Those who reject the Biblical teaching of leadership of the husband in a marriage, preferring instead to teach that there is no Biblical indication of leadership within a marriage (some teach a sort of "that was then, this is now" Biblical reading, meaning that yes, the husbands did have leadership now, but that was a "cultural thing" and not for today).One of the passages that instruct wives to submit to their husbands is

Eph 5: 22-24 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (ESV)

First, this is obviously a metaphor. A wife is not walking around with her husband sitting on top of her neck. We need to discern what it is a metaphor for. There are a couple of schools of thought - head means "source", like the head of a river, or head means "leader", like the head of a corporation.

Second, even if "head" means "source", you still have to deal with "submit".

Third - we can try to make sense of the grammar

Can we use "source"?

• Christ is the source of the church
• the husband is the source of the wife.

You can either reject this usage of the word, or you can submit to the idea that there IS a creation order, man was created first and woman second; man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. In this case, it would be clear why there would be an instruction to submit - because of the creation order.

Yes - we can actually use source and have it work, but that gives egalitarians a problem with submission within the creation order.

Can we use "leader"?

• Christ is the leader of the church
• the husband is the leader of the wife

Egalitarians don't like this one. But yes, the grammar works.

In either case, you still have to deal with the word "hupotasso" - submit.

Wives - submit. Why? Because the Bible said so.Whether the metaphor is used to indicate "source" or "leader" - the instruction is still to "submit" - hupotasso.

A husband's leadership over his household has been the teaching of the church for centuries. The legal term is "he who asserts must prove". Egalitarians must prove from Scripture that centuries

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has relaunched, including a blog.

At CBMW our passion is to help believers and local churches benefit from glorious biblical truths about God’s design of men and women. Our website has been updated to help you find answers to your questions and to encourage you to stand against the drifting currents of culture. Rest assured that this new site retains the same solid biblical teaching on the complementarian nature of manhood and womanhood.

when I signed up for the Monday class, I didn't know I'd be having twice monthly staff meetings.  So I work, have a two hour staff meeting and then go to a three hour class.

See you all around 10:00 (although I may have a chance to peek online a little bit)

1 - From Dr. Helen: :The Starter Husband

The article, as one can gather from the title, is about women who marry in their 20's for practice and see nothing wrong with taking a guy out for a test-drive and dumping him off at the curb once the sheen wears off--here are some highlights from the article:

Andi takes a throaty slug of her second raspberry martini, picks at her fish taco, then sits back in her chair. "I think marriage is the new dating and having kids is the new marriage," she proclaims loudly, as yet another woman dining with her partner turns to stare. "It's true. I wouldn't have married him if I didn't think I could get out of it...."

Yeah...and men are the bad guys.

~~~~~~~~

John Piper on the "Three 9/11's We Need to Know"

Our Future 9/11 (20??)

There is no escape. Every one of us will be snuffed out. “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). “As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more” (Psalm 103:15-16).

And on the way to death and paradise Paul assures us that we will pass through many afflictions: “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). In fact, the whole world will pass through times that will be filled with 9/11’s. Here is the way Jesus put it:

~~~~~~~~

The Nikzor Project. "Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime."

I found the site while looking for a list of "logical fallacies"

Predictable? Probably.

Red herring? Certainly.

In my post from yesterday, I quoted Scripture that references three human institutions: governments, slavery, and marriage.

Suzanne, at the "Better Bible Blog" asked, "Would you ask a slave to go back to slavery if it could be proven that it was God's will." and further noted, "I assume you would." and challenged, "Then let those who accept real live slavery to another human being ask me if I would accept it. Only as an evil."

Later, (asking me) "You oppose slavery, and I suppose totalitarian government. Christians are clearly taught to submit to both. On what basis do you resist the clear teaching of the scripture? "

(I'm answering here instead of there because my full answer it likely to be more lengthy than most people want in their combox.)

First point: The reason this is a "red herring" (comparing slavery and totalitarian governments to marriage) is that (for most people) there are obvious differences.

The first thing we have to deal with is that "marriage" means "all marriages". "Slavery" means "all slavery", so we must consider "all governments", instead of only part of them.

Next, we can construct questions that are applicable to all of these human institutions.

Was the institution of _____ instituted by God?

• Was the institution of slavery instituted by God?
• Was the institution of government instituted by God?
• Was the institution of marriage instituted by God?

God said of marriage: "as it was from the beginning..." God instituted the union of man and woman in marriage.

Government is a little stickier - There did not appear to be an "official" government among the Israelites until after Egypt. After Egypt there was a theocracy that God set up, with His people ruled by priests, who were ruled by Him. So yes, in at least one case, God instituted the human institution of government.

Slavery: I can see no place in Scripture where God began the institution of slavery; it seems that slavery is a human invention.

CONCLUSION: slavery is a human-formed institution and sits apart from the God-given institutions of marriage and government. So we don't need to compare marriage with slavery.

Next question: Are all examples of __________ harmful to humans?

• Are all examples of marriage harmful to humans?
• are all examples of government harmful to humans?
• are all examples of slavery harmful to humans?

Obviously (at least I hope it is obvious) the answer to the first to is "no, not all examples of marriage or government are harmful to humans".

On slavery it may appear that I'm waffling, but I'm not. LET ME BE CLEAR: ALL SLAVERY THAT WE SEE IN THE WORLD TODAY IS EVIL THROUGH AND THROUGH. I will include in that a more recent institution than African slavery - the Magdelene laundries. Another example is the enslavement occurring today in parts of our own world.

ALTHOUGH...if the definition of "slavery" is coerced labor, is a military draft a form of "slavery"? Interesting question, as is the question of being able to "sell" oneself temporarily to pay off a debt or crime.

But in short, yes - all examples of slavery that we see in the world today are harmful to humans.

CONCLUSION: We cannot accurately compare the institution of slavery to marriage (and thus the submission of slaves in an ungodly institution to the submission of wives and citizens under godly institutions) with submission of people within Godly and God ordained institutions.

The next question is: where Paul's words meant to encourage those in submission to authority, both godly and ungodly? (yes) Do Paul's words prohibit us from working toward justice? (Certainly not).

Okay...next up - a hysteroscopy. Not fun. In July I had a sonic histogram. Also not fun.

(read on if you're not afraid of TMI)

...continue reading →

An discussion on "Better Bibles Blog", attempting to persuade that the submission of wives is not submission to an authority.
A quote from Scripture, minus man-made chapter and verse markings:

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 1For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter, end of chapter 2, beginning of chapter 3)

The very first word in chapter 3 (and this is a letter, not a chapter book) is "likewise". "Likewise, wives, be subject..."

Likewise; equally; in the same way.

In the same way as what?

We need to go back - the (man-made) section heading is titled "submission to authority". What are the examples?

Submission to the emperor, governors, masters. Why? Because Christ was our example; He suffered unjustly, but was in submission, not only to His Father, but to the civil authorities, who reviled, tortured and put Him on the cross.

Likewise, wives...

Servants, be subject to your masters, wives, be subject to your husbands.

Other places I've addressed this issue: (note) I'm in the process of fixing the links)

• "Husbands and Wives - Why?"
• "The 'Gender Stuff' - I'm single, why does it matter?"
• "Oikouros - Keeper of the Home"
• "Hupotasso - It's the Dance"
• "Titus 2 and Hupotasso"
• "How the World Sees Men"
• "Do Gender Roles Matter? A quick look at marriage"
• "A Woman's Place"
• "1 Corinthians 7:5"

nobody was hurt, everybody was rescued.

the birds like it...and people do swim out and dive.

but not us...

KitKat relayed all of the Scripture reading at mass today and it spurred a question in my mind that I've been talking with a friend about.

Okay, not question...more of a "challenge".

Define "gospel".

Is the gospel the "good news" to the lost? does it stop at baptism (confirmation, whatever)? How do you preach the gospel to the lost? to believers?

Please leave your thoughts! 😉

(I asked a friend a few days ago if she, as a Christian, knew how to give the gospel to her boyfriend. Her answer...no, not really)

I wanted to address these questions, but didn't want them to get lost in the shuffle. Thursday was a 15 hour day (work and college combined), Friday I came home and went to sleep, Saturday I did homework and housework)...

The post is here:

The first question is from Moonshadow: My question - and I doubt anyone here can answer it - is whether the Orthodox feel responsible for our departure, for letting us go.

If I remember the history right, Rome was not pushed out - they left. Not so much because of differences in doctrine (although there were a few), but because of political power. Before that split there was unity. I think of a marriage and a one-flesh covenant. If one spouse leaves the covenant, can the other truly force them to stay?

The nest is from Kelly: My question was, what do you feel should follow as far as the leadership of the church.

My answer: what is the New Testament model?

- Does the New Testament speak of an infallible teaching body? No.

- Did the word "Ekklesia" refer to a magisterium, or to a local assembly? It referred to a local assembly, or to the entire body of believers.

- When the writers of the New Testament spoke of church discipline, who were they instructing to deal with it (the local church).

- Are the specific requirements for church leadership? Yes - and Rome requires that priests and on up be unmarried, a blatantly unbiblical requirement.

The New Testament model for church leadership is

• leadership based on Biblical standards
• teaching and doctrine based on Scripture (which included the letters from the New Testament writers)
• local autonomy in reference to church discipline
• local elders are to lead by example, not by "lording it over" the flock

Here is an example of a local church led by a "plurality of elders".