I posted the (short) list of how CBMW sees egalitarian teaching:
- 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.
How are these false? If this is not generally correct, why not explain how, rather than make accusations?
Another person speculated about integrity and further speculated about insecurity about a blogger using their personal information in a wrong way (so I set this blog to not require any personal information in an effort to reassure that any attack that might be leveled at my integrity with personal information need not be a concern)
What I was doing was attempting to answer concerns about CBMW teaching. I quoted commenters questions and concerns and then quoted CBMW in an attempt to answer that concern.
(NOTE: when objecting to CBMW teaching, I seldom see CBMW quoted or linked to and there are many claims of wrong teachings - or worse, accusation of lies (resorting to falsehood, which has a much different meaning that "believing falsehood") without citation.)
Sue
Ellen,
Here is some documentation of my claims that the CBMW site is not transparent and misrepresents evidence.
I can't recall any statements that I have made without evidence, I can't recall anyone ever acknowledging that I have provided evidence.
Ellen
Sue there is a short list of folks over there that I have more than a small amount of respect for. You are on the list.
You have not accused another commenter of lying (ahem..."resorting to falsehood"). Nor have you accused another of "twisting". Nor have you lied about the number of quotes in a post.
All of that has gone unchallenged (to my knowledge it has even gone unchecked).
if that makes me the "sole arbitrator" of what makes a conversation stopper...for me (ME, accusation of lies, twisting, etc...that's not a very nice invitation to conversation. Especially when the accusation without quotes, citations or evidence. And those accusations still stand and it seems that nobody bothers to verify whether or not somebody (anybody) is posting false accusations - or seems to care. And if I should speak out there, that would just be seen as "playing the blame game" or not taking responsibility for my part.
There is very little incentive for wanting to comment there, knowing that accusations of falsehoods, lies, twisting, etc.
Perhaps (that old benefit of the doubt) they truly are sincerely held beliefs (not "resorting to untruth")
but that would involve addressing the words, not the motives.
Sue
If I were a tit-for-tat kind of person myself I would never have time for anything else in life.
Sue
Hi Ellen,
I've tagged you for some fun.
Ellen
I'll play (but not until this afternoon - time to get ready for work and all that...
On the tit-for-tat thing. We are talking about a blog that wants to be "safe" (there are [specific] things that make you [specifically] feel "unsafe" and I genuinely try to avoid those things).
accusations of falsehoods and questions about integrity are hardly the stuff of safety.
Which is why I backed off there. The moment I was tempted, I left. And (to my knowledge) nobody appears to have a care about the accusations (I won't call them falsehoods, because I believe that humans make mistakes - it is possible that Paula read the first paragraph of my post, saw ONE quote from CBMW and didn't read the rest, thus believing I had only posted one - and it is possible that Psalmist truly believes that I am a liar and have such poor integrity that I would use personal information in a way that would put people at risk.)
It would just be nice if the accusations were explored, instead of being taken at face value.
Sue
Umm, I am busy trying to be responsible for how I express myself, that is, that it be in terms of effect on me, but not accusation of another.
I really don't feel it is appropriate for me to take on these other issues.
Everyone comes from a lot of hurt on this issue. We all do.
Matt
No two people are equal. I can not replace you. You can not replace me. Equality is a construct of 17th and 18th century European and British philosophers. Introducing it into the church is problematic.
Molly
So, far from the woman being subordinate to the man, this shows how indebted man should be to the woman.
This statement is not accurate. While it *may* mean that (and is fun to point out, only because comps often use "proofs" like these for their arguments), if anyone *is* actually indebted, the woman is equally indebted to the man. There is no, "who owes the most" thing here. That's sort of the point. 🙂
Another correction would be to the statement that "God made men and women equal in all respects."
That's the mythical "egalitarian position," but is unfortunately widely believed. Egal's believe that men and women are equal in the same way that the American constitution says that all are created equal: there's no denying of individual differences, or gender differences going on.
Egal's merely believe that the differences do NOT require heirarchy, whereas Comp's believe the differences DO require heirarchy.
Warmly,
Molly
Ellen
Matt...thanks.
Molly, I don't want to confuse "equality" with "sameness" or "inequality" with "different".
One quarter is equal to two dimes and a nickel. But there is only one of those combinations that I can put in the little machine at work, turn the knob and get exactly 2 points worth of m&m's.
Is that because the two dimes and a nickel is worth less? No, it is only that they are different there are a couple of places that only a quarter will work.
I understand that egalitarians acknowledge gender differences (although in the secular word that is changing, except for biological differences).
That is CBMW's point. It is not inequality; it is that there are different functions.
CBMW makes a difference between "ontological equality" (and we are in agreement) and "functional equality" (where CBMW believes that in as far as leadership goes, men should be in the head leadership positions)
For the other point (about the Hebrew "help" meaning that men should be indebted to women...I don't know...maybe they should be. There is no inequality, women should be indebted to men and men should be indebted to women.
If it is an endless cycle of "indebtedness", one dependent and indebted to the other...but I understand that those ten words do not reflect CBE's teaching accurately.
Other than the addition of those ten words that should have been left out, it is fairly accurate?
(I have to disagree that the equality part is wrong - since we all DO agree that men and women are equal before God.