Adam's Responsibility?

[methinkshe]

It is my firm belief that those who argue against a husband's headship are attempting to interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify their secular feminist beliefs. The following linked essay gives the traditional evangelical understanding of headship and counters the modern re-interpretation of Scripture that is employed by some in support of feminism. I am not a Teacher of the Word so neither could, nor want to, attempt such an exegesis. I am happy to rely on those whom God has anointed to teach. All I feel led to do is "give account of my faith" and "earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered..... " and point to a true exegesis where possible, like the one found in this link.

Male-Female Equality and Male Headship

I quote below the writer's Concluding Appeal, (bolding is my addition) but would urge that you read the full essay for a better understanding of the debate and the spirit that lies behind the attempt to re-interpret Scripture in regard to male authority in the home and church.

Concluding Appeal

"Male-female equality and male headship, properly defined, are woven into the very fabric of Genesis 1-3. Non-evangelical feminists recognize this. To quote one such writer,

[tsth]

Dear firehill,

It seems to me that you are just talking all around what is clearly obvious to me from Scripture. That God is not a God of confusion, but of order. That is why Ephesians 5 clearly reveals His intended order for mankind. Any child could answer the question of order in what God created. So, if you don't agree, that is fine, but I didn't want you to mistake your listing of all the imposed studies to mean that all are in agreement with you. As I said, even a child could hear the Words from Ephesians 5, (which by the way, goes immediately into Ephesians 6, which also shows the intended order for kids to follow). As far as all that you have posted, a child would be lost and confused by much of it. I personally will stick to what I read in the Word, and know in my heart. That if my husband will love me and my children, he will be the spiritual leader in my home, and I in return will love him and respect him as well. It works because God said it works. I have tested both ways, and have seen that these things are true.

Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 "Honor your father and mother"--which is the first commandment with a promise-- 3 "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." 4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

This is clear enough for me.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[methinkshe]

Dear firehill,

It seems to me that you are just talking all around what is clearly obvious to me from Scripture. That God is not a God of confusion, but of order. That is why Ephesians 5 clearly reveals His intended order for mankind. Any child could answer the question of order in what God created. So, if you don't agree, that is fine, but I didn't want you to mistake your listing of all the imposed studies to mean that all are in agreement with you. As I said, even a child could hear the Words from Ephesians 5, (which by the way, goes immediately into Ephesians 6, which also shows the intended order for kids to follow). As far as all that you have posted, a child would be lost and confused by much of it. I personally will stick to what I read in the Word, and know in my heart. That if my husband will love me and my children, he will be the spiritual leader in my home, and I in return will love him and respect him as well. It works because God said it works. I have tested both ways, and have seen that these things are true.

Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 "Honor your father and mother"--which is the first commandment with a promise-- 3 "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." 4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

This is clear enough for me.

In His Love,

Suzanne

I agree, Suzanne. There is no way that I could even begin to explain to a child the obscure references to grammar and chronology etc that some people say are necessary to understand that Scripture doesn't mean what it appears to mean, it actually means the exact opposite! I can barely follow their circuitous arguments myself, never mind explain them to a child.

In Jesus

Ruth

[Neopatriarch]

I agree, Suzanne. There is no way that I could even begin to explain to a child the obscure references to grammar and chronology etc that some people say are necessary to understand that Scripture doesn't mean what it appears to mean, it actually means the exact opposite! I can barely follow their circuitous arguments myself, never mind explain them to a child.

In Jesus

Ruth

I agree too. I can't believe that the scripture really means something as counterintuitive as the egalitarian positions presented in this forum. The exegetical gymnastics used to justify not taking those verses that say things like "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" in a straightforward way are incredible.

-Neopatriarch

[inhistime]

methinkshe said: It is my firm belief that those who argue against a husband's headship are attempting to interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify their secular feminist beliefs.

The problem here is not understanding what is being argued. It is not arguing against a husband's headship, it is arguing against a husband's authority over. When you define headship as meaning "authority over a wife", then you are going past scripture as God never told the husband to take authority over his "one-flesh" wife nor does scripture say that the husband has authority over her. The bible itself defines "head" as the one who sacrifices of himself to lift her up by providing for her needs including emotional (love) and physical, etc.

When we compare the husband to Christ we miss out on one important distinction. Christ is both "head" of the church (his union with the church in an intimate way that allows him to sacrifice himself to provide for her) and he is also "Lord" of the church. His "Lordship" is because of his Deity. Nowhere in scripture (and please do correct me if I am wrong) does scripture give the position of "Lordship" to the husband. He is to be one-flesh with her not her Lord.

Although Sarah called Abraham "lord", this was not showing a position of "lordship". This was a common word of respect but there is nothing showing that he had a position of lordship over her.

When we truly understand the position that egalitarians are arguing, then we will see that it isn't a position that denegrates marriage nor denies submission. Submission as properly defined in scripture is not a female role or a slave role or a role of Gentiles. Submission is an attitude that we are all expected to have as Christians. Submission is an attitude not a role.

When one takes the hierarchal attitude where the husband is the authority over his wife, then children can have much confusion. This is where a child will play one parent against the other if they believe that the father can over rule the mom. It is only when mom and dad stand as a one-flesh union where the dad backs up the mom's decision and the mom backs up the dads discipline that the children truly get to see God's intended design for marriage. When they see the dad taking his authority over their mom and over ruling her authority, the one-flesh union is distorted in their eyes because they now see a ruler/obedient underling relationship instead of the way God intended it.

If you believe that "head" means authority over, then please do teach me what I am missing from scripture. Show me where scripture tells the husband to take authority over his wife Why does he have no authority at all to make the decisions unless she submits? This means that the power is in her hands not his. Her submission must be willing not enforced. His submission is show by his willingly giving up his own benefits and his own comfort to meet her needs. He serves her and she serves him. What could be more loving? When he takes authority over her against her will this is not loving, but is in the category of a master/slave and nothing could be further from the truth of "head" than that. My husband has given up much to support me in ministry. He has done it willingly because as my "head" his purpose is to provide for me. I will not serve in ministry unless my husband is walking with me. I am not a lone ranger and I believe that if God has called me to serve in an apologetic ministry he must keep us united or it isn't God's will. My husband has been an amazing support, even giving up his desire to spend his retirement fishing and hunting so that we can serve together in ministry. That is the most precious example of "head" that I can find. And how do I respond? I submit to him and I serve him and I respect him. Together we present a one-flesh union that God intended for our safety and for both of our needs to be met.

[inhistime]

I agree, Suzanne. There is no way that I could even begin to explain to a child the obscure references to grammar and chronology etc that some people say are necessary to understand that Scripture doesn't mean what it appears to mean, it actually means the exact opposite! I can barely follow their circuitous arguments myself, never mind explain them to a child.

In Jesus

Ruth

I agree too. I can't believe that the scripture really means something as counterintuitive as the egalitarian positions presented in this forum. The exegetical gymnastics used to justify not taking those verses that say things like "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" in a straightforward way are incredible.

-Neopatriarch

The problem with you Neo is that you have still not answered how in context 1 & 2 Timothy can be shown in a verse by verse exegesis how Paul was stopping godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. If we take this verse "I do not permit a woman" (and by the way the original language actually says "I am not now permitting a woman...") and say that it means "all women" are not permitted to teach any man, then we have a multitude of problems that contradict the context of the passage which is before and after the verse talking about deception, and it makes it a command that has no confirmation in any place in scripture. It just doesn't fit to take it to mean all women. That is why I asked you to show how that is possible by exegeting the passage. Now if it was such a clear meaning, then how come you can't show this meaning in context? How come you can't show us how Paul could possibly be stopping the teaching of correct biblical doctrine? Is it because it isn't as "straightforward" as you claim? I can understand that you really want this passage to be stopping all godly women from teaching you correct biblical doctrine because it somehow offends your complementarian conscience. I can appreciate your passion for your complementarian mindset too. But you are also to rightly divide scripture because we are to show ourselves approved unto God by taking scriptures in their context.

When are you going to produce the evidence instead of talking around the problem? Please take chapters 1 and 2 of 1 Timothy and show us all how it fits into the context that Paul is talking about stopping the teaching of correct biblical doctrine. That Paul is not stopping deception but is stopping all godly women. I am still waiting...

Edited July 19, 2007 by inhistime

[methinkshe]

methinkshe said: It is my firm belief that those who argue against a husband's headship are attempting to interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify their secular feminist beliefs.

The problem here is not understanding what is being argued. It is not arguing against a husband's headship, it is arguing against a husband's authority over. When you define headship as meaning "authority over a wife", then you are going past scripture as God never told the husband to take authority over his "one-flesh" wife nor does scripture say that the husband has authority over her. The bible itself defines "head" as the one who sacrifices of himself to lift her up by providing for her needs including emotional (love) and physical, etc.

When we compare the husband to Christ we miss out on one important distinction. Christ is both "head" of the church (his union with the church in an intimate way that allows him to sacrifice himself to provide for her) and he is also "Lord" of the church. His "Lordship" is because of his Deity. Nowhere in scripture (and please do correct me if I am wrong) does scripture give the position of "Lordship" to the husband. He is to be one-flesh with her not her Lord.

Although Sarah called Abraham "lord", this was not showing a position of "lordship". This was a common word of respect but there is nothing showing that he had a position of lordship over her.

When we truly understand the position that egalitarians are arguing, then we will see that it isn't a position that denegrates marriage nor denies submission. Submission as properly defined in scripture is not a female role or a slave role or a role of Gentiles. Submission is an attitude that we are all expected to have as Christians. Submission is an attitude not a role.

When one takes the hierarchal attitude where the husband is the authority over his wife, then children can have much confusion. This is where a child will play one parent against the other if they believe that the father can over rule the mom. It is only when mom and dad stand as a one-flesh union where the dad backs up the mom's decision and the mom backs up the dads discipline that the children truly get to see God's intended design for marriage. When they see the dad taking his authority over their mom and over ruling her authority, the one-flesh union is distorted in their eyes because they now see a ruler/obedient underling relationship instead of the way God intended it.

If you believe that "head" means authority over, then please do teach me what I am missing from scripture. Show me where scripture tells the husband to take authority over his wife Why does he have no authority at all to make the decisions unless she submits? This means that the power is in her hands not his. Her submission must be willing not enforced. His submission is show by his willingly giving up his own benefits and his own comfort to meet her needs. He serves her and she serves him. What could be more loving? When he takes authority over her against her will this is not loving, but is in the category of a master/slave and nothing could be further from the truth of "head" than that. My husband has given up much to support me in ministry. He has done it willingly because as my "head" his purpose is to provide for me. I will not serve in ministry unless my husband is walking with me. I am not a lone ranger and I believe that if God has called me to serve in an apologetic ministry he must keep us united or it isn't God's will. My husband has been an amazing support, even giving up his desire to spend his retirement fishing and hunting so that we can serve together in ministry. That is the most precious example of "head" that I can find. And how do I respond? I submit to him and I serve him and I respect him. Together we present a one-flesh union that God intended for our safety and for both of our needs to be met.

Did you read the essay at the link I posted? I have already said that I will contend for the faith once and for all delivered, but I do not claim a teaching ministry. Perhaps you could read the link and then you could tell me why you disagree with an exegesis that my spirit willingly accepts, and why you wish to impose on me your exegesis which is abhorrent to my spirit and positively excludes children because it is far too complex for them to understand. This is no small matter - we have no unity of spirit and therefore we cannot both be speaking from the one and true Holy Spirit. One of us is being led by the Holy Spirit and one is not, because apparently our positions are diametrically opposed and as such cannot emanate from the same spirit.

It may even be that we are speaking at cross-purposes, and that we even agree!!! which is why I beg you to read the link I posted which upholds equality of worth/value but differentiates between male/female roles and therefore allows authority and under authority.

Ruth

[inhistime]

methinkshe said: It is my firm belief that those who argue against a husband's headship are attempting to interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify their secular feminist beliefs.

The problem here is not understanding what is being argued. It is not arguing against a husband's headship, it is arguing against a husband's authority over. When you define headship as meaning "authority over a wife", then you are going past scripture as God never told the husband to take authority over his "one-flesh" wife nor does scripture say that the husband has authority over her. The bible itself defines "head" as the one who sacrifices of himself to lift her up by providing for her needs including emotional (love) and physical, etc.

When we compare the husband to Christ we miss out on one important distinction. Christ is both "head" of the church (his union with the church in an intimate way that allows him to sacrifice himself to provide for her) and he is also "Lord" of the church. His "Lordship" is because of his Deity. Nowhere in scripture (and please do correct me if I am wrong) does scripture give the position of "Lordship" to the husband. He is to be one-flesh with her not her Lord.

Although Sarah called Abraham "lord", this was not showing a position of "lordship". This was a common word of respect but there is nothing showing that he had a position of lordship over her.

When we truly understand the position that egalitarians are arguing, then we will see that it isn't a position that denegrates marriage nor denies submission. Submission as properly defined in scripture is not a female role or a slave role or a role of Gentiles. Submission is an attitude that we are all expected to have as Christians. Submission is an attitude not a role.

When one takes the hierarchal attitude where the husband is the authority over his wife, then children can have much confusion. This is where a child will play one parent against the other if they believe that the father can over rule the mom. It is only when mom and dad stand as a one-flesh union where the dad backs up the mom's decision and the mom backs up the dads discipline that the children truly get to see God's intended design for marriage. When they see the dad taking his authority over their mom and over ruling her authority, the one-flesh union is distorted in their eyes because they now see a ruler/obedient underling relationship instead of the way God intended it.

If you believe that "head" means authority over, then please do teach me what I am missing from scripture. Show me where scripture tells the husband to take authority over his wife Why does he have no authority at all to make the decisions unless she submits? This means that the power is in her hands not his. Her submission must be willing not enforced. His submission is show by his willingly giving up his own benefits and his own comfort to meet her needs. He serves her and she serves him. What could be more loving? When he takes authority over her against her will this is not loving, but is in the category of a master/slave and nothing could be further from the truth of "head" than that. My husband has given up much to support me in ministry. He has done it willingly because as my "head" his purpose is to provide for me. I will not serve in ministry unless my husband is walking with me. I am not a lone ranger and I believe that if God has called me to serve in an apologetic ministry he must keep us united or it isn't God's will. My husband has been an amazing support, even giving up his desire to spend his retirement fishing and hunting so that we can serve together in ministry. That is the most precious example of "head" that I can find. And how do I respond? I submit to him and I serve him and I respect him. Together we present a one-flesh union that God intended for our safety and for both of our needs to be met.

Did you read the essay at the link I posted? I have already said that I will contend for the faith once and for all delivered, but I do not claim a teaching ministry. Perhaps you could read the link and then you could tell me why you disagree with an exegesis that my spirit willingly accepts, and why you wish to impose on me your exegesis which is abhorrent to my spirit and positively excludes children because it is far too complex for them to understand. This is no small matter - we have no unity of spirit and therefore we cannot both be speaking from the one and true Holy Spirit. One of us is being led by the Holy Spirit and one is not, because apparently our positions are diametrically opposed and as such cannot emanate from the same spirit.

It may even be that we are speaking at cross-purposes, and that we even agree!!! which is why I beg you to read the link I posted which upholds equality of worth/value but differentiates between male/female roles and therefore allows authority and under authority.

Ruth

I have not only read the article, but I have read most of what CBMW has produced including their books, magazines, audio tapes and I also have a few of their DVDs.

I am wondering if you read what I wrote? I said there is nothing in scripture about a husband taking authority over his wife. CBMW cannot provide a verse or passage that says this and you have not either. I didn't say that a husband is not the head of his wife. The head is not a place of privilege but a place of service to the wife to provide for her needs. As a result the wife is to respect and love her husband and submit to his service. There is nothing easier than submitting when a man is sacrificing for you. It causes me at least to love my husband and respect him and treat him like gold. We are both very happy and my husband would have it no other way. We lived the complementarian marriage style for most of our marriage and I submitted as I was instructed to by those who pushed complementarianism. My husband naturally took his authority over me and pressured me into submission. Neither one of us was happy because that is not a one-flesh union lived out in respect. It is a ruler/slave relationship. Once my husband stopped doing that and started sacrificing for me, it was so easy to submit to his service. Then I started to mature and be able to make decisions for myself without having someone do my thinking for me. I still consult my husband and now we make our decisions together. I submit to him in that if we do not come to a consensus, then we do not go forward with the decision. If one or the other of us is not comfortable we do not force the other to go along. Also we both agree that in areas of our own expertise that other person submits to our expertise. It works well and it works with respect and love.

I have given my DVD "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" to CBMW and I have respectfully asked them to correct me if my exegesis is faulty. They have said that they don't wish to do a refutation. Now that is a big deal for me. My exegesis has been described as a "fresh" look at the hard passages of scripture and it has caused many Pastors to have another look at egalitarianism. One Pastor wrote me that it corrected his faulty tradition. Now if I was so wrong, why is it that those who have written extensively on the subject on the other side have no correction for me?

It is easy for many complementarians to say that the first couple of chapters of Genesis prove that the man has the authority over his wife but I would like to see which verse says this. If we didn't have this mindset before coming to the book of Genesis, we would not see it because it is not there. God's way is a loving one-flesh union of husband and wife where there is no one taking authority over the other person. If I am wrong, please show me in scripture which verse proves that the husband is to take his authority and make her obey him.

[Ovedya]

When one takes the hierarchal attitude where the husband is the authority over his wife, then children can have much confusion. This is where a child will play one parent against the other if they believe that the father can over rule the mom. It is only when mom and dad stand as a one-flesh union where the dad backs up the mom's decision and the mom backs up the dads discipline that the children truly get to see God's intended design for marriage. When they see the dad taking his authority over their mom and over ruling her authority, the one-flesh union is distorted in their eyes because they now see a ruler/obedient underling relationship instead of the way God intended it.

I completely disagree with this hypothetical.

Children will pit one parent against another only when there is a serious deficiency in the headship of the family. When a child discerns that one parent is weaker than the other he will go to the weaker parent for favors. When the child knows that neither parent is strong he will pit the one against the other and gain control over both.

It is only when there is a clear exercise and understanding of the God-ordained headship in the family, with the father as the head, that peace and order come. Children cannot manipulate the mother when she defers authority to the father. Children cannot manipulate the father when he knows the mother receives with joy his authority and agrees with it.

[inhistime]

When one takes the hierarchal attitude where the husband is the authority over his wife, then children can have much confusion. This is where a child will play one parent against the other if they believe that the father can over rule the mom. It is only when mom and dad stand as a one-flesh union where the dad backs up the mom's decision and the mom backs up the dads discipline that the children truly get to see God's intended design for marriage. When they see the dad taking his authority over their mom and over ruling her authority, the one-flesh union is distorted in their eyes because they now see a ruler/obedient underling relationship instead of the way God intended it.

I completely disagree with this hypothetical.

Children will pit one parent against another only when there is a serious deficiency in the headship of the family. When a child discerns that one parent is weaker than the other he will go to the weaker parent for favors. When the child knows that neither parent is strong he will pit the one against the other and gain control over both.

It is only when there is a clear exercise and understanding of the God-ordained headship in the family, with the father as the head, that peace and order come. Children cannot manipulate the mother when she defers authority to the father. Children cannot manipulate the father when he knows the mother receives with joy his authority and agrees with it.

I agree and disagree. A united force over the children is what will keep the children out of confusion. However that doesn't mean that the weaker authority (the mother) gives a ruling and the greater authority (the father) contradicts the mother and then the mother defers to the authority of the father. No, it means that either the mother or the father supports the one who has made the original decision. If they decide to change what was originally said to the child, they do it together as a united authority not as a lesser authority bowing to a greater authority. Otherwise the children are going to disregard their mother's authority because she really has no authority at all. When a husband backs up his wife's decision, the children see a strength coming from the dad. That is godly and she does the same for him.