Adam's Responsibility?

[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.

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.

A father's decision regarding a certain matter which contradicts or further elaborates upon one made by the mother should be discussed in private and never before the children. The final decision presents itself as a united front by both parents without disrupting the God-ordained order in the household.

An example might be, when Sally wants to stay overnight at her friend's house and the mother says, "It's okay with me, but you need to also get permission from your father." Sally then goes to dad and asks. Dad wants Sally to have her room cleaned first before going anywhere and so discusses it with mom away from Sally's earshot. Dad then tells Sally, "It's okay with me and your mother but we want you to clean your room first."

[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

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.

You keep speaking about men "TAKING authority. That is not the case. God GAVE men authority and required that they TAKE responsibility in line with the authority God GAVE them. Why are you so confused?

Ruth

[Ovedya]

A husband's headship in the family is positive and negative.

On the positive side, when exercised properly headship maintains order and harmony within the family. On the negative side the father has the burden of responsibility and accountability to God.

[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.

You keep speaking about men "TAKING authority. That is not the case. God GAVE men authority and required that they TAKE responsibility in line with the authority God GAVE them. Why are you so confused?

Ruth

I am not confused. My husband believed that he had authority over me that God had given him. He used that authority and be were both miserable. Having authority means nothing unless you take your authority and use it. Now that we both understand that ours is to be a one-flesh union and his being "head" means that he is to sacrifice for me and not to be my lord, we are both extremely happy. I wouldn't want to interfere in your marriage (if you are married). If you want to have your husband having a position of authority over you and using that authority over you, then go ahead and live however you like. But for my husband and his wife, we are happy to live the life of two submitted people loving each other intensively and each respecting the other. My husband may be called to sacrifice more than I do at times, but that just makes me love him and respect him all the more!

[inhistime]

A husband's headship in the family is positive and negative.

On the positive side, when exercised properly headship maintains order and harmony within the family. On the negative side the father has the burden of responsibility and accountability to God.

Where does scripture say that the husband has the burden of sole responsibility and accountability to God? Are you thinking that God has made the husband the "priest" of the home? If you believe this, then where does scripture say this? Don't just say these things - prove them from scripture.

[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

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.

You keep speaking about men "TAKING authority. That is not the case. God GAVE men authority and required that they TAKE responsibility in line with the authority God GAVE them. Why are you so confused?

Ruth

I am not confused. My husband believed that he had authority over me that God had given him. He used that authority and be were both miserable. Having authority means nothing unless you take your authority and use it. Now that we both understand that ours is to be a one-flesh union and his being "head" means that he is to sacrifice for me and not to be my lord, we are both extremely happy. I wouldn't want to interfere in your marriage (if you are married). If you want to have your husband having a position of authority over you and using that authority over you, then go ahead and live however you like. But for my husband and his wife, we are happy to live the life of two submitted people loving each other intensively and each respecting the other. My husband may be called to sacrifice more than I do at times, but that just makes me love him and respect him all the more!

If your husband used his authority over you in such a way that it made you miserable, then he must have been abusing and not using his authority. Or do you wish to contend that the authority that Jesus has over the church equates to misery? In other words, you are mistaking the Biblical concept of authority (vis a vis Jesus) with the incorrect practise of authority (vis a vis your husband).. You think that authority equates to domination. IT DOES NOT!

Ruth

[Ovedya]

A husband's headship in the family is positive and negative.

On the positive side, when exercised properly headship maintains order and harmony within the family. On the negative side the father has the burden of responsibility and accountability to God.

Where does scripture say that the husband has the burden of sole responsibility and accountability to God? Are you thinking that God has made the husband the "priest" of the home? If you believe this, then where does scripture say this? Don't just say these things - prove them from scripture.

"But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ...For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man; For also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. Therefore the woman ought to have a sign of submission to authority on her head for the sake of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:3; 8-10)

"For a husband is head of the wife as also Christ is Head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the Body." (Eph. 5:23)

"To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply Your pain in your childbearing; In pain you will bring forth children. And your desire will be to your husband, And he will rule over you." (Gen. 3:16)

Read the proverbs of Solomon. He is giving the instruction to his child. Are there any women priests in the Bible? Any in the priesthood administering sacrifices to God? From the Bible is the clear principal that men bear the responsibility for leadership in the churches - among the saints of God - and in the home.

[firehill]

You keep speaking about men "TAKING authority. That is not the case. God GAVE men authority and required that they TAKE responsibility in line with the authority God GAVE them. Why are you so confused?

Ruth

Show me where God GAVE ADAM authority???? (We are even searching Genesis here in this thread to see if what you claim is true.) You've still not been able to explain how Adam would have been responsible to tell Eve, 'God told ME I must not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.' See God's command was ONLY to Adam when He gave it to him. That's as plain as IT GETS. Then God told them both not to eat or touch. I've not seen a refutation to all the accumulating evidence.

Show me where God GAVE all men authority??? One would think that such a verse would at least exist in the bible somewhere if it were true.

[firehill]

A husband's headship in the family is positive and negative.

On the positive side, when exercised properly headship maintains order and harmony within the family. On the negative side the father has the burden of responsibility and accountability to God.

If the husband is accountable to God for the family then we should be able to find evidence of this in Genesis. Show me then how Adam was accountable to God for THEM? Help me understand how Adam was responsible for telling Eve, 'God told me I must not eat fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[methinkshe]

You keep speaking about men "TAKING authority. That is not the case. God GAVE men authority and required that they TAKE responsibility in line with the authority God GAVE them. Why are you so confused?

Ruth

Show me where God GAVE ADAM authority???? (We are even searching Genesis here in this thread to see if what you claim is true.) You've still not been able to explain how Adam would have been responsible to tell Eve, 'God told ME I must not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.' See God's command was ONLY to Adam when He gave it to him. That's as plain as IT GETS. Then God told them both not to eat or touch. I've not seen a refutation to all the accumulating evidence.

Show me where God GAVE all men authority??? One would think that such a verse would at least exist in the bible somewhere if it were true.

No, I am not going to play your game. I have given what I believe is the PLAIN understanding of Scripture, I have linked an exegsesis, and henceforth I bow to better apologists than I. I have done my part by contending for the faith ONCE AND FOR ALL DELIVERED...... and that's it as far as my input goes.

Ruth