This article made me angry when I first read it, but looking back, I would like to mention one particular thing that you said that I wholeheartedly agree with.

"It means practicing the lost art of being demure, of melting at his advances, of gentling your presence when your flesh wants to do otherwise. It means taking a break from being so doggone efficient and thinking instead about the areas in your life where you are needy. It means asking for help and taking help that is offered."

This. In the age of the "supermom", I think many women have become too proud or too scared to accept help from others, even when they desperately need it...they think they're supposed to "do it all", and that any admittance of weakness will mean that they've failed as wives and mothers. Not true. Christ told us explicitly that we don't have to do it all, and that we are to lay our burdens on him.

Also, it's nice to be able to be "womanly" towards my husband. I love that phrase "melting at his advances". I know I'm lucky to have a man whom I can trust like this, whom I can be vulnerable with and know that he will protect my heart. Although I admit, there's no way I could be so completely surrendered to another human being without knowing that he was completely surrendered to me. Mutual submission. Mutual accountability. A team. The only being I could possibly trust enough to submit to on a hierarchical basis is God himself, because I believe not only that he would never abuse that position, but that he is incapable of abusing it by virtue of who he is.

Just out of curiosity, is there any evidence that Paul was not speaking purely of physical weakness in the passage you quoted? Men and women are built differently: women in general obviously have less muscle mass than men, and cannot do the sort of heavy physical work that a man can do. He could have been simply pointing out an obvious fact: "Hey, guys, maybe you hadn't noticed, but women are a lot weaker than you. Live in understanding with your wives because you could easily hurt them if you express your frustration physically."

Specifically, the entire passage deals with Christians who are married to unbelievers. "Wives, be demure and gentle towards your unbelieving husbands, so that they may see Christ in you and be drawn to the faith. Husbands, be understanding and considerate towards your unbelieving wives, so that they may see Christ in you and be drawn to the faith." To cite this passage as evidence that women were deliberately created weaker than men is to grossly misunderstand the point of the passage, I think.

"But culture doesn’t make women weak. God does. God has made us to soften and weaken: first at a husband’s touch, and then at a baby’s cry. God has made us gullible, vulnerable, and in need of protection."

I have seen no evidence, either in scripture or in real life, of women being created mentally, psychologically, or spiritually weaker than men. Physically weak, and sometimes in need of physical protection? Yes. But show me the Scripture, the study, the evidence, that there is any correlation whatsoever between gender and gullibility. Yes, God uses weakness. Are we to postulate from that, with no backing evidence in scripture, that God therefore CREATED weakness? If God's power is only perfected in weakness, and woman are naturally weaker than men, than are men incapable of experiencing God's power perfectly?

God does not make women (mentally, psychologically, spiritually) weak. That's a lie often told to women in the church, and it's unfortunate that the faith community continues to cling to this teaching when it undermines the Gospel (that God created us ALL and loves us ALL and uses us ALL, and that Jesus came to redeem us ALL because EVERYONE is weak) and drives women away from the church in droves. SIN, and distance from God, makes women weak, and it makes men equally weak. God uses weakness in both sexes, and has never claimed that he created one sex weaker than the other.

Where, where in the account of Genesis do you find evidence that God created women (mentally, psychologically, spiritually) weaker and more gullible than men?? The Bible is full of stories about gullible people, of people being deceived, of people sinning, both men and women. The sad truth is that theologians and teachers often interject assumptions, based on the culture they've grown up with, into scripture that simply aren't there.

Yes, Eve was the one deceived by the serpent. Eve was one woman. And that deception was NEVER blamed on Eve's gullibility, but on the serpent's craftiness. (2 Corinthians 11:3) It is said that we have inherited Adam's sin...where is it said that all women inherited Eve's gullibility, and that ONLY women inherited this, and that this was somehow a Good Thing?

Also, consider that Adam stood beside her during the entire exchange between his wife and the serpent, and he said nothing. It does not say that Adam was deceived...and if he was not, then he knew that the serpent was lying and he ate anyway. He took the fruit with his eyes wide open, knowing what it meant. Then, when God questioned him, he blamed his sin on his wife...and on God, who created her, before confessing: "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." He didn't blame the serpent; he blamed the woman. Eve, on the other hand, related what actually happened: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." This does not excuse her choice to eat, but at least she identified the correct perpetrator!

Eve was deceived. Adam openly rebelled. Both sinned. Does that mean that we should assume that men are more prone to open rebellion against God than women are? Of course not, and Scripture does not do that. How then can we make an assumption that God created women to be gullible because Eve was deceived?

Sisters, God did not make you weak and gullible creatures...sin and the Fall did that, and did it just as thoroughly to men. I'm all for thanking God for giving us strength in our weakness, but for His sake, don't fall prey to the lie that he put that weakness inside you. The God of mercy and justice, who sent his Son to die for you, would not create you less capable than your Christian brothers of knowing and understanding him and his Word. God created you human, in his own image, from Adam's very flesh...and Christ came to restore you to that inheritance.

"So what does this glorying in our weakness mean for our day-to-day lives?...It means giving in when you are arguing, seeing his point, and respecting him for his leadership while overlooking his all-so-obvious sin."

Why is it that a husband may point out a wife's sin, but the wife is never to point out the husband's sin? Accountability is not a one-way street, especially in marriage!

Giving in =/= seeing his point. All couples should strive to listen to and consider each other's point of view when having a discussion...that's just healthy communication. Sometimes men are wrong, and I would dearly hope that a humble Christian man would want his wife to say something if he crosses a line. How on earth is someone supposed to know where they stand on a day-to-day basis with a person who always ends every conversation with, "yes, dear, whatever you say"? When my husband asks me what I think of something, he isn't looking for a "yes dear" and an affirmation of his manly leadership skills. Usually, he actually wants my honest opinion. If something he says truly bothers me, for the sake of love and honesty and open communication in our marriage, he would want me to speak up, as I would want him to speak up when I'm out of line. He would not expect me to just "get over it" and submit like a "godly woman", and he certainly wouldn't demand that I be automatically pleased with every decision he makes, just because he made it. He married a thinking, feeling human being, with convictions that don't waver just because a man disagrees with them...not a drone with no personality and no will of her own.

This is turning into a tome, so I'm going to stop here. :P

Dear Ashley,

I read your comments, and my heart just aches for you. You think that you have it all figured out. You think that you have the women who write on this blog all figured out. Yet your descriptions are so far from reality. I truly wish you could come and live among us, move beyond the artificial, one-sided exchange of cyberspace. I don’t know a single woman who never points our her husband’s sins; ends every conversation with, ‘yes, dear, whatever you say’”; who never offers an honest opinion but rather just “get[s] over it”; who is “automatically pleased with every decision [her husband] makes, just because he made it”; who is “a drone with no personality and no will of her own.” Yet I know many godly women who embrace the truths that you so vehemently hate. I know many godly women who are able, by God’s immeasurable grace, to embrace their own vulnerability and gladly submit to their Lord and to their husbands, trusting God for the outcome because He is faithful and good. I know many godly women who, through Him, are willing to die to themselves and have been blessed by the freedom that comes with obedience. It is beautiful. The answer to your fears, Ashley, does not lie in argument and disobedience, but in knowledge, understanding, and submission to the one true God. I pray that He would open your eyes and your heart. Maybe consider a visit to our church . . .

Just a few questions:

How can we be sure that "weaker" in 1 Peter 3:7 doesn't mean "lacking in bodily strength" rather than "morally corruptible"? Before we rest a powerful belief on one word, we should really be sure about that word. Sometimes one word can have several meanings, and I don't think it's right to assume someone is willfully disobedient because they understand a word differently. This is not the same as denying the truth of scripture or the authority of Christ.

But another question - what leads us to believe God created things to be fair and equal? For instance, was it fair that He chose Israel above other nations? Or is it fair that some people have ears and hearts that understand Christ's words, and some don't? (Luke 8:9-10) God isn't fair, and that's His prerogative. One can find much evidence in scripture to show that God isn't, by our standards, fair. Personally, I don't particularly like that truth!

But we should be very, very careful in discerning which inequalities are His doing, and which are ours.

For instance, if a woman is gullible, is it because God has desired that, as a women, she is gullible? Or because she hasn't been given the proper teaching that will help her to be discerning? Since many, many women AND men are gullible, how can we assume the word "weaker" in 1 Peter 3:7 means that women are gullible because they are women?

In Proverbs 31, I'm personally led to believe that God does expect women to be strong and discerning. This seems to say a lot more than the one word, "weaker."

A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.

Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.

She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.

She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.

She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

"Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Romans 9:20)

Well, Job, for one. Jacob, who wrestled with God, for another. It's not unheard of for people to get angry with God, to question, to doubt. I've done it myself, and I've learned that God is extremely gracious about addressing concerns about Himself.

To question a particular interpretation of Scripture is not the same thing as questioning God, and I think that equating honest questioning with outright rebellion is to hamstring our ability to love God with all our minds. I'm not saying that's what you're doing at all, but it is a tactic I've had used on me in the Christian church in the past...thus when I hear things like "Don't ask questions, don't get angry...just accept!", all my hackles rise. Scripture is not God. The written word is easily misunderstood, which is why we ask questions, dig deeper, find out all we can about the culture and the circumstances surrounding the text...NOT to dismiss a text as "merely cultural", but to try and understand how that original culture would have understood the words, and thus uncover the universal, trans-cultural principle governing the text, and make decisions as to how that principle can be applied to our lives, now. Jesus himself warned against following the letter of the Law and ignoring the spirit of the Law.

"It is a hard thing to accept that God would make one sex 'weaker' than another."

It is a particularly hard thing to accept when the creation account in Genesis makes no mention of any such thing. From what I've read, God created man and woman equally able to rule over and subdue the earth.

As to why I believe the word "weaker vessel" refers to a woman's physical body (which does not include her intelligence, wisdom, will, discernment, or spiritual capacity ie: ability to believe, have faith, love, etc.)...is from the definition of the word "vessel".

ves·sel (věs'əl)
1. A hollow utensil, such as a cup, vase, or pitcher, used as a container, especially for liquids.

A physical object. A body, if you will. Vessel has about 5 or 6 other definitions, but I'd be willing to bet Paul was referring to a jar or container, as they were common to the time period. When one refers to a "weak vessel", when are they ever referring to anything other than the physical integrity of the container? If Paul had meant that women were weaker than men in every way, why would he use a word that specifically referred to a physical container?

"I am by no means an expert, but to say that weaker means only physically weaker is not what the Hebrew for of the word or the context really dictates. Matthew Henry's commentary states this about the passage..."

Thanks for this resource...I shall have to look this up. I'm no expert either...far from it.

For Mother's Day in 2008, our pastor, Tim Bayly, preached an excellent, life-changing sermon on 1 Peter 3:7 entitled "Live With Your Wives in an Understanding Way." I encourage all of you to prayerfully listen to it.

http://old.shepherdchurch.com/documents/SermonAudio/2008/S.05.11.08.mp3

"Ashley, it's interesting that you say "God's actions should define what is fair and equal, because he is the author of all things good." All the while you're denying that what God's word says is true about the way he has designed men and women."

I have not denied what God's word says about men and women. I contend that as long as we insist on relying solely on our modern definitions for the words transcribed in English, using our modern cultural sensibilities to define and interpret those words, we will misunderstand what Scripture says about men and women. Can you see the difference?

"Equal in worth and value (see "heirs with you of the grace of life"), different in role and function (see the different instructions given to the woman in man in all of 1 Peter 3)."

Equal does not mean identical, and I doubt many people intend it as such. A tree and a house may occupy two sides of a painting, and thus create an equal symmetry, but to acknowledge the symmetry does not mean that one can say there is no difference between the tree and the house. Similarly, different roles does not automatically define a hierarchy among those roles. A marriage is not like the military, or the government, or a master/slave relationship, where hierarchy is clear and necessary.

Paul gave different instructions to men and women because in that culture, men and women already had very different roles and functions. He did not seek to abolish those roles, because doing so would have impeded the spread of the Gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:21-23) Nothing was more important to Paul than spreading the message of Christ, and he would work with any culture and within any paradigm to ensure people got the message. In fact, "roles" are only mentioned in the NT in order to instruct Christians how to act within those roles...the only God-sanctioned "authority" in the NT is secular government, which Christians are to submit to. On the other hand, it is clear that ALL spiritual gifts and callings, including leadership, can be given to anyone, man or woman, master or slave, rich or poor, weak or strong, as the Holy Spirit wills. It is also clear that Christians are not to hinder anyone in said gifts, no matter what their "role" in society is, as all are parts of the same body, and no part is greater than another. (1 Corinthians 12)

The purpose of Paul's differing instructions to men and women was to help them understand how a Christian marriage would play out within the confines of cultural and societal norms. In Jesus' time and in Paul's time, men were unequivocally in authority over women, who were sometimes little better than slaves. Paul understood this. Thus, he instructed women to continue submitting to their husbands, even though, as fellow heirs in Christ, they were no longer inferior beings.

Since 1 Peter is talking mainly about believers who are married to unbelievers, and since I assume we're dealing primarily with Christian marriages on this blog, I think Ephesians 5 states Paul's case to married Christians more clearly. I am not discounting 1 Peter, as the basic message is much the same: wives, submit like you submit to god; husbands, live in understanding with your wives.

The key phrase in Ephesians is "Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord" He is NOT saying, "Wives, submit to your husbands as if he were the Lord" (which would be idolatry, setting a man up as God)....he is saying, "Wives, submit to your husbands in the same way that you submit to the Lord". And how does he define submitting to the Lord? With "sincerity of heart" (Ephesians 6:5)(Colossians 3:22) The Lord does not force us to submit...it is a choice that we must make. Remember that in that culture, men had the right and the authority and society's full sanction to force a wife's submission to him, with physical force if "necessary". Women submitted to their men because they had no choice. The church submits to Christ because she has joyfully chosen to. Imagine how freeing Paul's message would have been to women, that now they are able to choose! Paul wanted wives to submit to their husbands by choice, in the same way that they submit to the Lord by choice. He wanted them to work from within the confines of culture to spread the good news, instead of dismantling culture.

If Paul had really believed in a God-given authority granted to husbands over their wives, don't you think he would have brought it up in the next section? Wouldn't he have given instructions for how Godly husbands are to exercise a benevolent authority over their wives? That's what the men of that time period would have been expecting...that's the culture they lived in. Men had the authority over women. Paul has just confirmed that women were to continue to submit. Wouldn't make sense, then, that men were to continue to lead?

But Paul never brought up authority at all. In our time, that silence is easy to miss, because patriarchy is no longer the norm. But in Paul's time? It would have screamed for attention. Instead, Paul says this:

(Eph. 25- 31) 25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..."

How did Christ love the church? Not by having authority over her. Christ loved the church by giving up everything...his authority, his divinity, his mortal life. Christ submitted to his church, even though he had all the authority. He gave it up. He never exercised authority over his disciples; instead he washed their feet. Maybe Paul was urging husbands to do the same...to give up their culture-sanctioned authority over their wives, and love as Christ loved?

26 "to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."

This is what Christ did for his body. He was able to do these things because he is God. He is lifting the church up to himself.

28 "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

This is how husbands are to love their wives. Not by doing the exact same things Christ did for the church, because no man can save his wife. To believe husbands can spirituality cleanse their wives is to horribly misunderstand the metaphor Paul created. But like Christ cared for the church as his own body (and did the things he is able to do for his body), so is a man to care for his wife as his own body (and do the things he is able to do for his body).

29 "After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Remember that in Paul's culture, it was the woman who would leave her house and her parents and come to live in her husband's house. What Paul is quoting there is straight from Genesis, and dare I say is closer to what God had in mind for a marriage? It is not the woman who is to give up everything for the man. It is the man who gives everything up for the woman, and comes to her to be united with her. And it is the woman who must submit to the sacrifice her husband offers her, in the same way the church must submit to Christ's sacrifice to her. In doing so, he lifts her up to himself, and they have a partnership. They are one flesh.

(Eph. 21) "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

The Scriptures never instruct a husband to take authority over wife, even lovingly. They instruct him to sacrifice, and they instruct her to submit to that sacrifice. That is what mean when I speak of fairness and equality.

Kristen, that's good question, and one I've personally struggled with. If men are to sacrifice, and women are to submit, does that mean that, conversely, a woman may not sacrifice and a man may not submit? Ephesians 5:21 makes it pretty obvious that all Christians are to "submit" to one another...but what does that mean?

Does submission always imply an authority? Would you submit to your adult children?

"It seems clear to me that Ashley believes the Word of God is true, and has put a great deal of study, thought, and probably prayer into this subject."

Every heresy begins with the belief that the Word of God is true, but that it has been improperly interpreted or applied. Just so with the heresy of religious feminism. Ashley asks us to believe that the Word is true but that *everyone* has always misunderstood it, trying to dismiss what the Church has *always* taught as relying on "modern definitions" while she herself relies on very modern sources, concepts and definitions such as here:

"Would I be angry that God didn't create things to be fair and equal? Of course I would. But since I don't believe in an unfair God, when I see inequality, I assume something other than God is at the heart of it."

Ashley's concepts of fairness and equality reek of contemporary Egalitarian influences, having nothing to do with Biblical faith and everything to do with denial of our sexual distinctions. Was it "fair" that God singled out the Hebrews as his chosen ones? Was it "fair" that the first child of David and Bathsheba died for David's sin? Was it "fair" that Mary Magdalene wasn't chosen to replace Judas Iscariot? Was it "fair" that only men were chosen as the human authors of Scripture?

Fairness doesn't come into it, Ashley. Fairness would mean we all suffer the fate we deserve. I delight in God's unfairness, especially in his supposed cruelty for making me a mere woman for His strength is made perfect in weakness.

Kamilla

Ashley,
Here are a few scriptures that you may want to prayerfully consider.

You keep writing about the fact that hierarchy was not part of God's original plan before the fall. Say that was true would it really matter? God has instructed woman to be submissive to man now. In the chapter of the fall, Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

There is Hierarchy. This is cut short due to my being a little lazy and not wanting to type the whole thing, but you should definitely read it all.

1 Corinthians 11: 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ........ verse 7- For the man ought not to have his head covered for, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 For indeed man was not created for woman's sake, but woman for man's sake. 10 Therefore there ought to be a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
This scripture speaks of women being given their hair as a head covering, but the hierarchy is clear here. There is a reason that she has been given it.

Ashley,

I had composed a response to you yesterday, but I was working at the library and they had some server issues so it went "poof" into the ether.

I'm going to limit myself to responding to two of your points:

"With all due respect, you are putting words in my mouth. A belief in the inherent equality of men and women is not a denial of sexual distinctions. God gifts all men and women uniquely...but I believe he does so without regard for the physical flesh. What sexual distinctions do you think I am denying?"

Religious feminism, by its very nature, denies sexual distinctions and you have done so here while claiming you are not doing so. No orthodox Christian has ever denied the equality of men and women or that the Holy Spirit bestows gifts on men and women alike. Egalitarians run into trouble when they deny the hierarchy that exists alongside that equality.

Mere possession of a gift does not entail the right, responsibility or propriety of exercising it in a given way, period. Religious feminists show their low opinion of women when they try to argue that a woman is only valued when she exercises her gifts in the same offices and positions of authority as a man. She is not equal if she exercises her gift in teaching her children rather then men. She is not equal if she does not exercise her gifts of administration as the pastor of a church rather than as keeper of her own household. In clamouring after positions of authority, the right to preach to and teach men in the assembly, this is precisely where religious feminists deny sexual distinctions and the value of women as women.

"God did not command the man to rule over the woman"

Oh my. You religious feminists have to work awfully long and hard to deny the authority of Adam over Eve and husband over wife, etc. You said earlier that you did not see the hierarchy in Genesis and what you have shown us here is that you WILL NOT see it, your anger denies the very possibility that such a thing as Adam's authority exists. Just one little problem with that -- why, then, did God hold Adam responsible? Why did the curse fall because Adam listened to his wife and ate? Why wasn't it Eve, who took the fruit and ate first, who was held responsible?

Ashley, there is so much more in your posts to which I could respond. But you won't hear me. You won't listen and you won't see the truth until you lay down the anger in which you have wrapped yourself. You need to go to Christ and forgive your father, your husband, your brother, your pastor, your teacher -- whatever male has slighted you, has caused you pain, has abused you. Put down the security blanket of your anger and learn to forgive while you still may.

Kamilla

Laurie calls me rude, ill-educated and arrogant. She is undoubtedly correct on all three counts but wrong as to the reasons.

It is no arrogance which requires me to stand where the Church has always stood, on the contrary, I am too weak to stand anywhere else. Although I plead quilty to arrogance on a number of other matters. I may be ill-educated but one subject I know better than almost any other, inside and out, is religious feminism. I know I've been rude on many occasions, but not this time. Where Laurie writes that I was, I was merely blunt in making an assessment borne of long, wide and sometimes painful experience with religious feminists. This experience is confirmed by other writers and speakers who are "arrogant" enough to publicly write and speak the truth the Church has always held on this matter.

Kamilla

Laurie,

What more can I say?

I feel obligated to warn you, however, that if you accuse me of ignorance of Church history one more time, I will bore you with my "resume" on the matter, including some unspeakably gauche name-dropping which includes a widely respected Church historian who has told me it would be his honor to make some introductions on my behalf and to help me find the best PhD program for my particular area of interest.

Kamilla

Kamilla, you said:

"You said earlier that you did not see the hierarchy in Genesis and what you have shown us here is that you WILL NOT see it, your anger denies the very possibility that such a thing as Adam's authority exists."

What I have endeavored to illustrate is precisely why I don't see it. If I have come across as angry, I apologize...such was not my intent. I've explained my reasoning for believing the way I do in as much detail and with as much clarity as I can, following the words of the text as closely as I can. If there's a particular flaw in my reasoning that you would like to point out so that we could discuss it, I would welcome that. By all means, show me my error. I'm going to try and address the points you did raise.

"...why, then, did God hold Adam responsible? Why did the curse fall because Adam listened to his wife and ate? Why wasn't it Eve, who took the fruit and ate first, who was held responsible?

God held Adam responsible for his own sin, and Eve responsible for hers. Otherwise, if Adam were truly solely responsible for the two of them, why would God have questioned Eve at all? I think he asked Adam first because he created Adam first, and Adam had been witness to some of the creative acts of God before Eve was made. When there is trouble among a group of children, it is usually wise to ask the oldest what happened...not necessarily because the oldest has authority over the younger children (although he/she might), but simply because the oldest has more experience, and is likely to give a more coherent account of what happened.

As to why it is said that sin entered mankind through Adam, I think the key lies in the type of sin committed by each one. Eve, if you remember, was deceived into sin...she made a choice, and that choice held dire consequences, but ultimately, she was tricked into it. Adam, on the other hand, sinned deliberately.

Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

The text is pretty clear. Adam was there. He said nothing, did nothing to stop the serpent from deceiving his wife. Timothy 2:14 says quite clearly that Adam was not deceived...which means he ate knowing full well what he was doing. I think the curse fell because Adam deliberately rebelled against God, while Eve was tricked into sin. Notice that while God cursed the serpent, and cursed the ground on Adam's behalf, there is no mention of a curse in his words to Eve. Both humans reaped the consequences of their actions, and both shared in death, but God obviously took into account the varying degrees of sin at work by addressing them each in turn.

Who ate first apparently wasn't God's concern. He was concerned with why each one ate.

"Mere possession of a gift does not entail the right, responsibility or propriety of exercising it in a given way, period.

Yes and no. On one hand, Scripture does exhort believers to use their gifts, and not withhold them from the Body. One can be relatively certain that if God gifts an individual, it is because he wants that person to use that gift, for his glory. Believers, regardless of gender, have both the right and the responsibility to use what the Spirit has given them. On the other hand, Paul does address propriety, and gives two particular limitations on spiritual gifts in the church that I can think of offhand (if there are more, someone else can name them). One, the gift should be used for the common good, in order to build up others. For instance, speaking in tongues is good, but if there is no interpreter, then it does not benefit anyone and the one who would speak in tongues probably shouldn't right then. Two, there should be order in the church. Everyone speaking in tongues at once, or constantly interrupting each other to prophesy, only creates confusion. (1 Cor. 14) So, yes, there can be a time and a place, as with all things...but the general consent of the NT seems to be "use what God gives you for his glory".

"Religious feminists show their low opinion of women when they try to argue that a woman is only valued when she exercises her gifts in the same offices and positions of authority as a man."

I'm not familiar with what religious feminists believe, as I've personally never studied feminist philosophy, but I would imagine that all they are saying is if God gives a woman a gift that requires her to take a position of authority, and if she is clearly qualified to do so, then the church is wrong to hinder her in pursuing that calling, and by doing so is depriving the rest of the Body.

"She is not equal if she exercises her gift in teaching her children rather then men."

No. She is equal if she chooses to teach children rather than men, because her gift is working with children. She is not equal when the Church dictates that, because she is female, she may not teach men, despite being otherwise qualified and called to do so. She should be limited by calling, as men are, and not by gender.

"She is not equal if she does not exercise her gifts of administration as the pastor of a church rather than as keeper of her own household."

No. She is equal if she is free to serve where God has called her, whether in the home or as a pastor. She is not equal when the Church dictates that, because she is female, she may not administer or lead a church, despite being otherwise qualified and called to do so. She should be limited by calling, as men are, and not by gender.

"Egalitarians run into trouble when they deny the hierarchy that exists alongside that equality."

See, this is where I get very, very confused. A hierarchy, by its very nature, is not equal...unless "hierarchy" and "equal" mean something different than what the dictionary says.

Hierarchy: (n) 1. any system of persons or things ranked one above another.

Equality: (n) 1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

You cannot have an equal hierarchy, no more than you can have a square circle. You can, however, have an equal partnership. A CEO is not equal to a common laborer, but one attorney is equal to his/her partner in a law practice. A king is not equal to a serf, but one member of a Board of Directors is equal to another. A great deal of emphasis is placed upon "roles" in the patriarchal system, but "different but equal" roles does not erase the inherent inequality of the system.

I'm not saying that hierarchies are bad. They exist for a reason, and oftentimes a hierarchy truly is the most efficient way for people to organize themselves. Governments, armed forces, and companies could not function as equal partnerships...they are too big, and have too many specific tasks that need to be accomplished. However, I maintain that a marriage is neither a government, a military, nor a company...it is a relationship, and the primary task that need be accomplished is the continuing growth of the relationship...a task, hopefully, which is never completed. Hierarchies do not naturally foster relationships (though of course relationships happen within them); that is not their purpose. They exist to organize and mobilize large groups of people to get many things done in a limited amount of time.

Both a hierarchy and a partnership involve people taking different roles, with one key difference. In a traditional hierarchy, your role is chosen for you by your superiors. Your role is determined by birth, race, gender, etc...something outside your control...thus ability, talent, giftings; none of these matter if you have the wrong parents, the wrong skin color or the wrong plumbing for a specific task. Differences and deviations from the "norm" mar the efficiency of the system, and must be suppressed, either voluntarily by the individual, or through outside force. The role defines the individual. If one chooses to enter a hierarchical system, like joining the army, the government, or working for a company, gifting finally enters the picture: you are given your initial role based on qualification, and you have the opportunity to move upwards if your skill and work ethic are good enough. An individual can, given time and effort, earn the role that "best" defines them.

In a partnership, however, the parties work together to decide who will do what, usually based upon the talents and skills of the individual. Because roles are voluntarily chosen, they can change if the parties mutually decide that such change will benefit the partnership. The individual defines the role. One attorney of a law partnership may primarily handle paperwork because they are good with numbers, and the other may handle meeting with clients because they like working with people.

In a hierarchy, the individual is responsible for his/her inferiors, and accountable to his/her superiors, on up the line until one reaches the ultimate authority, who is responsible for all and to whom all are accountable. In a partnership, the individuals are mutually accountable to each other, and mutually responsible for each other. All are free to help where help is needed, and to correct where correction is needed.

Based on the frequent exhortations of Scripture that the Church is to be a Body, under one Head, where all parts work together for the good of all: Is this Body a partnership of equals, mutually accountable and responsible for one another, and where roles are voluntarily taken based upon one's gifting? Or is this Body a hierarchy of un-equals, where some are accountable to some and not others, where some are responsible for some and not others, and where roles are predetermined by birth and based upon one's flesh?

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Explain to me how an exhortation like this is anything less than the utter dismantlement of three major hierarchies that existed in Paul's day: Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female. Within the Body, Paul says here, these do not exist.

Ashley,

You are reading traditional American values, such as equality, into Scripture. You assume that God couldn't be unfair, unequal, etc., because these are values that we have all come just to accept as moral facts. This leads you to confuse equality before God with social, economic, and cultural equality (etc.). Yes, we are equal before God as far as sin and redemption through Christ are concerned. God shows no partiality when it comes to sin (see the end of Romans 2). But this doesn't change the truth that hierarchy is built into the very Trinity. Christ took on flesh, knowing that "equality with God was not a thing to be grasped" (Phillipians 2). And this hierarchy extends into creation, and the relationship between a husband and wife is part of this creation.

Because of this truth, you have plenty of scriptures that support "equality" between Christians: men and women, Jew and Greek. But when it comes to scriptures that actually address the role of women in submission to authority, you have to twist them to figure out some way they can align with what you think is morally acceptable. Our humanity, our depravity, makes us equal. An older sibling has more authority in a home given their position. But when it comes to parental discipline and love, all children in the house-hold are equal.

To sum up: equal before God, yes. Equal in social (created) position, no.

If someone wouldn't mind, I would be curious to know which Scriptures you use to support a top-down hierarchy within the Trinity itself. Seems the whole question of hierarchy vs. partnership really hangs on that. It's not a doctrine I've run across very often, and I'd be interested to know how it is constructed.

Possibly not, if only because the relationships amongst the Trinity are pretty well beyond any human attempt to define. Even if the Father rules the Son, and the Son the Spirit, human males are neither the Father nor the Son, so thus how can they claim the authority of the Father or the Son over human females?

A husband is commanded, in multiple places, to emulate a Christ-like attitude of love, sacrifice and service towards his wife. I simply cannot find any passage in Scripture that commands him to emulate a Christ-like attitude of authority and ruler-ship over his wife. Of all the Godly qualities Scripture commands a husband to imitate, Godly authority is conspicuously absent.

Quite frankly, a hierarchical relationship amongst the Trinity really doesn't make much sense to me. If all three Persons of the Trinity are of the same essence, same power, same authority, and do not disagree amongst themselves, then how is a hierarchy among them even possible? If the Son always does the will of his Father, then why would the Father need to rule him? Could the Father have sent the Son, if the Son was unwilling? Do you think the Son could have sent the Spirit if the Spirit had been unwilling? Even incarnated in human flesh, if Jesus had tried to walk away from the crucifixion, would the Father have overridden him? There is no need for one to have the ability to decide for the other, because the Son and the Father and the Spirit, they are One.

But, let us say that the Trinity is a hierarchy, and all human relationships ought to emulate that hierarchy. A problem immediately arises: where does the Church fit into the system? Because husbands are compared to Christ, not the Father, and the wife is always compared to the Church, not the Son or Spirit.

Is the Church to be ranked with the Son in the Divine Hierarchy, if Christ is her head and the Church is his body? This would be an interdependence, not a hierarchy, because a head cannot function without a body and a body cannot function without a head. Does Christ exercise authority over the Church, in the sense that he forces her do what he wants? No. Christ empties himself and sacrifices himself for the Church, his Body, and the Church, in turn, voluntarily and joyfully submits to him, her Head.

If a clear chain of command is necessary, and equal ranking with Christ messes with that, then is the Church to be ranked below the Son? Scripture seems to take the opposite stance, and says rather that the Church has been raised up with Christ. God has put all things in subjection under Christ's feet for the Church's sake, because the Church is his Body. (Eph. 1:19-23) Christ exercises authority OVER the world, FOR the Church. The Church is not under his feet...the Church IS his feet, because she is his Body.

Merely pointing out that hierarchy exists within the Trinity (and I am hard pressed to find a verse or even a Church father who advocates such) is really not enough to make the case that we need emulate said hierarchy in our human relationships. Absolute authority over all things exists within the Trinity, but is anyone going to suggest that we humans try and emulate that in our dealings with each other? Divinity exists within the Trinity, as the Trinity is God...are we to try and emulate that as well? Some divine traits and practices are worth copying, but others, I think, are better left to God. I would rather stick to emulating the sorts of Godly attributes that are directly commanded in Scripture: love, humility, graciousness, sacrifice, gentleness, patience, and servant-hood.

Kamilla, why do you keep calling me a religious feminist? Truly, I have no idea what their philosophy is like, or whether I would agree with every precept they hold dear. I feel like you are trying to encourage people to disregard me by associating me with a group most people on this blog disagree with. I would rather be judged by my thoughts here, not by an external set of beliefs I've professed to be unfamiliar with.

If you'd like an example of man-made philosophy creeping its way into the Church, consider that the idea that women are ontologically inferior to men originated not in Judeo-Christian belief, but in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Thankfully, this has been refuted with proper Scripture study, but the idea that women were less valuable than men was a notion that the Church held onto for centuries, despite the numerous verses that contradict the notion, despite the numerous records of women serving as leaders in the early church, despite Jesus' own actions and manner of treating the women of his day. Such is the influence of philosophy passing itself off as theology. Some of the greatest Church fathers, including Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and Martin Luther, believed such things as women having the mental capacity of a child, women being "misbegotten men and without reason" (Aquinas' words, not mine), and that they were good for nothing but having babies (Luther).

So I agree that writing man-made ideas into Scripture is, for the most part, a bad idea. I don't understand why I've been accused of doing this, when all I have been doing is looking at the actual words of Scripture, attempting to understand what they would have meant to the people hearing them, and what universal truths we can gather from that understanding. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning, engage me from Scripture itself...please don't simply maintain that I'm adhering to a certain philosophy you dislike and assume that's enough to dismiss anything I might say. We may end up agreeing to disagree in the end, but my hope is that we will all walk away with a better understanding of what we believe and why we believe it.

Do you disagree that God was talking to Eve and not to Adam when he spoke of her husband ruling her in Genesis 3? Do you disagree that God did not command Eve to submit to her husband's rule? Given these two premises from the text itself, and given that elsewhere in Scripture, when God gives a command, he addresses it directly to the person or people he is commanding...is it unreasonable of me to conclude that God was not giving Adam a command to rule? Because God calls both humans to account for what they had done, because he lists consequences for both individually, because he did not call Adam to account for "failing to lead his wife", and because did he call Eve to account for "not following the lead of her husband"...am I wrong to conclude that God did not regard Adam as the "leader" of the marriage?

I have never denied that authority exists, or that God wants us to submit to the authorities in our lives. But God is very clear when he grants authority to someone, or to an institution. We submit to the rule of governing authorities because Scripture specifically states their God-granted authority to rule. I simply have not found the passage in Scripture where God specifically grants a husband authority to rule over his wife. Love her? Yes. Sacrifice for her? Yes. Give himself up for her? Yes. Treat her as his own body? Yes. Rule her? No. Nowhere does it say, "Husbands, lead and govern your wives as Christ leads and governs the Church." Nowhere does it say, "Husbands, exercise your God-granted authority over your wives with compassion and unselfishness, for her own good, as a servant-leader."

The Christian faith contains many paradoxes; that I will agree with. However, there is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. Also, even if the paradox is beyond understanding, the ways in which people are to live out the paradox are clear. Jesus can be fully man and fully God without completely abandoning the definitions of "God" and "man". The primary definition of "God" isn't "not man", and vice versa...the relationship is much more complex. When Jesus says, "The first shall be last, and the last first", he is making a play on words and contrasting what the world regards as "first" with what God regards as "first". He also gave specific instructions on how his followers are to live this out: by serving and loving each other.

However, I maintain that an equal hierarchy is a contradiction, and not a paradox, because the primary method by which a hierarchy works is by non-equality. One cannot ask people to stand with both feet on a flat platform and simultaneously position themselves as though they were on a ladder. One either must change the definition of equality, or change the definition of hierarchy, in order to have both concepts governing the same relationship at the same time. "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."(Eph. 5:21) Not "some to others", as would be the case in a hierarchy...but simply "one another", without distinction.

Dear Ashley,

Over the past few days I’ve been thinking a lot about my response to your posts and have gone back and forth on how best to proceed. I’ve decided to write from my heart about my own family. When I submit to my husband, I am not being forced against my will but rather freely submit out of obedience to the Father. I know that you do not agree with the truth of scripture for various reasons, but God’s Word is very clear that a wife should submit to her husband. Calvin writes this on Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, be subject to your own husbands… 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.” You can read more of Calvin’s thoughts on Ephesians 5 at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comment3/comm_vol41/htm/iv.vi.v.htm.

I don’t submit because I trust my husband to always make the right decision but because I trust that God’s Word is true. Being submissive does not mean that I’m dumb or unable to make decisions on my own but rather is a demonstration of my trust of the Father. Let me give you a real life example. Last spring, I was carrying twins who were diagnosed with a life-threatening condition that kills perfectly healthy babies 90-100% of the time when left untreated. My husband and I were devastated. We were told that surgery could save one baby but kill the other. On the long drive home from the children’s hospital in a neighboring state, all my husband could think was, “It is not our responsibility to choose between our daughters. How can we choose?” In that moment, I was the one who said, “We cannot fall into despair but have to maintain hope and trust in Christ alone.” I was also the one who reminded my husband that there was an alternative procedure that was only 20% effective but that was much safer for both babies. As my husband’s helper, I helped shake him out of his despair. A few days later, when I was at one of my weakest moments, I relied on my husband’s strength and the promise of God found in Psalm 94: “When my anxieties multiply within me, thy consolations delight my soul.” Weeks later when surgeons again urged us to do surgery, my husband boldly told them we would not make a decision in their tiny, isolated meeting room but would return home to pray and seek the counsel of others. On that drive home, he had to remind me that we were not going to fall into despair but would continue to hope and trust in Christ alone. I was more afraid than I’d ever been in my entire life. At 2AM when I was at my lowest point, a wise woman advised me to trust God and to not try to manipulate my husband into making the decision I thought was right. She knew that if my husband made the decision on whether to proceed with surgery or not and we lost one or both of our daughters, it would be much easier for me to forgive him than for me to forgive myself if I pushed him into making the decision. It was God’s provision for me to be able to submit to my husband and not carry the burden on my shoulders. That morning my husband went for a walk alone. He remembers it as a “rare moment of clarity” when he decided against surgery. I was still afraid but both of us trusted in God’s goodness and mercy regardless of the outcome. It would be many weeks later before we were assured that our daughters would both live—on the day they were delivered, weighing a little more than 3 pounds and 2 pounds each. Going through the suffering we endured taught us both a lot about submission and its beauty. It’s not about heavy-handed, dictatorial commands on the part of my husband. Being the head of our household is an enormous burden that my husband bears and my role is to help ease that burden whenever I can. It’s an umbrella of protection over my four daughters and me, and I’m eternally grateful to the Father for designing it that way. My husband and I are two sinners and neither of us perfectly obeys the commands of the Father, but our hope is not in our own abilities but in the saving grace of the Son.

Warmly,
Michelle

Erin,

You couldn't be more wrong about me or the good men and women of Clear Note. First, I don't think anyone here has ever tried to hide their connections or worked from a hidden agenda -- everything here is open as far as I can see.

I am far, very far from proud. If I boast, I boast in the repentance and redemption Christ has granted me. I know full well that I have nothing to be proud of save the good men whom God prompted to pray for me when I was steeped in rebellion and full of hate. They loved me because God commanded it of them and I owe them more than I can ever say. As for citing my background, I did so only to show that I am not quite as ill-educated as had been claimed. But you are right to question that, it was foolish and off-putting.

The rest of the women and men here have welcomed me in. They would welcome you and Ashley as well, if you only repent of your rebellion. And even if you did not, you would be a welcome guest. When you say, "You're a christian women just doing your best to interpret the scriptures correctly." you sound as if you and Ashley and anyone else has only their own wisdom to guide them. It is a sign of rebellion that one attempts to interpret Scripture outside of the community of faith, the Church who is Christ's Bride.

Look again, and you will see tears and not pride, prayers and not judgment.

Kamilla

Sorry I've been absent...got caught up in our church's VBS and then personal vacation with the family.

"They would welcome you and Ashley as well, if you only repent of your rebellion."

Rebellion against whom? One particular church's interpretation of God? If I'm not to trust my own interpretation of scripture, then whose interpretation am I to trust? My pastor's? Your pastor's? Is my interpretation really "outside the community of faith"...or is it simply outside your community of faith?

Which sect of Christianity has the Most Trustworthy Truth? Within which denomination am I to seek proper understanding Scripture, since it is rebellious to seek it on my own? Baptists? Methodists? Presbyterians? Catholics? Episcopalians? Quakers? Fred Phelps? These all teach different interpretations, sometimes radically different. And they all assure me that I can trust their wisdom. Whose wisdom do I blindly partake of?

Or is there some personal discernment involved after all?

I've been assured here over and over again that my interpretation of Scripture is wrong and rebellious, and that I "don't agree with the truth of the Scriptures". Yet I have striven to show, with exegesis on specific verses, how I have come to the conclusions that I've come to. If you disagree with me, that's fine. (I really don't expect to be agreed with here. Just offering a different viewpoint.) But simply stating over and over again that I'm wrong doesn't help any of us. Make your case from Scripture itself, not just from an assumption of how you think I feel about God.