A Greco-Roman Milieu Participle

Jory Micah has kindly taken up the challenge presented by my recent post on Love and Respect over at Desiring God. I would like to return the compliment, making me a complimentarian, and I would like to return the compliment with all my heart, making me an extreme complimentarian.

Any relationship can become mutually affirming if you use the right camera filters.
Any relationship can become mutually affirming if you use the right camera filters.

I begin this way because Jory introduced me thus: “Recently, extreme complementarian pastor, Douglas Wilson, wrote an article . . .” What does this mean? That I am an extreme pastor, who happens to be complementarian? Or perhaps it means that it is my complementarianism that is extreme, meaning that I believe that men and women really go together. Or maybe it is because, unlike a lot of complementarians, I actually mean it.

She begins by saying that my position is not to be found in Scripture.

“Both Wilson and Eggerichs argue that men need respect more than love and women need love more than respect. The greatest issue with this stance is that there is virtually no biblical evidence to back it up. Ephesians five’s marriage passage is not sufficient proof for this argument.”

But this is not how arguments work. You can’t just say that “my opponent appeals to Eph. 5 to support his views. My counter argument is that Eph. 5 doesn’t say that.” That’s not a counter argument — that is simply a counter-conclusion. It is the equivalent of “nuh uh.” “Yeah, huh!” “No way!” “Yes, way!”

But my argument from that text was pretty straightforward. When the Bible says to feed the sheep, we can infer that sheep need food. When the Bible says that children should receive nurture and admonition, we can infer that children need nurture and admonition. When the Bible says to render justice to the poor, we can infer that the poor need justice. Women are told to respect their husbands. Husbands are told to love their wives. Why is it stated like this? If Jory wants to say that it just as easily could have gone the other way, and that Paul was just looking for any old verb for filler, an argument for this odd view should be offered.

Secondly, she says that I have blurried-up the difference between submission and respect.

“One can certainly respect someone without submitting to their will and one can certainly submit to someone’s will without respecting them in the least.”

Now it is quite right that these words can be detached, and made to function differently. I can submit to a mugger with a gun, and I can highly esteem my best friend. In such a case, the words are operating in two different realms. But it is also true that in the case of a Christian wife relating to her Christian husband, the apostles of Jesus Christ require both words to operate together harmoniously. The two words inform each other.

Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22,24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1,5; Tit. 2:5), and they are to do so in a way that respects and honors them (1 Pet. 3:2; Eph. 5:33). This means that wives should never be put into the position where they are simply submitting to a superior force. That is not the biblical vision for marriage.

In short, through the long stretch of Ephesians 5, Paul teaches that husbands should love their wives and wives should submit to their own husbands. And then, when he comes to summarize his point in v. 33, he does it by repeating that men should love their wives, and also saying that wives should respect their husbands. I take from this the fact that when a woman respects her man as she should, the result is the kind of marital submission that God requires.

Jory’s third point in responding to me has to do with Paul’s requirement of mutual submission.

“The Apostle Paul begins this passage with the heart of the message which is that wives and husbands are to yield equally to the will of one another. Paul goes on to charge husbands with sacrificial love and wives with sacrificial submission, as this was the cultural understanding of ‘household structure’ in Paul’s day.”

There are two points to make in response to this. First, the imperative in this passage is to be found up in v. 18 when Paul commands us to be filled with the Spirit. The command is followed by a series of participles that describe what should accompany this Spirit-filling. He says we are to be filled, and it looks like singing, thanking, submitting, etc. That extended thought continues down into his teaching on marriage. And so my point here is that Micah is quite right about the grammatical point, but that it is entirely beside the theological point.

I quite agree that in the body of Christ, all believers everywhere are to submit themselves one to another. “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). The men are not exempted from the requirement to do nothing through vainglory. Christian husbands are required to esteem their wives as “better than themselves” and they are to do this in exactly the same way that the Lord Jesus did this very same thing for His bride. And so of course the filling of the Spirit is going to lead to a spirit of mutual submission.

But what does that mean? How does it look? How does it translate? We can tell if God’s people are filled with the Spirit. We will see it in the fact that they are singing, thanking God for everything, and submitting to one another — and then we should let Paul finish his thought. He says that this should happen with the wives paying particular attention to have this spirit of mutual submission work out into a submission to their own husbands. He adds that the husbands should pay particular attention to having this spirit of mutual submission work out into their Christ-like love for their own wives. That is kind of what it says.

And this leads to the second point. Jory summarily dismisses Paul’s specific application as culturally conditioned. But note what this requires — we are to be filled with the Spirit, and four Spirit-filled participles follow, but the participle after that is a special kind of Greco-Roman-milieu participle.

“Paul goes on to charge husbands with sacrificial love and wives with sacrificial submission, as this was the cultural understanding of ‘household structure’ in Paul’s day.”

The problems pile-up here like a multiple vehicle accident on the interstate, the kind that involve at least three eighteen-wheelers. Sacrificial love and sacrificial submission was the “cultural understanding” of that day? Which culture? Greek? Roman? That would fall in the problematic category of “not true.” Jewish? That would make that particular cultural understanding as something that was grounded in the Old Testament. This is true enough, but difficult for Jory’s larger project.

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law” (1 Cor. 14:34).

Paul says that certain things are done in the churches as part of their culture (1 Cor. 11:16), but all of this also lines up with what it says “in the law.” So how can we dismiss it with just a wave of the hand? The Old Testament is not the Word of God emeritus.

Another part of the pile-up is that we have a facile tendency to assume that Paul was blinkered and stuck in the categories of his culture, whatever it was, while we — enlightened as we are — simply say things because they are self-evident. We are supposedly not in thrall to any cultural influences at all. The problem with this is that if we made a short list of people in human history who most demonstrated a willingness to fly in the face of their education, upbringing, social pressures, cultural expectations, etc., that list would have to include the apostle Paul. And for evangelical feminists, who are wind-surfing white caps driven by zeitgeist zephyrs, to look down on the “cultural blinkers” of the apostle Paul is something that I find, let us be frank, kind of funny.

348
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
26 Comment threads
322 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
41 Comment authors
Reality"A" dadSusanna Krizotimothybethyada Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
katie
Guest
katie

The title is good, but Wind-surfing White Caps of Zeitgeist Zephyrs would also have been a good choice.

Jory Micah
Guest
Jory Micah

Thanks for the response. Of course we see things differently in our world of theology, but I respect it when people take the time to respond. It shows character. :)

Carson Spratt
Member

Will this become a regular habit? You talking politely to the Wilsons, and vice versa? I’m really enjoying it.

Steve H
Guest
Steve H

I appreciate your kindness, would care to address Doug’s rebuttal with any specific points of disagreement?

Bonhoeffer1945
Guest
Bonhoeffer1945

I’m with you Steve H. I’d love to see a “complementarianism is nuts” rebuttal with real exegesis and historically informed theologizing.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Not gonna happen. Gurls are offended don’t you know.

Bring it.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

It’s already happening, read on.

Reality
Guest
Reality

Then Jory, why do you delete the posts of others on your blog? Why do you solicit and not feed, clothe or educate the living? Do you think you own the internet or do you think you just own GOD? I guess from your statement we now have the Trinity and you? What do you call that; a quarinity? I love your statement: ” This blog belongs to God and I because we are one. God is in me and I am in God. We work together. God is my abba and my mama! Also, watch your tone. I block… Read more »

Kevin Thomas
Guest
Kevin Thomas

What is your name Reality?

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

It would be nice if you would actually say why you see things differently, it would help the readers make up their minds.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

She has zero ability to argue the point because she wasn’t given the innate hardware to do so.

This is why the injunction against woman preachers.

And if Hilliary is elected do understand, God has spoken and now seek cover.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Hi Tim Paul, could you clarify whether you think the lacking innate hardware results in an inability for women to argue logically, or whether it makes women unable to understand theological points?

Reality
Guest
Reality

The command to Love as CHRIST and the ability to suffice that requirement. My wife understands and informs me of that requirement. It is definitely not a lack of understanding or ability to logically or theologically express the BIBLE for her and multitudes of others. Maybe it is the lack of ability or desire for “some” to do so (both sides)? She understands the reasons and loves the protections provided by HIM. CHRIST did not submit to you; HE died because of you (and the rest of us). HE asked the FATHER if there was any other way; but there… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

So why does Ephesians 5:1 say we should ALL imitate Christ who died for us?

Reality
Guest
Reality

“So why does Ephesians 5:1 say we should ALL imitate Christ who died for us?” Ephesians 5:1 “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;” Maybe you state the wrong verse? Maybe the wrong point? Yes, we should ALL imitate CHRIST who died for us. What are you doing to meet those requirements? Do you understand those requirements? Romans 10: 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Oh, don’t be dense!

Eph 5:1-2
Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. NIV

The point is that not only the husband can be compared to Christ and his sacrificial death since we are all called to live the life of love just as Christ loves us and gave himself for us.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Jillybean, I believe in general it is both. Historically, there are no philosophical or theolgical works of note you could argue to prove the contrary except current works in subjective woman’s studies and the glories of multi-culturalism. There is no woman that could track with DW point by point and logically refute him, none.

And that’s not a bad thing given how their created nature was designed differently from men.

Of course there are some exceptional woman thinkers that have broken that maternal mold of thinking and we happen to find them commenting here.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Hey Tim, check this list and see if your head doesn’t begin to spin fast enough to dispel the ignorance. Women of science: Aemilia (c. 300-363), Gallo-Roman physician Agamede (12th century BCE), (possibly mythical) physician in Ancient Greece Aglaonike (2nd century BCE), the first woman astronomer in Ancient Greece Agnodike (4th century BCE), the first woman physician to practice legally in Athens[1]:2 Arete of Cyrene (5th–4th centuries BCE), natural and moral philosopher, North Africa Artemisia of Caria (c. 300 BCE), botanist Anna Åkerhjelm (1647–1693), Swedish traveller and amateur archeologist. Ann Baynard (1672-1697) British Natural philosopher Aphra Behn (1640–1689), British translator… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Mrs. SK, Tim Paul is a troll (of the internet variety). I think he is impersonating a complementarian/Wilson fan to discredit the lot. (Sort of like the FFXI fanboys posing as WOW players on webboards making overly obnoxious comments back in the day.) His posts may have a niche market that buys into them but that is not the norm here or with Piper’s crew.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Thanks Jonathan, but after a decade of debating this subject I am very familiar with trolls and the nature of the hierarchical followers of John Piper. I find debating trolls is an amusement I just can’t resist! It’s too fun talking to people who say what everyone else thinks :)

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Oh and believe me, there are plenty of women who are fully capable of debating with DW and any other man. They ignore us for a reason.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Nobody is saying woman haven’t contributed to the sciences, etc, my argument still stands.

You cannot point to one philosophical / theological work that is regarded as foundational in Western thought. Zero.

And no, you can’t dance logically with DW, get over it.

Your problem is your feminism has poisoned your mind.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

LOL!!! (sorry, have to stop laughing so I can type)

Ever heard of Hildegard of Bingen? Maybe you should introduce yourself to her.

“Hildegard of Bingen has been called by her admirers “one of the most
important figures in the history of the Middle Ages,” and “the greatest
woman of her time.””

I’m not sure I want to dance with DW, I hear he has issues with women, and doesn’t always ask for consent, but hey, I’ll debate with him any day, but I’m afraid he doesn’t really want to, you know, it would be hard to lose to a woman.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

The ilk that is represented here would be glad to refute you on a myriad of topics. But lets be real, it all will boil down to your problem with Paul and that dreaded submission thing. You have a problem with Biblical authority.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

PLEASE, OH PLEASE do refute me on every topic you can conceive in your brain!! I can’t wait!! And I don’t have a problem with submission, I submit to my husband just as he submits to me. I think YOU are the one who has a problem with it since you are unwilling to submit to women.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Why should I submit to you? Give me one justified reason? And not your feelings.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

No problems! I don’t do feelings, so we’re good. Why should you as a Christian brother submit to your Christian sister? Let’s start by putting this in the negative: why shouldn’t you submit to your Christian sisters? Submission within the body of Christ is the general theme that runs through the New Testament. The KJV is the only one that gets this verse right, and I checked the Greek: 1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and… Read more »

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

I agree with all the above in general. But I don’t know you in particular.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

You don’t need to. You can submit “in the spirit” as in speaking the truth in love (Eph 4). This doesn’t mean that you can’t say exactly what you think. Because submission has to do with attitude more than an actual physical act of obedience, we can all submit to one another even when we are thousands of miles away. I wrote once that love is energy, it can be felt across the room even when no one has spoken a word.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

So, what’s your beef with.DW?

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Oh where to start…. Okay, let’s tackle this one: A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is a gross misinterpretation what healthy sexuality looks like. It makes the woman property who has no right to say no because she has no right to either consent or deny consent. A healthy sexual act is one of mutual love, giving and receiving, becoming one with the other person. Wilson distorts this because of his obsession that the man must rule in every realm. The Bible is extraordinarily explicit about mutual submission in the bedroom. 1 Cor 7… Read more »

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

So, after all your ranting please tell us your particular problem you have with Doug and his theological postion?

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

So what was the first thing that woman totally screwed up when they were given the right to vote?

And explain to us what your exact problem is with Doug’s point of view?

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

From the Trojan war to WW II and all the modern wars, how many millions upon millions have been murdered in senseless wars, and you ask me what women have screwed up in the past 100 years that they have been voting? I’m sorry, but your comment is just laughable; I just have to laugh. Women have outlawed domestic violence, marital rape (which is exactly why I don’t like Mr. Wilson because he supports non-consensual sex among other evils), they have provided better protection for children, they voted for equal pay laws among other equality measures that have improved the… Read more »

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

And what’s your particular problem with DW’s theological position?

We’re waiting for your response.

Answer to my question above: The Volstead Act

A woman seeks security so if her husband doesn’t provide it she will seek it from the gov’t which directly leads to a loss of human freedoms. One could easily argue that by giving women the right to vote has led to a draconian statist gov’t that cripples us today. Of course, there are other issues as well that has led to this statist control but the 19th Ammendment is a large reason.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Seriously, that’s your argument? That a woman seeking protection from an abusive man causes loss of human freedom? How about the woman gaining freedom from abuse? Is that not important to you? I must assume not. Your argument that women gaining the vote causes loss of freedom is so ludicrous that it hardly merits a comment. Athens executed Socrates because he exposed the corruption of the war machine that operated already then. Hitler’s Germany murdered millions of people in a regime that completely annihilated human freedom. Stalin was no better; he murdered 10 million of his own in Siberia. And… Read more »

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Yes, the woman convinced against her will is of the same persuasion still.

You can’t wrap your brain around the fact that woman are control freaks and love to advance gov’t controls in every area of human existence? It’s in their DNA nature. And you prove my argument with your incessant ranting.

And my hammer to prove the argument in the end will be Hillary.

Obfuscater that you are, what about Dougy?

You can’t give a simple argument as to why he is wrong?

Seriously?

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

I see. All women are control freaks. How many men do you know that have restraining orders against their formed gf or wives? I know several women. I’ve already answered your question about Mr.Wilson, if you choose to ignore it, it’s what you choose to do. But let’s focus on this control issue, let me show you something about men feeling that women are control freaks who are after them: (From my book “Intelligent Submission & Other Ways of Feminine Wisdom”) How many times can a verse be changed in Bible translations before anyone notices that something fishy is going… Read more »

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1878178

Woman and the vote to rise of Hitler

I once told my wife how fervent the Italians courted the women for their version of National Socialism and how reliant the Nazis/Brownshirts were upon women to get into power.

Only a page :

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1878178?uid=3739912&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104405395467

I then was about to go into the USSR, China, NKorea, large swaths of Latin America etc. when she said, “yep I already get it, women should be no where near anything position of responsibility.”

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

I got to tell you, I was born and raised in Europe so your revisionist history does nothing to me. I’ve been to Dachau concentration camp, I’ve traveled all over Europe, heck, I was born there! No one has ever blamed women voting for the tragedy of WW II. You just lost all credibility – all of it.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

So you were percolating in that European, intellectual, feminist milieu and wonder why you have never heard of the alliance of Fascism and women voters? Very strange indeed. Almost as if nobody wanted to point out the nakedness of the emporer, kool-aid drinkers at their collective water cooler just patting each other’s back. Or, you were just breathing the air of Fascist indoctrination and you could believe nothing else. Are you that unreflective of the nature of beliefs? Apparently so. You just prove my point about why we never study the great works of woman’s intellectual thought in Western philosophy.… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

You said women should not be anywhere near leadership, the fascist leadership was all men. I rest my case.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

I’m typing real slow f-o-r y-o-u. Fascist leaders ( men) need the gurl vote to push their agendas of greater gov’t control in micro-managing every aspect of their existence. You know the routine, SECURITY Susanna.

The maternal instinct, when mutilated into evil like an elf into an orc, becomes the matriarchal drive. Matriarchy is violent and brutal–it rewards the worst in men and women.

So you are of that Gurl power ilk that if you ladys run the show it will all just be fine?

Hillary in your pipe and smoke it

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I’m not surprised that you didn’t know about all the great female philosophers and theologians given that you didn’t even know about the female apostle.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Touche!

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

I think the joke is on you

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Well, hey, we aren’t too important to laugh at ourselves, how about you?

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

And that would be?

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Ridiculous

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

So come on an deal with me bro.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I don’t think you’re getting my drift but I appreciate the bow up.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

The gurls needs betas

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Debatable

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Debatable

Reality
Guest
Reality

It would be nice to have someone teach or at least could understand as more than a child. Maybe you can go back to Sweden and help there. You could teach the younger women “To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” as commanded in Titus 2. Maybe they could see your chaste conversations coupled with fear as required in 1 Peter 3. Then maybe we could correct the Juvenal delinquency and the criminal activity issues there; since they are pleading for help. People are scared to… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Sorry, had to catch my breath there for a moment, I was laughing so hard I couldn’t breathe. You are truly funny. You think that by beating our children we will become the perfected followers of the Savior who told us to turn our left cheek and who was meek, mild, and gentle, who told the parents to bring the children to him for the Kingdom of God belongs to such? Okay… how very.. um, Christlike. I’m not arguing with God, I’m arguing with you, but I think you’re conflating the two. Maybe some soul searching is in order. And… Read more »

Reality
Guest
Reality

I would suggest arguing with me; there will be no arguments with HIM. You are a couch potato. You are not commanded to Love as CHRIST; but many others are. You have not fought to be alive, well less to post on this board; but many have sacrificed for you, gaining extensive wisdom granted by HIM. Many will continue to sacrifice and die for you; because you are here. We ate the apple, broke the law, required the perfect sacrifice in HIS SON and that still is not enough. CHRIST was sacrificed because of us; HE asked, but there was… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

My dear friend, when personal insults begin, the debate ends. Hence I win. Thanks for the participation.

adad0
Member

“The Old Testament is not The Word of God emeritus.”
Well, what with God being time less and all, I suppose He Kant actually retire!
We’ll have to see what the Jory does with Wilson’s summation!
Perhaps Dr. Hobbs and Ms. Miller could offer a finite participle analysis. ;-)

David
Guest
David

Great discussion, Doug and Jory.

I just wish that Jory had not introduced Doug as extreme.

insanitybytes22
Member

“Both Wilson and Eggerichs argue that men need respect more than love and women need love more than respect.” Why does this concept create such controversy? It’s basic biology and common sense, but it does also have a biblical basis. There is not a long term, happily married couple I know that doesn’t operate on that principle, Christian or not, aware of it or not. Men need respect in order to feel loved and women really need love in order to feel happy. Is it the idea of respect that causes so much concern? And yet why would any woman… Read more »

KarenJo12
Guest
KarenJo12

How do you love someone you don’t respect?

insanitybytes22
Member

Women often fall in love with men they cannot respect, alcoholics, thugs, abusers. We don’t necessarily need to respect someone to love them. Women can be quite good at loving the broken, wounded, and unloveable. What seems to be more challenging for us, is respecting the worthy.

KarenJo12
Guest
KarenJo12

You and Wilson state that women need love more than respect. I want to know how it’s possible to love someone for whom you feel contempt, or at least don’t find any grounds for respecting?

It appears to me that complementarians believe men should hold women in contempt, or at most amusement, the same way a person feels toward a pet. How is that part of love?

adad0
Member

KJ, is there really anyone that you have absolutely no respect for?
If so, why?

Jane
Member

I’ve loved tantruming toddlers, it’s not that unusual.

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

Why would any woman marry a man who does not respect her?

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Why would a woman marry a man she does not respect?

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

She definitely should not

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

We agree on something. I would also have accepted “to improve her material circumstances”. That same answer applies to your question to ME.
Remember, our questions were “why would”, not “why should”.
Of course, there is more than one kind of respect and Ephesians 5 is talking about a kind which may not be what you are thinking of when you talk about mutual respect, in which case it is possible we agree again. Or it may be, in which case we probably do not agree on the point.

insanitybytes22
Member

Well, sexual attraction, because she has a low opinion of herself, because she needs someone more broken than her in order to feel good about herself, or because she fears ever having to respect a man…

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

Definitely not good reasons

Jane
Member

She shouldn’t. But that she should is not implied by ME’s or Wilson’s point.

insanitybytes22
Member

By the way, this here was really well said, “Women are better at loving than men are. Men do well at respecting. C.S. Lewis once observed that women think of love as taking trouble for others — which is much closer to a scriptural agape love than what men naturally do. Men tend to think of love as not giving trouble to others.” Men and women tend to want to love each other exactly as we ourselves wish to be loved. Some men will try to pour respect over women because that is what they themselves perceive as love. For… Read more »

KarenJo12
Guest
KarenJo12

Tellling her she’s competent and intelligent is a million times better than praising only her looks and implying she’s a twit.

insanitybytes22
Member

Well, in the current dating world, there are many men who seem clueless. They tend make sexual innuendos and imply that she should feel blessed simply because he finds her desirable or something. Also, how sad that “praising her looks” is equated as implying “she’s a twit.” I said we want men to think we’re beautiful and it’s sad today because feminism seems to have taught us that being beautiful is the same thing as being unintelligent. It’s as if we’re supposed to chose between one or the other. That is something different however, than what transpires in marriage context,… Read more »

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

I think real feminism says that women can be beautiful ANDIntelligent. Or one or the other if they choose.i Have a daughter who is model beautiful and so intelligent that she will be CEO before she is 40. And has 3 little boys under 5. And a husband who has a successful business and is a great co-parent. Obviously love and respect have to work both ways to make this all work. And it does.

KarenJo12
Guest
KarenJo12

I’m pretty sure feminism is NOT the source for the attitude that pretty women are stupid. Watch the final scene of “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” where Lorelei Lee tells her fiance’s father that “I can be smart when I need to, but most men don’t like it.” Also check out “Fascinating Womanhood,” which is an entire book telling women to act dumb so men will like them. Actually, I challenge you to find one single instance of an actual feminist equating looks with stupidity, or one traditionalist who advocates that women work on our brains instead of our bodies.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Supposedly a reporter once asked Dolly Parton how she handled being treated as a dumb blonde . . . whereupon she replied, “I’m not a blonde, either.” Lee Remick doesn’t recall what they were talking about, going down a sidewalk, but all of a sudden Marilyn Monroe interrupted her and asked, “Would you like me to be HER?” “Huh? What?” “Be quiet. Pay attention. Watch the men.” “Uh . . . OK.” Whereupon Marilyn comes out of “Standby” and goes into “Radiate” . . . for about 100 yards. “OK, that’s enough.” “Wow – that was amazing! Can you teach… Read more »

KarenJo12
Guest
KarenJo12

It wasn’t Lee Remick, it was Susan Strasburg, the daughter of Acting Studio coach Less Strasburg, but the story is true. Monroe’s dumb blonde schtick was all an act, and one which her husbands never quite twigged to.

See also Rita Hayworth, who once said her problem with relationships was that her men went to bed with Gilda (her great sex-symbol movie role.) but woke up with her.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“There will never be a truce in the war between the sexes ’cause there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.” Wish I’d said that. ;).

adad0
Member

What “enemy”? ; – )

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Oooh, You must be one of those CIS normative brutes from the Dark Ages,

adad0
Member

CIS normative?
(Honestly, I don’t know what this is short for.)
(Complicaterian Investigative Service?)

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Nothing but my poor attempt at humor. If you totally loose of your mind and actually try to make any since out of “CIS,” then try something like this:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/being-called-cis-is-not-oppressive/

Of course there are TONS on such articles that nuts. Regrettably, the folks pushing this concept are completely serious.

adad0
Member

Oh!…. “CIS normative”… I get it!

“Complicatarian Inverse Sexuality normative”.

What ever that means! ;-) However the inverse of “complicated” works out! (gender neutral non-language)

Anyway, for the godly:

“There will never be much war in the fraternizing between the sexes ’cause there’s no truce with the “enemy”.”

For the ungodly:
“There will never be a truce in the war between the sexes ’cause there’s too much fraternizing with the “enemy”.”

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

The anon quip didn’t mean the two sides were “believers” vs “unbelievers.” It meant the two sides were “men” vs “women.”

adad0
Member

Yep, however “the enemy” is “the enemy” of believers, unbelievers, men and women.

‘Had to change up the quip to highlight the enemy. Sort of like:

“Work is the curse of the drinking class.” ; – )

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

I see your point but the men/women quipster wasn’t thinking about theology.

Here’s a better example of someone accidentally stumbling into theology while intending to only make a secular point:

http://www.austin-institute.org/research/media/the-economics-of-sex/

Jane
Member

How about praising her looks WHILE telling her she’s competent and intelligent.

I notice that every question you’ve asked so far implies a false dichotomy.

Laura
Guest
Laura

I love C.S. Lewis but in some ways his observations were pretty limited. I wonder how much marriage to Joy, a real three-dimensional human being, was a revelation to him. My husband expresses love by doing things for me. Aware that that is one of his love languages (I feel like I’ve read that book b/c I’ve read so much about it) I make a point of performing acts of service for him b/c I want him to feel loved and I know that’s how he’ll understand it. Your examples of women not wanting to be “competent and effective” as… Read more »

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

One gets the feeling Ms. Micah would sit Paul down and teach him a thing or two, like how to get with the times and grow beyond his blinkered worldview.

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

I would have more respect for Doug if he would be succinct in stating his views rather than trying to show off his intellect

adad0
Member

Whoops, you accidentally respected him for suggesting that he has an intellect, some don’t grant him that.
A person’s ability to grant due respect is an atribute of the respector, not the respected.
Still LL, you seem to be headed in the right direction!

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

I never meant to disrespect him. I also am an intellectual . However it behoove so me to say what I mean and mean what I say, so people can understand me and I am not musunderstood . I am really not trying to impress anyone. I just want to be understood by all.

adad0
Member

Indeed you did not disrespect Doug! Good!. My comment was more about contrasting the gratuitous disrespect that others sometimes offer Wilson. Also, I tend to be a “cut to the chase” guy, but intellectual “flourish” is often part of a good show. Like I said, I understand that you are headed in the right direction.
(In my own nominally humble opinion! ; – )

duellsquimby
Member

Behoove :). That’s one of my all time favorite words. Behoove….

RFB
Guest
RFB

What if you are wrong? What if he is not showing it off, and just showing what it looks like to use an intellect by…using it.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Maybe his verbosity is there to deflect from his stud-muffin good looks? I mean, being handsome is such a detriment to handsome and smart men that they will do anything (including sticking a preposition at the end of a sentence!) to deflect attention from their stunning physique and manly physiognomy.

josh
Guest
josh

I don’t think I would be wrong to say that Doug is trying to raise the level of discourse and would like to see others do likewise. I’d have more respect for others if they wouldn’t be so trite.

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

I doubt that. It looks to me like he is trying to raise the level of his own ego . I am blessed to have many friends who have advanced degrees. Mist of them are humble, unassuming people,

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

“Advanced degrees?” What does that infer? They read alot in some narrow domain of a specialized field of study and sucked up to some God-hating profs to get these advanced degrees as though that constitutes intellectual wisdom? Are you serious? Most of these advanced degrees are utterly worthless and mean absolutely nothing as to Godly wisdom. Sounds like you drank copious amounts of that secular academic kool-aid and you now have to defend your sacred idol. Poor Doug, to satisfy some here he must write utterly boring, contrite pieces. Maybe you should read his sermons. Your really, really smart friends… Read more »

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

I was speaking about humble unassuming people.For the most part Godly people, I don’t understand where your your rant Is coming from. Are you drinking?

ashv
Guest
ashv

“People with advanced degrees” have done a rather disproportionate amount of injury to the church and wider society, so it’s not surprising that many regard this as a mark of poor character.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Spot on Southern man.

Ipollit
Guest
Ipollit

Tim Paul. You are RandMan in disguise. An altego designed to make Wilsonites look bad. Brilliantly done but I can smell you a mile away.

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Leslie Lea a Wilsonite?

These murky layers are provacative.

Ipollit, who are you and where did you come from?

You never posted here before. Perhaps you are RandMan. The mystery gets better.

Leslie Lea
Guest
Leslie Lea

Well this has been an amusement for an otherwise boring evening. I think I will turn on the TV for some intellectual stimulation .( sarcasm noted I hope)

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

Sarcasm noted, but point not taken.

Luke Pride
Guest

I’ve always wondered how someone could say that submission to one’s husband was simply a cultural value, even though the texts are based in the old testament scripture, but than seem to turn around the next day and say Romans 13 is binding throughout all cultures, and not just in principle but even if the state is oppressive. Any argument I have heard that “these texts on wives submitting to husbands have been used to abuse, even kill, many women”, which is true, could be said 10x more so for Romans 13. How many governments throughout history have abused this… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

That sounds like an analogue of the “Submit to the authorities” argument.

Have you read Pastor Wilson’s work “On the Lam for Jesus” ? In it he begins a discussion on the restraints and responsibilities of the covenant authority of the civil magistrate.

Your comment echoes the questions which that work addresses. Its well worth a read.

Luke Pride
Guest

Read it. May disagree on how to apply it, but in general like how he recognizes making a general principle an absolute rule is foolish. What worries me on the flip side is that some are willing to throw out a principle because it has been abused as a rule to be obeyed moral or not, but only for the texts on submission in marriage, not to authorities. Thank you

Cheese Camp
Guest
Cheese Camp

Is there something I’m missing with J. Micah? Other than the obvious cheesy overly friendly christianese, I don’t see what she brings to the table? I don’t have the Wilson’s on a pedestal but I’m surprised at the blogspace they have given to someone that is equivalent to watching Joe Biden talk about politics between smiles.

adad0
Member

When God grants “cheese” to one and “beef” to another and then they come together,
by the Grace of God,….
it could very well be that God has Ordained some “cheese burgers”, of the retorical sort at least!;-)

“When the cheese needs beef, the beef gets going?”

bethyada
Member

The command to love and respect clearly imply that this is needed.

It seems however there are 2 possible readings.

1. Wife is told to respect; husband love; because that is what a husband or wife especially needs.

2. Wife is told to love; husband to love; because both need both but the wife is more likely to fail to respect and the husband is more likely to fail to love.

Or it could be both.

I assume that Doug thinks predominantly 1 but with 2 thrown in.

Reading thru Jory’s post it seems that she holds onto 2.

Jane
Member

Given the sinful nature, I’d say that “all of the above” sounds like a pretty good answer. Precisely because sin messes everything up, sin makes it hardest to do that which is most needful. 1 to the exclusion of 2 runs the risk of suggesting to the simple-minded that wives don’t need respect and husbands don’t need love, though it by no means necessarily implies that. 2 to the exclusion of 1 is not logically impossible or offensive in itself, but seems unlikely outside of a construct where there are no inherent wiring differences between the sexes. And it seems… Read more »

bethyada
Member

It seems to me that 1 is more likely to be the predominant meaning. I would expect 2 to be phrased differently (especially if 2 is solely meant), possibly something along the lines of do not give up meeting together; or do good to everyone, especially the fellowship of faith. The commands after all are given separately to the man and the women. Further, the parallels with the children/ parents, slaves/ masters are not both ways. I think 2 less likely from this text. Also, even though it fine to add respect to love and add love to respect, 2… Read more »

Jane
Member

Okay, yes, I grant you the inclusion of “the same” does affect the conclusion.

bethyada
Member

A few problems with Jory’s response. She defines respect as feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. This is problematic as this is often why women struggle to respect their husbands. They think it is about their feelings. They claim (sometimes rightly) that their husband doesn’t behave in a way that deserves respect. This is entirely the wrong response. To a man whose wife is not respectful it is helpful to tell him to act in a way that commands respect. But to a wife the command is to behave in a… Read more »

adad0
Member

People can’t help but have their own will.
But Whose will is a Christian supposed to be doing, or seeking?

There is no “I” in “servant”.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

The answer is simple: she blocks and deletes them, but that’s besides the point. Your definition of respect is faulty, for you assume we should respect some more than others. Wives should respect their husbands more than husbands respect their wives, and that’s where all the trouble begins and marriages end. No one can live long with a person who doesn’t respect them, and retain any modicum of integrity.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I think that respect based on deep admiration for a man’s gifts and achievements is closer to idolatry. If women are required to respect their husbands, it is because God has commanded it, not because the men deserve it. I think you are right in stressing behavior rather than feelings. I can’t imagine many harder tasks than trying to manufacture respectful feelings in the absence of genuine ones.

bethyada
Member

Another concern is this comment I reasoned, “If building up my man’s ego would make him love me more, I can do that.” Likewise, I think Luke determined, “If loving Jory better will help me earn her approval more, I can do that.” The issue is that I never stopped needing to be respected and Luke never stopped needing to be loved and the grand solution is to find neither in marriage, but in the tender love and approval of Jesus Christ. Now it is true that we should find our ultimate approval in God. And it may be true… Read more »

David
Guest
David

I liked your comments, bethyada. Sadly, even the phrase “Fatherhood of God” is now controversial. There is a lot to be said on the subject, but in reading the exchange between Doug and Jory, I thought to myself about the way in which God reveals Himself to us. It is not for coincidence or arbitrariness that God, who is a Spirit and does not have a body, chose to reveal Himself in masculine and patriarchal terms. It appears that the family of heaven, in which males and females are co-inheritors, has a Patriarch. It seems to me that this must… Read more »

bethyada
Member

I think that pastors don’t necessarily have to visit parishioners. You are right that service opportunities abound.

I prefer a church model that has elders which provide spiritual oversight and a pastor would be one of the elders.

David
Guest
David

That’s a good model. My point was more that some of the language that I find hyperbolic which describes preventing people the opportunity to serve in the church and marginalizing them because they happen to be female I think overlooks the fact that all of us have opportunities to serve the body even if not all of us qualify as teaching elders for various reasons. And I believe that that oversight is more easily made in situations where people look at being the pastor as kind of like being the boss and are approaching this like having a promotion withheld… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22,24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1,5; Tit. 2:5), and they are to do so in a way that respects and honors them (1 Pet. 3:2; Eph. 5:33). This means that wives should never be put into the position where they are simply submitting to a superior force. That is not the biblical vision for marriage. I wonder if simply changing the ordering of priorities would help…. Here is a stab at it from the cheap seats…. It is unBiblical and anti-Christian for wives to submit to force. The biblical model for wives… Read more »

katie
Guest
katie

Yes – free women. “She is at liberty to marry whom she will” comes prior to “submit to her husband.” He is her husband because that was her will, therefore it ought also to be her will to respect him.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

This reminds me of a portion of Fidelity. It is in the QA section but I don’t remember the exact quote and don’t have my books with me atm. The question was “So my wife has to have sex with me whenever I want?” Wilson: “Don’t be a fathead.” “I was serious” Wilson: *here is the paraphrase* Yes but you also must love her sacrificially so you can’t force her for your own jollies.”

insanitybytes22
Member

One thing that is a real challenge with complimentary approaches to marriage and indeed, anything to do with “wives submit,” is the history of how scripture has been used to attempt to justify sin and abuse. Indeed, it still is today. So when we speak of authority, people just see abuse, when we speak of respect, people just see abuse and exploitation. That doesn’t make scripture wrong, but it sure does make those lunkheads who have supported such things wrong. So, while culture, feminism, and the world in general may be in defiance and rebellion, there is a good reason… Read more »

David
Guest
David

ME,

You raise a point that I also mentioned earlier, a legitimate point. Still, while you are correct that the people of God have on occasion given His ideological enemies an occasion to mock him, it is also true that those opponents did not require a lot of convincing. Where there is a will, we tend to find a way.

RFB
Guest
RFB

“…those opponents did not require a lot of convincing.” Spot on. “Please tell me what my rebellion wants to hear.” I think that a point in scripture that is often passed by is the admonition regarding itching ears (2 Timothy 4:2-4). Frequent I hear the emphasis placed upon the teachers, but those teachers do not occur in a vacuum. The scripture points to the fertile petrie dish that encourages such filth to grow: “people will not endure sound teaching…they will accumulate for themselves…to suit their own passions and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into… Read more »

IJ
Guest
IJ

I see you referenced 1 Cor. 14:34. I spent a lot of time looking into this passage (not because I am sympathetic to feminist/egalitarian views, but because of the apparent contradiction a plain reading of this sets up with other writings of Paul, particularly chapter 11). I am wondering if Pastor Wilson (or anyone here) has interacted with the theory/explanation that this was a reference to the “oral law” or tradition that was later written down in the Talmud and not a reference to OT law. Reason being there isn’t any law like that in the OT, but there is… Read more »

bethyada
Member

I am not quite certain what you are asking. The passage states As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. I assume that is a relative silence. Women prophesied as you say. And I have no problem with a lady doing the welcome. As to the Law, ESV study… Read more »

Laura
Guest
Laura

If you look at KJV, after “Women are to keep silent as the law says,” you see, “What? Did the word of God come only to you?” We know 1 Cor. is an answer to a letter Paul got from the church at Corinth. (I wish we still had that letter! Wow!) It’s just possible that the letter came from the men of the church, running their bylaws (so to speak) past Paul, and he was answering them and asking if God spoke to men only. We know he didn’t, of course. When Jesus was resurrected, it was women he… Read more »

I J
Guest
I J

Thanks for the replies, this is the explanation of 1 Cor. 14 that I was referring tohttp://subversive1.blogspot.com/2009/08/women-in-ministry-part-1.html?m=1

Laura
Guest
Laura

Thanks for this. Cleaned up your link a little. I think this must be where that stupid thing about it being shameful for women to speak came from. The Talmud Called the Voice of a Woman “Shameful” “It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin) “The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness” (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin) The English translation of the Greek word, aiskron, as “shameful” or “improper” hardly convey the strength of what the word encompasses. The affirmation in v.35, Cheryl notes, is that a woman’s speaking is “lewd,… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

This sort of exegis is interesting and very much worth reading. I am not capable of judging if it holds water; however, how do you prophesy with your mouth shut? I don’t see it.

thx.

Laura
Guest
Laura

I think it’s important to keep an open mind when we read this stuff in the Bible. It may not be saying what we think it is. It’s also very important to remember that it’s human nature to find reasons to maintain the status quo when we think it benefits us, and to be dismissive and impatient with others when they seem to want to rock the boat. Not to see things from the other person’s point of view. It’s why slavery was accepted for so long in the south, even among Christians. The white folks thought they benefited from… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Thank for the link. What the author thinks the Bible says is not fully apparent. Perhaps [Paul:] What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let… Read more »

Laura
Guest
Laura

“*If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands during the service*for it is glorious for a woman to speak in church.”

I don’t think that’s it.

I think Paul’s saying that in any circumstance where it’s OK for a man to speak up, it’s OK for a woman to; neither more, nor less. And there’s no reason for her to ask her husband anything unless he happens to be in a position to know more than she does. “Let her ask her husband at home” is part of the “women need to shut up” rule.

bethyada
Member

The problem is that Paul is contradicting them here (under this interpretation). He can’t say “you’re wrong” when in fact they are right. The comment ask their husbands at home is a right approach if the women happened to be asking their husbands. Which presumably they were as that is why the command occurred in the first place.

If one is going to opt for another interpretation then he has to address all the issues that arise.

Laura
Guest
Laura

Well, yes, if they happen to be asking their husbands, they can ask at home; presumably if their husbands want to ask them “what do you think Jesus meant about so-and-so” then they can ask at home too.

But the verse says “if they want to learn anything they can ask their husbands at home” and that puts an entirely different spin on it, one I don’t think Paul meant as a command, but that the men of Corinth (emboldened by the Talmud’s offensive teaching?) were using to beat women down.

bethyada
Member

Fair enough.

Laura
Guest
Laura

…As to Paul beginning a quote without telling us, it’s my understanding that in Greek (at least the Greek of the NT) it’s always so. You can only tell a quote from the context. 1 Cor. 6 has this in NIV: 12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord,… Read more »

IJ
Guest
IJ

Thanks for interacting with this. I was never persuaded about this being a quote until I read the strikingly similar statements in the Talmud, even the part about “asking husbands at home”. I don’t think we have to read it as a direct quote from the Corinthians in order for it to make sense. All we have to do is read the source of the quote that Paul himself gives “as the law also says”. The question is what law? And if it was the oral law of the Jewish leaders, from that we can infer that the Corinthians were… Read more »

Laura
Guest
Laura

“And if it was the oral law of the Jewish leaders, from that we can infer that the Corinthians were using this law to silence women in a way God never intended.” Right. The interpretation that reads this passage as Paul telling women to sit down and shut up could be used to buttress an interpretation of Timothy that reads Paul as saying women can never be elders or teach men. If you read 1 Cor 14 as Paul being fairly irritated at the men trying to silence the women, then I think you have to remember that when you… Read more »

melody
Member
melody

Well, this comment thread demonstrates that the ‘battle of the sexes’ is as alive and well as it’s ever been. Very entertaining!!

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

What a nice, civil and yet, such a misguided conversation. Let me show you what I mean. Here’s an excerpt from my book “Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” that takes RBMW to task: Christian: But if all of us should imitate Christ who gave himself up for us, and if Christ submitted through death, doesn’t it mean that all of us should submit the way Jesus did? Theologian: It seems to be the case. Christian: But if all of us should submit the way Christ did, why does Ephesians 5 liken the woman to the church? Theologian: Why don’t… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Christian: We resist God and become friends with the devil. Theologian: And since we don’t become authority figures when we don’t submit, authority and submission do not go hand in hand, but resisting and submitting do. Resisting is the opposite of submission but that does not mean that authority is not associated with submission. We can resist authority and we can submit to authority. When we resist authority we do not get authority but we are trying to get authority. Certainly it is the attempt which is defining, not the result. Obedience is closely related to submission. Where do you… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Hi bethyada!

Where do I get the idea that Christ submits to the church? From the book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” The argument is that the husband should submit to the wife the way Christ submits to the church, since Eph 5:21 mentions mutual submission. But since it would mean that everyone ought to submit in the same way and that would destroy the man’s authority concept, Grudem argues that husbands submit differently. I read through the whole book, no one explains exactly how the husband ought to submit to his wife. Maybe you can.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

And how about this: if I resist you, does it mean that you have authority over me? No. We can resist other people regardless of who they are because resisting is the opposite of friendship which is what James 4 says. So how do we know the husband has authority over the wife? Because of the word head in Eph 5? As you said yourself, analogies are not complete. Just because the husband is called the head doesn’t make him a Christ to his wife. The analogy ends where our humanity ends, hence head-body speaks of unity, not authority.

bethyada
Member

I don’t think that the husband is to submit to his wife, other than he should submit to her in as much as he submits to others in the church. Eph 5 gives a specific command to husbands and wives. These commands are not examples of mutual submission; this is obvious based on the examples of children/ parents, and slaves/ masters.

The problem is that the term one to another can mean one to a different person, or everyone to everyone. Both meanings are apparently possible. What is contextually probable? Some thoughts on this here.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

So you’re saying a married Christian man should submit to his wife like he submits to every Christian, but the wife owes him a different kind of submission? Wow! what a model for marriage!

And besides, both Paul and Peter told the slaves to disobey their masters, and the masters to treat their slaves as their equals (we know the slaves disobeyed, for had they not, they would not have been beaten, 1 Pet 3).

bethyada
Member

So you’re saying a married Christian man is exempt from the submission
every Christian owes everyone else? Wow! what a model for marriage!

No. Where did you get that. I said I don’t think that the husband is to submit to his wife, other than he should submit to her in as much as he submits to others in the church.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

I already noticed that I misread you and corrected my comment accordingly. :)
But you still need to explain how the wife submits to her husband differently than she submits to other in the church, unless submission has only to do with sex, which is a very untenable position to hold.

bethyada
Member

A wife submits to her husband as Ephesians tells her to. She submits in everything as it says. This obviously would not include her actively sinning at the request of her husband as that would be disobedient to God. No, there is no passage that states a woman submits to every man by virtue of her being a woman and him a man. A woman is not to submit to men in general. She is to submit to authorities (as are men) and a wife is to submit to her husband. As to people submitting and being equal, this is… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

So a wife submits in everything, but everything doesn’t mean everything, only some things, and those somethings cannot be defined by anyone because a wife should not submit to sinful things, but no one can agree with actually is sinful, for what is not of faith is sin, and no one’s faith is the same, so essentially a wife is left submitting to nothing, since no one can define what the said submission is all about, especially since a wife should not obey preferences, and what else is left? And yes, there is no mathematical equality, we aren’t clones. My… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Yes it does mean everything. In a literary sense, not a mathematical one. Paul says that everything is put under Christ’s feet. He obviously doesn’t mean the Father as the Father places everything under Christ, and Paul says as much. But this doesn’t stop Paul saying everything because that is what he means. In Ephesians Paul says everything, but just as everything under Christ excludes the Father, so obedience in everything obviously excludes sin.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

What a peculiar analogy. The Father is excluded from the “everything” that is how we know sin is excluded from the “everything”? How is that analogy even possible? Let’s look at the question from a different angle. 1 Cor 15:27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. NIV Who are the feet of Christ? We are. So, everything has been put under Christ, and therefore under us as well, since we are his… Read more »

Laura
Guest
Laura

Exactly.

I see a lot of symmetry between “husbands, love – wives, submit.” I don’t see these posed as opposite ways to treat each other, at all. When you love somebody, naturally you are going to submit to them sometimes. And I’m sure Paul isn’t telling women they don’t have to love their husbands.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

This whole idea that we should love and respect differently follows the idea that men and women are inherently different and have different needs. Men need respect and women need love, we are told. But here’s the question: if husbands have such a hard time loving their wives, and women just love without any problems, why is the second commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” This commandment is for everyone, not just married men. If women excel in this love business, they should be the ones leading the church as examples of how to love your neighbor, as our leaders… Read more »

Laura
Guest
Laura

Yeah, that whole men are from Mars, women are from Venus thing is way oversimplification. I don’t know why it’s so hard for a wife or a husband to contemplate and get to know the unique person she or he is partnered with. We shouldn’t need caricatures from strangers, to understand our spouses.

bethyada
Member

No, the father is excluded from everything means that everything can have exclusions. We know that a person is not to obey someone who commands them to sin from elsewhere in the Bible. Therefore it seems sensible that wives obeying their husbands in everything does not include wives sinning (which we know from other Scripture). You indirectly claimed above that everything didn’t have exclusions So a wife submits in everything, but everything doesn’t mean everything I showed that it can have exclusions. I am applying the exclusion of sin becasue elsewhere in the Bible we have that exclusion. Sin is… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

So tell me, if I refuse to drink alcohol because my conscience forbids it and my husband tells me to have a drink, should I obey?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

In what context? If you are you convinced that Scripture forbids drinking alcohol then you must obey God rather than man (though that comes with the caveat that we must continue to search the Scriptures to see if these things are true and be prepared to shift our practice to match what the Bible actually says). See my paraphrase from Fidelity above for how the husband should act in this situation. Ms. SK if your family moved to a new town and after visiting local churches your husband said the family is going to worship at First but you really… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

We are all free to choose the church we are most comfortable with. At the moment I don’t attend church at all, because of personal reasons (having been hurt by my former church and in need of a break). My husband doesn’t demand that I go to church; he respects my decision, as I respect his. That’s what mutual submission is all about. Of course, if he would need me to go, I would, and when I ask him to stay home, he does. We rather choose love over rules that do nothing other than create strife.

bethyada
Member

If you seriously believe that to drink alcohol is sin then you can respectfully decline to drink it based on that. A wise husband would teach his wife otherwise.

The command has to be for you to actively sin (to avoid), not something you think is incorrect, or is not a sin to perform.

Laura
Guest
Laura

“A wise husband would teach his wife otherwise.”

Every one of us is wise in our own eyes, men and women alike.

If a man and a woman differ, is the man always right? Obviously not. So if a husband urges a woman to have a drink, and she respectfully declines because she believes it would be sinful, how does he determine that he should override her conscience and teach her otherwise? How does she determine that she should let him?

Jane
Member

Teaching her otherwise from scripture is not over-riding her conscience, it’s instructing her in the truth. And she should “let him” because she should be willing to listen to what the scriptures say in order to form her conscience, not let her conscience guide her as to what the scriptures say about alcohol or something else.

That said, yes, a wise husband does not insist she violate her conscience, because he understands that whatever is not from faith is sin, as the scriptures teach. And we are allowed to talk about wise people do, since scripture gives objective definitions for wisdom.

Laura
Guest
Laura

Does it ever happen that the woman, due to her upbringing or natural propensities or whatever, has as good a grasp of what the Bible says as her husband does? I mean, you teach your daughters at home, right, and take them to church, so they’re not going into a marriage unaware of what the Bible says. And in that case, if there is teaching to be done, who teaches whom? Also, there are people who point to scripture to say that drinking alcohol is wrong. It would be nice if these things were spelled out unequivocally (except that I… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Laura, I mean he is wise because he doesn’t try and force her (prudent in his behaviour), not he is wise because he knows. A wife may be more theologically astute than her husband.

But as alcohol is not sinful, he can teach her this fact.

The problem isn’t that wives can’t submit because they think everything the husband wants them to do is sinful (to in fact do), the problem is that they disagree and don’t want to obey.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Um… no. Check your Bible –

Rom 14:23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. NIV

And a grown woman is not a child who needs to be taught by her husband. That’s where your biggest mistake, and the fallacy of patriarch, is found.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

How can you be under yourself? YOU ARE CHRIST’S FEET! I mean, isn’t it obvious that a body has feet, and if Christ is the head and we are the body, we have to be his feet and 1 Cor 12 is pretty clear about it, wouldn’t you say? Anyone under someone’s foot is an enemy, or a conquered enemy. Are you the enemy of Christ? According to the Bible we are his beloved, but maybe we aren’t reading the same Bible.

bethyada
Member

You are mixing metaphors.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

There is no metaphor to mix. 1 Cor 12 says crystal clearly that we, or at least some of us, are the feet of Christ: 1 Cor 12:12- 15 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ…. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Christian masters and slaves had very much a mutual submission as a model: they were all considered sisters and brothers, as the slave was considered a freedman (a freed slave) the freeborn was considered a slave of Christ (1 Cor 7). Paul made this very clear in his letter to Philemon. The former slave was now a beloved brother; how you can own your own brother, your own flesh and blood? If slaves and masters were equal in the church, why do you think married Christians weren’t?

bethyada
Member

Where did I say that husbands and wives are not equal in the church.

I am trying to respond to what you have written and how I think the Bible reads. Mischaracterising my position doesn’t help the situation.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

I’m not trying to alter what you said, I’m suggesting that your position doesn’t hold water. Equality has to mean something or it is only a word sound without meaning. If we are equal then we have equal rights, and that’s the case, the husband cannot have authority over his wife, unless you are going to argue that by virtue of marriage the woman gives up her equal rights the way 3-4th century theologians argued: Cyprian (200-258), the disciple of Tertullian. Hold fast, O virgins! hold fast what you have begun to be; hold fast what you shall be. A… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

And besides, there is no situation that needs to be helped.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

[Since this post appears before my first post, I thought it would good to mention that I’m quoting my book “Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” This way there will be no confusion] Does submission equal obedience? Christian: Wait… there’s something very wrong here. If Christ submitted to the church through death, and submission is the same as obedience, doesn’t it follow that the church commanded Christ to die? Theologian: Yes, that is what it has to mean. Christian: But how could the church have done such a thing, since the church didn’t even exist until after the death of… Read more »

adad0
Member

SK, Per Phil 2, below,Jesus “humbled himself, and became obedient unto death”, to death, not “the church”. Jesus submitted unto death for the church, again, not to the church, because he took my due execution and your due execution upon Himself. Jesus did not submit to the church when it wanted to make Him king by force. Jesus submitted to, humbled himself to and obeyed His Father, all for our redemption. In fact, Jesus was one Son, the Father could send out to find us prodigals. Jesus drew near to us, while we were yet sinners. He drew near to… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Hi “A dad,” So if the analogy is going to work, all husbands must submit unto death for their wives, but then they would all be dead. Not a happy thought. But yes on focus on obeying God, because that’s we are called to do, and we should never obey a sinful human (even if that human is a husband) if that causes us to sin, which leaves only preferences for a wife to obey but here’s the crux – love doesn’t seek it’s own (1Cor 13:5), which means a husband is not allowed to demand his wife obey his… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

And thank you for pointing out that submission refers to drawing near, that’s exactly what we should do – draw near to each other instead of considering each other enemies, for that is what God did with and for us (Romans 5), and we should imitate God in every way. Theologian: Precisely. We should draw near to each other the way we draw near to God, for the two greatest commandments are love for God and love for neighbor. We don’t love differently; how can we submit differently? Take a look at these verses that speak about us drawing near… Read more »

bethyada
Member

You are over reading the analogy. Men don’t have to all die physically, though they should be prepared to die, this may not be on a cross though. a husband is not allowed to demand his wife obey his preferences Exactly. I have written previously: A second problem is, as my pastor puts it, reading other people’s mail. One of the valid complaints by egalitarians is people who try to enforce what others are commanded to do. In Ephesians 5 Paul commands wives to submit to their own husbands. He is not saying that husbands are to force wives to… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Do I over read the analogy? As far as I can tell, hierarchical theologians tell us that Christ has authority, therefore husband has also authority. But why stop there? Why not say what Christ is the husband is, in every way? Where do you draw the line and what justification do you have for that line?

If a married woman should not obey sinful commands and preferences are out of the question, what exactly should a wife submit to?

bethyada
Member

We go where the Bible tells us. Are unlike God we are fallen. We obey our authorities because we are commanded to. We don’t obey them when they require us to sin because we are obeying a higher authority.

But this does not mean we don’t obey them because they are sinful. We obey them even though they are sinful; we only disobey them when obeying them would cause us to sin.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

My Bible doesn’t take me where you are. I don’t obey authorities that are not instituted. I believe in government because it keeps the peace, but I am willing to oppose a government that has become oppressive. There is not one verse in the Bible that says a married man, or any man, should have authority over a woman just because she is a woman – other than the infamous Esther quote, but if you want to follow an ungodly king, you go right ahead. The idea that the woman was created the man’s subject comes from the 13th century.… Read more »

adad0
Member

SK, Luke 7 is where Jesus affirms authority and hierarchy as great faith. Jesus also allows authority and hierarchy to be called out when they are wrongly used. (though not in this passage) Both Jesus and the centurion were men under authority. Luke 7 7 When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant.… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

True, but the word that the New Testament uses in “with soldiers under me” is ‘tasso’ not ‘hupotasso’ and besides the church and especially marriage is not an army. We worship the Prince of Peace who came to end all wars and a Christian marriage is meant to end enmity between men and women, not add to it. And yes, Jesus has all authority, but this leads to another curios idea…. (From my book Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles) Because our connection to the head has to do with truth, and the responsibility of each member is to… Read more »

adad0
Member

SK Luke 7:7+ is about authority and hierarchy as great faith, the good example was the centurion, even a centurion in a pagan army. For the non military example of authority and hierarchy, 1 Cor. 12:21-31 is good. “But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it,” “the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers” Husbands are over wives, parents over children, shepherds over sheep, masters over slaves but then, that… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

But notice something: in the Body of Christ everyone is placed in the body as the Spirit wills, which means men and women find themselves being apostles (missionaries), evangelist, pastors, teachers, prophets etc (Eph 4) as the Spirit will, and that the HEAD IS CHRIST. How can the body have many heads, as in a ton of married men running around claiming to be the heads of their wives and yet belong to the body of Christ, as if their wives didn’t have Christ as their head, being part of the body? Perhaps Eph 5 uses the metaphor of Eph… Read more »

adad0
Member

SK, this is why we need The Original Patriarch, The Triune God. “How can the body have many heads,…?” SK, if heads are “teachers”, we are not supposed to have a “ton” of them. “James 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” Again, The Word simply says: Jesus is over the church, Husbands are over wives, parents are over children, shepherds are over sheep, masters are over slaves but then, the last are over the first due to the service of the last,… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

How can God be a patriarch when he is described as a “many-breasted God” (El Shaddai), a mother who nourishes her children. God cannot be a man, or a male deity, for if God was, then the woman would be something God cannot be and that would the woman greater than God. In addition, humanity is made in God’s image, God is not made in our image. If the woman images God clearly God cannot be a male deity. The early church recognized this. Arnobius, for example, affirmed that although God’s name is masculine in the Bible, He does not… Read more »

adad0
Member

Sk, who is over you? Who is your Lord?
(And it certainly is not me! ;-)

Laura
Guest
Laura

A dad, do you see any indications in Susanna’s writings, that she does not acknowledge the same Lord God that you do?

adad0
Member

L’ a quick look at Wikipedia tells me that “el shaddai” does not translate to “many breasted god “. A quick look at Sk tells me she is very able to speak for herself. But anyway “Who is your Lord?” Is a good question that I often ask myself. The answer always helps! :-)

Laura
Guest
Laura

OK.

I wouldn’t go to Wikipedia for in-depth theology. Do a Google search on “breasted one”.

adad0
Member

How about if we go to the Word to find the Name above every name.
Jesus Christ The Lord?

Laura
Guest
Laura

I thought you were asking about the breasted one, where that came from.

adad0
Member

That came from SK. I don’t see that it came from Above before that. In any case, we know what The Lords Name is now, Jesus.

Laura
Guest
Laura

So we deep-six the entire OT and what it tells us about the nature of God?

adad0
Member

Nope, the entire OT points to JC.
JC is the fulfillment of the OT.
Like Wilson said, the OT is not the Word of God emeritus.
Amen?
Amen.
(Besides, God is Spirit, how could he have all those boobs?) ; – )

adad0
Member

“Some people have made the dubious suggestion that El Shaddai should further be translated as “the many breasted one”…..

L’, In addition to going to The Word, see the last paragraph in the link below.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Lekh_Lekha/El_Shaddai/el_shaddai.html

Laura
Guest
Laura

I read this already. Let me direct you to the third and fourth paragraphs, and the first sentence of the last paragraph, which was in fact SK’s point.

adad0
Member

L’, in the interest of our relationship, why don’t we both trust and obey The Lord? Phil.2:5-12 in particular? What our Lord instructs us to do within our relationships is the largest point, and the one I try to submit to. Jesus is Lord over me. Regardless of the names God has been called over history (and SK left out El Roi), Jesus in now The Name above all names, to the Glory of God The Father. Yay! darkness is in deep trouble! Philippians 2 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6… Read more »

Laura
Guest
Laura

“A” Dad, do you agree that women are made in God’s image?

adad0
Member

L’, I agree with The Word. I think you do as well.
Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Laura
Guest
Laura

Then either God is female as well as male, or he’s not male at all, right, and either way we say “he” when referring to God only in order not to say “it”?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Mrs. Laura we should refer to God as Scripture does. If Scripture says “He” we should say “He” if Scripture always uses a name/title then we should always use a name/title. God refers to Himself as masculine (Father/Son) and that is why we use masculine pronouns.

Laura
Guest
Laura

Jonathan, the Scripture we have is a translation from another language, and in some cases a translation of a translation. In English, the default gender is “he” (and that has implications for women that you may never be aware of, if you don’t think about it.*) When you look at the language of the OT, and to a lesser extent the NT, it’s clear that the language assumes the default human is male, and women are an afterthought. To some extent, language both reveals and shapes our assumptions. If you were a woman, and a mother, this: “God refers to… Read more »

adad0
Member

L’, Per John 4: 23-24, God is Spirit, and in that sense, presumably genderless, yet He commonly calls Himself a Father, not to mention a shepherd and also likens Himself to a mother Hen. If we must worship Him in Spirit and in truth, our worship might be genderless as well. I have a body and I have a spirit. My body is male. I call God “He” because He calls Himself a Father. This casts no aspersions on Mothers, children or any other family role. Again, like SK, any issue you have may be more with the Word then… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

No one is over me. There is no need for it. I am part of the body of Christ, I am part of a body, a member, and I do my work for the edification and building up of the body just as the Spirit directs me (Eph 4, 1 Cor 12). Hierarchy is only needed when people aren’t willing to submit, but a heart that has been purified by the Holy Spirit is able to love fervently (1 Pet 1), and because of it, there is no need for a law (1 Tim 1), for we are no longer… Read more »

adad0
Member

Well, I guess there will be no bowing of head and bending of knee for you when all will say that Jesus Christ is Lord!

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

meh…. what is this? kindegarten?

adad0
Member

At least for one of us.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

So you don’t have an argument so you have to talk about the final judgment as if you knew what is going to happen there? Sorry, it’s such a cliche, it became old before I was even born. If you have something meaningful to say, by all means do so, if you don’t, then just don’t.

adad0
Member

Sk, The Word tells me that every head will bow and every knee will bend to say that Jesus Christ is Lord. Your argument is against The Word, not me.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Oh Lord…. I’m sorry, I don’t have time for this. Thanks for the discussion, have a great day.

adad0
Member

“Oh Lord”… Yayyy!
Well Sk, at least you are appealing in the right direction!
That was not so hard now was it? ; – )

adad0
Member

Suz’, I see from your web site that you pasted portions of your book above. Do let us know if you have an up-tic in book sales! I would be interested to know!

natesparks130
Member

Here are a couple of thoughts. (1) Jesus washed the disciples feet. He stripped down to his underwear and, dressed like a slave, performed the work of a slave. Peter was so offended by the act because it was an act of humility and submission. (2) Jesus allowed himself to be arrested. He stated multiple times thr authorities could only carry forward because he had chosen to allow it. He submitted himself to cross, to death, by first allowing humanity to kill him. The two inseparable. (3) In Matthew 20 Jesus tells his disciples the first will be last, then… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

Submitted to the cross for humanity, not to humanity for their own purposes.

Nate Sparks
Guest
Nate Sparks

What part of what I said made you uncomfortable? I said submitting to the cross was how Jesus became the slave of all by whose submissive death many are ransomed to God. Jesus stated they should seek to be like him, the first who made himself last that we (the last) may be first. Again I point to Jesus symbolic actions of acting a slave and washing the disciplerdisciples feet. This takes place in John, In the midst of the last Supper in place of the usual “this is my body” scene. It is included as John’s method of interpreting… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

I’m not uncomfortable, I’m very, very angry.

“For” and “to” are not the same thing. Now, possibly you intended to say “to” in your original post, but that is not, in fact, what you did say.

Nate Sparks
Guest
Nate Sparks

What makes you angry? I asked a question about what I have said. You haven’t actually presented an argument contrary. In response to your comment on my open letter, I’m honored you think I have a following. Ironically, I don’t know the poster and did not ask her to put the post here. In regards to you calling me lazy and ignorant, on what grounds? I researched the incident and citrd facts from the situations that are a matter of public records through court documents, new stories, and even Wilson and Piper’s own blogs and sermons. I have seen no… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

My argument is that your conclusion is that Christ submits to, but you repeatedly say (as the Bible does) that Christ submits for the church. They are not the same thing. If you wish to argue the former, the latter words do not mean the same thing.

If you truly see no information contradicting your claims that Wilson and Piper think rape, pedophilia, sexual abuse, and all manner of evil are A-OK and justified (and possibly even called for) by their theology, then you are clearly not interested in understanding their positions, but simply pointing and saying, “Ew.”

natesparks130
Member

Let’s look at Matthew 20:28 in the Greek real quick. You are dismissing a logical connection based on an intertextual reading of Scripture – Scripture interpreting Scripture as Doug and John so often espouse. I am saying “if this” and “this” then “this conclusion” follows. But since we are hung up on the word “for” let’s consider the verse where the English says “for”. osper o uios tou annthropou ouk elthen diakonetheai alla diakonesai kai dounai ten psychen autou lutron anti pollon. the word so often translated as “for” is anti. Yet, this is a causational word. Consider the popular… Read more »

adad0
Member

Nate and SK, if we are talking about the hierarchy and submission that Jesus Himself “set up”, taught and died for, we should be pretty comfortable with it. Matt. 20: 25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give… Read more »

natesparks130
Member

Okay, I’m familiar. Not sure where the hierarchy exists. (1) This takes place in the context of James and John’s mother asking for them to receive a place on Jesus right and left. They think Jesus is about to set up a physical kingdom and they want to be his co-rulers. Jesus tells them, “guys that’s not how this is going to work. If you want to be with me in my Kingdom you have to be willing to follow me all the way (drink of my cup).” But here, Jesus means submission in death, they think he means they… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

If the “first” must be last, how can that “first” be over anyone, since he/she is below everyone else. The pyramid is upside down. If there is hierarchy, it is one in which the poor, the least, the meek of the land rule, and the “first” are ruled by the least.

Nate Sparks
Guest
Nate Sparks

I’m not sure if you’re misunderstanding or supporting me. I apologize for my confusion.

As I see it, Jesus crucified upends, subverts, and utterly does away with hierarchy.

If you are agreeing with me, then I apologize for the wasted post.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Of course I agree with you! I was just pointing out the obvious for those readers who don’t see this as obvious. Sorry, should have been more clear, thanks for your insights, I’ve enjoyed them!

adad0
Member

SK, you are not allowing, recognizing or conceeding the real difference between “death” and “the church” in The Word. Christ submitted to “death”, not “the church” Phil 2:8. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! (again, “death” not “The Church”) Seems like your long argument and the book you speak of only have “legs” if they ignore what The Word above specifically says. Not trying to be mean here, it’s just that the exact text and meaning of The Word often allows much less wandering than… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Christ died for us quite literally. He literally, and physically died for us. We can of course say that he didn’t submit to the church, I’m okay with that, but then you have to explain how the husband should submit to his wife in accordance to Eph 5:21 and how that relates to the whole idea that the husband is the head.

IJ
Guest
IJ

I am not terribly interested in the semantics that these discussions about who submits to who and who leads who, etc. generally degenerate into. As the bottom line is, are we all willing to submit to Scripture even when it tells us to do something we don’t like? But I need to jump in here and point out that analogies have both relevant similarities *and dissimilarities*, so no, it does not mean that all husbands would be dead in order for the analogy to work. A bit more faith in the ability of the Apostle Paul to think through these… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

I don’t submit to the Bible, for the Bible isn’t God. I go to the Bible to find what God has said, and then I submit to God’s will. The difference is monumental, for if you make the Bible your god, you have created an idol and that is explicitly prohibited in the Bible (highly ironic, wouldn’t you say?).

For the Eph 5 analogy to work you have to explain where the similarities begin and where they end. I have given my take on the subject, now why don’t you give yours?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Mrs. SK if you left a note for your child to clean his room and he did it. Did he submit to you or to your note? The normal understanding of “submit to the Scripture” is that we are following the One who wrote it (i.e. our submission is to God by following His Word.) When notes are followed they do not replace parents nor does the Scripture replace God. Honest question here for everyone. What does it look like to “make the Bible an idol”? I have heard this expression and warning many times over the years and can’t… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Hi Jonathan, I prefer Ms, but let’s not argue about that. First of all, I don’t leave notes to my kids, because they don’t work. I ask them to do what I need them to do and make sure I lead by example. If we submit to God by following his word, whose interpretation of the word should we follow? The Catholic? The Protestant? The Greek Orthodox? The Russian Orthodox? Do you see the problem here? So whose “notes” are we going to follow? The Bible becomes an idol when we claim that our interpretation of the Bible is the… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Ms. SK (I will ask your pardon if I forget.) So it is not the Bible that becomes an idol but the glasses that we wear to read it? (Our interpretive framework and assumptions.) I can track with you to a degree. We can become too dogmatic and ignore what the Scripture actually says because we assume that it can’t say that (i.e. our glasses don’t let us see what is actually written). What is the difference in “submitting to God by following His Word” and “I go to the Bible to find what God has said, and then I… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Thank you, Jonathan, and don’t worry, I won’t mind if you forget. The Bible doesn’t contain the only words God has ever spoken to humanity. The Bible contains God’s words, but Jesus is God’s word, and we should worship Jesus, not the Bible. We all hear from the Holy Spirit the way Philip did and we should all obey these words, the personal commands and guidance that we receive from God. There are many commandments in the Bible; the only two that cannot ever be transgressed are love for God and love for neighbor for these are the two greatest… Read more »

And I'm Cute, Too
Guest
And I'm Cute, Too

Here’s something else for Doug to respond to. It’s addressed to the Pied Piper, but it’s definitely about Wilson:

https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/dear-john/

Though I’m afraid Wilson won’t find it very complimentary.

natesparks130
Member

I highly doubt he will find it either complimentary or complementary. I can live with that. Thanks for sharing my post

And I'm Cute, Too
Guest
And I'm Cute, Too

Not a problem. Thank you so much for writing it.

Ian Miller
Member

I’m very disappointed that just a few comments away, the author of the original piece that Wilson is disagreeing with comments politely with disagreement but appreciation for the dialogue, and you and your coterie think that ignorant, lazy filth-slinging is appropriate.

natesparks130
Member

I replied above under the submission discussion. I’m not a big of trying to respond to the same person on multiple threads.

Ian Miller
Member

I want to respond, but someone who calls John Piper a kidnapper of children clearly doesn’t want response, they want to hurt people.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

“I renounce your entire belief system and also here’s one particular thing where I disagree with you.” What response could you give but “Uh, OK.”

Ian Miller
Member

Yeah. I also wanted so desperately to comment on the actual post (since I grew up in Piper’s church), because while I have some strong disagreements with Pastor John – particularly about some aspects of gender – I think this kind of attack is wilfully ignorant and massively deluded. But since that’s the case, commenting is merely a case of feeding the trolls. I wish there was a better way to have dialogue with disagreeing folk, but when their entire argument consists of “Lies that people have told about you, and nuh-uh too” I don’t think there’s much more to… Read more »

And I'm Cute, Too
Guest
And I'm Cute, Too

“Kidnapper of children”? Was that directed at me? I thought that might be a swing at Nate, which confused me. I didn’t remember him accusing Piper of any kidnapping. For the record, “Pied” is a nickname that the fine folks at the Wartburg Watch have come up with for John Piper. I think it fits because he has lots and lots of followers (not kids, but a lot of them are still pretty young), and I feel he leads them astray. His tweets, blog posts and sermons are so often filled with nonsense, yet so many YRR believers gobble it… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

Thanks for the explanation.

Doesn’t make it better, but I appreciate the clarification.

drewnchick
Member

“Evangelical feminists … wind-surfing white caps driven by zeitgeist zephyrs…”

THAT is a fantastic line!!

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

I don’t surf, but I guess I could try and see if I couldn’t surf my way to perfect freedom from patriarchy. I think it would be worth the trouble of getting wet and cold.

adad0
Member

Hey Mal, you may be interested in my exchange with Susanna Krizo, below, along with some others!

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

If I’d claimed a slippery slope from egalitarian marital beliefs and the type screwy heresy in these comments I don’t think many people would have believed it.

Laura
Guest
Laura

What heresy do you see here? What essential doctrines of Christianity are being challenged?

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

The heresy of truth that cannot be hidden behind glossy words and empty promises.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Is it me or are Christian women a heck of a lot smarter than feminists?

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

A heck of a lot of Christian women ARE feminists.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Even he Scots?

No True….

(:

Gotta run….

blessings..

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

YES!!!!!!!!!

adad0
Member

They just have trouble with the plain meaning of The Word.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Do we? I think the Bible says pretty damn clearly that men will rule over women in Genesis 3:16. I have absolutely no problems with the plain meaning of that Word.

adad0
Member

Gen. 3 16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Wow suz, talk about kindergarten! The above says the woman’s desire will be for her husband. It says the husband will rule over you. (the woman) This verse is about the first woman and her husband. It simply does not say that “men will rule over women”. That is what you are saying. This verse says child bearing will be painful.… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

1. Genesis 3:16 describes a consequence a sin.
2. The word is “women”; not wives.
3. It’s not just about Adam and Eve.
5. My name is not Suz.

Reality
Guest
Reality

Would jezebel be better? Maybe you are just these:
2 Timothy 3:
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

adad0
Member

Wow Susanna Krizo! Like you keep demonstrating: “you do have trouble and problems with the plain meaning of the Word” You are wrong again, the word in Gen. 3:16is simply not “women”. Gen. 3 16 To the woman he said, The words are “To the woman he said,”. There was only one woman at the time, Eve, Adam’s wife! God (the “many breasted god” according to you!)was speaking to Eve, Adam’s wife. Gen. 3:16 was and continues to be about husbands and wives. Adams and Eves. Wow, seems like you self published about 3 books on this verse and you… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Okay, “Dad,” let’s talk about Genesis 3:16. Are you saying no one other than Adam will ever die, considering he was the only one who was told “dust to dust”? Are you suggesting only Adam was given hard labor as a consequence of sin? Are you suggesting the thorns and thistles weren’t going to arrive, since they were not yet there? Are you suggesting only Eve ever experienced labor pain? Come now, this is the most simplistic way of looking at the verse I have ever seen! And yes, I have written three books on the subject and I know… Read more »

Reality
Guest
Reality

No I think he is stating you cannot read. I agree.

He stated the word in Genesis 3:16 was “woman” not “women”.

We all know we are still under the curse; we all die and have to work by the sweat of our brow (seems everyone except you).

Where are any of your labors for HIM? Definitely in the books that you have written and want to sell. Why is there always motive?

adad0
Member

You know Susanna Krizo, one of your many issues is that you are so obsessed with Gen. 3:16, that you treat it like it is the entirety of the Word. Then you ask me how I “arrive” at the plain meaning of the Word, when I get the plain meaning from the other parts of the Word, which you, without admitting it are referring to in your questions. You cheat like this and then are silly enough to call me “simplistic”, when the actual problem is, you are not “honest” about the context of the Word on either side of… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

If a verse is found to have been changed over 9 times in Bible translations (English and German only, who knows what we find in other languages), should we not be concerned? Should we not want to find out why this is done and what implications it has to our theology? I do, and so should everybody who cares about their faith. I do wonder why you have such a hard time imagining God with breasts, for everyone has – after all – a mother, and it is the most intimate imagery one can use to convey God’s caring love.… Read more »

adad0
Member

Did not see this one earlier. Why do translations change? Because language and idiom change. The Bible Gateway has about 50 English translations. I Trust that God is the Steward of His own Word. God is Spirit, He has niether breasts nor junk. Men have two breasts, woman have two breasts. “the many breasted god” sounds like more than two, and gets pretty quickly to idols and false gods. The “translation” to get to this interpretation is a gross stretch, and flies in the face of all the other Biblical names for God. There are godly attributes that are male.… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

And someone said once wisely, if you want to become critic, you must read the book first.

adad0
Member

So Susanna Krizo, have you read the Word from cover to cover? As for your books, Bob Dylan once said: “You don’t need a weather vane to know which way the wind blows”. For instance, I have read the communist manifesto. I don’t need to read Das Kapital to know that Marxisim is a bad idea. Susanna, out of the heart the mouth speaks, your post comments and web site are a “book” I have indeed read. Your ideas are headed in directions away from The Word. SK, please hold God’s Word in higher esteem than your own. Please hold… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Oh for God’s sake! I’ve been a Christian for nearly 30 years, what do you think? I’m sick and tired of hearing these pious declarations from your lot as if you had exclusive rights to our common faith and as if you were the only ones who know how to worship rightly. Why don’t you go and examine yourself and see if you fall or stand before your own Lord, for that is the only thing you need to be concerned about. Talking about faith shouldn’t have to be a renewed Spanish Inquisition!! You all need to learn to accept… Read more »

adad0
Member

“If you are so certain of your position you wouldn’t be lecturing,”

So say she who has written 5 books about her own position.
Your argument is with the Word, not with me.
SK, you are the one who is not learning here.

Proverbs 3
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge Him,
and He will direct your paths.

7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the Lord and depart from evil.
8 It will be health to your body,
and strength to your bones.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

The Bible says also “Do not throw your pearls before the swine”
Ciao.

adad0
Member

What pearls did you throw?

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas
Laura
Guest
Laura

Who knew that “the Lutheran church of Sweden” was a mainstream denomination? ETA: Not her call to make, anyway. And is Kiki a Christian feminist? How do we know either of these women is, or is not, a feminist? When the day calls Seamen’s Mission Director Kiki Wetterberg she first completely unaware that the bishop’s idea published in Stockholm pin homepage. After a moment she returns. – I have no problem with Muslim or Hindu sailors come here and pray. But I believe that we are a Christian church, so we keep the symbols. If I visit a mosque I… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

I think you can find an oddball in any corner of the world. What does it prove? Only that that one particular person has issues.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Is that the best you can up with? lol
I can play that game too
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/pastor-accused-of-using-nanny-as-sex-object-2/

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

And seriously, if you get your information from wnd, no wonder you think the way you do. How about expanding your horizons and looking for some more educational and informational material?

Jory Micah
Guest
Jory Micah
Reality
Guest
Reality

Jory, why did you delete the below post on the article Marital Rape, Abuse, Patriarchy & A God of Justice (Guest Post)? Does it bother you that you sit on the couch and do nothing; or is it the simple fact that you are incapable of doing anything? You have many commanded callings in the BIBLE that you do to help with this. Why do we not see you doing any of them? ____________________________________________________________________________ Many of us do not have the privilege to be armchair worriers, we have to deal with these situations every day. We are not allowed to… Read more »

Reality
Guest
Reality

Spoiled child, you are not the queen of anything. We will be teaching you about Stewardship, charity, discrimination and the Civil Rights to Freedom of Speech and Religion that belong to others. No different than the BIBLE, it is not left to your individual interpretation or any of those that you wish to associate with. For it is written: 2 Peter 1: 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Reality, you may want to consider the fact that your rants have absolutely no effect on anything other than that we all think you must be slightly unstable. No one posts things you do unless they are.

Reality
Guest
Reality

You raise your head, while others are obligated to reproof, correct, speak, exhort and rebuke within all authority by command of HIM in the BIBLE? Are you unable to read the BIBLE or the words in the post above? We are obligated to identify and make sure that no man puts a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brothers way (Romans 14:13). You are obligated to make sure you are not a stumblingblock (1 Corinthians 8:9). Again, you sound like 2 Timothy 3: 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly… Read more »

Laura
Guest
Laura

“We are obligated to identify and make sure that no man puts a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brothers way ”

Susanna’s not a man. So this doesn’t apply to her, right?

Reality
Guest
Reality

Jude 1: 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage. 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

LOL! Touche!!

Reality
Guest
Reality

Are you not the rebellious children running up and down the isles of the Church promoting your individual ideologies? Obligating others that are commanded to correct such? Have you accomplished anything for HIM. My wife says you have made one accomplishment; her and many do not want you or those like you around our kids, Churches or Communities. Multitudes have sacrificed and died for your existence, along with the ability for this blog to exist and your privilege to post on it (and you are not even from this Country and state you do not believe in the BIBLE) and… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

No one cares what you have to say anymore, you have made yourself irrelevant with your rants.

Reality
Guest
Reality

So who died and made you the voice of GOD and everyone else? Just because you are unable to prove your breaches in Sound Doctrine or any of your derived ideologies?

You have it bad child and may want to get it out; soon!

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

You know Laura, Reality reminds me of my 5-year-old when he was 2. He’d throw epic fits about not getting what he wanted and everyone would just look at him and smile. No matter how many times he stomped his foot on the floor, he still didn’t get what he wanted. Instead he got a time out and a nap.

Laura
Guest
Laura

Yeah. And I remember those days, though my daughter is 28. They continued for a while. I remember carrying her up the stairs at age four, her kicking and screaming, me saying loudly so she could hear, “You seem like a tired little girl who needs a nap.” “I’M NOT TIRED! I’M NOT TIRED! I’M NOT TIRED!” “Well you either need a nap or a spanking. Let’s try the nap first.” I’d deposit her on the bed, and by the time I was back downstairs, she was asleep. It was her need to rest that she was rebelling against, and… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

Thank you, Jory. While I still disagree (even using your own line of argument concerning fruit), I appreciate the manner and intelligence of your response.

Fang
Guest
Fang

The dumb hick is still promoting her blog for the brain-dead.

Ian Miller
Member

While I strongly disagree with Mrs. Michah, I do not think that she is either dumb, or that hick is necessarily an insult, though you clearly mean it as such.

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Weasel, you chose the right screen name.

Reply

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

It appears to me the whole confusion about love and respect comes from a lack of knowledge of church history and how theology and Bible translations have been altered to fit the patriarchal narrative. Let’s look, for example, at Genesis 3:16, the verse that became a commandment in the 3rd century and was returned to a consequence of sin in 1980s: In the Vulgate, Genesis 3:16 reads, ”Sub viri potestate eris et ipse dominabitur tui.” (“Under the man’s authority will you be and he will rule over you”) Jerome’s translation did not follow the original Hebrew text – “Your turning… Read more »

Reality
Guest
Reality

You really need this: Romans 1: 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile… Read more »

Susanna Krizo
Guest
Susanna Krizo

Do I? Are you saying church history is of no value? You wouldn’t call yourself a Christian without church history. I think it’s worth the time it takes to study it.

Reality
Guest
Reality

This would assume that you or those you reference knew “history”. That would assume the BIBLE is open for individual interpretation? I really do believe GOD is capable of protecting his WORD; that you actually state you do not believe in. Do you search the Scripture within the Holy Spirit or do you search in within your own motive? Who changed the truth of GOD into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen? Would this be you? The next one you need: 2 Timothy 3: 1 This know also,… Read more »