gender

•

Most of us have heard it taught that "Christ and the church" is a metaphor for marriage.  We look at a human marriage and then look to Christ and His bride as an example.

John Piper (although I do not have a direct link) has put it in the opposite:  Marriage was created by God (true) for the benefit of humans (true) in part as a metaphor to illustrate to the world the picture of Christ and His bride (not so clear).

One thing is clear (to me) - the parallel of husband and wife to Christ and the church is written in Scripture often enough for me to believe there is a significant lesson to be learned.

Which way does the metaphor run?  I think perhaps both ways.

I believe that God is eternal and omniscient.  He knew from eternity what man would bring and He knew the metaphor that He would inspire in Scripture.  Do we really think that the "Christ and the church" idea was a sudden revelation to God?  Of course not.  I believe that the parallel between God/Israel and Christ/the church were there from eternity - before creation.

I believe that they are intertwined - a person can learn about marriage by looking at God's relationship with Israel and Christ and the church...and the world should be able to look at a Christian marriage and see it reflect Christ and the church.

•

This is from one of my favorite "mom-blogs".
Reflections of a Former Feminist:

As a Christian-come-lately, I spent my life before Christ having it my way. During the 70’s Second Wave of feminism, I studied the gospels according to deBeauvoir, Freidan, Millett, and Firestone; together they formed a New Testament to the Old Testament of the First Wave feminists who’d won us the vote, but it seemed not much else.

Humility and contriteness of spirit stood diametrically opposed to the Women’s Movement logo – the fist inside the woman symbol. Helen Reddy’s anthem captured the take-no-prisoners approach of the 70’s feminists:

I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

As a philosophy major then, I created my own one-woman women studies department, wrapping any course I happened to be taking – existentialism, Hegelian logic, Dewey and the Amercian experience – around my core passion: to see women delivered from the condition the Rolling Stones described as “Under My Thumb” into absolute freedom and a level playing field with men.

(this post is set to moderate all comments until I return from vacation - or until I find a internet cafe in the deep dark woods.  you can comment, it just needs to be approved)

• 18 Comments

•

(something to the effect of):  but if the head of the wife is the husband, then how can Christ be her head?  She'll have two bosses?!?!?  How can this be?

Who do you work for?

- My lead teacher is Terri

No...who do you work for?

- The principal of my school is Karen

NO!  Who do you work for?

- My school is overseen by the intermediate school district.

NO!!! WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

- GRPS.

THANK YOU!!!

~~~~~~

Who is your head at church?

- my group leader is Laura.

No, who is your head at church?

- my pastor is Ken.

No, who is your head at church?

- the board consists of...

NO!   WHO IS YOUR HEAD AT CHURCH?

- Christ.

THANK YOU!!!

~~~~~~

Point being that having a group leader does not keep Christ from being "head", any more than having a lead teacher prevent GRPS from being my employer.

At the same time, my principal is an authority figure - with real authority - who also works for GRPS.

~~~~~~

Likewise, complementarians teach that the husband is the head of the wife; a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.

The husband is an authority figure - but they both "work" for Christ.

(This post is set for all comments to be moderated until I return from vacation...July...something...you can comment, it just needs to be approved.)

•

This is sparked by a gender debate, but it became a philosophical question for me all on its own, with its own personal application.

There are three words (alphabetically):

  • authority
  • desire
  • will

Authority simply is the means by which to carry out desire or will (or both).

My question ended up being:  what is the difference between a "will" and a "desire"  (I will put "will" in quotes to distinguish which will I will be writing about:  My "will" will win over my desire for chocolate.)

A desire is that which I want.  Carnal urges.  Feeling of "need" for that which is not a "need".

"Will" is the resolve to follow a path, whether or not that path is that which I desire.

Within a church body (my own experience), the board has a "will" that decides the direction of a church.  A congregation member (me) also has a will that believes the church should be heading in a different direction.

The board "wills" that this particular church has no need for a singles ministry.  The congregation member's "will" (a belief that the church should have a singles ministry conflicts with the board's decision.  Who wins?  After examining self, the congregation members sees that the "will" to have a singles ministry is (in reality) a desire, not a need.  The board's "will" will carry the day.  And that's a good thing.

Another...

The same church board "wills" that a variety of speakers come into the church for special events - including Sunday morning service.  The same congregation member (me) "wills" that she be in a church where the speakers are in agreement with denominational beliefs.  After examining the speakers and topics, the congregation member discovers that roughly half of the speakers are anti-Trinitarian, Oneness Pentecostals and Kansas City Revival members.  Decides that this is not a mere "desire", said congregation member confronts church leaders.  Getting nowhere, brings the matter to a higher authority (denomination leadership).

The first example is a "desire" for a singles ministry, the second is a "resolve" to see Biblical teaching in the church.

Could this have been different?  Sure, it was tempting to push (against the board) for a singles ministry and it would have been easier to cave in on the speaker issue.

Both of these issue illustrate the "will" within a hierarchy (church government)
How to apply this to on a more personal level?

I can apply it to my health journey in two (and opposite) ways.

I have a desire (want) to be more healthy.  The question becomes, do I have the "will" (resolve) to do what I need to do in order to have that desire met?

In the negative...I have a desire for (want) chocolate.  Snickers to be precise.  The question becomes, do I have the "will" to put down the candy bar and eat in a more healthy way?

Both of these  illustrate a struggle within one's self.

Simply put, my "desire" conflicts with my "will".  That which I should do, vs. that which I want to do.

A "feeling of I-want-to-have-that" vs. a lasting resolve to make it happen.

Within a couple?

I believe that Scripture gives a pattern of male leadership within the church and home.

Desires?  Each member of the couple should put the desires of the other in front of their own.  Desires are like preferences - a desire for chocolate cake vs. strawberry.  Vanilla cone vs. a twist.  Blue carpet vs. green.

"Will"?  A lasting resolve for the direction?  That (in a complementarian vs. egalitarian world), is stickier.  In a godly marriage, both spouses will study together and the direction of the home will be supplied by Scripture.  There are times when this will conflict.  Baptist vs. Methodist.  Infant baptism vs. not.
Slightly bigger, but not insurmountable...Pentecostal vs. cessation.   Reformed vs. Arminian.

These (although with great understanding) I believe that a wife can safely submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ (with limits:  I would not follow a husband to a One-ness church or to an Exclusive Psalmsidy  church.)

Larger issues:

  • A spouse that converts to another religion - I would put this under the second illustration of the church board and me.
  • A husband who wishes the wife to fall into sin.  If there is a difference of opinion of "sin", call the pastor.
  • An abusive situation (no matter which spouse and no matter who is being abused).  There is never a reason for abuse and every excuse is a bad one.

Does the husband have the right to "impose" his "will".

The jury is out.  I tend to think "not" - for the following reasons.

  • to have to impose his "will" means the wife is not being submissive in the first place.  If he is not leading into sin, then the wife is in sin.  If he is leading into sin, then the wife has every right to oppose him.
  • Either way, the path is not open warfare...it is Matthew 18.  And counselors.
  • If the "will" is abuse.  No excuse.  Get out.  Now.  Don't wait.  Not for a ride, not for the kids to grow up, not for another day.

This will not solve any debate; it's about definitions...

(This post is not moderated, but the entire blog is set for all comments to be moderated until I am back from vacation.)

• 8 Comments

•

Why do I believe "wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord..." and stop?  Because I'm reading my own mail.

My submission to my husband (when he was alive) did not depend on him loving me as the Christ loves the church.  Reading my own mail, I see my role.

Did I confront him?  Yes.  Did I enlist the help of the pastor?  Yes.  Did I pray?  Yes.

Did that stop me from submitting?  No.

God's Word to me is still God's Word, whether nor not somebody else obeys their Word.

I remember a great turning point in my Christian walk - the day I realized that my walk with God did not depend upon my husband's walk with God.

Could I follow his lead when he provided it?  Absolutely.  I can follow my pastor's lead, but my walk is still my responsibility.

Does being my own responsibility relieve me from submission?  Not at all, rather my submission is a part of my own responsibility.

Read my own mail.

That is why I seldom write about a man's part in a marriage.  It largely does not concern me - When I write "God-stuff", it is about what things are beginning to mean to me.  Yes, I recognize the command to men and believe that a marriage requires that a husband love his wife as Christ loves the church.

But that is reading HIS mail.  I know what to look for, but in my search to grow myself, I read my own mail;  thus, most of my writing on marriage and love relationships is written from a woman's perspective, toward a woman's "mail."

I feel absolutely NO obligation (zero) to instruct men.  I'm not a man, I don't face their challenges.  It's not my mail.

• 35 Comments

•

A wife is compared to the bride of Christ - the church. A wife is instructed in Ephesians 5 to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. In that same parallel, the husband is to model the love for his wife after the love that Christ has for His bride, the church. We have a wonderful privilege and responsibility to reflect that to the world.

Our Christian marriages should point people straight to Christ! If people don't look at our marriages and see them reflect Christ and the church, we are failing.

If the world looks at our marriages and sees anything less than a sacrificial love, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees a husband putting himself before the needs of his wife, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees the wife with anything less than the willing and loving submission that the church has for Christ, we are failing.

And...we are failing.

That is why the gender debate matters. The statistics say that Christian marriages are as likely to fail as secular marriages (I have my doubts about the questions asked and think that more should have been asked that would "unskew" the numbers)...but the numbers are not good.

Why is the divorce rate so high? Just like in Jesus' time...hardness of hearts. On the part of both parties.

If the love/submission is modeled on Christ and the church...if the love is modeled after Christ and the submission is modeled after the church - it is the model of Scripture. Each puts the other first, in a way that reflects Christ and the church.

We are the shadow; the mirror. How do we reflect Christ to the world?

• 5 Comments

•

From Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia at Theology for the Masses (writing of 1 Timothy 2:12):

Interestingly enough, the history of translations of this passage is that the dominant translation of this word before WWII had to do with the violent treatment of men in the congregation – ‘usurping authority’ in the KJV is among the least obvious of these and even it has remnants of the idea.

The notion that "authority" was not seen in the the passage until WWII is wrong - especially reading the study notes and commentaries.

There weren't all that many translations:

...continue reading →

• 29 Comments

•

No...that's not my question, but rather the question on ""Parchment and Pen."

"Why is it okay to think that men know so much, have so much insight, are so sensitive to all the nuances of a particular Bible passage that they can teach women in a way that women are able to learn and understand week after week but the insights and sensitivities of women are so inferior that men could/should never learn from them? Or how is this not what is being said?"

Since this is not what is being taught by most complementarians, it might be useful to note that complementarians are not monolithic (just as egalitarians are not).

It might also be useful to note that most complementarians do not teach that women are not insightful, that women are not sensitive to Scripture or that women are inferior.
Most complementarians do not teach that "men could/should never learn from them?"

From "The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:"

"Listen to how John Piper and Wayne Grudem summarized this answer to this question. "When Paul says in I Timothy 2:12, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent,' we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women. Paul instructs the older women to teach what is good, then they can train the younger women. And he commends the teaching that Eunice and Lois gave to her son and grandson. Proverbs praises the ideal wife because she speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction on her tongue. Paul endorses women prophesying in a church and says that men learn by such prophesying. And that members should teach and admonish one another with all wisdom as you sing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. And then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquilla's side correcting Apollos. It is arbitrary to think that Paul has in mind every form of teaching in I Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are in such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense. There is a way that nature teaches and a fig tree teaches and suffering teaches and human behavior teaches. If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembled for prayer and teaching, the best clue is by coupling teaching with having authority over men. We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching in leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore, we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for that office."

Also from CBMW:

Also, I see no need to go be­yond Scripture, which does not prohibit (permits but does not mandate) prayer or testimony by a woman in the con­gregation nor forbid her interaction on biblical truths in a private conversation with a man (as Pricilla and Aquila with Apollos in Acts 18:26).

From another article by Wayne Grudem on CBMW:

Now regarding the question of women in the church, what actions should we put on this scale? On the left side of the scale we can put verses such as 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul prohibits a woman from teaching or having authority over men. Since I think it is very evident from the context that Paul is talking about the assembled congregation in this passage (see 1 Tim. 2:8-10; 3:15), and he is giving principles that apply to the entire congregation (see 1 Tim. 3:1-16), I think that the left end of the scale prohibits women from teaching or having governing authority over the whole congregation.

What shall we put on the right end of the scale? Here we would put verses such as Acts 18:26, where, in a less formal setting apart from an assembled congregation, we find that Priscilla and Aquila were talking to Apollos, and "they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately." This situation is similar to a small group Bible study in which both men and women are participating and in that way "teaching" one another. Another verse that we can put on the right end of the scale is Titus 2:4 which tells the older women to "train the younger women to love their husbands and children..."

We see from these writings that an across the board prohibition of women teaching men is not what is being taught. Rather it is the teaching that complementarians believe that Paul is teaching that women should not teach the congregation at large, or have authority in that context.

• 10 Comments

•

I'm still reading in Genesis 1 and 2.

I read that man was created first - there is an order that humans were created in.  Whether that means anything may be debatable.

I read that it was to the man that God gave the directions to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (in the more detailed account in Genesis 2) - before the woman was even created.  Scripture does not record that the woman was present to receive the instruction.

I read that Eve was not present when Adam had the responsibility of naming the animals...she had not been created yet.

I read that when God declared, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.", it was before the fall.

I read that when the serpent approached Eve, it was a very familiar approach..."Did God REALLY say...?"

(Around here we call them "serpent questions":  "Does the Bible REALLY say...?"  or..."Does it REALLY mean THAT?!?!"  or..."Does that REALLY apply to us today?"  Serpent questions.)

I read that after the fall, it was Adam that God questioned.

The all-knowing and all-seeing Creator of the universe would have known exactly what had happened...yet he went to Adam first.

In Ephesians 5, when Paul writes the segment of instructions to husbands and wives, (wives submit, husbands love) and refers to what God declared BEFORE the fall: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
I believe that the inclusion of the one-flesh declaration from BEFORE THE FALL into the "wives submit - husbands love" instruction, God was instructing His bride in the redemptive love of the bridegroom for the wife who lovingly and willingly submits to Him.

I believe that before the fall, Adam was created first, Adam received the instruction not to eat of the tree, Eve was created as a suitable helper (complementary even).  I believe that the order in which things happened was recorded that way for a reason - the husband leads, the wife helps.

I believe that part of the curse was that no longer would a wife tend to lovingly and willingly submit to the leadership of her husband.  Evil had crept in.

I believe that after the fall the temptation would be for a husband to deal harshly with his wife, denying her the love that she desires.  Evil had crept in.
I believe that Christ offers us the opportunity:  to reflect Christ and the church.

"The mystery is profound..."

I believe that in Christ, husbands have the privilege and responsibility of loving as Christ loves the church.

I believe that in Christ, wives have the privilege and responsibility of submitting as the church submits to Christ.

I believe that the wife has been the "helper" since the creation account.  That has not changed.  Woman is still the "suitable helper".  Complementary.  Half of the one-flesh.

I believe that the whole of Scripture leads to a reading of the husband as leader.  That has not changed.

From before the fall, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

From the writing of Paul's instruction to wives and husbands, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Wives submit, husbands love.