I would like to take just a few quick moments to answer some questions posed for complementarians by Todd Pruitt. Given how these things go, I will likely have to follow up with more comments in the future, but just for the moment I need to point out the vast discrepancy between where I am on these issues and where Todd Pruitt blithely assumes I am.
The questions below are Pruitts, and the answers below in bold are my own.
So, a few questions for my fellow complementarians:
1. Is it a sin for a woman to run for public office?
No.
2. Is it a sin to support Carly Fiorina’s run for the Presidency? If a woman offering directions to a man is possibly problematic then how can it not be a sin to support a woman in public office?
No. It might be a sin depending on how her positions unfold, but it is not a sin simply because of her sex. In short, I would vote for Deborah for president, and would go so far as to put up a yard sign in support of her. That sign would simply say, obviously, Deb!
3. Are adult women who are unmarried obligated to live in their father’s home under his authority?
No.
4. Is it generally advisable for women to not pursue a college degree?
No.
5. Is it a sin for a woman to write a blog? (I include this question because we have heard from some complementarians who believe it is a sin for Aimee to write a blog on the chance that a man may read it. Not kidding).
No. My wife has a blog and writes books. My daughters blog and write books.
6. Are military conquest and colonization apt metaphors for the physical union of husband and wife?
As much as I might want to agree with Pruitt (again), I do differ with him on this one. A passing acquaintance with the Song of Songs would reveal that an erotic glance can be as terrible as an army with banners (Song 6:4), the beloved is compared to Pharaoh’s chariots (Song 1:9), and the phallic imagery of swords is kind of in there also (Song 3:7-8).
7. At what point is it no longer appropriate for a woman to be a teacher? In other words, is it a sin for a woman to teach 18-year-old males? What about 17-year-old? Is it a sin for a woman to be an instructor for male university students?
It is not a sin for a woman to teach 18-year-old males, or 17-year-olds, and it is not a sin for a woman to teach male university students, depending on the subject. NSA has in the past had a woman Latin instructor, and currently has a woman teaching Greek. The Bible does prohibit women from holding a teaching office in the church if the responsibility for that office includes teaching or having authority over men.
Now the reason I needed to answer all these questions is because of this paragraph.
None of these questions are meant to be cheeky. These are serious questions that I think ought to be answered by those who believe that the complementarianism espoused by Carl and Aimee is too thin. Because if “mainstream” complementarianism looks like Douglas Wilson or Jim Bob Duggar or Bill Gothard then we have a problem.
Whatever virtues Pruitt might have as a writer, knowing what I teach on these subjects is plainly not among them. He clearly has no idea. Perhaps — and I merely put this forward as a suggestion — he ought to refrain from writing about such things until he has a better grasp of the material he thinks he is grappling with.
As it is, he is wrestling with ghosts. On the positive side, he does appear to be winning.
It is always amazing how many people decide what someone else should believe and then proceed to act as if they actually believe it.
Or rather, decide what they must believe…
Looking forward to some back and forth with Todd. I enjoy Mortification of Spin (the delightful title and the podcast).
OK, you’ve elected a woman president. She is now in authority over the entire country in some sense, over the military in a very formal sense. She is under the authority of her husband. What if any transitive authority does he hold over the citizenry of the United States. Careful, if you say none I’m afraid you’ve seriously compromised the authority structure of biblical marriage.
Would such a first man have authority over the citizens of the country? No, he has been given no such office. Would he have authority over his wife? Well, yes, and she would also have an authority over him.
If that seems messed up, well, it is messed up. It is not the way that God designed it, even if it is not always sin.
If the question had been: “is a woman president the best representation of Gods design for sex?” My answer is no, and I’m confident that DWs is also.
Exactly.
The point of the Deborah story is not how awesome Deborah is (however awesome she may be); it is how messed up Israel and Barak are for needing her to lead them into battle.
Barak is called out and punished (by a woman taking the glory of killing the enemy leader!) specifically for this.
if something is NOT the way God intended it to be it is sin…
sin is anything in rebellion to God’s order
I disagree. Debra leading Israel was the result of rebellion, but Debra wasn’t rebelling. Similarly divorce is never what God intended, and is always the result of rebelling, but there are times when obtaining a divorce is the right thing to do.
if God was fine with Deborah leading Israel and thus leading her husband… then God does not care about Gender roles
although Isaiah 3:12 seems to illustrate God’s opinion on women ruling, and I’d wager that includes women installing stop signs – the original blog thinks it is ridiculous, but where does it stop?
My wife has authority over her children. Suppose she refuses to use that authority, and allows child #2 to beat up child #4. Child #1 pleads with her to intervene, but she is drunk, thinks it is funny and tells him to stay out of it. Child #1 defies his mother, intervenes for the protection of child #4. When child #3 relates the whole incident to me, I commend child #1 for his actions. By your logic, I don’t care about the authority my wife has over my children. Sometimes the best actions in a bad situations are different from… Read more »
except your analogy did not put the child in authority over the mother…
if God really though women should not rule their husbands, why did he raise one up to lead the nation and de facto have authority over the husband?
God could have easily raised a man…
The example put the one child in authority over the other child, despite the fact that it’s not supposed to be that way, because the mother dropped the ball. It does fit the situation.
God really thinks women should not rule their husbands. He ordains situations when it happens because of sin. God does not think military officers should assassinate kings and usurp the throne. God told Jehu to do it to teach the ruling line, and the nation, a lesson.
if what Deb was doing was NOT sin or rebellion
then you ave no grounds to say that women cannot rule over men or their husbands…
Here’s the kicker…if y’all would recall what the U.S. Constitution actually says about the Presidency, you’d realize that the President has absolutely NO legitimate authority over the “citizenry of the United States” because, in fact, there are no citizens of the U.S. I, for instance, am a citizen of Texas. Texas is a voluntary member of a Federation properly called these United States of America. The President has ZERO Constitutional authority over me as a citizen of Texas; heck, even the governor of Texas has no direct authority over me, as his executive control resides primarily over Austin. The point… Read more »
The map isn’t the territory, especially not a map drawn four revolutions ago. The actual constitution of the USA has changed a lot more than the written Constitution has. It’s reasonable to address these issues based on the actual structure of political power rather than based on some theoretical ideal that never matched reality.
I disagree based on the covenant God created with these United States. He will honor that and she will be restored. The argument that we should act on the text as written is compelling.
No, I am not historically literate or fluent enough to engage you (I have a government civics education)
I was raised on Steve Wilkins’ “America: The First 350 Years” which did emphasize the covenantal theology of many of the Massachusetts Colony Puritans, but I’m skeptical of any idea of an American national covenant — Scotland has a better claim to that than the USA does, especially since the Constitution is an explicitly non-Christian document. The Massachusetts Bay settlers did indeed come to America to found a uniquely Christian society but other colonies were founded for more mundane reasons.
Sadly, the Puritans wouldn’t have allowed you into club. They didn’t allow Baptists and Anglicans. Also, they kicked you out for: dancing, kissing and playing cards.
Sure sounds fun!
Yes. Fortunately that’s not my heritage; the descendants of the Puritans are today’s anti-Christian, anti-civilisation SJWs and intoleristas.
I assume you’re referring to New Englanders? I’m not so sure that a study of genetic lineage would bear that out. But from the perspective of cultural and religious descendancy, the Puritans are far more closely related to the racially segregated cities of the south.
Also, I find it deliciously ironic to read criticism of ‘intoleristas’ from a commenter who represents himself with the ultimate symbol of treason and barbaric oppression.
Have you looked into it at all? David Hackett Fischer’s book _Albion’s Seed_ is the definitive study: the Massachusetts and Virginia settlers were founders of rather different nations.
The descendants of the Puritans (both physically and culturally) were the Unitarians, the abolitionists, the promoters of Prohibition and womens’ suffrage.
I picked the flag specifically to irritate you. The USA flag is much more a symbol of treason and barbarism
Also, nice slave symbol. Very progressive.
Mine has a Gadsden flag super-imposed on it!
Really? I didn’t know that Christians were allowed to respect flags with serpents on them. Be careful, some say they will tempt you into eating figs that give you labor pains.
Very progressive.
Body count of people murdered by progressives in the 20’th century is just shy of 300 million, not counting the 50 million you have murdered via abortion.
Sorry, when did God create a covenant with the US? This Bible book thingy here only talks about a covenant with Jews.
his Bible book thingy here only talks about a covenant with Jews.
heh.
Pro-tip. When you come to a Christian blog in an attempt to shame and discredit, it helps to not destroy your credibility with your very first comment.
Herein, Gospel lesson 1. At Calvary God established a new covenant, not just with the Jews but with the gentiles also.
Do you know the details of the covenant? Let me know if you do not and I will walk you through it.
Gosh, that sure is sweet of you. After having established credibility by finishing two degrees in this subject and earning tenure in 4 years by teaching at the university level, I naively neglected to preface all of my internet commentary with my credentials. I was responding to the ridiculous claim that God made a covenant with America, specifically. A basic grasp of geography and the term ‘millenia’ should suffice as evidence for my claim. The difficulty in discussing ‘covenants’ is that there is no widespread agreement as to how many God has made. This leads to less-than-riveting semantic debates about… Read more »
To the door you idiot. There is nothing sweet about me.
Are you saved? Do you walk with Jesus?
If you’re attempting to extrapolate that the reference to ‘the house of Judah’ can be interpreted to apply to the USA, you’ll have to admit that that is a bit of a stretch. Not at all degree-mill boy. Government by its very nature is a covenant. Like all sinful things in it is corrupt and, since God has redeemed this world, currently being remade as God intended us to be. (that is what the Gospel is) America was an attempt at a right ordering of government per Christian principles of the nature of that covenant. Starting from the top (in… Read more »
Christian patriarchy is not equivalent to Muslim patriarchy. Go figure.
Nope. Same thing. Just a matter of picking and choosing. Oh, sweet reformation…
I;m trying to envision something that looks like the practices/teachings of Doug Wilson, Jim Bob Duggar, and Bill Gothard all at the same time.
Maybe I really do suffer from a failure of imagination.
I would have said fumbling with phantasms.
slugging with specters?
Clearly grappling with ghosts is the choice here. Or wrestling with wraiths. Either one.
I’m trying to work “incorporeal” in somewhere…
“Nattering with non sequiturs”?
Sparring with spirits.
Doug, you write: “A passing acquaintance with the Song of Songs would reveal that an erotic glance can be as terrible as an army with banners (Song 6:4), the beloved is compared to Pharaoh’s chariots (Song 1:9)….”
But notice who the conquering army with banners, the one like Pharaoh’s chariots, is here. It’s not the “erotic glance”: it’s a person. And it’s not the man. It’s the woman.
John, of course. Cheerfully granted.
Shots. Fired. :)
Yes, you need to comment further. Was Adam formed first, then Eve, or not?
Is this a trick question? It was Adam.
No, not at trick question, but to get at the question behind the question….When Paul told us he did not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man he also told us why, the man having been formed first, and the woman having been the one deceived. Since that is true, it is true everywhere, not just within the church. Why would the principle/design/fill in the blank with the better word not then apply everywhere, as I assume it would? Or, at least, hadn’t my bias ought to be toward men rather than women filling positions of… Read more »
My 2 cents… Eve didn’t get deceived in the area of tending the garden, she was deceived in the area of handling the word of God. And part of the reason she was deceived was because it was Adam’s job to handle it correctly and teach it to Eve, which he failed at (Eve adds extra restrictions to God’s commandment Gen 2:16-17 and Gen 3:1). So, the whole point is that it’s Adam’s job to teach and part of God’s redemptive plan is to renew things –> which means re-establishing men (in Christ) as faithful teachers. Where Adam failed, Christian… Read more »
AeroBob, I actually like your comment and am pondering it. But being of a particular bent of mind, I just have to ask, do you have any relationship to SpongeBob?
Just curios. ; – )
My 2 cents … Timothy, I started telling you about being careful about false teachers. It’s reported that there’s a woman hanging around your church who is trying to bring in the Diana worship that Ephesus is rotten with. She’s bringing in a false creation story and she’s offering heathen charms to the women in your church who are pregnant and are facing the real dangers of childbirth with fear. If you let this woman into your fellowship, she needs to learn from you quietly and submit to your teaching. Don’t let her teach at all or have any authority… Read more »
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was… Read more »
Bethyada, if Paul meant that women everywhere can’t be allowed to teach men, what do we make of Priscilla?
if Paul meant that women everywhere can’t be allowed to teach men, what do we make of Priscilla?
I don’t think Paul means that women can’t teach men ever. The context is teaching within a church meeting.
And where is “church meeting” defined, other than “whenever two or more of you are gathered in my name”?
Laura That is a very interesting read of the text. Do you have any early sources that interpreted that scripture in that way? Either early church fathers or commentators. I don’t ever believe in going to the “majority” for exegesis, just because it is the Majority. But I also realize that If I see a completey different read of the text than the majority of commentators, and this new revelation of this text seems to give a reading that seems to shift more with the culture in which I live, that I might be on shaky ground with my reading… Read more »
It’s known that the Diana cult was very strong in Ephesus, and that Diana was thought to help women in childbirth. And Paul isn’t saying “God never lets women teach” he says “I don’t permit a (singular) woman to teach.” If it was that crucial that women can never teach men, then at the very apex of the Christian story, when Christ was resurrected, it wouldn’t have been women he appeared to, who then had to go and tell the men about it. My paraphrase is a reach, definitely, and it’s not a hill I will die on, but it… Read more »
Thanks for the reply Laura, very much appreciated. And I’m not so concerned with what you are deducing from scripture as I am as seeing if others have deduced that in the same way and same manner. I am aware of the pagan culture of which Paul wrote to in Ephesus. I was just asking if you knew of any early christians (pre-enlightment) commenting on that passage in the same way you are. I just get a little skeptical when I interpret a passage (or others for that matter) in a way that is completely different than how the majority… Read more »
I’ve read some of this elsewhere – when I expressed complete confusion about the childbirth thing, for instance, and the word “through” was explained to me – but I can’t give you sources b/c I didn’t keep them. ETA: Also, I’m not sure about conventional wisdom regarding one or two verses when that wisdom conflicts with what we see elsewhere and when the one or two verses have things like “saved through childbirth” or “because of the angels” that really cry out for explanation. As I mentioned to Bethyada, we know that Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos. Aquila didn’t teach… Read more »
No problem. Your not the only one confused about the Childbirth passage. I have read numerous Commentators who can’t seem to quite agree on it and I am content to say It is a passage that I don’t quite understand at the moment. And may not understand this side of eternity.
If, in fact, Paul never meant that women can’t teach men, then it’s kind of a shame that women have ever been withheld from sharing their God-given wisdom and knowledge with the men who needed to hear it, because of a misunderstanding.
AeroBob, Thanks for the response. I don’t dismiss your 2 cents. I do note that it addresses the reason Paul gave in the second place, the reason he gave in the first place being Adam’s precedence in creation. I also note, though as you say Eve was not deceived in the area of tending the garden, her role in the garden was that of helper, Adam being the chief gardener.
Nowhere does Scripture even hint that Adam failed to do the best with Eve.
In fact, his taking the fruit from her hand might even suggest a rescue.
Adam was married to Eve. The question you are getting at is whether the prohibition relates to just marriage or society. The letter to Timothy notes that it does include the church in terms of teaching. But there is no indication anywhere in Scripture that a female is to submit herself to males other than her husband (children not considered). That woman can lead in civil society is suggested by the example of Deborah. Further, a woman can rule her household including the men- and maid-servants. We are left with a woman not leading in marriage and submitting (voluntarily) in… Read more »
Since Adam was right there with Eve when she ate the forbidden fruit, why isn’t Adam guilty of the first sin? By not stopping Eve? Adam had already been given dominion.
He is guilty of the first sin.
The wording of 1 Timothy 2:14 seems to be telling us otherwise.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
I take that to mean that Adam was not deceived, not that he did not transgress the commandment. I think that Adam sinned.
Adam certainly did sin. However, what Paul is telling us is when Eve was deceived she became a transgressor, i.e. sinned. She did that before Adam did.
Yes, but I see the “first” sin as the whole event. Though this raises the interesting issue that Adam must have been the head as we are sinners being sons and daughters of Adam (in the flesh) even though Eve ate the fruit before Adam did.
I think I understand what you are getting at. However, whereas “first” is significant, chronologically first is what I meant, for the sake of technical accuracy if nothing else. Paul does indicate though that first in the ordinary sense is also significant, though it may have more to do with the being deceived part.
Eve was deceived while Adam rebelled against God?
Eve was deceived, and out of that state she became a rebellious transgressor.
Adam with a clear head became a rebellious transgressor.
Why did Adam do it? — to stay with Eve — to cleave to here to hell
Dave, not having replied to you before… Either way, they both were guilty of sin. Eve then Adam, with Adam no less culpable for being second.
bethyada, Thanks. That interpretation does not seem implausible to me. Of course it can only be correct or not correct; I’m not sure if it is. “Perhaps this relates to the church being the bride of Christ; marriage represents this.” Perhaps. However, whereas Paul elsewhere explains the relationship between Christ and His church in terms of marriage he doesn’t really do that in 1 Timothy. Again, what he does do there is refer to Adams seniority over Eve in the creation as the reason behind not allowing women authority over men. Politically, Deborah is of course always the exception cited,… Read more »
However, whereas Paul elsewhere explains the relationship between Christ and His church in terms of marriage he doesn’t really do that in 1 Timothy. Again, what he does do there is refer to Adams seniority over Eve in the creation as the reason behind not allowing women authority over men. Paul is giving the reasoning here about the pre-Fall creational order. I agree. However I am trying to get as to the why this should be? Christ and the church is relevant because it is true, even if not mentioned here. Humans are made in the image of God. This… Read more »
I don’t think we disagree all that much in the balance. The important points you note are 1) Paul is giving the reasoning here about the pre-Fall creational order. 2) Leadership is masculine. No. 2 is something Paul was explaining to us is based on No. 1. As a fact of history and God’s design it is not changed by institutional setting. The design includes differences between men and women’s typical desires, tendencies, and competencies, yes, all of which are damaged by the fall. All of the above is reason to strongly prefer, among other things, a man in the… Read more »
You might take a closer look at where a woman is not to teach.
The subject is the liturgical gathering.
Again, take a look at reasons explained by Paul. The facts he presents would be no less true outside a liturgical gathering.
The reasons explained by Paul are indeed universal & permanent. A female shall forever remain a female. A female will always have been created as the finale. That man-husband / woman-wife order reflects the Jesus – Church order. The liturgical gathering requires acknowledgment in the forms Paul shows. Should participants in the political arena also reflect this dynamic? How about business or medical environments? Absolutely!!! — but with a big BIG tweak. The liturgical environment requires certain protocols to properly reflect these spiritual & real truths. The home is another environment altogether where different procedures should apply. Hence that silence… Read more »
Adam was formed, Eve was built. Two different verbs with two different connotations, especially as these are used throughout the rest of Scripture. For example, the gloriously arrayed temple was built, not formed. And the Church is being built up into Christ, not formed into Christ.
As I said, I have read many of Doug’s books and his blog for sometime. Some of the
things his detractors say may be correct, many of the things they say
are unrecognisable. If you are going to dispute Doug you need to be informed. Others of us
have read him and know when we ourselves disagree, and when his opponents don’t know his position.
To elaborate on the above, knowing I may stir the pot a little. With regards to 1 and 2 it is permissible to have female leaders in public office, and it is better to vote for a competent woman than an incompetent man. From what I know it seems that Elizabeth I was a better monarch than James. However, I think it speaks about what a society has become if a large number of public leaders are women. Leadership is a masculine quality (which males and females both have), but what does it say about society when men are no… Read more »
bethyada, that comment is money. I wish I could buy you drink. Two things regarding Fiorina (given she’s relevant), one of which IS related to your comment, and the other is admittedly tangential. The tangential first: 1) Fiorina, when asked what woman should be on the $10 bill, scolds the men and tells them that women aren’t some voting bloc to be pandered to, but, on the other hand, when dealing with Trump’s silly and childish insulting, she says that the women clearly heard and understood Trump’s insulting her looks though he tries to hide and obfuscate–her “girls” have her… Read more »
I wouldn’t say that you have no males suitable. But my comment was a general one, not specific to any one position. I don’t see Tudor England being overrun by women even with a few Queens on the throne. I do wonder about where the West is headed, even if a few presidents and prime ministers remain male. As to your Republican primaries: I don’t know squat about Fiorina. Carson has integrity, his Christianity is honest. He may lack the shrewdness required. And his lack of full and complete support for guns may turn too many Republicans away. Cruz seems… Read more »
Thatcher was more of a man than any of these men…
the fact that women have taken the reigns
fights the wars
etc
proves that we are well past that point
the men are wimps like Barak
I had to consider which Barak you were referring to for a moment… I keep forgetting the modern-day version is spelled Barack
If we need a Deborah, that means that we are in shambles and we have (at best) a Barak, who won’t go to battle unless a woman goes with him.
I’m not sure that’s what most of today’s Deborah-ites know that are getting at.
Holmegm, remember that Deborah was asked to go into battle by Barak, and warfare is men’s work. She was acting as judge in Israel before that and was well respected.
We already are in shambles and we already have a Barack…who won’t go into battle.
I’m just sayin’.
I think that both sexes are becoming more androgynous. This is partly through social engineering and probably also involves some environmental factors. That being said, in a country of 300 million we could find masculine leaders if we wanted them. The truth is that we disparage masculine virtues as we do truly feminine ones. Even Doug Wilson makes cracks at Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin because they are masculine. We have come to value passivity and consensus building and apparently prefer effeteness over boldness. This can’t all be blamed on voters since we only get to choose form a very… Read more »
If a women is elected president, she will REQUIRE staunch men standing behind and beside her to hold the office. If a man is elected president he will also REQUIRE staunch men standing behind and beside him to hold the office. If either the man or the woman has only other females to support them; they will not, for long, hold the office. On the other hand, you can hold authority or office with ONLY men in the important supporting roles. Masculinity is required to hold office or power [ within the providence of God ]. * In the business… Read more »
Is it possible for a man to be an authority in the church— to hold office— having never been ordained? Why should a woman submit to a man who has himself never submitted to others in the Apostolic fashion?
lol
surely a female president is in authority over her husband?!!
nvm Carly and her stay at home house husband…
I also find it interesting how Christians say women should teach men but can write blogs.. it seems the only problem Christians have with women preaching is if they hear them…
if written in blog form or in books than it is fine…
another interesting observation
all these complementarians love to show how they support women working etc
yet seem to ignore that a woman’s responsibility is to support her husband,and run the home, instead the reverse is celebrated…
The question is, Is it permissible? not, Is it wise in any particular situation? Men shouldn’t neglect their responsibilities, women shouldn’t neglect theirs.
but the new argument is
that a true servant leading husband will relieve his wife of her home making responsibilities and duty to support him so as to allow her to use her gifts in the public sphere…
Find where Doug said that. I see you’ve changed your name.
doug has not
but he keeps endorsing and working with people who do…
Jared Wilson ( an actual house husband for years)
DESIRING GOD
etc
as a matter of fact
Doug is probably rare in western churchianity
he actually tells it as it is
it is easier to respect and learn from men who refuse to compromise…
http://www.feminagirls.com/2015/09/27/ill-take-whiskey/
apparantly telling a woman to focus on her home and kids instead of abandoning them is misogyny and a sign of a weak man….
http://www.feminagirls.com/2015/08/12/the-receiving-department/
the other one clearly does not support her husband or even love him, makes him come home and run the home after working hard all day…
please…
these people really do not believe in Gender, gender roles are all fluid and flexable, no difference between male and female
also complementarians who pretend Isaiah 3:12 does not exist so as to get with the times
need to also start pretending Romans 1 and any other condemnation of homosexuality does not exist…
even individuals who have not grown up christian can see this inconsistency…
we do not care what God thinks about females ruling over men, and getting men to run the home to show servant leadership
but we do care what about God’s opinion on gay sex…
please…
I have a theory that a significant number of closet egalitarians and others who strive mightily to make the text say what it very clearly does not, simply do not believe the text but can’t openly say so. Since I have no vested interest in the outcome — it makes no difference to me what the Bible says about sex roles, homosexuality or marriage, since I don’t accept the Bible as authoritative — it seems crystal clear to me that yes, Isaiah 3:12 really does say that women should not rule over men, contrary examples like Deborah notwithstanding, and a… Read more »
I absolutely agree. Better to be jeered off the stage then undermine the text. Use of exceptions like Deborah to undermine a clear norm has become a common rhetorical technique. God’s rules are not arbitrary. If women should not be in authority in the church it is because that is the most important domain but since it is not a arbitrary rule it should be applied in other contexts as well.
Wow! Did Krychek_2 just endorse a hermenutic of authorial intention?
He did so and quite well. As expected.
Yes and no. He endorsed a hermeneutic of words mean what words mean, which most of the time but not always lines up with authorial intention.
Precise, and accurately observed.
Disagreeing only with your assertion “The idea that women shouldn’t rule over men, or that homosexuality is a perversion, is ridiculous on its face”,…
Some fair points, weakened by your spurious claim that the Bible could be interpreted, past or present, as teaching a flat earth “equally well” as the clear teachings regarding complimentarianism or sexual morality. Flat earth “interpretations” were esoteric to the extreme, and eclipsed (pun intended) by the more frequent and far clearer references to the circular/spherical nature of the earth (eg Job 26, Isaiah 40) long before science proved this to be the case.
The point is, though, that an awful lot of people did interpret the Bible as teaching a flat earth. Whether you find that interpretation compelling or not, at one time it was certainly within the mainstream of Christian thought.
By the way, if you want a fairly thorough listing of the Biblical passages that some have used to teach a flat earth, look here: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
Actually, that link just reinforces my point. The source it most heavily cites is the book of 1Enoch, which is not and has never been accepted as canon by Jews or Christians (well, except the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church). Quoting: “ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch.” (dramatically wrong) Look, there’s no arguing that there was belief in a flat earth, rather with your claim that it was “equally well” derived. Rather, it was a preexisting belief in… Read more »
It also makes an order of creation argument from Genesis 1 (which I personally do find persuasive), and cites Job and Psalms. Look, in an era in which no serious thinking person actually believes the world to be flat, it’s going to be a tough sell to convince you that the Bible teaches the earth is flat. But if you ignore your knowledge that the earth is in fact spherical, and just look at the plain meaning of the text without that prior knowledge, passages that say things like “the earth is fixed and immovable” and the order of creation… Read more »
“You’re basically cheating” – ouch, low blow. I expected better, or at least more tactful, but I’ll turn the other (flat) cheek. On your terms, I could (but won’t) equally accuse you of cheating by having an anti-Scriptural-inerrancy bias, and therefore conveniently finding internet arguments “persuasive” that I find anything but. In fact, I could spend a few minutes on Google and find better arguments on your side, but anyway… “Suppose you didn’t know…” A helpful exercise? We can’t imagine what we’d imagine if we didn’t know what we know – I can’t, and neither can you. But I can… Read more »
Ah, but my anti inerrancy views do not require, or even predispose me, to believe every negative claim someone might make against the Bible. And I dont, it merely means I don’t treat it as a special case or jump through logical hoops to salvage inerrancy. And here’s what you have not done. You have not engaged the text, you have not told me how a text that says the earth is fixed and immovable means something other than that the earth is fixed and immovable. Nor have you even tried to respond to the Genesis 1 order of creation… Read more »
“will not cost me a wink of sleep. You, however, do not have that luxury.” Ironically, just read this after getting up from a very sound sleep (I live and work in China). I indeed didn’t engage the texts, certainly not because I’m incapable, but because 1) you hadn’t engaged them either, merely copy/pasted a link, 2) you’re the one who has proposed “fixed and immovable” is necessarily synonymous with “flat”, a premise I reject, and 3) it’s arguably beyond the scope and purpose of this blog in general, and this thread specifically. I merely responded because you first mentioned… Read more »
I understand the concept of metaphor. The problem in this specific case, though, is that Job and the Psalms were written in an era in which virtually the entire Middle East believed in a flat, stationary earth that the sun revolved around. If the Bible had been written at a time and place in which people mostly believed in literal singing mountains or clapping trees, one might expect there to be something in the text to indicate that Isaiah 55:12 is a metaphor so that centuries later, people wouldn’t make the entirely logical assumption that: (1) When the Bible was… Read more »
“you look at it through the lens of: This is about me.” Apparently this is about me – in your mind, hence the not-so-subtle ad hominem attack (again) against this particular “Christian apologetic” (presumably you meant “apologist”). So in closing, “one might expect there to be something in the text” – that to me essentially sums up your problem here. The Author of the Bible didn’t obligate Himself to fit, fix, adjust, or adapt every word to fit the expectations/demands of a skeptic in either 2000 BC, or AD. The Bible doesn’t ask permission to speak in the mindset of… Read more »
No, it’s not about you, and I’m a bit disappointed that you took what I intended to be comments on your methodology personally. If that was due to a lack of clarity on my part, I apologize. You are correct that an author is under no obligation to fit, fix, adjust or clarify — unless he wants what he wrote to be clearly understood. If the author intends to hide the ball and make people think that the text says what it does not, then that’s fine, but no complaining if the text is misunderstood.
I believe you, and apologize in turn if I was oversensitive. Intent can be hard to discern on the internets – on that at least, I think we could agree.
Isn’t the idea that people believed in “singing mountains” and trees with hands an imposition on the text? What evidence is there that people anywhere ever believed that mountains have mouths and vocals cords, and that trees have hands? Do you really believe that people actually believed those things, ever, when their falsity is obvious to the meanest understanding by the simplest use of the eyes? The reasonable conclusion about something that is obviously untrue even to a non-scientific age by the barest use of the senses, is that it’s a metaphor. This isn’t like the idea that the earth… Read more »
In fairness, that was part of the point I think he was trying to make – no one then or now believed in singing mountains, so such language automatically gets a metaphorical pass. In contrast, because there was some belief in a flat earth at the time, he suggests that the Bible should’ve gone out of its way to avoid using terms that supposedly suggested a flat earth, if not outright correcting that view. In posts above and below, I disagree both with the premise that the Scriptures use terms that clearly affirm a flat earth, and with the general… Read more »
You’re right, I misread. Thanks for pointing that out. Just forget what I said, then, and I apologize for not paying closer attention.
So when was the sphere of the earth created relative to the firmament? And Isaiah doesn’t say sphere; it says circle, which is not quite the same thing. (At least the King James version on which I was raised says circles; haven’t checked the more recent translations.) Circles are flat.
The text of Genesis 1 is not clear on when the earth and the firmament were created relative to each other, but it is possible to read it as being created at the same time. What it doesn’t say is that the earth was definitely created before the firmament, as you assert.
I didn’t use “sphere of the earth” because that was biblical language, but because the earth is a sphere, and I was distinguishing it from the firmament, that’s all.
Jane, yes, “it is possible” to read it that way, but try this thought experiment: Suppose you neither believed nor disbelieved the Bible, and were just an honest person reading it for the first time with no agenda, and no preconceptions. Is that the interpretation you would most likely come to? I don’t think it is. While you are correct that the text does not explicitly say that they were both created at the same time, I think most people would probably reach the same conclusion I did, because in fact most people do reach that conclusion. My research indicates… Read more »
No, because it simply doesn’t say that the earth was created first. So why would the unbiased reader arrive at that conclusion? I have no problem with them being created at the same time, though; that’s not what I’m arguing against. A simultaneous creation makes no sense from a heliocentric standpoint only when you are somehow trying to restrict the actions of an omnipotent God to those actions which are possible in the world which He hasn’t even made yet. I see no need for such restrictions. The answer to your last question is that they were biased readers —… Read more »
Well, maybe the people who are reading the Bible as being anti-gay are biased readers. Maybe everyone has assumed for so long that the Bible is anti-gay, based on the culture having been anti-gay for so long, that they’re not reading it objectively either. Maybe my earlier prediction on a thread several months ago — that fifty years from now the evangelical church will say that it’s a vicious slander that it ever opposed gay marriage — will come true, just as soon as the culture becomes as pro-gay as it is currently pro-heliocentric solar system. Can you rule out… Read more »
People who think the Bible says the Bible condemns homosexuality are literate, because it is very explicit — so much so that people who like to hate on Christians like to directly quote what the Bible says about it to show what a nasty religion we have. People who think the Bible clearly says “the earth revolves around the sun” are reading something unclear, according to their own biases.
Really, that’s a horrible example.
It’s been fun to watch the dueling brains of Jane and Krychek. I’m wondering if Jane wins because she’s smarter than Krychek, or if it’s because she’s arguing from the better side. I suggest a contest. For the next duel, the two of you switch sides; if Jane still wins, we’ll know it’s because of her superior brain. If she loses, we’ll know she’s been arguing from the stronger position all along; this being the case, Krychek will need to repent and return to seminary.
I can switch sides; I am a lawyer after all. Jane?
Not that I think she won this round.
I’m not sure it’s that unclear.
The plants were created on the third day, which means earth must have existed by then. The sun not until the fourth day. So there’s no way to read Genesis other than that the earth was created ahead of the sun.
Side note: some commentators consider the Hebrew word “חוג” (chuwg, used in Isaiah) can be also be translated as “round” or “sphere”. Not a Hebrew scholar myself, so can’t weigh in otherwise.
If you have not read Codevilla’s Perils of Revolution/Ruling Class/County Class from the Jul/Aug 2010 American Spectator, please so – – when you get a chance, no rush – – and let me know which group you most identify with. I’m betting it’s County not Ruling. Thx.
It’s difficult to imagine how you can see so clearly, that some folks are trying to have it both ways, and yet you fail to see the purpose of the alimentary canal.
What makes you think it only has a single purpose? Other parts of your body certainly are multi-purpose.
Wow, the Mortifcation of Spin (MoS) folks have been hammering Doug quite a bit lately. I stopped listening to them a while ago due to what I thought was imbalance when dealing with issues. For instance, when they discussed patriarchy they only talked about the ones who advocated “wife spanking.” Who even knew that was a thing. It was kind of like set up a straw man and knock it down. I hope they stick around for more interaction with you, but I won’t hold my breath. They are kind of “drive by” in approach.
I recently wrote to the editors at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals to request the hosts of MoS include some differing viewpoints once in a while and reduce the echo chamber in there. The director said he’d been thinking the same thing. Their episode on education (while presenting a few false dilemmas, as all three hosts hold the same position) was a valiant effort in that direction, I thought.
Wife spanking was news to me too. Never heard anything about it from all the “heretical” sources I’m exposed to. Guess I just don’t get around enough.
Wife spanking is no longer a thing but it was in the 1950s. I remember sit coms in which husbands spanked their wives, and advertisements too. I don’t have time to go looking, but I’ll bet if someone were to google “wife spanking ads” you’d probably find them.
It still is a thing among a small but kinky subculture called Christian Domestic Discipline. Having read Wilson’s review of 50 Shades, I can’t imagine that it would go over big with his congregation or with any Christians I have ever met. There is nothing that can’t be perverted by people with twisted impulses and too much time on their hands!
Still trying to figure out how Wilson got lumped in with Duggar and Gothard…
Actually, thanks for posting this. I know I have read you on a number of these topics before (see: Sarah Palin vs. Obama in 2008). But it is good to be reminded, in case one’s views change or morph.
Appreciate this.
it is not a sin for a woman to run for office?
so it is thus not a sin for a woman to seek to rule over men?!!
Isaiah 3;12?!!!
Not a sin to support Carly Fiorina for prez?
1 Timothy 2:11-15New International Version (NIV)
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet