A Critique of “Mingling Of Souls” Book by Matt Chandler #MOSdating

mattchandler

A few weeks ago, I dug out my old prayer journals from years ago. I began journaling to God, when I gave my life to Jesus as a 13-year-old. I have always had a great desire to be married, even as a little girl. I basically had three interests as a teenager and young woman: Jesus, shopping at Forever 21, and BOYS.

As I read through some of my journals from age 13 to 22, I could not help but laugh at my obsession with finding “the one.”

As a woman who grew up in the conservative evangelical church, I believed that I needed to find a husband who would be my spiritual leader and whom I could respect enough to submit to.

What is interesting is that my minister parents never taught me to look for this. Gender roles were not something my family practiced. My parents were equal partners in ministry and business; there was no subordination whatsoever, and they both financially provided for our family.

My mom led our family in her strong areas and my dad led our family in his strong areas. They rarely fought about anything, at least not in front of my sister and me. Today, they have been married for almost 40 years, still hold hands, and smile at each other as if they were married yesterday.

Yet, even with their excellent example of an egalitarian marriage, I still somehow got it into my head that I was supposed to marry a spiritual leader that I could submit to.

As a teenager, I was probably the strongest Christian leader in my high school, and definitely one of the strongest Christian leaders in my whole town. I remember thinking to myself, “How will I ever find a man that is a stronger spiritual leader than I am?”

As a naturally strong-willed and deeply spiritual teen, I thought that I needed to find a guy who was more strong-willed and more spiritual than I was. In fact, I broke up with my high school sweetheart because I didn’t think he was “the one” to tame me.

I went to Bible school at Christ for the Nations in Dallas, TX, where I roomed with Kari Jobe my first semester. Maybe you have heard of her? A strong female leader indeed; one who sings God’s Word over both women and men, and leads a creative team of both women and men (including her husband).

At CFNI I thought for sure I would find this ideal “spiritual leader,” whom I could get behind and support. There were a few guys there that I would say were on my level of “spiritual leaderness,” but either I was not attracted to them, or they were not attracted to me.

I knew from an early age that I was called to devote my life to ministry, so I knew that I had to marry a man who felt he could do the same. My nature has always been particular, from the men I chose, to the brand of ice cream I eat. I also knew that I was not looking to date just to date. I did that in high school, and it was a disaster that ended in two broken hearts.

I decided at 18 years old that the next guy I seriously dated, would be the man I married, which proved to be one of the wisest decisions I had ever made. 

So, from age 18 to 22, I did not have any boyfriends. Sometimes a guy would like me, and we would grab coffee or whatever, but I was petrified of getting involved with any guy who was not “the one.”

As a sensitive soul, I could not emotionally handle another breakup from a serious relationship.

I also knew how much I enjoyed physical affection, and wanted to avoid the temptation to give my virginity away to the wrong man. It was important to me that my husband be the first person I had sex with. I knew from my far from perfect high school relationship how damaging a physical relationship can be, when it is outside of the context of marriage.

I graduated from Southwestern Assemblies of God University, in Waxahachie, TX, in 2006. I had gained a Bachelors in Church Ministries, but no husband-to-be. I took advantage of my single life; I traveled to Europe to follow the footsteps of the Apostle Paul, and spent two weeks in the uncivilized mountains of Papua New Guinea to serve the poor and spread the good news of Jesus Christ.

Yet, even with all of the exciting things I got to do as a young single woman, my heart cry was to be married.

I spent one year teaching 7th grade in a small Christian private school, because I could not find a job in ministry. Many pastoral positions would say, “only men should apply” or “we are looking for God’s man for the job.” I had no desire to be a children’s minister, so I got a job teaching Junior High.

Quite honestly, I didn’t really care if those kids learned mathematics; I was more interested in giving them an experience with Jesus. So I planned a spiritual retreat for the whole junior high, and focused much of my energy on teaching them the Bible. I was called to be a minister, not a junior high teacher, but I made the best of it.

Since it seemed the evangelical church did not want me as a minister because I was born female, I went to graduate school. I thought that I would try to become a Church History & Theology professor. In the back of my mind though, I hoped that if I had a master’s degree, someone would overlook my gender and give me a chance to be faithful to my calling. I also hoped that I would find “the one” who would be my “spiritual leader.”

To be honest, I did not even know what a husband being my “spiritual leader” would look like, except that he would lead us in Bible devotions, prayer, and possibly make “final decisions.” The fantasy I had was not fully developed, but I knew that I was looking for a man that was close to morally perfect, stronger-willed than me, and even more interested in God and ministry than I was.

Yet, at 22 years old, it was becoming increasingly clear that the man I was searching for did not exist. There was, however, one young man that captured my attention. First of all, his look was not right. I was looking to marry someone with a tan complexion and dark features, not a blond with blue eyes. But I found myself wildly attracted to him.

Secondly, he was not studying the right subject. I was looking for a man in the divinity school that I was in, not a man about to graduate with his master’s degree in government. Yet, I found myself intrigued with this man’s intellect. To make matters worse, this man told me he was a democrat. WHAT?! I had never even heard of a Christian democrat before. Is it even possible to be both a Christian and a democrat?!

At the time, I was a part-time youth director at a small Presbyterian church, so I invited this so-called “Christian democrat” to help me with my youth group. This was sort of our first date. The youth and I were spending an evening serving at-risk women and children, and I was blown away by how this young man related to the youth, how he interacted with the women, and how he played with the children.

This was a good sign that he would be able to handle a life of ministry, but he was far from a “spiritual leader” at that time. I watched him drink one too many beers and say one too many cuss words. This was not the morally almost-perfect guy I was looking for. Yet, deep down, I knew he was good. Really, really good.

I had known guys from Bible school, training to be ministers, who would have never touched alcohol, said a cuss word, or voted as democrats – men that the evangelical world would have given an A+ to in their ability to be a “spiritual leader” – but they were mostly arrogant, self-righteous, prideful know-it-alls. I knew I could never marry one of these types.

The truth is, I was falling in love with the blond-haired, blue-eyed, cussin’, drinkin’, Christian democrat, and it terrified me. The more I knew his heart, the more I loved him. The more I loved him, the more anxious I became. He was ruining all of my plans and busting all of my bubbles.

I remember calling my mom in tears, “What do I do, mom? He is not who I was looking for. Right now, I am more of a spiritual leader than he is, but he is so deeply good and truly loves Jesus. Am I sinning to love him? To date him? To marry him?”

That day, my mom gave me the wisest marriage advice that I have ever heard: “Jory, it boils down to these two questions. One, does he love Jesus? Two, does he love you more than he loves himself?”

Could it really be this simple? Could I let go of all my Christian fantasies & ideals for true love? What do the scriptures say? Am I being faithful to the written Word of God, if I let myself fully love this man?

When I studied the Bible with my eyes wide open, I realized the following:

-The Bible never calls husbands the “spiritual leader.”
-The Bible never says that husbands are supposed to make all the “final decisions.”
-The Bible calls husbands and wives to mutually submit to one another.

Mingling of Souls, by Matt Chandler, heavily leans on the ideas that husbands are the spiritual leaders, husbands do make all final decisions, and wives are to submit to their husbands more than husbands are to submit to their wives. These are not clear biblical principles.

I enjoyed the book, and I think it is loaded with wisdom and many biblical points, but I know from experience the turmoil that a young woman faces when she is a strong spiritual leader, but desperately wants to please God by marrying an even stronger spiritual leader.

In my 32 years of life, I have yet to meet a suitable man who is a stronger spiritual leader than I am. Often, a woman will shrink herself, make herself smaller than she actually is, so a man can “lead” her. Women generally thrive in spirituality, and some women are natural leaders, and God wants us to grow with our husbands by our sides, not make ourselves smaller in passion, voice, value, or spiritual authority.

Our spiritual authority comes from the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit that lives inside of Christian women is of no less power or authority than the Spirit that lives inside Christian men. When we try to make ourselves less powerful than we actually are, in hopes of finding a husband to lead us, we quench the Spirit inside of us, and all that Spirit wants to do through us to expand God’s Kingdom. 

Any theology that casts all men as leaders and all women as followers is simply unbiblical. Just ask Judge Deborah, who led men and women into both literal and spiritual battle (Judges 4). Don’t allow anyone to tell you that Judge Deborah was God’s second choice and only chosen because no man would stand up (the Bible never even insinuates this).

No, friends, Judge Deborah was born to be a warrior, and so are many other women filled with the Spirit of God.

Judge Deborah defied societal gender roles, because she had but one spiritual leader, the great “I Am.” Scripture tells us that Judge Deborah was married, but did her husband lead her or God’s people into battle? No, because he was not the one God chose to lead.

God chose a woman, who spent her days sitting under a tree, prophesying and preaching to whomever would listen. I imagine the men in those days would not let her in their pulpits, but who needs a pulpit when we can preach the truth of freedom into existence wherever we are standing.

We need no finite man to lead us, whether we are single or married, because we follow but one man, and His name is Jesus Christ. He is jealous for our love and is calling us back to Him.

Yes, Ephesians 5 calls husbands, “the head of the wife,” but even the Apostle Paul calls this metaphor, symbolic of unity, a “great mystery.” The word “head” is referring to a literal head (not “authority over”). We know this because in the same passage, wives are symbolically referred to as “the body.”

Matt Chandler left out Ephesians 5 verse 21 when he mentioned this passage. Verse 21, which calls for husbands and wives to submit to one another, must go with verses 22 & 23, because it provides the verb “submit,” for verses 22-23, when this passage is read in the original Greek language.

To have a biblical & functional marriage, a husband and a wife must submit to one another. Think of it this way: a head must submit to its body, or the body will slowly die. If the head ignores the body’s needs, such as hunger and thirst, both the body and the head will break down.

Complementarianism has emphasized female submission and male leadership, but the Bible has called husbands and wives to submit to one another, just as all believers are meant to submit to one another. Unjust hierarchies and subordination, as found in complementarian gender roles, are harmful because they are a great threat to unity. Let’s be honest, no one really wants to be at the bottom of any hierarchy.

Further, “leadership” is a spiritual gift, that not all men are given.

The gift of leadership is given to whom the Spirit chooses, men and women alike. First Corinthians 12 lists many gifts that the Spirit gives those who are part of the Body of Christ. Among those gifts, leadership, apostleship, teaching, and pastoring are named gifts, and there is no mention of those gifts being based on gender. In fact, we see a female apostle named Junia, whom Paul calls “outstanding among the apostles (Rom. 16:7).”

In New Testament times, the role of Apostle was of much greater authority than the role of “pastor.”

Don’t let anyone explain Junia away; she was God’s chosen leader and highly favored by the Apostle Paul. But didn’t Paul tell women to be silent in the Church and that they are not to have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12)? Yes, he did, but that command was directed to this one church because many of the women in that church were spreading false teachings.

We know that Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:12 was not ever supposed to be taken as a universal and timeless command.

We know this because Paul praised female Bible teachers, house church leaders, an apostle, and a deacon. Paul even praises the preacher, Priscilla, in the New Testament, and mentions her name before her husband’s name 5 times out of 7 times. This would have been a big deal in an extreme patriarchal society. It tells us that Paul probably saw her as more of the minister than her husband.

I am fairly certain that the Apostle Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew how evangelical leaders are silencing and limiting half of Jesus’ Church, in the name of “male headship,” “creation order,” and “church offices.”

Does it sound like Jesus to slow the efforts of spreading the gospel, by telling women they are not permitted to lead men or teach the Bible to men? Or does this sound more like the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were more concerned with making up “biblical laws” to control and oppress people, than loving and lifting the vulnerable and marginalized?

Remember, it was Jesus who praised Mary over her sister, Martha, for sitting at His feet as His highly favored student (a posture reserved for men alone in that religious culture). While Martha sought to get Mary back in her place, Jesus sided with His deeply beloved disciple (Luke 10:38-42).

There is not one Bible verse that says that husbands are to make final decisions. 

In fact, there is not one Bible verse that says women cannot be pastors. But didn’t God create woman to be man’s helper? Yes, God did, but we must understand that this word “helper” in ancient Hebrew is the word “ezer.” This word does not denote an assistant or subordinate type of helper. The word ezer is used twice to describe the first woman, and 16 times to describe, “God as our helper,” throughout the Old Testament. Is God a subordinate type of helper to humans?

Ezer should be translated as a strong, suitable, corresponding, powerful partner. Ezer is a warrior, always ready to go to battle against the enemy with the truth of God’s Word! Woman is made in the image of God. Is part of God’s image of less authority or weaker than another part of God’s image?

We do not see any type of subordination between man and woman until the fall of humankind (when Adam and Eve disobeyed God). Part of Eve’s consequences for sin were that she will desire a husband, and that he will rule over her (Gen. 3:16).

Sisters, listen to me, you are more than finding a husband. You were created for more, and Jesus Christ has broken the power of sin’s consequences over our lives (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 3:13; Ps. 107:14; Rom. 8:2). You are not prone to deception. You have been given the mind of Christ and you can trust your feminine intuition (1 Cor. 2:16).

You are not prone to deceiving men. You are an honest and good daughter of the most high God. You are not prone to bucking against submission any more than any other human. Your femininity is not tainted. You are redeemed by the blood of the lamb and you are whole with or without a man (1 Peter 1:19).

God has redeemed and is redeeming a woman’s rightful place, right beside man, equal in both worth & spiritual authority.

Know who you are, ezer, and you will attract a guy who is secure in his manhood, even if he does not fit the evangelical mold. A man who loves you like Christ loves the Church will never limit your potential, squash your “unapproved” spiritual gifts, or be intimidated by your boisterous personality. In fact, he will empower you to do even greater things than he, just as Jesus did for us, His beloved bride (John 14:12).

Be careful, you just might end up marrying a democrat.

***

For More Biblical & Historical Evidence, Read Jory Micah’s Masters Thesis

(Jory Micah Holds a Masters Degree in Biblical Studies from Regent University – a Conservative Evangelical Seminary)

Masters Thesis

See Jory’s Other Post Concerning “Mingling of Souls” Conferences:

My Concerns Over Matt & Lauren Chandler’s Up & Coming Marriage Conference #MinglingofSouls

More from Jory Micah

Life is not Always a Facebook Picture

It is easy to get caught up in the world that I...
Read More

122 Comments

  • Jory, I am so glad I found you, especially now in these times. As Biblically conservative socially liberal independents, we have found ourselves floundering in the evangelical church, feeling like there is no home for “people like us”. We love God’s word and in our study have come to where you are. We have the kind of marriage you write about. It is rich with serving each other and being examples to each other of Christ’s love. We have a passion for others to find the hope that only Christ can give, and we weep when those who are seeking see the model of the evangelical church and say in no uncertain terms,”No thank you.” We are wondering if we should say the same… as Jennifer said, “Preach it.”

    • Char, I believe that God is about to do something new beyond evangelicalism. God is raising up leaders who are more socially liberal, but also very dedicated to the authority and power of the Scriptures. It scares the heck out of many old school evangelicals, but we move forwards anyways. We soldier on! Nice “meeting” you!

  • The problem with your interpretation Jory is that you are offering your private interpretation outside of what was handed down to the church by Jesus and the Apostles. In this light, how does your interpretation hold any more water than any other private interpretation like the gay agenda?
    The narrative of Deborah in the book of judges is not something that will support your ideology, however, it is set in the same spiritual setting where “people did what was right in their own eyes”
    Secular feminism has a slogan of breaking the glass ceiling which you transport into the faith with breaking the glass steeple. We dont read about Deborah boasting of her spiritual prowess over men or bringing foreign beliefs into her ministry. Rather, we witness her humility in trying to get men to lead. She was not a typical judge who sat at the city gates representing her tribe in their dominate city according to what was prescribed by God in the law of Moses….
    Deuteronomy 16:18. “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment.”
    Deborah sat under a palm tree in the mountains of Ephraim between Ramah and Bethel, not at the city gates.
    She is not a warrior woman as you claim, rather, no army was under her dispatch as a regular judge, although she could have mustered one with her influence “she sent and called for Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali” (4:6) to lead the army.
    Barak would not lead the army without the presence of Deborah, which shows weak male leadership guiding Israel in its apostasy. Deborah responds “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”
    Deborah doesn’t go after self glorification, rather, she encourages the men to lead in a time of spiritual apostasy.
    The book of judges uses the hero genre in its message, however, it turns the hero genre on its head by using unlikely candidates in order to shame the people into faith and the men to leadership.
    Deborah would have been an older woman whose children had grown up or a childless wife since God would not condone a wife to abandon her family or to distort sexuality in order to lead the people. This would be a moral contradiction. This message is found throughout scripture and Paul deals with it specifically.
    The example of Deborah to shame men into leadership is also used by the prophet Isaiah
    “Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.”

    • There is great biblical support for my interpretation of the scriptures. It may look secular to you, but I am filled with the Holy Spirit from head to toe, and being led by Her. 🙂

    • Barack was not a weak leader because he wanted Deborah with him in battle. Rather, I read it as he recognized her wisdom as a prophet and judge. He decided it prudent for him that she would go with him.

      Also, I don’t believe God was using Deborah in order to shame the men into leadership. If this were true, then God really didn’t/doesn’t think much of men or women.

      It’s interesting and a little sad that depending on how we view God determines how we view one another. Complementarianism tends to view women as less than and yet God doesn’t see us that way. God doesn’t use one gender to shame the other gender nor does He call women to positions because no men are available to lead. Why would God give some women leadership gifts only to tell them they can’t use their gifts unless no men are available?! This thinking makes no sense and goes against God’s character, who he is.

      Thank you Jory for continuing to speak on this important subject with a well-written post.

  • Good stuff Jory! Can you tell me where leadershis listed as a spiritual gift? I have never seen it specifically named, though i do believe it’s a gift. Thanks sister!!

    • First Corinthians Chapter 12:

      27 All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it. 28 Here are some of the parts God has appointed for the church:

      first are apostles,
      second are prophets,
      third are teachers,
      then those who do miracles,
      those who have the gift of healing,
      those who can help others,
      those who have the gift of leadership,
      those who speak in unknown languages.

  • You replied
    “There is great biblical support for my interpretation of the scriptures. It may look secular to you, but I am filled with the Holy Spirit from head to toe, and being led by Her. ”

    I guess the church was misinformed and not spirit filled for nearly 1900 years until feminism came on the scene in the lat 70 years. Ironically. this teaching was fought by the church in its infancy with the montanist and Gnostic teachings. Feminism was re-introduced by Karl Marx and seeded through the west where it took root fast in Nihilist pre-communist Russia and later the west.

  • Hi Tami, thank you for your response,

    By using the same interpretive standard as your response, a person could claim Jesus promoted horse/donkey theft by telling a person to grab someones tethered donkey without paying for it before He rode into Jerusalem. There is no support for this idea unless a person is trying to justify horse thievery. Of course, this is a extreme example to press a point.
    Barak was scared to lead and Deborah responded to this fact by telling him…
    “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”
    Pretty straight forward response by Deborah
    Barak finally did obey God’s command to lead through the situation and Deborah, the next 40 years the people had rest from their enemies (Judges 5:31) Because of this, Barak is listed among the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11.
    Since you are reading this in the light of the ideology of feminism, you assume the role of a man is superior than that of a woman. Therefore, the intention is to assume the role of a man to gain this superiority.
    If our previous chivalrous patriarchy viewed women as inferior, then why did it demand men to subjugate their own interests in order to serve the greater interests of women?
    If this made woman inferior, then where does this leave feminism and its counterpart of men’s rights? It leads right into the heart of the battle of the sexes where women are objectified as sexual objects without any obligations

  • Tami said :”It’s interesting and a little sad that depending on how we view God determines how we view one another. ”

    This is true, that the treatment of women in the church is not only dependent on how we view God, but, further, how we view God is dependent on how we view ourselves.

    If a man has always believed that he is in charge and that God instructs him to be so, his view of God is of a dictator/perhaps benevolent or even draconian who has given him power to be the same. Inasmuch as that man wants to continue to be the authority, he will keep this view of God, but for the man who is uncomfortable with authority, he will question the teaching about who God is and perhaps recreate his view of God.

    This is the problem with subjective Christianity…and sadly that is what most of Christianity is. Even Biblical feminism can be subjective as well…so it is incumbent on Christians to stop using themselves as molds into which we pour our god…and step aside from ALL our one line Bible verses that support our position and get deep into the Word until we are able to be objective about the God who said “As for me, is not my way equal? Is not your way unequal?”…for I made them male and female, in my image, and gave them to have dominion…over all the earth (I didn’t say the one over the other…it was Satan who gave this doctrine at the Fall)…and my Son, later, “broke down the wall of partition between men and women, Jew and Gentile, Bond and free…with the intent that that wall should not be rebuilt…that is why you find Jewish and Gentile pastors and pastors who were former slaves, and pastors who are male and female. If we see a God in the Bible who IS love, we then translate 1 Cor 13 to ourselves…”in honour preferring one another”…we do this because we believe in a God who said “love vaunteth not itself”. How can one die to self and insist on elevating oneself in the same breath? We need to be Christian first, not self first. Perhaps the gradual demise of the church today is our failure in this…as it becomes apparent that living in a community cannot work when too many are failing to live “in Christ” at all.

  • Hi Retha,

    I read your link and what stood out right away was you equate spirituality and spiritual leadership in a mate with intelligence and knowledge. However, this is not spirituality. This is scholasticism.
    If scholasticism makes spirituality , this would make entire populations of Christians less spiritual past, present and future.
    I have a greater knowledge of scripture than my husband by a large margin, but this doesn’t change anything because I did not create the universe, how we are made, or how we function. Until we can create the universe, we need to cooperate within God’s laws and function. This is having faith in the benevolent goodness of God. When we go outside God’s design, then we believe God is not really that good, but that we are good and know better. This is the fall.
    When we depend on God’s benevolent love and goodness, this will satisfy our need-love, which then frees us to express God’s giving and benevolent love outward to others. By doing this we satisfy the command of Jesus to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
    Notice how this website promotes the self? This is to satisfy a need-love which promotes the disorder of the fall. The same thing would apply to Christians men’s rights as a Christian feminism.
    When you are looking for a spiritual leader in a husband, you should seek a man who is willing to subjugate the need to serve his own interests in the pursuit of serving your interests. Jesus Christ is the example of this servitude, when the power of kingdom of God (Jesus) faced off with the power of the kingdom of man (Caesar) -The kingdom of God won! Jesus Christ is the example of power and authority, but power and authority of selfless servitude to benefit others .
    We need to submit to the selfless servitude of spiritual men because they are responsible for us in their servitude towards us. This is submission-like Christ and the church.

    • Naama said :”When you are looking for a spiritual leader in a husband, you should seek a man who is willing to subjugate the need to serve his own interests in the pursuit of serving your interests…We need to submit to the selfless servitude of spiritual men because they are responsible for us in their servitude towards us.”

      Say what?
      1. Naama, I am not looking for a spiritual leader…I have Christ my high priest and I am a priest before God (1 Peter 2:5) as is my husband, and together we are “lively stones,… built up (in) a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

      2.A man who is willing to subjugate the need to serve his own interests in the pursuit of serving your interests is non-existent…and frankly sounds rather creepy and definitely not spiritual, but needy.

      3.We do not need to submit to the selfless servitude of spiritual men, assuming that such men exist. You assume that all women have spiritual men in their vicinity…which is a huge assumption…however would women manage if they didn’t have such men, in your view? Could they even survive in Christ? (of course they can)

      4. Men are not responsible for us. Period. We are in Christ, reconciled to God and Christ is responsible for us through the ministry of the Spirit. We are individual believers and often there is no spiritual man in our lives, let alone in our vicinity. Even if such a man were present, how is he responsible for us…is this not too great a burden on any man who is just another sinner, like us?

      Your analysis sounds very like what I left behind, a system that is confident that women are not spiritual beings who can have personal relationships with God in as real a sense as a man can, but creatures who need a man to mediate between them and God…this is in contradiction to the clear scripture that says “There is one God and ONE mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus”. It is this Jesus who is my mediator and my husband is simply, like me, a child of God who leans on Christ, our mediator as a fellow priest unto God.

      • Judy, I agree. To say that women need men to lead them is to put men in God’s place. It also says that even though we all are equal heirs in Christ and have the same Holy Spirit within us, that somehow women are lacking, God is not enough for women and need men to make up the lack. This idea is not biblical.

        • I agree that it isn’t biblical. In fact, at least one of the institutions that most evangelicals label as a cult teaches this hierarchy: the Mormon church, other than those who may have some reformed teaching. Unmarried women cannot enter heaven. And each man in heaven has his own realm in which he is authority over the women he married in life. Thus the reason for the practice of polygamy and, for some the practice of incestuous marriage. There are pockets of people who still practice this sadly.

          There are other religions as well throughout history that practice this. So reallly, who is the Christian church imitating?

  • Hi jory

    I have some free time and just thought I would comment on this: “but I am filled with the Holy Spirit from head to toe, and being led by Her. ”

    I understand you are strongly influenced by the feminist ideological paradigm, however, there are some problems with what you are doing. First of all, you are probably using the male or female gender designation of a noun in Hebrew, in this case “ruah” to imply the holy spirit is female. Any person with even an elementary knowledge in Hebrew would know this is a faulty assumption.
    The Hebrew noun for a father “ab” is masculine, however, when the noun for father is pluralized with “im” the noun becomes “abim” and is feminized. Should we refer to a group of fathers as “she”? The opposite is true with women, the plural of woman (nahiym) is masculine. Should a group of women be referred to as men? There are tons of other examples.
    I have read you referring to God as a woman who even births out life. This is highly problematic since we are monotheists, not polytheists. I am not claiming you are not a monotheist, but the feminist paradigm may have blinded you to the message. Polytheists refer to god as a women since it takes a male and a female to create life. A man is the source of life because he impregnates a woman. However, since there is only one God who created all life, He reveals himself as a male to make a sharp point. He alone is the source of life, and is not impregnated by another source. God revealed himself to us in a personal way, we need to be careful to respect that name and not to abuse it in vain.

  • Naama, you have a problem with “referring to God as a woman who even births out life. This is highly problematic since we are monotheists, not polytheists.”

    I believe it is God who refers to Himself this way in relation to the Jewish people ,as “Jeshurun”:

    “then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, … Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.” Deut. 32: 13-23

    So not sure what you mean about polytheism.

  • There still is a big problem….

    Jeshurun means “upright”

    Here is the NKJV for modern English

    “Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
    And have forgotten the God who fathered you.”

    Maybe you want to pick the NIV to prove your point..

    You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
    you forgot the God who gave you birth.

    Both translations make the same exact point with the imagery of God being the source of Israel as a father. God the Father begets and sires Israel. When God is named in parental terms, it is always in the form of a father, never a mother.
    The rule of Hebrew is when a noun is feminine it is combined with feminine verbs. However, the exception to this rule is with the spirit of God. The feminine noun is used with a masculine verb.

    Example: Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever.

    In the New Testament the noun spirit is not feminine-it is neutral.

    Should we address the Apostle Paul as Paula or a she because he used childbirth as an example to the Galatians?
    ” My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,”

    The big problem here is to go off the pages of scripture and the life of the church and shape the message like a wax nose to conform with the winds of cultural change. However, this cultural change is in the middle of destroying western civilization of which there is no turning back.

  • Please look into John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” it is the most glorious, healthy, balanced work on the union of man and woman i have encountered in all of church history. Unrivaled. No, im not Catholic, just a son, and a brother.

  • Hi Judy,

    I noticed in your response to me that you seem to have divorced spirituality from the physical world. This is a very common form of spirituality in the post modern world due to the popularity of such philosophies like romanticism and hedonism that spiritualize feelings based on an experience.

    1. You offer some religious cliches that really are meaningless and have no purpose, but how do you offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God in your marriage?

    2. You may claim a man who serving the needs of his wife and children is non existent, but this does not make it true. Like I said, I have a greater knowledge of scripture than my husband, but this is irrelevant in relation to living out the faith because the faith is not static. Many Christians past and present did not have a bible or could read-this is why there were stained glass windows and paintings in old churches but lived out their faith. However, I depend on my husband who assumes the responsibility to provide for me so I can fulfill my feminine purpose of serving others who depend on me. This is typically children, but also extends to the community. Is this creepy?

    3. Your response is rife with more cliches. Since my husband submits to being responsible for me and our children, I need to submit to his servitude as my authority. If I rack up the credit cards who is responsible? He is and would have to work longer to pay it off. He would be in every right to take these away from me if this happened. He is vulnerable in his position. Marriage and the marriage bed is the mission field, but if a single girl is supported by a church to be a missionary out in the field, then she is accountable to that organization who supports her..or him.
    I am not sure what you mean by spiritual men in your understanding? Is this a man who talks spiritual?

    4. If our husbands are not responsible for us-who is? Is it Justin Trudeau, Obama or Trump or some other bureaucrat? If a husband is not prepared to support a wife, then he is not ready for sex and Christian marriage. He may be ready for a secular marriage where a woman is a sexual object and a financial bonus though. However, we are not called to be cultural imitators or just baptized human secularists.

    Your summary is a strawman argument where you set up a scenario I never claimed and then argue against it.

    • Naama, I respect that each marriage relationship looks different and we need to function how it bests works for us and our spouse.

      However, our husbands are never meant to be our authority (God is our authority) nor are they responsible for us. We are grown adults, not children, who are responsible to God for our own selves. We each have our own relationship with God. Whatever choices and decisions I make I answer to God, not my husband.

  • “Naama, I respect that each marriage relationship looks different and we need to function how it bests works for us and our spouse”

    Therefore, subjective relativism and situational ethics is a guiding light. How can scripture or the church then be authoritative or be based on truth?

    “However, our husbands are never meant to be our authority (God is our authority) nor are they responsible for us.”

    This goes against scripture and the unbroken teaching of the church for 2000 years until secular humanism and feminism came on the scene at the turn of the century.
    To compare the authority of God with a husband is a false dichotomy in the extreme sense. It would be like saying a policeman has no authority in his position because God is our authority.

    “We are grown adults, not children, who are responsible to God for our own selves. We each have our own relationship with God. Whatever choices and decisions I make I answer to God, not my husband.”

    Well, little children are not supposed to be involved in sexual relationships, therefore, I dont know how a wife could be equated with being treated like a child in this scenario. However, since I am not child-like, I am mature enough not enter into a sexual relationship unless the man would honor God by providing for me and any children we produce. This is responsibility and accountability which is spirituality and part of a relationship with God. This is spirituality and a relationship with God set in the physical world which God made.
    Do you see how your spirituality is divorced from the world?

    • Naama, when I said that each marriage will look and function differently, I was basing my statement on biblical truths. God made each one of us an unique individual and because of that each marriage will look and function differently based on the gifts and abilities of each partner. For instance, one partner may handle the finances because they enjoy it and they are good with money and numbers.

      When I said that husbands are never meant to be our authority nor are they responsible for us wives, I’m not speaking against what Scripture says – we just disagree on the interpretation of Scripture. Scripture says we only have one mediator between us and God and that’s Jesus, not husbands. Jesus is our authority, not our husbands. Scripture also says we’re each accountable to God for ourselves. No one else is responsible for the choices and decisions we make, not even our husbands.

  • Hi Tami,

    You wrote “When I said that husbands are never meant to be our authority nor are they responsible for us wives, I’m not speaking against what Scripture says – we just disagree on the interpretation of Scripture.”

    Do you see the subjective relativism in this response? I guess a JW is just disagreeing with us with the interpretation of scripture. Right?
    The plain truth is they don’t have the authority to revise scripture to fit the needs of the watchtower society. Their interpretation has never been taught by what was handed down by Jesus and the Apostles and just appeared until until Charles Taze Russel.
    In the same light, the feminist interpretation has never been taught by the church. It appeared with the advent of humanism and feminism which is foreign to scripture and the life of the church and this interpretation has no authority behind it. This is just going into a closet and using culture as an interpretive reference point.

    “Scripture says we only have one mediator between us and God and that’s Jesus, not husbands. Jesus is our authority, not our husbands. Jesus is our authority, not our husbands”

    I am not sure how your example fit into the conversation? The bible says the government is an authority set in place by God. Is this also contradicting God as our mediator? I just don’t see how they relate unless you correspond authority with being God and meditation?

    “Scripture also says we’re each accountable to God for ourselves. No one else is responsible for the choices and decisions we make, not even our husbands.”

    You are accountable and responsible to many people. If you don’t pay your taxes and mortgage, see what happens.
    I am responsible to remain loyal to my husband and to care for our children-this is accountability and responsibility towards my husband and to God. It is part of our relationship with God.

    • Naama, I’m a bit perplexed by your example of JW (Jehovahs Witness). They aren’t even Christians because they don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior – this example is comparing apples to oranges.

      I’m a Christian Feminist which simply means I believe men and women are both created in the image of God with equal value and given equal authority to rule together with equal opportunity to use the gifts & abilities God has given each. I base my view on Scripture (Genesis 1:26-28). I believe based on Scripture, God still intends for men and women to work together with equal authority (this means they both make decisions with equal say in all matters); our relationship with one another was never meant to be a hierarchal/patriarchal one in which men & husbands have authority over women & wives.

      Patriarchy is the result of sin and never what God intended for us. Genesis 3:16 says because of sin husbands will rule over wives – this is a consequence of sin and isn’t the way God wants us to live. Because of Jesus’ death on the cross we can live differently, the way God intended – men and women ruling together with equal authority, not one ruling over the other.

  • Here is a verse in an avalanche of verses that have been lived out in the life of the church that is witness against what you wrote

    For a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church; and Christ is himself the Savior of the church, his body. 24 And so wives must submit themselves completely to their husbands just as the church submits itself to Christ.

  • Naama, which Scripture translation is that? There is no way that ‘is head (kephale) of’ translates to ‘has authority over.’ This is at best unscholarly and at worst dishonest: an interpretation masquerading as a translation. The whole point of the head/body metaphor in Ephesians 5 is to illustrate the oneness of the relationship between husband and wife, and Christ and the church. If you look at Ephesians 4, you’ll see Paul’s definition of headship. Spoiler alert! It’s got nothing to do with ‘authority over,’ but rather with ‘nourishment and support of.’

  • Naama, if you’re referencing Eph. 5:23 that’s where we have an interpretation issue. Our English translations read “head” as meaning “authority over.” There is evidence that “head” means “source.”

    Aside from this, the whole passage in Eph. 5 beginning with vs. 21 in talking about how we ought to treat one another, by submitting/sacrificing, which is simply setting aside our wants for the good of another. It’s not about ruling over or having authority over another person. Since women were already treated as “less than” it wasn’t anything new to the women to submit. What was revolutionary was the fact that now the men are being told they too submit – to their wives and to one another.

  • Hi Tami,

    I used the extreme example of the JW’s to make a point. They use the bible as their authority, but they have no reference point other than to shape scripture like a wax nose to suit their needs. Their teachings have never been taught in the history of the church. This is a very tough hurdle for them to overcome, therefore, they use conspiracy theories to justify their teachings that come out of nowhere after 1850 years.

    This is the same as feminism, it is as compatible to the christian faith as gay marriage. Notice how christian gay marriage advocates go into the text and reshape scripture to fit their needs. However, it is only a fool who accepts this new revelation/contortion because it was never taught by the church in over 1960 years-until the sexual and social revolution. Revise this and then it is easier to go and revise other scripture you dont agree with

    Patriarchy was not instituted because of the fall, this is revisionism in its height. It was instituted by God before the fall and Eve not being protected by the coverture of her husband is what led to the fall. You must have missed the teaching of scripture on this topic. However, revising scripture on this message is like trying to revise the law of gravity, it doesn’t change reality. This signifies a societies collapse. We are in the middle of this collapse right now of which there is no turning back. What has been set in motion cannot be reversed, society is going to have to collapse and rebuild itself. I don’t have to have faith in scripture because it is rooted in the physical world by the God who created the physical world.

  • The revolutionary teaching of scripture was to transform a pagan patriarchy that centered on the self and domination of the fittest into a chivalrous patriarchy where the man submitted his needs and desires to serve the needs of women and children.

  • Hi Tami

    For a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church; and Christ is himself the Savior of the church, his body. 24 And so wives must submit themselves completely to their husbands just as the church submits itself to Christ.

    So replace authority with source, it doesn’t make any sense. Then add in context. The wife is to submit herself to her husband as with the church to Jesus. In context, submission is towards authority. Very plain and simple and lived out in the life of the church until the sexual revolution

  • Naaman, I’m going to have to bow out of this conversation and we’ll have to agree to disagree on our widely different interpretations of Scripture and how we’re to live. God bless.

  • Hi Erica

    You claim “This is at best unscholarly and at worst dishonest: an interpretation masquerading as a translation.”

    How can authority mean anything but authority without employing literary gymnastics? You employ this tactic by saying it means ‘nourishment and support of.’
    Well, Tami says it means “source”
    So I know there is an attempt to wiggle out of a plain meaning in order to make it say something else. However, nourishment and support is a part of marriage, but it does not fit the directcontext of the passage

  • The Greek word for “head” is kephale which is a word the apostle Paul doesn’t usually use to mean “authority.” Instead, there is evidence it can mean “source” (a river head). Regardless whether you agree that head means source or not, the apostle Paul uses the imagery of the head and body to show we are all inter-dependent. Scripture says “we are many members but one body.” Paul is not talking about having authority over another person. Even Jesus said ruling over others is not his way of working (Mark 10:42-45).

    We are not attempting to wiggle out of anything. As I and others have pointed out there is another way to interpret these verses – that’s why it’s important to look at the original wording in Greek (for NT) and Hebrew (for OT), understanding the context of Scripture, the culture and audience the verses were written to at that time, plus taking into account the character of God – who he is.

    • Tami – I do translation for a living, not NT Greek though! You cannot take a metaphorical use in one language, and simply transfer it to another. So although Kephele can meen ‘source’ as in river in Greek, you cannot transfer this metaphorical meaning to English, and revise the translation of Eph 5 when in the context of human relationships as though a husband is in some sense the ‘source’ of his wife, or source of blessing to his wife. I’m sure this latter idea is present in the instructions given to husband to love and cherish etc, but I think it inescapable that ‘head’ here does have an element of authority in its meaning. It collocates nicely with ‘submit’ on the part of the wife. You can only translate Kephale as source when talking about a river! There is I believe one example of this in Greek, 400 years before Paul!

      As regards mutual submission being taught in Eph 5, an instruction for wives to submit is redundant if in that culture they had no choice to do this anyway. If a new instruction for husbands to submit were meant, why didn’t Paul expressly say this? He doesn’t. Mutual submission would entail mutual headship, again this is missing from the NT. The death knell to mutual submission is that marriage is a (pale) reflection of Christ and the church, and no-one would say there is mutual submission (or headship for that matter) here, it’s plainly absurd.

      • Ken, I respectfully but strongly disagree with you – mutual submission is taught in Ephesians 5:21, calling all in the body of Christ to submit to one another; also, Ephesians 5:25 calling husbands to sacrifice for their wives. Sacrifice and Submission are the same thing – they involve the same heart attitude toward others – that is, setting aside our wants for the good of another – mutual submission.

        I also strongly disagree that when the apostle Paul uses the word “head” he is speaking of “authority over.” Head meaning authority makes no sense in the overall message of Christ. And what I mean is this:

        My biblical foundational belief that I base all other Scripture on is the belief that God created men and women in his image, both equal in worth and authority, and this is based on Genesis 1:26-28. Before sin, Adam and Eve ruled together with equal authority. Adam didn’t have authority over Eve. He was not a mediator between her and God. After Adam and Eve sinned, their relationship with each other and with God changed. Now, as a consequence, husbands rule over wives. This was never God’s design or intent, but rather, the result of sin. Because of Jesus’ finished work on the cross, we are redeemed and made new – which means we can have the kind of relationship God intended – one of equality (not sameness, as in women are exactly the same as men), shared authority and work.

        If God had intended for husbands and all men to have authority over wives and all women then the consequences for sin weren’t consequences but merely a statement as to the way things already were and would continue to be – husbands ruling over wives. Yet, I don’t agree that’s what Scripture says. Also, if husbands have authority over wives, then they have become “Jesus”, the mediator between us and God. This is not biblical. Jesus is our only mediator. To say that women need men to lead them and have authority over them is to say Jesus isn’t enough for women, they lack spiritually and need men to make up for what women lack in Christ. This belief is not found anywhere in Scripture.

        So, because my foundational belief is that God created both male and female in his image, giving both equal authority to rule together, I subscribe to the belief Scripture calls us to mutual submission (shown in Genesis before the fall and also in Ephesians), not a “headship” theology of husbands/men ruling and having authority over wives/women. I believe Patriarchy is the backdrop of the Bible, a result of sin, not a prescriptive way we are to live.

        If one has the foundational belief that God created Adam to rule and have authority over Eve, and after sin all husbands/men are to rule and have authority over wives/women then they will tend to believe in a “headship” theology, a hierarchical relationship between men and women.

        I believe Patriarchy to be a faulty and dangerous belief. Not only do I believe it, to an extent I’ve lived it. It was oppressive, a heavy-weight of legalistic rule-keeping (as a woman I could and could not do certain things, etc.) and it stole my voice. I was told that I as a woman could not hear from God myself, only men hear from God and that my “place” was to support and pray for the men to hear from God and then make the best decisions. I have many other stories of my own as well as many other women who’ve endured abuse because of Patriarchy. It’s a lie from the pit of Hell that says women can’t be trusted so men must have authority over women by ruling over them, making decisions, and even hearing from God.

        Since both men and women are created in the full image of God, we all have equal value, equal authority to rule together, and equal opportunities to use the gifts and abilities God has given and calls us to. To say that women can’t have equal authority is to say women aren’t fully made in the image of God – we’re somehow weaker, less than. This too is a lie from the pit of Hell.

        I realize we differ greatly on biblical interpretation – I just wanted to share my viewpoint and a part of my personal experience. God has taken me on a journey – a journey of healing and finding true freedom in Christ. And now I write to encourage and challenge others looking for the freedom Christ died to give us. God Bless.

        • Hi Tami – thanks for the reply. One of the problems here is that I don’t come from the US, and in the UK (and Europe) the religious scene is very different. Evangelicals in the US imo seem to take everything to a greater extreme than in Europe.

          There is no patriarchy here, and such complementarianism as exists is more ‘moderate’, for want of a better term. Hence when I think of Kephale meaning head, I see an element of authority in the word (like head of department), but it is not simply a synonym for the word ‘authority’, nor do I read it as meaning ‘the husband rules over the wife’.

          I think your reaction to my denial of mutual submission in Eph 5 is in part born of experience – you fear I might be handing wives over to unconditional surrender of their minds and wills to their husband, whereas I don’t see it like that at all. I think God has placed a responsibility on the husband that he does not place on the wife, and for her blessing as well. The instructions to husbands are not mutual either (at least I am being consistent here!).

          I think both men and women are made in the image of God, but that is expressed slightly differently. Women do NOT need men as a covering, or as a second mediator between them and God – they may indeed pray and prophesy, and Paul clearly valued their ministry. He did though impose certain specific restrictions for specific reasons, and we ignore them at our peril.

          I think it would be healthier to stop thinking in terms of ‘women having equal authority with men’ and instead to play down the need for believers to seek authority in the first place! That said, the curses of Genesis 3 are still in force, redemption from them is still future. Christian marriage works against the effects of the fall, but for both wifely submission and husbandly love and cherishing and honouring (the weaker sex!) the flesh still wars against the Spirit, which is why all of us need to go on being filled with the Spirit if we are to have any hope of living this out in day to day life without getting hung up or legalistic about it. If there is any mutuality here, it is in both partners being told in different ways to stop putting self first. That doesn’t come naturally to any of us!

      • “Ken” says ” The death knell to mutual submission is that marriage is a (pale) reflection of Christ and the church.” (First of all where do you get ‘pale’ out of the Bible? Is this not your addition?)

        The plain reality today, since women are no longer dependent on men for financial security, is that the death knell to a happy marriage is a rejection of mutual submission. Sorry, but no man is Christ or christ or a more profitable leader or even a a mediator. …he is a sinner, possibly saved by Grace…and, if so, he is a lively stone built up in a spiritual priesthood along with his wife. Likewise, no woman is a Church or a church or a meeting, or even a gathering… There is neither male nor female in Christ…better to take the truth and reality and live with it.

        As for “God did institute the man to be a leader of the wife before the fall.” This is patently untrue and not found in the Bible at all! It is the disastrous ‘wisdom’ of Satan, after the Fall. The obsession with entitlement over women is destroying the church and families. Women no longer need a breadwinner or an educated partner to watch out for her…better to be a friend than lose everything…for that is what is happening. Women are perfectly capable of thinking, providing and surviving alone these days…All women need today is someone to love, respect and admire and someone who loves her, respects and admires her, and both are necessary. The other rules have to fit into this plan and all must fit “in Christ” to find true happiness. Not all reality is sin.

        • Ken, you said, “I think your reaction to my denial of mutual submission in Eph 5 is in part born of experience – you fear I might be handing wives over to unconditional surrender of their minds and wills to their husband,”

          You have made assumptions, explaining what I’m saying by my “reaction” and what you think I “fear.” Please just stop speaking for me. I don’t need you to explain what you “think” I fear nor what my reactions mean. I’m quite capable of speaking and explaining for myself, and am quite capable of understanding why I say what I say. As I said to Naama I say to you – I’m done engaging with you here.

          • Tami – I’m sorry if you felt I was being offensive in any way. That was not my intention at all. The reason for my comment was what you have already written:
            I believe Patriarchy to be a faulty and dangerous belief. Not only do I believe it, to an extent I’ve lived it. It was oppressive, a heavy-weight of legalistic rule-keeping (as a woman I could and could not do certain things, etc.)

            You claim experience of this teaching misused or misapplied. I was simply reflecting that in my comment. I would claim that my understanding of the text of Eph 5 as not being mutual submission does not of itself lead to the things you might have seen or experienced.

            You are not doing your side of the debate much good by (imo) over-reacting like this. At least from my end it’s nothing personal, it’s doctrinal discussion.

          • Ken, I agree you are just discussing interpretation and didn’t mean to offend. But Tami does show that this teaching is, as often as not, misused and abused. That is why it is essential that men take this seriously, knowing that no man is in any way worthy of the position of ascendancy over any woman and that God in no way intended His Word to be used to create “oppression” or “bondage”, EVER. We are ALL one in Christ….”you have one master, even Christ, and all you are all brethren.”

            …since this teaching has, more often than not, been thus used, it is time for men to admit that this power given to any one, male or female, is a dangerous thing, and therefore the interpretation must be reconsidered. It becomes even more dangerous when, in a group setting, the ascendancy is reinforced and established as law. Is it any wonder that women are leaving the ‘churches’ in ever increasing numbers? They are unsafe places when one is faced with an authoritarian or abusive mate who is further protected by a group of men who have no idea how he behaves behind the scenes and who are easily deceived by such men into blaming the woman for her own suffering.

          • Ken, First – I understand your intent was not to offend. Please understand when you make assumptions and then based on your assumptions begin telling me what I fear, think and believe (even though I never stated I fear anything) you are in fact speaking for me. Some men (not all) have a tendency to think they have the right to speak for women. This is highly offensive even though that wasn’t your intent.

            Second, you said, “You are not doing your side of the debate much good by (imo) over-reacting like this. At least from my end it’s nothing personal, it’s doctrinal discussion.”

            So, because I expressed my anger and frustration with something you said now I’m over-reacting? Now, that’s a very dismissive statement.

            Third, you say that this discussion is nothing personal, just a doctrinal discussion. But that’s the problem. We’re not just talking about some abstract impersonal belief. Oppression is real. Using biblical text to oppress and silence women is real and harmful. The belief that men have God-given authority over women is oppressive and harmful, period. God never asks (nor demands) that women give up their autonomy when they get married. Do you not see how wrong and harmful that belief is? If that were true, then men have all the power and authority. And this belief is what empowers and fuels abuse against women.

            Please take a step back and listen to those of us who’ve experienced this. This isn’t just some abstract biblical doctrine to us, it’s personal because we’ve been forced to live it. People with the power and authority over another in a relationship rarely understand what it does to another person. The belief that men have God-given authority over women feeds into man’s belief that he’s superior, it feeds his pride and ego – which is sin. God never intended for one gender to have authority over the other.

            Those who support patriacrchy/complementarianism need to start really listening to how harmful their theology is. It’s only impersonal and just a doctrinal issue to those who aren’t affected by its’ affects, those who have the authority over another.

            I’m not over-reacting. This is a real issue and a harmful belief system. God has called me to speak against it because I know what it’s like first-hand to walk in the oppressed’s shoes.

            It is for freedom that Christ died and set us free (Gal. 5:1); his way is not a heavy burden (Matt. 11:30). Men having authority over women and effectively silencing their voices is oppressive and a heavy burden to women. This is the message God has called me to speak – to encourage others in living a free life in Him.

        • Judy – the reason for saying marriage is a ‘pale’ reflection of Christ and the church was to head off the criticism that just as Christ as Head has all authority in heaven and on earth, a husband as head has all authority in the marriage, as though hubby is a kind of absolute lord. The analogy can be pressed too far (Vision Forum?), as well as ignored by those who believe in mutual submission.

          The rest of your post to me seems to reflect modern society and its obsession with personal autonomy. Christian marriage goes against this – it makes two people mutually interdependent. They both need each other, indeed both complement each other! It is not good that man – or woman – should be alone! I heartily recommend it.

          You really are building far too much on the flimsy foundation of part of one verse taken out of context – there is no male or female in Christ relates to justification, all are sons, and heirs, and are given the Spirit. The same applies to Jew and Gentile, and employer and employee. Same status as sons, differences of ‘role’ are not annulled. This makes us all one in Christ, which is not quite the same thing as equal.

          I’m not, I might add, someone who has lists of who does what for ‘role’ in a marriage, my view is this should be treated with a huge dollop of common sense, yet without nullifying the concept of ‘head’ which, like it or not, has been given to the husband.

          • Ken, you admit by adding “pale” you are trying to head off criticism…that is because you are adding a mistaken idea to the legalistic, literal interpretation that indeed implies a man IS Christ to his wife. Obviously you believe that this is ridiculous, or you would not have added ‘pale’…almost as an apology… yet you continue:

            Your second reflection contrasts modern society, where females are autonomous, to what you call a preferable Christian mutual interdependence. Actually they both become the same thing. That is, female submission in the past denied the possibility of mutual interdependence,(all things being equal), while modern equality leads, by necessity, to mutual interdependence, (again all things being equal = personality, strength of character, financial security, body size and temperament, etc.). It is only personal autonomy that CAN lead to mutuality. Without female autonomy the cards are stacked against women, and in favor of the one who retains personal autonomy (the man) (as opposed to the one who has no autonomy, as was the case of women in the past).

            If, as you say, Gal. 3:28, “there is no male or female in Christ”, means ONLY justification, then why are there Gentiles and former slaves who are now leaders in churches? How did their status change then when at the time this was written, they had no status in the church but were considered inferior to the Jewish Christians? Their status was changed IN Christ immediately, as a result of this teaching, and they became equal, in Christ. How do you explain then, that only in the case of gender has the status remained unequal and unchanged in your view? Would you dare to say today that Gentile Christians are not EQUAL to Jewish Christians, and former slaves are not EQUAL to the Christian former slave, and the Barbarian Christian is not equal to the Scythian Christian?…then why do you dare say that “all one in Christ, …is not quite the same thing as equal” only when it applies to females and males?

            The Judaizers insisted on the ascendancy of the Jew over the Gentile and Paul dashed their ambition on the rocks with this verse…yet today we still insist on the ascendancy of the male over the female based on the mistaken notion that Paul meant to say that “all one in Christ” does not mean equality but only justification. I beg to differ and that you consider that by assigning only “justification” to Paul’s Gal. 3:28…you err grievously against the historical facts of history in the interpretation of this statement by retaining an inferior status to the female while you give all others equal status, in regard to this statement of Paul.

  • Hi Tami,

    In Mark 10, Jesus is not abandoning the idea of ruling or authority, rather, he is discussing rule and authority with love and servitude of others. Jesus gave himself as the prime example. However, when I gave this same example of authority in terms of a man putting his needs second to serving the needs of his wife, it was labelled “frankly sounds rather creepy and definitely not spiritual, but needy.” by Judy. You agreed with her and said it “was not biblical”

    I read from the LXX when I was younger. This is a Greek translation of the old testament which translates the word kephale, or head in terms of authority.

    “Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes.”

    “Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, ‘If you bring me home again to fight with the Ammonites, and the Lord gives them over to me, I will be your head.’”

    Same meaning of head in Eph. 5
    Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    Notice how head is contrasted with submit? Context gives words, phrases and sentences meaning.
    The next part highlights the way husbands are to act in their authority

  • Hi Tami,

    In the original scripture, there were no headings, chapters or verses, but there were subject transitions.

    The structure of Ephesians 5 begins with sexual immorality and the disobedience of those who walk in darkness. The next section has to do with being the light in darkness and not to consider the ways of those in darkness
    Verse 21 is a transitional verse from a spirit filled interaction with each other as the church as a whole (19-20) to the Spirit filled interaction between a husband and wife (22-33)
    When you claim mutual submission, it is applicable to “one and another” in reference to the previous verses of the church as it transitions into the husband and wife relationship as one body. The context is authority and the end of the section ends with the wife to respect her husband.

    God being our mediator has nothing to do with how either a husband or wife conducts themselves and has even less to do with whoever is an authority. I think we could agree that I am an authority over my children, however, my authority over my children does not make me a heavenly mediator, nor would it replace God as a mediator with my children. This is not even in the radar of the topic.

    God did institute the man to be a leader of the wife before the fall. This is a fact. However, after the fall there would be conflict where a man would rule harshly like a jackass, and the women would desire this for herself. This is the battle of the sexes.
    It sounds like you got involved in some modern extreme “movement” which embraced the mans part of the fall towards women. Actually, it sounds very strange. This was just a movement without a context since we don’t live in a patriarchy, we live in a gynocentric bureaucracy. It can be hard to be “biblical’ without a reference point, therefore, this movement may have seemed all “biblical”, but it really was just someone reading the bible in a closet and just came out with perverted version of patriarchy. The west is not guided by Christianity anymore, so there is nothing really to compare with. For example, gay marriage did not destroy marriage, it already was a secular institution that accomadated it.
    However, it seems like you went from one extreme to another extreme with feminism. Instead of embracing fallen mans problem, you have embraced fallen women’s problem. This is not healing, it is just embracing another version of the same problem. This is understandable since there is not much of a reference point, you clung to something that suited yourself-just like what you came out of.

    I will honestly pray for you

  • Naama, disagree with me all you want on theology, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But you’ve crossed the line by making false assumptions about me and my experiences (you don’t even know me), telling me I’ve clung to something that suited myself, even denying the fact God has done a healing work in my life – how dare you! I don’t need your holier-than-thou prayers – I’m good with God, thanks. I’m done engaging with you here.

    • Naama, I believe you and I have very different ideas/definitions of what “feminism” is.

      I’ve stated I’m a Christian Feminist. I and those (men and women) who identify as a “Christian Feminist” believe that God created men and women in His image; we are all created with equal value, equal authority to rule together, and given equal opportunities to use the gifts & abilities He’s given.

      What do you believe “feminism” is?

      Without feminism women would still be without any to little human rights (the right to use our God-given voice and vote as one example). We would still be seen and treated as man’s property – objects to be used, and of far less value than man.

      I believe Jesus and Holy Spirit are equal with God the Father. All three are equally God, no one is superior or inferior. Because of that belief and the fact God made us in his image, I believe that men and women are equal in value and authority – no one is superior or inferior to the other, just like the relationship God the Father has with Jesus the son and Holy Spirit.

  • Ken…P.S. I missed your inference of “roles”…this is a modern Complementarian notion…and a primitive notion based on the inferior status of women in the past that permitted most men to dictate roles to women as they pleased. With autonomy, females are not confined to roles, nor are men, but roles are decided within each relationship. I can find no ‘role’ regulations in the Bible specifically for men or women. In fact even in the Old Testament, one would find it hard to assign modern ideas of roles to men or women actually recorded there. The men and women lived ‘roles’ clearly defined by their individuality and not by gender (Jael, Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Abigail). Even so, Nabal, Abigail’s drunken, authoritarian husband does fit the modern idea of a dominant male role model…yet God seems to have favored Abigail’s rebellion against him and rewarded her with the gift of prophecy and freedom from that authority.

    • Judy – hopefully not getting too bogged down in this subject. I agree on equal status for justification of Jew and Gentile, but not that they have had an equal role in God’s overall plan of redemption. We Gentiles are still not the natural branches of Rom 9 to 11. The boss and employee in the same fellowship are equal in justification, but the boss is still in charge on Monday morning. To say Gal 3 : 28 annuls this is to misuse the verse. I’ve read egalitarians who agree on this point. ‘No male or female’ does not negate the husband is the head, not the wife, nor are they joint heads, and she is to submit but this is not enjoined on the husband. The relationship of church to Christ is analogous.

      I put ‘roles’ in commas because I don’t have strong views on who does what in a marriage. I possibly part company with American complementarians on this. The bible does very much honour motherhood, as seen in the famous ‘she shall be saved through child-bearing’, which I take to mean family life. The influence a mother has over her family, especially her children is incalculable and wholly worthwhile. It is far greater than what she loses by not being permitted to be a teacher in the gathered church. Child-bearing is a gender role, men cannot have children, and do not have the same relationship to their children that a mother has.

      Equality is a modern concept the NT writers are not particularly interested in, with the attendant danger of modern readers reading back into the text what they want to see in this regard – or what they don’t want to see!

      • Ken, not to put too fine a point on it but this verse is often overlooked:” For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:” 2Cor 8:14

        I question that the idea of equality is a modern notion. God was concerned with equality and brought the Jews out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage to liberty. Paul was concerned with equality among the churches and encouraged the sharing of funds. Also the principle of equality is found directly from God in Ezekiel 18 and 33 where God insists that His way is equal and our way is unequal…if His way is equal one needs to consider this seriously, especially since there are over 100 verses that disdain oppression and bondage. Perhaps you haven’t found yourself in an unequal situation or in oppression or bondage, but all of these tend to bring sorrow and the distinct impression of inferiority. Finally Jesus taught equality firmly as a commandment “All things ye would that others would do to you DO YE EVEN SO TO THEM”. As for me I would not have others to oppress me or insist that I put myself in subjection to them and so I will not do so to others. If you feel God insists that you demand, in His name, that women subject themselves to their husbands you must also be willing to be put into subjection to them as well. Just a thought.

        As for boss and employee…you cannot seriously consider this a picture of marriage, can you? I choose to become an employee and that is only for so many hours a day. It isn’t an ongoing lifestyle, and often the employee becomes the boss eventually…and vice versa. Also there is a return for my service in wealth. But you wish to make it a lifelong commitment and claim God demands it. I think God is clearly not on your side, for His way IS equal. ☺

        • Judy – I don’t for one second equate marriage with employer/employee, and nor does the apostle! Nor do I demand a wife submit to her husband, Eph 5 does this, and can be summarized more briefly as wives, be subject to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord and husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Remember the husband too is under the authority of Christ as his head, he is not a free agent in how he is to treat his wife.

          Once we have all the checks and balances in place, I have no doubt that a wife who rebels against the notion of her husband being ‘head’ will choke some of the blessing God intends to give her, just as God will not hear the prayers of husbands who are inconsiderate. I’ve heard testimony to this more than once. I don’t see this as being up for negotiation, even though modern culture rebels against it.

          The lack of equality I am referring to is not in sharing material resources that you allude to, which is a good thing, but rather in some human relationships. Younger or less mature believers are to submit to the elders. Citizen to government. Like it or not, this structure occurs in marriage.

          It’s legitimate to discuss how this works out in practice, how you unpack these verses, but not to negate their meaning by adding what the apostle did not say, or by saying when he addresses wives or husbands – or parents or children – you can simply apply everything to everybody indiscriminately.

  • Naama. you asked: “If our husbands are not responsible for us-who is?” Well this is a puzzling question, for sure! We are responsible for ourselves under God. “Every one shall give and account of himself unto God”….and ultimately God is responsible for those of us ‘in Christ”…”the battle is not yours but God’s”.

    You are most welcome to continue to believe as you do and don’t feel you have to explain your views to me. Life is too complicated to have to digest and try to understand people who write briefly on internet sites and I don’t wish to convert you to my way of seeing things, especially since I am likely much older than you are and have lived many years in Christ and have likely distilled my understandings through many more life experiences than you have.

    As for ‘divorcing spirituality from the real world’…perhaps that is because often spiritual events take place on a different plane from the real world…as in Elisha and the chariots of fire…we can be offering up spiritual sacrifices to God while appearing to be living only in the real world…only divorced to the natural eye.

  • Everyone will give an account to God is based with on faith and actions in the world God created. This escapism is just a repackaged form of montanism with a splash of gnosticism splashed in for garnish. You cannot convert me to your way of thinking because you have no authority backing your words. It cannot be extracted by the synergistic whole of the text or the life of the church. Plain and simple.

    • Of course your attitude is showing Naama: You have made 3 accusations against me and last I looked the “accuser of the brethren” is not a position I would recommend. You accuse me of:

      1. Escapism: “the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities”…which is fairly mild and entirely subjective on your part…because it is based on your idea of “reality”. …and of course…

      2.Montanism: “the tenets of a heretical millenarian and ascetic Christian sect that set great store by prophecy, founded in Phrygia by the priest Montanus in the middle of the 2nd century.” and

      3.Gnosticism:”a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.”

      Why don’t you just call me a “heretic” and get it over with. If I am escaping anything, it is the view that refuses to encompass the entire body of scripture. I do not set store by many interpretations of prophecy and do not consider Christ to be a lesser divinity or that he is an emissary of a remote supreme divine being, but the eternal living Son of the living God. I just can’t understand those who believe that Christ would choose to relegate half of His creation to an inescapably inferior position to the other half, since all He has said and done refutes this position and since “in the beginning it was not so” (Genesis 1 and 2). The idea that females take a lesser place was brought in by Satan at the Fall. I don’t believe an “interpretation” of Paul’s writings that contradicts all that God is and does can be correct. By limiting one’s views of the male and female to 4 or 5 VERSES (out of 30,000+ verses in the Bible) from letters in the New Testament without diligently comparing scripture with scripture, is not a profitable way to interpret scripture, and this can lead to errors such as the following:

      Errors:
      1. The renunciation of the doctrine that we are (all) a “kingdom of priests” Exodus 19:6 and 1 Peter 2:5-9
      with Christ as our high priest.
      2. Usurpation of the Unique Ministry of Christ Alone as our only mediator.
      3. Faulty Trinitarianism that Christ is eternally in subjection to the Father. In fact He is eternally equal,
      only taking upon Him the ‘form’ of a servant during his incarnation on Earth.
      4. Failure to recognize the change enacted by the Resurrection in restoring men and women to their
      shared dominion given by God in Genesis 1-2. “God was in Christ RECONCILING the world unto
      Himself.”…taking us back from Satan and his relegation of females to a universally inferior position in
      all false religions around the world. How can a female subjection be found in all false cults and religions
      of the world if it is truly a special Christian view based on Christ and the church?
      5. The notion that God is a respecter of persons despite the clear teaching that He is no respecter of
      persons.

  • FYI…Child-bearing is not a gender role, it’s a biological function. Not all women have children. Therefore, it’s not a “role.”

  • Hi Tami

    You wrote,
    “I’ve stated I’m a Christian Feminist. I and those (men and women) who identify as a “Christian Feminist” believe that God created men and women in His image; we are all created with equal value, equal authority to rule together, and given equal opportunities to use the gifts & abilities He’s given”

    This is very vague and generic which translates being created in the image of God into a foreign political ideology. It is no different than incorporating the man zone into being made in the image of God

    You wrote:
    “What do you believe “feminism” is?”

    A secular and even atheistic political ideology that cant see past the self.

    You wrote:
    “Without feminism women would still be without any to little human rights (the right to use our God-given voice and vote as one example). We would still be seen and treated as man’s property – objects to be used, and of far less value than man.”

    Women are seen as objects to be used and discarded under feminism. This is why marriage and sexuality has been redefined in terms of exploitation under feminism since equality is redefined according to being equal with men.
    Marriage in the past revolved around the man and woman forming into one identity and purpose, not two separate identities with two separate purposes. Each one had different obligations and rights united into one identity in order to serve the needs of children.
    The right to vote has only been a recent universal right in a some countries, but under one identity the right to vote was given to the husband who was responsible to serve his wife and children. If this was taken away from me, I would not object one bit since my husband would vote in regards to his responsibility to support and protect his wife and family. The right to vote has nothing at all to do with the Christian faith.

  • Hi Tami,

    You wrote,
    “FYI…Child-bearing is not a gender role, it’s a biological function. Not all women have children. Therefore, it’s not a “role.”

    Childbearing is a role that includes both genders, therefore, it is a role shared between the two genders who unite sexually and therefore relationally. This is covered in Genesis 2 where Eve is created to be a helper to Adam to make him more than an lone individual and form a community. The two becoming one flesh is describing the marriage union and the sexual union as being one and the same. The two unite as one flesh physically which translates into the relational life of the marriage as one identity. The literary device being used is called a synecdoche: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche.
    In the sexual union, the man benevolently gives of himself to the woman while the wife benevolently accepts and receives. The man is active and the wife is passive in the union itself. The husband has to perform and put his needs second to satisfy the needs of his wife, anything less is considered impotent and dysfunctional. The weight of the mans body covers his wife while the man becomes a part of her in the most intimate of places where life is accepted and nurtured. In doing this, the couple reflect the benevolent love of God being made in his image. This is why the song of songs is given with the scents and tastes of pleasure united with the background and desire of fertility. This is why sexual immorality is always an alteration of the act disassociated with the benevolent love of God and associated with idolatry.
    Singleness is also included and equal or even greater to marriage where a single person reflects the benevolent love of God by being fruitful and multiplying in spreading the gospel to the unsaved.
    Make no mistake, we were not created to be self absorbed feminists, mens right activists or consumers, we were created to spread the benevolent love of God.

  • Hi judy

    I can rightfully judge your teachings as a new prophesy not in line with the historical church, but i cannot condemn you.
    The whole of the bible is a unity that is spiritual medication to heal us from our independence from God. These prescriptions need to be lived out in order to be a true theologian. There are two methods that end up in heresy. One is the pontification of a person that they have a special spiritual connection and revelation from God. This was the route of the montanists and the gnostics and is also common with charismatics. The other more common route is to be an armchair theologian which is just pseudo theology. The armchair theologian just studies the words of the bible as an intellectual pursuit usually based on books on intellectual pursuits of other pseudo-theologians. Theology needs be lived out in order to be a theologian.

    • Naama
      November 19, 2016 at 10:27 pm …what are you talking about? “A new prophecy not in line with the historical church” ? Are you saying my comment is prophecy? And are you charging me again by implying that I don’t live out my theology? or that it is heresy?

      I am only observing that we have missed and are missing important teachings today.
      1. The priesthood of all believers is completely ignored, yet we have unbiblical ‘priests’ in many churches such as Anglican and Roman Catholic.
      2. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man…yet we see “alter Christus” in Roman Catholicism…and I have been told that my husband and my pastor are my mediators, contrary to scripture.
      3.Complementarians (some)have introduced a new teaching to reinforce the submission of women…and that teaching is the ETERNAL submission of Christ to the Father…(as a picture of the female’s submission to her husband)…this is a new Trinitarianism…(not mine)
      4. Genesis 1 teaches the equality of male and female, in the beginning. It was the first couple’s trust in Satan that brought in the inequality. (and hence it should be removed when they are restored to God in Christ.)
      5.finally…The Bible says “God is no respecter of persons” God does not favor one person over another. Hence one cannot say that God treats anyone with more favoritism than any other. Furthermore, James 2:9 says we are not to be respecters of persons or we sin. Therefore it is hard to explain how strongly we are taught to put males over females especially when Paul taught that there ‘is neither male nor female in Christ”.

      I am not teaching this as an authority over anyone but myself…and I am neither charismatic nor pursuing these teachings as an intellectual pursuit…so I’m not sure what your point is.

  • Naama,

    First, my beliefs about equality come straight from Scripture which I’ve stated previously – Gen. 1:26-28 for example.

    Second, according to Scripture men and women are equal (equal does not mean sameness). Gen. 1:26-28 declares men and women are equal in value and authority. This Scripture declares both men and women are made in the image of God. Since both are made in the image of God both are equal. Also, God gave both men and women the same work and the same authority to do that work – this is stated in the same Scripture (Gen. 1:26-28).

    Third, when Scripture talks about a husband and wife becoming one, it doesn’t say that the wife gives up her personhood (who she is) and autonomy in order to form one identity (the husbands identity) and one purpose (whatever purpose the husband decides is best). This belief is a complete twisting of Scripture. This is the twisted belief women in abusive relationships are taught to follow and believe. This belief says that women are inferior even in God’s eyes. This is a lie from the pit of hell and I strongly suggest you take the time to understand how God really sees us.

    God has given each of us a mind and a voice and expects us to use them. No where in Scripture does God tell women to give up our whole selves (thoughts, mind, views, purpose – dreams and desires, our voice, our will). God created each of us with individual dreams, desires, and purposes. He has a specific purpose for each of us. We don’t give up being who we are and following God’s purpose just because we get married. We each have our own relationship with God – He doesn’t tell women once we get married we give that up – that’s ridiculous and isn’t in Scripture at all.

    You and I believe very differently and the God you talk about is a different God than the one I know. The God I know sees women and men as equals created in his image. He has a purpose for each of us as individuals and as well as married partners and those with children.

    • I don’t think Gen 1 : 26 teaches ‘equality of value and authority’. It does teach both male and female are created in the image of God, but to attach either egalitarian or complementarian ideas to Genesis 1 goes beyond what the text itself says. They are co-regents over the rest of creation, but you have to take into account the rest of the pre-fall creation narrative, plus the interpretation given by the apostle Paul in various places in the NT.

      This does make a differentiation between male and female, in particular the idea of husband being ‘head’ or or men being the custodians of the word of God. The two were created at different times and in different ways. If Adam and Eve were completely ‘equal’ it is hard to explain why Adam is given the blame for the fall, and not Eve. His ‘headship’ entailed greater responsibility.

      It strikes me the balance that has to be struck in correctly understanding the whole of the bible when it comes to male/female is to avoid both sexism and feminism, and to avoid a kind of unisex view of gender which is where the culture has long since wandered. Interdependence is a biblical idea, but interchangability is not.

      • Ken, even if your assessment is correct in that it is difficult to explain why God first held Adam responsible, we have to take two things into account. One, God ended up holding Eve just as responsible when it came to consequences. What women have suffered under the curse has been just as devastating as man’s curse.

        Two, Jesus was the “second Adam,” and He clearly empowered women and even praised a woman who got out of her “gender role” place. I believe that men and women are different, but if a man is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, then he would empower her to do “even greater things than he,” just as Jesus did for his bride.

        The Holy Spirit has been poured out on all flesh, to preach and prophesy, and leadership is a spiritual gift that many women have. Men must listen to women, or they will miss a message from the Lord.

        As for the Apostle Paul, he did not silence all women for all time. That is clear throughout the NT, in all the women leaders/preachers/pastors/apostle/deacon he praised. Thy Kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven. There is no gender roles in heaven. There is no male nor female, race, or social status in heaven (Gal. 3:28 is the crux of Pauline theology).

        Patriarchy is the backdrop of the Bible, not the Bible’s message (just like slavery).

      • Hi Ken,

        I found tremendous freedom and healing in discovering men and women are created with equal value/worth and authority. I no longer live under the heavy weight of patriarchy. I know we differ on interpretation of Scripture and that’s okay. Holy Spirit brought healing and freedom into my life…I’ll just leave it at that. God Bless.

  • Hi judy

    Lets tackle your “errors” list

    1. The kingdom of Israel was a kingdom organized as a church-or theocracy. You have misinterpreted the kingdom of priests meaning. Not everyone in Israel or the christian church is to be a priest. The bible uses a priest to communicate being set apart from others to serve as vessels to be used for God’s purposes. This is communicating the kingdom of the church before the cross and after the cross to be set apart people from the rest of the world to serve as holy vessels to be used for the purpose of God.

    2. I have no idea how Christ being a mediator is even involved in the subject. If this is the case, then the authority of government which God is the source is also a hurdle for God as a mediator.

    3. I didn’t know that Jesus while on earth was in subjection and inferior to God? This would also constitute a faulty trinity since Jesus is part of the Trinity whether on earth as in Heaven.

    4. These are your words that Jesus’s resurrection magically transformed marriage into what it was before the fall, but it is not reality since this is still a moral choice based on whether or not we want to obey and depend on God or determine what is good or evil in our own eyes. Jesus tightened up marriage that is also codified in the law of Moses in relation to divorce and polygamy. Jesus is also the ultimate example that servitude and authority go hand in hand. Unless you are disappointed with the power and authority of Jesus’s first advent.

    • Naama,
      1 Peter 2:9 does in fact say we are a royal priesthood. Because of Jesus’ death on the cross the veil has been torn that separated us from God – we all have direct access to him. There is no more need of a human mediator (priest) because Jesus is our mediator (our High Priest). We are all priests with direct access to God.

      Jesus’ purpose in his death on the cross was to redeem us – to return us to the kind of relationship he intended for us to have with him and with one another. The kind of relationship God intended for us with him and with each other is spelled out in Genesis 1:26-28 before Adam and Eve sinned. It’s a relationship of direct access to God and an equality between man and woman. There is no hierarchical relationship (man having authority over woman) until after Adam and Eve sin and is a direct consequence of sin. Patriarchy/hierarchy is not God’s desire or intent for us. This is why Jesus came and redeemed us.

  • hi Tami

    Where in Genesis 1 or 2 does it declare men and women are the same authority or are created for the same work in being created in the image of God? You just wont find it.
    Genesis three disagrees with your theory since they categorize different roles for each gender and each subsequent curse. The curse towards women is centered on childbearing, which corresponds with Eve being a helper in relation to Adam being alone in Genesis 3. The curse of Adam is towards his work and production in Genesis 2. Both of these would act in tandem with frustration of each other.
    Authority? The prescriptive role of Adam as a loving selfless authority in Genesis 2 falls into disrepair in the descriptive role of the battle of the sexes in Genesis 3 where the man would abuse his authority and the women would try to assume his authority. The unity of scripture as a whole acts as a prescription against this from Genesis 4 to the teachings of the New Testament and Paul.

    The forming of one identity can be abusive on both sides of the equation since this is descriptiveof our fall in Genesis 3, however, when each person depends on God’s benevolent love to fulfill their need-love, they are free to extend God’s benevolent love to each other. This is to fulfill the two great commandments Jesus taught us to love the lord your God with all your heart and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
    Wow, if this makes me inferior, then my husband must be even more inferior since he works like a dog to provide for me so I can take care of those who depend on me.
    Obviously, I have not lost my voice? I am not sure what you are talking about?
    If a wife is in an abusive relationship, then that has to be dealt with specifically, the answer is not to revert to something else in the form of revision or secular feminism. When the west was based on a chivalrous patriarchy, there were protections against abuse. The man could be humiliated, excommunicated or even tied to a post and lashed. He would be sent home to provide and serve his wife.

    • God made THEM to have dominion ….a shared mutual dominion…(until they gave their allegiance to Satan at the Fall in Genesis 3.

      ” And God said, Let us make man (kind) in our image, after our likeness: and let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” …Genesis 1—>2

      and then: “24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

      verse 24 is such a good plan that we rarely follow today…how often the woman leaves her parents and cleaves unto her husband…but it is not God’s instruction to do so. Hence too many women find themselves in bondage to their mother-in-law and she becomes a burden to their family, bringing in more mouths to feed…while would it be the other way around the woman would be with her parents and the husband would bring in another breadwinner to the family, hence making it a win win situation…

      Another point is in Genesis 5:2 ” This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR NAME ADAM, in the day when they were created.”

  • Naama,

    Genesis 1:26-28 says, ” Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that THEY (my emphasis) may rule over the fish in the sea, and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
    So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
    God blessed them and said to THEM (my emphasis), “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

    God created both men and women with equal value and equal authority doing the same work, ruling together. I honestly don’t know how or why you continue to deny what Scripture says.

  • Naama…you said this earlier and I passed over it until now…

    “Hi Judy,

    I noticed in your response to me that you seem to have divorced spirituality from the physical world.”

    Huh? I haven’t done any such thing…I just said that the spiritual world does sometimes have another dimension that is not always ‘visible’ to the natural man…such as when Elisha ‘saw’ the hillside full of chariots of fire and he knew that God was with him. This spiritual dimension was visible only to him and not to his servant until he prayed God to open his eyes. As you study the Bible, more and more you notice this other dimension (As when Jesus walked through the wall or on the water, or appeared suddenly…and when Balaam’s ass saw the Angel of the Lord but Balaam saw nothing (Numbers 22)…over and over we take for granted that this other dimension there, yet we never give it as much thought as I believe we should. The Angel of the Lord’s appearances in the Old Testament are also somewhat miraculous “entrances” into the physical world from the spiritual dimension. This spiritual world in our midst is actually scientifically explainable as being “atom”-ically different so that it is not visible or palpable, but present at all times but invisible because we are atomically structured in a different manner (somewhat like stainless steel and raw steel…the former is not magnetic and can pass by a magnet without attraction, while raw steel is immediately drawn to the magnet…and in some of these cases it is revealed to some persons in the Bible.

    This is not to say that spirituality is divorced from the real world…the spiritual world is always present, but inaccessible to many because of this ‘change’ that happens when one is saved. Hence “the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit…for they are spiritually discerned.” And : “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though HE BE NOT FAR FROOM EVERY ONE OF US:” Acts 17:27

  • Hi Tami,

    Genesis 1 is given a sharper focus in Genesis 2. Again, Adam is a lone individual and Eve is given to him as a helper in which they would form a community which would fill up the world with images that represent God’s benevolent love. Remember, being made in the image of God is represented in being created male and female, sexual reproduction and ruling creation. All of these are connected as being one and the same with being made in the image of God.
    God is spirit and has rule everywhere at every time, however, mankind who is not God has to reproduce in order to have dominion over creation. This is how male and female subdue and rule the earth as images of God in order to spread the benevolent love of God out to creation. This is ruling and subduing in the image of God. However, this never panned out since we rebelled against God’s goodness and decided to define what is good and evil by our own standards. therefore, we need to jump to chapter 3.
    Side note: If ruling creation is about power and subduing creation like an occupying army plundering a conquered enemy to supply the needs of the victors-then this idea would have to apply to God since this is directly connected to His image. It may be the religious rights idea to drill baby drill and kill baby kill, but like feminism, it is just a self justification to embrace the self and the fall.
    God had to intervene in history in order to guide us in how to care for creation within His design and our fallen state. This is seen after the flood when Noah was prophesied to comfort the faithful “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.”
    After the flood God allows the faithful to eat animals and generally places limitations how to humanely kill them. The Law of Moses gives the message a sharper focus by teaching humane practices and to take only what we need and respecting life. The spiritual intent of the law of Moses is written on the hearts of those in the new Testament church until the second advent

    • Naama,

      Adam and Eve without reproducing ruled together in the garden of Eden. They ruled simply by taking great care of the land and animals.

  • Judy,

    Everytime I mention the physical institution of marriage, it always results in spiritually escaping into the non physical with mediation and spiritual feelings.

    • It isn’t ESCAPING Naama, the two are related directly…in fact it is facing reality. You cannot have the physical without the spiritual (not sure what you mean about spiritual FEELINGS though..they aren’t ‘feelings’ as much as fact. The spiritual dimension may give one feelings of awe, wonder and joy, but I am not talking about spiritual ‘feelings’ at all. The spiritual rules the physical, whether we accept that or not, as God rules the Earth. There is the human spirit and God’s Spirit. A man who is spiritual in the Godly sense WILL understand a woman’s need for equal respect and dignity. If he is lacking in God’s spiritual understanding he will insist on his own way and ignore his wife’s need to retain her own sense of resolve within a marriage. A man ruled by the Spirit of God should be a good husband…but if he is ruled by his own spirit he is a danger to himself and his wife.

      Also I’m not sure when you have mentioned the physical institution of marriage here except to insist on female subjection. If that is all that the physical means to you then I just do not agree…that is not an escape…I just believe God is a God of equality, fairness, liberty, truth and love who desires this for all his creatures, freedom from oppression and bondage…not a God who specializes in giving either women or men whatever they want (i.e. dominance) and engraving it in scripture. You will find no scripture that permits preeminence of male or female…only the Triune God is to have the preeminence…and we are all brethren. A man should respect and admire his wife and vice versa. There is no insistence on one having a right to always have his or her way. These ideas are embedded in a full orbed understanding of who our Creator IS…for we are made in his image and our physical lives are an expression of our spiritual lives, whether that spiritual life is His or ours.

      The female is a “Ezer Kenegdo”…a helper for the man. That does not teach physical submission at all, if that is what you think, because God is called an ‘ezer’ (helper) in the Bible far more than a woman is called that. It has no insinuation of submission or subjection, but more the implication of a rescuer. The woman was formed to be a helper in that sense, because God realized “it is not good that the man is alone”…So a man alone is not a good thing. You would think that because Adam praised God for forming the woman by saying “this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, he wouldn’t be the ‘head’ of generations of men who insist that “their own bones and flesh” be in subjection to them and interpret scripture to blame God for their desire to be dominant over this female miracle of God’s creation. How one treats his own body is how he should treat his wife…and only when a man does treat his wife like that can one truly say there is a marriage…not an arrangement where a man expects to always have his own way.

      The only submission must be a personal decision or choice for the man AND the woman…not a rule…unless you want a miserable relationship for at least one partner.

  • Hi Tami,

    You wrote
    “Adam and Eve without reproducing ruled together in the garden of Eden. They ruled simply by taking great care of the land and animals.”

    Where does it say this?

  • Hi Judy,

    I think this is beginning to be a waste of my time because you (and Tami) are not really reading my responses. You seem stuck in a rut that authority or power equals a tyrant and those who are under authority equals inferior, oppression and bondage. Where have I mentioned Eve being a helper is inferior to the tyranny of Adam? In context with Genesis, Eve being a helper is the social and sexual role of marriage and reproduction in order to make Adam more than a single unit, firstly, with herself and the children they would bear and raise into a community. This is connected with being made in the image of God. If Eve is a helper and God is also called a helper-doesn’t this tip you off?

    You wrote
    “You will find no scripture that permits preeminence of male or female”

    Well, then you will miss a large message of scripture because the first born had preeminence, and Jesus is equated with being “the firstborn over creation” using this language. This is not saying Jesus was born or created, rather it communicates his preeminence over creation like the firstborn in that culture.

    Now, if you remain true to your responses (at least so far) you will claim the preeminence of the first born or any authority gets in the way of spirituality and God as our mediator. However, the first born was given the double portion because he had the responsibility to serve the whole clan. His spiritual condition was vital in this position because the effects were greater. If he was morally defective or spiritually effective, it would impact society much more than the average guy. Since spirituality is rooted in the physical world, the whole clan worshiped God and was spiritual in cooperation with each other as a whole under the first born who was the patriarch. The Greeks had a word for a person who thought they were only an individual independent from being a whole of society-that word is an idiot.

    Again, you interpret dominion with tyranny. This is the problem with the Christian right who translate having dominion over creation as having power to rape creation for personal gain. However, dominion is to be made in God’s image, and is about his benevolent love

    • Naama, what is your real point? I am losing the train of thought you were on, with all the asides that have been added.

      Naama you said:”If Eve is a helper and God is also called a helper-doesn’t this tip you off? ” I’m sorry…but tip me off to what?…not sure of your meaning at all.

      Naama you said: “Well, then you will miss a large message of scripture because the first born had preeminence, and Jesus is equated with being “the firstborn over creation” using this language.”

      Yes and then throughout scripture the second and even the seventh came to have the preeminence (as with David the youngest of 7 sons). Jesus was indeed the firstborn over creation.

      But note in one Testament it says the firstborn who leaves the womb, and in the other Testament it says the firstborn MALE…which one is it?

      And over and over this rule does not hold at all: Reuben was the firstborn yet Joseph evidently had the preeminence. Ishmael was the firstborn, but Isaac came to have the preeminence. Esau was the firstborn, but Jacob came to have the preeminence. Manasseh was the elder, but Ephraim got the blessing. God reserved the right to change this ‘rule’ with impunity and it was changed frequently…making it not to be a rule at all.

      Naama: “Again, you interpret dominion with tyranny. This is the problem with the Christian right who translate having dominion over creation as having power to rape creation for personal gain. However, dominion is to be made in God’s image, and is about his benevolent love”

      How this relates to the Christian right, I cannot fathom….but you have defeated your own argument here…can you not see what you are saying?…You admit that by having this teaching many interpret it to give themselves the power to rape the creation…to justify rape…that is my point too. I know too many whose husbands have used the Bible to justify tyranny…and churches that support them and believe that submission is all important, even to the extreme to command to women to ‘take the abuse’ for God’s sake. To open the door to tyranny is just plain not wise, and so allowing such interpretations is to allow even one sorry life for someone.

      I know some people can interpret the Bible this way and still have self-control and in a perfect marriage a wife submitting to a husband CAN work if the man is truly sold out to God’s will, …but I don’t want my daughter married to someone who believes this way, for somewhere along the road, she or her friends may just find themselves in a secret situation of abuse where the church ignores their peril and even, possibly, her parents will believe her abuser over her…it has happened, believe me. Far better he believes she is his equal, and then if she chooses to be in submission to him that might work for them.

      As for raping creation for personal gain…i.e. Eastern oil producers who have no morals about production and are using propaganda to keep western producers from competing with them…there are far more layers to each discussion than you will admit, it think, and God did give us to have dominion…if we destroy His gift we will have to deal with our own stupidity then, won’t we?

  • Hi Judy,
    The reason you are not getting my point is you are relating to polar opposites of women’s lib or women’s inferiority. I am using neither. I am using the traditional bible teaching of a chivalrous patriarchy.
    I wrote
    “Naama you said:”If Eve is a helper and God is also called a helper-doesn’t this tip you off? ” I’m sorry…but tip me off to what?…not sure of your meaning at all.”

    The typical response to Eve being a helper for Adam is that she must be inferior as a “helper” to a man and many then point to the Hebrew word of helper to try and reinterpret that she was not really Adam’s helper at all. This is an attempt to thwart Adams leadership and authority as a man.
    You will continue to re-interpret leadership and authority with tyranny.

    The firstborn did have preeminence and this is a rule, however, you claim that the exceptions negate the rule. This is reading something in a wooden literal fashion which always misses the point.
    You mentioned ‘Manasseh was the elder, but Ephraim got the blessing.” The bible still holds to the rule by calling Ephraim the firstborn-even though he isn’t.
    Jeremiah 31:9 “I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel’s father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.”
    Same with David in Psalm 89:27 “And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.”
    The imagery of the firstborn would be meaningless if the preeminence of the firstborn was not a rule.

    I have not defeated my point since my point is that dominion goes hand in hand with God’s benevolent love because this is to be made in His image (before the fall). How this translates with the Christian right is they oppose conservation efforts to protect a dominion based on power, like an occupying army taking the spoils of the conquered for their own needs. This is why the Christian right is full of climate warming deniers. It is not a very chivalrous attitude toward critters and the environment.

    Judy ” To open the door to tyranny is just plain not wise, and so allowing such interpretations is to allow even one sorry life for someone.”
    This is evidence you are willing to re-interpret scripture based on your own prejudices or how some people might or have abused authority. This is not honest at all. If you are concerned about the well being of others, then you should oppose feminism with all your might since it has destroyed millions of lives, is destroying western civilization and the western church.
    How many millions of babies have been butchered by the atheist philosophy of feminism? You will most likely claim to oppose abortion, but to eliminate the free access to abortion absolutely destroys the feminist philosophy of equality. The christian political right always promises to fight against abortion on demand, but they are well aware that to make abortion illegal without enshrining the obligations and responsibilities in law that went hand in hand with prohibition is not very comfortable. The west doesn’t have the collective morality nor the moral will power to sacrifice liberty for responsibility to combat immorality. This is why society will have to collapse and hopefully rebuild. You can teach your children feminism, but you will do so at the peril that sooner or later your children or grandchildren will loose the faith. This is the pattern. If you are willing to re-interpret whole sections of teaching in the bible to make something fit, this will apply to other sections to the point it becomes meaningless and people seek something with more substance.
    Christian feminism is not compatible to the Christian faith. Churches that have prohibited female pastors have also stood strong against other re-interpretations like abortion, gay marriage, gay ordinations and many others.
    Scriptures message on this subject is very simple but not very politically correct. A blunt yet truthful short summary would go like this: To build and maintain healthy societies depends on its men to be self sacrificing leaders and its women to be chaste and obedient.
    This message begins in Genesis and spans to revelation. You can revise scripture to fit a predetermined idea, but it is no different than trying to revise the law of gravity.
    You are seeing this in motion in the west and it will fall due to immorality of which feminism is central.

    • Naama,

      Chivalrous patriarchy is not biblical. Patriarchy is a result of sin and not what God intends for us. No matter how many times we all go back and forth this is the issue we strongly disagree on and seems we always will.

    • Naama,
      Just as God is our helper (ezer kenegdo) Eve is also ezer kenegdo. Ezer Kenegdo means “rescuer,” “corresponding power and strength” (in the Greek). Eve was created to be a corresponding power and strength and rescuer for Adam. Eve being called Adam’s “helper” has been mistaught in some churches/groups as being an “inferior assistant” when in reality that isn’t what the Scriptures say. Women are actually a corresponding (equal) strength to men.

      Here on Jory’s blog we have not reinterpreted Scripture to say Eve is not really Adam’s helper. We continue to show you through Scripture that God created Adam and Eve with equal worth/value and equal authority to rule together. According to Scripture Eve is Adam’s corresponding strength (helper). Adam has no more authority than Eve. You continue to say we’re reinterpreting Scripture to suit ourselves – this isn’t true. We just believe in a different interpretation of Scripture.
      Christian Feminism is not the enemy here, and neither are we. You may disagree with us and that’s okay. We’re fellow Christ-followers following God the best we know how.

  • Hi Tami,

    Tami: “Chivalrous patriarchy is not biblical. Patriarchy is a result of sin and not what God intends for us. No matter how many times we all go back and forth this is the issue we strongly disagree on and seems we always will.”

    Tyrannical patriarchy and its counterpart is a result of sin. You can disagree, but the reality that feminism destroys civilizations doesn’t hinge on if you agree since it is a fact cemented in reality. You probably read the fall in Genesis 3 as an event which only purpose is to teach what led to the start of sin and death. This would be true, but the entire message is much broader. The event that led to the beginning of our destruction is also what leads to the destruction of civilizations.
    Feminism, destroys civilizations-period. However, like Adam, it is a male problem since men allowed this to happen in the first place, they are culpable.

    • Naama,

      Why are you here? Why do you continue to post here on Jory’s blog when you clearly disagree with everything she says and believes?! You have the right to believe what you will and so will we – continuing to argue is getting us nowhere. I’m finished engaging with you, goodnight.

    • “Feminism, destroys civilizations-period.”

      Naama, I almost choked on my tea! Now you are trying to make me laugh ☺ You can really be hilarious when you try…

      Reminds me of a saying on my Refrigerator….Why be difficult when with a little effort you can be impossible?

  • Hi Tami,

    Tami; “Just as God is our helper (ezer kenegdo) Eve is also ezer kenegdo. Ezer Kenegdo means “rescuer,” “corresponding power and strength” (in the Greek). Eve was created to be a corresponding power and strength and rescuer for Adam. Eve being called Adam’s “helper” has been mistaught in some churches/groups as being an “inferior assistant” when in reality that isn’t what the Scriptures say. Women are actually a corresponding (equal) strength to men”

    Therefore, if some churches taught “inferior assistant” the most logical thing to do is to insert the total opposite meaning of “corresponding power” into the text? So, for every wrong teaching we should come up with another teaching based on the wrong teaching?
    The word for helper is a Hebrew word (ezer) that means “helper” or one who helps. Going around seeking other meanings in different contexts to this word will go nowhere because some meanings can point to a superior or inferior context. This is armchair theology in action.
    You see, words, sentences, paragraphs and chapters gain meaning in context. The context of helper in Genesis 2 does not indicate “inferior assistant” or “corresponding or equal strength.” it just means helper in context with making Adam into a community in which he would belong.
    However, the naming of the animals and then naming his wife indicates that Adam was responsible for the well being of his wife. When he abdicated his responsibility, then destruction came quickly. to ignore this message is dangerous.

    Tami “Christian Feminism is not the enemy here, and neither are we. You may disagree with us and that’s okay. We’re fellow Christ-followers following God the best we know how.”

    Christian feminism just isn’t compatible, it is similar to those who teach a Christian gay lifestyle is good. These both re-interpret scripture to marry secularism with the faith by claiming it as their own. This is difficult because as society changes, people change along with it and have trouble recognizing what is going on. It is like putting a frog in cold water and slowly heating up the water until it gets so hot the frog dies. The frog wont move because it surroundings change gradually.

  • Tami,

    “Why are you here? Why do you continue to post here on Jory’s blog when you clearly disagree with everything she says and believes?! You have the right to believe what you will and so will we – continuing to argue is getting us nowhere. I’m finished engaging with you, goodnight”

    To offer the sound teaching of the historical church in harmony with scripture which transformed Western culture. You and millions of others may never agree, and I may stand alone, but this might help someone reading and transform their family lives. Secondly, what has been set in motion a hundred years ago has become massive and unstoppable and is leading up to the destruction of the west. Even an massive change of heart and repentance, however unlikely, cannot alter the path that has been chosen. Therefore, there needs to be a strong body of information towards what went wrong to equip future generations who will rebuild society. The message of the bible and the church is a hospital for the sickness of sin, and it will be once again foundational in transforming society. Just not now.

  • Naama, since your beliefs and message are contrary to Jory and most of us who post and support the same views as Jory, then why not post to your own audience? You’re only going to get push-back here. It seems your message and views would be better received with those who hold your same views.

  • Hi Tami,

    “Naama, since your beliefs and message are contrary to Jory and most of us who post and support the same views as Jory, then why not post to your own audience? You’re only going to get push-back here. It seems your message and views would be better received with those who hold your same views”

    It would be nice if you could stick to the scriptural subject instead of using emotional methods once this doesn’t work to your advantage?
    Lets be clear, I am not offering some subjective interpretation for the satisfaction of some audiences acceptance.
    I am also not having some subjective debate on this topic, rather, I am speaking with the authority and witness of the unbroken and unified teaching of the churches for 2000 years which foundations were laid by the Apostles, the Holy Spirit who guided the churches teaching and Holy scripture that was produced in the life of the churches and guided by the Holy Spirit.

  • Thank you for this, Jory. I’m happy to have stumbled across your work, though I regret that it’s because of the election that I’ve become aware of you.

    I’m glad you had such a positive example of a healthy Christian marriage growing up, and that you were secure in your calling as a leader. I know looking back that I was tampered from living out my spiritual gifts by my (well-meaning…but aren’t they all) youth group. I remember reading one of those purity-marriage books in high school and simultaneously being moved and aghast by it. But I didn’t have the language to express my discomfort, and all my spiritual leaders were essentially telling me I was sinning for disagreeing with their takes. Now, as an adult pretty secure in her faith, it’s astonishing to realize how much spiritual damage I received from otherwise faithful men (and women! women bought into it, too!). I’m just now starting to put words to it and facing the pain head on, instead of being angry at the memory.

    Thank you for your ministry.

    • Yes, many women are waking up and fighting back. God is raising up an army of fearless women leaders, helping us to let go of our anger towards the Church, and helping us to use the gifts that he has given us!

  • Sarah and Naama… you just don’t get it…yet…I thought just like you do for many years…you just are living in a make believe world right now. I was in a church for 30 years before the truth about the secret behaviour of men who claim special entitlement to authority was exposed…you just haven’t found out yet…but I promise that you will…eventually…it is so perfect until you know the truth about human nature.

    As long as you think your position is Biblical and that God wants men to always get their own way (that is essentially what the Bible says, if you interpret it your way) then you are enabling gross sin in men some of whom need women to stand against them with a firm hand. You may not find out about it until one day the truth about human sinfulness comes out…Once you find yourself in such situations, as most of us have, you will begin to question if indeed God intends your view at all…and you will conclude that truly this IS a heart problem, but not a heart problem in women but in MEN! They cannot live under such adulation and elevation without falling off the pedestal…and you ladies are enabling them to do so as long as you let them be. So I leave you to your lives to pontificate about OUR hearts while you live as you think God intends, and expect that, should you live long enough, you will eventually come to see that there is nothing wrong with our hearts in expecting equality, and that men simply are not, and cannot be, pure enough to be given the license you think God gives them…If I live long enough, you too will come to realize that men are sinners, fallible, and are not capable of taking the unquestioned leadership they demand without falling on their faces…and you will then know that you are to blame for allowing it…and for not searching the scriptures to discover that God never intended anyone to have such authority over others as these Complementarians claim for themselves…and that you have misunderstood Paul’s writings on headship and failed to examine the whole body of scripture in your conclusions…

  • To Jory, especially I plead with you to reconsider your political views about the Trump revolution, by at least considering the following. I am not ‘forcing’ you to do this, just pleading with you to look at another point of view which is the natural thing for a student who has earned a Masters and who evidently is interested in getting to the bottom of things rather than having been spoon fed one point of view. If you have already considered these ideas and still prefer to retain your former point of view, then I concede that you have at least considered another view…that is what UNIVERSITY really means…knowing the views of the universe and making your own conclusions:

    To other readers: While I strongly support Jory’s columns and her work for women, I would like to explain my disagreement with her political views that are formed by the American schools introduction of Howard Zinn and his “People’s History of the United States” into American schools in the 1980’s. This was revolutionary. I don’t blame Jory for her understanding of the United States and Trump as an oppressor because like most students since 1980 when Zinn’s history became required reading, they have absorbed a very anti American, communist interpretation of America’s history that is inherently biased and damaging to the future of the country. It was led by the infiltration of political leftists into the schools and unions…If any of you here agree with her views, I would ask you to explain why millions are willing to risk danger and illegal entry to get into this country if it is so bad? Why are so few leaving? Millenials don’t understand that Trump is a good revolutionary…and you are now in a new American Revolution that many of you don’t understand…At the risk of sounding melodramatic, we are in dangerous times and I hope you will be heroes in the future and therefore I beg you to seriously consider the following and then conclude with your own opinions:

    Generation Zero full length movie: …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SLtP10NQ8 1.5

    Stephen K. Bannon speaks at the Liberty Restoration Committee. A vilified American Patriot:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BSrJv0IpHY 24 minutes

  • Two major issues with this post.

    Firstly, a very odd “..critique of “Mingling Of Souls” Book by Matt Chandler” considering that all Ms . Micah has done is not critique nor review this book. Unfortunately what is patently obvious are both strawman arguments presented in this blog post and begging the question statements. Ms. Micah presents statements and thoughts that she has preconceived appreciation for and then argues for it and never actually critiques the book itself. This is certainly not a critique of the book but Ms. Micah’s desire to present her own views veiled as a defence against Chandler’s ‘views’. We are never presented with clear evidence that she is arguing against a proposition, rather what we see line after line are a defence to the strawman statements that she makes and implies. Only once does she actually write about the book – when she argues Chandler misses a verse (which I address below).

    She also asks non-pertinent questions and presents statements that are loaded and emotive that she fails to make one argument against the book itself. For example she states “let’s be honest, no one really wants to be at the bottom of any hierarchy” has nothing to do with the book –it is what Ms. Micah is already trying to convince the audience and she is using non sequitur, emotive language to argues for her personal convictions rather than what she claim what she is doing – that she is attempting to show that something is wrong.

    Like someone said earlier, most, if not all are simply ‘private interpretation’. Most of all, this post is simply the author’s own interpretation and personal experience. This serves no indication or platform for truths. Despite what may be genuine experiences of Ms. Micah, we can’t agree that the conclusions are right.

    Secondly, the appalling indication of Ms. Micha’s theology is this: she fails to state any facts and how she arrives at the conclusions. All we see are her convictions and conclusions loaded with brazen statements that she just expects her readers to read and accept, as if they are truths. This is a pernicious way of trying to convince people who are already being shaped by false hope and those who are hurting due to sin and brokenness. The author has moved the ‘goal posts’ as it were and then argues for something that is certainly not there. For example: “Matt Chandler left out Ephesians 5 verse 21 when he mentioned this passage. Verse 21, which calls for husbands and wives to submit to one another, must go with verses 22 & 23, because it provides the verb “submit,” for verses 22-23, when this passage is read in the original Greek language.”

    Verse 21 and its preceding 20 verses are talking to and about the Church – that is the context of the 21 verses. We know that, because of the ‘therefore’ clause in verse 1, which clarifies chapter 4: 17-32. So the verse 21 has to be taken in context of the audience – the church in general and not specifically to wives and husbands.

    To make matters clear Paul says specifically to the wives in v22 ‘submit to your own husbands’, not any husband or a random man, but own. If it were to link verse 21, this is not just redundant but a contradiction. This is why Paul clearly clarifies the second use – to the audience , wives. It is wrong to link the two, that is why the wrong conclusion is made.

    Just because the verb ‘submit’ is in both verses, that does not automatically indicate they go together. That assumption is wrong. If they went together, why is Paul being redundant in two sentences back to back or are you saying that Paul is contradicting, what he has just said one sentence above?
    The author makes the statement “To have a biblical & functional marriage, a husband and a wife must submit to one another”, however it is not clear or evidenced where this came from; how this was arrived at; what passages were used to arrive at this conclusion. Simply making statements do not make it right. Again I ague that Ms. Micah is simply arguing for her own strawman arguments and nothing new. This is an easy tactic to employ, when not saying anything new.

    “Complementarianism has emphasized female submission and male leadership, but the Bible has called husbands and wives to submit to one another, just as all believers are meant to submit to one another.” Unfortunately, there are grave errors in this statement. You have linked the submitting out of reverence for each other, which is talking to the church in general and wives submitting to their own husbands – which is talking in specific – together. We are called to do this both. It is not one and not the other. Fathers submit to God the Father, but not to their sons. Sons are called to summit to both their own fathers and God the father. Just because sons submit to biological father does not negate them from submitting to God. Of course this is a rudimentary example, but it shows how both are possible and both are what Paul is calling for. ‘Own husband’ clearly tells the wives where the submission is. My wife is not called to submit to any husband, but she and I are called to submit to each other in the church as we server and love the body.

    Submitting in marriage is very different from submitting to each other in the body. The union is different and so is the day to do living out of both. Why can we can this? Paul is say it twice, one for the church body and one for the married wife. In practical terms, it works out differently too. The husband is to love and lead – as Christ did for the Church and the church is to submit and server – as the church is for Christ. Christ never submits to the church. Or is the author saying that if we are to take both submitting together as one, then Christ somehow submits to the church?

    The interaction, service and submission in the corporate body of Christ – that is the church – is a different interaction, service and submission within marriage. Verse 5 clarifies this when Paul says “everyone” and later from verse 22, he is talking about the married couple.

    The submission to wives and leading to husband is liken to church and Christ – this is the mystery that Paul is talking about. If we are to follow the argument through to conclusion that Ms. Micah is making, it would lead us to believe that the submission that Paul talks about in verse 21 is the same submission in the mystery of marriage. Which certainly is not the case.
    “Unjust hierarchies and subordination, as found in complementarian gender roles, are harmful because they are a great threat to unity” again Ms. Micah just makes an assumption here with her own prejudices and not clearly showing any biblical justification for this. Alas, I would say, Ms. Micah is simply packing up the status quo with some ‘popular Christianity’ and giving it to the audience to eat up.

    “We know that Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:12 was not ever supposed to be taken as a universal and timeless command.” My question is, how did the author come to this conclusion. We do not see that in the verses attached to this. Are we now saying that we will decide what is ‘universal’ and ‘timeless’ according to our own inclination? Once again, this is a personal fancy and dangerously heretical. Are we to pick and choose now what we like and dislike and then claim them to be what they are not?

    The problem when saying “We know this because Paul praised female Bible teachers, house church leaders, an apostle, and a deacon. Paul even praises the preacher, Priscilla, in the New Testament, and mentions her name before her husband’s name 5 times out of 7 times. This would have been a big deal in an extreme patriarchal society. It tells us that Paul probably saw her as more of the minister than her husband.” Is this: the author has taken something totally out of context and not related and then weaved it together to get the conclusion what she wants.

    Disclaimer: I have not read the book. My response is regarding this post alone, which can be treated mutually exclusive to the book.

    • Arun…your comment is entirely too wordy to struggle with…evidently you are very emotionally attached to your views but need to present them in precis form to get results. Condensing and distilling one’s answer is a kindness that I am slowly trying to learn as well. I pray that you will someday seek to impress on yourself an OVERVIEW of the Bible’s teaching rather than a word by word analysis, and to seek to find the true character both of God and that which He seeks to instill in His people…a humble and quiet spirit for BOTH men and women. Verse by verse analysis can distort the meaning and needs to be subjected to the overview to get the true picture of who God is and what He wishes for us…He came to set captives free and to set at liberty them that are bound…how does this fit your scenario or indeed Complementarianism?

      • Hi Judy,

        I am sorry you found my comment far too wordy. My aim was to give a full treatment to Jory’s article. Upon coming across her review, I was surprised that someone can claim to ‘write a review’ but totally avoided it and write something else. Then reading her theology was even more worrying than the article. It was clearly unbiblical and warranted a response.

        Please note that I took no cheap-shots at Jory, just commented on her writing. It feels like you have failed to recognise that, as youare judging my first ever comment on this site asking for prayers that “you will someday seek to impress on yourself an OVERVIEW of the Bible’s teaching”. You do not know anything about me, other than a comment on Jory’s writing – which needed to be looked at very carefully. How can you just offer up prayers for me when all you had was an analysis of Jory’s post? We need to set the same goal posts for everyone and what you have done I am afraid is shifted it and judged me and my comments against a different of standards. The implication is that Jory is allowed to have a ‘word by word analysis’ (everyone has been quick to jump on me for the same comment I left on her FB page by directing me to her doctoral thesis) but it’s not OK for me to do a word by word analysis of her writing? Why not? Why are others not allowed to take her work and see it for what it is?

        May I ask whether you actually read my comment? If you had, you will know that it was directly against her writing, which need to be critiqued. Jory should not be allowed to just get away with posts like this and we should hold her wiring accountable. If we don’t analyse it for what it is, then we just follow her like blind sheep. My concern is (more on this on her FB post) her theology is bad and wrong on so many levels. Before you charge me against a wordy reply, please note that I took her references and passages in Greek, word by word. Unless we do this, we are going to miss the real theology that she claims to teach. We will just come to a distilled ‘good feeling’ of what we want it to teach, rather than what it is actually teaching. Let me give you an example of Jory’s bad theology and her false teaching.

        Take “The churches of Asia greet you, especially Aquila and Priscilla greet you much in the Lord, along with the church that is in their house.” I Cor. 16:19. Jory justifies elsewhere that this passage is an indication of female leadership in a church. No it does not teach that. If you read it carefully, it just says that there was a church that met in this couple’s home and greetings are sent to this couple and the church that met in their home – not as Jory says that a Priscilla was a co-leader/pastor… in their house church. If you don’t believe me, here is the greek for it “Ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς Ἀσίας. ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ πολλὰ Ἀκύλας καὶ Πρίσκα σὺν τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ.” Literally translated “The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.”

        So, do you see why it is important to read it properly and respond to it properly and not just being OK to “impress on yourself an OVERVIEW of the Bible’s teaching” (as you suggested) will miss these things and crucially miss what the Bible is *actually* teaching! If you read it and study it as you want it to be, I am sorry, you are wrong and living in wishful thinking. Please do not pray for me for that, that is absurd!

        “Verse by verse analysis can distort the meaning…” What? Really? How on earth do you read things properly? Having a nice overview does nothing other missing a lot of crucial information. How can you get “the overview to get the true picture of who God is” when it is not read properly and just have a simple overview, that someone has given to them? How can you decide what is correct and what is made up?

        Your last line is a loaded question, as you have so many bad assumptions build into it “He came to set captives free and to set at liberty them that are bound…how does this fit your scenario or indeed Complementarianism?” It is also a strawman argument I am afraid! It is non-sequitur, and have totally misrepresented what I am saying, indeed what the Bible is saying. Moreover, in your false cause premises, you are presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

        May I suggest that you actually read my comment and tell me what I did wrong in the content of my writing rather than make it personal? That way we can have a conversation.

        Thanks,
        Arun

        • Arun, in reply to these questions of yours: “Verse by verse analysis can distort the meaning…” What? Really? How on earth do you read things properly? Having a nice overview does nothing other(than) missing a lot of crucial information. How can you get “the overview to get the true picture of who God is” when it is not read properly and just have a simple overview, that someone has given to them? How can you decide what is correct and what is made up?”

          Exactly the contrary…The overview is not a “nice” little precis at the beginning of a chapter in your Bible. It is arrived at after years of study, and any teacher worth his/her salt should have a thorough overview by then. It is how you decide what is correct and what is made up and it must originate IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING, not just something someone else gives you! Truly you need both, but the overview is the check point, the understanding of God’s heart, that determines if you are on track, in the end. First, you need to know the whole Bible before you start to study verse by verse or you will distort the message. If you take ANYTHING out of context you risk a distortion. “Comparing scripture with scripture” has been the mantra of all serious Bible teachers. That infers the overview. If you find a verse that supports slavery, then you need to know if the Bible, as a whole, “describes” slavery or actually “prescribes” it. For centuries people felt that the Bible prescribed slavery because they used verse by verse interpretations to support their views and because they had not gathered God’s transcendent view of slavery, only their own cultural attitude and imposed it on the scriptures, blaming it all on “God’s Word”. Then others came up with the overview that God has rescued his people from slavery, that He wanted equality for all men before Him, that He wanted to set captives free, that he broke down the wall of partition that divided “bond and free”. By looking at the WHOLE Bible and comparing the alleged pro-slavery verses with that, you can conclude that God’s Word was merely describing slavery, not promoting or prescribing it. Enslavement is from Satan. Liberty is from God.

          What many today, like me and others, are doing with the Bible verses on female subjection is a combination of the same ways of Bible study…they look at the apparent meaning of single verses, then they look at how God has treated women throughout and His attitude toward women, at His comments on relationships between men and women and on overview type verses (he has broken down the wall of partition between us (Jew and Gentile) that also is found in Gal 3:28…neither male nor female, bond or free, Jew or Gentile in Christ…and you find that if Jesus broke down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, then He broke down the wall of partition between male and female, and He set captives free (like the multitude of females who have been held captive in abusive marriages under the idea that they must submit, even crawl lower if necessary, to please God in a cruel marriage, and you find that they conclude that it is not God’s will for such a situation to even occur…You may not agree…but if you take the time to understand how God has dealt with females over the centuries, and you study ALL the females in scripture you will find almost NO females, who were praised by God, who lived in the submissive manner prescribed by Complementarians. Abigail the prophet is a case in point, whom God praised and helped DESPITE the fact that she rejected her husband’s counsel and went DIRECTLY AGAINST IT. God never communicated with a woman THROUGH any human creature, notably male. He communicated with Mary and with Samson’s mother, and every other female directly through His angels or personally in the NT. He did not see women through their ‘HEAD’ but directly every time and even on Earth He never went to women through their husbands… but only through Christ…an excellent example is the woman at the well and Mary of Bethany. Did he speak to her only through the brother? Did Jesus treat the brother as the head of the house?

          It is details like this from an overview of scripture that enable us to understand more clearly the verse by verse study. That is why verse by verse, that system too often used for teaching the young and new Christians, is unfair on its own, and leads them into possibly years of mistreatment and misunderstanding of who God is…it is dangerous and can be deceitful, and it is high time that teachers stopped using it exclusively to teach male domination and female subjection, for God in no way intended such a manner of communication between them…as evidenced in His first words about them “And He gave THEM to have dominion over all the earth”…not over each other. The words that came later “He shall rule over you” were the result of Satan taking God’s place when the two gave Satan their obeisance in the Garden at the Fall and turned from God. Presumably, after reconciliation with God through Christ, Satan no longer controls the relationship between husband and wife, male and female, and therefore there is no place for ascendancy between them, but for that wall to be left in its broken down state, that no longer divides them one from another and brings peace between them .. ONLY…IN CHRIST.

          Is this not crystal clear?

      • Hi Judy,

        I am sorry you found my comment far too wordy. My aim was to give a full treatment to Jory’s article. Upon coming across her review, I was surprised that someone can claim to ‘write a review’ but totally avoided it and write something else. Then reading her theology was even more worrying than the article. It was clearly unbiblical and warranted a response.

        Please note that I took no cheap-shots at Jory, just commented on her writing. It feels like you have failed to recognise that, as youare judging my first ever comment on this site asking for prayers that “you will someday seek to impress on yourself an OVERVIEW of the Bible’s teaching”. You do not know anything about me, other than a comment on Jory’s writing – which needed to be looked at very carefully. How can you just offer up prayers for me when all you had was an analysis of Jory’s post? We need to set the same goal posts for everyone and what you have done I am afraid is shifted it and judged me and my comments against a different of standards. The implication is that Jory is allowed to have a ‘word by word analysis’ (everyone has been quick to jump on me for the same comment I left on her FB page by directing me to her doctoral thesis) but it’s not OK for me to do a word by word analysis of her writing? Why not? Why are others not allowed to take her work and see it for what it is?

        May I ask whether you actually read my comment? If you had, you will know that it was directly against her writing, which need to be critiqued. Jory should not be allowed to just get away with posts like this and we should hold her wiring accountable. If we don’t analyse it for what it is, then we just follow her like blind sheep. My concern is (more on this on her FB post) her theology is bad and wrong on so many levels. Before you charge me against a wordy reply, please note that I took her references and passages in Greek, word by word. Unless we do this, we are going to miss the real theology that she claims to teach. We will just come to a distilled ‘good feeling’ of what we want it to teach, rather than what it is actually teaching. Let me give you an example of Jory’s bad theology and her false teaching.

        Take “The churches of Asia greet you, especially Aquila and Priscilla greet you much in the Lord, along with the church that is in their house.” I Cor. 16:19. Jory justifies elsewhere that this passage is an indication of female leadership in a church. No it does not teach that. If you read it carefully, it just says that there was a church that met in this couple’s home and greetings are sent to this couple and the church that met in their home – not as Jory says that a Priscilla was a co-leader/pastor… in their house church. If you don’t believe me, here is the greek for it “Ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς Ἀσίας. ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ πολλὰ Ἀκύλας καὶ Πρίσκα σὺν τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ.” Literally translated “The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.”

        So, do you see why it is important to read it properly and respond to it properly and not just being OK to “impress on yourself an OVERVIEW of the Bible’s teaching” (as you suggested) will miss these things and crucially miss what the Bible is *actually* teaching! If you read it and study it as you want it to be, I am sorry, you are wrong and living in wishful thinking. Please do not pray for me for that, that is absurd!

        “Verse by verse analysis can distort the meaning…” What? Really? How on earth do you read things properly? Having a nice overview does nothing other missing a lot of crucial information. How can you get “the overview to get the true picture of who God is” when it is not read properly and just have a simple overview, that someone has given to them? How can you decide what is correct and what is made up?

        Your last line is a loaded question, as you have so many bad assumptions build into it “He came to set captives free and to set at liberty them that are bound…how does this fit your scenario or indeed Complementarianism?” It is also a strawman argument I am afraid! It is non-sequitur, and have totally misrepresented what I am saying, indeed what the Bible is saying. Moreover, in your false cause premises, you are presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

        May I suggest that you actually read my comment and tell me what I did wrong in the content of my writing rather than make it personal? That way we can have a conversation.

        Thanks,
        Arun

        • Arun Joseph, I said: “I pray that you will someday seek to impress on yourself an OVERVIEW of the Bible’s teaching rather than a word by word analysis, and to seek to find the true character both of God and that which He seeks to instill in His people”.

          …I guess you are a literalist, as I supposed…for I am certainly NOT offering up LITERAL prayers for you at the moment…except that I beseech you to really seek the heart of God for His will for women and men, from Genesis to Revelation and toward the future and cease to specialize in regurgitating the Complementarian mantra endlessly…I have heard it all, sir!

          My concern is that you say point blank that Jory’s theology is ‘WRONG’…as in… yours is evidently RIGHT. What more can be said to you? You have left no room for argument or discussion. Frankly I don’t care at all what your verse by verse understandings are…I have had an overdose of verse by verse analyses in English and Greek for over 30 years…and WILL NOT READ YOURS or anyone else’s, either…such analyses lead to spiritual constipation and indigestion…and have no value in bringing people closer to Christ and to their God.

          I will not condemn anyone’s theology EITHER, anymore since “there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus”…and I cannot know for a fact if either you or Jory are “in” Christ, despite your professions.

          What does concern me is your determination to ignore the WHOLE of scripture in your analysis of WHO GOD IS…refusing to compare scripture with ALL scripture in your analysis…that would give you a more broad and ACCURATE view of God’s commands for men and women. Who is your God and what is He like if He insists on female subjection to male authority?

          As for your accusations that Jory’s theology is wrong, what are you going to do about it? Do you really think an extremely lengthy attack is going to reach women who are living today and who can think, read and write for themselves? Do you not realize that many women here, like me, have spent perhaps 30-40 years listening to views like yours and have now left the churches out of sheer exhaustion from beating our heads against the WALL OF PARTITION that Paul said “Jesus” broke down…that wall of partition between men and women, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, that He deconstructed at the cross and which priests and pastors have sought to erect higher and higher over the years?

          Either get to the point or give it up. I want a distillation of your views of God and women…no more. If you want to believe that God enjoys watching women suffer under totalitarian theology, silently bowing and scraping to authoritarian male elders, locked out of responsibility and ministry…so be it. I don’t really care if you are RIGHT or she is WRONG. I cannot agree, either that the whole of scripture supports your views, and find that the overview is more likely to support hers, for the heart of God that brought about the EXODUS from slavery in Egypt, is always at work in the God who is the same yesterday, today and forever.

          If you can’t see the relationship between God’s mission of setting captives free and your interpretation of scripture that takes women whom Christ set free and makes captives of them, then I leave it to God and your life experiences with scripture to set you straight, eventually. I am certainly not up to a line by line debate, but I am sure you are a Complementarian and as such I suggest you ask the women in your life for honest appraisals of your views…and especially take your interrogation to the women who have left your church, and others, over the last few years and find out why.

          • Dear Judy,
            I am afraid I will need to ask you again: have you actually ready my first comment properly and if so, can you please tell me what was it that I was wrong in? You keep making this really personal. I made an observation on Jory’s writing and theology and I responded to it. I have kept to the topic and have did my best not to veer off course too much. Just because I have not given you a full overview of my study and an overview of the bible – in terms of systematic theology and biblical theology, does not mean you can keep accusing me of not having a fuller understanding. I am specifically talking about what Jory wrote. Right now is not the time and place to discuss the whole of the biblical overview.
            Now, talking about specifics, I have given you clear textual reasoning, both here and as I mentioned on her Facebook page on the same article, why she is wrong. I have not flippantly just claimed she is wrong or rudely accused her as anything. I have taken her text and evaluated it against the bible. Therefore, I can tell you, even with the brief glimpses of my response, why her teaching and theology is wrong. I do not claim my theology is write, but I can tell you – as I evidenced, what the bible says, which is contrary to what she teaches. Therefore, I can confidently tell you that my theology and thinking is far more aligned biblically, compared to what Jory is saying. I have clearly given you evidence of it. I do not know what else to do or say.

            If you can clearly tell me what I am doing wrong – in terms of my theology, reading of the scripture, study of verses ‘in context’ – compared to Jory, then please go ahead. Tell me what is it that I have done wrong? Stop turning this conversation about something else. It is you Judy that is complicating this conversation. Stick to the topic at hand. Do not make this something else. Read what I actually wrote.
            Complementarian is biblical and it’s not just some biblical mantra we follow – a charge that you make with no backing up of evidence. I have defended that already to you giving you some verses. Once you respond to the above, then I am happy to further defended why biblical teaching is complementarian and what Jory teaches is plainly wrong. Judy, you keep making assertions and do not once actually back it up with evidence.

            You have taken ““there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus”” totally out of context here. There is a ‘therefore’ clause here, which means, it is pertaining to the preceding passage – chapter 7, Paul’s struggle with Law and sin. Since God has given us Jesus, we do not stand condemned anymore. This verse does not give us licence to say “there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” – indeed it should be the opposite – if we stand not guilty in front of God, because of Jesus, then we should be critical of what Christians profess and claim. Here is an absurd example: if I was married to a wiccan and I say to her ‘please wife, pray to your gods…’ and claim to be a Christian and how I should love others, then you can correctly say to me that I am not a Christian! How can I be if I remotely claim that? So Judy, do be careful in what people just say they profess, especially if they claim to be Christian – does it back what the bible actually say and not just verses taken out of context. We know if someone is a Christian, BY THEIR FRUIT. If the teaching is wrong and bad (that is contrary to the bible), – consistently then their fruit is bad – consistently, therefore, they are not in Christ.

            “Who is your God and what is He like if He insists on female subjection to male authority?” Your loaded ‘subjection’ is not what the bible teaches. Women are called to be under the male’s headship – they are called. They are not slaves. A godly wife, joyfully submits to her husband, and a husband joyfully protects, leads and loves his wife – even unto death. There is simply no subjection. I am afraid, you are just coming with far too many personal baggage and formulation, without looking at the bible as a whole – something you claim I am not doing!
            “If you want to believe that God enjoys watching women suffer under totalitarian theology, silently bowing…” Who said that? You said it, I did not! Stop making absurd arguments and strawman statements! Not once did I claim something remotely. What you have here is clearly what you have presupposed what the term and meaning are for the term ‘Complementarian’. That is not what the bible teaches! Stop mixing your feelings with facts!

            I am going to close with this “As for your accusations that Jory’s theology is wrong, what are you going to do about it?” What am I doing? Well, for start, I called her out on her false teaching, then I presented some of the evidence as to why it is wrong. I clearly game a lengthy treatment to it. You Judy, on the other hand, berated me for the lengthy treatment, and you ignored the evidence. So what am I doing “to reach women who are living today…” well I wrote a response as to what is wrong and what is actually biblical. I am still waiting for a biblical response and not strawman arguments. So, perhaps, someone will read this post, and they will read my response and that woman might be able to evaluate both the writing and compare it with the bible and see what is right and what is not.

            So, I end with what I started, please actually tell me in what I wrote, what was it that was wrong, without making assumptions and making egregious strawman arguments!

          • Arun…you say “I do not claim my theology is write(sic), but I can tell you – as I evidenced, what the bible says, which is contrary to what she teaches. Therefore, I can confidently tell you that my theology and thinking is far more aligned biblically, compared to what Jory is saying. I have clearly given you evidence of it. I do not know what else to do or say.” Yes Arun, you did your kind of theological argument, I will give you that…there is nothing more to do or say if you intend to stay in your rut of thinking ‘biblically’…but

            This is the ‘rub’ as Shakespeare likes to call it…where you say: “I can tell you…what the bible says…”

            That is my point. You have said what a tiny portion of the Bible says…that is not what THE BIBLE says…it only shows what a tiny few of over 30,000 verses say and frankly, I believe too much is made out of this kind of theology. Unless you can get a grasp of the whole message of God, drawing closer to HIS HEART, you only tear the thing in shreds and give a murky picture of who God is and what He says. It is this kind of theology that ennobled slavery and made Christians quarrel over whether or not slavery was God’s will…and frankly, many who considered themselves to be saying “what the Bible says” also quoted scripture and verse and were very convincing that slavery was, in fact, God’s will, despite a whole book called Exodus, not to mention over and over the call that He came to seek and to save that which was lost…and to set the captives free…it was the overview that killed slavery, not the verse by verse type of theology that enabled it.

            Can you therefore tell me, as you understand God, what is His will for the relationship between men and women?

          • The bible does not speak its entirety on the relationship between men and women. There are certainly glimpses of it, but as a whole – which you seem to want to get to the bottom of – is not about “His will for the relationship between men and women”. It is however, about God, creation, fall, redemption and the consummation of whole of Creation through Jesus. The whole bible – the whole bible – is about God and His relationship with us through Jesus. It is about salvation on the work of Christ.

            We are talking about something specific here Judy. We cannot talk about the whole of the Bible. That would be silly. Jory wrote about something specific and I responded to it. Do you not think that you should keep to the topic at hand? Do you not think that if Jory wanted to write about something specific, then a specific response is what is needed, not some wishy-washy overview? You are good at avoiding the topic and hiding behind what you set-up. In the discussions we’ve had, you bring up things that were never there, or you create things so that you can answer them yourself. After asking a few times, you finally responded to one of my statement, and even then, you allowed for your feelings to respond rather than actually make a real response. You dismissed what I wrote, and wrote me off for the “stay in your rut of thinking ‘biblically’”. Are we not to think ‘biblically’ now? Is it where one is when they think ‘biblically’ – a rut?

            Yes, I spoke about a ‘tiny portion of [what] the Bible says’ – that is because we are only talking about a ‘tiny portion of what the Bible says’ – namely, the issue of male-headship and the fact that Jory pretended to write a review and did not write one, but wrote about her views – which is egregious! Why is her community not calling her out on that? Surely if you follow someone, and they make such mistakes, then someone needs to speak up. Back to your penultimate paragraph, yes, what we are discussing is a tiny part of the 30K verses – what do you want me to do? Talk about the 30K verses in the context of male-headship? I think we will all agree that it would be silly to do so. If too much is made of this kind of theology, then why are you not calling Jory out of it too? Why is it that she is able to speak for the ‘egalitarian camp’ but when there is a response to it, it is immediately shot down, or dismissed? Or are you saying that we should not be talking about these things? If that is what you are saying, I am afraid you are wrong. These things should be talked about – in a healthy fashion and when there is clearly wrong/bad/hermitical teaching, it needs to be called out for it.

            The whole message of God is the fact that I am a sinner – we are sinners, all are sinner. Jesus through grace paid the price for the sinners, so that God’s justice and wrath may be satisfied. His elect will be saved. The others will not be saved but will spend where they rightly deserved. But, but, we are not talking about this. God gave us a bible – there are lots of things in it, that we need to look at, one of it is clearly male-headship in marriages. Please do not equate that with slavery. What madness! Male-headship in marriages is mandated, even if you don’t like it, don’t want it or do not care for it. I have clearly explained biblically why this is the case. Of course, you do not want to accept it, that’s fine. You want to somehow link that with something else – such as slavery, then I am sorry Judy, we are having two very different conversations and it will be un-fruitful for the both of us to carry on.
            Jews going into slavery into Egypt is God’s will, absolutely! The atom that moves is God’s will. It was His sovereign will that the Jews went into slavery. The fact that Daniel was captured and went into captivity was the sovereign will of God. This this not ‘ennoble’ slavery. It happened due to His will so that He can show who He is and show what rescue is. I do not know where you are going with that. Sorry.

            “Can you therefore tell me, as you understand God, what is His will for the relationship between men and women?” God created Man and Woman – they are His image-bearers. Men and women are created equal in their being and personhood. They are however created different, anatomically. They are however created to complement each other via different roles and responsibilities as manifested in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. Therefore, the bible teaches that there is generally patriarchal view of the family (the father is responsible to lead, provide for, teach his children to know and love God) as found in Scripture. Christian husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Christian wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ because God designed marriage to reflect the relationship of Jesus Christ and the Church.
            I hope that answers your question. If you need me to reference every point above, I am happy to do so. Would you also want me to respond how this works in roles in a church – I have already done this, but happy to do it again.

            I am happy to further discuss this, but if you want to do so, either a. respond to what I actually wrote, or b. write your thinking and response to Jory’s article/theology and I will happy respond to that. Until either one of them happens, it is futile to carry on.

        • Arun…further…I must say that Jory’s succumbing to “Democrat” ideology is a serious departure from the overall message of scripture as well…and that the heart of socialism is entirely contrary to the message of Christ…that is a warning that I also plead for…that Christians need to question the forced taking from working men and women of their hard earned money to give to heedless and determinedly reticent men and women who generation after generation believe they have a right not to work, not to contribute and to be spoon fed and who continue to keep the Democrat party in power…this is entirely contrary to the heart of the God of the Bible.

          The new Democrats also embrace Globalism and a borderless world…that will be the end of liberty, democracy and America…it is a traitorous ideology and is amazingly appealing to Democrats, especially the latest who despise America and the great gift of God to the world of a possibility of liberty for all.

          • If you think ‘socialism is entirely contrary to the message of Christ’, that is a different conversation, which I am not going to get into. I will not allow the conversation to be shifted to something which was never in place. It is disrespectful to Jory, her readers, you and our conversation.

  • Judy

    It seems like most of your warnings aren’t based at all on Scripture or reason; most of your warnings seem to be based on your own experience. Since when are you called to superimpose your own faulty experiences or past sins onto scripture or myself? If you were a follower of some strange doctrinal sect at some point in your life, then either own your sin, or forgive the other person who sinned against you. It is not honest or trustworthy to be reactionary. However, many extreme movements are just reactions towards the brats of feminism or the infantile babies of men’s rights activism. Both of these have no part in scripture since they are modern secular political ideologies, therefore, I don’t need to join either one because they just promote the sickness of sin.
    I am not sure what you mean by “biblical”? Many people claim this like pro abortion advocates, same sex advocates, once saved always saved advocates, and many more but their teachings have never been taught by the historical churches. Feminism also falls into this trap.
    Your words just simply exposes your bias since your poisonous venom is only spewed towards men but ignores women altogether, but I assure you, for every defective man, there is also a defective women.
    Also, how dare you include my husband in your poisonous scheme. My husband worked with a broken elbow and maybe had 2-3 hours a sleep each night in order to support our family and his two disabled sisters. Who exactly is on the pedestal here? I am also not sure about letting a man always wanting to get his own way? This sounds like the actions of an adolescent man-mother kinda scenario. Doesn’t sound like a man ready for marriage.

    • Reactionary! Poisonous venom! Spewed! Poisonous scheme! “man-mother kinda scenario”! Glad your response to me is so rational and well thought out ☺ I include all men in the scheme that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”…yes including your husband and you and even me, that poisonous venomous creature you delight in reviling…legalistic submission requires always giving a man his own way, yes indeed it does…and it does create an adolescent father-daughter kinda scenario…that is why I don’t believe it is God’s way. A reasonable, rational and humble man will not insist on legalistic submission from his wife.

  • Judy, you should temper your emotions a bit in order for a more coherent conversation to emerge.

    You specifically warned that a husband will self destruct if he is a leader of his wife and family because he is a sinner. However, you switched the topic from a specific sin of a husband, to any general sin that includes a my husband, myself and yourself. This is called moving the goalposts.

    A father-daughter relationship could not apply in this example since a daughter doesn’t have the authority of granting her father to get his own way. I can only respond with what you have written and a man who has to get “his own” way from his wife would be an adolescent boy-mother relationship. Your own words also exposes your bias that a wife is the authority he is violating in order to get his own way. The term “get his own way” is also so vague it is almost meaningless to comment on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *