(edit: if there is one who would like to use this post (11 pages long in a Word doc) as a post body, feel free to email me [ellen (at) domain name.com]. Among the couple of reasons it is not a comment is the fact that it IS 11 pages long and far too large for a com box)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An egalitarian says:
This is the very definition of comp. teaching from CBMW. They have expressly stated that "submit" is always, without exception, to an "authority over", and that is "dictatorial". This is the official teaching of the organization that made up the word "complementarian".
First, the definition of "dictatorial": Tending to dictate; domineering.
Domineering: Tending to domineer; overbearing. Overbearing: Domineering in manner; arrogant (okay, we're in a circular pattern...overbearing means domineering, domineering means overbearing. What does CBMW teach on men being domineering and overbearing? (in the Thesaurus listing for "dictatorial", we see such words as arrogant, despotic, domineering, oppresive, overbearing, tyrannical...)
Is this REALLY the "official teaching" of CBMW (Council on Manhood & Womanhood)?
(From "Satisfied and Complementarian?") Nothing in Scripture advocates a demanding, oppressive leadership style from men. On the contrary, the exact opposite is commanded (Matthew 20:25-28).
CBMW teaches that Scripture teaches EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of demanding and oppressive.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
An egalitarian says...
We link these things because they are accurate and documented. It's just a fact.
It's only a fact if it's true. What "facts"are being presented here? That CBMW teaches dictatorial marriages? Not with the dictionary defintion of "dictatorial". (see above: Nothing in Scripture advocates a demanding, oppressive leadership style from men. On the contrary, the exact opposite is commanded )
If you wish to distance yourself from official comp. teachings, then by all means, invent a term that describes what you believe. But this blog, as it clearly states, is about Complementarianism and Egalitarianism as defined by the organizations that are considered "official", not everyone's individual take on them.
So far, in this thread, the only "teaching" that has been presented is that of a dictatorship. I just linked to an article on CBMW that describes a marriage that is not dictatorial. So I'll distance myself from what the egalitarian claims that CBMW is teaching, but that they are not actually teaching.
I'm pretty comfortable with standing with CBMW in
- recognizing before God the full equality of a woman's personhood with her talents, skills, and gifts does not give us carte blanche permission to disregard any guidelines and standards that God's Word shows us for the role of a woman in the church and home
- teaching that husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself, for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church.
- teaching that there should be no doubt based on these passages about the manner in which God expects men to lead (loving, self-sacrificial, nurturing) and the fact that there are consequences for not doing so.
- teaching that any good leader knows that you need to gather all the facts and enlist those who may know the situation better than you before you make the decision.
- teaching that "head" does not mean male dominance, where a man lords it over a woman and demands her total obedience to his every wish and command. God never viewed women as second-class citizens.
- saying that the teaching of the New Testament clearly shows that women are to be respected, revered, and treated as equals with men.
- believing that (y)our [the husband's] unconditional acceptance of your wife is not based upon her performance, but on her worth as God's gift to you. If you want to love your wife unconditionally, always be sure her emotional tank is full. One of the best ways to do that is to affirm her constantly. Let her know verbally that you value her, respect her, and love her. I have discovered that I simply cannot do that enough.
- that according to the New Testament, being head of your wife does not mean being her master, but her servant. Again, Christ is our model for this type of leadership. Jesus did not just talk about serving; He demonstrated it when he washed His disciples' feet
- believing that a husband should consider carefully his wife's needs and desires; to live with her "in an understanding way" (NASB); to take the initiative in discovering what is going on in her heart and life and to respond lovingly; to be sensitive to concerns and problems before they become major issues.
So far...I'm pretty much in line.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
An egalitarian says...
"Numerous corrections"? What "corrections"? I haven't seen anyone prove an egal teaching that needed "correction". But I have seen a lot of assertions.
That is why we have a debate. If a person does not accept a correction as true, then OBVIOUSLY it is taken as merely an assertion. You cannot force a person to believe.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
An egalitarian says:
"Lash out"? What is it when comps accuse egals of promoting homosexuality? What is it when comps accuse egals of not wanting to believe God or accept what the Bible says? What is it when comps accuse egals of bowing to culture?
It could be merely an appeal to look to the extremes on both sides, not just one. It could be an appeal to look at oneself (as I have looked at and examined myself). What if the comps are right? What if the egals are right? If the appeal is done as an appeal, it is not lashing out...it is an appeal.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
An egalitarian says:
Maybe, just maybe, if comps here would deal with scriptural arguments, history, linguistics, etc. instead of continuing to try and make egals stop quoting what comp leaders actually say, we could make some progress.
Yes...I've asked a number of times WHY, when Paul directly instructs wives to submit (which was already happening in that culture), WHY, WHY, WHY, if egalitarianism was what he wanted to teach, why husbands (specifically) were never (specifically) instructed to (specifically) submit to their wives. That is asking for a reason from Scripture, acknowledgment that history tells us that men (historically) did NOT submit to their wives, and linguistically...the egalitarians have asked that complementarians at least admit there can be an alternate meaning to kephale. In fact, in this very thread, Sue notes: 3. Head comes from the Greek word kephale. Kephale could mean "beginning," "origin," "source," "prominence," "superior rank," or it is a live metaphor and the meaning is found within the passage. This is very lexicon based, but I have also examined the studies.
Will therest of the egalitarians do the same and at least admit that kephale may have an alternate meaning that includes authority?
Will they?
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
An egalitarian said:
If people would pay careful attention to what is actually being said, and stop spreading misinterpretation of what is being said as though that is what egalitarian teachings claim.
I suppose, but will it go the other way as well?
We who embrace biblical equality (egalitarianism) are not "linking complementarianism with support for slavery."(...)
In other posts on this blog...
The correct analogy is patriarchy to slavery. Both are the practice of worldly patterns of positional authority: the former of men ruling over women,
Following the logic...in another post, it is made clear that one commenter sees complementarian as BEING patriarchy:
All I have ever heard of is that men can fill all roles and women can fill some roles. I just don't see how this is called complementarity. This is my problem, I see the restrictions as one-sided and an all out denial of the definition of complementarity. If there is some way to reconcile the practice of complementarianism with the definition, I would like to hear it.
Otherwise, I think one should just say that one is patriarchal and put everyone at ease in terms of knowing one's place - restricted.
If egalitarians disagree with this logic, it would be helpful to speak up, rather than have the misconception of complementarian = patriarchy = analogy for slavery. Thanks.
The same egalitarian said:
Instead, several of us have shown the similarity of arguments in favor of unilateral submission (subjugation) of women are remarkably similar to arguments in favor of slavery 150 years ago. Support of unilateral submission of women is not the same as support for slavery, but there are undeniable similarities and flaws in the arguments in favor of both.
I could note that (in fact) the Episcopal church lumps sexual orientation in with the rest of its "do not discriminate... "list. Just as sex cannot exclude them from ministry, in the Episcopal church, neither can homosexuality.
"All Bishops of Dioceses and other Clergy shall make provisions to identify fit persons for Holy Orders and encourage them to present themselves for Postulancy. No one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities, or age, except as otherwise specified by these Canons." -- Title III, Canon 4, Section 1 of the Constitution and Canons for the Government of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, p. 60
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
The same egalitarian says...
Similarly, we are not "linking complementarianism with spousal abuse." What we are showing is that unlike with biblical equality, complementarian teachings (as published by the founding organization, CBMW) advocate a husband being an authority figure over his wife even if he is abusing her. Again, this is undeniable and deserves discerning scrutiny. Likewise, no one is saying thtat complementarianism makes husbands be dictatorial in their marriages. However, as is the case with other kinds of abuse, dictatorial husbands are still considered authority figures over their wives according to complementarian teachings.
Undeniable?
From CBMW's "Statement on Abuse"
- We understand abuse to mean the cruel use of power or authority to harm another person emotionally, physically, or sexually.
- We believe that the Christian community is responsible for the well-being of its members. It has a responsibility to lovingly confront abusers and to protect the abused.
- In instances where abusers are unrepentant and/or unwilling to make significant steps toward change, we believe that the Christian community must respond with firm discipline of the abuser and advocacy, support and protection of the abused.
And in fact, elsewhere in CBMW (chapter 14 of "Pastoral Leadership" deals with abuse)
- Since real biblical listening is linked to action, you may find that what you hear (especially if the violence has been personal and dangerous) means taking the victim for a medical examination, calling the police, or providing a temporary safe place for her to stay.
- If the homeis potentially unsafe, it is wise to inform the perpetrator that his wife has revealed the violence and is staying at an undisclosed safe place.
- It may be appropriate to encourage a battered woman to press legal charges, so that her God-ordained civil authority can be used to help bring an end to this evil (see Rom. 13:1-5).
- It will also be important for you to point out that submission to God-ordained authority does not mean that she simply stay in the home and continue to suffer. David was submissive to King Saul’s authority (see 1 Sam. 26:23), but he fled when Saul began to physically threaten him (see 1 Sam. 19:10-18, etc.).
- Love for one’s husband will mean preventing him from continuing to do evil.
I have just linked to a direct teaching by CBMW that is the opposite of what the egalitarian believes: that CBMWadvocate a husband being an authority figure over his wife even if he is abusing her, when, in FACT, CBMW supports the wife leaving, staying in a safe (undisclosed) safe place and possibly filing legal charges. Further, CBMW teaches that submission to God-ordained authority does not mean that she simply stay in the home and continue to suffer.
The egalitarian goes on:
Like it or not, we have organizations like CBMW that are advocating teachings that we egalitarians find to be incompatible with scriptural principles.
Like the ones in the links I just provided that refute what the egalitarians claim CBMW teaches?
They founded the "complementarian" movement and continue to speak for the movement and provide the definitive publications and representatives for that movement. I think that it would be a big move toward some actual discussion and away from false accusations against us egalitarians if those who claim the description "complementarian" would acknowledge the problems with what CBMW is saying it means to be "complementarian."
See above...so far I'm pretty much in agreement with the basic structure.
- against abuse: check
- God never viewed women as second-class citizens: check
- We understand abuse to mean the cruel use of power or authority to harm another person emotionally, physically, or sexually: check
- being head of your wife does not mean being her master, but her servant. Again, Christ is our model for this type of leadership: check
- husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies.: check
- women are to be respected, revered, and treated as equals with men: check...
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
The egalitarian goes on...
It would also be helpful if CBMW's terrible mischaracterization of egalitarianism could be refuted without people who reject egalitarianism telling us we don't know what biblical equality means.
And any mischaracterization of complementarianism?
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
The egalitarian goes on...
We certainly do, which is why we're egalitarians. In other words, stop taking CBMW's word for what it means to embrace biblical equality and call oneself an egalitarian. They have a vested interest, from the organization's very inception and purpose for organizing, in discrediting biblical equality and egalitarians. Deal with biblical equality, not the false picture of it and its adherents that CBMW publishes.
What does CBMW say in the Summaries of the egal / comp positions?
It's too long to post the whole thing here, but here are some highlights:
- God created male and female as equal in all respects. Gen. 1:26-27 makes no distinction between woman and man insofar as both are equally made in His image (i.e., ontological equality), and both are given the responsibility to rule over His creation (i.e., functional equality).
- Sin introduced into God's created order many manifestations of disorder and corrupted relationships. Among the chief examples of sin's defilement is the introduction of an illegitimate hierarchy in the relationship between woman and man.
- 1. Gen. 1:26-27 - shows that man and woman share the same human nature, both are made in God's image, and both are given God's commission to rule the earth. Not only is there equality of being or nature between man and woman, there is also, importantly, equality of function or task - both are commanded to rule. And note: no distinction is made to give the man a superior position in this rulership.
- 2. Gen. 2:18 - woman as "helper" is best understood as one who comes to complement (i.e., make complete something that is incomplete). So, far from the woman being subordinate to the man, this shows how indebted man should be to the woman.
- 5. 1 Cor. 12:7-11 - Clearly, God distributes His gifts to His people as He so wills, but one's gender is not a factor in His giving any particular gift to a person. Women and men alike are recipients of all of God's gifts (e.g., see 1 Cor. 11:5 for a statement of women having the gift of prophecy). Since God's spiritual gifting is gender-neutral, and since God expects His gifts to be used in the church, it follows that men and women alike are equal in their exercise of gifts in the church.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
Another egalitarian comments:
Could both sides come to an agreement about Biblical interpretation that looks like this?
1. When the word submission is used for one person, it might, but does not automatically, mean that the other person is given authority. Therefore, two functional equals, for example, two fellow Christians could submit to each other, as in "in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves."
2. Authentew is a word with the range of meaning from "compel" to "have power/authority over." It is possible that this is a word which means to use power in a way that a Christian should not.
3. Head comes from the Greek word kephale. Kephale could mean "beginning," "origin," "source," "prominence," "superior rank," or it is a live metaphor and the meaning is found within the passage. This is very lexicon based, but I have also examined the studies.
4. "Help" means to be a functional equal, since the only other use of the word is for God.Whatever this implies, I am not sure, but it might put the woman in the role of Christ to the man, as in other ways, the man might be in the role of Christ to the woman. (...)
Let's at least say to each other - I see how you are being fatihful to scripture, according to the light you have, or the light we share, or something like that.
The term "conversation stoppers" has been applied. Even if a term has been discontinued (and the ones to whom the term was applied are not psychic and don't know the commitment to stop using it), an open commitment to stop using the term might be considered helpful.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
One of the egalitarians says:
No, glennsp, it IS what CBMW teaches. They have said so explicitly. And please, stop aiming at me and aim at my arguments. If CBMW denies something or has material than contradicts what I said, provide a link or excerpt.
Before providing links, it would be helpful to know exactly what "IS" is...
I believe I have (see above links). I hope that I have managed to take aim at mistakes and arguments, rather than persons.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
The egalitarian goes on...
Ask CBMW yourself and see what they say. Ask them about their document, "The Myth of Mutual Submission", and whether a husband can dictate to his wife or not.
A link was not provided, but it's pretty easy to find.
I have to affirm at the outset that people can mean different things by mutual submission. There is a sense of the phrase mutual submission that is different from an egalitarian view and that does not nullify the husband’s authority within marriage. If mutual submission means being considerate of one another, and caring for one another’s needs, and being thoughtful of one another, and sacrificing for one another, then of course I would agree that mutual submission is a good thing. (...)
In previous generations some people did speak about “mutual submission,” but never in the sense in which egalitarians today understand it. In his study of the history of the interpretation of Ephesians 5:21, Daniel Doriani has demonstrated that a number of earlier writers thought there was a kind of “mutual submission” taught in the verse, but that such “submission” took very different forms for those in authority and for those under authority. They took it to mean that those in authority should govern wisely and with sacrificial concern for those under their authority.
It is clear that in the chapter titled "the Myth of Mutual Submission", that it is agreed that there IS such a thing as ""mutual submission", what is being argued against is the current definition that is used by egalitarians to nullify authority.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
The egalitarian goes on...
And stop telling me what I see, and telling me publicly that I have problems with comprehension. Can I say what I think of your omprehension skills? (...)
That's great. But CBMW would call you egalitarians.
Please see all of the above links that demonstrate that CBMW would indeed call those who say that a husband should treat his wife with consideration, should treat her with respect, that a wife should not submit into sin, that a wife should not stay in an abusive situation, etc., etc...yes...CBMW would call us complementarians.
More:
Cite your evidence. Show us what we've twisted. Quote them, and then quote us.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
Glenn said:
"Those who try and hide behind Comp to justify their sinful abusive behaviours do not represent Comp in any way shape or form."
and the egalitarian replied...
Who is to determine who represents comp., if not the organization that coined the term? Are you an official at CBMW? Tell them what you think and then tell us their response.
- Those who abuse their wives are not supported by CBMW
- those who treat their wives with disrespect are not supported by CBMW
- those who are oppressive, who are arrogant, who are harsh, are not supported by CBMW
- Those who sin against their wives are not supported by CBMW (I'm obviously not counting complementarianism as "sin")
- Those who do not respect their wives are not supported by CBMW
To rephrase Glenn: Those who try to hide behind "complementarianism" to justify abuse, disrespect, who are oppresive, arrogant, harsh, those who sin against their wives, who do not respect their wives, are not supported by CBMW and abusers do not represent CBMW, any more than homosexuals represent egalitarians.
Abuse is sin; compementarianism is not sin.
The egalitarian says...
Yet you cannot escape the fact that only comp. gives Biblical sanction to a man doing whatever he pleases to his wife. In reality, that's how it has happened to many Christian couples. The wife has no recourse, because the pastors tell her it's her fault. That "divine right" comes straight from comp. teachings.
Really?
(From "Love and Respect in Marriage") Since God himself cannot sin, he has not delegated to anyone the authority to command someone else to sin. Thus, if a husband instructs his wife to do something that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, she may properly refuse to obey, saying, "God has not given you authority to command me to do that" (see Acts 4:19-20; 5:27-32).
Thus, we have a teaching from CBMW that instructs a wife that a husband CANNOT do what he pleases, that she DOES have recourse, that if a husband asks his wife to do something that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that she may properly refuse.
That sounds like "recourse"to me.
Again: if a husband instructs his wife to do something that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, she may properly refuse to obey
CBMW directly teachings AGAINST what this egalitarian says that CBMW does teach.
The egalitarian says...
Are there any comps out there who can argue issues without resorting to ad hominem? Who have actually read what CBMW puts out?
Sue
You wrote this to me but I don't know what it means,
Even if a term has been discontinued (and the ones to whom the term was applied are not psychic and don’t know the commitment to stop using it), an open commitment to stop using the term might be considered helpful.
Would you care to elaborate?
Sue
All I have ever heard of is that men can fill all roles and women can fill some roles. I just don’t see how this is called complementarity. This is my problem, I see the restrictions as one-sided and an all out denial of the definition of complementarity. If there is some way to reconcile the practice of complementarianism with the definition, I would like to hear it.
Otherwise, I think one should just say that one is patriarchal and put everyone at ease in terms of knowing one’s place - restricted.
I may have written this. It sounds right to me. Leading roles are restricted to men.
Men rule = patriarchy
Charity
MzEllen
You quote as the meaning of "dictatorial":
First, the definition of “dictatorial”: Tending to dictate; domineering.
Domineering: Tending to domineer; overbearing. Overbearing: Domineering in manner; arrogant
This corresponds to the third definition given in this dictionary.
The first two given definitions are as follows:
1. of or pertaining to a dictator or dictatorship.
2. appropriate to, or characteristic of, a dictator; absolute; unlimited: dictatorial powers in wartime.
It seems to me that these definitions are in keeping with CBMW's teaching on the roles of husbands and wives.
At best it is a benign dictatorship - so not necessarily overbearing - but at worst not benign at all.
Sue
I think you will find that for CBMW the wife's role is to give "submissive assistance" while the man leads. Put the rest in that context of 24/7 functional inequality.
Leigh Ann
Ellen, I admire and applaud your post and your attempts to speak the truth. Some folks are just simply unwilling to listen. They want their straw men because it confirms them in their beliefs. I do not understand why they call the blog what they do when they are unwilling to accept comps. definitions of what they (comps.) are. They want us to tell them that they are right in their assessments and admit to the great evils that we are promoting--that's what the blog is about, not about understanding the other side (as you so aptly showed in this post).
But thank you for your great posts.
Sue
Authority - I don't really know for sure, but I think technically possible. That's the thing, complementarianism, has some possible interpretations, some impossible ones.
You don't have to be complementarian to believe in scripture, so my question is, if you don't have to believe it why do you? What part of you wants to be a functional unequal? I think that I do function as an equal to men, so therefore, it makes sense to me to believe in functional equality. I just don't understand the other side.
Ellen
Mmm...it was NOT written to you. Take the word "immature".
I said something about the use of it.
When I mentioned it again, was said that "when a sister in Christ complained and we stopped using it but still we get no grace"...
What was missing from when I first said something was a "oh, I see how that could be taken, I'll try not to use that sort of phrase in the future. I may slip, I may fall. But that is my commitment."
Otherwise, how is one to know that the behavior has stopped, or whether there has simply not been an opportunity to use that behavior.
If you don't say you are making an attempt to end the behavior, how is one to know if there is an attempt to end the behavior, or if you are simply "taking a break".
That is why, when confronted a while ago I made a public statement, on that blog, that I would make a sincere attempt to tone it down and to communicate in a more loving way.
You did also. So did a couple of others.
Others did not.
I do not think that there will be perfection - we are all human and that sort of "instant gratification" is not possible and is not expected.
That is why, when Paula reminded (gently) me that there was a question that I didn't answer, I thanked her and did my best to answer the question. At that point she had simply asked me to answer, so I did.
I not only expect to be held accountable, I have asked for it offline.
Ellen
Charity, did you read my post? I gave three circumstances in which authority is NOT absolute (abuse, the husband asking the wife to sin, the husband being in sin)
If there are exceptions to authority, then the authority is not absolute, making even your definition not applicable.
At least admit that "dictatorial" is not only an unnecessary derogative and "conversation stopper", it is also wrong.
Ellen
Sue said, You don’t have to be complementarian to believe in scripture, so my question is, if you don’t have to believe it why do you? What part of you wants to be a functional unequal? I think that I do function as an equal to men, so therefore, it makes sense to me to believe in functional equality. I just don’t understand the other side.
Sue, I know that you do not understand the other side.
It is not about picking and choosing what I want to be "Biblical". If that were the case, I'd be having a lot more fun in my life.
I will not frame my submission in inequality. The Savior could only function as Savior in submission that was NOT grounded in INequality.
So I will answer the question, why do I want to be submissive? Because I believe that it is Biblical.
CBMW has laid the groundwork for safety in marriage - the statement against abuse, the disobeying in the face of being asked to sin, the teaching that a loving wife will prevent the husband from continuing to do evil -
Within that safety (not allowing abuse, not following the husband into sin, preventing HIM from sinning), even if we are to submit to each other in identical ways, without any authority, why should I not submit?
With those three "safety nets", do we only submit until we don't want to? Do we only submit until it gets hard?
Or do we (always living with grace for the other) lovingly and willingly submit to the authority structure within church and family that Christ and his church has set the example for?
Why do I want to someday submit to my husband's leadership? Because I want people (believers and unbelievers alike) to look at my marriage and see Christ's loving and sacrificial leadership AND the church's sacrificial submission to Christ BOTH reflected (although, since we are human, through a glass darkly) to the best of our ability.
Sue
Do you think that egalitarianism is also a valid interpretation of scripture? In that view the marriage models mutual submission, the way Christ taught fellow Christians to act towards each other.
Did you notice the article that Marilyn referred to?
He also cites social science research that concludes submission to abuse only serves to empower abusers
Since everyone is a tiny bit selfish, the submissive partner can easily reinforce and strengthen the sinful tendencies of the other with her submission.
So, I would say that I could be persuaded to concede that for both comps and egals, they believe in a possible interpretation of scripture. However, I believe that the one that better fits the overall teaching of Christ is egal.
(And, I would never agree to the faulty Greek. That would have to go.)
Ellen
Sue, read that sentence again.
He also cites social science research that concludes submission to abuse...
Not submission to Godly authority...submission to abuse. That is a very different thing.
Since we started out discussing CBMW and CBMW clearly states that abuse is sin and that we should deal with the sin...
CBMW is NOT advocating submission to abuse.
Abuse is sin.
Complementarianism is not sin.
Anon
Here is my proposal. We agree that both are possible interpretations first, and then we talk about which one is more of a testimony to others of what it means to be like Christ. And which one is less dangerous.
(I don't really think they are for reasons which you quoted here, but suppose I were open to this.)
Ellen
I will also say that Paula's last comment is why I do not comment there.
While she "hoped" that I would post a series of quotes from both sides (!?!?!) all she saw was a series of rants.
In fact, the entire post was 3787 words long (not including the into line and edit).
of those 3787, 1110 were direct quotes from egalitarians on the comp-egal blog. (29% or nearly 1/3)
991 words are quotes from CBMW (and citations) (26% or just over 1/4)
55% of the post is direct quotes.
Another 150 words are other quotes.
Roughly 60% of the words in this post are not mine: they are quotes from other sources.
These are facts that can easily be discovered by cutting and pasting into a Word doc. I'm not going to engage the personality - there is already enough of that.
The fact is (if one takes time to really read) the majority of the post is quotes and responses.
That is a fact (55% worth).
Ellen
I would do it on the comp-egal blog...
If (IF you all can keep Paula under control. And I doubt that's going to happen.
Sue
Tee hee. You should see my rant that I just left on complegal. I tried to keep it light.
Sue
I forgot - complegal is moderated. It might not appear til morning. You still don't say if you agree that egalitarians are getting their views from scripture, just the way comps are.
All your quotes just fuzzed me. I recognized one of mine, but I don't know whether you were calling it a conversation stopper or why. I really didn't follow your rant, but you are definitely entitled to a rant on your own blog. For sure.
Ellen
Well...color me as struggling to avoid cynicism.
You know...I could easily sit down and coffee with you and consider you friend. I know some of your pains and struggles and in some ways they are not different than mine.
The question has been raised about maturity, even Christianity of those on either side of this issue BY those on either side of this issue. I have to face it; even if it is unintentional, blasphemers will not enter into the kingdom of heaven and when a person speaks of the "blasphemy of _____" it brings into question the very salvation of all that hold to that doctrine.
There are few things I do that with. The Trinity. Lack of forgiveness. I can't think of any others off the bat. Maybe the Solas.
That being said, there are even few people groups that I have trouble fellowshipping with; my favorite sister-in-law was an elder (term-limited out for a time), my sister-in-law's husband is a (very) Arminian minister (I'm pretty reformed) and a close friend is a Charismatic Pentecostal (I'm...not)
It is the people arguing that I get frustrated with, not the doctrine. When I get frustrated with the people (or am feeling particularly ADHD - my official diagnosis) - that's when my frustration shows. Just saying.
Ellen
It's ironic...I thought I had a lot of quotes.
I do thing that egalitarians get their views from Scripture, but there are questions that appear to be difficult to answer FROM Scripture.
I know that there are a few that the comps have to answer for also, but I can follow their logic.
Sue
Well, then we're good. No one can answer all the questions we ask of scripture.
As I have said, I can't follow comp logic because it usually involves something that isn't quite logical.
Like Eve is a helper and that means she is subordinate. They admit that God is a helper too, and when he helps us he is subordinate to us. But God being a helper means he helps us. Woman being a helper means that she "is created for the role of helper." It is the "created for the role of" that means she is subordinate. That is the reasoning.
Personally I can't find "for the role of" in the Bible.
Shall I tell you something interesting from Greek.
Eve is called "help" - boethos in the LXX, Phoebe is called "a great help" prostatis,
In Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians 36, Christ is our salvation, the high priest of our offerings, the guardian and help of our weakness.
In Greek that is
?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ????????? ????, ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ????????? ????.
"Jesus Christ, high priest of our offerings, the prostates (guardian) and boethos (help) of our weakness."
That is exactly what Eve was to Adam and Phoebe was to Paul, what Christ is to man.
Clement didn't worry too much about women not being the strong ones. He told the story of how Judith killed Holofernes. Clement says "many women were strengthened through the grace of God with much manliness/bravery."
Clement was the one who preached mutual submission although he does not state his views on women in that regard. Just mutual submission among members of the church.
Sue
Sorry for all the stories. I could go on for ever - and I do. 🙂
The reason why blasphemy might come up is that Denny Burk wrote a book a while back and here is the review.
Here is what is in the book,Burk shows the crucial difference a right understanding of articular infinitives makes using five texts as examples: Mark 9:10, Acts 25:11, Romans 13:8, Philippians 2:6, and Hebrews 10:31. Among these examples, Philippians 2:6 bears the most theological weight, so the fruit of Burk’s study for understanding this text will be briefly considered here. N. T. Wright follows BDF in the opinion that the article with the infinitive in the final phrase of Philippians 2:6, “the being equal with God,” is an anaphoric article pointing back to the initial phrase of the verse, “the form of God.” On this understanding, “being equal with God” is equivalent to or synonymous with “the form of God.” But if, as Burk argues, the article is not anaphoric but appears as a grammatical necessity, marking the components of the double accusative construction, “equality with God” is not connected to “the form of God.” Rather, the articular infinitive designates “the being equal with God” as the object, whose complement is “a thing to be grasped” in the double accusative construction. Burk thus renders the sense of the verse as, “Although Jesus existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God as something he should go after also” (139). The payoff, then, of Burk’s careful grammatical investigation is that Philippians 2:6 affirms the ontological equality of Father and Son while maintaining the functional subordination of the Son, even in his pre-existent state (cf. 139–40 n. 46).
He studied under Dan Wallace, the author of the Junia study. I am not surprised. All can say is that is pretty weird.
Charity
Yes, Ellen, I did read your post - I just didn't agree with all of it, and chose to point out where and why I didn't agree with it.
Personally I would not have chosen to use the word "dictatorial" without defining it and saying why I chose to use it, and why it applied to the situation - which is what I did.
When the term has been defined (especially with the addition of "benign" which I advocated), I do not think it is a conversation stopper - rather I think it should open up the conversation, to discuss the model of government we find appropriate. A valid question would be why do we find "benign dictatorship" in marriage a good model, in a society which practices democracy to appoint government?
To come back more specifically on your argument that you consider this model for marriage not to be a dictatorship in 3 circumstances:
- abuse
- the husband asking the wife to sin,
- the husband being in sin
What you appear to be saying here is that the husband's authority is limited only by God. In human terms I do not think this alters the model of "government" - the husband still has absolute power, unless the wife removes herself for her own protection. Of course in the case of a benign dictatorship, there would be no cause for her to do so.
I could make arguments in favour of benign dictatorships as against democracy or other governmental models - so no, I don't believe this to be a conversation stopper. It certainly isn't intended to be. I think it's important that we get to discussing the underlying issues.
Glenn
Charity, the inclusion of the word 'dictatorial' (whether supposedly softened by the inclusion of the word benign or not) still implies something autocratic.
The ongoing implication is that the complementarian marriage is one sided as regards input and that the comp husband would not listen to or include in his decisions his wife's opinions.
This is not true. In a truly complementarian marriage the views and opinions of the wife are valued and listened to and always taken into account.
Charity
Glenn
I believe you that you value, listen to and take into account the views and opinions of your wife. The fact is though, that at the end of the day, according to so-called complentarian teaching you think your wife expects you "to take a lead". This means that you not only can, but should be telling your wife what to do. And she should be obeying you.
I accept that the scope of this varies a great deal from one marriage to another, but the actual teaching is that the authority (to take decisions and give orders, etc.) lies solely with the husband and the only way out of this is for the wife to leave the marriage if she feels she is being abused.
Now as I see it CBMW sees that as an intrinsically good and God-given thing (as do some church movements including your own) and others do not. As far as I can see the debate is about whether or not this particular form of government is good / what God want for marriage relationships.
Ellen
Sue...isn't that interesting.
Paula's comment was approved and yours was not. Although I think it would be difficult for Wayne to not approve Paula's comment because she's a writer and can approve her own. As I said...interesting.
Charity, you said, What you appear to be saying here is that the husband’s authority is limited only by God. In human terms I do not think this alters the model of “government” - the husband still has absolute power, unless the wife removes herself for her own protection. Of course in the case of a benign dictatorship, there would be no cause for her to do so.
May I then begin to refer to egalitarian marriages at "marital anarchy"? Chaos with no structure? Each one going his or her own way?
Yes. I think that might be a good word.
In a dictatorship, the people have no voice.
In a complementarian marriage, CBMW teaches (and I gave a direct quote in the body of the post) "that any good leader knows that you need to gather all the facts and enlist those who may know the situation better than you before you make the decision."
That statement was an answer to the question "Do you ever make a decision to go with Barbara's option rather than your own?"
you also said, What you appear to be saying here is that the husband’s authority is limited only by God.
I guess I have to wonder why there is a problem with the limits set by God?
I mean, if our limits are set by God, with your "marital anarchy", have you gone beyond God and chosen your own limits?
To paraphrase my friend Phil, "don't choose the right limits, choose the right man."
Ellen
Charity, here's a question: If a women in "marital anarchy" feels that she is being abuse, what does she do?
Ellen
Charity, why the subtle change to "so-called compementarian teaching"?
Charity
So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?
At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written. I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.
I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.
Abuse can occur in any system, but there's a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.
I take it that Phil is your fiancé... Well that's all well and good for the women who as he puts it have "chosen the right man" (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven't? Isn't that the same thing as saying "well it's their own fault for having chosen the wrong man"? I'm sorry, but I can't go along with that.
Ellen
Fiancé? No, but we are close on a lot of issues.
There are good discussion questions in your comment there, but I think that I'll post the comment as a post and go from there (since the comment thread is beginning to go beyond the scope of what I intended the original post to go. Not that I don't want to discuss it; simply that the longer the comment threads go, the more likely I am to miss something important)
Ellen
Sue...I wonder if your comment has been deleted or simply delayed? There are a couple of blogs out there where I always keep a copy of my comment in a Word doc...just in case.
Charity
Ellen,
Sorry I missed this question (you must have posted whilst I was composing my post):
Charity, why the subtle change to “so-called compementarian teaching”?
I used the expression so-called, simply because this is a label used by people with a set of ideas to describe themselves. I would describe my relationship with my husband as complementarian, in that I believe that we complement one another. I have come to realise however, that I do not believe that some of the CBMW teaching least to relationships where true complentarity is expressed or seen.
I'm not sure that this teaching would be called "complementarian" by someone taking an impartial look at it and choosing an adjective to describe it. That's all.
Charity
PS Forgot to say - I look forward to reading your next post.
Sue
My comment has been posted at complegal. I was not concerned about it. Yesterday someone did accuse egalitarians of having anarchic marriages. I don't feel threatened by that comment.
I remember that during my daughter's surgery the four main surgeons had a meeting, that lasted over an hour, to come to a consensus about what to do in the surgery. They kept her on the operating table and debated until they reached a resolution. This is the way that many decisions, the most important ones, can be made.
Pingback:
Comments about dictatorship, anarchy and democracy… | MzEllen – For the Life of Me