Intellectuelle

Thanks Ilona, for taking this up. I don't think male-based authority is the only way to accurately read the scriptures, so this should put us both on a level with regards to the scripture.

I do wonder about this,

"For the egalitarians I have to say you cannot edit out men's leadership. There is something innate that has to be dealt with."

So, the question is why statistically egalitarian marriages are less prone to divorce than traditional marriages.

Sue, as to "statistical evidence", I consider that to be circumstantial and subjectively understood, at best. I argued with atheists quite a bit in the past... and this very statement was often presented to me,ie that atheists are less prone to divorce than Christians. So, for this topic, I really don't think we want to "go there". It is a distraction and not really pertinent to the base of trying to understand the theology of the gender issue.

Theologically, the case is strong for the existence of order and hierarchy, as vehicles for authority. Further, that men are mentioned, and historically (within scripture) given the lions share of exercising authority. The New Testament puts many things on a new, higher basis, including raising women positionally. Christ redefines authority: how it acts, what its purpose is, and where it leads -punning slightly there. I think you've read my thoughts on this previously, and I'll put out a post listing those so ppl don't have to search around.

I don't believe in male-based authority, either. What I see is God-based authority. It is the manner of its delegation, or our understanding of that, that we likely have some disagreement. I have been reading through your views on Denny Burks blog ( albeit slowly...there are such long threads!). You, and egalitarians in general, make some salient points, not to be dismissed, but the weaknesses I find are in your battle with the concept of authority and reliance on culturally based arguments. There are much stronger ones made in that stream than ones rooted in the chimera of "statistics". I use that appellation since the subsets of 'egalitarian marriages' and 'traditional marriages' aren't stated, whether those factors would be more important aren't known, and any number of influences that would skew the statistics in favor of the desired statement. This case is many times true of "statistics" which are not tied to trusted research and interpreted properly. Besides, it is a red herring, as I said earlier.

I find that both sides function with premises that they philosophically reject. Egalitarians function with a chain of command of some sort, and traditionalists function with negotiation and a more mutual set of roles than they admit to on paper. That is a good thing for relationships, but for the accuracy of teaching it highlights the chosen delusions. Those delusion are what cause problems for the people who follow certain lines of thought.

Egalitarians fit better within the outside culture, but for that very reason they find it more difficult to substantiate their faith to that culture. That is why I protest the redefining of authority as merely 'responsibility" etc. Look for the moral basis for being responsible in the postmodern culture around us. Tell me if you can find it.

oh... and I want to thank you for taking the time to comment, Sue. I know that you are embroiled in some discussions, parts of which require the patience of Job! So, thank you for giving time and consideration here, as well. I admire and support you in many portions of your position.
====
My own answer to "no man wants a woman telling him what to do" is that it is true in situations of intimidation, but mens leadership can and should include a breadth of opportunity for women, allowing for women in decision making positions, etc. My own opinion is that there is a situation of "permission" which precludes usurpation.

Thanks, Ilona, it looks as if other conversations have reached a natural end. I don't really think there is much more to be said. I really just wondered what you meant by this statement,

"For the egalitarians I have to say you cannot edit out men's leadership. There is something innate that has to be dealt with."

What do you mean by innate? Are you arguing from creation or from observation of contemporary men and women? It wasn't clear?

In this particular idea I was speaking from observation of contemporary men and women. Not really making an argument in that, but more raising a question. I think actual arguments need to made with a basis in the theology: what does the Bible say about men?

Right now I'm working intuitively on this part of the question, with mulling over the parts of your former conversation on the Bruce Ware thread. There was lots of talk on the creation of Adam, and rather than divide the male from the female in some of this, I wonder if an answer doesn't lie within the aspect of unity and oneness.

In some ways observations from the negatives of culture outcomes may bear on this part of the question. Maybe. We hear much of the feminization of a culture (read a bunch on that a couple years ago) and there are discussions on "feminization" of the Church.

If I read you right on it, you think that the authenteo used in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 refers to an action of usurping. Do I have that right? Because that is how I have come to understand the text, myself. That women should not seek to usurp leadership, not that they are forbidden leadership (such as teaching). This fits within the view of a chain of command authority structure.

What concerns me in the conversation that takes place from the egalitarian side of it is the avoidance of the concept of authority, replacing it with weaker ideas of "responsibility".

I understand your concerns of how this is wrested to rationalize oppression and abuse... and don't want to downplay that. There just seems to be a need to throw out the bath water and safeguard the baby.

Do you see any place for males having the primary role in leadership in your understanding of core doctrines? Does the word primary create a problem?

And, btw, a little off the subject... I posted my understanding of "saved through childbirth" portion of the disputed verses on Ben Witherington's blog awhile ago. http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/02/literal-renderings-of-texts-of.html
I believe that God's salvation of the soul to be the great leveler and meant to infiltrate all of life.

"Do you see any place for males having the primary role in leadership in your understanding of core doctrines?"

No, I don't. I think women are just as good as leaders as men are, other things being equal. That doesn't mean that women will be present in leadership in the same numbers as men, but only that if they are leaders, they are good and godly leaders. Do you know Catherine Booth and Eva Burrows, or Clara Barton? Oe Hulda?

I also derive my notions of authority from the scripture and I have never seen a passage that tells men or church leaders to "have authority OVER" anyone at all. One should prove notions of authority from scripture.

I agree with you that women are just as good functionally. But you see no place where positionally there is no primary leadership given to men?

I am mostly familiar with the history of Catherine Booth...who I notice is one godly heroine you admire. Not so intimately with the others,although Clara Barton, of course, is well known. These examples are mainly important in the "functional" aspect of women. Like Priscilla, Catherine Booth ministered in tandem with her husband.

I'll repeat my stance here for sake of clarity: I believe there is opportunity for women to lead in the church given a delegation from men in leadership. You will likely find that restrictive, but I don't know. Delegation retains the form, or position of authority, but affords the opportunity for ministry. Like Pharaoh retaining his positional title yet delegating all but that to Joseph. It means very real leadership to a very high degree, but maintains the lineage of the power delegation.

All authority is over someone in some way- that is part of the definition, it is a word defining a power situation. Otherwise it is empty of meaning. I think you are making the distinction of domineering power or authority. Abuse of authority.

Lord Jesus simply turned the function and the "how" of authority on its head... defining it as sacrificial service for those "under" its jurisdiction. but there is still the position and structure of authority with real power attached. Here is what I want to start expressing in the next post on the topic.

I don't think it is hard to prove notions of authority in scripture, but it is more difficult to properly express what type of authority is meant. "Lord of lords" is an authority statement, not simply an empty title.

I should have said: But you see no place where positionally there is a primary place of leadership given to men?

An additional thought here...from reading many of your comments elsewhere:

In situations where male leadership has taken away approval for women's ministry it is because they have been made afraid of somehow detracting from God's position of honor (through some of the erroneous complementarian teachings). In order to restore confidence, the case has to be made for both orderly and seemly administration of opportunity for the expression of gifts and callings in the church which includes women.

But that men have the ability to shut down opportunity for women to minister is seen. Appeal must now be made for the restoration of women in the fellowship of the church, to see that they are being made to suffer punishment for a general "crackdown" on women. this is unfair to godly women who are in submission to Christ in every way... but are oppressed out of runaway fears arising from reaction to the outside culture. This was itself stated in one of the threads, when it was admitted that it was for the sake of making a point that so much emphasis was given the debate... and that it wasn't a core doctrinal issue.

Do you remember this part of the thread?

Now that is just plain sad. And wrong, I think. But it seems necessary that we find clear doctrinal base for authority and how it acts, should act. That certainly is core and essential to the Christian faith.

But you see no place where positionally there is a primary place of leadership given to men?

No, I don't. I saw older single women missionaries and Christian leaders who were no longer allowed in the pulpit by a younger man. This man, when asked by me what was going on, quoted Wayne Grudem as if he was an apostle.

I am sorry to say that I see this an an entirely bankrupt approach to Christianity.

We need to regroup and ask what the problems are that Christians need to address. Abortion, street people, loss of relationships, whatever those may be, etc. Whether a woman can contribute to God's mission on earth is not based in any way, shape or form on whether she is lead by a human male. That is utter nonsense and women know it.

There has never been a time in history of the world, when the single woman could not carry out a mission for Christ without a male leader.

In your first paragraph you relate what is clearly an inequitable situation, but it is not a prevailing argument for throwing aside the position held by an unwise young man. Paul faced inequitable treatment at the hands of the high priest, but expressed honor for the position. Whatever our offended sense of justice, we must still deal with it carefully. I'm reticent to say exactly how, but I think the New Testament has enough guidance for those types of situations and it gives steps to follow. The problem for so many of us(male and female) is whether we will truly follow with the humility and longsuffering needed.

an an entirely bankrupt approach
Do you see the cause as rooted in the methods of the Churches or having a spiritual root cause? Is it enough to protest teaching that gives rise to the problems, or do they go deeper in your opinion? Are we spiritually bankrupt at this time?

We need to regroup and ask what the problems are...
This seems to jump to an entirely different matter. Or do you mean regroup the Church in the manner that, say, the emergent groups are saying... changing the entire structure form (as much as I have picked up on, not being any expert in the emergent movement) ?

Whether a woman can contribute to God's mission on earth is not based in any way, shape or form on whether she is lead by a human male. That is utter nonsense and women know it.
I have to say plainly that I find this sentence to be simply rhetoric. Whether women know this or not is debatable, and none of us are lone rangers in this mission.... so we are back to relating properly as a body... and that is going to include male leadership at times and in some forms. The people of God, being what we are, will no doubt commit some inequities along the way. The question is how we are to handle these things and what is our doctrinal base in understanding who has the authority to do and say what things...

We all know authority is ultimately God-given, but how do we handle it in the order of the body? The challenge for women is the same as for men: how do we exhibit Christlikeness in the face of difficulty and unfairness? To what extent are we to stand oppositionally? and in what attitude? I think sometimes we understand this better when dealing with secular authority. Some think there are simple answers to these questions, but I think they are not simple at all.

There has never been a time in history of the world, when the single woman could not carry out a mission for Christ without a male leader.
This is nonsensical to me. I understand you mean she doesn't have to have specific oversight, but I would question that... who would go to battle against the forces of darkness on their own and trust to their own ability? No seasoned saint. Again, it smacks of mere rhetoric. As a believer you carry out your callings as God would have you carry them out... you don't choose your circumstances and you don't grandstand (I was once, rightly, accused of that by an online atheist friend). So this type of statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I believe there are lots of cases where women do minister in just such ways as you describe, under the blessing and with the support of fellow male leaders in the Church. But the theology across the board is messy. I'd like to see that articulated better. For myself, I think it gives greater confidence to know the solid foundation of the Word in application ... as much as is possible. For both men and women.

Don't take me as being harsh with you- I am simply being blunt.

I don't think you are being harsh at all. But there may be some kind of disconnect, unintentional, however.

First, we haven't articulated a scriptural approach to authority in this discussion at all on either side that I can see. If you post on authority in the scriptures I will respond.

Second, many many women have gone to the mission field sponsored by women's missionary societies. Some of the first female doctors in the 19th century were Baptist women missionaries who were supported and sent by women's mission societies.

Many women have gone as Bible translators and teachers. Do I need to do a lot of research and prove that women have evangelized much of BC and the known world under the auspices of female lead organizations.

I don't know where to go from here.