Many of you have heard of Wayne Grudem's "Open Letter to Egalitarians" and recently there has been talk about this letter on this blog. As I have been reading John Ensor's Doing Things Right in the Matters of the Heart, I thought of some pragmatic questions that I would like to ask my egalitarian friends. Now, this is an open letter, but its "openness" is going to end December 31, 2008...why?, because I don't want to be responding to comments on this post for years to come. I think that is both fair to my responders and to me.
Dearest Egalitarian,
I know that the theological debate is more important than the practical debate in the arguments of the complementarianism vs. egalitarianism, but I just have some questions. So feel free to answer them. Some of the questions are just curiosities for me and others would be helpful for complementarians to see your preferences. Please know that in asking these questions, I am not seeking to be sarcastic toward you or your position in the gender debate. I am truly curious and I say that with the utmost respect for you as fellow image bearers of God.
1. If the Titanic accident were to happen again, would you desire 50% of the seats on the life boats to be left for men?
2. If there is a robber who just broke into your house and you are married with children, would you want the man to go downstairs or the woman or would this be done depending on who had done it last time?
3. Would an egalitarian woman be offended at a man holding the door for her?
4. Do egalitarian parents allow their boys to play rough with the girls just like the boys play rough with other boys?
5. Do egalitarian parents train their boys that it is okay for them to be "stay at home dads?" If so, does a lot of domestic training happen for these boys?
6. Do you feel that women boxers should be allowed to fight in the ring with men?
7. Do egalitarian women desire to be protected by their guy (boyfriend, husband, father, etc.) or would they prefer to protect themselves?
8. Does an egalitarian female "pastor" get a maternity leave from her preaching responsibilities?
9. Does and egalitarian female "pastor" counsel men about pornography?
10. Do egalitarian pastoral staffs go on pastoral retreats together? If so, how does that work with having guys and girls together? Do the spouses feel strange about this?
If other complementarians have questions to add to this "open letter" feel free. Egalitarians, if you have some pragmatic/practical questions for complementarians, please feel free to ask. I desire for this conversation to be a humble one and done unto the Lord.
God bless,
mike seaver
78 comments:
Mike,
You are a super guy because you accept comments. Thank you so much. I will post very soon on the last three points in Grudem's open letter.
Here on your question,
# 7. Do egalitarian women desire to be protected by their guy (boyfriend, husband, father, etc.) or would they prefer to protect themselves?
It is well known that statistically women are at more risk of danger from an intimate partner than from attack by any other human being or any injury by any other means except illness.
A woman needs to seriously assess how she will be able to protect herself from her partner first and worry about someone breaking into the house later. I do not personally know of any woman who has been attacked by a stranger, but I know many who are subject to attack by a partner.
The answer, of course, is not to run to a stronger male of one's acquaintance, but to call the police who are careful to send two police officers, one male and one female. This is very effective. Let me recommend it. I warmly thank the police in my neighbourhood, who proudly announce by a large banner in a very public place that "The peacemakers shall be called the children of God."
It is a proper and necessary secular and gender-equitable authority, not patriarchy, that protects women.
Personally, I do believe that pregnant women should not be on active duty as police officers. As far as I know this is the practice. Other than that women are needed on the police force and by the same token we need women in leadership in the church.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share my gratitude for living in a society which protects women.
#9 Does and egalitarian female "pastor" counsel men about pornography?
Who counsels the wife? This question alone stands as a strong argument for both male and female leadership in any church.
Hi Mike,
Since you have posted on this topic I have been able to post in response to the other three points in Dr. Grudem's open letter.
Here is my post. I would really appreciate your responding to this in a post because some egalitarians are disappointed with the lack of acknowledgment among complementarians for the scriptural fidelity of egalitarians.
1. If the Titanic were to happen today there would be enough life boats for everyone.
2. In the case of a noise downstairs the stronger person would go down or possibly both because two on one is better than one on one.
3. No, the less work I have to do the better.
4. If they are both willing to play rough, it is fine.
5. Yes, stay at home dad is fine. Everyone who lives in our household is taught domestic responsibilities.
6. Who cares about boxing?
7. There are many types of protecting. If my husband is stronger than me, yes he should protect me physically. If I am better with money than my husband, I should protect him from finical disaster.
8. Yes Women Clergy get maternity leave...it's kinda the law.
9. No more than Male Clergy counsel women about pornography.
10. I'm sure they sleep in separate rooms. In my denomination, we have pastor and spouse retreats, so the spouses are present.
Hi! I got here via a link from Suzanne McCarthy. I'm posting answers back at my own blog, and if I can think of how to phrase it, I've got a question.
Do complementarians believe that when a woman leads a Bible study, it is wrong for a man to go and listen? Why or why not?
Well, no one's taken the bait so I'll just wade in :)
1. Not much use discussing this event in a pragmatic discussion.
2. My husband would go see what was going on because he's a better shot than I am, not because he's a man.
3. I'm never offended by such gestures of kindness. But I would also hope that if the circumstance were reversed and I entered a building first and held the door behind me for the man following that he wouldn't be offended, either.
4. My girls played just as roughly with the boys as they wished. All of them were able to say "when" things got too rough. None of them ever hurt one of their siblings.
5. There has been much domestic training for my sons. Not because I want them to be stay at home dads, but because I want them to be able to take care of themselves and not marry the first woman who came along willing to wash their socks and cook for them.
6. No, but because of general size differences. I wouldn't think it fair for a featherweight to box a heavyweight either.
7. Desire to be protected? Sure. But practically speaking I know that I need to be able to protect myself because "my guy" might not always be around.
8. I'm not sure what a "pastor" is. I know what a Pastor is. What is the need for quote marks? If my pastor had surgery and needed some recovery time, I'd expect him to be allowed that time. If my male pastor became a new parent, I think I'd expect him to spend more time than usual at home bonding with his child. Why would I deny that if my pastor were female?
9. Again with the "pastor." Do only men deal with porn? Apparently comps are unaware that women are sexual beings too who suffer from dysfunctions in that area just like men. Who would counsel me on a porn problem? I might prefer a woman, but I respect the role of Pastor and would probably to go him first and allow him the option of referring me to someone else. If I were a woman counselor, I would respect my client's desire to speak on a sensitive subject with another man and refer him to someone else.
10. My denomination ordains women. Pastor's retreats are "pastors and spouses." Perhaps there are meetings or lectures specific to pastors, but the social parts are for both.
My only question is this: every egal husband I've ever known has readily affirmed that the person they have learned the most from is their wife. I've never in all the reading I've done of this gender debate heard a comp husband affirm this. Do you look for a wife who is not as smart as you to avoid being taught by a woman? No sarcasm intended here. Just honest query.
Hello everyone,
Thanks for your posts...I'm going to try to answer a couple specific questions and please know that I read all of your comments, but may not have time to deal with all of the questions today.
Tami,
I am obviously a complementarian and I would agree that the person I have learned the most from is my wife. She is very smart, has her Masters Degree, and I am very blessed by God to have her. I definitely married up...and don't deserve her.
Clix,
I think there are many gifted woman who can teach the bible very well. I think this gifting is given by the Lord for them to teach other women (Titus 2). I would have a problem with a man being taught in a Bible Study by a woman. My reasoning is 1Timothy 2:12. It seems like she would be "teaching and exercising authority" over him...or at least "teaching." I hope that helps clarity my thoughts a bit, but feel free to ask more questions and I will try to answer in a timely way.
God bless,
mike
I am an egal man.
Egals do not see the concept of strict roles as useful, but of course there are gender differences. A stronger person should help a weaker. A team decides what is best for the team in order to accomplish the team's goals.
1. The Titanic disaster was due to secret orders given the captain by the British Admiralty to cross the Atlantic as fast as possible. They did not track icebergs, now they do. There were too few lifeboats. So there are 3 reasons why this is much less likely to happen today. The survivors included able bodied seamen who rowed the lifeboats.
It is sad when one needs to triage, but it can happen. The goal is to preserve life. One does the best one can in these sad cases.
2. On a robber, I think the recommended safe response is to make noise, hoping the robber leaves. If there would be a confrontation, whomever is best able should do it, most likely it would be a team.
3. Most likely not. I appreciate it when someone holds the door for me.
4. In play, the weaker needs to be protected from the stronger, esp. when young. It is true that most boys are stronger than most girls of the same age.
5. Yes, it is fine to be a househusband if that is what the couple decides is best. It is up to the couple, many egals have what appear to be traditional marriages.
6. I do not care for boxing so I think no one should box. I think I recall seeing that boxing was matched to abuse in the home.
7. People should learn how best to protect themselves. When a team, the team works together.
8. I do not see why. If a person want a leave for any reason they can ask.
9. There can be some counseling situations that are best done with the same gender, for many reasons. This is one reason why it is important to have both genders as pastors.
10. Why not go on retreats together? Of course the genders are separate for sleeping quarters unless married.
Mike,
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this.
1. “If the Titanic accident were to happen again, would you desire 50% of the seats on the life boats to be left for men?”
No.
This question is similar to others (such as the second one) in that it is essentially asking what is the best way to pick people out of a group, whether you are making an innocuous choice (such as selecting a group of players for a ball team) or a life and death choice (such as who to save from a calamitous situation.) Egalitarians don’t believe that selections such as that should be based on gender, so it follows that egalitarians wouldn’t reserve seats in lifeboats based on gender.
Limiting one’s belief of the pragmatic value of people to their gender roles blinds you to other possibilities. Such as in this case: assuming that you want to save as many people as possible from the Titanic, focusing on gender limits your thinking and costs lives. If you only focus on gender, then you’ll forget that lifeboats aren’t designed to carry a specific number of people, they’re designed to carry a specific amount of weight. The best way to save as many people as possible in this case is to prioritize people starting with those who weigh the least, irregardless of their gender.
2. “If there is a robber who just broke into your house and you are married with children, would you want the man to go downstairs or the woman or would this be done depending on who had done it last time?”
Neither.
This is a bad question, as you have only offered two really bad choices to make. The only correct choice in this case, which should be taken irrespective of your religious beliefs of gender roles, is for no one to go down the stairs – you CALL THE POLICE if a robber is in your house. If you think that this is a flippant answer, then please ask a police officer this question, and let me know what his response is.
It’s a poor question, but I realize that what this question is getting at is similar to the first one: between a man and a woman, which should be placed in danger. And an egalitarian would answer the same as to the first question – such decisions shouldn’t be left to just an analysis of gender. Real life dangerous situations are never that simple, and simple answers aren’t going to solve them.
For instance, both people could go downstairs, or, more intelligently, both people could go get the kids and make certain that they are safe and get them out of the house.
3. “Would an egalitarian woman be offended at a man holding the door for her?”
No.
And neither would an egalitarian woman be offended if a woman held the door open. And I’m not offended if a woman holds the door open for me, or if a man does for that matter.
Holding a door open for someone is not a gender defined role – it’s a common courtesy that is extended to all people in a decent society.
4. “Do egalitarian parents allow their boys to play rough with the girls just like the boys play rough with other boys?”
Why not?
I should point out that by asking this question you show me that you have clearly forgotten what life was like in seventh grade, when the girls were bigger than the boys.
5. “Do egalitarian parents train their boys that it is okay for them to be "stay at home dads?" If so, does a lot of domestic training happen for these boys?”
Yes and Yes.
Of course I need to be specific – you are actually asking if all egalitarian parents do this, and I can’t speak for everyone, so I’m only answering for myself and my opinion as to whether or not this is okay.
For the first part of the question, I’m not certain why the question needs to be asked – of course egalitarians are going to be okay with the idea of stay at home dads, as it follows logically from their beliefs. In my case, my wife (who is a banker) makes substantially more money than I do. If we have to choose between which of us gives up a career to care for children, it would make more sense for me to. Of course what would make even more sense than that would be for both of us to balance our careers with child raising responsibilities. Why should only one person have the fun of raising children while the other has to be away at work? And why should children only see one parent predominantly?
For the second part of the question, I would sincerely hope that both complementarians and egalitarians would teach boys how to cook. My wife is a superb cook, but I’m certainly glad that my parents taught me how to make a nutritious meal. Same with laundry. I’m not certain why in the age of washing machines people insist that only people of a specific gender should know how to operate them. Why is knowledge of the most basic household tasks, such as making food and cleaning up after oneself, supposed to be limited to people of only one gender?
As far as gender defined 'household' roles, do complementarians teach their female children how to anoint the dead?
6. “Do you feel that women boxers should be allowed to fight in the ring with men?”
Why not?
Well I am not a big fan of boxing to begin with, but as far as this specific question it’s important to remember two things about the sport – first of all, boxing matches are arranged by weight class, so a 140 pound woman would be fighting a 140 pound man, not a 180 pound man. Second, so much of boxing has nothing to do at all with size, but psychology. Outmaneuvering and outwitting one’s opponent matters more than bulk and strength. Just ask a boxer.
The larger question you are asking is: are there activities, say primarily physical ones, where gender plays a direct role in who should qualify? The answer of course is yes – I’m not going to hire a male to be a nursemaid for an infant. But outside of tasks that are dependant on the specifics of gender (genitalia and breasts) there is no universal correlation between gender and who is best capable of performing a physical task. I can pretty much guarantee you that if I were in a boxing ring with a trained female boxer, she would clean my clock.
7. “Do egalitarian women desire to be protected by their guy (boyfriend, husband, father, etc.) or would they prefer to protect themselves?”
Why choose?
Again, this is an offering of two bad choices. All people should know how to protect themselves. It’s not a good idea for someone always to be reliant on someone else for help.
Of course, no person is an island. We all need to not only rely on and protect each other, but we need to be open to that. But that’s not the question here – it’s whether or not a woman should defer ‘protection’ responsibilities to a man.
The question shows several biases. It assumes that a woman is less capable than a man of protecting herself (I suggest that you go ask a female Navy Seal or a female member of the Israeli IDF that question).
The question also assumes that all women have ‘their guy.’ Though you may wish to, don’t forget that there are women who are gay.
8. “Does an egalitarian female "pastor" get a maternity leave from her preaching responsibilities?”
Why not; but more to the point, why would it be needed?
For this and the rest of the questions, I’m going to assume that the questions are worded “Should a…” rather than “Does a…” I can’t speak for all churches and how they deal with these pastoral situations; I can only speak for what my opinion is.
For the specifics of this question, I need to mention that it confuses me somewhat. First of all, I’m uncertain why pregnancy and childbirth would interfere with such a non-physical act as preaching. The only situation I can think of is medical complications, in which case the situation is simply one of sick leave. As far as other pastoral responsibilities that you don’t mention, again I’m uncertain why maternity leave would be required.
Of course, I may be missing your point a bit, which instead perhaps is the idea of a pastor ‘taking time off’ from their church for some reason, in this case to start a family. That could be construed as showing a lack of perspective towards one’s calling. But I’ve known several ‘pastors’ who have started families, and the church hasn’t suffered.
9. “Does an egalitarian female "pastor" counsel men about pornography?”
Yes. (Again, I’m assuming “should a…”, not “does a…”)
Let me now ask a question. Should a male pastor counsel a woman about pornography? After all, not all pornography is aimed at men (and not all pornography is aimed for straight people. Is the female pastor counseling a man about gay pornography? Does that change your complementarian answer to the question?)
The larger question I believe that you are asking is should a female pastor counsel men about sexual issues. Or will this cause some kind of unwanted ‘tension’? All the pastors I know have extensive training in counseling and are as perfectly capable of dealing with sexual issues irrespective of either their own gender or the gender of those they are counseling.
10. “Do egalitarian pastoral staffs go on pastoral retreats together?”
Sure, why not?
“If so, how does that work with having guys and girls together?”
With no problem.
“Do the spouses feel strange about this?”
Actually no, but mainly because they are invited along.
So, it seems that you are asking: can men and woman actually work together in the pragmatic world without sexual tension getting in the way of everything. Well, yeah. It happens every day. I work with women everyday without sex being on everyone’s mind. My wife works with men every day without sex being on everyone’s mind.
So, I would ask you: Why do you ask this question? What’s on your mind?
Mike,
You know that egalitarians believe that 1 Tim. 2:12 menas,
"I do not permit a woman to teach or dominate"
and that it refers to something negative that was going on at that time. Authenteo cannot possibly refer to an exercise of leadership in the church or anywhere else, and no one has any evidence that would demonstrate that it does. This is one reason why my answers to Dr. Grudem's "open letter" are so important.
It is sad to see the mistranslation of one verse so abused.
PS I didn't realize that my blog was so popular.
Good questions here.
It's interesting how whenever you ask real questions, you get side answers-- like "well, women are likely to be abused, not protected, by their 'intimate partners'"... um, hello-- we're talking about Christian marriages here, right? Who exactly, then, is an intimate partner?
And then, instead of answering if a woman "pastor" should be counseling a man struggling with porn, they ask, well, who will counsel the wife?
Um, Titus 2 has already addressed that. Women counseling women. Women teaching women. It's a biblical concept. It's not that women CAN'T teach, CAN'T counsel-- it's just that the Bible has a prescribed sphere for that to happen.
Ah, interesting questions nonetheless.
~Jess
The question also assumes that all women have ‘their guy.’ Though you may wish to, don’t forget that there are women who are gay.
A good world,
I loved many of your answers, but don't forget that there are many single women who would love to have a guy. I was attacked once in an underground parking lot after shopping. I can't take a guy with me every time I go shopping so I just avoid underground parking lots as much as I can. But I love to walk alone in the woods so I own a big dog, very sweet but large.
Jess,
Christian men abuse at the same rate as non-Christian men. Unfortunately that is a fact. So husband, or partner, Christian or not, men physically abuse at a higher rate than women abuse and cause more damage.
And, as I have already explained, a woman cannot depend on a man being along with her every time she goes shopping. And if a woman were to be shot, the only way that a man could protect his wife from being shot is to get off a preemptive shot first. Not a good practice.
Mike - thanks for responding! I'm not sure I understand, though. Is it wrong for a Bible study led by a woman to be promoted as "Bible study" or must it specifically say "Bible study FOR WOMEN ONLY?" What happens if a guy shows up - should the women let him know that he is not welcome there? (Do they have the authority to do so?)
1. have no idea how to answer this. Certainly children first. I think because men are the stronger, they should use their strength to support those weaker. And the ultimate goal should be to save as many lives as possible not divide up potential survivors.
2. If it is necessary for someone to go (probably best for no one and to phone for help), the one in the family who is the strongest, has more knowledge of combat, has the bat and knows how to use it in self defense, or has a gun and knows how to use it, etc. It is certainly not about privilege or status! Sometimes, two are better than one in these cases.
3. Certainly not! Would an hierarchalist man be offended if a woman opened the door for him?
4. When children are little they often do play rough across gender. As they get older and the boys get stronger, it would be improper for the stronger to take advantage of the weaker.
5. Cultural customs should be followed in whatever nation one is living. We should not hold too tightly to our customs.
6. Men’s bones are more dense than women’s. In addition the front of a man’s skull does not hold much in important brain tissue, whereas it does in women. It is unsuitable physically for women to be banging their heads about. As well, men’s entire physique is built denser than women’s. Men can throw their bodies about with less injury than women can do the same. Men are built for strength. Women are more flexible. We should each use our bodies according to their capabilities.
7. Most women tend to choose men who are stronger than they are and look to him for protection.
8. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. But more than other jobs talking/preaching/teaching, even studying/researching, etc. can continue while one is somewhat disabled. Beyond that, most women who take up pastoring are older and near the end of their birthing years….. at least as far as I’ve noted.
9. Certainly! In fact, a woman counseling a man about his need to stop pornography might be able to give him strong testimony on how his sin affects the women in his life as well as how it changes his view of women. As well, women are aware (or more should be) of the problems that men face. Most adult men are aware of the problems women face regarding menstruation, or should be.
10. I don’t see a big problem with men and women on retreats together. Certainly accommodations can easily be adjusted for different quarters. God created humanity male and female. It’s a pity that more of us have not learned to relate humanely toward one another.
1. have no idea how to answer this. Certainly children first. I think because men are the stronger, they should use their strength to support those weaker. And the ultimate goal should be to save as many lives as possible not divide up potential survivors.
2. If it is necessary for someone to go (probably best for no one and to phone for help), the one in the family who is the strongest, has more knowledge of combat, has the bat and knows how to use it in self defense, or has a gun and knows how to use it, etc. It is certainly not about privilege or status! Sometimes, two are better than one in these cases.
3. Certainly not! Would an hierarchalist be offended if a woman opened the door for him?
4. When children are little they often do play rough across gender. As they get older and the boys get stronger, it would be improper for the stronger to take advantage of the weaker.
5. Cultural customs should be followed in whatever nation one is living. We should not hold too tightly to our customs.
6. Men’s bones are more dense than women’s. In addition the front of a man’s skull does not hold much in important brain tissue, whereas it does in women. It is unsuitable physically for women to be banging their heads about. As well, men’s entire physique is built denser than women’s. Men can throw their bodies about with less injury than women can do the same. Men are built for strength. Women are more flexible. We should each use our bodies according to their capabilities.
7. Most women tend to choose men who are stronger than they are and look to him for protection.
8. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. But more than other jobs talking/preaching/teaching, even studying/researching, etc. can continue while one is somewhat disabled. Beyond that, most women who take up pastoring are older and near the end of their birthing years….. at least as far as I’ve noted.
9. Certainly! In fact, a woman counseling a man about his need to stop pornography might be able to give him strong testimony on how his sin affects the women in his life as well as how it changes his view of women. As well, women are aware (or more should be) of the problems that men face. Most adult men are aware of the problems women face regarding menstruation, or should be.
10. I don’t see a big problem with men and women on retreats together. Certainly accommodations can easily be adjusted for different quarters. God created humanity male and female. It’s a pity that more of us have not learned to relate humanely toward one another.
Hi, Mike, thanks for the post. I've linked to it at the Complegalitarian blog so I hope you get more comments from those who frequent there.
Many of these questions assume that the egalitarian denies sexual differentiation.
Please know that the egal position does not deny complementarity. It just denies a God-ordained hierarchy.
Often the egal position is "proved wrong" based on a false understanding of what the egal position is, as Grudem often demonstrates. Radical feminism (which usually includes the denial of distinctions between genders) is *very* different from Christian egalitarianism.
Christian egalitarianism says that one gender is not designed by God to rule over the other. Complementarity without hierarchy. That's it, in a nutshell. :)
Amen Molly,
I believe the genders are to complement (and compliment, haha) each other, but one is not to rule over the other.
Hi Mike. I've looked over your questions, and I do not make any connection with the concept of hierarchy in marriage. Can you connect the dots for me?
I would want 50% of the seats left to the elderly, man or woman. I would give up my seat gladly for a elderly man or woman who could not survive otherwise. Children would fall into that category too, otherwise my answers are basically the same as others.
Although I am not one to commit completely to either camp, I think these questions may be based on a misunderstanding on the view of a majority of egalitarians.
I too join those who thank you for having comments here. It shows me a willingness to both listen and to civilly discuss. I hope I am willing to do both as well.
Mike,
1. If the Titanic accident were to happen again, would you desire 50% of the seats on the life boats to be left for men?
The Titanic's, "women and children first," is a bit of a farce. It was more like, RICH women and children first. See here:
http://www.ithaca.edu/staff/jhenderson/titanic.html That's sort of another story altogether.
The society that built the Titanic said, "Women and Children First," and yet had no compunction chaining those children to a factory floor, and leaving widow women with NOTHING (all property of the dead husband going to the nearest male relative, the widow being completely at their mercy)...
The Titanic is being used by groups like Vision Forum to be a proof-text for a paradigm that never existed during that time.
2. If there is a robber who just broke into your house and you are married with children, would you want the man to go downstairs or the woman or would this be done depending on who had done it last time?
My husband.
Reverse question: If my husband goes down (being of bigger biceps-grin), which he would, does that prove that he was made to be a spiritual authority?
Christian egalitarians do not deny differences between the sexes. We only question whether one sex was designed to rule over the other one.
3. Would an egalitarian woman be offended at a man holding the door for her?
Not this one. :)
I always smile and give a gracious thank-you. My little boys also run to open the door for others. They are taught that is is a polite custom in our country for men to open doors for women.
Reverse question: In what way does having a door opened for me show me that I was designed to need male authority or that the door opener is in authority over me?
4. Do egalitarian parents allow their boys to play rough with the girls just like the boys play rough with other boys?
Not all boys and girls are alike. My friends, a homeschooling family with 7 children, have the MELLOWEST boys I've ever known (said with love--heehee): they are computer nerds and hate physical sports for the most part. They are not the wrestling type at all. They wouldn't begin to understand why you would even ask such a question.
Me, on the other hand? I threw the hardest fast-ball in the family and LOVED sports as a young girl...so did all of my younger brothers. We had a great time on the courts and in the fields. I won a college scholarship for volleyball.
We are a homeschooling family. I have five children (2 girls, 3 boys). One of my girls is a mellow one, one is a fantastic athlete. Two out of the three boys are the rough-and-tumble type---the other boy would rather build contraptions and design things. :)
They don't play based on their gender, they play based on what *they want to do,* with the caveat that they respect whoever they're playing with. Ie, if everyone's wrestling and one yells to be let out of the pile, that person gets let out of the pile, because, "we respect others" (family mantra-lol).
My oldest girl loves to jump in the pile and wrestles like crazy, whereas my second girl won't get in at all. :)
Respecting others is something we all should do with each other, boy or girl.
5. Do egalitarian parents train their boys that it is okay for them to be "stay at home dads?" If so, does a lot of domestic training happen for these boys?
In our home, everybody helps out. I've yet to find a Bible verse that says only girls do dishes. I think that's more an American stereotype from the 50's that sadly gets baptised as Christian.
My husband is a very masculine fire-fighter/builder/etc and is also known as Mr. Clean, as in he's the best housecleaner you'll ever meet. Interestingly, he's also going to be a stay-home dad this year while I go to work. He's always wanted to be the main homeschool teacher, and we worked it out so that this year it's possible.
Your question inferences that being a stay-home dad is a bad thing? I'm not sure why that is. Is a father being the main parent at home with his daughters and sons (something he's longed to do for many years) something that violates the heart of God?
I also am not sure why it would be bad for boys to learn how to take care of a home. Shouldn't members of a family learn how to clean up after themselves and eachother? How is this not Biblical?
I grew up in a home where girls did dishes and boys watched football. My brothers have struggled to realize that the world isn't going to wait on them. It took them a long time to grow up, because they lacked the practical skills of being able to understand how to pack a lunch for themselves. Their lack-of-training has proved to be a real disservice to their wives, as well. It's very sad.
6. Do you feel that women boxers should be allowed to fight in the ring with men?
?
I don't understand this question, I guess.
No.
I think the underlying misconception is here again, the idea that egals are opposed to sexual distinctions. Christian egals are not the same thing as secular radical feminists.
Christian egals do not deny complementarity---they affirm it. They simply don't see Scripture supporting the idea that Eve was designed to be ruled by Adam.
Gen. 3:16 to me shows where hierarchy came in...and it was not a positive addition to a complementary relationship, as history then went on to show.
7. Do egalitarian women desire to be protected by their guy (boyfriend, husband, father, etc.) or would they prefer to protect themselves?
Both. :)
As I think is true for every woman, I would hope to be protected by someone stronger than I am, if in a pinch, but I would also hope to be able to deliver a good kick-boxing move, too.
Men and women are both protectors, and this is Biblical, as well as demonstrated in creation itself. I live in Alaska...when the momma bears have their cubs, we stay AWAY. She is a protector...and I will personify her if anyone tries to get one of my kids.
I am not being "masculine" when I am protecting. Absolutely not. I'm being feminine. Because both masculine and feminine are protectors. Sometimes we just do it in different ways. We complement eachother. Again, we believe in complementarity without hierarchy. :)
8. Does an egalitarian female "pastor" get a maternity leave from her preaching responsibilities?
I don't know. I guess that would depend on the policies of the church hiring her. Why?
9. Does and egalitarian female "pastor" counsel men about pornography?
Well, male pastors sure do counsel a lot of abused wives to stay with their abusive husbands (often resulting in disaster), and I don't see that being given as a proof for why male pastors are bad...
:)
10. Do egalitarian pastoral staffs go on pastoral retreats together? If so, how does that work with having guys and girls together? Do the spouses feel strange about this?
Co-workers everywhere else go to seminars, etc, together. My friends husband, a cop, just recently went on a week long trip with co-workers, male and female. Business trips are also fairly normal.
Are male pastors less capable of handing women in the mix than businessmen are?
...
Thanks for letting me shoot out some off-the-top-of-my-head answers.
Warmly,
Molly
Very interesting responses so far. Explanations why the Titanic wouldn't now happen - which means you don't answer the question, isn't there a universal ethic that women and children are to be saved; men to be sacrificed if necessary. Obvious answer recognized in all cultures - yes.
My 4 year older sister beat "the crap" out of me until I turned 8. I wasn't bigger then but testosterone and budding masculinity demanded I retaliate with all the fury of an 8 year old boy. My Dad, at this point, out-lawed hitting by either of us and since he was bigger and stronger than the both; we ended the punching. (Sadly, that means my sister was able to stop when she was ahead. grin)
A couple responders seem to think that Daddy-homemaker works in the real world. This despite even secular studies showing that even feminists prefer that their husband would be the primary provider. Daddy-homemaker rarely makes for a happy marriage.
So Mike, there seems to be a lot of twisting and turning to avoid the obvious answers such as "women and children first" and it's obviously the man's responsibility to head down the stairs with the baseball bat in his hands if there appears to some imminent threat.
And no, I wasn't encouraging my daughter when she was 9 to be playing tackle football on the front lawn with the other little boys.
But that's obvious - in the real world.
Mike, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to engage in discussion. There have been some interesting responses. Hopefully mine can also add to the discussion.
1. If the Titanic accident were to happen again, would you desire 50% of the seats on the life boats to be left for men?
Why 50%? Why consider gender at all? I admire the Strausses in the Titanic incident the most because they refused to be separated. She refused to go on the boats to be away from him; he was willing to accept her sacrifice as an offering of love. Certainly as Christians shouldn't we be willing to offer our seats to those who are unsaved? So, I would prefer, if there were limited seats, that they be reserved for those who are unsaved, regardless of gender.
2. If there is a robber who just broke into your house and you are married with children, would you want the man to go downstairs or the woman or would this be done depending on who had done it last time?
I think that neither should go down. That's what phones are for. We, personally, would likely lock ourselves in our bedroom, get out the gun, and wait for the police.
3. Would an egalitarian woman be offended at a man holding the door for her?
No. Just as I (an egal woman) hold open the door for others (including men) as a courtesy to them. As a Christian, I believe that I am a servant to all . . . and that servanthood includes holding open doors for others. I am also willing to receive service from others in a (hopefully) spirit of humility that they are willing to serve me.
4. Do egalitarian parents allow their boys to play rough with the girls just like the boys play rough with other boys?
Actually, I didn't allow my son to play rough because he has ADHD and has no sense of boundaries. He still grew up to be a great man (a leader in the US Army) without the "benefits" of rough play. Why should we think it's okay for boys to hurt each other in "play"? Wouldn't it be better to teach them the godly characteristic of self-control, even as children?
5. Do egalitarian parents train their boys that it is okay for them to be "stay at home dads?" If so, does a lot of domestic training happen for these boys?
Both of my children (girl and boy) learned how to care for a home in all the ways . . . cleaning, repairing, moving lawns. My very "feminine" great-grandmother basically homesteaded by herself 160 acres in northern Idaho with 3 small boys to raise while her husband, by necessity, was two states away as a miner. Women have not always been these "flowers" and relegated to only certain tasks. Women are strong and can do much more than is often expected of them. Why wouldn't a man want a strong woman by his side?
6. Do you feel that women boxers should be allowed to fight in the ring with men?
I don't think anyone should be allowed to box. Again, why should we go back to the days when people paid to watch others beaten to a pulp (or eaten by lions)? Isn't there at least a shadow of the coliseum in all this?
7. Do egalitarian women desire to be protected by their guy (boyfriend, husband, father, etc.) or would they prefer to protect themselves?
I would prefer that the Lord protect me.
8. Does an egalitarian female "pastor" get a maternity leave from her preaching responsibilities?
Why not? I know many male pastors who take long "vacations" for a variety of reasons.
9. Does and egalitarian female "pastor" counsel men about pornography?
I believe in same gender counseling. Period.
10. Do egalitarian pastoral staffs go on pastoral retreats together? If so, how does that work with having guys and girls together? Do the spouses feel strange about this?
Invite the spouses. If we are truly "one" in marriage, then---regardless of title or employment---we are also one in ministry.
Thanks for the opportunity for this. However, to be honest, I find very little value in your questions. I would be interested in knowing why you asked them and why you chose these particular questions.
So Mike, there seems to be a lot of twisting and turning to avoid the obvious answers such as "women and children first" and it's obviously the man's responsibility to head down the stairs with the baseball bat in his hands if there appears to some imminent threat.
I don't understand. I didn't twist or turn...caring for the weak is the Christian ideal...I was just pointing out that the Titanic should not be used as a picture of an ideal society...it was a TERRIBLE society, in almost every way, for the weak of the world.
It's my responsibility in our home to get up at 3am with the crying baby and nurse it. It's also my responsibility to be the #1 nurturer of wounds, sickies, etc. Does that mean I'm designed to lead my husband?
How would a man feel if this sort of logic was being employed in his direction: "The fact that I, a woman, can speak better at an earlier age than males can, proves that I was designed to be a leader of males."
The questions don't make sense, in that way. Having differences does not prove anything regarding who gets to dominate in a relationship. (As Christians, neither should dominate, aka, the Sermon on the Mount, etc).
Both genders need eachother. Why this focus on who's got the highest seat? Doesn't it remind you more of the disciples asking Jesus for the best spots in heaven, vs. Jesus who took of His outer robe and washed the feet of His own servants?
What has been used as argument, as in, the stronger body protects the weaker body, isn't "proof" of any sort that the spouse with the stronger body should rule over the spouse with the weaker body. Besides the fact that a physical charactaristic is hardly the best proof for leadership, as Christ-followers, we are told that the strong aren't EVER supposed to lord it over the weak.
In the ways that I complement my husband by being stronger/better, I am in *sin* if I lord it over him. How is this different if it is reversed? How does bicep size prove ANYTHING regarding whether or not one spouse should be in charge of the other spouse?
Bottom line, I'm genuinely confused with the questions and with the tone of the commenter that I quoted above.
1) I don't think you intended it to be so but your question concerning the Titantic is in actuality asking a secular humanist question. It is reasking the secular humanist "life boat" question of "who has the most value of life?"
As a Christian my response to this secular humanist question is that all life has equal value.
2) In your question concerning the robber in the home your scenerio of huasband or wife going to confront him/her is actually a very bad answer to the situation.
The right answer is to call the police immediately, if possible get you and your children into one room together which can be securly locked and wait for the police to show up.
If a confrontation with the robber becomes a must both husband and wife must do all in their power to protect their children.
I as a woman would kill to protect my children and my husband if it became necessary to do so. Just as my husband would do to protect our children and me if it became necessary.
3) As a eqalitarian woman I am never offended when male or female holds a door open for me in an act of coutesty.
4) Your question concerning whether an egal would allow their boys to be rough with a girl assumes that all boys are rough and tumble and all girls are not.
I have seven children - 5 boys and 2 girls - so I feel extra qualified to answer this question.
I do not allow any of my children (male or female) to harm each other by their roughness. I teach that it is NOT play or fun to harm another. I teach them it is NOT play when only ONE of them is having fun.
Of my 5 boys not all of them are "rough and tumble", in fact, one of them is very sensitve and a peace maker at all times. I do NOT allow his "rough" brothers to harm him in any way shape of form.
I can also tell you that my "rough and tough" boys have indeed been bested by their "rough and tumble" sister.
I grow up an only sister of three brothers. I loved to play "rough" just as much as my brothers. I was quite the "tom boy". My brothers soon learned I would and I could stand up for myself. They have always been proud of the fact that I was able to do so.
5) The example my children have is of their father supporting our family through going to work each day, while I am forturnate in this economic climate to be able to stay home with them.
My husband working and my staying home is a CHOICE my husband and I made together for our family.
I am training my sons and my daughters that all such decisions are decisions which they will make mutually with their spouces. They together will decide what is best for their families.
As for domestic training, my boys are trained right along with my girls in all inside and outside work. Domestic chores have not been separated out by gender - we all work together.
6) I've never considered the question of men and women being allowed to box each other before.
My answer would be "if a woman boxer wants to do so then she should be allowed." She certainly knows her skill level and ability -
she would know if she was able to go toe to toe with a man of her same weight and size.
7) Your question concerning whether a woman desires to be protected by her father or husband to me is not a eqalitarian or complimentarian question.
All children - male or female - desire for protection from their father and mother. I absolutely as a youth desired my fahter's protection.
As a wife I do enjoy the protection of my husband. His protection comes in many forms -- not simply through his musclar strength.
My husband also enjoys my protection of him.
Protection in marriage is a two way street and not the simple one way you mentioned.
ALL women need to be able to be able to physically protect themselves at all times. We, as women, must cease to rely on a man to be our physical protection. The men in our lives are not able to be with us at all times. We must take responsibility for our own physical protection.
I'm an egal and a Pastor. My husband and I pastor a church together as equal pastors.
8) I will answer this question about maternity leave with an excerpt from my book Women, Get in the Army of God (copyright 20005 Dawn Wilson)
Psalm 68: 11-12 The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim the tidings are a great host: 12 “Kings of armies flee, they flee, And she who remains at home will divide the spoil!”
We see that the great host of women who proclaim the tidings will divide the spoils with she who remains at home. There is a season of inactive duty for women, as well as for men. We see in Deuteronomy 20: 5-7 and Deuteronomy 24: 5 that men have a season of being exempt from going to war. These men have been given a season of inactive service.
Deut. 20: 5-7 The officers also shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Who is the man that has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him depart and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. 6. ‘And who is the man that has planted a vineyard and has not begun to use its fruit? Let him depart and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man begin to use its fruit. 7. ‘And who is the man that is engaged to a woman and has not married her? Let him depart and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man marry her.’
Deut. 24: 5 When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army, nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.
Just as it is with men, there is a time of inactive service for the women who are in God’s army. Women who stay at home will share the spoils with she who serves in active duty. There is a time and season in each woman’s life when she must be on inactive status for varied reasons. The reason can be having an infant and toddlers to care for or it can be caring for elderly parents. The reasons for this season are varied, but as with men, this season is a short season, and we are soon called back to active duty.
9) Why make a distinction about a female pastor giving counsel to a man for the sexual sin of pronography?
All counseling on sexual sin - be it porno, sexual lust, adultery - is best performed with a member of the same sex in the room with the pastor.
The best approach is for another male to be present when the female pastor is giving counsel to a male and for another female to be present when a male pastor is giving counsel to a female.
This is how my husband and I handle all counseling of the opposite sex situations.
If is is not acceptable to the one being counseled that I or my husband be in the room we ask them to bring with them an individual of their opposite gender with them of their own choosing. This ensures I never give counsel to a man alone and my husband never gives counsel to a female alone.
If I am giving counsel to a man either my husband is in the room or another woman is in the room at all times.
If my husband is giving counsel to a woman either I am in the room or another man is in the room at all times.
10) Egal pastoral staff attend Pastoral conferences and retreats with their spouces just as complimentarian pastors do. Spouces don't feel weird about anything because they are actively included.
As for the question of single pastors on the pastoral staff. The Word says to avoid all appearance of evil. Separate sleeping quarters would be used by each gender. They would be strongly encouraged to have someone (of their same gender) share the room with them.
We maintain ourselves according to the Word of God at all times.
Being a complementarian; I carefully and repeatedly instructed my son that he was NOT allowed to beat on his little sister even when she was the initiator of a conflict, which she usually was. Also, as a tyke he was NOT allowed to hit his mother; but he could hit and tackle me if he so chose. I instructed him; "Men protect women."
"Don't wait for the police."
RP,
You have just seen that all egals do not think alike. Here are some responses.
isn't there a universal ethic that women and children are to be saved; men to be sacrificed if necessary. Obvious answer recognized in all cultures - yes.
Saving women and children first has to do with preserving one's own race/family. It has no connection to whether there is a male-female hierarchy. It is pragmatic. Molly has a good point. It was also about people of privilege - preserving a certain class of women and children. Sounds like Herbert Spencer would have approved.
I wasn't bigger then but testosterone and budding masculinity...
That would make a you a great member of the warrior class. I am not sure how this helps in the ruling class.
Women are not, pound for pound, as strong as men. Since when has pound for pound strength ratio been a factor in deciding leadership ability. This boggles my mind.
Is there a book somewhere that says "if you can overpower your neighbour you should be his/her master." Oh, right, I think there is. But not the Bible.
it's obviously the man's responsibility to head down the stairs with the baseball bat in his hands if there appears to some imminent threat.
It also shows that most complementarians live in two storey houses. Hmm. Somehow this does not sound like what the police said last time I checked.
My mother was a stay at home Mom with 8 children and she was an equal decision-maker with my Dad. This kept things running smoothly.
I like Christian woman with brains' answers, especially number one. Both my husband and I would want to stay together during any crisis. Each would give our lives for each other, yet neither one would wish the other to give their lives for us. I think women can be as brave as men in this situations. Together is the key. I just really liked that answer.
Thanks so much for allowing comments on this.
1. If the Titanic accident were to happen again, would you desire 50% of the seats on the life boats to be left for men?
What does this have to do with the Body of Christ and believers in marriage? You are misapplying egalitarianism. It is NOT either/or. It is mutual submission.
2. If there is a robber who just broke into your house and you are married with children, would you want the man to go downstairs or the woman or would this be done depending on who had done it last time?
Depends on who is the better shot and who can see in the dark best. Seriously, I do not see any woman, comp or egal, cowering behind the bed. Both would be involved...calling police, getting the children to safety working as a team to protect their family. I doubt very seriously that even comp wives would be fainting with the vapors like a damsel in distress.
3. Would an egalitarian woman be offended at a man holding the door for her?
How silly! Of course not. It is called 'good manners' to hold the door for others. You are confusing egalitarianism with radical feminism and bra burning with this question.
4. Do egalitarian parents allow their boys to play rough with the girls just like the boys play rough with other boys?
Uh, does this mean you had no little sister you terrorized? It is amazing what we overlook right in our homes in that respect.
5. Do egalitarian parents train their boys that it is okay for them to be "stay at home dads?" If so, does a lot of domestic training happen for these boys?
All kids need to be trained to take care of themselves and others. My parents were not egals (there was no term for it then) but my brothers had to wash dishes, do laundry, cook and clean just as I had to.
What if the husband is incapacitated and the wife has to be the provider? It happens.
6. Do you feel that women boxers should be allowed to fight in the ring with men?
What does this have to do with the Body of Christ and Christian marriages? It is culture stuff. We are not at war with the culture...lets evangelize them instead! Even those women boxers who are demanding to be in the ring with men. Let's share the gospel with them.
7. Do egalitarian women desire to be protected by their guy (boyfriend, husband, father, etc.) or would they prefer to protect themselves?
This is tricky because I know of too many 'professing Christian' men who are abusers at home and leaders at church. There is NO protection for the woman anyway. She needs to protect herself from him! IN this day and time when men are taught they are in authority over their wives, we can see many taking advantage of this lopsided teaching to lord it over their wives.
8. Does an egalitarian female "pastor" get a maternity leave from her preaching responsibilities?
Are you serious? In the seeker mega where I worked the MALE ministers got maternity leave to be home and help the wife!
In my state teachers do not get maternity leave. They just take vacation days.
9. Does and egalitarian female "pastor" counsel men about pornography?
Does a comp male pastor counsel a woman who has been abused by her husband?
What is the difference?
10. Do egalitarian pastoral staffs go on pastoral retreats together? If so, how does that work with having guys and girls together? Do the spouses feel strange about this?
Most mega church staff retreats have both men and women. This is already happening out there. It is just that the women do not have the title 'pastor'. Is it ok if the women are just 'directors'?
it's obviously the man's responsibility to head down the stairs with the baseball bat in his hands if there appears to some imminent threat.
What really worries me about this is that due to our socioeconomic bracket and number of children, both my parents and ourselves, had children who slept in the basement with windows at ground level. Was this sinful?
We own a large dog, and so do our neighbours on both sides. They are the big, floppy, noisy kinds of dogs, not the guard dog type but something anyway. The police said to put up movement sensor lights and own a large dog and have good relations with your neighbours, good locks etc.
Still, I feel that having children sleep on the ground floor is sinful for complementarians.
Mike,
Do you actively teach couples that children should not sleep on the ground floor? And if not, why this "down the stairs" question? I am at loss.
The BH has just suggested that your questions suggest the greater obligation of men to place themselves between women and danger, and that possibly the connection you are attempting to make is that greater authority naturally accompanies this greater obligation.
Is this the connection I missed? Is the BH close?
I'm a feminist one step over from egalitarian so I think I qualify.
1) When women are in positions of power you less often see the kind of arrogance that led to the titanic. But seats should be allocated in a rational fashion based on other criteria, sex would be low down on the list.
2) When there is physical danger I take care of it. Children do a lot better with a dead father than a dead mother and I'm more likely to be successful at violence than my wife.
3) Sometime yes, sometimes no. Generally not
4) I don't have boys, and my daughter has no desire to play rough. I've never discouraged her from rough housing however.
5) By the time I I lived alone I already knew how to cook (did that at home all during growing up), clean (camp, home...) and do laundry (camp). No great challenge.
6) Yes, but given the different distribution of fat they aren't likely to beat men in the same weight class. But if they want to try sure.
7) What does that even mean. Be more specific.
(I assume 8-10 are in theory)
8) Yes
9) Yes, unless the man is too uncomfortable talking about masturbating in front of a woman.
Same as a female shrink or medical doctor.
10) Professionals have to travel in mixed sex groups all the time. Nothing specific about pastors.
Now I'll read everybody else's I answered unbiased.
6)
May I point out, as an egalitarian, that you questions appear to me to all be focussed around the idea of 'who should, by reason of their gender, perform which tasks?'
These sorts of questions are irrelevant to Christian egalitarianism. Christian egalitarianism in a marriage is about each person being committed to putting the other person's needs above their own desires; nothing more and nothing less than that. In church, it's about people contributing the gifts that God has given them for the church and the assumption that these gifts are not limited by gender. Nothing more and nothing less than that.
You're asking egalitarians to step out of the paradigm that we inhabit and defend our position in the context of your paradigm. With that said, I'll take a stab at your pragmatic questions.
1. In a 'triage' situation, I'd want the weakest and most vulnerable people to have first access to help. This is different than a bizarre 50/50 allocation of resources by gender - why would you do that? (I do not consider myself, as a healthy 50-year-old woman, 'weak and vulnerable'.)
2. Whichever person had the most confidence in their ability to confront a burglar. Again, I'm not certain why you would preallocate this by gender.
3. No. Why would I be offended by someone doing something nice?
4. I'm not a parent, so hypothetical. Depends on the age. 4 year olds, yes. 14 year olds, no.
5. I'm not a parent, so hypothetical. I think it's OK for men to be stay at home dads. Both men and women should know basic 'home skills'. I've seen a number of elderly men who don't know how to cook, clean or wash for themselves when their wives die. This adds considerably to the strain of bereavement.
6. Men and women have different physiology. Men have more muscle mass per unit of weight. So no. (Setting aside the fact that I think all boxing should be illegal.)
7. This seems like a loaded question to me and I don't really understand it, but I think my answer is no, I do not expect my husband to 'protect' me.
8. Does a complementarian male "pastor' get time off from preaching when he has a prostate operation?
9. Being an egalitarian "female pastor" means that I assume that there are male leaders in the church who are competent to counsel men about pornography.
10. I've travelled extensively in my secular work and I've never committed adultery. I can honestly say that no Christian man has ever made a pass at me and that, on retreats, I have been perfectly capable of staying out of the rooms and beds of other guests. I have to say that I'm stunned and floored by this question.
Mike,
I have responded on my own blog post as I am not confident I meet your comment criteria and do not want my thoughts edited.
rabbi-philosopher:>>Being a complementarian; I carefully and repeatedly instructed my son that he was NOT allowed to beat on his little sister even when she was the initiator of a conflict, which she usually was. Also, as a tyke he was NOT allowed to hit his mother; but he could hit and tackle me if he so chose.>>
I'm just curious. Why was it okay for your son to be physically violent to you? and why was it okay for his sister to be physically violent to him?
Hello everyone,
Thank you for taking so much time to answer my questions. I really appreciate it and it has helped answer some of curiosities.
I will attempt to respond in a timely manner, but as you may be aware, I am getting a ton of question...which I am glad and just ask for your patience.
Sue,
I did just want to let you know that comps are not opposed to children sleeping downstairs. Comps desire to be biblical and not go beyond or fall short of what the bible teaches. The bible does not speak anything about what level of a home you sleep in. The question was just hypothetical. My desire in asking that question was to see if egals feel that their is an innate sense of a husband protecting his wife and family. I feel this responsibility and feel that it is my biblical obligation. I wondered if you felt that way too or not.
Thank you for your questions and I hope that brings clarity.
God bless,
mike
My desire in asking that question was to see if egals feel that their is an innate sense of a husband protecting his wife and family. I feel this responsibility and feel that it is my biblical obligation. I wondered if you felt that way too or not.
I am a single mother and as a parent I feel strongly obligated to protect my family. If I thought for one minute that there was a possibility of a breakin, then I would not want my children sleeping on the ground floor while I was sleeping on a higher floor. That would just not happen. Why would comps allow that? This does not make any sense to me. If it is in the Bible that a man must protect his family there should be explicit teaching on this. I am a little baffled.
Am I being unreasonable to find most of these questions disingenuous? They seem designed to make egalitarians show their supposed true colors as radical feminists, fallen prey to "worldly" secular culture.
And then when the egalitarians address them as such (showing why these simplistic either-or questions are not addressing the full, complex issues), they are accused of evading the questions...
I will answer just one. The Titanic. There is actually a purpose behind "women and children first" which is more than just romantic chivalry. I believe it is a reflection of the cultural priority to preserve the next generation. As such, it is a generality, and should be viewed as such. It would be more reflective of proper priorities if it were "children and their primary caregivers first." That is, it is our duty as a society to give first priority to the next generation's survival, and it would be the duty of the children's primary caregivers to save their children and themselves, and the duty of other society members to give place to them. That wasn't the way it worked on the Titanic, as has been said. Working-class children, mothers, fathers were imprisoned below decks, unable to even try to save themselves.
But if there is a just reason why a working-class widowed father of three young children should have lower priority to get on the boat with the kids who are relying solely on him to live, over a rich elderly lady who has lived a full life already, I'd like to know what it is.
Having said that-- all human life is precious, and so is the elderly lady's. I would hope we would never have to repeat the disastrous decisions that led to the sinking of the Titanic.
Mike,
Re-reading your opening statements, I may have come across too harsh in my last comment. You probably do respect egalitarians as people, and it was inappropriate for me to judge your motives in asking the questions.
I can say in complete honesty, in response to your last--
Yes, I do think men are obligated to protect their wives and families. I do think men are designed biologically with greater physical strength, to enable them to fulfill this task, particularly during those times their wives are vulnerable due to childbearing or nursing. I also think that women are supposed to protect their husbands and families too, using their own God-given gifts to do so. I do not think men and women are the same-- just equal. And I do not see where "more able to physically protect from physical danger" means "designed to be in charge." I don't think the Bible teaches that; I don't think there is anything in God's word or in biological design that says, "physical strength means divine right to lead." That's where I stand.
In response to: "I'm just curious. Why was it okay for your son to be physically violent to you? and why was it okay for his sister to be physically violent to him?"
It was NOT okay for my little girl to constantly tickle and harass her big brother. I did my best to stop it with limited effectiveness.
Wrestling, pummeling and roughhousing with one's son is part of the preparation and protection for the boyhood years. I wanted my son to not be afraid to stand up for himself if he was bullied or hit at school. As a man, I think you have to be prepared, hopefully rarely, for physical confrontation. You'll not always have a cop at hand.
I have, however, an instinctive distaste for boys hitting their Moms. I think that comes with the male DNA.
Rabid philopher : “Being a complementarian; I carefully and repeatedly instructed my son that he was NOT allowed to beat on his little sister even when she was the initiator of a conflict, which she usually was.”
I don’t know. According to America’s ‘true to life’ comics, Dennis the Menace and Peanuts, it’s the boy who starts the fights and make it look like it’s the girl’s fault. Maybe that is why boys make better leaders in the estimation of hierarchalists – because they can manipulate appearances well as all good American leaders do. :)
Laughter is good for the bones!
"My desire in asking that question was to see if egals feel that their is an innate sense of a husband protecting his wife and family. I feel this responsibility and feel that it is my biblical obligation. I wondered if you felt that way too or not."
I'm not an egalitarian. At the same time, I don't consider myself a complementarian, mainly because I tend not to toe the strict party line. For example, I would never ask the sort of questions asked here in an attempt to better understand my egalitarian friends. I guess I just don't have the comp mindset. I've asked my friends plenty of questions, to be sure, but my questions have been quite different, and my non-theological ones have tended to be far more pragmatic.
But then, I'm a woman. I tend to be more practical and far less hypothetical.
So...to be very practical here (perhaps a bit TOO practical for many readers) I'd like to tackle the question of protecting one another in marriage.
The way all the good marriage I know --- whether they are staunch egal, staunch comp, or some other kettle of fish entirely --- work is this: both husband and wife protect each other. That's what love does. Sometimes they protect each other in different ways. Just today at church, I saw how a wife was protecting her 98 year old husband from a wheelchair accident as well as from intrusive questions.
I've observed that men like to fantasize about robber scenarios and feats of great daring-do, while ignoring the many practical ways that they actually could protect their wives. Women, on the other hand, tend to live out their protective instincts in all sorts of constant and practical ways, with far less of a need to feel heroic and get recognition.
For example, I know of two unrelated women whose husbands' lives were threatened --- and the wives, without any qualms, would quietly go out and start their husbands' cars each morning, just to make sure that their husbands would not be blown up. (One woman was Pastor E.V. Hill's wife.) Were these women ungodly feminists? Hardly. They were just loving wives.
As for the downstairs robber hypothetical --- I would sincerely hope that my husband would not rush out there and confront a robber. He is not trained to handle such situations. I hardly want him, like other men have foolishly done, to escalate the situation, leaving me with a dead or critically injured husband, and robbers turned murderers who would want to kill me and my children...eventually...so that we could not identify them.
I'm a self-defense teacher and, as a result of my training and extensive reading, I teach people to avoid dangerous situations, not run foolishly into them in an attempt to turn a robbery into something violent.
If you don't believe me, I suggest you ask your local police as to the wisest course of action.
Our plan, in such a situation, is to get our family safe and secure as quickly as possible. Yes, I know that's a lot less fun to talk about and to fantasize about. It sounds downright cowardly to some men, who would rather like to imagine that they would quickly overpower any would-be robbers and, after the police carted the bad guys off, their wives (suddenly appearing much more glamorous and movie-star-like then they usually do in the middle of the night) would swoon in their husbands' arms, sighing, "My hero!"
But the truth of the matter is that some sort of wild panicky idiocy is hardly protecting your wife. Pretending that real life is like the movies is silly and unrealistic. Unless you have extensive training in self-defense shooting, experience in adrenal stress training, and the appropriate firearm ready, I would suggest you call the police and either get your family out of the house or carefully locked in a safe room.
In the meantime, why not protect your wives from every day threats...like exhaustion and frustration and discouragement...by helping with the dishes, tucking the children into bed, having meaningful conversations together, and finding out what real protection she actually needs on a daily basis?
Ah, but that's so...so practical and boring! It's much more fun to imagine the Titanic, and robbers downstairs, and boxing, and...and...
Kristen,
I could not find an e-mail address for you, so maybe you will see this via the comments...
I read your comment that you then said was too harsh in your second comment...would you rather me not publish the first comment? I was a bit confused on what you desired and I am okay with publishing it if you desire. Let me know your thoughts.
Rebecca,
I appreciate your questions and comments. I do think it is a bit uncharitable to assume I or other comp guys do not care about protecting our wives in the "boring" ways that you described. I do seek to care for and love my wife in ordinary events in life that are less Hollywood-like (which is everyday...for me). I take her flowers, I bathe the kids, I take care of discipline situations with my children when I get home. I am glad to serve her in these ways. It is a joy for me! This is how I caring our Eph. 5 with Christ loving the church.
Please understand that some of these questions are hypothetical and curiosities. I was not seeking to offend you...I was seeking to be friendly and ask and not assume.
Please feel free to let me know if you feel that I sinned against you or anyone else. My desire is to please the Lord and be humble. I am willing to hear any adjustment that I need...and have a friendly conversation.
God bless,
mike
Kristen,
I could not find an e-mail address for you, so maybe you will see this via the comments...
Mike Seaver said:
I read your comment that you then said was too harsh in your second comment...would you rather me not publish the first comment? I was a bit confused on what you desired and I am okay with publishing it if you desire. Let me know your thoughts.
Actually, my second post was intended as a modification to my first; since my first was my initial gut reaction, I think it's valuable to post it, and I'd like it if you would-- but please follow it up with my second, which is intended to override any judgmentalism which might have come through my first comment. Thank you.
Kristen --
Am I being unreasonable to find most of these questions disingenuous? They seem designed to make egalitarians show their supposed true colors as radical feminists, fallen prey to "worldly" secular culture.
I think these were meant as edge questions by Mike. That is questions that would force one to explore the underlying philosophy and order priorities. I do this on my blog when I've done interviews. For example a lot of people who knew CREC well were surprised by their answers on issues about wives attending churches different than their husbands. On my Xenos interview the edge questions revealed that I had the fault lines wrong. So I think it is a good technique.
An interesting point of contrast is the female boxer question vs. the female councilor question. No one seemed to have moral issues with 6 but the equalitarian side was split sharply on 9. The questions revealed a fault line, you could find some interesting results in trying to explore the why (for example are you looking at two different philosophies or are both sides torn).
Most of these questions involved issues of physicality because physical strength and/or size because this is is an area where egalitarians agree woman are men are unequal. So he is avoiding an argument about the facts of equality and rather gets to discuss implications.
Mike,
"I do seek to care for and love my wife in ordinary events in life that are less Hollywood-like (which is everyday...for me). I take her flowers, I bathe the kids, I take care of discipline situations with my children when I get home. I am glad to serve her in these ways."
In my world view (where women and men are equal) this attitude comes across as very patronising. Kind of "I help my wife because she can't cope without me, her big strong husband, to help her out with these mundane tasks that should really be her job. See how magnanimous I am from my position of superiority".
rabbi-philosopher:>>It was NOT okay for my little girl to constantly tickle and harass her big brother. I did my best to stop it with limited effectiveness.<<
Perhaps she was trying to imitate her brother? (Just a thought)
rabbi-philosopher:>>Wrestling, pummeling and roughhousing with one's son is part of the preparation and protection for the boyhood years.<<
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. My son was raised never to wrestle, pummel, or roughhouse and yet he has grown up to become a combat MP in the US Army (quite successful, actually).
rabbi-philosopher:>> I wanted my son to not be afraid to stand up for himself if he was bullied or hit at school.<<
Again, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I now work as a public school teacher. Any student on our campus who hits another (for any reason) is severely punished because the alternative is to tell a teacher (rather than to hit).
Just curious. Do you teach your children the Lord Jesus' lesson about turning the other cheek?
rabbi-philosopher:>>I have, however, an instinctive distaste for boys hitting their Moms. I think that comes with the male DNA. <<
I have the same distaste (and I'm not male).
"They seem designed to make egalitarians show their supposed true colors as radical feminists, fallen prey to "worldly" secular culture."
Perhaps the questions show that comps cannot think in terms of anything except specific 'roles' when it comes to men and women.
It is a nice and tidy Victorian middle class world of roles except when:
A husband dies
A husband gets sick
A husband loses his job
A husband is a professing Christian but also abusive.
I do think it is a bit uncharitable to assume I or other comp guys do not care about protecting our wives in the "boring" ways that you described. I do seek to care for and love my wife in ordinary events in life that are less Hollywood-like (which is everyday...for me). I take her flowers, I bathe the kids, I take care of discipline situations with my children when I get home. I am glad to serve her in these ways. It is a joy for me! This is how I caring our Eph. 5 with Christ loving the church.
Please understand that some of these questions are hypothetical and curiosities. I was not seeking to offend you...I was seeking to be friendly and ask and not assume.
I tried not to assume, as well --- but I couldn't help but be perplexed as to the purpose of the robber question. It seems that, if you wanted to find out whether egalitarians practiced husbandly protection or mutual protection, you could have picked a much better question. It is interesting that you picked the fantasy "I can run downstairs and singlehandedly deal with robbers because I am such a hero!" question, rather than the more mundane, boringly practical and realistic question.
I didn't want to assume that your question was a trick one, designed to show that egalitarians as so daft and out of touch with reality that they would actually consider confronting robbers to be a sensible course of action!
DaveW,
I also believe men and women are equal in worth and value...I am not seeking to be patronizing.
The comment that you quoted me from is from a larger context of a question I was answering to Rebecca. Rebecca was asking me if I (and other comps) are willing to protect our wives from hard daily tasks as well as the "robber" scenerio in the question. I think you pulled my quote out of context. I would encourage you to read Rebecca's comment and then mine...and see if that bring some clarity.
If the quote stands alone as you pulled it out, I agree with your assessment, but as I wrote in the context of Rebecca's question, I don't think there is a problem with it.
I don't desire to swoop into my home in the late afternoon and fix all the problems that my wife should have taken care of...this is hardly the case. She is a very capable woman and I go into the home thinking how I can maximize my love and cherishing of her...and enjoy time with my children. When I say that caring for my wife is a joy, I am not quietly grumbling...I am sincere.
God bless,
mike
Mike,
Why would you assume that because I am challenging you that I did not read all the comments?
I saw the context and I see that your response to me modifies your earlier comment.
When you write (yes in the context) "I take care of discipline situations with my children when I get home" you are implying
a) when my wife and I are both around I am more capable of handling discipline situations than her.
b) My wife does not cope well with the kids when I am at work so there are discipline situations that I need to take care of when I get home.
c) That my kids need to learn that Mum is not in charge and that Dad does not trust her to administer discipline properly.
These are basic assumptions that come over again and again in the phraseology used. They give a completely different impression to you now writing "I go into the home thinking how I can maximize my love and cherishing of her...and enjoy time with my children."
You have now switched from a male headship view such as:
(I am the head of the family I come home and take care of discipline)
to a quite different view like:
(I come home to celebrate mutual love between my wife and I [notice that a simple rewording emphasises that love is a mutual thing - it is not about headship or authority, the love your wife offers is equally important and valuable to the love you offer] and to enjoy time with my kids).
The words are important. The impact is important. The sub-texts are important. You original words keep hammering home the I am superior message of male headship.
The challenge is to become sensitive to the issue, to notice how this might feel - and I quite accept that with your situation your wife might not be sensitive to these phrases but on the outside they do stand out in that way.
Now you might not care about being sensitive to these phrases and indeed becoming so is perhaps inconsistent with your male headship view BUT they do highlight the incompatibility of the male headship view with equality.
Dave,
It is humorous to see you "taking up" for how his words appear to belittle or criticize women, when in fact, AS a woman, I find his comments enlightening and encouraging. My husband does the same thing Mike's talked about.
After a day of dealing with the children's discipline issues, I am relieved and delighted to have my husband come home and handle discipline issues.
Not only is he loving and serving me by doing so, but he is also teaching the children that we are of one mind... that the same things I am teaching them and training them in during the day will be supported by and taught by him with the same weight in the evenings.
This is not demeaning or derogatory, but rather is strengthening, showing oneness, and loving, showing a willingness to share the load. It's surprising to me that such an attitude is thought worthy of being picked apart.
Dave,
There is a fourth option "d" if you will...my wife has asked me if I would be willing to discipline the children when I get home. She has been doing it all day (and does a great job of it) but could use a break. Like I said in the original comment... "I take care of discipline situations with my children when I get home"...because I am caring for my wife. She is served in this way.
Dave, you seem to be assuming the worst in me in every option you gave. I'm not trying to attack you...please feel free to comment, but know that if your comments become harsh (as I feel that they are currently right on the edge) you will cease to be allowed to comment. This is a conversation, not a fight.
If you desire to talk more via e-mail, feel free to e-mail me.
Jess,
I am not picking apart a married couple supporting each other through sharing discipline and tasks. I am quite surprised that you could read what I wrote that way.
Surely "showing a willingness to share the load." should not be anything special for a couple that have become "one flesh". To me it seems that it is only in an environment that does not see the wife and husband as equal where it is something to be pleased and surprised about as it goers beyond expectations for a "leader" (oh unless you look at Jesus)
Jess & Mike,
In further explaining why I was wrong you have starting using a different language about marriage. A language of "we". That is part of my point. It is very different for a man to say "I do xyz" rather than to talk about "we have decided".
You have both said that I am assuming the worst. I beg to differ. This is a blog dedicated to male headship. Therefore where you use "I" (man) language I think it is entirely reasonable for me to assume you mean that in a way compatible with male headship (ie male authority and a focus on differences between genders and gender based roles).
I am sorry you feel I am being harsh, from my perspective it feels that you do not like firm disagreement. I will return to writing posts on my blog that link to yours so that I am sure I am not wasting my time writing comments.
Do you know that egalitarians don't want everyone to be the same? They want exercise based on who is more gifted in that particular area... not on flipping a coin. I think thats pretty basic, and these questions make me feel like you don't understand this.
1. If the Titanic accident were to happen again, would you desire 50% of the seats on the life boats to be left for men?
The strong should help the weak- children (both genders), the elderly (both genders), disabled (both genders) should be helped into the boats by those who are strong (both genders)
2. If there is a robber who just broke into your house and you are married with children, would you want the man to go downstairs or the woman or would this be done depending on who had done it last time?
As a friend told wayne grudem when he asked this question "well if your wife is Chyna from the WWF..."
but the point is: it doesn't make sense to go off just gender- who is more equipped to deal with the situation?
3. Would an egalitarian woman be offended at a man holding the door for her?
No, would a complementarian man be offended at a woman holding the door for him?
4. Do egalitarian parents allow their boys to play rough with the girls just like the boys play rough with other boys?
common sense dictates that you teach your kids not to play rough with weaker or smaller kids. I don't know if this is the case based only on gender...
5. Do egalitarian parents train their boys that it is okay for them to be "stay at home dads?" If so, does a lot of domestic training happen for these boys?
6. Do you feel that women boxers should be allowed to fight in the ring with men?
These are really all the same question. I don't see why there should be rules based on gender only- if they are an equal match then there is no reason they should not be allowed.
7. Do egalitarian women desire to be protected by their guy (boyfriend, husband, father, etc.) or would they prefer to protect themselves?
I'm sure it is different for each woman. Again, I'm sure Chyna from the WWF feels quite fine protecting herself, as would other females. (I should add that typically men are raised to detach themselves emotionally and make quick decisions which helps them quite a bit in reacting to sudden stressful situations- read this study for more info:http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/201/Helping_Beh_articles/Eagly%20-%20gender%20and%20helping%20behavior.pdf
)
8. Does an egalitarian female "pastor" get a maternity leave from her preaching responsibilities?
Why wouldn't you give an expectant mother maternity leave?
9. Does and egalitarian female "pastor" counsel men about pornography?
No. Just as a male pastor should absolutely not counsel a female member about pornography.
10. Do egalitarian pastoral staffs go on pastoral retreats together? If so, how does that work with having guys and girls together? Do the spouses feel strange about this?
Yes. There should be a group of people there (not 2 people) and they should stay separately.
"As a friend told wayne grudem when he asked this question "well if your wife is Chyna from the WWF..."
Is there a link to this or is in it a book?
1. If the Titanic accident were to happen again, would you desire 50% of the seats on the life boats to be left for men?
The Titanic should never happen again. I hoped we learned from that mistake--carry enough safety equipment for everyone. However, I would give priority to anyone with physical disabilities, to children, and to the elderly, since healthy younger adults stand a much better chance of swimming to safety. If I were on the next Titanic, I could not make myself board that lifeboat, knowing someone else would die (and potentially go to Hell) because I claimed a seat. If the worst case is I die and go to heaven, I'll give my seat to whoever wants it and stay with the ship.
2. If there is a robber who just broke into your house and you are married with children, would you want the man to go downstairs or the woman or would this be done depending on who had done it last time?
I'm assuming the man is probably bigger and stronger and would be more intimidating--hence, he should go; but I will agree with earlier comments that say the safest thing to do is gather the family and call the police, and if that fails, both parents must do what they can to deal with the threat.
3. Would an egalitarian woman be offended at a man holding the door for her?
Not at all. Neither would I be offended if he didn't hold it open. Doors are pretty minor life issues.
4. Do egalitarian parents allow their boys to play rough with the girls just like the boys play rough with other boys?
My brother and I roughhoused all the time growing up. Once somebody stopped having fun or got hurt (either one of us), we broke it up. It depends on if the kids have fun and are being safe or not.
5. Do egalitarian parents train their boys that it is okay for them to be "stay at home dads?" If so, does a lot of domestic training happen for these boys?
It's certainly okay for them to stay home if that's really the best way to approach things for them and their family. And I think whether you're going to be a stay-at-home dad or not, you should know how to keep a house running. Just like future stay-at-home moms need to know how to handle their own finances, know how take care of the lawn and car, and know basics about getting and holding down a job.
6. Do you feel that women boxers should be allowed to fight in the ring with men?
I think that any contact sport which involves both genders sounds shady. Boxing included.
7. Do egalitarian women desire to be protected by their guy (boyfriend, husband, father, etc.) or would they prefer to protect themselves?
It depends on what kind of protection we're talking about. Is he "protecting me" from killing the bug myself, or reading some news story that might make me sad? In that case, no, thanks, I'm an adult and can handle myself. But are we walking down a street and some guy jumps me? YES, I would expect him to help me get away, and if needed, beat the assailant senseless for threatening my well-being. That's not a gender issue; that's love and coming to another's aid. If someone jumped him, I would certainly not stand aside and wring my hands, and I sure hope he wouldn't either.
8. Does an egalitarian female "pastor" get a maternity leave from her preaching responsibilities?
If she needs it, yes, just like a male pastor would need some time off to recover from surgery.
9. Does and egalitarian female "pastor" counsel men about pornography?
I would imagine not by herself, assuming that this is a heterosexual man who is battling lust, hence, weird situations may arise. I would also not advise a male pastor to counsel a sexually-addicted female by himself. But I think most serious confrontation/counseling is best done with a witness anyway; husband and wife teams usually are great at this.
10. Do egalitarian pastoral staffs go on pastoral retreats together? If so, how does that work with having guys and girls together? Do the spouses feel strange about this?
Gender-specific cabins. Co-ed meetings. No problem.
Hi;
Most of these questions seem silly to me and I guess I would call myself a "soft comp".
The questions I would like to ask is: "Is it alright for a male pastor to teach women how to be Godly wives?" and "Is it alright for a female pastor to teach men how to be Godly husbands?"
Hi;
Most of these questions seem silly to me and I guess I would call myself a "soft comp".
The questions I would like to ask is: "Is it alright for a male pastor to teach women how to be Godly wives?" and "Is it alright for a female pastor to teach men how to be Godly husbands?"
On pastors teaching the other gender, if they know something they can teach it. If they do not know about it, they should teach something else. For example, a male should not try to teach what it means to be female, as I cannot see how he would know. But he can teach the Greek grammar of a passage, he can teach the cultural context of a passage, etc.
Blake,
Thanks for your question. I believe a male pastor will get to passages like Eph. 5:22, Titus 2, and 1 Timothy 2 through expository preaching and will need to teach the ladies about being godly wives. I think this is part of the teaching diet that God designed.
I do not believe a woman should be teaching/preaching the bible to men, so I think that would then answer the second part of your question.
God bless,
mike
Mike,
In the online Greek interlinear it translates 1 Timothy 2:12 as follows:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti2.pdf
TO-BE-TEACHING YET to-WOMAN NOT I-AM-permittING NOT-YET TO-BE-domineerING OF-MAN but TO-BE IN QUIETness
The fact that Paul uses the word "yet" twice indicates to me that he is talking about a current situation in this verse, rather than giving a command for all time.
In addition, the Greek interlinear doesn't use the word "authority" but rather dominate. It appears that it is dominating that is being prohibited, not authority.
As for boxing, I hate it. However, if I did approve of it I would say that men should always box men and women should always box women.
Also- if there is an intruder in the house I do not think it is wise for the husband to confront him. I took a course from a former FBI agent once, and he had experience with break ins. He said that if you become aware that someone has broken into your house its best to call the police if possible, and to pretend you are asleep. Intruders are much more likely to harm people who are awake than those who are asleep.
I think its great for men to protect women, but its better to totally avoid situations where this is necessary. Men can be seriously hurt in the process of protecting someone.
Mike,
One more thing and that is about pornograpy. There needs to be someone who can counsel the wives of men who use pornography. The women need counseling just as much as their husbands do. In addition single women need counseling about pornography in order for them to understand the implications of getting involved with men who use it. There is a serious need for a ministry like this in churches, and it would probably be done best by women (just like its best for men to counsel men).
Mike:
The questions are sort of straw-men in nature, but worthy of contemplation. I am not sure that they really get to the heart of the theological debate over complimentarianism and egalitarianism, as so many were couched in scenarios that are more secular and generally unrelated to scriptural teaching on gender roles.
That said, your graciousness in allowing and responding to the comments is remarkable. Well done.
I got fatigued after seeing the same fundamental arguements being offered again and again through the 60 posts that are currently listed. I admire your patience and tenacity should you really remain commited to your plan to leave comments open until the end of the year. You must be really hopeful that someone will offer something new rather than just restatements of the answers.
"I do not believe a woman should be teaching/preaching the bible to men, so I think that would then answer the second part of your question."
Oh dear. Do you also teach them that women are saved or sanctified through childbearing?
Chuck --
I am not sure that they really get to the heart of the theological debate over complimentarianism and egalitarianism, as so many were couched in scenarios that are more secular and generally unrelated to scriptural teaching on gender roles.
What questions do yo think would get to the heart?
CD Host:
Outside of questions focused on the scriptural instructions for the roles assigned to men and women in the oversight of the church and care giving for believers, along with the instructions related to the relationship between a man and a woman joined in a covenental marriage bond, there is no real debate about "complimentarianism" and "egalitarianism." These terms ought to be limited to the debated interpretation of women's roles as described in scripture.
Applying the concepts of comp./egal. to hypothetical scenarios like home intrusion, lifeboats and boxing, among others was a clever devise to elicit discussion. And it seems to have worked. The number of comments to this post is evidence of that. But these hypotheticals are so far outside the teaching about women found in scripture as to be missing the point. While I am not accusing Mike of this, they could almost be considered to be trivializing some very important teaching, about which there is vigorous disagreement.
So, with that as the prologue, any questions that can be drawn from Eph. 5, Col 3, 1 Tim 3, and Titus 1would be appropriate and central to the issue, because they are the heart of the teaching that is being debated.
Hope that helps.
Mike,
I really appreciate the fact that you post opinions that are different from your own. You have been truly gracious to those of us who have another opinion on women than you do, and I really appreciate it. You are a bigger person than I am.
Chuck --
So, with that as the prologue, any questions that can be drawn from Eph. 5, Col 3, 1 Tim 3, and Titus 1would be appropriate and central to the issue, because they are the heart of the teaching that is being debated.
OK what sorts of questions? Do you mean the normal, can women be pastors / elders / ... or did you mean something else?
The standard issues are well debated elsewhere. IMHO it comes down to how you weigh the evidence. For example in your list of verses you don't include Galatians 3:28, I would assume because you don't think this has wide application. You don't include Acts 18 or 1Cor7. That is you have already decided what verses are key. As I commented in my older debate when this was debated 1600 years ago verses like Jn13:25 and Jn21:7 were considered important which today aren't even examined as relevant.
This is why I don't think Mike is trivializing the issue plenty of discussion has happened on the hermeneutical interpretation of scripture on these issues. For example I had a whole formal debate with a teampyro guy that ended up mainly being indirectly about hermeneutics. He argued the conservative position that the verses meant what they sounded like to 21st century conservative American, while I argued the liberal position that the verses meant what they sounded like to people of the contemporaneous receiving cultures. Suzanne on a bunch of blogs keeps presenting good evidence of the bad systematic mistranslation of Greek required to support the Grudem/ESV's style interpretation.
What Mike is trying to do, which in my opinion is a very good thing is get people to address the underlying assumptions that make their hermeneutic seem natural. I think it has already happened, he found a good fault line with female pornography counseling; which can be very useful because it means discussion can happen among people without radically different assumptions.
CD Host
You deserve a response, but I'm not in the least bit interested in getting into a long drawn out discussion. I made an initial comment, addressed to Mike, and you raised a question, which I in turn answered. I'll now give you the respect of my response to your most recent inquiry of me. However, it seems you might have more time to debate on blogs than I do, as evidenced by your own comments.
I don't see the connection between the extra verses you cite and the doctrine of complementary versus equal gender ROLES. Gal 3:28 speaks to the equal and infinite value of people who are in Christ, irrespective of gender, race, or social status. I don't know of any complimentarians who argue against that as the teaching is clear. But as I read Gal 3:28 I can't see that it has anything to do with gender ROLES. In Acts 18, since you were not specific, I assume you are referring to Priscilla and her husband Aquila who instructed Apollos? If that is the case, in that narrative, I see no formal magisterial authority being assigned to nor claimed by Priscilla. She AND HER HUSBAND heard Apolos teach, found some insufficiency, and THEY straightened out on the matter of baptism. As for 1 Cor 7, it is a long chapter and I I have no idea what point you are trying to make from it.
That said, I have lots of things to do, including sermon preparation for this weekend, so all the best to you,...over and out.
FWIIW, I cannot the word "role" in the Bible. Can someone else find it? If we cannot find it, why do some want to use it?
"I see no formal magisterial authority being assigned to nor claimed by Priscilla."
Yikes. 'magisterial authority'? I thought all Christians were servants in the Holy Priesthood.
Role is an acting word.
Don B. Johnson:
My first inclination was to think you were kidding, but I'll respond with the belief that you are being sincere. Just to confirm, is it your contention that if a word does not exist in the Bible, it is not useful for discussions of subjects related to scripture? This particular blog article, and indeed this whole blog site (as near as I can tell) is dedicated to discussing issues around two words: "complimentarianism", and "egalitarianism." Try to find those words in the Bible. What! No luck?
I really am not trying to be snarky here, but I have also been unable to find the word "Bible" in the Bible. How should we think about that?
The word "role" is one whose meaning is sufficiently clear and germane to the discussion. And if it is not, you need to take it up with Mike, as the name of his blog is now in need of change.
I was respecting Chuck's desire not to get involved in a debate but since others are jumping in: I did a study or Priscilla and the evidence for her leadership is extremely strong both internal and external to the bible.
"Role is an acting word."
Yes. It is French. It described the scroll that actors used to read their part in the play.
I cannot even find the passages that describe my specific roles I am to play as wife and mother in the NT. There are a few proof texts that a lot has been read into. However, I can find plenty instructing me how to live as a Christian. :o)
I did a study on 1 Tim. 2:12 with some interesting results. Christians were specifically not to have "magisterial authority" over anyone.
You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles dominate (have lordly authority over) them, and their men of high positions exercise power over them. But it must not be like that among you.
Well, I think all believers want to have their faith based on the Bible. So using words not found in the Bible seems to result in a risk that does not need to be taken if you just stick to words in the Bible. At the very least if you decide it is needed to use a non-Biblical word, then one should state WHY it is seen as useful. My concern is that one might add to the Bible, even innocently, but we are not to do that.
Post a Comment