Christian Issues

• 33 Comments

•
I just copied and pasted the comment thread...

(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?

At this point, a fair question might be: have you?

• 48 Comments

•

(Edit:  I don't want this to get lost in the com-box so I'm putting it up here.

Can you rephrase the quote so that it can be easily understood what you DID mean?  If I substituted other words and said something like:

A wife who (refuses to submit to her husband's leadership), then, is like a (rebellious teenager who kills his parents).  It's a heart thing to do evil or not to do it, right?...

How would you read that?

My interpretation of a comment on "complegalitarian" (although I think it might be time for them to consider a name change)
~~~~~

~~~~~

A wife who chooses to submit to her husband is on the same level as a woman who chooses to have an abortion. Ummm...another "wow".

J.K.Gayle says:

Submission of a wife, then, is like the choice of abortion of a mother. It's a heart thing to do evil or not to do it, right? Jesus wants (us) to change our hearts, to know him, to be free and to make free, right? (Emphasis mine)

Did you get that? Submission of a wife is like the choice of abortion.

Let's look to Scripture:

Col. 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Ex 20:13 "You shall not murder.

and again:

1 Peter 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,
Pro 16...17: There are six things that the LORD hates...hands that shed innocent blood,

Obviously (NOT)...wives that submit to their husbands, as is fitting in the Lord, who hope in God to adorn themselves by submitting to their own husbands...

are like (NOT)

Women who murder their babies and shed innocent blood.

As I said..."wow".

• 15 Comments

•

First, let's define "blasphemy": from Answers.com

    1. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
    2. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

What brought this question on?

Paula, from Words of a Fether, wrote on a set of sample wedding vows from Bible.org, saying,

Especially repulsive is no. 12.

Here is the text of the sample:

Male

I love you, ______, and I thank the Lord for the love that has bound our hearts and lives together in spiritual fellowship of marriage. I will love, honor and cherish you always. As we enter upon the privileges and joys of life's most holy relationship, and begin together the great adventure of building a Christian home, I will look to Christ as Head of our home as I have looked to Him as Head of the Church. I will love you in sickness as in health, in poverty as in wealth, in sorrow as in joy, and will be true to you by God's grace, trusting in Him, so long as we both shall live.

Female

I love you, ______, and I thank the Lord for the love that has bound our hearts and lives together in spiritual fellowship of marriage. I will love, honor, cherish and obey you always. As we enter upon the privileges and joys of life's most holy relationship and begin together the great adventure of building a Christian home, I will look to you as head of our home as I have looked to Christ as Head of the Church. I will love you in sickness as in health, in poverty as in wealth, in sorrow as in joy, and will be true to you by God's grace, trusting in Him, so long as we both shall live.

Paula's take:

Sorry, bible.org, but that makes the husband a blasphemer (taking the place of Christ in the life of another person) and the wife an idolater (looking to a man instead of Christ). This abominable trend in the churches has infected influential leaders in the Christian community, and it’s spreading rapidly. Those men love to “keep their place” and to be “head over” someone, especially women. We women are expected to spend our lives stroking their delicate egos, making them little gods over us, and believing it’s God’s divine order. (the bolded text is my emphasis).

My take, let's compare Scripture to the sample vow (just the "repulsive" part):

(Scripture):  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

(the vow): I will look to you as head of our home...

(Scripture):For the husband is the head of the wife...

(the vow): as I have looked to Christ as Head of the Church...

even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Scripture goes on: Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Paula called her post "Vows and Wows". I agree.

It's a "wow"...when wedding vows that reflect Scripture are called repulsive, blasphemy and idolatry.

I wonder if it would be blasphemy if the bride quoted (as her vow) Ephesians 5:22-24 directly from Scripture, the groom quoted (as his vow) verses 25-28 and the pastor quoted the rest?

I wonder....

Paula goes on about Bible.org and complementarian belief that a wife should submit to her own husband, as to the Lord, and as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands:

Now evangelicals can take their place beside Muslims, Jews (traditional rabbinical views), Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses in making women truly subhuman.

I repeat:  wow.

And I am truly saddened.

• 1 Comment

•

The word "mature" is used in the English Standard Version 8 times.

The first time is in the parable of the seeds.

Luke 8:14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.

This is a lesson in how NOT to mature. Those people who are "choked" by the trials and tribulations of life, who are distracted by riches and pleasure; these do not mature.

In order to mature...keep your focus on the cross, follow the Word.

The second is 1 Corinthians 2: 6

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.

Don't get sucked in by the "wisdom of this age". What is the direction that "culture" is moving? Should the church be moving in that same direction (this is not outward appearance, music style, etc).

Are our churches getting "squishy" on abortion? Some are and that is the wisdom of this age.

Are our churches getting soft on homosexuals in church leadership and/or gay marriage? Some are and that is the wisdom of this age.

Are our churches caving in on women in head leadership roles? If so, then they are caving to the wisdom of this age.

The wisdom of God is not the wisdom of this age and it is to the mature that the wisdom of God is imparted.

The third time (ESV) is in 1 Corinthians 14: 20

Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.

This passage speaks to the speaking of tongues in a worship situation...There is an order to worship, our God is not a God of confusion.

To teach and worship in a way that is against Scripture is to teach and worship in a way that is immature.

In issues of today (women in leadership, etc.) it seems that those who claim to be more mature (since Scripture does not tell us that women in leadership is the sign of maturity) may in fact be the ones who need to mature...

To be mature, follow Scripture in your worship and teaching...or maybe just as important, if you label others as immature because they do not worship and teach as you do, it may be time for a little self-examination.

The fourth time the word "mature" is used in Ephesians 4:13

...until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

We see steadfastness in this passage. The mark of maturity is steadfastness. Clinging to the doctrines proven, the "Old, Old Story", shying away from "every wind of doctrine". Being steadfast in our doctrine, rather than running to those who are aligned with the wisdom of this age, is maturity.

To be mature, be steadfast according to Scripture

5) Philippians 3:15

Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

  • In what way does Paul want us to think?
  • Look out for the dogs...the evildoers...those who seek righteousness by outward acts...
  • count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord...
  • not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law...
  • having a righteousness which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith...
  • do not consider that you have made it your own...
  • forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead...
  • press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus...
  • join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.

What is this example that we are to imitate? Do not follow the wisdom of this age, keep your faith in Christ (not in your faith or in your works or in your own righteousness), submit to the authorities in your life, love one another.

To think in a mature way, read Paul and follow his example.

The sixth use of "mature" is in Colossians 1:28

Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ...

In order to understand this maturity, we must look back to the warnings and teachings of Paul (see the above points)...to think like Paul, imitate Paul, teach and worship like Paul.

To be presented as mature, heed the warnings and teachings of Paul.

Number 7 is found in Colossians 4:12

Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God.

Whether he is praying that the Colossians stand mature, or prays for the trials that make them mature, I don't know. What I do know is that mature Christian needs, wants and asks for the prayers of others.

Why would we not? If it is pride that keeps us from baring our struggles, turning aside that pride will bring maturity...ditto if it is shame that prevents us.

Prayers of other Christians help to bring us to maturity.

The eigth time "mature" appears is in Hebrews 5:14

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Discernment is a mark of maturity; the ability to know/distinguish good from evil. How do we learn this? By being in the Word! By seeking the meat of the Word, digging deep, studying to show yourself approved.

To be mature, be trained with constant practice to know right from wrong.

The Greek word used for "mature" appears many more times, translated as different things...but this post is already long...

• 17 Comments

•

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Cor 3:17  ESV)

In providence, the sermon I heard yesterday was on Spiritual leadership, taking from Acts 6.

The problem was an administrative problem but it was a problem.  When widows were being fed, one demographic was fed, while another was not...how to solve it.

Which is more important?

spiritual LEADERSHIP.....or.....SPIRITUAL leadership?

We can tend to see our spirituality as one aspect of our person, along with psychological, emotional, physical, mental, sexual, social, etc.

OR

We can see our spirituality as encompassing all that we do.  Anything that we do that is of the Spirit IS spiritual.

The apostles understood their job to be one of discernment and proclamation of the Gospel message.  Also understanding that in their apostolic leadership role, they could not do everything; things (such as the group of widows) were slipping through the cracks.

Rather than wait on tables, the apostles decided to choose a group of men to do take care of the administrative and day-to-day details.

But wait! Wait on tables?  Couldn't they have hired that done?

No....no.  The men who were chosen were not any men, even the men chosen for this task were "of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom."

It is a false dichotomy to set up

  • the spiritual
  • against the physical.

and

  • the leadership
  • against the servant

In reality, it is

  • the spiritual act of leadership in discerning and proclaiming the Word and
  • the spiritual act of leadership in administration and serving

Everything can be spiritual.

  • The Apostles were doing a spiritual job
  • the Seven were doing a spiritual job.

Were all of these men equal in salvation? Yes.

Were all of these men equal in personhood?  Yes.

Were all of these men doing vital jobs?  Yes.

Were the Seven under the authority of the Apostles?  Yes.

Were they doing the same job?  No.

Were they supposed to be doing the same job?  No.

Were they all working in the Spirit?  Yes.

Does this make the seven "less" than the apostles?  Less equal?  In importance?  No...feeding the poor and caring for those less fortunate is a command.  In salvation?  No, there is no Scriptural evidence that the Apostles were more "saved" than the Seven.  In personhood?  No, they were all human.  In authority?  Yes.  The Apostles were given authority over the church, while the Seven were given authority over administration under the Apostles.

So, rather than seeing a group of leaders (spiritual) and a group of servants (physical) what we have are two groups of men, both doing spiritual jobs, both serving God in vital ways, both equal in personhood and salvation, but not equal in authority.

The pastor compared the Apostles and the Seven to the church today:

He likened the Apostles to the elders and pastors.  They are the ones who are responsible for discerning the will of God for the congregation.  They are the ones responsible for church discipline.  Even within that group, there is leadership structure.  The elders are responsible for the discerning of the long-term and overall direction, while the pastors are the ones who are more responsible for leading day-to-day activities.

He compared the Seven to the board of deacons, the ministry facilitation and operations staff.  They are the ones who carry out the direction of the elders, under the leadership of pastors.

Are any of the jobs less "spiritual"?  No.  Are the elders and pastors more important than the deacons and staff?  No, they all fill vital shoes.

Is the child with Down Syndrome who passed out bulletins any less spiritual than the pastor?  I think the pastor would say no?  Is the child less valuable, less equal in the eyes of God?  I think the pastor would say no.

Is the spiritual act of servant-hood less equal than the spiritual act of  pastoring?

• 10 Comments

•

The quote: from Husbands Who Love Like Christ and the Wives Who Submit to Them:

Therefore, headship is not a right to command and control. It's a responsibility to love like Christ: to lay down your life for your wife in servant leadership. And submission is not slavish or coerced or cowering. That's not the way Christ wants the church to respond to his leadership: he wants it to be free and willing and glad and refining and strengthening.

In other words what this passage of Scripture does is two things: it guards against the abuses of headship by telling husbands to love like Jesus; and it guards against the debasing of submission by telling wives to respond the way the church does to Christ.

(...)

There is no contradiction between mutual submission and a relationship of leadership and response. Mutual submission doesn't mean that both partners must submit in exactly the same ways. Christ submitted himself to the church in one way, by a kind of servant-leadership that cost him his life. And the church submits herself to Christ in another way by honoring his leadership and following him in on the Calvary road.

So it is not true that mutual submission rules out the family pattern of Christ-like leadership and church-like submission. Mutual submission doesn't obliterate those roles, it transforms them.

What this means to me:

If we see headship and leadership within the framework of responsibility, not right, it becomes a loving response to a loving God. Godly submission of a godly wife becomes a loving response to a loving husband.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from "Do you believe in 'mutual submission' the way Paul teaches in Ephesians 5:21, 'Submit to one another'?"

Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren't if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ's headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.

What this means to me:

The key is love. The key is different. There is no conflict between love / leadership / submission. As sinful mankind, we can inject a conflict where one does not belong, but a man or a woman sinning in an authority structure does not make the structure wrong, it makes the sin wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from "Building a Christ Centered Marriage: How Husbands and Wives Can Complement One Another in Marriage"

The traditional camp, on the other hand, advocates equality before God, but is committed to complementarianism, rather than egalitarianism. This is the belief that, while men and women are equal before God, they serve him in complementary roles which are not always identical and in some cases ought not to be. These complementarians recognize that there is "neither male nor female" in terms of our relationship to God (Gal. 3:28). But they also recognize the other biblical texts which counsel that men and women possess distinct abilities and callings (such as 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:9-3:7). In the home there ought to be male headship (though not domination) and womanly submission (though not fearful servility). Complementarians insist that to be truly evangelical we must confess that there is no contradiction over this matter in Scripture, and to be truly biblical we must affirm both the spiritual equality of men and women and also the distinctions and differences in roles that are taught in the Bible.

What this means to me: Men and women should fit together like a jigsaw puzzle - heart to heart, mind to mind, soul to soul. Not like identical and interchangeable gear cogs.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from Armorbearer:

i agree, women are not afforded the courtesy of dignity in many cases, but the problem is not patriarchy. the problem is men acting like buffoons. the remedy then is not feminism and matriarchy or swapping one bully for another, the remedy is mutual submission. rightful authority.

What this means to me: Some parents abuse their children; that does not mean we should remove parental authority. Some pastors are abusive; that does not mean that we should abolish pastoral authority. There are some bad bosses; that does not mean that the position of "boss" is bad. A president may lie under oath, or knowingly accept bad intelligence; that doesn't mean that the office of presidency is evil.
Abuse is sin, it does not follow that the structure is sinful, but the person within that structure.

• 5 Comments

•

Indeed. My computer is running slow (not sure if it's the router or the computer; I'm going to take it to an internet cafe later and see if it runs slowly there).

I'm late on the post, I'm late on the Carnival, I'm late on homework and studying. Go figure.

The beauty of patience is that God seems to give us lots of opportunities to practice! And when we fall with lack of patience, He seem to give us the perfect opportunity to repent!

My class has a young woman in a wheel chair (CP). I was trying to get her ready to swim (admittedly she was being lazy more so than incapable because I know what she's capable of). After finally getting her suit on, she looked up at me and said, "Am I too much trouble for you?"...oh...melting heart...

I think that (as a rule), the more opportunities I have to be patient (read, the more trying life is), the better I get at patience.

(Another life lesson)

More and more professors are using the internet for classes - my Spanish professor posts grade, study guides and assignments on "blackboard". In my other classes, when I take a test, I know that when I go into the class next week I'll find out what my grade was. In Spanish, handed in an assignment on Thursday afternoon and here I am on Saturday morning, tapping my foot, 'why isn't my grade up yet!?!?!" In any other class, I'd be happily waiting until the next week. But the internet is instant and I'm impatiently waiting for my professor to be instant also.

Once I "got this", it's a lot easier to wait.

Patience is a fruit...waiting for fruit takes patience. If you try to force it (fruit) you end up with a mess. Think of the last time you bit into an apple that hadn't had time to ripen.

This is sort of a catch-22. If you want patience, then you have to be patient. A long time ago I had a kid's tape (it's not even available on iTunes now). Rappin Rabbit's Christian Habits.

"I have waited long enough...give me some of that patience stuff!"

god bless!

• 2 Comments

•

I'm posting a comment from Moonshadow and following up in a post - the only reason is that she asked good questions for a follow up and it's going to be long and have links - I's way rather do the links in a post than in a comment, since Blogger does it for you in a post...

anyway...Moonshadow said...

...continue reading →

• 2 Comments

•

 

Several years ago I was working with first graders trying to "get" math. One young lady really struggled with the concepts and one day she huffed and puffed and finally rolled her eyes and said, "I am so happy that Jesus invented erasers!"

Jesus is like that.

Psalm 103:12
as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

Isaiah 43:25
"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

It is people that have the eraser problem.

In another place, we're rehasing divorce and remarriage...Here is a quote from Mark Driscoll's church's position paper.

"...The consequence of sexual sin is grave and not resolvable for the offending spouse, outside the mercy and grace of the other spouse. Hardness of heart will demand punishment. Mercy and grace will work toward authentic repentance and restoration."

There are a couple of problems with this position.
1) This entire position leaves out GOD! Forgiveness and restoration depends not on God, but on people.
2) This position assumes that if the "offended" spouse refuses to forgive, it must be because the "offending" spouse is not authentically forgiven. It is dangerous to assume that.
3) Nothing is said of the sin of having a hard heart. If (generic) you refuse to forgive a repentant person, that is one of the things that should make you question whether or not you are even a Christian.

In this position, restoration depends entirely on another human being. A sinner can stand repentant before God and it just wouldn't matter.

Another place our human erasers have problems is with the false separation of forgiveness and restoration.

When we are forgiven by God, He does not hold our sins against us.
Often, when we are "forgiven" by people, we hear, "I forgive you, but I just can't..."

One (now departed) woman I knew said, "I forgive him, but I don't have to like him and I don't have to talk to him and I don't have to accept him." Is that forgiveness? It sure certainly isn't restoration.

And it is the opposite of 2 Cor 2:7-8 7 "...so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him."

There are three things needed for a sinner to be restored to the body. Forgiveness, comfort, reaffirming love.

Jay Adams says in "From Forgiven to Forgiving":

The word reaffirm is a specialized term...meaning to officially reinstate. When one repents and is readmitted into the church, he may not be accepted as a second-class citizen of the kingdom of God. God has no such citizens. The repentant one comes back with full rights and privileges of membership into the church...Now, in most reconciliation contexts, someone will not be reentering the church after having been disciplined out of it, but, in an unofficial way, the same thing holds. Neither you nor others should remain aloof from the brother or sister who is reinstated. Fu7ll fellowship must be restored. He should be restored with active, loving words and deeds by all..."

If you don't have this book, I strongly urge you to follow the link and get it (I don't get a cut, Baker is just my favorite Christian bookstore), read it and put it into practice. Putting the principles in this book into action has changed my relationship with my daughter. She knows that if she has repented for an action and I bring it up again, she can (and does) call me on it. I do the same with her. This recipricol accountability has changed things.

I know that it is impossible for a person to truly take a another at his or her word and forgive and not hold it against them. It is truly impossible. How can we comfort the person who sinned against us?!?

The answer is that we can't. Romans 7:18 says, "...For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. "

But there's hope, Philippians 4:13 says, "I can do all things through him who strengthens me."

A (then unsaved) friend of mine was once going through a very difficult situation and she said to me, "I'm not going to be able to do this without God, am I." Nope.

And no, forgiving God's way requires God. It keeps us humble and it keeps the forgiven one restored.

I think God planned it that way.

• 17 Comments

•

Interesting.

A friend and I have discussed a few times about some of the heresies that we see today - most of them are coming out of Arminian churches. Mormons (Elena made the point that Joseph Smith began life as a Methodist) and "Oneness Pentecostals are the two I have been studying most recently.

It would appear evident that when the Reformers moved away from Rome, there were those who tried to return (in doctrines, if not in name).

I've looked at "TULIP" from the Roman standpoint, as well as Reformed and Arminian. In all but the "T", Arminius made moves back toward Rome.

Today, every step away from the Reformers is a step toward Rome. And as Arminians churches get further away from the Reformers (and closer to Rome) the more heresy we see.

See the complete post here.

(In order to discuss this intelligently, I'm going to ask that all who comment here have a working knowledge of the differences in doctrine between Arminianism and Calvinism - thank you!)