Thank Jesus himself that I'm not crazy and wanting to puke when this happens. I'm glad I know that the gut wrenching emotion of how wrong this felt was right. Thank you for being an example, and faithfully living out Christ as King.

DUDE!!!! Well said! Okay, now I'm going to qualify what I say next by stating that I am a woman, and am very comfortable in my femininity. That said, the Sacred Swoon also makes ME want to puke! For a few years, I was semi-involved in a charismatic church (mistake, obviously). I never felt comfortable with the raised-arm, head-back, slightly-in-pain facial expression they all seemed to adopt (male AND female), but I thought that was because there was something wrong with ME.

Anyway, fast-forward a few years...we are now in a doctrinally-solid cessationist evangelical church, only a few hand-raisers (hey, if that's your thing, nothing wrong with it); BUT I will not sing the chorus of Matt Redman's "Let My Words be Few". Will not; cannot; want to run in the ladies' room and hide when that one starts up - if only because of the looks on the faces of 400+ men trying not to look too obvious about their discomfort. Hey, if those lyrics make ME, a woman, uncomfortable, imagine how the guys feel...?

I don't understand what is going through the minds of the look-like-I'm-in-pain-sacred-swoon folks when they strike that pose. I've been a Christian for 20 years, and I still don't get it.

Shoot, and I had just plucked up the courage to regularly lift up a holy hand and "swoon"! Maybe I'll start by daring to keep my eyes open when I'm raisin' a hand (the real reason I had 'em closed is because I'm embarrassed to be doing any kind of body movement -- the old fear of man sin).

Thanks for getting us thinking about this, Stephen. Of course our sex should make a difference in this, yet it hadn't occurred to me.

By the way, the reason I only raise one hand is because in the other arm I have my two-year-old son. WHAT A BLESSING to teach him to be part of the worship of our Lord.

Excuse me, Kevin? You thought that telling men they don't have to and in fact shouldn't try to be women in how they worship is tantamount to telling men to punch each other?

Stephen already answered the question of what this looks like to him. He also already told us what Jesus "showed" us about being a warrior. What exactly is missing in this description?

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, ‘KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.’” (Revelation 19:11-16)

In a culture that has completely rejected godly masculinity and femininity, if you tell men not to be women, people think that means men are supposed to be barbarians. But all that reaction proves is that we don't know the first thing about what it means to be a man of God. Do a search for "wimps and barbarians" on Google and read a few things. It will be beneficial to you.

Kevin,

You are right that this needs to be explained to men today. In fact, part of what I was trying to get at is that the article shows what happens when men go "wrong" but not when they go "too far". Does that make sense? It is indeed a "misinterpretation of the call to be Godly and masculine".

"Wild at Heart" points out this problem in the church, but the solution it advocates is completely unbiblical. It essentially calls men to take stupid risks instead of to take on incredible responsibility. A Godly man doesn't foolishly put himself in harms way unless it is to protect somebody. Why? It's not because he is scared, but because he knows that it is his responsibility to keep himself healthy and alive to provide for his family, just as an example.

In our culture, we have done away with the concept of boys growing up to be men. In fact, they don't grow up. They stay forever immature, never caring for others, never getting to the point of recognizing that they are not put on this planet to live for themselves. This man/boy is what PBS called a "Mook" in its documentary, "Merchants of Cool". (The Mook's female equivalent is a "Midriff", in case you were wondering.) If you want to see a mook in action, watch "Jackass". There is no explanation to boys today of their responsibilities, and of the true dangers that those responsibilities entail. Instead there is a hovering mom who won't let her "little precious" hang upside down on the monkey bars. Is it any wonder that men realize they have had something stolen from them, and react in immaturity, ending up chasing after danger?

Feminism cannot stand a Godly man. They claim that they are trying to do away with the barbarian, but ironically that is exactly what they have produced--millions of them.

Tabitha,

If you read the biography of Gladys Aylward (the Missionary Woman to whom you refer) the assumption seems to be that she was fulfilling God's call. I have my doubts. From her biography there is no indication that she was "sent" in fact Gladys failed her probationary membership in the China Inland Mission Center. There are some indications that her "calling" was received after a revival or possibly after reading a magazine article about China. [source:http://www.tlogical.net/bioaylward.htm]

Furthermore, if you listen to her *testimony* implicit in her account of how she ended up in China it becomes apparent that this is a woman who had a problem with authority. At one point she says that *you* are answerable to God and not a man. She has both men and women in mind when she utters this statement.

Isn't this problematic? If God establishes authority, who was Gladys Alward to reject God's authority to establish authority? Her testimony is embodies many of the feminist presuppositions that are prevalent in our churches today. [source:http://media.sermonindex.net/0/SID0951.mp3] Listen to her testimony as what I have offered here only scratches the surface.

Thanks for your reply Dan.

As I assumed, we appear not to agree on what certain verses are saying regarding men and authority over women. I believe I understand these interpretations as I once agreed with you. I have not had the time to listen to all the resources you included, but I assume from your explanation of authority and what you have suggested about Gladys that her husband was against her going. This, after all, is how your umbrella works.

I have not accused you of anything. I simply asked a question. It does encourage me though that you have wrestled with issues of God's sovereignty in your life. I wish you every blessing as you continue to do this.

Dave

Hi Dan,

Genesis 3:16, I assume you would agree, comes as a part of a list of things that are a consequence of the fall and sin entering the world. E.g. the relationship of enmity between the serpant and the woman, and her offspring. This includes the relationship between the husband and the wife. They will no longer operate as 'one flesh' should, but rather it will be a relationship of hierarchy.

For us, in Christ Jesus, we live with new hearts that are inclined to follow God's ways. We still wait for Christ's return when we will recieve new bodies and the pain of child birth is no more, but in our relationships we can now live differently. We can, in Christ, submit to one another, as indeed Paul asks us to do in Ephesians 5:21.

This leads me to answer your little experiment. I do not understand why there would be a conflict if the desire for both your wife and yourself is to submit to one another and your children. If Ghana is detrimental for your children and you (and appears not to be the will of God), then in the Lord your wife should submit. If, however, it is good for you and your children and appears to be the will of God, why would you not submit? Your example assumes that your wife is acting in a selfish or unthoughtful way. According to scripture she should not!

In regard to Gladys, you mention her father's authority. The umbrella of authority you mentioned earlier had no room for a father's authority, or are you including the father in the men of the assembly and saying that the men in the assembly have general authority over women?

I hope my answer is helpful.

Dave

Hi Joseph,

Glad my answer made you chuckle, it was not entirely wasted! Perhaps I could explain things a different way.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that when a husband and wife cannot agree on something, then if one has authority over the other then the decision can be made by the one in authority. Fair enough, though there are two possible problems. It only works if indeed the wife will listen to the authority of her husband and not go over his head to a higher authority (such as God, in the case of old Gladys). Secondly, it is an injustice and a failure to live by God’s rule if the husband chooses a selfish option.

What I am suggesting is that if both the husband and wife are being guided by a concern over what is best for one another and the family, then authority is not an issue. If either one of them are being selfish, then they have failed to live out the Christian life as outlined by Jesus. They should submit to one another, as I mentioned earlier. The experiment only provided an impasse because the wife was being selfish.

With regards to Paul, you can view it as a command, but the language he uses is one of asking. Don’t worry, I fully agree with him and have chosen to live this way in my own life. I just feel your correction is pedantic and not supported by the text. If you are going to suggest that I am consistent in misrepresenting God’s word then I am sure you will not mind this correction as obviously God’s word is important to you. I should add that I am still waiting for a Biblical explanation as to why an adult woman is under the authority of her father.

You might also like to note that in Eph 5:21 we are all asked to submit to one another, even the single non slave owning people with no kids are asked to submit to one another. This, at least, is the way John Calvin in his commentary took this verse when he likened submitting to one another to loving one another.

With regard to your reference to 1 Tim 2:11-13 I feel you have taken the passage way out of context (you have provided no context and quoted it without the following 2 verses that are important to understanding the passage), but before we talk about this it is worth asking, why do we have to wait from Gen3 until 1 Tim to receive clarification on this issue from Paul?

My short answer (which I am sure you will not find satisfactory) is that in 1 Tim 2 Paul completely backs up my understanding that the husband is not in authority over his wife, as the verse you quoted does not say he is. They simply say that a wife is not in authority over her husband (though the word is not generally translated as ‘authority’ but rather ‘domineer’). bI also believe that a wife is not in authority over her husband. This, however, is not what we were talking about.

Dave

Dave,

Thanks for not pulling out of this conversation. I hope you don’t feel ganged-up on but I want to jump in here to correct some of your “suggestions.”

“You might also like to note that in Eph 5:21 we are all asked to submit to one another, even the single non slave owning people with no kids are asked to submit to one another. This, at least, is the way John Calvin in his commentary took this verse when he likened submitting to one another to loving one another.”

You are right that Calvin said, “God has bound us so strongly to each other, that no man ought to endeavor to avoid subjection; and where love reigns, mutual services will be rendered.” However, Calvin clearly taught that the verses that proceed vs. 21 defined how “mutual submission” (i.e. universal subjection) was to be meted out in regards to individuals' respective callings. Here is the passage:

22. Wives, submit yourselves. He comes now to the various conditions of life; for, besides the universal bond of subjection, some are more closely bound to each other, according to their respective callings. The community at large is divided, as it were, into so many yokes, out of which arises mutual obligation. There is, first, the yoke of marriage between husband and wife; — secondly, the yoke which binds parents and children; — and, thirdly, the yoke which connects masters and servants. By this arrangement there are six different classes, for each of whom Paul lays down peculiar duties. He begins with wives, whom he enjoins to be subject to their husbands, in the same manner as to Christ, — as to the Lord. Not that the authority is equal, but wives cannot obey Christ without yielding obedience to their husbands.

Now, Calvin is no friend to your egalitarian position. Notice the concluding sentence. Do you believe this? I think it is clear that you do not.

“With regard to your reference to 1 Tim 2:11-13 I feel you have taken the passage way out of context (you have provided no context and quoted it without the following 2 verses that are important to understanding the passage), but before we talk about this it is worth asking, why do we have to wait from Gen3 until 1 Tim to receive clarification on this issue from Paul?”

I don’t see how the 1 Tim 2:14-15 changes Joseph’s interpretation. Let’s just be clear that Joseph’s interpretation is boringly normal in view of church history. Calvin says:

“He adds — what is closely allied to the office of teaching — and not to assume authority over the man; for the very reason, why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted by their condition. They are subject, and to teach implies the rank of power or authority. Yet it may be thought that there is no great force in this argument; because even prophets and teachers are subject to kings and to other magistrates. I reply, there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying, when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for γυναικοκρατία (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach. Accordingly, he bids them be “quiet,” that is, keep within their own rank.”

It is your position which is wildly abnormal and novel. This brings me to your question why Scripture waits until 1 Tim 2 to clarify this “issue?” Well, the easy answer is that most people understood that it was against nature for a woman to have authority over a man and, therefore, the issue rarely needed clarifying. Gen 3:16 doesn’t teach that the fall created hierarchy. It teaches that a woman’s desire to usurp her husband’s authority (i.e. the created order) is a result of the fall. However, women are ultimately unable to do so because it goes against nature-- though she desires to rule of her husband, he will rule over her. So, the fall injects discontentment into the natural created order.

“My short answer (which I am sure you will not find satisfactory) is that in 1 Tim 2 Paul completely backs up my understanding that the husband is not in authority over his wife, as the verse you quoted does not say he is. They simply say that a wife is not in authority over her husband (though the word is not generally translated as ‘authority’ but rather ‘domineer’). But I also believe that a wife is not in authority over her husband. This, however, is not what we were talking about.”

Your position is worse than unsatisfactory. It is heretical and leads to the oppression of women.

Michael

I am not sure what you mean by submission, however, I do have a few questions and comments to make. First, what do you mean by authority - that a woman must remain, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? Everyone seems to get hung up on the word submission. There is the passage in I Peter 3, that I did not see mentioned. "Wives, in a similar way, place yourselves under your husband's authority. Some husbands may not obey God's word. Their wives could win these men, for Christ, by the way they live without saying anything. Their husbands would see how pure and reverent their lives are." My girlfriend did just that married an unbeliever and did a wonderful job of bringing all her family to God. This is does not say this is the way to go, for, of course we have our direction in II Corinthians 6.14-18. The Peter passage continues "Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn't come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes. Rather, beauty is something internal that can't be destroyed. Beauty expresses itself in a gentle and quiet attitude which God considers precious. After all, this is how holy women who had confidence in God expressed their beauty in the past. They placed themselves under their husband's authority, as Sarah did. Sarah obeyed Abraham and spoke to him respectfully....." so it continues with its counsel for men. Today, society does not teach women how to be Godly women and women often get distracted from Biblical instruction, but then again, so do men, men meant to be Godly men.
By submission - we need to talking about communication. Wives and husbands need to talk things through - peacefully and calmingly. My husband and I do alot of dialoguing. I listen to his viewpoint and he listen to mine. I have found I learn alot from listening to my husband. And when I haven't taken his advice, sometimes I have found myself in trouble, stumbling and regretting that I did not listen. Is he superior to me, I don't think so. Am I superior to him? I don't think so. We talk things through. Do we raise our voices, sometimes. But it mostly is - "hey, you are not really hearing me, listen, this is my viewpoint." I suppose this indicates growth in our marriage, because, well, when we were young we were just getting to know each other and sometimes it was rocky going. But we did know for certain was that God brought us together and you can never give up on a God ordained marriage.
Ah, Calvin, now there is a man with an oppinion.
Looking at the meaning of submission - is a wife to be a doormat? I don't think so. In dialoguing we can come to a reasonable agreement or understanding. Sometimes I write down what my husband has said, either to pass it on, or to think about it. My husband is my teacher, my friend and my caretaker. He is my shelter when things get really tough to handle. He also is my comforter, when I feel hurt by cruel statements from my friends. I also have a role, I think one of my responsibilities to protect him from the terrible things some of my friends think and say about him. I do not tell him, because I know he might be hurt. He is tender, gentle and caring. But others do not always see that.
Young couples sometimes think they must change one another. It's not that way at all - what it is, is like the song, "getting to know you." Youth often have preconcieved images of what their mate should be and become disillussioned with marriage if they can not control each other enough to bring fulfillment to their images. They may have entered marriage with a false concept. Marriage is not always a bed of roses. In the times I have been terribly sick, my husband has not left me for another, he has prayed over me. We just have had our 40th anniversary.
I think a book to read is "Awake Women" by Florence Littauer. Then we see the various ideas of what men think submision is, and how cruel some men can be. Of course, her husband, if I remember correctly wrote a book from a man's perspective, but maybe I am wrong.
I would like to know also what do you think about the Acts 2 passage? The role of women there? My husband has been a pastor, and he has also opened the way for me to teach and preach on occassion. I have not risen to speak without his consent or encouragement. And yes, I wear a hat to symbolize that I am there under his authority and the authority of God. I have not usurped his position because I have had his consent. Christ is the head of the church and there is a natural spiritual order to this when it comes to the chain of authority, we must understand how it proceeds from God to this earth.
As to children, we are exhorted not to provoke them to anger, however, I do not think that means you surrender to their wishes and demands. As adults we've seen more in life than they, so they need a tender loving parent to guide them and protect them from potential dangers in life. When I was six years old my uncle who raised me asked me where I had been, and I said, we (my friend) had gone to the pub. He said, "I don't think that is a proper place for a young lady like you." That was it. I knew I should not go back there. Children today are more fiesty and demanding, and want instant gratification of their wants, but they are still children and need a strong, gentle hand to guide them and lots of dialogue. It is good if you can pray with them and tell them the stories of faith and the acts of God in your family. We need to build spiritual histories, so that they can come to point of standing on a firm foundation. Were we successful in raising our children? Time will tell.
I know in entering these discussions that I present a more experiencial viewpoint than academic. But hey, we need to be somewhat practical.
However, I am interested in how you handle the Acts 2 passage. Perhaps you have already discussed this and I missed it? I really want to know what you think of the role of women in prophecy. Sorry, about side tracking from the original subject matter. Still, I am really interested in this printed journey.

Dear Tabitha,

I want to encourage you read through Anne Jone’s series called, “Pleasure of Patriarchy.” You can find it on the ClearNote Ladies’ Blog. She has written quite a bit on the subject already. Also, I intend to write series of post that work through the Bible’s teaching on authority in the coming weeks. I hope this will be helpful to answering your questions.

Sincerely,
Michael