribes who didn’t seem to notice — or care about — the contradiction. If you are not familiar with this view, look up the JEDP theory.”
Actually, neither of these views is an adeqate explanation.
The first explanation doesn’t wash because the animals and plants were made before man in one biblical account and after him in the other. There’s no way that the second Creation account can be a retelling of the sixth day.
The liberal account reduces the whole creation account to the status of a myth, with one story being as good as (or as bad as) the other.
Now, if we believe in the faithfulness of God and in the inerrancy of the Bible, we know that God does not contradict Himself; yet these two accounts plainly appear to contradict one another, which means that we are somehow misunderstanding what one of them is saying.
What are we missing here?
August 23, 2007 at 7:15 pm
“This (not being able to teach) may be just part of the consequence of the Fall. Just like pain and suffering in childbirth.”
I will point out — again — that the Bible does not say “pain and suffering.” It is the Hebrew word “etsev” — which is the same word used in the next verse for the man’s consequence — hard labor.
Interestingly — it is the KJV that does not use the word “pain” for the woman, but it does use “painful toil” to translate the word in vs. 17 — when it speaks to the man.
Most of the others use “pain.”
I am not denying that many women have had pain in childbirth. I am just pointing out that the passage does not say that in the Hebrew. It just means “hard work.”
August 23, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Red Ink wrote: “If Eve was deceived by the Serpent, and Adam by Eve”
It doesn’t say Adam was deceived by the woman. It says he listened to her. Most interpreters would say he sinned knowingly. But your point would still stand, even with this slight difference.
August 23, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Red Ink wrote: “Paul says the woman was deceived first, not that they weren’t both deceived.”
Again — no, he doesn’t. He uses the word “first” in the previous verse, where he says that Adam was created first — but he does not use the word in the verse about the woman being deceived.
Nope. Huh-uh. Didn’t say that.
August 23, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“There’s no way that the second Creation account can be a retelling of the sixth day.”
It can easily be reconciled. The word “and” is not in the Hebrew — and there is no necessity to read it as “then” — in the sense of chronology. The word is just “ground” — in the ablative case, rendering it “from the ground.”
The verb “formed” is in the imperfect tense, which could mean “was forming” or “had formed” as well as “formed.” It could easily be read as God having already formed the animals before creating Adam, then bringing the animals to Adam.
Ever wonder how Adam chose the names he chose for the animals. I mean — God brought him a capybara — and Adam said, “THAT’S a capybara.”
Eve asked, “Why that name?”
Adam said, “Because that looks more like a capybara than anything else does!”
BWAAA-HAAAA!!
August 23, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“I will point out — again — that the Bible does not say “pain and suffering.” It is the Hebrew word “etsev” — which is the same word used in the next verse for the man’s consequence — hard labor. ”
Since this is a ‘consequence’ of the Fall, does this mean I need to repent of asking for and receiving an epidural? (Actually, I begged for it)
:0)
August 23, 2007 at 7:46 pm
If women are so easily decieved why are the majority of false teachers men?
August 23, 2007 at 8:04 pm
When Paul speaks in 2 Cor 11: 3 warning about .” so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” He is speaking to both genders.
I’m sorry I still don’t get why I have to use the fall as an excuse for my behavior. Yes I know I am a sinner and I am dust but I am being renewed day by day.
As far as men doing anything for their wives I don’t get that either.. Hmm heres a thought maybe the bad theology from men is the wives fault. I know lets insist that all bible teachers not marry.
August 23, 2007 at 8:13 pm
“I am not denying that many women have had pain in childbirth. I am just pointing out that the passage does not say that in the Hebrew. It just means “hard work.””
Huh… if HAVING ’em is hard work, what about RAISING ’em?
August 23, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Ah, Red Ink:
I appreciate your response(s). Your arguments conform so strongly to quotes right out of Federal Vision and articles posted on Credenda Agenda, that I just assumed that this is where they came from. (And I’m probably still sore about your disapproving comments about Luther… Also present in some of the FV literature.)
Bruce Ware (a name I am newly familiar with as well) teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and contributes much to the Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood material (both in Louisville, KY). Ware has books on both the Trinity (concepts that sound nearly identical to FV’st take on the subject) and Open Theism. You can go to both SBTS and CBMW (easily found on a Yahoo search of Bruce Ware’s name). In many speeches of those on faculty or influenced by SBTS, they link nearly all pro-woman arguments to a rejection of the Father-Godhead of Trinity and equate the rejection as “open theism.” Because the topics are so strongly linked to “patriarchy” from both the Reformed and this Baptist camp, (Justice Roy Moore quoted on Doug Phillips’ blog paraphrases SBTS staff – Ware and Russell Moore specifically), I wondered if you had any knowledge of interplay and influence between these camps.
I have a gut suspicion that someone started a revival of reading the Patristic doctrines (old and probably Roman church fathers) from which they derive these doctrines. I don’t know, but I find it too coincidental that the development of these concepts are unrelated. I would be curious if that friend of your’s studied Patristic writings. I did peg you for an insider. I’m glad to know that you are not a “Wilson sycophant” as I hope that no one ever becomes such for any teacher (dangerous territory). And just because a person has been strongly influenced by a doctrine should not make them a sycophant anyway. We are creatures of influence and are given to influence by nature and design. Like everything else, that attribute can be of great benefit or of great detriment depending on the level of our stewardship. We all start somewhere! (Can you imagine how much of an enigma I feel I am here as a former Holy Roller???)
I would like to know and understand as much as I can about this whole topic from a holistic perspective so as to evaluate its influence on the patriarchy movement (as is the Gothard teaching per Veinot and Henzel). Here, I assumed that I had found a Wilson insider… However, I am just as curious about your views. Email me via my website!
August 23, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Hi Mike,
There are two words used in Gen. 3:16 concerning a woman’s “sorrow”. I am not really arguing with you because I do see that the word has as one of its meanings “hard work” but it also means literal pain.
The one is etseb, as you have explained. It means: pain, hurt, or toil. It can also mean an earthen vessel (Jer. 22:28).
But, the first mention of the word “sorrow” is the Hebrew word `itstsabown. It comes from the root word ‘atsab which means to hurt, pain, grieve, to vexm to torture, to be in pain.
It also means pain, labour, hardship, sorrow, toil.
Both are masculine nouns and both come from the same root word with the main meaning of “pain”.
In Gen. 3:17, where it mentions the man’s sorrow, it is the first Hebrew word- itstsabown
I believe both of these verses speak of literal pain and of the sorrow that comes along with the whole ball of wax. Both of the Hebrew words translated “sorrow” have as their main meaning “pain”. Hard work/toil is another meaning. Both of these meanings I think can be seen in Gen. 3:16-17.
The woman will bring forth children in pain and the man will have to do painful work in order to eat.
All this to say that I don’t believe the verses are speaking solely of hard work but they are speaking about hard work that involves physical pain since the root word for both of the words primarily means physical pain.
Also, I think it is the KJV that uses “sorrow” for both the man and the woman. I can’t find that it translates it “pain” when it describes the man’s work. NKJV translates the two words “sorrow” and “pain” and for the man it translates it “toil”. All of them are reasonable considering the context. The NIV translates all uses of these two words as “pain”. ESV does this, too. The NASB translates it “pain” for the woman and “toil” for the man.
I agree that bearing and raising children along with many conceptions/pregnancy is both physically painful and also a lot of hard work with some emotional pain and heartache thrown in. This pain and hard work doesn’t end at birth.
I also think that making a living can involve both physically painful toil and just plain hard work with some emotional pain and heartache thrown in.
Lin, some pastors do teach that it is wrong for a woman to circumvent the pain of labor with drugs since God commanded this to be so. I heard it on the radio once and I also have read it written in various articles.
When these same pastors get rid of their air conditioning and modern conveniences that make their work easier and less painful, I will take them seriously. 🙂
August 23, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Hmmm, I had not noticed the difference between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. It certainly does look, from the translation, that the animals were formed out of the ground after Adam had been created. But, Gen. 1 says that the animals were created before Adam.
Did Adam literally name all the animals? Or was it that he named many of them until he realized what God was trying to show him that there was no one suitable to be his companion?
It is kind of like when the NT says that ALL the people from a particular village were saved or had come out to see Jesus. Probably not all of them came out to see Him and not all of them were saved.
Mike, thanks for explaining about the word “and” and “then”. It does make sense.
August 23, 2007 at 11:21 pm
“By the way, I appreciate your tone. Not that the others here are unruly or unfriendly, but I feel very small and alone on this blog sometimes, and it’s good to hear the words “I agree” come from somebody every now and again.”
Redink,
I agree. 😉
It is good to hear that every now and again. Remember that when you write your posts! That kind of thing works both ways, right? 🙂
If you do remember, I have more than a few times told you that I appreciated your input on this list and that I agree with some of the points you made. You are not as alone as you think. I think it is that you are somewhat mysterious and you enter the discussion as abruptly as you leave it.
I have to admit that you seem to say some things but then ignore questions asked of you. It does seem that you have done this specifically with the questions I have asked you on several occasions. That makes it hard for me to not only understand what you are saying because you don’t clarify things which leaves room for some major misunderstandings of your viewpoint but to feel that the conversation goes both ways. You speak about my posts and address my comments but will not speak TO me nor address my questions.
I understand that we are all busy and have busy lives but there is a pattern here. Maybe this observation will help you understand and not feel so alone on this list.
God Bless!
August 23, 2007 at 11:30 pm
” Paul says the woman was deceived first, not that they weren’t both deceived.”
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
To me it looks like it clearly says that Adam was NOT deceived and the woman WAS deceived. It doesn’t say that Eve was deceived first but it does say that Eve was deceived and Adam was NOT.
So, I would have to disagree. The Bible tells us that they were not both deceived.
August 23, 2007 at 11:34 pm
2Cr 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
It looks like this warning is for all believers and shows how we all need to be on guard against being deceived. It would appear that we all have this propensity and that it is not a female thing.
August 24, 2007 at 7:12 am
“To me it looks like it clearly says that Adam was NOT deceived and the woman WAS deceived. It doesn’t say that Eve was deceived first but it does say that Eve was deceived and Adam was NOT.”
Adam SINNED. Eve was deceived.
Something interesting about Genesis creation account I have noticed is that in Genesis 2, we see that Adam was around to actually see God creating…planting, etc . He got to personally see God’s Glory in Creation.
Ever wonder how the snake moved about before the Fall?
August 24, 2007 at 7:14 am
Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men becauseall sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
August 24, 2007 at 7:24 am
Yes the snake walked upright. There are tiny little stubs where appendages use to be on a snakes body.
But when he was cursed to the ground God took them away.
I remember reading that somewhere… creationist websites and such have good resources.
August 24, 2007 at 8:07 am
“Yes the snake walked upright. There are tiny little stubs where appendages use to be on a snakes body.”
One thing doesn’t quite make sense then — scientists have found a fossil snake with pelvic bones and hind legs, which Creationists say proved that snakes once walked upright.
Creationists also say that all fossils date from the Flood, AND that God made snakes legless in the Garden, right after the Fall. This means that there would have been no legged snakes crawling around to become fossils in the first place, yet one apparently WAS and DID.
August 24, 2007 at 8:30 am
“If women are so easily decieved why are the majority of false teachers men?”
Patty,
You silly woman! It is because women have deceived them!! 😉
So, I guess, that makes men “much more easily” deceived. What’s another adjective?
August 24, 2007 at 8:41 am
Since Lucifer was also the chief musician and cast out of heaven, he perhaps was special also in ability and appearance in the garden. ( I can’t remember the reference other than Isaiah 14:12 ) but I know he had something to do with worship of God and music and he was beautiful. We know he is an archangel like Michael. Michael is referred to in Daniel also as one of the chief princes. I am alluding to the word ‘chief’ to concur with your comments in that he was special and different somehow also in appearance and ability in the garden.
I find the whole topic fascinating.
August 24, 2007 at 9:13 am
There is a song from ‘SWITCHFOOT” I like. The title is called “I Dare You To Move”
Part of the lyrics say “.. Welcome to the fallout.
Welcome to resistance
The tension is here
Between who you are and who you could be
Between how it is and how it should be….”
Praise be to our precious savior Jesus the Christ. Salvation is near to our house …salvation is here. May we all be a holy habitation that he delights to dwell in.
August 24, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“So, I guess, that makes men “much more easily” deceived.”
That is because centuries of male ministers have been telling women they can ‘turn the neck’ of the man. Basically teaching women to be manipulative in getting what they want because they are to be ‘submissive’.
August 24, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Quoth Corrie:
“I have to admit that you seem to say some things but then ignore questions asked of you. It does seem that you have done this specifically with the questions I have asked you on several occasions.”
I’m trying.
I’m a mortgage broker. If any of you follow the news, right now is not a very comfortable time for me and mine. Work is zany. The whole summer is zany. My abruptness, unfortunately, is necessary. The comments I miss are never intentional, and I hope I’ve demonstrated I’m not afraid of being disagreed with, proven wrong, or defending unpopular ideas. I just get to peek in here infrequently, and it takes a very long time to go through 100 or so comments in 15 minutes every other day.
And I don’t mean to make myself a victim, and I don’t mean to imply that anybody here is cruel. I just happen to know that, as an FVer and a patriarchalist, and as somebody who has tried frequently to stand up for Doug Phillips, I’m not exactly Prom Royalty on this blog. Now that folks like Lucy and K. are gone, well, you know, there’s the old adage about sore thumbs and sticking out.
That I keep on coming back, that I haven’t been shrill, and that I continue to crack jokes, I hope, are all evidence of the fact that I don’t think of anybody here as an enemy. Still, hearing “I agree” is a welcome surprise.
I’m doing that whole “not talking about the topic” thing again. Adieu.
August 24, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Red Ink, you’re welcome to come and go at your convenience here. It is not necessary to read all the comments in order to participate. I think you have had fine manners and even your questions to me have always been polite. I do believe you had at one time requested that people use your name when replying to you, in order to make it easier for you to identify comments directed at you. I think that is a fair request, especially with a blog with so many comments to wade through!
If Red Ink, or anyone else, does not answer a question, rather than assuming they are refusing to answer, let’s just give each person the benefit of the doubt and ask the question again in a couple days. There are questions I have forgotten to answer as well, so that courtesy should extend to each commenter here.
Thanks for participating here, pro or con. Discussing both sides of the issues is good for all of us to nail down our beliefs and convictions.
August 25, 2007 at 7:47 am
Lin Says:
“So, I guess, that makes men “much more easily” deceived.”
That is because centuries of male ministers have been telling women they can ‘turn the neck’ of the man. Basically teaching women to be manipulative in getting what they want because they are to be ’submissive’.
Paul said that sin entered through Adam because he was not deceived meaning that he was outright defiant. (Eve’s sin by virtue of the deception made it not an issue of rebellion.)
If these guys can imply that all women are like Eve and given to deception, then how is it that ALL men are given to rebellion (to the same degree that they attribute this to women). Women in Christ are no more given to deception than men are. Men in Christ are no more given to defiance and rebellion than women are. But if this dumbing down of all women is attributed by some of the patriarchalists despite a woman’s being made a new creature in Christ, then how is it that Eve doesn’t get some reciprocal credit for not being defiant by nature, at least significantly less than man?
Just a thought that keeps popping up in my head. Maybe they would say that Eve would have been just as defiant or more if she was not deceived.
August 25, 2007 at 11:39 am
Cindy wrote:”Just a thought that keeps popping up in my head.”
I’ve asked that same question many times. Consistency would demand that they preach just as much about man’s greater tendency to defiance as they do the woman’s susceptibility to deception.
“Maybe they would say that Eve would have been just as defiant or more if she was not deceived.”
In that case, consistency would demand that they also say that man is just as susceptible to being deceived as woman. But these people are anything but consistent.
August 25, 2007 at 11:52 am
“Consistency would demand that they preach just as much about man’s greater tendency to defiance as they do the woman’s susceptibility to deception.”
Any mother of a two year old boy could tell you all about that one ….
August 25, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“Adam SINNED. Eve was deceived.”
Well now I have seen the light and the truth.
Here is a whole new doctrine for us. DP is missing the boast. It’s not sinless perfection, it’s sinless deception. Let’s give it a legal spin. Crime takes intent. Let’s say sin takes intent. Therefore, us poor deceived wimmin folks cain’t sin! We’re just deceived & confused. Menfolks, however, are sinners, since of course, they are NEVER deceived and ALWAYS know what they are doing.
August 25, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Oh Sarah,
You are in for a weird and disturbing treat. Here are just a small representation of some of these weird teachings on Adam and Eve. The first is closest to this topic.
And the latest example of John MacArthur’s views are here in a new posting this week. Hear it with your own ears:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/08/17/are-womens-gifts-secondary/
August 25, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Sorry about that: The links work, but I forgot to type the code to stop. One to issues with Adam and several post. The second link (not in hypertext) works, too.
So how does this apply to the topic of women serving in the gates in civil office? John MacArthur says that woman speak in church, is less effective without her man and really not much good for missions work without her glory there to shine on her. Man is the son and woman the moon. Outrageous.
Girls, just stay at home and learn to make good cornbread… Oh, and bear lots of future patriarchs. Were not all that good for talking or doing anything else per MacArthur.
August 25, 2007 at 4:04 pm
“Girls, just stay at home and learn to make good cornbread… Oh, and bear lots of future patriarchs. Were not all that good for talking or doing anything else per MacArthur.”
Well — I married an educated lady and I didn’t insist that she stay home. But I confess that “making good cornbread” was on my short list of non-negotiables!
August 25, 2007 at 5:55 pm
” I’m not exactly Prom Royalty on this blog. ”
Redink,
I offiically name you Prom King. 🙂 I don’t care which side of the fence you are on, I still think you have much to contribute and I have appreciated many of your points since you have joined the list.
I feel your pain. I worked in the banking industry for a while and I understand the pressure in a good economy. I know many nicer neighborhoods where homes are being foreclosed on left and right because people aren’t able to make their payments. Home sales are so sluggish right now, too. I felt it on the other end when we tried to sell our home in this economy. I keep up with the news in this area and it seems like a lot of mortgage companies are feeling the squeeze. I will pray for you tonight.
August 25, 2007 at 6:10 pm
” am very good friends with a young married couple. Early on in their marriage, two major issues came up: the wife was clingy and over-dependent on him, and she had extreme difficulties punishing the children effectively (she wouldn’t spank hard enough, was not consistent, et cet).
What I mean by “loving discipline” is the way that he dealt with both issues. He had to instruct her how to spank the children. He had to practice “tough love” by teaching her to be independent while he was away at work. He could not shirk his responsibilities and cuddle her all day.”
Hi Redink
I just saw your answer to my question.
I don’t think you give yourself enough credit. I would not discount your opinion on marriage because of your marital status. 🙂
I have seen this same situation (minus the spanking issue- not spanking hard enough). Yes, women need to learn how NOT to be so clingy. I always wonder how a man can go to work and do his job if his wife can’t make any decisions on her own. If the toilet overflows, she should be able to take care of it without calling her husband and interrupting his work. So, I think it is good that your friend helped his wife become more independent and less clingly. Basically, he had to help her mature and become a full adult.
Sadly, I think the extreme patriarchal camp is producing these sorts of women who do not think they are able to make decisions and plans without the constant input from their husbands. A woman is supposed to manage her home. At least that is what the Bible teaches. She can’t do that when she is constantly frightenend or unsure of herself or under the impression it is not submissive of her to go ahead and take the initiative around the home and with the children.
As far as not spanking hard enough? I don’t want to touch that with a 10 foot rod! 🙂 Let’s just say that I don’t think that is a real problem. I know women who coddle their children and who do not hold them accountable. It is sad. I also know it to be the other way around. I think I see this on a 50/50 basis.
Each spouse has their own set of weaknesses and they need the help of the other one to spur them into maturity. I think both spouses need to approach the other spouse with respect, dignity and the word of God. I would have to think about what the difference in approach would look like?
I don’t know that I would call it discipline when the husband has to correct and help his wife. I would think I would just call it correct and help. I think 1 Tim. 3:16 tells us how we are to use the word of God and what it is useful for and we are always to speak with wisdom, kindness and most of all with love.
I don’t have time at the moment to look up your original post (I am cooking dinner) but I think that you made a statement that it is the husband’s job to discipline his wife and that I didn’t go far enough in my description of his role when I said that Eph. 5 tells a husband to sacrificially love his wife by giving himself up for her. You tied in the discipline of wife with the cross and said that since Christ does more than just love us, that means that a husband’s role includes discipline. I think I said that Christ doesn’t discipline us and that it is God, the Father who disciplines His own children and that we ought not confuse the metaphors between Christ/Bride and Father/Child.
August 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Corrie:
I’ll work backwards.
First, without specific details on what I said, I guess I’ll just have to let your last paragraph stand. I tend to enjoy metaphor and allusion and typography, over against the rigors of Greek grammar that I once loved. So yeah, I mix metaphors sometimes.
I think I tried to admit that discipline was a bad word for what I was talking about. I seem to recall the discussion’s context prompting me to use that language. Discipline means a lot of things. If, through instruction and the application of certain habits, the wife were to gain self-control and maturity and godliness, I don’t know why we should be afraid to call it discipline. Then again, if it’s going to get confused with spanking, I’ll gladly use another word.
I casually mentioned this discussion to a friend the other day, and said “I think my point is that a husband addresses his wife’s sins differently than she does his. That’s all.” He emphatically agreed, without question, like the issue didn’t even need explaining (he’s married; this was encouraging to me). Maybe we just think differently out here. I mean, there are differences between men and women. Young men at my college were treated quite a bit differently, and punished quite a bit differently, than the girls were. It seems natural to me for these differences to carry over into married life.
I do not think that all branches of the patriarchal camp produce weak women. I have personally witnessed rank pagans sitting at our tables, and commenting on how intelligent, confident, and beautiful our women are. I do not open a door for a girl because she is weak, but because she deserves a place of honor. That is a fine line, and a subtle point, but weak women are the result of sin corrupting the theology. It is not bad theology in and of itself.
I went to public schools most of my life. I saw far more clingy, timid, and hollow girls there. Those who were successful at appearing independent were often even worse.
Of course, all of this is anecdotal, and Phillips could be cranking out wet-noodle women in droves. But here, in Moscow, the average 17 year old girl is as composed, confident and intelligent as most of the 29 year olds I knew in Seattle. They are also humble, submissive, beautiful, and not at all likely to be fooled by some idiot trying to impress her with fast cars and loud music. So that’s that.
Spanking hard enough? Yes, let’s leave it alone. I almost posted about it once, but decided that given the various views out here (I remembered Morgan’s in particular), I’d rather not rock the boat. It’s not worth having folks fall out.
I’ll wait for more questions or that quote before I blather on any further. Lastly, I’m a patriarchalist. I don’t think you want to make me the king of anything. *grin*
Cindy said:
If these guys can imply that all women are like Eve and given to deception, then how is it that ALL men are given to rebellion (to the same degree that they attribute this to women). Women in Christ are no more given to deception than men are. Men in Christ are no more given to defiance and rebellion than women are.”
I’m still waiting to hear how Christ changes Paul’s argument. Paul was writing to Christians, who were in Christ, and making some pretty broad statements about women not being allowed to teach men. Pretty universal statements: ALL men and ALL women. Statements about Eve being the one “who was deceived and became a sinner.” That historical fact is the evidence for Paul’s very unpopular and very inegalitarian view of Church polity.
August 28, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Corrie –
I posted two pretty hefty comments yesterday, both of which were swallowed into the void of WordPress-backend-erroritude. One of them belongs to you.
I’ll reproduce it again soon.
August 28, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Sorry, Corrie.
Toilet issues are 100% my husband. 🙂
September 6, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Cynthia G:
“One thing doesn’t quite make sense then — scientists have found a fossil snake with pelvic bones and hind legs, which Creationists say proved that snakes once walked upright.
Creationists also say that all fossils date from the Flood, AND that God made snakes legless in the Garden, right after the Fall. This means that there would have been no legged snakes crawling around to become fossils in the first place, yet one apparently WAS and DID.”
As a creationist who isn’t an officially certified scientist, I must still gently take exception to the “Scientist vs Creationist” mindset to begin with. Some officially certified scientists are creationists; some aren’t. This is a simple fact of demographics and cannot be dismissed. Therefore the two terms are not mutually exclusive, as evolutionists have tried to tell me.
Since this is totally off-topic I won’t say any more on the subject, except that this question can easily be answered, once we’re speaking the same language.