Over the weekend I caught up on some of the current thought on complementarianism and read through the comments on the posts I linked to by Mary Kassian. I keep hoping that she will answer the direct questions being put to her and perhaps this week she will. If not, I see nothing more than lots of confusing rhetoric that only makes it more difficult to understand this topic, both in thought and in application. Particularly confusing is Mary’s insistence that complentarianism does not equal “hierarchy,” that it does mean “mutuality” but not “equality.”
I have written a lot about this subject over the past couple of weeks and know some people are wondering “why in the world does this stuff matter?” I want to share one example of why these things are so important, especially for homeschooling moms who are often exposed to teachings that can have huge ramifications.
Last week I saw this picture of the umbrella shared by a homeschooling curriculum supplier. Immediately I thought of Bill Gothard’s “umbrella of protection” and wondered if that was what it was supposed to be. According to Gothard, the benefits of proper authority are represented by this chain-of-command picture of hierarchy within the home. He instructs his followers that when you stay under your proper authority, the protection is like that of an umbrella, the “rain” that glides off symbolizing anything bad that can happen to you. His premise is that bad things can be traced to sins we have committed against authorities. To demonstrate this, he shared how if you go over the speed limit you are coming out from under your God-given authority and getting a ticket or having an accident is Satan’s attack for getting out from “under your umbrella of protection.” I am quite familiar with this teaching and believe it to be not only manipulative and teaching a works based salvation but also reflects the blessing/cursing mentality of so many within the patriarchy movement.
So, when I saw this, I asked the homeschooling vendor if it is a picture of Gothard’s umbrella of protection. I was told that it “represents God’s plan for the family and shows the sin of gay marriage.” Immediately he said to me: “So you don’t believe there are consequences for usurping God’s design for the family?” Why in the world that would be the conclusion after I asked my ONE question? I proceeded to explain that I had never seen this diagram used in any other way. He went on to tell me that he had never heard of Gothard, which is hard to believe given that he is a homeschooling vendor who promotes Voddie Baucham along with other patiocentrists and that the Duggars, who are watched by millions of viewers each week, are very openly associated with Gothard. So, again, understanding the importance of sound theology in life application, I asked the man outright “what does the rain represent in your picture?”
His response: “I have no idea.”
Did you catch this? A man who is brought in to speak at homeschooling conferences and who markets and sells materials for homeschooling families to use for instruction with their children has no qualms about presenting a doctrinal “truth” that he cannot explain, of sharing a picture to represent that truth not knowing what key elements of the picture even mean.
Does it matter that he doesn’t know what he is teaching? Am I causing trouble by asking for clarification? Are there consequences if we don’t get it right? Let me share an example from my own life.
When one of our sons was 2, we had missionaries who stayed in our home for a week one fall. The wife was Indian by birth and still wore the traditional clothing. My son was enthralled with her long, flowing skirts and wanted to run in and out from under them, wanting her to play. Over the next year, he exhibited more and more aggressive behaviors and didn’t respond to the type of corrections his other siblings had responded to.
That next summer, we attended a Gothard homeschooling seminar where we were taught that the Satanic spirit of foreign gods could come into our home through inanimate objects, using the now infamous Cabbage Patch kids story, and immediately I thought of the foreign dress our houseguest had worn and how I had seen our son’s behavior begin to change the week they had stayed with us. The teaching then went on to warn us that we had violated the umbrella of protection somehow if we saw disobedient behavior in our children. Of course I was convinced that this is what had happened and began to think that there was unconfessed sin of rebellion (witchcraft) somewhere. You can only imagine the other thoughts that this led to. Someone along the chain of command had opened the floodgates for Satan to attack us!
Of course, years later we realized that our son was suffering from learning disabilities and perhaps he could even be placed somewhere along the Asperger’s spectrum; all of his symptoms and behaviors are consistent with what we have learned. Oh how I grieve when I think of the spiritual burdens I carried for several years because of this teaching and the pressure I felt to examine every thought, every action, every motive of not only myself but those I saw as “under my umbrella” and to look with suspicion at those above me in Gothard’s (not the Bible’s) chain of command.
There can be lots of big words used to explain the dogma of family relationships and, sadly, the reckless assumptions being tossed about when it comes to complementarianism have consequences in real life. Do all complementarians teach hierarchy? In my opinion, yes they do. Do they all take it to the extreme of the umbrella of protection? No.
Those who claim to be “complementarian” and who influence homeschooling families need to be sure they are teaching sound doctrine and that what they are saying is what others are hearing, using clear words and answering questions with honesty and integrity. They need to recognize that this is a nebulous term that changes with each convention or each pastor who preaches and owns this label. Most importantly, those of us who live within real relationships need to set aside the labels and identify ourselves in ways that reflect something real and true and full of grace.
130 Responses to does it matter what we believe about complementarianism?
Leave a Reply
Be sure to visit Relationship Homeschooling on Facebook!
And you can learn about my thoughts on developing your own philosophy of education as well as finding the methods of homeschooling that work best for you and your children by
looking for my presentations on Home Educating Family's media site.
Join me on an adventure as we study through Chuck Swindoll’s book The Grace Awakening. Each Monday I will post some thoughts from a portion of the book and we will discuss them in the comment section, making special application for moms. (Dads and singles are welcome to join us, too!) You can purchase a copy of the book (there are lots of used copies available via Amazon) or it is also available on audio. I don’t want you to feel like you have to read along to join in the discussion; I want this to be as stress free as possible. But I know you will enjoy the book if you read it……understanding and embracing grace is life changing and many have found this book to be a great encouragement after coming through paradigm based ministries, including some homeschooling groups. Please invite your friends, I know you will be blessed!!! We will be starting on July 23rd!
I have so appreciated all the time and work you’ve put into these posts. I have learned a lot and found myself exploring a lot of rabbit trails!
What I am still confused about, however, is your stance on the husband and wife relationship. Could you please clear it up for me and any other readers who are unsure?
On one hand I ‘hear’ you encouraging the many ‘one another’ verses in Scripture, which is well and good. I ‘hear’ you encouraging couples to submit to one another. I also ‘hear’ that you disagree with the umbrella illustration (which I’ve seen in the past). Could you please expound on your thoughts of how the man being the head of the wife, as Christ is the church, looks in real life? Could you do an analysis of 1 Peter 3?
I’ve been in the homeschool/patricharical/conservative circles and when I put the teachings promoted in those communities into practice it didn’t feel right. I’ve also been at the more liberal/public school/equal rights end of things and that didn’t feel right either. However, our Christian walk is not to be defined by feelings and I so long to do what’s biblical.
This especially concerns me as I lead a women’s Bible study where most of the attenders are married and new Christians. I am so aware of leading these women astray. I can not refute that the Bible says women are the weaker sex. Our next lesson mentions when Sarah referred to Abraham as ‘Lord’. I am at a loss on how to present this material to these women.
As one of your other commenters posted somewhere, I am deeply annoyed that names such as comp and eg. are even being used! These are not Biblical terms. There are both abstract words that have nothing to do with salvation or doctrine, IMO.
These are random thoughts and I’ve had many interruptions. I hope you can make sense of it!
Thanks,
H.
What an utterly illogical diagram. If Christ is the umbrella over all, how is there any rain dripping from the edges of the husband’s umbrella? Is Christ full of holes?
“He went on to tell me that he had never heard of Gothard, which is hard to believe given that he is a homeschooling vendor who promotes Voddie Baucham along with other patiocentrists and that the Duggars, who are watched by millions of viewers each week, are very openly associated with Gothard.”
Strange indeed. But I must say, I heard this “umbrella of protection” terminology as a brand-new Christian from an old-school Pennsylvania pastor. He taught (somewhat more simply) that we had to obey God, and not step out from the umbrella of God’s protection, which was dismaying enough without the added complications. I knew I was bound to sin sooner rather than later, and what woe would befall me anytime I did? It caused me deep fretfulness over simple daily mistakes.
I eventually rejected the illustration on an intuitive level, because it just seemed to limit God’s sovereignty and His ability to freely choose how He intervenes and guides in our lives, as if He were subject to “the rules” rather than the Maker of all. I can’t conceive of God being stuck in place holding the umbrella when we run astray from Him. Kind of violates Ps. 139.
“What an utterly illogical diagram. If Christ is the umbrella over all, how is there any rain dripping from the edges of the husband’s umbrella? Is Christ full of holes”
Exactly!
It might be more helpful to stick to hte metaphors God has given to us in the Word — for example shepherd, king, husband, mother, father,rock, fort/tower. There is plenty there to keep us busy.
It’s as if Powerpoint is directing us to create new metaphors that can fit on the overhead projector.
P.S. Could any of you explain the different sorts of Baptist church in the US? It’s confusing, but I think I ought to know since there are speakers being touted, books etc, and I don’t want to get the wrong idea.
SBC? IFB? ABC? What’s the difference? Is is relevant to the issues of grace and patriocentricity that Karen has discussed here in this blog?
” If not, I see nothing more than lots of confusing rhetoric that only makes it more difficult to understand this topic, both in thought and in application. Particularly confusing is Mary’s insistence that complentarianism does not equal “hierarchy,” that it does mean “mutuality” but not “equality.”
And this is also what I thought Karen, when I tried to read her blog a few days ago… As my husband would say, “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it IS a duck”.
My thoughts keep going back to my study of the reformation: … So people could have the Bible (the truth) in their own language and not need an intermediary(a human interpreter) to explain things… If we are in Christ, we are a new creation, given the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. This is all we need. Why are these people trying to make things so difficult? Jesus was angry when the Pharisees did this…one would think that these scholarly types would know better than to go down that legalistic path, with as Heather says, these abstract terms.
“What an utterly illogical diagram. If Christ is the umbrella over all, how is there any rain dripping from the edges of the husband’s umbrella? Is Christ full of holes?”
Yes!
“Of course, years later we realized that our son was suffering from learning disabilities and perhaps he could even be placed somewhere along the Asperger’s spectrum; all of his symptoms and behaviors are consistent with what we have learned.”
This is similar to what we experienced when we had our son in a school that was modeled after Doug Wilson’s school. We saw children’s normal developmental issues/behaviors labeled as “rebellion” and “sin.” One of my great regrets as a mother is that I did not heed my gut about my child’s possible ADD, and let so many years go to waste … because they insisted it wasn’t ADD, it was rebellion and sin. My very bright child with a high IQ (and ADD and learning disabilities, as we learned years later) barely made it through high school and dropped out of college because he is so turned off by his early experiences in an academic setting. These doctrines do have sad consequences, even when we supposedly “do them right.”
“What an utterly illogical diagram. If Christ is the umbrella over all, how is there any rain dripping from the edges of the husband’s umbrella? Is Christ full of holes?”
Precious comment!!
So children are the ‘safest’ of all – since they are under so many layers of protection …
Where does the single adult woman fit?
Yeah.
The problem with the umbrella thing is, as thatmom pointed out, you have to define what “rain” is. When people are going through real hardships and tragedies, like grave illnesses in their little children or prolonged loss of income, the last thing they need is somebody telling them that there must be sin in their lives.
Heather, women typically are weaker than men. That is, two men who disagree can get into a shoving match and work it out, but if a man does that to a woman it’s abusive and he’ll probably win, whether he should or not. Husbands are told to take that into account in the way they treat their wives, remembering their lesser physical strength so that they don’t bully them. I wish that verse is the one that got all the attention, instead “wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” sucks it ALL up. Somehow.
I don’t know about the headship thing. There have been times in my marriage when my husband was unemployed and I supported us. In fact, the house note is in my name only because he did not have a job when we bought this house. I am very supportive and loving and look out for his emotional well-being and self esteem and all (and in those areas he’s actually the weaker partner sometimes) but I will be danged if he is going to tell me what to do when I am supporting his butt. Sorry for the vulgarity, but there it is. And we are happily married, have just passed our 30th anniversary, and raised a daughter to functional adulthood.
I’ve known people before who’ve said that marriage is a lot of work, and I’ve agreed, but then they’ve gone on and on about it. Well, it shouldn’t be THAT much work, really. Any two reasonable people ought to be able to get along unless they’re messing up the relationship with ego, or trying to make it be something it’s not. I think a lot of this complementarian stuff is just really a lot of overthinking. And some of it is men trying to hold onto their privilege, not realizing that it’s hurting them too.
Who’s hand is at the bottom of the picture and what does it mean? Why is the woman’s umbrella so small and inferior looking given that even in the comp circles they say “equal” but different roles? Shouldn’t it be the same size?
This picture is making the rounds on FB too. I had to cringe a few months ago when one of my friends who loves Voddie Baucham posted it. Needless to say, I didn’t “like” it.
By the way, Job’s friends would have loved such a diagram. Surely you sinned Job and did something to bring all this calamity on yourself…although they could never tell him exactly sin he was guilty of. How many people who buy into to this diagram believe the same thing thing? Bad things are happening to me so surely I was rebellious and stepped out from under the umbrella. Sad…so sad.
Sorry…lots of typos. I don’t see well when I post via my phone.
I’ve never commented here before, but felt compelled to answer this:
Heather wrote,
“Could you please expound on your thoughts of how the man being the head of the wife, as Christ is the church, looks in real life? Could you do an analysis of 1 Peter 3?”
It is important to remember that “head” here doesn’t carry the meaning that we give it in English. To us “the head” of something is the boss, leader, etc. as in “He’s the head of the company.” or “She’s heading up this project.” However, in the Greek, it really just means head as in the physical head, with no leadership or authority connotations. And at that time in history they didn’t equate the head with decision making or mental capacity- that was thought to occur in the heart.
The husband is the head of the wife (and so then she is the body of the husband)as Christ is the head of the church (and we are His body). (Ephesians 5:28-33) It is all about unity. Forming one body together. It is really important to understand the unity of Christ with his church, as well as the unity that exists within the Trinity, to fully grasp this. But basically, every member of a body functions for the sake of the other members just as much as for themselves, because they are one and the same. They take turns submitting to one another out of love for each other.
There is no other human relationship where two become one except for marriage. When we turn that relationship into a hierarchy, into an one with authority/one with submission relationship, we’ve lost the beauty of oneness. A marriage is not a corporation, a military brigade, or a parent/child relationship. It is set apart in that it does not require one member to always be “the leader” to properly function. It is a beautiful thing that should not be tarnished with authoritarianism.
The apostles specifically asked wives to submit to their husbands in keeping with the cultural and legal requirements of the time. 1 Peter 2:11-25 begins the directives for various people (slaves, etc.) to deal with human authority, however unjust, by bearing it like Christ bore his sufferings for us. Please do not overlook where it says, “in the same way” in 3:1, referring back to 2:23 for wives responding as Christ did. Sarah obeyed Abraham in a culture where women were inferior subjects to men and had no choices. Although Abraham actually put Sarah in danger, the Lord protected her because she trusted in Him in spite of the injustice of her situation.
However, what they ask of husbands is not required by human law, nor thought of highly by their culture. In fact, they are being asked to treat their wives opposite of normal cultural custom. But neither marriage partner is supposed to be focused on their own rights or desires, but rather giving themselves up for their partner.
Whenever the focus becomes proving who is and who isn’t in charge, we’ve totally missed something big and are going against what Jesus taught us (Matt 18:1-4, Matt 20:25-28, Mark 10:35-45). Christ is in charge and we believe in Him to speak to both partners in a marriage and bring them to unity in decisions and direction. We don’t need one member with a trump card who will have the final say in a disagreement. We strive for unity in all things, even if that means seeking the Lord over and over until we get there. And the bonus is that we actually grow closer to one another and to Christ during such a process. One person having a final say is really the easy way out and it hinders the wonderful opportunity for growth in our relationships.
For a great post about the “weaker vessel” read: http://www.ericpazdziora.com/writing/the-myth-of-the-weaker-vessel/
And for an in depth explanation on headship:
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf
Heather, I will be posting on this down the road….my own thinking is still in flux on some of these things! Give me a few days to put this together!
Leah, I appreciate your input!
Anthea: short tutorial on the Baptist topic:
SBC ~ Suthern Baptist Convention, headed up by patriocentrists but there is a huge battle going on behind the scenes. My favorite SBC pastor to read is Wade Burleson. He has challenged some of the hierarchical nuttiness. If anyone knows the answer to this I would like to hear it: In more recent years the SBC has fired some women for teaching men in their seminaries. I see that Mary Kassian teaches at an SBC seminary. Are men allowed to take her classes? Are there women allowed to be enrolled in seminary? If I were going into a new community I might check out an SBC church….love the local pastor and his family in our community. Both sides of the gender issue are pro-life so that is a plus for me.
ABC ~ American Baptist Convention, I grew up this denomination….very liberal, one of the first churches to help make Roe V Wade the law of the land. They were a split from the SBC over the slavery issue, ironically.
IFB ~ Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, would be like the Hyles-Anderson, BJU, ABEKA and Pensacola College brand of Baptist. Need to check out Jeri Masse’s website to keep an eye on all things out of this group: http://www.jeriwho.net/
C. J. Mahaney’s Reformed Baptists have their own survivors’ page: http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ FWIW, I do love some of their music!
Lots of other Baptist churches in the mix of all of this and lots of smaller denominations.
Please, anyone with anything to add for Anthea, please do so!
Thanks Lea. What a great blog!
Well said, Leah.
Related to the idea of unity, of becoming one flesh, we go back to Adam and Eve. I think we often miss just how much the fall damaged that original relationship. Adam severed Eve as being part of himself and placed her as something “other” to be used for his personal benefit.
For example, when confronted by God with his sin, Adam argued that it was really God’s fault for making Eve in the first place and Eve’s fault for giving him the fruit to eat. Adam knew that he deserved death for his sin, but chose to put Eve’s guilt in the limelight, perhaps hoping that by so doing God would only punish her and spare him. Adam was willing to sacrifice Eve (part of his own body) in order to save himself. In contrast, the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, sacrificed Himself in order to save His Body, the Church.
Two more…
Baptist General Conference (BGC) – I grew up in this denomination. This is Piper’s denomination and, despite some of what he has said recently, it is a more middle of the road group on the conservative end. If I remember correctly, they did ordain women in the long past. I’ve been out of the loop in recent years regarding exact theology now. Founded by Swedes and many churches had Swedish language services well into the twentieth century.
General Association of Regular Baptists (GARB) – I’ve been in and out of these churches in the past. Generally quite conservative on women’s issues but not to the point of IFB. I would call them the typical conservative Baptist denomination that doesn’t cross the line into excessive legalism. This can vary by local church, though, and some can be closer to IFB depending on the pastor and membership.
Agree with the others that the diagram makes no sense.
Maybe the guy really had never heard of Gothard…I didn’t know who Gothard was until after I was on my way out of patriarchy. I was listening to your patriarchy podcasts, the one where you interview Don Veinot. I checked out his website and ordered his book on Gothard. I had a million lightbulbs go off when reading that book–so THIS was where the craziness started!! For years I had been very much into Above Rubies, Vision Forum, No Greater Joy, etc. but had never heard of Bill Gothard, IBLP, ATI. I’m glad I didn’t know! I recall getting an invitation in the mail to an IBLP seminar but the wording was so vague…it’s like they were purposely trying to be mysterious about it. I thought it was weird and threw it in the trash. Even though I was very enmeshed in patriocentric beliefs this invite did not pique my interest at all. So it IS possible to be completely into Gothard’s beliefs without even knowing who he is because all these other, more recent organizations are preaching basically the same message.
Becky, I, too, thought perhaps this man had never heard of Bill Gothard. But that is harder for me to imagine when someone is in the thick of the homeschooling marketing culture and spends a good deal of time with thousands of other homeschoolers over the course of the year. I find this especially interesting when Gothard’s ATI program has made inroads at conventions in the last few years.
And your are correct,the message is pretty much the same across the patriocentric board! I find it so fascinating how many people have”lifted” his teachings and some claim them for their own. Tells you a lot about the integrity of some of these folks, too.
I was involved in the patriocentric lifestyle for a little over 4 years. I did all the right things: dresses only for the females, homeschooling, long hair, stay-at-home wife, corporal punishment, me never choosing to go do anything by myself without the children, submitting to my husband, etc., etc. I gave my husband the right books, which really means anything from Vision Forum. I wanted a large piece of land to build a home on that would be away from the world and its influences on my children.
My husband has ALWAYS been very involved in the homelife. He always got up with the little babies to change their diapers and then rock them back to sleep after I nursed them. He encouraged me to go out at least once a week to just get coffee and do something I wanted to do. He does dishes, laundry, makes meals as he is able. I saw that He truly loved/loves me as Christ loved the church! But you know what? When I was in patriarchy, I saw my husband’s love for me but I always told myself “But he is doing it wrong!” He wasn’t telling me what to do, ever. He didn’t sit down and order out my weeks and activities, a la Family Man, Family Leader. He asked me to pray at mealtimes and sometimes asked me to lead in family worship. He encouraged my growth in education and has encouraged me to go back to school if I wanted to. So, in my understanding, my husband was the most loving, self-sacrificial and serving man I had never meant, but because he wasn’t lording over me, he was doing it wrong!
I eventually discarded the paradigm of patriocentry because I realized that my husband was doing his part in our marriage in the best way possible: submitting to his spouse out of love and also loving as Jesus loves the church.
And so I started questioning the whole “headship” meaning as the evangelical church applies it today. If headship really means leader, then there would need to be qualifications for men before they even got married. Marriages in the evangelical world are often likened to business. The husband as CEO and the woman as VP. Yet, no business I know of would put a person not qualified for the position in such a role. However, how many of these men are more qualified for leadership than their wives? I know that I was light years ahead of my husband in knowing my Bible and theology, and spiritually I was more mature. To expect that my husband would be my leader in our early marriage years would be laughable because it would have been like a child leading an adult.
No, marriage is a matter of unity. It is not a business or a ship (as I have also seen it compared to in the VF/Patriarchy camp). It is an organic unity of two people who should be using their gifts, one for the other and for the body of Christ, and serving their spouse with love. Of course, not all marriages are like this and oftentimes, in the case of “unequal yoking”, one spouse will be loving and serving more than the other.
Our marriage has always worked because my husband and I each bring our individual experiences and gifts into our marriage and use those to work for the benefit of not only marriage but our entire family. There never has been a time where my husband had to make the call because we both have always submitted to one another and worked things out towards the betterment of each other. There is no need for headship in our marriage except for the glorious headship of Christ. Even when I stopped having any say in decisions – out of my desire to do everything the patriocentric way – my husband submitted to me out of love and our marriage worked.
I am terrible at writing on issues like this, but suffice it to say, what it all boils down to is, Christians all need to start taking a hard look at the original Greek AND the culture at the time these things were written. It is evident all throughout the Old Testament on how God worked through people, using whatever time and place they were in. (How many times have I asked God why He allowed multiple wives, and women who were prisoners of war to be taken as wives just because they looked beautiful!?). The same is true of the New Testament. Do a little historical fact finding and it will soon become apparent that women really were considered property and legally had to obey to their husbands. Paul wrote in light of this.
Karen,
I wonder how many people really do know of Gothard. I was homeschooled from 2nd grade (in the 80′s when it was dangerous to homeschool!) till graduation, started homeschooling my children, and never did hear of Gothard until just about 4 years ago. I had heard of ATI but never knew what it meant.
Do the Duggars speak of Gothard or ATI by name? I don’t watch them so I don’t know but did see his handouts and hear Michelle use them to teach others. If people aren’t hearing his name, it will only be a matter of time! I wish some television show would read the stuff at http://www.recoveringgrace.org and make the Duggar connection and do a story about all of it.
Karen,
I watched the Duggars for a couple of years when I thought they were the bee’s knees. I remember hearing something about wisdom booklets (is that what they are called? I could be wrong) and they went to an ATI family camp once. But I do not ever remember hearing Gothard’s name. However, and this is a big however, this was a few years ago so I can’t say for certain that I am correct on all acounts.
Karen- there is so much wisdom here…when you talk about these Gothard heresies, it is like looking back through our family history. I could go on and on about how these teachings harmed people and distorted my own theology for so long, even though I always thought I was on the outside of all that.
I won’t bore you with my stories, only one. Maybe this awful tale will show a new reader that they want to stay away from this whole umbrella thing. In my opinion, it is a false religion, a hocus pocus, almost like carrying a lucky charm. It is clearly outside Biblical teaching.
Years ago, we left a church that was forcing nursing moms to leave their babies in the nursery, because of Ezzo. The pastor’s daughter in law (early 20′s, first baby) was busy educating all of us older moms in her newly found wisdom.
We were told that we and the others that left had stepped out from under the protection of our authority- in this case the church. There were warnings of consequences.
Months later, one of the moms who had left gave birth to a baby with profound birth defects that were incompatible with life. She passed away the day she was born.
A few weeks later, this grieving mom received a letter from one of the established wives in the church, who suggested that she should consider that God had punished them for leaving the church by causing their baby to die.
Enough said on that. But when I see any picture of an umbrella, it brings all that back.
Karen, you are doing a good and needed work here. Bless you!
Thank you Karen and Sallie. I had thought that in the UK, there was the Baptist Union and that was pretty much it. There are some other Baptist type groups, but of course they have different names from the US. Besides, all this kerfuffle over betrothal and patriarchy and pinafores and egalitarianism, is coming from American preachers.
Most people over here, for example, would see a book by John Piper and read it. If it were not for Karen, I wouldn’t know John Piper from John Lennon.
I think I might do a search for that post Karen wrote about how to spot weirdy weird teachings. Help1 No search box.
Heather in MN, here is an interesting article on the meaning of “head.”
http://www.searchingtogether.org/kephale.htm
Must read article:
http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/07/behind-every-good-man/
Remember as you read this that Nancy Leigh DeMoss, one of the women leaders of the comp movement, highly recommends the book “Me? Obey Him?”. How can this not be hierarchy?
You know, I tried listening to mp3s of Nancy Leigh DeMoss’ radio programme, and found it a strange experience. The intro music and the announcer’s voice are soft and sweet, but once you get into the show, there’s a sort of continuing theme of holding up very high hurdles for women to leap over. After a while I felt ‘guiltified’ and weary in my spirit.
Example: I remember a show for Mother’s Day with lots of testimonies. They were all about these incredibly industrious mothers. One lady, I can’t recall if it was Nancy herself, said with approval that she never saw her mother in her nightie. She was always up and dressed long before dawn. I felt a bit down about that. Our children are all too familiar with my penchant for 80s-style peignoirs. Then I thought, “Take a chill pill, Anthea. When we go out to church on a Sunday morning, we’re the only ones up at 10 o’clock!” (Note: Only about 5% of British attend church, compared with 40% of Americans.)
P.S. The article that Leah mentioned is fascinating, so I’m cheekily reposting the link:
http://www.ericpazdziora.com/writing/the-myth-of-the-weaker-vessel/
Where does Nancy LD recommend Me Obey Him? I’m not doubting you, I’m just curious. I listened to her for years and don’t remember her mentioning it. I read it(and tried to follow it) because No Greater Joy used to sell it (I purchased it thru them).
Becky, it is listed in the appendix of her book Lies Women Believe, page 274.
Interestingly, she doesn’t list Passionate Housewives Desperate for God though she interviewed Jennie and Stacy when the book first came out and highly recommended it. I think she even offered it for sale at one time.
Karen, are you going to comment on the current series Mary Kassian is doing? Have you been reading it?
I don’t know how familiar any of you are with Jack Schaap who pastored the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana until 2 days ago when he was removed for immoral behavior. The FBI is now investigating him because it is possible the girl he had a sexual relationship with was underage at the time. This man’s views on women are outrageous. He has blamed wives being overweight for their husband’s adultery and stated in one available sermon that “God could never teach him anything from a woman.”
I thought about the consequences of living the way many complementarians prescribe when I heard this news this morning.
Btw, Anthea, he is Independent Fundamentalist Baptist and associated with Hyls-Anderson University.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/31/hammond-pastor-dismissed-for-improper-relationship-with-young-woman/
And here is a link to the magazine for Christian women. His is the editor. You an read this issue online.
http://www.christianwomanhoodonline.com/03-10/
LoneStarMama, yes and yes. I am waiting until she finishes all 5 parts of her series. Are you all reading the comments, too?
http://www.girlsgonewise.com/
Thank you Karen for the link to the thorough piece on what “head” means. It’s something I’ve been working through…not just because of the way head it used in our culture but also from a biological standpoint. It’s our head (brain) that controls our bodily functions, even our involuntarily ones. Yet, I’ve never been comfortable with the assertion that it means control or authority.
He … stated in one available sermon that “God could never teach him anything from a woman.”
I get God could teach him something from Balaam’s ass. They have to be close cousins.
*bet*
I am sorry to note that the counselling/leader/pastor role is one that allows men and women to exploit others, or to be tempted to sin. We have had the same scandals, mostly Anglican or RC vicars. Reading this, I am wondering how long it will be before the non-conformist churches have scandals of this sort.
Remember how quaint everyone thought it was when Billy Graham revealed that he would never be alone with a woman besides his wife? If only that were the typical behaviour.
I found the link to Karen’s article on how to spot false teaching:
http://www.thatmom.com/articles/are-they-true-or-false-teachers/
For Anthea-
CBA Conservative Baptist Association
An association of independent, autonomous Baptist churches in the United States, organized May 17, 1947, in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The founders originally organized the Fundamentalist Fellowship in 1920 but remained within the American (then Northern) Baptist Convention. Disputes over interpretation of scripture and theology, as well as fundamentalist objections to sending liberal missionaries to foreign countries, caused the Fellowship to separate from the Convention and set up the Conservative Baptist Association. It does not consider itself a denomination, although it functions essentially as one.
In 1992 the group reported 200,000 members and 1,084 congregations. Headquarters are in Wheaton, Illinois.
Ok, thanks! I have Lies Women Believe but haven’t read it in ages.
I spent 7 years in an SBC and went thru horrible church abuse so I have no “love” for the SBC — however, I must say that most patriocentrists in our area are in the IFB churches. The more independent, the more fundamental they seem. That’s the crowd wearing skirts and demanding submissiveness…at least where I live.
We actually have some big churches locally that are SBC but do NOT advertise it as not to run off visitors who’ve had bad SBC experiences. They wear jeans, etc and nobody would ever think they were hard core SBC’ers.
There is another group of independent Baptist churches called Baptist Bible Fellowship. I grew up in a church belonging to this group. I dont know how many churches were part of it…probably a few dozen. I think in the 80s one could certainly say these tended to be awfully conservative. Fox example, women ALWAYS wore dresses to church. Pantsuits would probably get some glares, although that may just be because our culture in general was tighter with dress standards. You could definitely say that headship/submission was part of the official stance on gender. Definitely no females ever in charge of anything, except in a Sunday School role. It’s been years since I’ve attended one of these churches so can’t say much about them currently. In fairness, since they were independent, they all were not quite the same. Some were very legalistic and some weren’t so hung up on issues where freedom is given.
I am also aware of the Conservative Baptists of America that someone mentioned. I am aware of a woman who was in a difficult marriage situation in a church of their group who received some appalling advice, which was basically along the line of “find a way to please and serve your mentally ill husband more,go home and submit to him, and trust the Lord to help you through it.” I wish I were kidding. No protection or compassion for this poor woman, and certainly no plan to confront or help her husband.
One of my biggest concerns of Baptist churches, especially the independent ones, is they tend to be a “pastor led” governance model. It is a situation that leads to many abuses because there is no check on the pastor’s authority. The pastor is held up as “God’s Man” and given pretty free reign. The deacons or elders are just basically advisors with little authority over the pastor. They are just to help hold up his vision for the church. Basically, they can become hand picked yes-men. Because of my experience with a pastor led church, I will never belong to such a church again. At a minimum, it becomes dysfunctional and at it’s worse, it is abusive.
@Heather in MN,
That section of Peter is very difficult for me and I am not at all sure that I get it. But maybe my comments will help move things in the right direction.
When a particular piece of the Bible doesn’t seem to fit with the overall message of the Bible seems to be, I try to back away from that text and take another look at how it fits into the big picture. In the case of 1 Peter 3:6 that I think you are referring to, here are a few points I notice about the overall book:
1. Peter starts by reassuring his audience of the surety of their salvation, responding to their present difficulties. (See 1 Peter 1:3-9, especially “though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials” in verse 6).
2. The theme of encouragement in the face of adversity is continued. See 1:13, “gird up your loins…rest your hope.”
3. As we move into chapter 2, Peter expands upon the surety of our hope (2:4-10) and then again contrasts that with present circumstances that might cause despair (2:11-17). Although Peter says that governors are for the punishment of evildoers, Peter’s comments in chapter one suggest that his audience was suffering unjustly. This is also suggested in 2:12,15 by the idea that the believers are being wrongly accused (and should vindicate themselves by their right conduct).
4. In 2:18-24, Peter carefully specifies that he is advocating submission to unjust masters as well as the fair masters, and explains that Christ suffered unjust treatment. Peter does not say that masters have a right to treat slaves/servants badly – he says that we can expect unjust treatment when we follow Christ.
This brings us to the difficult passage in chapter 3. From what we have seen so far, it is quite possible that Peter is encouraging women to hope in God despite unjust treatment they may receive from their husbands. This kind of thinking is extremely unpopular in America, where we are used to our individual freedom, but a lot of the early Christians were subject to slavery and imprisonment. They didn’t sit in living rooms talking about it, it was a fact of life. We typically have a choice to leave controlling, unjust situations; they often did not.
However, although it is possible that Peter is comparing husbands to unjust masters, I do not think that is his meaning. If we jump ahead a bit to 3:7, Peter clearly speaks to husbands as fellow believers along with their wives. It makes more sense that he would address wives the same way as he addresses husbands, rather than the same way he addresses slaves. But if that is true, what on earth is Peter saying about wives and their husbands?
This passage turns upon the idea of fear and its opposite, trust: “holy women who trusted in God…whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror” (3:5-6). Of what might the wives be afraid? Of their husbands? No, the context suggests that there is worldly persecution. If you are talking about prison, beatings, death–for yourself and for your loved ones–it is easy to see how some people may be in a fearful panic. Do you stay in the city under persecution or do you flee? If you leave, what about the people you have left behind? Persecution forces Christians to make hard decisions, and I think Peter may be encouraging wives to quiet and trusting of their husband’s choices, and to not ask a lot of “what about this” questions out of fear.
I do not think that this is the same thing as saying husbands are absolute dictators over all details. In difficult times it is best to be steady in your choices. I don’t think Peter is saying that wives have no input or discussion with their husbands, but only that wife should have a trusting attitude. If you look over the rest of Peter’s letter up to this point, it’s really all about adjust your attitude, finding the right mentality to deal with desperate situations.
In this light, I don’t think the mention of Sarah calling Abraham “Lord” means what it sounds like today. In Hebrew (if I am not mistaken) the word for Lord and Husband are different forms of the word baal, meaning essentially master. That’s the normal word for husband at that time – it wasn’t a weird word for husband like it would be in our English. So the sense of it is not, “In addition to being my husband, you are also the lord, master, and dictator of every tiny detail of my life” — it is “as my husband, I trust you.” Again, if you look at the whole section of 3:1-6, it is about fear versus trust… not detail control.
A similar context applies to the verse addressed to husbands. I don’t know the language behind “weaker vessel,” but I know that if you have a weak staff, you do not honor it. Weakness in a staff makes it worthless, because it is meant to be leaned on. So when Peter says “giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel” I don’t think he means “less valuable.” If it were less valuable it would not be worthy of honor. When Peter admonishes husbands to consider their wives “heirs together of the grace of life,” that means that the problem the husbands are having is that they are NOT considering their wives “heirs together.” The problem is that husbands are not respecting their wives enough, and Peter is admonishing them to respect their wives more.
I don’t know the Greek language so I don’t know if this fits in their idiom, but in the context of “honoring” as an “heir together,” I suspect that “weaker vessel” has the sense of “delicate.” The emphasis is not on its vulnerability to breaking per se, but as it is a finer grade of ceramic it is more valuable. You might treat your ordinary cups a bit carelessly and let them knock around in the sink, but your fine glassware you are going to handle carefully.
To wrap it up, if you can pick up from Peter’s language that he’s talking to people who feel like they are losing, people who are discouraged and stressed and not completely confident they are doing the right thing, imagine how people you know today behave in those situations. Imagine how husbands and wives quarrel in stressful situations and the kinds of things they say which hurt and undermine each other. To wives Peter says: Be more trusting. To husbands Peter says: Be more considerate.
I don’t think that completely clears up the way 1 Peter 3 is written but I hope that it helps!
Boy, was I way off…Baptist Bible Fellowship has about 4,500 congregations in North America according to Wikipedia. It goes by the initials BBFI and is more technically called Baptist Bible Fellowship International.
TNIV has this:
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
“Be considerate” is what causes me to think that the “weaker” part means that husbands are to take care not to run roughshod over their wives. Which, in a patriarchal system, is doubly easy for the larger and stronger man to do – see Nellie’s story.
Arlan, I so appreciated these thoughts and I was reminded, once again, that we need to approach our relationships in a nonadversarial way. This is what troubles me so much about all the marriage and “child training” books…..the assumption that the Holy Spirit isn’t alive and well in the lives of each believer, that redemption doesn’t apply to every single aspect of our lives.
Nellie, I, too, have heard my share of this kind of story. Frightening!
The only “holes” that I know of in Christ are in his hands and feet. Those are very significant holes.
I have one serious, yet somewhat cynical, question to ask these homeschooling folks. How involved is the husband in the family in terms of homeschooling? I would hope to expect some honesty here.
I ask this, not to bash on men, but to be realistic. I’ve been homeschooling for 10 years now and my husband has done very little in terms of teaching my kids. He’ll listen to me as I consider curriculum or voice learning concerns, but in reality, he is pretty hands off. After working a long day he doesn’t want to come home and teach kids. It just hasn’t worked for us in that way. Most of my homeschooling friends would say the same thing. The women are the ones who are primarily invested in the education of their children.
Now, go to the Christian homeschool conventions and you’ll find a very different rhetoric. Most of the speakers will encourage men to “take back the home” and “live up to the God-given role.” I wonder how many men who attend these conferences actually invest time in teaching their children, or is it just back-patting rhetoric to be viewed as the “head of the home.”
Hi Kathi!
You know, I think you have stated what is absolutely the truth in most families. I also think that dads typically are involved in homeschooling each in their own way. In our house, Clay had done math and science with the kids and when they were little and learning to read he listened to them read out loud almost every evening. He also did a lot of reading to them. We decided early on that I would be home with the kids full time and that his biggest contribution was to make the money to pay for this adventure and to help me where I needed it the most.
I would love to hear others’ thoughts on this!!!
At the FIC I went to, the moms did 99% of the schooling, from what I could tell. A few of the bossier men may have told their wives what curriculum to use at times. In general, each new baby meant much more work for the mom, but little for the dad (most of these families we upper-middle class).
Yes, I do most of the teaching. My husband does all the PE — he surfs, he swims, he snowbards, he skateboards, he plays tennis, he can juggle with three balls — I could only get a gold medal in drinking coffee.
He is very good at maths, and whatever he tells them always sticks, but of course he can’t do it every day.
My husband is also the ideas man. He was the one who said, “We can’t send this child to school,” almost the whole time I was pregnant with our first one. Every three weeks he’d pipe up, “We can’t send this child to school.” One day he changes the record. “Do we HAVE to send this child to school?” “No,” I say. “Since when?” he asks. “Since forever.” “Let’s not then,” he says. I thought about it for 5 or 6 seconds. “All right. If I don’t want to work in a school, it doesn’t seem fair to send my kid to one.”
Every other couple I know thought long and hard, agonised over it, read all the books. Mr Ideas Man just swept me along in the tide of his conviction.
If I show him a book, and ask him if it’s OK, he says,”Fine.” He does not want to be a federal head (is that the term?) and just leaves me to get on with the bulk of it. To be fair, I have his opinions at the back of my mind when I choose books or other materials. I’m aware that he will see the children using something and I want him to be happy with what we are using. It definitely influenced my choice of Five in a Row, since hubby wanted the children to see good art and can’t bear children’s books with poor illustrations.
I live in the South and attend a “Reformed” SBC church that is elder led; that means the church is led by 3 men and NOT a single man. This model is becoming more prevalent throughout SBC churches. (Theologically, however, I am actually Presbyterian – but that’s another story.) We are opposed to the FI model, although we encourage families to bring their kids into the main service.
I believe there are at least two versions of complementarians – the extreme patriocentric folks like Voddie Baucham or Doug Phillips, and then those like myself who understand that scripture defines roles within the family and church that in no way denigrate women or demean their value. Someone has to make the final decision in a family. I believe the biblical model is that the husband and wife discuss an issue – with the wife having as much input as the husband – but ultimately deferring to the husband’s decision. Which also means that he is responsible for the consequences if he made a bad decision.
Thinking scripture is clear that women should not be pastors hardly makes me patriarchal. I have yet to find anything troublesome in the Danvers Statement and in the few articles I’ve read in the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
This is year 19/final year in our home school and my husband has always given me free reign w/education plans & materials. I do tell him about everything because he is their father and my best friend…but I made almost every book choice and lesson plan to suit various personalities & learning styles. The one thing he insisted on was typing skills and we started that pretty early (you can’t be a 9-1-1 dispatcher without 45wpm, less than 3? errors and many potentially qualified people can’t pass the test). I talked him into going to a couple conferences and most of the time, he really didn’t like them or find them useful, though he didn’t mind if I wanted to go. He was always looking for good books, games,activities to buy for them. He loved reading to the kids when they were small and through upper elementary ages, and likes to play games both inside & out. He took us with him to almost every work conference 2-4 weeks/weekends per year that he attended all around the country and in Canada for the last 17 yrs and was a good sport for all the side trips/adventures I added onto those trips. Oh, and he bakes cookies with them.
Thanks Karen! I followed Leah’s link to Eric’s post and realized he already made my case, more or less. I feel that my (our?) argument stretches the text a bit… that is why I say I am not confident I understand everything. But stretching a specific text to fit the larger picture is better than cramming the entire gospel into a tiny verse.
In my family (12 kids) my mom managed the teaching, for what it’s worth.
lovin’ these stories…….
Arlan,
I really like your point that looking at the scriptures as a whole will help us to better understand those parts that don’t seem to make sense. We might avoid a lot of misunderstanding concerning certain scriptures if we put that into greater practice.
I disagree that Peter is not addressing wives in the same way he is addressing slaves. This does not mean that Peter thinks wives SHOULD be slaves to their husbands, but it is a reflection of how wives were treated in that culture, even though unjust. In fact, ANYONE being a slave to another person is unjust, no matter the relationship. Yes, in 3:7 he points out to husbands that their wives are heirs with them, but he also does that to masters regarding their slaves in other scriptures (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1). Is not the man held in slavery an heir together with his master as well(Gal 3:28)? He is not agreeing with the man made systems (1 Peter 2:13), but rather telling Christians how to behave when they find themselves within them. So to address wives in the same way he addresses slaves is not a reflection of what he thinks about husbands and wives but rather what the worldly culture does.
To address wives in the same way he addresses husbands would be, in fact, pointless and unhelpful, as wives did not find themselves in the same position that husbands did (especially wives of unbelieving husbands). In this passage and in others that address community/family life, the Apostles address those in positions of weakness (wives, slave, children) and then conversely those in positions of power over them (husbands, masters, fathers). Interestingly, he doesn’t tell those in the first group to campaign for their own rights, but he exhorts those in the positions of power to deny themselves and be the ones to lift those that the worldly system has put under them up to the place they should rightfully have in the kingdom of God- co-heirs and equals.
A good understanding of history and culture helps paint the picture of what these people were truly experiencing. A wife truly had no rights of her own, and females and children were not that much different than slaves, in that they belonged to the head of the family and were legally under their authority. Most wives, in fact, did find themselves in a desperate situation, just by being a woman. This article by Gordon Fee gives a good overview of this topic: http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/cultural-context-of-ephesians.pdf
Ideally, the wives in the NT church whose husbands were also followers of Christ would have been free from this hierarchical mode of life. 1 Peter 3:1 specifically addresses those wives whose husbands are either not followers or are not following the teaching given to them regarding wives- “Wives, likewise…that if even some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives…” Just as 2:12-13 begins the conversation with how to live in relationship to unbelievers whether government authorities, masters, husbands or wives. I agree that the overall idea is about our attitudes in desperate situations, but the context and the culture suggest that wives may have indeed been in such desperate situations regarding worldly husbands. Don’t overlook the “likewise” in 3:1 that links back to the slave/master relationship and receiving injustice as Christ did.
Certainly, it is a good thing for wives to trust their husbands, but I really don’t see that being the subject of this scripture. In fact, it holds much more true to overall scripture to tell women who are fearing worldly persecution to trust directly in the Lord (which is done in chapter 1 when addressing the church as a whole.) To understand 3:1-6 as telling women to trust their husbands decisions when faced with persecution is to cut those verses out of the context of all those that precede and follow, since it follows passages with how to deal with government leaders, then masters of slaves. I do agree that it is about trust over fear, but I interpret it to be about trusting the Lord while living in situations that may violate our rights. (Even when others are not doing what is right, we still should.) Also, if we interpret Peter’s admonishment to wives to be about trusting their husband’s decisions about how to deal with religious persecution, then to be consistent with the text we have to also give that interpretation to the slave/master passage as they are in context together. I just don’t see it to be there in either one.
This in no way exhorts a woman in today’s culture to endure abuse from her husband (just as it does not compel a person to allow themselves to be a slave- which still exists in some forms today, though illegally.)Thank God we have laws against such things and choices about our own lives! However, our focus should still be on honoring Christ with good, lawful conduct, laying ourselves and our own rights aside for the sake of our spouses and fellow believers, and allowing Him to make Himself known to the world through us.
And regarding the husband/wife relationship: when husbands follow the admonishment to love their wives as their own bodies, like Christ loved the church and as fellow heirs, women will no longer find themselves in a position of learning to deal with living in marital subjugation. They will, as co-heirs and equal partners, see voluntary submission as another way to show love to their spouse.
Thanks for sharing your great thoughts and for listening to my somewhat rambling ones!
Oh and as my husband is quite busy working to enable me to stay home and educate our children he generally has no part in the official aspects of homeschooling like choosing curriculum, schedules, lesson plans, etc. If you were to ask him which spelling curriculum we use, he would have no idea. But, he is very involved in reading with them and encouraging their literature choices because they enjoy doing that together. Also, in all the other “non academic” education of life, he’s very hands on since he spends a lot of time with them and involves them with his work when possible. However, when our kids get to high school math, I’m hoping to persuade him to take over that subject, as the thought of overseeing that makes me feel somewhat nauseous
Leah,
I was half-way through writing a rebuttal but I kept losing the argument as I went. You are substantially right. I have had to re-write my remarks.
You are right about the “likewise” in 3:1. I was about to suggest it could refer to 2:25 instead of 2:18 but that is just structurally untenable. “Submissive” is clearly the key term. It’s reinforced, as you pointed out, by “even if some do not obey the word.” So clearly Peter is aware of domineering husbands. But even with this conceded I am not sure this prior context controls the whole thought. What comes after (besides the word to husbands) is the command “all of you be of one mind, having compassion.”
You are quite right that we are to trust God and not man, not any man. I hadn’t been properly sensitive to the distinction between “trust God” and “obey your husband” – or specifically, that obeying your husband does not have to imply that you trust him per se or that he is intrinsically better. So the point is not that the husband is more qualified to lead, but just that Christians in general are not to be involved in power struggles with any of the powers that be. Obey your husband, not because he is better than you, but because God approves quietness in ALL of his servants.
I also initially wrote a remark that comments about adornment and beauty would be out of place in a context of a wife’s subjugation. But obviously for some kinds of unjust men the outward appearance of “his” woman is a direct measure of her value, and that kind of evaluation can be terribly oppressive. So rather than saying “Don’t talk back if you want God to approve of you,” his point is really that “You can have INCORRUPTIBLE beauty before God no matter how your husband runs down your appearance.” At least, it is possible to understand it this way.
However, notwithstanding these corrections to the structural interpretation, it is important to emphasize the theme in 3:8-9: “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing.”
This is not different than what you said, Leah, I just feel the need to say it in my own words to wrap my head around it. Peter is telling women to submit to “every authority,” just as he tells men in similar circumstances (slavery). So it is correct to say that Peter is not speaking to an intrinsic, created difference between men and women (in this particular passage, not addressing anything else here); he’s addressing a circumstantial difference in which women particularly apply the universal Christian law of peace, quietness, and submission (again, verses 8 and 9).
Thanks for your comments, you have improved my understanding!
One thing I still don’t understand…. why did Peter reference trust in God and not being afraid in a passage where Sarah does not believe God and is afraid? (Gen. 18:13-15)
Arlan,
I love how you put this:
“Peter is telling women to submit to “every authority,” just as he tells men in similar circumstances (slavery). So it is correct to say that Peter is not speaking to an intrinsic, created difference between men and women (in this particular passage, not addressing anything else here); he’s addressing a circumstantial difference in which women particularly apply the universal Christian law of peace, quietness, and submission (again, verses 8 and 9).”
What an eloquent and concise way to sum it all up
I also agree with you about emphasizing 3:8-9, as it does seem to be the culmination of the theme of the previous passages. It is one of the many great “one-anothering” verses that would change the face of the church in our time if it were given more attention and actualization in our lives.
About the reference to Sarah in 3:6- I’m still trying to really grasp the meaning myself. I think it is better to look at what we know about her life as a whole instead of limiting it to just the incident in Gen.18:13-15. Her husband heard from God and led her to a foreign land. Her husband twice allowed her to be taken by foreign kings into their harems by deceiving them (Gen 12:11-20 and Gen 20). Both times the Lord himself intervened and rescued her.
Considering the culture and time (even harder for women than the NT era), I don’t think she really had the option of not going along with any of it or refusing. I think she is commended for the attitude of her heart, for putting her hope in God (1 Peter 3:5) instead of giving way to fear, and not necessarily just for the act of obedience. She put her trust in the Lord and honored Him with her behavior and attitude in spite of the situation she found herself in.
Also, in Hebrews 11:11 it says that Sarah was enabled to conceive because she considered God to be faithful to His promises. So even though she did laugh at the prospect when she first heard about it and then lie about laughing, it is apparent that she did also (at least at some point) believe it, even though we’re not given the account of it in Genesis. I think the reference to her being afraid in Gen 18:15 is only regarding her being called out by the Lord for laughing, and not really a fear instead of trusting in the Lord issue. Perhaps her faith came directly after this incident when she realized that this must be the Lord speaking for he knew her inner thoughts?
I think the comments on outward adornment and beauty help round out the point that the attitude of our hearts is what God is really after. That a gentle and quiet spirit in the inner self (a trusting spirit), with which Sarah and other holy women (Ruth? Esther? Deborah?)adorned themselves, is where true beauty and worth lies. Also I think it may be saying that such an attitude will not only honor God but also possibly touch the heart of an believing husband and win him to the Lord, more than outward beauty and physical appearance will. He says unbelieving husbands may be won by their wives behavior, by the example of their pure and reverent lives. So to that end, it is more valuable for women to cultivate such a Christ-like spirit inside than to focus all of their attention on their physical beauty (which, like you pointed out, is corruptible). Their husbands spirits will be attracted to the Jesus they see in their wives, without need for persuasive words.
It is so helpful for my own understanding of these verses to talk it out and hear other perspectives. It helps me to really think it through and also to look at it from a view that I may not have been inclined to see from before. Thanks so much for the great conversation!
Thank you for all the information regarding the different church groups in the USA. It helps me to “get” news stories a little better.
I find it troubling that he eats the pie and sells it but doesn’t understand even the basics of what he’s supposed to be selling, if that makes sense. I started falling into some of these beliefs (and we weren’t in this type of church) because the main “group” in my area were all reformed/FIC types and of course VF was held as the standard. I can see how you’d think that about your son, and (since I have 2 special needs kids, one on the autism spectrum) I also know that even if you DID suspect such a thing, it would have been lambasted as a spiritual demon or something. That is a frightening thing to me– that so many homeschool gurus (always the FIC/Reformed ones) will say labels are wrong, there is no such thing as (ADD/Autism/BiPolar– name your disability) and tell you that you’re just a bad parent and your kids need more discipline. My son does NOT need discipline, he needs structure and understanding and a lot of patience. And what what that man selling? He doesn’t even know.
**Clarification: Even if you DID suspect your son was on the Autism Spectrum, you would have been told it was demonic in nature rather than brain chemistry.
I just re-read that and noticed that it made no sense.
“Thinking scripture is clear that women should not be pastors hardly makes me patriarchal.”
Granddad, exactly what does scripture say about pastors?
“Someone has to make the final decision in a family. I believe the biblical model is that the husband and wife discuss an issue – with the wife having as much input as the husband – but ultimately deferring to the husband’s decision.”
If the husband and wife are seeking the mind of the Lord together, why does the man have to make the final decision? Wouldn’t they wait until they were in agreement if it is an important decision? Why would they desire different things if they are seeking to be led by the Holy Spirit?
Granddad, so glad you are here and joining the conversation!
I don’t know of you have been following the links I posted to Mary Kassian’s site but her articles are so confusing and if you could help sort through them I would really appreciate it! She is saying that complementarity IS mutuality and that it is not hierarchy yet her drawings depict what looks like hierarchy to me.
I am also trying to reconcile the priesthood of the believer with hierarchy and am not seeing it. Any help you might give me is appreciated.!
Sallie, can I say that our 37 plus years of marriage reflect what you just stated. neither of us would feel comfortable making decisions that we knew the other opposed. You know, as I considered that Wilson and Wilson nonsense a couple weeks ago, it struck me that if a husband and wife are to jointly agree on questions of physical intimacy, as per 1 Corintians 7, wouldn’t it make sense that all other lesser decisions should have the same thoughtfulness and joint consideration? I also learned that this is the only Scripture that talks about “authoriy” in the husband/wife relationship. Interesting.
Hello Karen
Just to add to the list of things to consider: in *some* churches, the women are teaching the kiddies, as if this is less vital and therefore can safely be left to women. Presumably the men should take over at the “important” stage. Voddie Baucham (sort of) advocates this in the home, that boys should not be taught by their mothers after a certain age.
Would these churches do it this way, if they had read the statistics?
“Christian faith is usually firmly established when young: a third of people claim they knew they were Christian before the age of 12″ from the UK’s Evangelical Alliance
http://gkcorner.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/80-20-or-90-10.html
“Another survey — by the International Bible Society — indicated that 83% of all Christians make their commitment to Jesus between the ages of 4 and 14, that is, when they are children or early youth.”
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm
I read a fascinating report about the 4-14 window. Anyway, it looks as if the the cutting edge of evangelism and mission is, in some churches, the exclusive preserve of women, which is sort of ironic.
To Sallie:
Not long ago my wife and I went looking for a “new” car. We were first looking at a 2007 model; then a few days later the dealership got a 2010 model. There was a difference in cost, but the mileage was significantly lower on the 2010 model. My wife said the final choice was up to me.
You wrote:
“If the husband and wife are seeking the mind of the Lord together, why does the man have to make the final decision? Wouldn’t they wait until they were in agreement if it is an important decision? Why would they desire different things if they are seeking to be led by the Holy Spirit?”
At the risk of seeming to be sarcastic – which I am not – do you think that if my wife and I want to go out for dinner and I desire Chinese and she desires bar-b-que that were are not seeking to be led by the Holy Spirit? This is, of course, a ridiculous example. My point though is that we must not confuse unity with uniformity. Decisions of great magnitude, “should be buy this house” most certainly require that the two are in full agreement. But there are other issues upon which the two may disagree, and will continue to disagree on even when fully discussed. At that point, someone must make a decision. Do not presume that I mean that the husband’s choice is always the one that must be taken. I can disagree with my wife’s reasoning and honestly believe my choice is the better one….and still decide to go her way. I simply think that the biblical manner is for the husband to make the decision.
Laura asked me:
“Granddad, exactly what does scripture say about pastors?”
Let’s start with 1 Tim 3:2. “an overseer (bishop) …[must be] the husband of one wife…” Now before anyone can object, I agree that the Greek text probably would be better translated as “…a one woman man…” Nonetheless, the overseer is to be a man.
Likewise 1 Tim 3:12 regarding deacons has the same construction.
2 Tim 2:12 is a much more difficult passage to deal with – “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…” Were it the only passage addressing this issue I would say my position didn’t have much to stand upon. But when combined with the two above, 1 Tim 5:17 (” the elders who direct the affairs of the church”), and Titus 1:6 (“An elder…must be the husband of one wife…” I firmly believe the case against women as pastors (elders) is too strong to ignore.
Thatmom asked:
“I am also trying to reconcile the priesthood of the believer with hierarchy and am not seeing it.”
I think you are confusing two categories. The priesthood of the believer simply (actually, there is nothing simple about it!) means that any believer, regardless of their gender, can approach God without the need of another earthy mediator based solely upon the cross work of Christ. This category is about my relationship to God and has nothing to do with my relationship to my spouse.
Using the word ‘hierarchy’ I think is an unfortunate choice. It has a rather pejorative connotation within this context, although the dictionary meaning (” an ordered set”) is not. If you understand the complementarian view to be something like a king and vassal arrangement then I would understand your objections and the use of ‘hierarchy.’ However, as I understand the concept it is more like a president and vice president, or chairman and co-chairman arrangement.
I would suggest that the husband-wife relationship (I’m speaking only of believers) is somewhat like what is called the ‘Economic Trinity’ and describes what each member does. (see http://carm.org/dictionary-economic-trinity for a simple explanation.)
That complementarianism is fertile ground for abuse cannot be denied. That does not, ipso facto make it incorrect. I would suggest that many of your readers have been burned by patriocentric pastors and church members and are over-reacting and thus are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
To everyone:
I hope no one will ever take my comments personally. If I ever offended you – let me have it! I am a big boy and can take being chastised if I’ve crossed over the line. Always, my goal is summarized by: Soli Deo Gloria.
Hi, Granddad,
Here is a picture that Mary Kassian posted on her website that she says represents the various gender relationships. Since she helped put the original concept of “complementarianism” into words, she should be considered to be a credible source. I would love your perspective on this:
http://www.girlsgonewise.com/sex-in-the-shadowlands/
Btw, I am in the process of addressing her basic premise about the sexual aspect of it all so I am not really commenting on this at this time. Just wanted your thoughts on that diagram with the pink and blue hearts.
Oh, I don’t like this.
“It uses the Bible’s head-headship-body imagery to depict how male-female complementarity in marriage and in the church shadow greater and more eternal truths”
I disagree with her starting premise. Yes, the NT does compare the relationship between Christ and his church like the relationship between a husband and a wife, but I don’t think the primary point of the analogy is about headship, etc.
I actually find the entire page a bit creepy.
I read Mary Kassian’s explanation of complementarianism and found nothing I would disagree with. Also, since I listen to or read several of the faculty at Southern Theological Seminary I would agree with most of their theology. Since I am a paedobaptist I can’t include everything
What objections to her definition do others have issues with?
Grandad, here is the original article I wrote on the label “complementarianism” that started this series. If you didn’t see this, perhaps this might help you understand my confusion.
http://www.thatmom.com/2012/07/13/will-the-real-complementarian-please-stand-up-2/
After you had an issue with Mary’s post that included the picture, now you say you agree with her definition. So now I am confused…..which parts do you agree with and which ones do you not? I tend to look at the whole ball of wax and think that labels are a really bad idea.
Grandad, I am still working through the “allowed” and “not allowed” aspect to how gender should be applied today. I know that I would have agreed with your interpretation and application of those passages in Timothy until a few years ago when I took an inductive study of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Our teacher was supposed to lead us in discussing what we had discovered using ONLY our Bibles, Greek tools, Bible histories, etc. (We were not supposed to use any Bible commentaries.) I followed instructions!
The teacher did not, however, and brought in commentary after commentary to make the case for no women elders or deacons. But as I was studying those passages and the cultural context for them, I kept seeing such a sharp contrast to how women in the Gospels lived. I also began to understand what was actually going on in Ephesus that prompted Paul’s warnings to Timothy. That was also when I discovered the debate over the gender of Junius/Junia. (The debate may not be exactly over her gender any more but it has now been couched in terms of whether or not actual “apostles” were being discussed in Romans 16, as demonstrated in the ESV.) All of these things caused me to step back and set aside all I had been taught about these things (it wasn’t my experiences within the patriocentric model that did it…..my husband and I have never lived under that model, it was always me wanting to “submit” in ways he thought was silly and unnecessary! But that’s another blog entry.) All that to say, I believe the issue and the application is much broader. Here are some questions I am still chewing on:
What does “hierarchy” (authority) look like in the home? In the local church? Does it come from our understanding of Scripture or from church history, ie, Rome?
When we say women aren’t to be “overseers,” does that mean elders? Does it mean pastors? Does that mean deacons, even though the word “deacon” means “one who serves” the same word used to describe Junia?
Are women never to speak in public in the church? Even complementarians each have their varying rules about what this means. John Piper, for example, describes what I like to call the “cone of silence” around the pulpit. He says that the pulpit represents authority so women cannot preach/speak/teach, pray, or read Scripture. So what passage of Scripture is that based upon? Where is the pulpit mentioned in the Bible? Were the two Marys violating that when they ran from the garden to declare the resurrection of Jesus? And what about the complementarian women like Elisabeth Elliott who, until her health declined in more recent years, spoke in churches from within the “cone of silence?” And what about women praying in general and prophesying as per Scriptural instructions “with their heads covered?” Can they do that if they stand outside the cone? See how confusing and full of double standards this has become?
Karen…you’re making me work too hard
Do I think a woman could speak in public in the church? Yes, in a limited capacity. Could she exposit Scripture – give a sermon – no.
Something in your “will-the-real” post caught my eye: the eternal subordination of the Son. That’s going to occupy me for a while. I’m afraid it may mean I will have to put my critique of Tenets 22 & 23 of VF “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” on hold.
So tonight, rather than relaxing, I’m going to have to study and refine my argument – maybe even stay up past 10:00. So if I fall asleep at my desk tomorrow, it’s your fault.
“Do I think a woman could speak in public in the church? Yes, in a limited capacity. Could she exposit Scripture – give a sermon – no.”
Ok, that is pretty subjective…so I guess you don’t agree with the “cone” theory?
ESS = this week’s podcast topic!
http://www.thatmom.com/2012/08/04/part-nine-of-the-podcast-series-on-the-family-integrated-church-movement/
Have a Vente and get back to me!!!!!
So we are extrapolating from elder to pastor even though the scriptures don’t address the modern view of “pastor” at all.
It seems to me that there are two possibilities here:
1 – God wants men in leadership positions and women to take the back seat. If that is the case, it’s hard for me to understand it any way other than that I am inferior in intellect and in spirituality just by virtue of having XX chromosomes instead of XY. If that’s from God, fine, but I don’t see any evidence of inferiority in the real world. (When I think about all the times I’ve sat in a pew and heard absolute drivel from a man at the pulpit….) And if it’s not that we’re inferior, it’s that he doesn’t love us as much, and I don’t see that either.
2 – Paul was speaking for himself (which he spelled out a couple of times at least, “I do not permit…”) to specific churches and this stuff was never meant to be prescription for all Christians at all times, in the way that “in Christ there is no male nor female” is. In which case women like me who feel a certain amount of grief and rejection at these notions are put in this position by other people who need to stop it.
If you’re happy with the status quo and it’s working for you, it’s easy to brush off other people’s concerns and tell them to just get over it. And that might include women who don’t want to take responsibility, who want to continue in permanent child mode and let screwups be somebody else’s fault, always.
Thatmom,
My husband and I were discussing a diagram similar to the umbrella one and those from the Girls Gone Wise site, that had little stick figures representing God, man and woman, each one above the other in that order, in a linear fashion, that was for the purpose of explaining “roles” within marriage regarding authority and submission. My husband had this to say about it:
“From what I understand of all the scriptures that address how husbands should treat their wives, how all believers should treat one another, and how Christ treated the church, if I am that little stick man up there then my “role” is to jump down from that spot and put myself underneath my wife and push her up to where I was so that we can stand there together as one.”
I appreciate this from him even more so because this is how he has always treated me and it has been his example that has helped me to understand the essence of the husband/wife passages in scripture.
Now that is a diagram I would like to see. Animated of course.
Laura wrote:
1. “So we are extrapolating from elder to pastor even though the scriptures don’t address the modern view of “pastor” at all.”
What is the “modern view of pastor?”
If you accept the principle of a plurality of elders (Grk – presbuteros), which I believe is the biblical pattern, then I am not extrapolating. The leaders of the local church are the elders. In a typical Presbyterian church you will find ruling elders and teaching elders (a distinction that many Reformed Baptists would argue against.)
2. “God wants men in leadership positions and women to take the back seat. If that is the case, it’s hard for me to understand it any way other than that I am inferior in intellect and in spirituality…”
That’s quite a leap. Any chance God might say to you, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways” (Isa 55:8)? Only the most extreme within the patriocentric movement would say something so deeming to women.
3. “…and this stuff was never meant to be prescription for all Christians at all times…”
I’d be careful with this one. It’s the very argument that liberals use to explain away the bible’s view on homosexuality.
4. “If you’re happy with the status quo and it’s working for you, it’s easy to brush off other people’s concerns and tell them to just get over it.”
Laura, I don’t think I have even hinted as having this kind of attitude.
When I think of the phrase “modern view of pastors,” Granddad, I think of the view we have currently that is, in many ways, a carry over from before the Reformation. As I suggested yesterday, the notion of a pulpit and one single preacher is quite different than how the early church functioned. In essence, what we see as traditional today is really “new.”
Granddad, do you see any parallels between slavery and the “role”of women in the church?”
Leah, I, too, would like the diagram to be animated!
“From what I understand of all the scriptures that address how husbands should treat their wives, how all believers should treat one another, and how Christ treated the church, if I am that little stick man up there then my “role” is to jump down from that spot and put myself underneath my wife and push her up to where I was so that we can stand there together as one.”
Lovely!
Granddad, if there is a man whose IQ is thirty points less than mine, and who converted from abject atheism just last year whereas I was a cradle Baptist and involved in church, Sunday School, Baptist Student Union, and so on ALL my life, he can teach me and I can’t teach him ONLY because he has a [male body part] and I don’t. The only explanation I can offer for this is that somebody, whether that’s God, Paul, or people interpreting this stuff today, think that because I am a woman I am a lesser being – an animal, maybe – compared to that man. How else can you explain it? How?
You quote the thing about God’s thoughts not being ours. I’m fine with that. That’s not the point. The point is, I don’t think God thinks I am a spiritually inferior idiot compared to any random man out there, and hence can’t teach him. And I can’t see the blanket, universal proscription against ANY woman teaching ANY man any other way. The alternative is that either Paul was mistaken, or unduly influenced by the culture he lived in, or is being interpreted wrongly (instructions meant for that church at that time and not meant for us) and that makes a lot more sense.
Look at the mess that churches led by men can get into – the current sex abuse scandal for just ONE example – and tell me that women in leadership roles would cause problems that we don’t now have, or contribute to leading people away from God’s will in a way that we don’t now see.
As for liberal thoughts opening up the way to tolerating homosexuality – that can’t be a valid argument about changing something that’s wrong. I’d like to tolerate you teaching, Laura, but then I’d have to quit denouncing gay folks? Tail’s wagging the dog, there. The primary thing needs to be seeking God’s will, and that will involve NOT leaving out the verses where Paul seems to expect women to participate in worship just like men do, and then going where that takes us. If it takes us places we didn’t expect to go, so be it.
From the Reformation onward there was a pastor/elder/presbuteros (whatever you wish to call him); whether it was John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, or Charles Spurgeon. I don’t think of that as modern, though. I even think of Timothy standing up in front of the Lord’s Day gathering in his house.
Now when I think of modern day pastors the vision I have is either extreme casual like Rick Warren, or strutting around the stage (and I do mean stage) like T.D. Jakes or Rod Parsley.
ThatMom, I see where you may be heading with the “slavery” question and reject, out-of-hand any similarity between involuntary servitude with all of the attendant misery and a view of women that asserts their worth and value while at the same time maintaining that God, for whatever reason, has determined that pastors/elders are only to be men.
I think it is a false dichotomy to say that if women cannot preach they must then be slaves.
Laura, if a church has selected such as individual as you describe to be their “pastor” they deserve what they get. I would suggest the entire congregation is deficient! (I do happen to believe that church leaders — pastors — should be properly educated.)
In the church I attend the wife of one of the elders received an MDiv from Southeastern Baptist Seminary. Not for one moment do I, or any of the folks in our church think that she is a lesser being simply because of her paired chromosomes. She contributes much in our Sunday School (yes, only male teachers) and I although she has told me she would feel uncomfortable correcting me in SS, I have made it clear she most certainly can.
I tremble at the prospect of anyone — male or female — deciding that some passages in Paul can be ignored because they were written nearly 2,000 years ago. Because I hold to the verbal, plenary, inspiration of Scripture (the original autographs, of course) and believe it is the infallible and inerrant word of God, I cannot accept a “that was then this is now” approach.
Proper exegesis can be difficult. It is more difficult when our hermeneutic is faulty (one of the reasons I reject theonomy/Reconstructionism). It is very easy to slip into eisegesis when we don’t like where the passage is taking us.
Clearly, you have strong feelings about this topic. That’s good…keeps your blood pumping and your brain working.
@Granddad:
“ThatMom, I see where you may be heading with the “slavery” question and reject, out-of-hand any similarity between involuntary servitude with all of the attendant misery and a view of women that asserts their worth and value while at the same time maintaining that God, for whatever reason, has determined that pastors/elders are only to be men.”
That’s interesting, because I think the similarity is actually the key to understanding what is meant in most of these passages. I think two separate things, worldly authority and spiritual authority, are being rolled together, causing a lot of confusion (including a lot of mine in my first comment).
Step back from the man/woman issue for just a moment and look at the other submissions in various places: to kings, governors, and all who are in authority (including unjust masters). We know this is not absolute submission because their are occasions when Jesus and his disciples defied the authority on hand.
We also know that this submission is not just “for your own good” because most of the apostles and Jesus himself were killed by the authorities of the day, often after years of other kinds of injustice. It’s quite potent that the early church did not form any kind of revolution even though contemporary Jews did; apparently, the early church considered those injustices something to be borne, not overthrown.
Thus, if Paul or Peter or Jesus gives the husband the position of “king of the home,” this does NOT mean that this man is smarter, better, wiser, or superior in any other quality. There have been plenty of cruel, petty, and stupid kings, magistrates, etc, etc. None of the NT instructions regarding government say, “First decide whether this person is qualified to be your leader; and then, if he is, obey him.” Insofar as “involuntary” is concerned – we are perhaps forgetting the elementary case of a wife (spouse) who converts after marriage. She can then be called in some sense involuntarily married to an unbeliever. (Or maybe we are just forgetting about any culture that’s different than ours, where both government and marriage are largely voluntary.)
But big problems start when this relationship of the believer to the worldly power (consistently opposed to God’s kingdom) into the functioning of believers. That is, Mary Kassian’s illustration in the “Shadowlands” post incorrectly compares the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and the relationship between elders and the church, to marriage. God the Father is not married to God the Son!
The only valid Biblical comparison (out of that set) is Jesus and the Church. And in that case we do see that Jesus’ Lordship over the church is very different from the capricious and selfish rule of the kings of men. But he IS still Lord! Since that comparison between Jesus and the church versus human marriage is made repeatedly in scripture, we should be extremely reluctant to throw that away.
This does not make husbands into a mini-Jesus that are semi-holy, holier anyway than their wives and more Jesus-ish. Rather, the relationship between husband and wife should function as a testimony (or, to use the modern equivalent, ‘advertisement’) of the relationship between Christ and the Church, in much the same was as baptism or the Lord’s supper is a testament. There are those who believe that baptism or the Lord’s supper is an actual spiritual force or event, just as there are those who think that marriage itself embodies (not just represents) a spiritual truth. But if you believe that baptism and the Lord’s supper are proclamations of the gospel, and not actually the gospel, than you can see how marriage can proclaim the relationship between Christ and the church without actually Jesus-izing the husband.
The objection that husbands don’t act like Jesus will invalidate this “testimony” of marriage misses the fact that marriage doesn’t always represent what it should as well as it should. As sex itself can be used outside of its intended reference, so can marriage.
The idea of a faithless spouse is found in scripture. When it relates to God as the bridegroom, the faithless wife is the people of God, and his redemptive love is on display in calling her back and forgiving her of her own sin.
But when the faithlessness is depicted on the side of the “husband,” than the part of the husband is played by someone other than God (obviously, no?). Typically the part is filled by a king or kingdom, such as Egypt or Babylon. In this context, God’s rightful bride is enslaved, and he redeems her out of her captivity (to sin, or the evil powers of this world). But this redemption and rescue always comes after a period of waiting. God knows you may have to put up with an injust husband for a while–someone who supplants God’s place and who will be cast down and destroyed because of it.
Sometime when I was trying to understand Biblical teaching about marriage I realized that the Bible actually doesn’t promise us all happy marriages. It was shocking to realize because we get this kind of “background radiation” from “Christian America” that faithful Christians will always have happy marriages. But God does NOT promise that! It is a POSSIBLE blessing, but the only happy marriage you are guaranteed is at the end of the age when Christ returns.
There is supposed to be a longer comment before that one stamped 7:45… I am hoping it shows up.
As referenced in that missing comment (here’s hoping), I don’t think the relationship between teaching/elders and the church should be compared to marriage; God never said “the elders shall marry the congregation.” It’s a different relationship.
But, to avoid sweeping the question under the rug altogether, I think our understanding of teaching and authority in the church is terribly constrained by our cultural experience. David was taught a lesson by Nathanael the prophet and by a peasant woman (albeit set up by Joab); David himself taught Saul a parable when he described how he defended his flock. Teaching does not have to be done from the seat of authority.
Likewise prophecy: Joseph and Daniel interpreted dreams to kings. They were under that king’s authority, to be sure, but that did not stop them from delivering God’s word.
I am not saying these are excellent examples for how the church ought to best function, but they should at least get us past thinking that any and all teaching is done by authority. Tamar even taught Judah a lesson under extremely patriarchal circumstances (again, not saying we follow the method point for point).
Likewise, on the other hand, we should not make too much of teaching coming from leaders either. That is, “able to teach” is a qualification for elders, but it does not say “smarter than everyone who is not an elder.” Intelligence is not equivalent to being correct in the Kingdom of God! “Submit” does NOT equal “you’re stupid” and “lead” does NOT equal “You’re smarter than all your followers.” Those kinds of equivalences will poison anyone’s leadership and anyone’s ability to take follow any lead.
When Paul said he resolved to know nothing but Christ and him crucified, that was his credentials to lead! And this knowledge does not always come by years of experience or time being a Christian or being in church. The Spirit blows where the Spirit wills, not according to our calculations. If we can really reduce leadership the church to number of years “saved,” it should be easy to pick leaders and then obligatory to follow them. The obsession over years and intelligence and qualifications duly certified has given us the leadership of the last generation or two. Is that what we need more of, overall?
The thing about Christ being the humble servant is that it suggests we’ll all have to serve people who are not better than us. “Betterness” can’t be our only criteria.
Granddad, I understand about not wanting to put the foot on the slippery slope.
I go back to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. It is work to try to separate out the cultural stuff from eternal truth, and we should approach it with fear and trembling, that is, with a very strong desire to get it right, and understanding what’s at stake.
One of the things I fall back on when I have my doubtful moments is that you don’t find any sexism in the red letters. Jesus talked to women and about women. He told parables about women. He called the woman he healed on the Sabbath a daughter of Abraham, and you do not see that formulation anywhere else in the whole Bible. Even though it was most likely men who wrote down the Gospels, and men of that day who had to have been surrounded by that very patriarchal structure, his radical anti-sexism shone through. That speaks to me very strongly of the truth that Jesus wasn’t just a good man and a wise teacher.
And it contrasts strongly with Paul’s statements about women, that he doesn’t allow them to teach, for instance. Or that women need to busy themselves at home – that is NOT what Jesus told Mary, Martha’s sister. Paul even contradicts himself when he says, in Galations 3:28, that in Christ there is no male nor female. How is that consistent with prescribed gender roles, unless the gender roles are from humans, not God?
One of the things that I have said when talking to about people who were really wary of the thought of evolution, is that if God gave revelations to you today about the Creation, you would not write them in the terms that the writer of Genesis did. You would ask God questions that it never would have occurred to the writer of Genesis to ask. My daughter majored in biology. She had an upper level course in evolutionary biology that just touched the surface of that very rich field of study, yet was a rigorous course that drew on years of science classes that she’d had. How was the writer of Genesis supposed to write about that? He had no concept of DNA, or bacteria, or cell biology, any of that stuff.
Or if you look at the rules about men having to marry unbetrothed women they’d had sex with – the alternative was for the women to be cast back onto their fathers’ households and at the mercy of their male family members for the rest of their miserable lives because they were defiled and permanently unmarriageable. We don’t have that rule today – men who have force women to have sex without their consent go to prison, and the women are not thought to be defiled by this (at least we don’t mean for them to be). And lots of women have sex out of wedlock as a natural course and then go on to be married “at last,” as Gigi’s Aunt Alicia says, although we can agree that that is not ideal, it’s definitely an option for them. So it is inevitable that we pull out the things in the Bible that are confined to the culture of the day and don’t try to bring them forward.
One thing I am not sure was clear in my comments: the fact that kings can be bad kings does not mean we should SEEK bad kings; that fact that Paul told slaves to submit does not mean we should seek to be slaves (rather Paul said seek to be free, if you can).
The fact that in some cultures husbands hold legal right to abuse, and the NT generally teaches submission to legal authorities, does not mean that these selfish, oppressive, violent men are the model of Christian marriage.
Thus the great need to distinguish between the possibility of a husband as just another worldly tyrant and a husband as a Christ-like servant. Even the servant-Christ is king, although he lets his not yet fully redeemed Bride get away with murder (sometimes literally). Yet although she may yet be faithless and rebellious toward her Husband, the church still owes him obedience. Her ability to rebel is not a charter to rebel.
We should seek a way to honor the testimony of marriage to the Lordship of Christ without honoring the selfish tyranny of men; and to suffer the tyranny of men without calling that the voice of the Bridegroom to the Bride. In the patriarchy ThatMom critiques, the husband gets modeled after the earthly kings, and that works out about as well as Saul did (Israel was warned what their king would do). On the other hand, total egalitarianism that reduces Christ and the Church to “two beings who love each other very much” misses the fact that Christ himself created Adam and Eve as different. Jesus didn’t use marriage as a picture in Revelation because it was a convenient illustration–he created marriage so that he would have an illustration. If the Bible begins and ends with a marriage, and the relationship between God and his people is pictured as a marriage from end to end, then we have to do something with the fact that Jesus chose to make men and women different. He didn’t have to. Biology didn’t force God to make certain little differences. So how do we celebrate the difference as an intentional pointer toward Christ instead of ignoring it as an accident of god-free biology?
Arlan, well said!
“Jesus didn’t use marriage as a picture in Revelation because it was a convenient illustration–he created marriage so that he would have an illustration.”
Arlan – can you support this with Scripture?
“ThatMom, I see where you may be heading with the “slavery” question and reject, out-of-hand any similarity between involuntary servitude with all of the attendant misery and a view of women that asserts their worth and value while at the same time maintaining that God, for whatever reason, has determined that pastors/elders are only to be men.
I think it is a false dichotomy to say that if women cannot preach they must then be slaves”
Not at all the point I was hoping to make.
There are several things, as I showed before through the questions I asked, that are not consistently applied. For example, who speaks and where? You said women can sometimes speak but not preach but does that mean she cannot share Scripture with men? If she can, how and where? Scripture also talks about women being covered when praying. Does Scripture demand headcoverings of women in worship or was that a cultural thing? The same point is true of slavery, imo. It has nothing to do with women being slaves at all. It is that today, in this culture, indeed the church has in the past, there is/should be a stand taken against slavery. The message in the Bible seems to be one of acceptance of a slave’s place in a hierarchical system. Do/would we accept that today? I am asking what the difference is between how we address the issue of women in hierachy as we do the issue of slaves in hierarchy. (I cannot wrap my head around the idea that complementarianism is NOT hierarchy….even Mary Kassian’s insistence that it is not does not line up with her drawings or with the quotes of other leaders in that movement. Why is this so confusing?
For person A to teach person B, here are the bare requirements:
A has to know something B does not know, or needs to be reminded of, that A is able to impart (can speak articulately or whatever) and that B is able to perceive (can read or whatever) and will benefit from.
Why in the world would this be split on gender lines, unless there is an assumption that a man always knows more than any given woman? Or that a woman can’t communicate, or that a man can’t understand a woman’s communications? Would God have made us crippled in this way? I don’t see any evidence either in scripture or in real life that he did.
My boss is definitely hierarchically over me and that’s cool, because work is like that. There is a lot of stuff I know that he doesn’t, and he is happy for me to explain it and expand his knowledge base. My male lab tech, ditto, with the hierarchy going the other way. Why can I teach a man at work but not at church, when in Christ there is no male or female?
It’s got to be cultural. And to be fair to Paul, he said “I do not permit a woman to teach,” not “God does not permit.” So he’s not even pretending to speak for God here. And the reasoning he offers, about Adam being made first and Eve being deceived, indicates that women are perpetually spiritually deficient compared to men. I think that’s bad theology and I don’t know what to do with it except assume that Paul was talking out of his mouth, as we inexplicably say, and hadn’t thought it through. Jesus never acted like women were spiritually inferior. And elsewhere Paul doesn’t seem to have a problem with Priscilla teaching.
“That complementarianism is fertile ground for abuse cannot be denied. That does not, ipso facto make it incorrect. I would suggest that many of your readers have been burned by patriocentric pastors and church members and are over-reacting and thus are throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
We have to be careful with these assumptions. Even Paul admonished us to comfort others with the comfort they had been comforted with! It doesn’t necessarily flow that those who have been through the fire are motivated by their hurt.
I have several motivating factors for why I address this stuff in spite of the fact that I have never experienced a single moment of over-lording by my husband!
First, every time I turn around these days I am seeing the “normal middle” of gender relationships slip-sliding toward one extreme or the other. Whether the comp leaders like Mary Kassian realize it or not, they are be carried along, and even helping along, the patriocentrists. They need to get their act together. They all need to stop, take a deep breath, and actually listen to others and sincerely answer the good questions being put to them. I ask lots of questions and rarely get them answered!
The same is true for the church hierarchy stuff….lots of emphasis on church membership/discipline etc. these days.
Secondly, the Gospel itself is being compromised. I am working on a piece right now that addresses part of this.
Thirdly, since my target audience in homeschooling moms, I always keep this in the back of my mind……without the moms there would be no homeschooling. And they are being marginalized by all this nonsense, some to the point of quitting altogether. I cannot stand by and watch and my husband’s response is even more ardent than my own! He cannot believe the men allow this to happen in their own churches and own families. It’s like brow beating and refusing to feed the cow that gives you the sweet creamy milk and butter that makes your life so delicious!
Sorry for the cow analogy….wearing it myself, ladies!
For nearly 40 years I have been involved in writing and teaching about pseudo-Christian groups, i.e. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Although I have not been as active the past 10 or 15 years as I once was.) The result is that I tend to be extra critical as I read and listen to “new revelation” or “restored truth.”
I am constantly playing devil’s advocate and will often ask questions, not because I don’t know the correct answer, but to see if you do.
Karen, as you know I have a personal stake in this arena of patriocentricity. Like you, I am deeply concerned that the eternal truths of the gospel are being subverted…and the ‘enemy’ is within the body, not outside it.
Eternal truths are what we want.
I ask myself, if X element of my faith turns out to have been wrong (a bad translation or just not true) then how badly is my theology affected.
If the resurrection didn’t happen, it’s all shot.
If the virgin birth didn’t happen, there would have to be some serious rearranging but I think I could get past it somehow, eventually.
If the healing miracles didn’t happen, that would be hard. I guess I could get past it but I’m not sure. A lot of rethinking and rearranging, at the very least.
I’m all past evolution v. creationism. God created everything in the physical universe. How he did it is not an article of my faith at all.
Did everything in Levitical law come from God, or did some of it get put in by people? Doesn’t really affect my faith either way. I don’t check my woolen clothes to see if they have linen linings and I cannot believe God gives a rip about it either. Did he at the time those laws were handed down? Who knows? It doesn’t affect my theology today. 1 Cor. 13 is a million times more immediate to me as a description of the way God wants me to act. If it turned out that he doesn’t care whether or not we love each other authentically, that would be a serious blow to my faith.
I guess that kind of thing is why I’m not too worried about that slippery slope where you start questioning one thing and end up losing it all. There are things I could be wrong about and it won’t make any difference to the bedrock – if YEC is correct then I am mistaken about that one point but it still doesn’t really affect my faith.
I’m betting you’re pretty much the same way, really, Granddad. If you had a direct revelation from God in which he said “I don’t care if a woman wants to preach or teach men,” your faith wouldn’t really suffer at all. If he even said “I don’t care about homosexuality,” you’d be shocked and surprised but you wouldn’t have to change your core beliefs at all because that’s not really an element of your faith.