tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post7877096050503368767..comments2023-06-16T05:34:19.575-07:00Comments on Men and Women: Leaders Together: The Question of Consistency: Part 1Rebecca Merrill Groothuishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14792830203814433318noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-59614431233540420702008-09-28T17:08:00.000-07:002008-09-28T17:08:00.000-07:00Gem said... I got wondering if my comments on here...Gem said... <BR/><BR/>I got wondering if my comments on here are off in left field or something (since I commented on a couple old threads and you didn't reply)... Anyway, I think in my comment above I was too focused on a little part of your post. I really did appreciate your thoughts, especially about Isa 3:12. I think you would be tickled by how much overlap there is between your view and that of PC icon Douglas Wilson. I saw his post first and was really tickled to see that you and he agree on this passage. from Doug Wilson's blog<BR/><BR/>QUOTE: The best argument against Sarah Palin has been an argument that says this kind of thing has happened to us because American Christian men have been wimpy. This argument resonates with us because American Christian men have been abdicating for many years -- in their homes, in their churches, and in their vocations. But in a nation of 300 million, surely there are some men about whom this is not true? Why couldn't God have raised up one of those guys? The answer has to be -- He didn't want to.<BR/><BR/>This assumption about wimpiness rests on a common reading of Deborah in the book of Judges -- the assumption being that Deborah was a judge simply because the men of Israel in that day were all a bunch of abdicating males. But the text never says that -- never accuses the men of that generation of being wusses, and never hints at any kind of disapproval of Deborah. And the only penalty Barak receives (relatively minor) is one caused by him putting conditions on a directive that a woman gave him. Had he simply obeyed that women (Deborah), he would have had the glory of taking Sisera's head instead of that glory going to Jael. Barak's problem was not "too much" obedience to a woman in civil leadership, but not enough obedience to a woman in civil leadership.ENDQUOTE<BR/><BR/>RMG response:<BR/> <BR/>“The best argument against Sarah Palin has been an argument that says this kind of thing has happened to us because American Christian men have been wimpy.”<BR/><BR/>Actually, this “argument” is rather a non sequitur, since Sarah Palin was chosen precisely because she is a woman. <BR/><BR/>However, it is interesting that, unlike many PC advocates who turn themselves inside out to argue that Deborah’s leadership was contrary to God’s will and arose only because the men of the time were wimps, Douglas Wilson acknowledges that there is not so much as a word in Scripture hinting that Deborah’s leadership was in the least inappropriate or unseemly. Wilson’s perspective maintains PC sanction by his claim that Deborah’s leadership was merely civil leadership, not spiritual leadership. By his lights, Deborah was an acceptable exception because she was not exercising spiritual leadership. But the fact is, her leadership of Israel was both spiritual and civil—for two reasons. First, Deborah was a prophet. In the Old Testament, prophets told people what to do by telling them what God said they should do. Such prophetic pronouncements were both spiritual (of God) and authoritative (to disobey was to sin against God’s word). Second, Israel was a theocracy (i.e., church and state were one institution). Thus, every national leader held both civil and spiritual authority in some sense. <BR/><BR/>As I understand it, the mainstream PC view is that in the U.S., where government is strictly secular, the occasional female national leader is acceptable—so long as female leaders in civil government remain the exception. But this proviso seems odd. If the PCs are laying down God’s will on this point, then should God be quite so equivocal on the matter? Further, is this proviso (that female civil leaders be few and far between) applicable to all women in civil leadership, or only to Christian women in civil leadership? Well, perhaps a few more epicycles will yet be forthcoming from PC quarters…Rebecca Merrill Groothuishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14792830203814433318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-71884525510583053782008-09-28T17:06:00.000-07:002008-09-28T17:06:00.000-07:00Gem said... RMG: "God’s ideal culture would have t...Gem said... <BR/>RMG: "God’s ideal culture would have to be discerned from pre-fall culture—of which we have little information (although we do have God’s pre-fall account of marriage in Genesis 2:24, which exactly reverses patriarchal culture).<BR/><BR/>In patriarchal culture, a woman leaves her parents’ home and is taken into the extended family of her husband. She becomes a part of her husband’s family, under the rule of her husband and the family patriarch (typically her husband’s father)."<BR/><BR/>God uniquely singles out the husband as the one who is to "leave and cleave" (which is repeated in the NT). Katharine Bushnell wrote about how this provided protection for women: GOD’S LAW OF MARRIAGE.<BR/><BR/>But I just read this about "hupostasso".<BR/><BR/>from this link (click here):<BR/>QUOTE: The form of marriage practiced by the Ephesians was known as "marriage without hand," meaning "marriage without commitment." In this pagan model, the wife remained under the authority of her father or the oldest male in her birth family. Since the wife's family could remove her at any time, uncertainty destabilized the marriage relationship.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, a father-in-law could pressure the husband to do his bidding by threatening to "recall" the wife. This could be especially trying for Christian couples since a pagan father-in-law could threaten to remove his daughter unless she and her husband renounced their faith.<BR/><BR/>Important in this discussion is the meaning of the Greek word hupotasso, translated by the English word "submit" in this passage. An informed study of the meaning, as opposed to a biased, cursory rendering, clearly reveals Paul's intended meaning as being "to identify with." It has nothing to do with "being put under." The Ephesians' readers understood what Paul really meant: A married woman was no longer to identify with her birth family but was, instead, to identify completely with her husband; and the two were to be one. ENDQUOTE<BR/><BR/>That confuses me because it sounds like the woman is leaving and cleaving? She is getting out from under the "patriarchy" of her kin, but isn't she jumping from frying pan to the fire of being under the "patriarchy" of her husband's kin?<BR/><BR/>RMG response:<BR/><BR/>Yes, I see what you mean. This translation of hupotasso doesn’t help much. With this sort of marriage law the woman is left vulnerable whether or not she submits to or identifies with her husband. The “identify” translation is a minority view and the Hyatts are not biblical scholars, so I wouldn’t worry about it!Rebecca Merrill Groothuishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14792830203814433318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-82602079215768757302008-09-19T09:47:00.000-07:002008-09-19T09:47:00.000-07:00"Ryan's" previous post--to which GEM responded--wa..."Ryan's" previous post--to which GEM responded--was deleted by R. Groothuis at my advice, given its incivility and glibness. I did so as her "head"!Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-45618181078466443892008-09-19T04:06:00.000-07:002008-09-19T04:06:00.000-07:00RYAN said: But I find it tragic that in a time in ...RYAN said: <I>But I find it tragic that in a time in which the world is in such great need of mission and the the there is already such a negative eye cast on the church, we waste out time devoting WHOLE blogs to our pet issues.</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely why a blog like this is important. Half of the body of Christ has been crippled by the traditions and doctrines of men. They need to be <B>set free</B> to serve Him.Gemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02778796852665760660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-35802790772519023492008-09-18T22:06:00.000-07:002008-09-18T22:06:00.000-07:00Ryan:Have you, perchance, concluded that I am of t...Ryan:<BR/><BR/>Have you, perchance, concluded that I am of the view that CBMW & company are necessarily inconsistent in their approval of a woman as president and their disapproval of a woman as pastor? Perhaps you should wait to draw your conclusions until you have actually heard my thoughts on the subject in the upcoming "Question of Consistency, Part 2."<BR/><BR/>As for my knowledge of the beliefs of CBMW & company, I probably could argue their case as well as any one of them. I have "interacted with the other side" at length and in depth for fifteen years and in three books. Are you not the "Ryan" with whom I interacted on this blog last spring, under the post, "Adam and Eve in Genesis and 1 Timothy," when you presented a number of objections to biblical equality and I answered them all very thoroughly? Or was that another "Ryan" who also failed to identify himself?Rebecca Merrill Groothuishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14792830203814433318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-29230767363885517272008-09-18T20:48:00.000-07:002008-09-18T20:48:00.000-07:00gem:Thank you for your several thoughtful comments...gem:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your several thoughtful comments. I'm not intentionally ignoring you, I've just been rather busy with other stuff the last several days, and I wanted to get the Part 2 post on consistency up before I get to the rest of the comments. I'm not the fastest blogger on record (but I may be the slowest!).Rebecca Merrill Groothuishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14792830203814433318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-12072495951797478122008-09-18T12:22:00.000-07:002008-09-18T12:22:00.000-07:00Denny Burk deals very effectively by the loud outc...Denny Burk deals very effectively by the loud outcry by egalitarians that there is somehow "inconsistency" in their view of supporting Palin for public leadership, even though she is a woman.<BR/><BR/>Palin provides no cause for pause as the complementarian view simple argues that the Bible clearly teaches servant leadership for men in the church and home. Nothing more.<BR/><BR/>Once again read Denny Burk's article on the subject, and bolster your argument by actually interacting with the other side rather than pretending that they are so befuddled they are unable to respond.ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00762880143592344039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-47778806148120062062008-09-18T10:52:00.000-07:002008-09-18T10:52:00.000-07:00Dear RMG,I got wondering if my comments on here ar...Dear RMG,<BR/><BR/>I got wondering if my comments on here are off in left field or something (since I commented on a couple old threads and you didn't reply)... Anyway, I think in my comment above I was too focused on a little part of your post. I really did appreciate your thoughts, especially about Isa 3:12. I think you would be tickled by how much overlap there is between your view and that of PC icon Douglas Wilson. I saw his post first and was really tickled to see that you and he agree on this passage. <A HREF="http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Search&searchstring=Barak+" REL="nofollow">from Doug Wilson's blog</A><BR/><BR/>QUOTE: <I>The best argument against Sarah Palin has been an argument that says this kind of thing has happened to us because American Christian men have been wimpy. This argument resonates with us because American Christian men have been abdicating for many years -- in their homes, in their churches, and in their vocations. But in a nation of 300 million, surely there are some men about whom this is not true? Why couldn't God have raised up one of those guys? The answer has to be -- He didn't want to.<BR/><BR/>This assumption about wimpiness rests on a common reading of Deborah in the book of Judges -- the assumption being that Deborah was a judge simply because the men of Israel in that day were all a bunch of abdicating males. But the text never says that -- never accuses the men of that generation of being wusses, and never hints at any kind of disapproval of Deborah. And the only penalty Barak receives (relatively minor) is one caused by him putting conditions on a directive that a woman gave him. Had he simply obeyed that women (Deborah), he would have had the glory of taking Sisera's head instead of that glory going to Jael. Barak's problem was not "too much" obedience to a woman in civil leadership, but not enough obedience to a woman in civil leadership.</I>ENDQUOTEGemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02778796852665760660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-53547162196921357082008-09-18T10:31:00.000-07:002008-09-18T10:31:00.000-07:00Please explain. What questions have I asked that c...Please explain. What questions have I asked that complementarians have long answered, to which I have failed to respond?Rebecca Merrill Groothuishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14792830203814433318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-57697727221704301132008-09-17T21:53:00.000-07:002008-09-17T21:53:00.000-07:00http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2470#more-2470Why not ...http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2470#more-2470<BR/><BR/>Why not interact with the answers to your questions on that many complementarians have given? It is not like there is such stunned silence that no one is answering these matters that have long been dealt with.ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00762880143592344039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-59861364147959154722008-09-17T14:30:00.000-07:002008-09-17T14:30:00.000-07:00Thanks for stating things so clearly.We see the da...Thanks for stating things so clearly.<BR/><BR/>We see the dangers of consistency starting from flawed premises with the extreme PC position.<BR/><BR/>And we see the CBMW justifying voting for a woman for VP with a special needs baby, when their claim is women are homemakers. They claim that one does not need to be concerned with the morality of that decision, as it is only between the parents and their pastor, so it is neatly compartmented so one can ignore the implications of their teaching in one area in this case.<BR/><BR/>The amazing thing to me is that some seem to buy into this creation of an ever more esoteric PC teaching.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-50248362519031805482008-09-17T10:44:00.000-07:002008-09-17T10:44:00.000-07:00RMG: "God’s ideal culture would have to be discern...RMG: <I>"God’s ideal culture would have to be discerned from pre-fall culture—of which we have little information (although we do have God’s pre-fall account of marriage in Genesis 2:24, which exactly reverses patriarchal culture).<BR/><BR/>In patriarchal culture, a woman leaves her parents’ home and is taken into the extended family of her husband. She becomes a part of her husband’s family, under the rule of her husband and the family patriarch (typically her husband’s father)."</I><BR/><BR/>God uniquely singles out the <B>husband</B> as the one who is to "leave and cleave" (which is repeated in the NT). Katharine Bushnell wrote about how this provided protection for women: <A HREF="http://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/gods-law-of-marriage/" REL="nofollow">GOD’S LAW OF MARRIAGE.</A><BR/><BR/>But I just read this about "hupostasso".<BR/><BR/>from <A HREF="http://godswordtowomen.org/boss.htm" REL="nofollow">this link (click here)</A>:<BR/>QUOTE: <I>The form of marriage practiced by the Ephesians was known as "marriage without hand," meaning "marriage without commitment." In this pagan model, the wife remained under the authority of her father or the oldest male in her birth family. Since the wife's family could remove her at any time, uncertainty destabilized the marriage relationship.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, a father-in-law could pressure the husband to do his bidding by threatening to "recall" the wife. This could be especially trying for Christian couples since a pagan father-in-law could threaten to remove his daughter unless she and her husband renounced their faith.<BR/><BR/>Important in this discussion is the meaning of the Greek word hupotasso, translated by the English word "submit" in this passage. An informed study of the meaning, as opposed to a biased, cursory rendering, clearly reveals Paul's intended meaning as being "to identify with." It has nothing to do with "being put under." The Ephesians' readers understood what Paul really meant: A married woman was no longer to identify with her birth family but was, instead, to identify completely with her husband; and the two were to be one.</I> ENDQUOTE<BR/><BR/>That confuses me because it sounds like the woman is leaving and cleaving? She is getting out from under the "patriarchy" of her kin, but isn't she jumping from frying pan to the fire of being under the "patriarchy" of her husband's kin?Gemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02778796852665760660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-9272436558246549412008-09-16T22:28:00.000-07:002008-09-16T22:28:00.000-07:00Jo: Since your question is not a simple one to res...Jo: <BR/>Since your question is not a simple one to respond to, I will be putting my response into a new post (as I have done before, if you recall!)Rebecca Merrill Groothuishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14792830203814433318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-79220461813235321332008-09-16T04:50:00.000-07:002008-09-16T04:50:00.000-07:00RMG wrote: "It is true that God did not treat patr...RMG wrote: "It is true that God did not treat patriarchal culture as intrinsically evil—as he did, say, idolatry. God regarded the patriarchy (and concomitant polygamy) of ancient Israel as simply the culture of the time. Although patriarchy was not the offense to God’s holiness that idolatry was, this is no reason to conclude that it was entirely pleasing to him."<BR/><BR/>I'm troubled by this. Here's my feeble attempt to explain why: Patriarchy is the system whereby men take was is not rightfully theirs (exclusive authority), and in many cases women wrongfully give up what God has given and charged them to wield (authority). The first case is theft, and the second case is disobedience. Both involve the same disregard to God's authority as idolatry, and so are sinful and inherently evil. So why doesn't God condemn patriarchy like he condemned idolatry? Worse than that, why does God spend so much time on, for instance, mould and mildew instead of condemning patriarchy? Patriarchy was far more devastating to the Israelites and the entire history of the human race than mould and mildew.<BR/><BR/>So I contend: Patriarchy <I>is</I> evil. Why doesn't God explicitly condemn it?cokhavimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14688216898190988522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801770731118039118.post-17508932438531337112008-09-15T22:31:00.000-07:002008-09-15T22:31:00.000-07:00I've been waiting for paragraphs 3-6 for a loong t...I've been waiting for paragraphs 3-6 for a loong time from the egalitarian camp...very good. Although, the "impossibility" of obtaining knowledge of such universal standards in Genesis may be under dispute. But I agree; the complimentarians have by no means arrived at a universal definition of masculine and feminine roles (or the objective basis of them), if such universals could even be arrived at in the first place.Jamin Hubnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922957262864056409noreply@blogger.com