tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post6293944128533351810..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: Male voicesSuzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-57363398297483902272010-03-01T21:18:34.904-08:002010-03-01T21:18:34.904-08:00Yup. Sometimes I say that it is just like stepping...Yup. Sometimes I say that it is just like stepping in dog pooh.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-79171114555659692222010-03-01T21:13:32.129-08:002010-03-01T21:13:32.129-08:00halo is the very type of person that almost drove ...halo is the very type of person that almost drove me away from Christianity.<br /><br />After coming out of a hellish marriage (to a comp pastor), I'm supposed to accept and affirm the glories of complementarianism????<br /><br />Whatever happened to, "Just give me Jesus." If you tack males-rule-over-female onto Jesus, I can't do it. It's like taking grace and dumping a bucket of sewer sludge over the top of it, or tacking the word, "free" over a prison cell and expecting me to be excited about it. <br /><br />Thankfully, Jesus doesn't do that to me. <br /><br />Some of His more vocal fanboys do, though, like good old halo. Some people just don't get it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-84349067333639429152010-02-24T12:18:18.254-08:002010-02-24T12:18:18.254-08:00your argument rests on the premise that:
complem...<i>your argument rests on the premise that: <br /><br />complementarianism = slavery<br /><br />awell as the premise that freed slaves are commanded to go back to and obey their masters by scripture. Paul actually says 'if you can gain your freedom, do so'.</i><br /><br />In some ways the subordinate role of the wife resembles slavery, in other ways it does not. This is clear. I chose to make certain comparisons that you do not. This should not be a concern for you. <br /><br />Paul also says that those who are single should not seek to marry. I think it is clear in Paul that the wife is not free to serve the Lord in the same way if she is married.<br /><br />I do think that a wife should go back to her husband, if it is at all possible. But frequently there are circumstances that prevent it. <br /><br />I notice that you have come here and without providing your name, have taken to making aggressive comments to me. <br /><br />This demonstrates the reason why male authority is a sham. I do not claim t be fit to have authority over another adult, but you do. <br /><br />By losing your cool, you have demonstrated the very pitfalls of your own system.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-66908527008770987872010-02-24T10:38:04.291-08:002010-02-24T10:38:04.291-08:00Amen,
Egals keep resisting the oppresive teachin...Amen, <br /><br />Egals keep resisting the oppresive teaching.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-79353183699068485752010-02-24T08:19:06.222-08:002010-02-24T08:19:06.222-08:00Halo, your comments about Suzanne are inappropriat...Halo, your comments about Suzanne are inappropriate. You are disappointed that she and I find female subordination morally abhorrent and don't want to listen to you as to why we should change our sense of right and wrong to suit your interpretation of the Bible.<br /><br />Believe me, I would believe female subordination was wrong even if males never abused their privilege, just as I would view the divine right of kings as wrong even if all kings were kind and benevolent. One person is not granted God-given superiority in the form of authoritative power over others under the New Covenant, merely by virtue of who they happen to be born as. God's movement through history has always been in the direction of increased justice, not less. <br /><br />So-- if you don't like Suzanne's blog and you want to come here just to insist she change and insult her if she won't-- well, if it were my blog, I'd ask you to leave.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-57300996056708318792010-02-24T06:14:35.513-08:002010-02-24T06:14:35.513-08:00Paul actually says 'if you can gain your freed...<i>Paul actually says 'if you can gain your freedom, do so'.</i><br /><br />Paul tells slaves to obey masters and wives to rank themselves under husbands. Peter joins him and tells wives to rank themselves under husbands; and he goes further saying that wives long ago "ranked themselves under their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master."<br /><br />There's a comparison between this "complementarianism" (i.e., wives calling husbands "master" and "obeying" them as they rank themselves under) and slavery (i.e., slaves obeying masters). Peter is making the comparison implicitly. Paul, whom Peter said was writing the Holy God-Breathed Writings, would likely agree with Peter. "Complementarianism" is "slavery" in the sense that good wives, beautiful ones like they remember Sarah being, both "obey" their husbands and also call them "master" in their "voluntary submissiveness" (i.e., their ranking themselves under the man in the marriage). It's not just Sue who sees that complementary = slavery. It's Peter and Paul also.<br /><br />Paul and Peter would, likely, we hope, advise women who are "not slaves" per se and women who are slaves to gain their freedom if they can -- if they are in situations particularly in which the master / husband is abusive.<br /><br />which is <a href="http://www.somethingwithin.com/blog/?p=52" rel="nofollow">too often the case</a>.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-39569407933525883192010-02-24T04:59:39.908-08:002010-02-24T04:59:39.908-08:00Kristen,
since you are not even open to the possi...Kristen,<br /><br />since you are not even open to the possibility that you might be wrong I do not think you even want to hear why your recent arguments are implausible.<br /><br />But if there is anyone out there with an open ear listening on who is open to the possibility that they might be wrong and would like to know the other side then please say so and I will respond.<br /><br />HaloHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-84162102540965103132010-02-24T04:54:46.023-08:002010-02-24T04:54:46.023-08:00Sue,
your argument rests on the premise that:
c...Sue,<br /><br />your argument rests on the premise that: <br /><br />complementarianism = slavery<br /><br />awell as the premise that freed slaves are commanded to go back to and obey their masters by scripture. Paul actually says 'if you can gain your freedom, do so'.<br /><br />So it is a ridiculous comparison. Can't you even admit the possibility that your view of 'submission' is warped by your own bad experiences of an domineering male who abused his position.<br /><br />No complementarians see it like you do. But your perception is of course the objective true one by which complementarians must be judged. All things must bow to the flawless perception of Suzanne McCarthy who is not capable of error, even when the bible clearly suggests otherwise.<br /><br />HaloHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-29409340155734670772010-02-23T16:56:53.972-08:002010-02-23T16:56:53.972-08:00Halo,
Here is my challenge. Find someone whose an...Halo,<br /><br />Here is my challenge. Find someone whose ancestors ran away from slavery and ask them how they would feel if they were to have to go back and obey a master. <br /><br />Would you be willing to approach some former slave, or descendent of slaves and ask this question?<br /><br />Would you be able to explain to another person, that God wants you to be a free man, but God wants the other person to remain in slavery. <br /><br />No, you have your arguments against this so you would not do it. But this is how I feel also. <br /><br />Anyhow, for many women they would rather be atheists. Really hell is such an abstract thing in comparison.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-19673319606645846772010-02-23T16:16:37.823-08:002010-02-23T16:16:37.823-08:00Halo, I posted my second post at the same time as ...Halo, I posted my second post at the same time as your reply. But here's the thing. I find the subordination of women to be morally abhorent. I used to be a complementarian, meekly swallowing my lesser role and subjugation-- but looking at the Scriptures in terms of the big picture-- the nature and character of God-- I find a position that God created half the human race to be given inferior roles (and they *are* inferior), based on nothing more than the accident of their birth, to be just as abhorrent as the divine right of kings or the assumption of the right to wealth and privilege of the old aristocracy. So in all honesty, I'd have to say no, I'm not open to complementarianism any more. I've been there, done that, and got the T-shirt. So if you want to end the discussion here, that's fine with me. I just didn't want you thinking that egals were unwilling to address the issue you raised.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-23158537038765295562010-02-23T16:13:34.492-08:002010-02-23T16:13:34.492-08:00I'll take that as a no then.
HaloI'll take that as a no then.<br /><br />HaloHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-28249507609102543152010-02-23T16:10:31.046-08:002010-02-23T16:10:31.046-08:00Halo, as for 1 Cor. 14:33, no one has ever been ab...Halo, as for 1 Cor. 14:33, no one has ever been able to identify in the Old Testament any "law" that says women are to keep silent and be submissive. The only possible one is in the Curse, "He shall rule over you." But that (if it is to be considered a law) says nothing whatsoever about women being silent, so "as the law also says" would have to be referring to submissiveness only. Submissiveness is an attitude of heart recommended for all Christians (Eph 5:21), and in this passage again, we see an immediate contextual reference to women needing to learn. <br /><br />Slightly earlier in the same letter, Paul speaks of women praying and prophesying in church, so this passage has to be interpreted in light of other passages in which women do speak in church. I'm finding a context in Chapter 14 of uneducated women speaking out of turn, which is unsubmissive. There are a lot of other possible interpretations of the passage, but what I find is that complementarians often focus just on these few passages, and ignore the passages which speak of women actually doing things that involve authority. Complementarians love to say that egalitarians try to interpret away the sense of these passages, but then turn around and do exactly the same thing in interpreting away the clear authority held by Phoebe and Junia in Romans 16:1-2 and 7. <br /><br />Scripture must interpret Scripture.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-38829920528929163662010-02-23T16:06:54.813-08:002010-02-23T16:06:54.813-08:00Hi Kristen,
I had finished here, but before I con...Hi Kristen,<br /><br />I had finished here, but before I consider investing some time to compose a response to you I would like to ask you a question:<br /><br />Would you be open to changing your mind if it was shown that your argument was implausible?<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />HaloHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-10350630285318574382010-02-23T15:49:47.952-08:002010-02-23T15:49:47.952-08:00Halo, in 1 Tim 2, you are assuming Paul's exam...Halo, in 1 Tim 2, you are assuming Paul's example of Adam and Eve is an "appeal to Creation order." It could just as easily be an example of how a person with more knowledge and experience (for Adam was created first), was not subject to deception in the same way as the person (created second)who had not had the opportunity for experience or education. As this parallels the situation of males compared to females in 1st century Ephesus, I find Paul's "Let a woman learn!" to be greatly enlightening as to the sense of the rest of the passage.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-35550231888128544402010-02-23T10:29:35.870-08:002010-02-23T10:29:35.870-08:00"Thanks everyone for your discussions and I h..."Thanks everyone for your discussions and I hope you can understand why I find it so hard to get egalitarianism from the Bible. Maybe I am wrong and am terribly blind, if so then please pray for me that God would open my eyes to the truth of Scripture."<br /><br />Thanks Halo. Sounds like calling it a day now is a good idea. My own experience is that prayers are good and that recovery takes a long long time for most of us. Even Paul's Damascus road experience was the beginning of a process that never ended while he walked on this earth. The Bible actually begins with egalitarianism, in the garden. Something happened after that, which is why it seems Jesus, from time to time, had to remind those throwing around Scripture to perpetuate oppression of various classes of individuals of this contradiction: "but it was not so from the beginning." You seem most charitable, and I think most of us do understand why you find this so hard.<br /><br />grace and peace,<br />KurkJ. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-6032145323896400052010-02-23T09:37:04.104-08:002010-02-23T09:37:04.104-08:00I do not feel that my most substantive points are ...I do not feel that my most substantive points are being engaged so I will probably call it a day now.<br /><br />Thanks everyone for your discussions and I hope you can understand why I find it so hard to get egalitarianism from the Bible. Maybe I am wrong and am terribly blind, if so then please pray for me that God would open my eyes to the truth of Scripture.<br /><br />Thankyou<br /><br />HaloHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-40225990811629058762010-02-23T09:36:47.282-08:002010-02-23T09:36:47.282-08:00J.K. Gayle you say:
"you insist (a) that bec...J.K. Gayle you say:<br /><br />"you insist (a) that because I see contradictions in Paul (b) then I must therefore also conclusively and wholly reject holy scripture"<br /><br />I did not say that. I said that once you allow for contradictions in Paul then the Bible loses its authority because it is anyones decision which bits they choose and which bits the think are wrong. Who decides which bits are right and which bits are wrong? Each to his own. Thus the Bible is treated like a wax nose. <br /><br />If you think the bible contains contradictions it is senseless to try and justify your position on any given issue by appealing to Scripture because Scripture has errors. You may continue to do so but to most people watching it is rather odd.<br /><br />You say:<br /><br />"Your logic here demands that you not allow the excluded middle. That is, a God-inspired infallible Bible depends on Paul's being perfectly consistent in all of his statements."<br /><br />Correct. I do not see how two contradictory statements (talking of the same thing in the same sense) can both be true and therefore infallibly God's words. If you want to deny basic laws of logic that God has given us then you have a lot of work to do. You can't just say 'this is just how Westerns think'. The writers of the bible repeatedly rely on their hearers accepting reason and argumentation in order to make their case. Eg, Apollos 'vigorously debated with the Jews and proved from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.'<br /><br />Re 'Inerrancy'. I did not actually use that term, it has been added to me by J.L Watts. Although I do believe in it as espoused by Chicago Statement, I prefer to focus on 'Authority' since that is what Scripture mostly seems to claim for itself when it speaks of this matter. I think the 'authority' of Scripture entails 'inerrancy' because something cannot be false and at the same time be truly authoritative. <br /><br />J.K Gayle I do not find your attempts at showing a contradiction in Scripture very forceful. You make a few vague assertions but you will have to do better than that if you are going to convince. More specifically, if you want to demonstrate that the Bible contradicts itself then you will have to do ALL of the following:<br /><br />1) Show that Jesus and the Apostles' claims of authority for their writing are actually bogus and that they did not actually believe this.<br /><br />2) Give specific verse references that appear contradictory.<br /><br />3) Show conclusively that these verses are speaking of the same thing in the same sense, that there is no possible explanation and as such that they cannot be reconciled.<br /><br />Since 1) and 3) are pretty much impossible for you to do I do not think I will be changing my mind anytime soon on whether Paul contradicts himself. Rather, I will continue to believe Jesus and the Apostles testimony about Scripture.<br /><br />Re. the portions where Paul distinguishes between his own command and God's I will say the following:<br /><br />Paul makes it known when he is doing this and it does not affect the vast majority of his writings, it is quite a rare occurrence. His writings are filled with numerous claims to authority which you still have not addressed. In particular, the verses I have listed are not even in this category. Note what follows 1Cor14:34. No way out for you there sorry.<br /><br />Even when Paul does do this he sometimes says things like: <br /><br />'but I give a judgement as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy'. <br /><br />Therefore I do not think I will be disregarding his judgement any time soon. <br /><br />Apostle Paul versus 'Enlightened Moderns'. I know who I will choose.<br /><br />Nobody has addressed one of my main arguments about Paul appealing to created order and OT scripture to back up some of his most significant commands concerning women. Thus you cannot keep writing them off as only applicable for that time. Read 1Cor 14:33-37 and 1Tim2:12-14.<br /><br />HaloHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-55077539018148750692010-02-23T07:58:20.907-08:002010-02-23T07:58:20.907-08:00"Paul says to slaves: 'If you can gain yo..."Paul says to slaves: 'If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity'. (1Cor7:21)"<br /><br />"And he commands slave owners:<br />'masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly.' So slaves were justly and fairly treated."<br /><br />Henry Halo,<br />I'm not going to get into every verse you reference. In the letter to Corinth, Paul seems to vacillate between giving commands and giving advice and repeating commands "from the Lord." For example, he's explicit when saying, "I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment.... I suppose therefore that this is good." When he's writing this, he makes his readers use their judgment as well. This isn't your "wax nose" scripture you've accused me of having. It is his advocating levels of law and situational judgment. Generally, Paul's argument (especially in I Cor. 7) seems to be that the Corinthians need to maintain the status quo as well as possible. I find it fascinating that he's treating slaves and wives in the same close context arguing for the same status quo principle. He does outline conditions (commands? or "I speak for your own profit") for "freedom" and "liberty" for slaves and for wives. When the husband dies, for example, then the wife is no longer bound (i.e., by the law) but is "at liberty." Similar conditions are presented for the slave. But the Corinthians are left to use their judgment. Paul's practical principles, his own commands, and his commands "from the Lord" are different things that he's woven together in the same text. It's tough to read this as an abolitionist document, or one that upends the household codes or political structures of first century Greece in the Roman empire.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-87595034909897283622010-02-23T06:00:42.597-08:002010-02-23T06:00:42.597-08:00@halo - Now a judge of other Christians? Sorry, Ha...@halo - Now a judge of other Christians? Sorry, Halo, but adding tradition and development to Scripture, and using a 16th century theology - not my cup of inerrancy.<br /><br />I notice that you cannot answer the questions on inerrnacy, but readily assume that your doctrine is the only correct one. How much did I miss when I believed the same way.J. L. Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000798494472742263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-91697219690667557392010-02-23T04:13:34.795-08:002010-02-23T04:13:34.795-08:00>E, Where have you been? We much appreciated y...>E, Where have you been? We much appreciated your comment several days ago when you said (again): "one day patriarchalism (so-called 'complementarianism') will be seen and understood for what it is or was - i.e., the gender equivalent of racism and slavery." That comment inspired me to write <a href="http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2010/02/of-slaves-and-women.html" rel="nofollow">this blogpost</a>.<br /><br />>Halo, Thanks for the reply. I'll get to the specific scriptures you point to some time soon. But since you so passionately address the principle of non-contradiction please let me say something more about that. You are bound to that very principle when you insist (a) that because I see contradictions in Paul (b) then I must therefore also conclusively and wholly reject holy scripture (which an untrue statement and, moreover, a non-sequitur). Now, I'm sort of playing with the language of logic. Your logic here demands that you not allow the excluded middle. That is, a God-inspired infallible Bible depends on Paul's being perfectly consistent in all of his statements. This sort of reasoning is very Western and follows the elite Greek Aristotle much more closely than the multicultural Jew named Paul. He goes on and on about his pedigree, if you will, to those in Macedonia (i.e., Philippi), and he is quite aware of some of the contradictions, his writing and Greek and rather appealing to his Roman citizenship and the like. He's very Jewish that way: sounds like Elie Wiesel quoting the Midrash, "Jacob or Israel? Both. True, God ordered him not to call himself Jacob anymore, yet one moment later the Bible calls him that." Aristotle calls this sort of thing barbaric, and would through it out. But the bible - the Jewish scriptures (written by New Testament Jews like Paul) - is so full of such wordplay that it eventually (maybe all along) opens freedom up to the oppressed, and subjugated. Yes to women even. On Paul and Jesus and contradiction, I wrote a post once that <a href="http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2009/10/st-paul-and-joshua-and-womans-equality.html" rel="nofollow">you should feel free to comment</a> on if you like.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-76396552065424071062010-02-23T03:01:51.190-08:002010-02-23T03:01:51.190-08:00J.L. Watts
"Sorry, but I hold to the inerran...J.L. Watts<br /><br />"Sorry, but I hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, and against the belief of comp."<br /><br />With all due respect, your practice betrays your profession.<br /><br />Kristen:<br /><br />I know the hermeneutics of the best egalitarian scholars and am appalled by them. I waded through the 500+ pages of 'Discovering Biblical Equality' which was recommended to me as the definitive defense of egalitarianism. It was deeply unconvincing. William Webb's contribution was most troubling because of its implications.<br /><br />I would like to read Scot McKnight's book, I have come across it before, but I expect it will just be another attempt to mold scripture into a culturally acceptable shape. <br /><br />HaloHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-32211724949649282422010-02-22T20:13:07.038-08:002010-02-22T20:13:07.038-08:00Lydia said...
...
I have read every word of Grudem...<b>Lydia said...</b><br /><i>...<br />I have read every word of Grudem.</i><br /><br />You have my most heartfelt and deepest sympathy. :)<br /><br />FWIW, I've met Grudem and heard him speak at ETS conferences, at one of which a friend said Grudem was called out by a well-known fellow complementarian for misrepresenting things about Bible translations, specifically the NIV versus the ESV.<br /><br />Napoleon complex, perhaps?<br /><br />Just sayin'.EricWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008786460314263379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-76888712182271599102010-02-22T18:45:01.067-08:002010-02-22T18:45:01.067-08:00I always love the anonymous comments. People's...I always love the anonymous comments. People's silliness is a constant source of entertainment.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-26162331405968582962010-02-22T18:44:43.153-08:002010-02-22T18:44:43.153-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.EricWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008786460314263379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-79149911168066292632010-02-22T18:41:48.637-08:002010-02-22T18:41:48.637-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.EricWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008786460314263379noreply@blogger.com