The most common understanding of both Complementarianism and Egalitarianism goes something like this:
Complementarians: Do not let women be pastors over men.
Egalitarians: Do let women be pastors over men.
or…
Complementarians: The husband is the leader of the family.
Egalitarians: The husband and wife co-lead the family, with no priority.
or…
Complementarians: Wives submit to your husbands.
Egalitarians: Husbands and wives are to practice mutual submission.
While I think that these are characteristics of both groups, they are not foundational characteristics that define each group. In other words, I don’t think that they are helpful in defining what it means to be a complementarian or egalitarian and they serve to cause a great deal of misunderstanding that leads to emotional bias that is very difficult to overcome once set.
In fact, I am going to say something very radical here and then explain. Here it goes:
It is possible to be a complementarian and believe that a women can serve in the position of head pastor over men.
Did you get that? Reread it. Reread it again…
Complementarianism is not first defined by it view of the roles of men and women in the church, family, or society.
Here is what Complementarianism is:
Complementarianism is the belief that men and women have God given differences that are essential to their person. Men and women are ontologically (in their essential nature) equal, but often, functionally, take subordinate roles (like the Trinity). These differences complete or “complement” each other. Due to these differences, there will be some things that women are predisposed and purposed to do more than men. As well, there will be some things that men are predisposed and purposed to do more than women. Therefore, there are ideal roles for both men and women that should be celebrated, exemplified, typified, and promoted in the church, family, and society. To deny these differences is to deny the design of God and thwart his purpose.
Here is what Egalitarianism is:
The belief that God has created men and women equal in all things. Men and women are ontologically and functionally equal. The way the sexes function in the church, society, and the family is determined by individual giftedness, not role distinctions according to the sexes. Therefore, each person should be judged individually when being placed in a particular position. We should exemplify this reality by overcoming the stereotypical placement that has traditionally been a part of societies in human history, thereby giving freedom to individuals to follow the path that God has uniquely created them for, whatever that may be. In doing so, we should no longer educate or indoctrinate according to any of the former stereotypes, including those of basic masculinity and femininity.
These, in my opinion, are the foundational tenants of each position without giving examples on how this plays out in the family, the church, or society.
The case I am making here is that in order to be a consistent egalitarian, one must deny virtually all differences that typify men as men and women as women. It is not just about getting women behind the pulpit or the concept of mutual submission in the family. It is much more complex and, in my estimation, more difficult to defend with sensibility.
I had a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who was an Egalitarian (he left because of this—I won’t mention his name). I loved this guy. Still do. Great teacher, thinker, and Christian. In fact, I had him come speak to our pastoral staff at Stonebriar to challenge us on why he became egalitarian and to defend his position. I wanted the staff to understand the “other side” from a very able defender. During his presentation, he painted himself into this very typical corner that I find most all egalitarians end up.
He was advocating a foundational principle of egalitarianism: there are no essential differences between men and women other than reproductive stuff. We were all quite taken aback. Every example we brought up, he shot down by giving a counter-example in the form of an exception. His basic argument turned on finding exceptions to everything. Whether it was that men were less emotional, more aggressive, more one tracked in their thinking, less tender, more competitive, unable to nurture as well as women, or even liked the color blue more, he brought up exceptions that he believed neutralized the “pattern”. Finally, I thought I had him. I said “What about physicality? Men are stronger than women.” He would have none of that. He then brought up examples of German women who were stronger than men! We could not stump the guy!
The problem is that in order to defend egalitarianism consistently, he had to deny all of the common sense distinctions that people have made about men and women since the dawn of time. I won’t get into the science or psychology of this issue as there are many very good resources that do this. To me, it is rather bizarre that one would actually be inclined to produce evidence to prove that men and women are different!
I am of the opinion that many egalitarians would have been appalled by Peter who said that women are the weaker of the sexes (1 Pet. 3:7) siting every exception to this rule and bemoaning this stereotype until Peter cried “uncle.”
Complementarianism says that men and women are different by design. We are different and God did it. It is that simple.
However, most people would not be willing to go as far as my former professor. They realize that sustaining a proposition that men and women have no essential differences is a battle that cannot really be sustained in real life (only theoretical ideology). Men and women are different. Even most egalitarians that I know would give me this. Hear this again. Most egalitarians that I know would admit, when push comes to shove, that there are some essential differences between men and women. Most would even say that there are essential differences that go beyond reproduction and physicality. But I would argue that these people are not really egalitarians, at least in the way I have defined it. They would be complementarians because they would have given up what I believe to be a central driving tenant of egalitarianism and embraced the central tenant of complementarianism: men and women are different by design and their differences complement each other.
Now, having said this, I believe that it is theoretically possible to be a complementarian and yet not take a traditional complementarian stand on the issue of women in ministry. In other words, someone could believe that men and women are different by design yet not think that these differences have any bearing on women in leadership in the church. They may be convinced that the Bible does not really teach that women should not teach men, and yet be complementarian in other issues and, broadly, in their theology of the sexes.
I am interested and committed to complementarianism for more than just the women in ministry issue. This is just one application. But (and here is where I get in trouble with fellow complementarians), I don’t think that it is the most important issue in this debate. Neither do I think that it is the most “damaging” issue.
You see, when people are truly committed and consistent egalitarians, they have to defend their denial of essential differences. In doing so, they will advocate a education system in the home, church, and society which neutralizes any assumption of differences between the sexes. In doing so, men will not be trained to be “men” since there is really no such thing. Women will not be encouraged to be “women” since there is no such thing. The assumption of differences becomes a way to oppress society and marginalize, in their estimation, one sex for the benefit of the other. Once we neutralize these differences, we will have neutered society and the family due to a denial of God’s design in favor of some misguided attempt to promote a form of equality that is neither possible nor beneficial to either sex.
We will have troubled men and women groping to find their way and feeling pressured to repress their instincts and giftedness. We will no longer be able to train up men and women in the “way” they should go since there is no “way” they should go. Women can act masculine and men can be feminine. Men can retreat in the face of responsibility because, in truth, they don’t have any “responsibility” other than the one that they choose. This is to say nothing of the implications this has on the issues of homosexuality and gay marriage.
But in a complementarian worldview (even one that allows women to teach men in the church), men are taught to be men and women are taught to be women. They both have defining characteristics. Masculinity and femininity find their place and are exemplified and celebrated. Men protect women from physical danger and take their positions of leadership seriously, without trepidation or fear that they will be seen as power mongers. And women support this. Women take up their positions of nurturing and supporting the emotional well-being of the world. And men support it. No role distinction is seen as inferior because in a complementarian worldview both are seen as essential and of equal importance. Only in complementarianism do we not define the rule by the exceptions and bow to the least common denominator. Only in the complementarian worldview, in my opinion, can freedom to be who we are supposed to be find meaning.
The true spirit of complementarianism is that God has intentionally created men and women with differences and we are to celebrate this in every way. The true spirit of complementarianism is never domineering (that is a sinful corruption). The true spirit of complementarianism provides no shame only freedom. The true spirit of complementarianism speaks to God in appreciation.
When we attempt to neuter this design, we have lost much more than authority in the pulpit.
Complementarians, while I believe that the Bible teaches the ideal that women should not have authority over men in the church, let us promote the true spirit of complementarianism then simply defending its particular applications.
637 replies to "What Complementarianism is Really all About"
Kay comment #45. I don’t understand what your response to me is saying.
cherylu That still doesn’t change the basic facts though that the curse(s) are still there for men and women. And no amount of remedial action is going to remove that completely on this earth. It may make things a lot easier to deal with, but does not make God’s pronouncements go away.
I realise you wrote this to someone else, but I think that the created order and the fall offer different arguments. I am not fully certain how the Fall speaks to the egalitarian debate, but I think the response that people are allowed to ameliorate the effects of the Fall is a legitimate argument. We have to understand the what and why of the curse. Post-fall work is toilsome, but the curse is not an argument against making work less toilsome.
I mentioned recently that Paul uses 2 arguments in 2 Timothy. One appeals to creation and surrounding the Fall. But as I mentioned, the argument relating to the Fall may be due to the curse, or may be due to the created characteristic that tempted Eve (a pre-Fall condition).
This is directly from my blog.
“In the footnotes, Köstenberger provides the only two pieces of lexical evidence which he thinks are relevant. He says,
41These two references are: Philodemus (1st cent. BCE): “Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (συν αυθεντουσιν) are villains, and hated by both gods and men”; and BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Calatytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.” For full Greek texts and translations, see Baldwin, “Appendix 2” in Women in the Church, 275–76. (in the PDF page 13)
The first citation is a reference to Philodemus. However, authentein is definitely not translated as “those in authority” but as “powerful lords” or something of the kind. Several lines later, there is a reference to “those in authority” but not in connection to authentein. It seems there has been a mix up.
The second citation it the one that Grudem suggests should be translated as “compel”. Therefore, in spite of Köstenberger’s footnote, neither of these two citations gives the obvious meaning “exercise authority”. Whatever the meaning is, I would like to see it properly cited.”
I thought that I had made clear that Kostenberger’s quote for Philodemus is NOT a translation of the line which includes authentein.
Hodge,
What gives? Anyone can see that the two passages are no match and that the English translation is from further down in the Greek. It is not that hard to spot if you look at lines 15 and 35 in the Greek and see the mixup.
And please cite for me one scholar who thinks that BGU 1208 is a reference to authentein with a positive connotation.
So far the only positive occurrence that you have mentioned is 1 Tim. 2:12. You have not demonstrated to me that you have read the other two references in Greek.
Hodge is right. Context take the word usage and allows it to be nuanced. Often this will cause it to find a new place within a larger semantic domain. If the context is clear enough, even when there are no other examples of this word carrying a certian connotation, this new usage serves as the example. If this were not the case, then words would be unable to find any sort of semantic domain (wider usage) since they would be in the prison of its initial usage.
Context is a large part of determining meaning and, more often than not, takes priority.
We know that authenteo has something to do with authority.
We know that it has something to do with control. The only two other occurrences are tranlated as “compel” and “powerful.”
Chrysostom forbade a man from ever authentein his wife. It was a tyrannical thing to do.
Michael,
A couple of really good books that have chapters on word studies are these:
http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Testament-Interpretation-Guides-Exegesis/dp/0801062608
http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-New-Testament-Text-Introduction/dp/1581344082/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
http://www.amazon.com/Exegetical-Fallacies-D-Carson/dp/0801020867/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c
The second is very, very good 🙂 (Of course it is from the New Testament Dept at DTS!)
CMP
RE: 201
Again I’m no Greek scholar. However, I’m having trouble following your logic. If a word means one thing in every other example in which the word is used (as argued fairly convincingly by Sue and not heavily disputed by Hodge accept to point to the verse in question) and that meaning can plausibly be applied to the passage in question (even if it may seem that another meaning is more likely) then shouldn’t that meaning prevail??? It seems to me as an outside observer that the passage is at least somewhat ambiguous as to meaning which would in turn lead me to believe that building such an important doctrine off this passage would be ill advised. Yet then again I’m just an outside observer not an expert.
Again I’m just scratching my head here and if this reasoning if wrong (and I’m open to it being wrong) I’d like to know why.
“Context is a large part of determining meaning and, more often than not, takes priority.”
Of course it does, because you can twist it anyway you like. You can never nail it down.
Sue,
It’s getting a little frustrating to have to rewrite what I’ve written before. Knight cites BGU as positive, Liddel and Scott cite it as positive. If I actually had the energy to go through my library right now, I’m sure I could find you more, but who cares what others have said? We have the texts don’t we?
My point about the citation is that it conveys the point of the passage with authenteo. These men are set against society. Are you saying that their fighting with authentousin is seen as a good thing in the passage. After all, if authentousin are tyrants (which you earlier said you didn’t believe it was), then why are these men seen in a bad light?
BTW, I wasn’t translating the Greek sentence. You placed that there. I was quoting the summary provided by Kostenberger.
Honestly, Sue. I just gave you the references from Lampe. Do you not own Lampe or something? Why can’t you just go read it? Why make me reproduce the examples I gave of God and man having a positive authenteo/authentia?
I’ve read Philod before. I re-read it on your blog before I posted any of this. I argued to you from the context that these men are bad men who oppose those in authority.
BGU 1208 is a dispute. You assume that because the heated dispute was settled by the owner “authenteo-ing” the man to take his stuff across, then that means that he did so by force. pros indicates something relational more often than not, so I don’t think my nuance is that far off. I obviously would say that rapport carries with it the weight of respect and authority, but don’t see how you’ve provided any evidence to the contrary. I would not say that pros makes it negative.
I’m going to bow out of this conversation, Sue. I have a feeling that your next statement will be that you never received any positive use of authenteo, ignoring the occurrences I cited. I need to get some writing done, and this has been a fun distraction, but a distraction nonetheless.
Michael,
“If a word means one thing in every other example in which the word is used (as argued fairly convincingly by Sue and not heavily disputed by Hodge accept to point to the verse in question) and that meaning can plausibly be applied to the passage in question (even if it may seem that another meaning is more likely) then shouldn’t that meaning prevail???”
Sometimes. But often the semantic domain will allow for other nuances to take place if the context suggests such. In many cases, however, we lack much information from within the Scripture itself (synchronically). And sometime there is very little information in the outside resources (diachronically). When all the majority of our other examples come diachronically, we have to be very careful as words can nuance themselves greatly over a short period of time.
In our present case, they data is greatly lacking. We have the general semantic domain. So the context does take a high priority. This is why most all translations of the Bible translate the way they do. It is significant that both conservatives and liberals alike agree on this issue. The only debate comes in when people have other theological commitments which are driving the interpretation of the data. Hence, what you are witnessing here.
Again, those books I suggested are very readable and I highly recommend the chapters on word studies. They don’t presuppose much knowledge of original languages.
I do want to end by saying that I don’t agree with your lexicographical methodology and your views that cause you to use it; but I do always appreciate the respectful and civil tone with which you conduct our conversations, knowing that you’ve been through something that should make you very disrespectful. So I can argue with everything else, but I can’t argue with the manner you conduct your conversations. Thanks again. 😉
Yes, this conversation about “authority” does not need to continue. Very interesting but the point of this post does not turn in any way on where one stands here.
One last thing: Michael T,
A good example for what we’re talking about is epilambano. The word always refers to a physical deliverance in the NT, but in Heb 2:14, the context molds it to refer to spiritual deliverance instead. Context is king and all words must bow down to it.
Hodge,
They don’t fight with authentousin, because authentousin is not a noun, it is a participal qualifying the noun anaxin.
I put Dr. Kostenberger’s quote on my blog to demonstrate that it does not line up with the Greek in question. His citation is not, and never was a translation of the line which has authentousin in it.
That is why on Justin Taylor’s blog, Dr, Kostenberger said that there were only “one or two” occurences of authentein prior to the NT. Because he was not sure that there were two.
And no, Baldwin does not include BGU 1208 as a positive example of authenteo. And I don’t find any respect and authority in BGU 1208 It is one pissed off citizen to another. There is no mention of any authority.
I think I see where you are coming from, but I remain skeptical for no other reason then I lack the knowledge to be anything else. At the very least it seems to me that this would be a thin thing to base a important and essential doctrine off of (I know you don’t consider this an essential doctrine, but Hodge and others appear to).
And no I am not going to argue that you never gave the examples. I am going to argue that somehow the comments with your examples were withheld on the preceding post and this delayed the continuance of this discussion.
You have posted so many misunderstandings that I know longer know what to make of our conversation.
Anyway, on page 677 of Evangelical Fem and Biblical Truth Baldwin lists BGU 1208 as an example of “compel, to influence someone.” Neutral perhaps, but not positive.
I argue that since the greatest physical danger a woman will ever experiene is at the hands of her intimate partner, this partner should not be given an unfair advantage over her, to tie break, to compel, or for her in any way to go against her own better judgment.
A wife should never ever give over any of her God given responsibility for her children. She has equal responsibility and equal authority and it is immoral to suggest otherwise.
I grieve for this entire and very sad situation in the church.
This is why most all translations of the Bible translate the way they do. It is significant that both conservatives and liberals alike agree on this issue.
Michael,
Bible translations do not agree on this at all. Those in the King James tradition say “usurp authority” but you use the verse as if it said “lead in church.”
You cannot pretend that there is agreement on the meaning.
Michael P.
The conversation on authority would not be here in this thread if some comments had not been withheld from the previous post, and Hodge repeatedly asked me to respond to them. I know that nobody really wants to know that we don’t know for sure what this verse means and that all restrictions on women are purely speculative, but that is the case.
In any case, thank you for not shutting it down.
Sue, you are quite a bit of fun and a joy to have a conversation with.
I am not even saying that I necessarily disagree with you about much of this. I remain somewhat agnostic to some of these details. But as more of systematic theologian, my thinking goes much broader and will certianly influence how I begin to put the individual peices of the puzzle together. It helps me to be able to make some decisions on the more obscure details.
BTW: I just posted an introspective peice that, I believe, helps to see why people argue differently and approach the data differently.
I am finally off the gender issue stuff! (for now). See it here:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/02/three-types-of-christian-scholarship/
Sue, Hodge, CMP, et al.:
FWIW, I believe Payne tackles the meaning of authentein in his book (Man and Woman, One and Christ), and demonstrates the problems with the lexical entries in BDAG and LSJ and what Kostenberger and others write about it by not only giving more examples, but by also showing what those lexical entries fail to say or show, or why their citations are problematic.
After reading the incredibly long discussion I’ve gone back to the original post to look again at the definitions proposed.
By those definitions I believe there would need to be another (or even multitudes of other) definitions to cover most of the people I interact with. I, and they, would be neither complimentarian nor egalitarian, or both.
Complimentarian.
That men and women are generally different in essential ways is accepted. That they are equal (but not equivalent) is accepted. That the differences mean they are generally predisposed towards different tasks, and therefore towards different roles is accepted.
Egalitarian
But it is also accepted that ‘The way the sexes function… is determined by individual giftedness, not role distinctions according to the sexes. …each person should be judged individually when being placed in a particular position.’
We would celebrate and encourage the masculinity and femininity found in each individual, regardless of their genetic makup.
If the differences are ‘essential’ then they do not need to be taught, they are already there. They merely need to be celebrated where they are found, even if they be macsuline in a female, or feminine in a male.
The generalisations of gender should NOT be imposed on the individual. To do so would be to invite that (supposedly egalitarian) problem of ‘troubled men and women groping to find their way and feeling pressured to repress their instincts and giftedness’, this time towards conformity.
The distinctives as classically argued are not as you have presented, but whether a heirachy should be predicated on the characteristics and imposed universally based on genetic generalisation.
The debate IS about roles, not ontology. Changing the definition of each position in this way will, unfortunately, probably serve to exclude many from the conversation for being supposedly inconsistent.
At the moment I am classical egalitarian, Patton complimentarian 😉
“Kay comment #45. I don’t understand what your response to me is saying.
cherylu That still doesn’t change the basic facts though that the curse(s) are still there for men and women. And no amount of remedial action is going to remove that completely on this earth. It may make things a lot easier to deal with, but does not make God’s pronouncements go away.”
cherylu,
That wasn’t my comment you’ve quoted here – sorry I can’t help you.
c michael,
Your type of complementarianism is in reality no different than “hard compism.”
Although you’ve couched it in gentler terms, the basic fact remains: it is man directed, not Spirit directed – because until the male who has the position of authority makes a decision, either by abdication or by invitation, that a woman can act, then “men” keep her in her place.
When the Lord leads His servants in their tasks, it is not directed by the will of man.
Kay, your last comment (#23) supposes that women have no input or influence. That is a mistaken representation of the complementarian model.
“I’m going to bow out of this conversation, Sue. I have a feeling that your next statement will be that you never received any positive use of authenteo, ignoring the occurrences I cited. I need to get some writing done, and this has been a fun distraction, but a distraction nonetheless.”
Don’t quit, Hodge! Nothing more fun than banging your head against a wall.
Kay,
It was Bethyada that questioned your comment #45, not me! Perils of long threads I think.
“Kay, your last comment (#23) supposes that women have no input or influence. That is a mistaken representation of the complementarian model.”
Doesn’t matter – that would simply make it it “man and woman” directed. Either way, it’s not the Spirit’s work.
Sue, you always seem to equate submission with ‘suffering’:
“Since the Bible always presents imperial power, or monarchy as a power which the Christian must submit to, I find it galling that men have ensured that they live in a democracy with access to the places of authority, and women live in subordination. Why are women uniquely asked to bear the greater suffering?”
My question is this? Do you consider it suffering to submit to God? Do you personally consider it important to submit to God….in your own life. Are you submitted to God?
I was thinking about love languages. The “professionals” tell us that men are wired to want and need respect. Women are wired to want and need to feel loved. Now we each need both but one we need more than the other. maybe not a lot more but still more….so…the “professionals” tell us.
Also, there are rights and there are needs, desires that we hoot and holler about, depending on the conversation at the time. For example, if I feel my husband is controlling, I might demand my rights! If I feel he is neglecting me, I morn is lack of affection.
If our primary need is not met, wheteher it be respect or love, it stings. Why? Because it just does? I don’t think so. Any way to attach this respect/love phenomenon with explaing the “why” factor? Oh no, that was the other post! But with either post, it seems we all need to express the “why”. Sorry.
Now, how much have I been wired to lead and how much have my circumstances, life history, cultural change in society taught me, encouraged me to lead? How much of my leadership is a reaction to what I have learned and observed? And have we, male and female showed the capacity and ability to learn what did not come natural to us and in all our fervor lost our authentic selves so that we don’t even recognize who we are anymore? I think it shows how we humans can be wired one way but can be shaped or perhaps transformed into something else. And who tells us our transformation is a better you? … “search my heart Oh, God” for it should never be self serving. It should be to His Glory no matter the gender.
BTW, I did want to mention, for those who are interested, that the uses of authenteo are listed by Baldwin (as someone I think mentioned before), both in Greek with an English translation, in Anreas Kostenberger et al., Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) 269-305. He also interacts briefly with a few of Payne’s arguments that were given in an ETS paper presented.
Hodge, et al.:
There is a 2nd edition of Women in the Church that came out a few years ago and revised the original edition (some of which Payne mentions – e.g., changes Moo made to some of his statements/claims in the first edition).
Also, I suspect that Payne’s 2009 book contains more up-to-date or additional info on authentein than what Kostenberger interacted with in 1995.
See Linda Belleville in Discovering Biblical Equality. In the first half of her article she demonstrates why the Philodemus fragment is out. See kostenberger’s interview on Justin Taylor’s blog July 2008 on 1 Tim. 2:12.
The books cited above are not current with this. The philo fragment is too uncertain and the BGU 1208 cannot be proven to have anything but a negative or hostile aspect.
I believe Payne has dealt with all of this. This is just not the way to interpret the word of God.
Susan
You excommunicated me last year on the same point. Am I suddenly going to say something different?
This has probably been addressed a few times already. 🙂
”if you say that there will be exceptions yet we should, as a society, celebrate and encourage individuals to grow in ways that exemplify what males and females should.”
The problem with that is that when people are going to add requirements and incentives to do and be things that are extra biblical, then we are interfering with God’s influences on people’s lives. God uses whomsoever He Wills in whatever ways He decides. And He does it from the moment of conception in their mother’s womb. Who are we to interfere by deciding that men SHOULD like blue, women SHOULDN’T think of being an engineer (or pastor, teacher, evangelist, church planter, life guard, policeman, fireman, etc.), women SHOULD like lots of children, boys SHOULD like sports and girls shouldn’t and so forth. We have done this for many years only to find errors later. One error was to teach that women were not as good as men in math. When the schools stopped discouraging girls from math, they were somewhat surprised that the young girls are just as good as the boys. This created a backlash to the boys who thought there must be something wrong with them if there were so many girls who excelled in math.
Men and women, as fellow humans, have the same brains. There are just some differences in connections. These differences make neither superior and neither inferior. It only changes the approaches to handling problems. There are benefits to the different approaches. Both however can handle the problems brains were created to handle.
Excommunicated? As I recall your answer was evasive. If a person does not see the need to submit to God then why would such a person see any reason to submit to others as God has ordained it. It’s very helpful to understanding ones argument to know the persons foundational understanding of their relationship to God and His word.
I don’t think I ever asked you this question: Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?
Come on Susan. This is such an old political tactic. Please stop with the condemning harrassment and personal attack of Sue. She’s a long time Christian, who loves the Lord God dearly and as well deeply believes in the Word of God, and desires to honor God by rightly reading and interpreting it.
Now, let’s get back to the discussion and leave our personal dislikes out of it.
TL, sorry…I’m not brilliant enough to employ political tactics. My questions are 100% sincere.
Do you know Sue personally? Face to face? How do you know these things about her?
Then perhaps a personal email would be more appropriate. It really is distracting from the discussion, even if you don’t mean it to be. You may not be aware but several of the hierarchalists who’ve been debating for some years, put together a particularly offensive tactic of accusing those who disagreed with them of not being Christian or of not being Christian “enough”, or of not respecting God’s Word. It was all aimed at discrediting the reputation and veracity of their opponents. It’s called an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when someone attacks an opponents character or his motives for believing something, instead of disproving his opponents argument on its own merit.
I’ve been reading Sue’s blog and comments around for several years. I’ve nothing but the highest respect for her and her walk with God.
Well then, I guess, by your definition I wasn’t making an ad hominem attack. Truth is I wasn’t attacking, I was asking a sincere, straight-forward question. At this point I’m beginning to think that it’s more you who are attacking me. You are accusing me of things I haven’t done. I didn’t attack Sue’s character, I simply asked a question….which she could have answered in a simple straightforward way…but chose not to. I noticed that she asked Michael a lot of questions…..
Furthermore, Sue accused me of excommunicating her, Silly.
Susan,
I did not quite remember that correctly. What happened was that another blogger, not present here, but who was at that time, emailed me, and said,
“Oh, I see you were just excommunicated on Parchment and Pen!”
He was refering to your comments.
Your comments are ad hominem. They are about me as a person.
What I am discussing is not a matter of faith but fidelity to objectively observed facts. I do think that Hodge, Michael P and Dr. Kostenberger, and Dan Wallace all agree that we lack lexical evidence for the meaning of authentein.
I realize that the question remains, is context enough. This would be a new conversation which I would be happy to engage in, now that the situation regarding lexical evidence is clearer.
There are many possible meanings for 1 Tim. 2:12. I would suggest these for a start.
1. In general, all women should not dictate to men.
2. These women in Ephesus should not dictate to men.
3. This particular woman should not be dictating to a man.
Maybe it means women should not be controlling or taking over. It simply does not say “Women should not lead in church.”
Gen. 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Tim. 2:15 all contain phrases or words that are difficult to translate. And men, in their wisdom, and by using the priority of context, have determined that all of these verses mean that women should not go beyond their “boundaries.” I smell a fish.
Hey, there have only been seven people in the history of Parchment and Pen that have ever had the priv of being excommunicated from here! And none are present here (obviously!)
I see. I’ve never excommunicated anyone. In fact I’d be more than happy if you were ever to visit or attend our church. I didn’t insinuate anything about you as a person….I simply asked a question. I would absolutely appreciate a sincere answer. You can accuse me of attacking your character but it simply isn’t true, and you can’t support such a claim.
I quoted you and made the observation that you always seem to associate submission with suffering, as if the two go hand-in-hand. If that is your view of submission then I suppose you will always be of the opinion that any call to submission is wrong. Are there any realms in which you think that it is the right thing for one person to submit to another? Do you think that you and I should submit to God? Do you think that the Bible is God’s word. I really just want to know how you really feel about these things. Short, straightforward answers will due.
I know that we are so far down on this post that no one will read this far. Nevertheless, I feel a bit of tension here raising.
Keep it safe.
Here’s something of how it works Susan. We are all Christians here (to my knowledge). Sue is an avowed Christian, for many years, although I don’t know how long. We are discussing the Bible because we consider it the written authority that God has provided us. We all want to understand it correctly. And we are in the middle of a discussion about some subjects in the Bible.
Then somewhere comes the idea/assumptions that one of these long time Christians doesn’t believe in submitting to God AND is questioned whether they believe the Bible IS the Word of God. Neither of these points has anything to do with the questions at hand, and they are personal and can both be answered by reading the blog of the person in question. When we start drilling someone about their personal walk with God in the middle of ‘testy’ Biblical discussions, it is considered trying to question their character so that one doesn’t have to consider their viewpoints.
Also, the assumption that because someone questions one aspect of the doctrines of submission, means they must question all aspects of submission is not proper logic. Just because one cow is brown doesn’t mean all cows will be brown. That is jumping to a negative conclusion without enough facts to support it. Lots of assumptions, seems to, supposing, etc.
So how about we just leave that be for now. Comment #239 has some thoughtful points.
-matriarchalism -
hard egalitarianism -
soft egalitarianism -
complegalitarianism (how’s that?—I do think there is such a position!)
soft complementarianism -
hard complementarianism -
patriachalism
I pretty much disagree with this list. While it is true that there are two opposing poles of patriarchalism and matriarchalism, egals are not connected at all with matriarchalism. However, complementarianism is birthed from patriarchalism and all its foundations are solidly rooted in patriarchalism. I consider egalitarianism to be the balancing middle between the two. I also consider soft comps to be very close to most egals although I admit I don’t know what a soft egal would be like. I suspect ‘hard egals’ would be non Christian egalitarianism. Christian egals are all of a gentler nature. 🙂
Well Tl, I guess you’ve got me all figured out then! You’ve incorrectly judged my questions as “drilling someone about their personal walk with God in the middle of ‘testy’ Biblical discussions, it is considered trying to question their character so that one doesn’t have to consider their viewpoints.” You don’t know me and you have misjudged my motives.
Sue could clarify things very easily by simply answering my very basic questions. I don’t have time to read her blog. She could answer my simple questions in three minutes or so. I’m just wondering what her basic beliefs are, and I think that for me anyway, it would help to understand where she’s coming from.
I’m guessing she can speak for herself 🙂
Susan,
Just asking here, and not trying to be confrontational. But your very questions raise doubt about Sue’s Christianity, IMO.
I don’t know Sue, but have no doubt that she is a Bible believing Christian because of her comments. That is strictly all I have to go on with anyone here, because I don’t know any of you, and only have your word to go on.
So why such questions? They just don’t seem appropriate in light of the discussion here.
The questions that Susan are asking are honest and reasonable, IMHO. Submission is at the heart of Christianity. Jesus submitted to the Father’s will and a brutal death to offer a sacrifice for sins. Placing faith in Christ involves submitting to God’s authority – our lives are not our own. Paul tells Christians in Philippians 2:3-8, that just as Christ gave up his position in heaven to take on humanity with all its frailities, so we too ought to have the same attitude. That would be an attitude of giving up our rights and what we think is owed to us for the sake of Christ and his program. We submit to God, we submit to his word, we submit to earthly authorities and we submit to each other. That is the Christian life.
If one expresses a hostility towards submission and authority, it begs the question why that position is so.
Susan: “My question is this? Do you consider it suffering to submit to God? Do you personally consider it important to submit to God….in your own life. Are you submitted to God?”
Reminds me of the Pomotivational poster titled “Belief.”
Belief: It can’t be true if I don’t like it.
……
Analogizes to:
Biblical Patriarchy: It can’t be true if I don’t like it.
Lisa,
If we are just generically asking questions about submission to Christ, that’s one thing. But if we are questioning another’s Christianity to get our point across, that’s quite another. I.e. in asking such things: As do we really believe in the Bible for an example? I think that it has already crossed the line here, and gotten completely off the original subject, and become not about the original issue but about one person’s beliefs, which does a disservice to the rest of us here.
In that aspect, we also do a major disservice in the original intent of this blog. That’s all I am saying.
mbaker (I used to be sbaker BTW), if Sue simply answered these basic questions then there would not have to be any doubt….would there? I’d be happy for doubt-clearance!
Lisa has said it better than I could. All true… Thanks!
…and what TUnadD points out is true of so many. People often jump to the conclusion that something can’t be true if they don’t want it to be true. I love my mother-in-law dearly and we have a great relationship, but she will say that she is a Christian and yet holds to many views which are antithetical to Christianity. She is very pluralistic in her beliefs. I don’t know Sue, so I don’t assume this of her.
If someone asked me the questions I asked Sue, I would be happy to answer them. I just don’t think such a big deal has to be made of this.