Since I do not wish to ascribe personalities, I won't put a name to the quote, but I do have some thoughts
(no, I will not comment on that blog; there is a reason that has been explained privately. Commenters here are free comment here or there [although there appears to be more freedom for accusations there]. I have also disabled the requirement to enter a name and email address in order to comment - although a name would be nice so there is no need to worry about me using a private email for public reasons or that I might sell it to Russian spam companies. My email IS on the side bar, so I am available for private discussion.
There is also the fact that this post is 5(five) pages long in a Word doc. Very long for a com-box. I will make the same offer - it a poster at the comp-egal blog would like to post it as a "guest blogger", feel free)
Anyway...the quote:
One problem is that this is not a secondary issue to one relatively small group of people: those women God is calling to the kinds of ministry Packer thinks should be closed to women, who receive that calling in churches that agree with Packer. They literally have to choose between obeying their churches and obeying God. And when their churches are teaching them that they aren't hearing correctly from God in the first place, it's got to be a highly difficult dilemma, one which few people (including Packer) could begin to comprehend.
So yes, for most of us, this isn't a super-important issue. But for some of our sisters, it's a matter of spiritual life and death.
This is not so much a commentary on this particular quote, but more or less rambling with my thoughts (so there is no intent [please repeat after me: NO INTENT] to twist words.
I have three personal stories:
First: Two years ago this month, the church I was currently a member of had two guest speakers. Now this is a Christian Reformed Church, the main doctrines are out there for all to see...this is an important point.
The guest speakers were a husband and wife team (no, the problem was not that one of the speakers was a woman). They called themselves "apostle" and "prophet", they were (are) Charismatic, Pentecostal, Third Wave AND Word-Faith. They also have language on their website that is reflective of "Oneness-Apostolic" (They do not believe in the Trinity, but rather "modalism").
I raised concerns and was told "it's a one-time thing". Except that it wasn't. There has been a continuing stream of guest speakers, conferences, workshops, etc. that feature Word-Faith, faith healers, Pentecostals - some Oneness, some Trinitarians, some simply don't say.
I had to take a choice. Do I stay and fight that which I believe to be false doctrine?
Or do I abide by the commitment that I had made when I joined the church: to live under the leadership of the elders?
There IS a direct correlation to the above quote: And when their churches are teaching them that they aren't hearing correctly from God in the first place, it's got to be a highly difficult dilemma, one which few people (including Packer) could begin to comprehend.
For me, in that place, meant that obeying God would mean speaking the truth. The "apostle" and "prophet" were non-Trinitarians, affiliated with a Oneness organization that could loosely be called a denomination.
I spoke out again when it was made public that the church was sending the youth group TO THAT CHURCH to do work after Hurricane Katrina. To work IN that church, to STAY in that church, to WORSHIP in that church. It wasn't long before I was known as the "mom who wanted to wreck our spring break trip".
I really had three choices:
stay and fight
stay and shut up
leave
I chose to leave because to stay and fight would be divisive and to stay and shut up would be counter to my conviction.
Second:
This part of my life actually came first. I had spent my entire life in Arminian churches (although not calling them by that name). I was currently in an Arminian church and had been challenged to at least take a look at Reformed Theology. The more I read, the more I fought. The more I fought, the more I realized it was my pride and my flesh that made me fight. The more I focused on killing the pride and my flesh, the more comfortable I became with Reformed Theology.
Then came the breaking point. I was talking to my kids about when they were saved. My son remembered all of it (I was there). My daughter asked, "Do you mean the first time or all the rest of the times?"
YIKES! Yes, we were in a church that taught insecurity.
The same three choices:
stay and fight
stay and shut up
leave
Again, when I joined that church I had made a public commitment, on the stage, before God and man. Part of that commitment was that I believed the doctrine that the church taught.
What to do when you no longer believe that? I began looking for another church that was in line with what I believe.
Third: (this is not MY story, although I was there to hear and see it)
My sister's husband was a youth pastor for a small church in the thumb of Michigan. The day he resigned to go to be an associate pastor of a church in another state, he spoke from the pulpit. His words were something like (but not a direct quote):
I have come to realize that it is very difficult for a man to be a pastor in the town he grew up in. There is too much known, too much familiarity, too little authority and respect.
and then he quoted Scripture:
"Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." (Matthew 13:57, NIV)
With the pastors I have known, very few have pastored the church they had been a member in (my father-in-law was one; and that didn't last long. The Nazarene church was another, but that pastor had been a pastor in another city and was in Grand Rapids to finish his doctorate; he had only been there a short time when the previous pastor left and he was asked to step in - so this was not a case where he had been a long term member or had grown up there).
SO: To a young woman who feels called to be a senior pastor in the church where she currently is (a church that she knows well does not believe as she does) I would say:
You have three choices:
stay and fight
stay and shut up
leave
1) when you became a member, did you make a commitment to submit to the board of elders and to the doctrines of the church? If so, then are you willing to break your commitment (and most likely cause strife in the church) in order to fill your own personal desire?
If you ARE willing to break that commitment, are you willing to have one of YOUR congregation, a few years down the road, stand up and say that they don't like what you are teaching and they are willing to fight. They will refuse to submit to your leadership, they will refuse to submit to the board. Does this young woman want to look at the possibility of a congregation member treating HER and HER board with the same lack of submission that she is willing to treat hers current pastor and her current board?
2) If you are truly that convicted that God is calling you to be a head pastor, you will be very unhappy with the shutting up option. I know that I was.
3) Why the church that you are in? Is a "comfort zone" thing? (For my brother-in-law, it was) A new pastor has an opportunity to find a new life, a new "place", a place where it cannot be said, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
To this young woman (or any person, male or female, young or old): It is NOT a matter or "spiritual life or death" to look for a church that shares your beliefs. Many of us have done it and become stronger (not dead) for having examined ourselves (and our beliefs) and churches (and/or denominations) in order to find a truly good fit.
To undergo this examinition:
either strengthens a person's conviction or changes it
keeps him or her with a clear conscience because he or she has been able to keep a commitment (and Scriptural instruction) to submit to the church's elders
gets him or her out of his or her comfort zone.
In my opinion, this is a growth process, not a death process. I have that opinion because I have lived it. Twice that I have told of in this post.
Besides these things, there are a few other (practical) questions:
Have you been to seminary?
Do you intend to go to seminary?
If not, does your current church ordain ANYBODY who has not attended seminary?
If you do intend to go to seminary, which one?
Does that seminary accept women who want to be head pastors?
If not, do you intend to fight with that leadership also?
If so, will you end up ordained in the denomination of that seminary, or your current church?
If you will end up ordained in the denomination of that seminary, would it be a better choice to stay in a denomination where you are credentials?
If you want to be ordained in the denomination of your current church, will there even be an opening for head pastor when you are done with seminary?
If not, are you going to ask the current head pastor to step down so that you can step in?
If you are NOT called by that church to be head pastor, are you willing to accept the possibility that there is a character or maturity issue that they may see, or will you blame it on gender (youth/too well known)?
These questions are questions that men have to answer as well. I know a man who left his church to go to seminary, only to find that the church he grew up in ... already had a head pastor.
For reasons that have been covered off line, I will not be commenting on the comp-egal blog. I welcome readers, commenters, I will read there and comment here. Email addresses will not be disclosed (shoot, I have an alternate email address for using when I know my email address will be disclosed).
Charity said:
Taking the first definiton of someone who has "absolute, unrestricted control" here in a marriage relationship rather than a government, it seems to me that dictatorship is exactly the model propounded by CBMW for the government of marriages/households.
CBMW says:(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, in just this one quote (used before on this blog) that CBMW teaches that a husband's authority is NOT absolute, and thus does not follow the first definition that Charity refers to.
I also looked up the definitions within the defintion
absolute: (the definitions that I think are most likely to be relevant)
Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
As I have already shown, husbands ARE limited (by God), authority IS conditional (a wife may refuse to submit and/or obey if the husband is sinning or telling her to sin) and IS constrained by Scripture.
Thus, "absolute, unrestricted control" is not applicable, even with your chosen definition.
This is the bulk of Charity's comment from a previous post:
So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?
At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written. I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.
I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.
Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.
Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.
Taken piece by piece:
So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?
No more so than having an authority in place is a dictatorship. No more so than a Godly husband as head of the home is "dictatorial".
By the way, why use "unilateral" as a qualifier? What authority is NOT unilateral? Is the qualifier needed by egalitarians to justify the portrayal of a wife as being without rights? I'm truly wondering.
I like the Oxford University Press's entry
A person, institution, or organization is said to have authority when the power it exercises is supposed legitimate, that is, authorized by some system of norms to which the speaker assents. The emergence of such norms in human society is a complex matter, with convention, habit, custom, and tradition playing different roles. Social contract theory is one kind of solution to the problem of the basis of authority; the evident utility of some rule-governed systems is another. While it is common to find scepticism about particular claims to authority, the idea that human co-ordination (and hence even communication) could exist without it is usually regarded as fanciful.
Back to Charity's comment:
At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written.
Actually...no.
Democracy was first introduced in the part of world where the New Testament was written...around 500 years BEFORE Christ walked this earth.
"It is called a government of the people (demokratia) becaue we live in considertion of not the few, but of the majority." - Thucydides on Pericle's view of democracy
Paul, being an educated man, would have had the words to describe democracy. He would even have had the word to use.
Charity said:
I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.
That is true. Democracy is not anarchy. But...in order to have a democracy you must be able to have a majority. You cannot have a majority with two people, you can only have agreement or a tie.
On the other hand, usinfo.state.gov give the "pillars of democracy"
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
Sovereignty of the people. (this could easily be the CBMW teaching of our equality before God)
Government based upon consent of the governed. (If a woman chooses to marry, that could be the "consent of the governed)
Majority rule. (here we have a problem, unless on spouse has the slight edge of the weight of the vote)
Minority rights. (if we give the husband the slight edge of the vote, or the tie-breaker), then the wife, functioning as the minority, is protected by all of the Biblical mandates for how a husband should treat his wife. I don't have a problem with this)
Guarantee of basic human rights. (Covered by Scripture - in either egalitarian or complementarian beliefs)
Free and fair elections. (We could call these "marriage vows" and choosing your mate)
Equality before the law. (or equality before God)
Due process of law. (CBMW urges men to listen to their wives, take feelings, thoughts and convictions into consideration.)
Constitutional limits on government. (Or Biblical limits - the limits that are placed by God)
Social, economic, and political pluralism. (I'm not exactly sure how this translates to marriage, other than the "yours is yours and mine is mine does seem to be more suited to marital anarchy)
A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.
I think that democracy (not dictatorship) better describes a complementarian marriage (there is a majority and minority, there is a tie-breaker, there are the protected rights of the minority, the guarantee of basic human rights)
"Anarchy", on the other hand (per wikipedia)
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. (Ellen says, absence or inefficiency of a "supreme power" (in a marriage, that would be either the husband or the wife. In so-called egalitarianism [the so-called being a hat tip to Charity] there is an absence of the primary decision maker. To this definition fits)
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder). (Ellen say, "Again, this sounds like egalitarianism. No governing person, each individual has liberty, [without the implication of disorder)
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere." (I recognize that some egalitarians would say that one person has authority in one arena, the other in another arena. HOWEVER, egalitarians seem to balk at the idea of one person having authority over another)
All in all, "anarchy" (which can come without implication of disorder) seems better suited to egalitarian marriages than does democracy (which by definition is rule by the majority and you cannot have a majority with two people, unless one has a more heavily weighted vote).
And (all in all) "democracy" (with its protection of the minority, the limits placed by consitution (or Bible) and the values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise) are well within CBMW teaching.
Back to Charity:
I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.
Right...And this is exactly what CBMW teaches.
A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.B
Back to Charity:
Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.
Here are some more actual quotes from CBMW
Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church often fail to protect women, and often blame the woman for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon her.29 Feminists rightly criticize the church for failing to protect women. In one research project on domestic violence, 27% of pastors surveyed said that if a woman submits to her husband as God decrees, then the abuse will stop or God will give the woman grace to endure the beatings.30 In fact, the beatings often do not stop and we should not presume on God's grace to endure avoidable suffering.31 These pastors have misunderstood the nature of domestic violence, and have seriously distorted the nature of biblical submission. Churches should aggressively confront abusers and pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women. True masculine headship is reflected in the sensitive care and protection of women.
and another
We believe that abuse is sin. It is destructive and evil. Abuse is the hallmark of the devil and is in direct opposition to the purpose of God. Abuse ought not to be tolerated in the Christian community.
Charity, how does this "shore up" abuse?
On the flip side, a wife in marital anarchy could easily neglect her home and family, reasoning "he's not the boss of me!" There is the potential of abuse on both sides, from both spouses.
Charity says,
Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.
So we should have no consequences for our choices? (NOTE: I am NOT saying that an ABUSED woman should stay in an abusive situation. Abuse is sin, complementarianism is not sin)
But...I know a couple who is in a wretched situation. They are "egalitarian" and they both have a "you're not the boss of me" attitude. Neither one has primary responsibility and they both go their own way. Sexual neglect is the norm. But, they both have what they chose.
Life without consequences does not exist.
There is one question that has not been answered: How do egalitarians handle abusive marriages?
(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...)
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Okay - here's my thing. I have about 60 Spanish flashcards that I carry around with me. To those I've added important information that I want to learn (student bus numbers, school phone numbers, other phone numbers that I want to know more of besides "speed dial 2".
To those I had started to add the Westminster Shorter Catechism, but after only a couple of questions decided to go with the Larger. I'm also using the ESV Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God (1), and fully to enjoy Him forever(2).
(1)...to glorify God
Roman 11:36 For of Him and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
1 Corinthians 10:31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
(2)---and fully to enjoy Him forever.
Psalm 73:24-28 (this is not going to go on a business card - I don't usually memorize with verse numbers within the text, but I'm leaving them in here so I can use more than one card...)
24 You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will receive me to glory. 25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. 26My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.27
you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. 28But for me it is good to be near God;
I have made the Lord GOD my refuge,
that I may tell of all your works.
John 17:21-23that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me,that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
John Piper's son, Abraham and his wife, Molly lost their baby, Felicity.
In the hopes that you will pray for us, I’ll give you the news about Abraham’s daughter. Abraham is my son who serves as the Web Content Manager for Desiring God. He and Molly were expecting their second child on Sunday, September 23. Molly was big and healthy. Everyone was happy and excited about Orison’s little sister.
There had been no movement since Thursday. Molly had read this was nothing unusual, but the doctor said she could come for a check-up if she wished. Saturday morning (September 22) they went to Hennepin County Medical Center. No heart beat. Ultrasound confirms: the baby is dead
Please join in prayer for this family.
My friend, Phil asked me to look at the Scripture references that Piper cited and asked (since I also lost a child in this way - but earlier) if he did and said the right thing.
In situations like this, who you are talking to could change how you approach them. I can only assume that since Piper is "dad" to this couple, he knows them well enough to know what it is that they will need at this time. I would comfort a strong believing couple differently than I would new believers and I'd comfort believers differently than unbelievers.
In this case, I believe that believing couples can find comfort in all of these passages,, although there are certainly better passages to use than the 2 Samuel passage - I would most likely NOT have used that (not criticizing - John Piper is a man who is grieving and doing the best that he can).
2 Samuel 12:15-23 - this is the passages that tells us about when David lost his son. He fasted and prayed until the child was dead, and then he got up and ate. The reason that I would not have used this passage is that I believe the message is not that "life will go on", but rather that the child was taken as punishment from God. David had hoped to bring God's mercy by fasting and praying, but when the child died, David took the punishment as righteous.
If a person has done nothing wrong, there is no reason to add guilt; but if they have, this passage gives hope of seeing them again.
John 9:1-3 - This is a good passage - a reminder that we live in a lost and dying world - all of our existence is intended to bring glory to God and that (although sometimes these things can be traced back to our actions) many times there is nothing we could have done (or not done) to change the outcome. The thought that it is "not our fault" can be very comforting.
1 Corinthians 15:58 - Keep on keeping on - our labor is not in vain. I understand this, but...
These are passages that I would use, and have used:
Isaiah 53: 3-4 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows,and acquainted withgrief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
Christ knows what grief is about - and if we put our burdens onto Him, He will help us to bear them.
John 11:35
Jesus wept.
The shortest verse in the Bible - and for me, one of the most meaningful. Lazarus was dead and his sisters were grieving. Jesus knew that He was going to raise Lazarus from the dead, and yet He wept.
Why? Because His friends were hurting. In the same way, He sees our grief and pain - and weeps along with us.
Romans 12:15
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
Know - KNOW that you have an entire church family who is ready to stand with you, shoulder to shoulder, heart to heart and weep with you.
