What is feminism...

Posted by Tim Bayly

In the comments section of our new blog location, Mr. Conklin asked: "Hi. Could someone please give me a definition for "feminism" as used around here? I'm afraid I might trip in this minefield, and I'd rather know what's being talked about without unduly offending folks. Especially if it's regarding women serving in the military."

Feminism is an ideological political movement that denies the order of the sexes God wrote into creation and reinforces through the word of His Holy Spirit recorded all through Scripture. The Holy Spirit puts this order most succinctly: "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint" (1Timothy 2:11-15).

Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. God forbids it.

Among believers who hold to a high view of Scripture, the most usual ploys to escape God's prohibition take one of two directions...

Either it’s claimed that this delegation was after the Fall, and therefore the product of sin and obsolete in the Kingdom of God among those who are truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit; or it’s claimed that history is filled with terrible examples of the abuse of this authority by man, and that man’s repentance is the order of the day"not woman’s submission. The second group is willing to grant that, in theory, authority and submission grounded in sex are still binding, but finding an exercise of authority by man over woman that can be commended is next to impossible. It’s never sufficiently servant-like, Christ-like, loving, considerate, kind, gentle, self-effacing, humble, and godly.

The first group explicitly denies Scripture. For a good example of their rebellion against God, search on Google for the Christians for Biblical Equality web site where you will find many explicit denials of the plain meaning of the Word of God. But as you read, remember that these men are wolves and are out to destroy souls through many, many lies. Be on guard against them.

The second group implicitly denies Scripture by never finding an exercise of authority they like. With lots of talk of “servant leadership,” they put up hurdles for the exercise of leadership by a fathers and husbands that are so high no one but Jesus Christ could clear them. This is not accidental.

In a day that hates all authority, but reserves a special hatred for the authority God delegated to man over woman, one way to escape persecution for God’s Truth while claiming to believe and submit to that truth is to teach and preach in such a way that the truth is rendered innocuous. Then, although one’s opponents still hate the truth, they realize someone who has little to no heart for it and leave him alone.

Those in the first group are feminists proper. Those in the second group could be labeled many things, including halfway feminists, crypto-feminists, or feminists’ willing helpers. The usual label they hide behind, though, is “complementarian.” (In other words, even though many calling themselves "complementarians" have done yeoman's work defending God's order of sexuality in the Church and home, not everyone using this label is to be trusted.)

Ironically, a great number of those who call themselves “complementarian” join the feminists in denying any application of Scripture’s doctrine of sexuality outside explicitly Christian contexts. Many who call themselves “complementarian” claim to hold to male authority in the Church and home, but deny any connection between sex and authority in the secular worlds of law, politics, the military, and business.

This is the halfway covenant that confuses many of good conscience.

It is good that these souls still accept the order of the sexes in the home and church, but they are on a collision course with themselves, biblically. Scripture is clear that the order of the sexes is a product of God’s creation, not the Fall. So it’s binding on all men and women through all time. That means it’s no private revelation to Christians"or Jews and Christians. Just as Adam being given Eve (not Steve) demonstrates that heterosexuality is universally binding on all men and women through all time, so God’s creating Adam first, and then Eve, demonstrates that patriarchy (or whatever you want to call it"I sometimes call it “father-rule”) is universally binding on all men and women through all time.

Down through history, there has never been a matriarchal culture. Never. In other words, man has followed God’s order of the sexes all through history"until, that is, the past couple of decades. But even now, women leaders in the secular world are the exception, not the rule. Those exceptions, though, are part of God’s judgment:

The expression of their faces bears witness against them, And they display their sin like Sodom; They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves. Say to the righteous that it will go well with them, For they will eat the fruit of their actions. Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him. O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. The LORD arises to contend, And stands to judge the people. (Isaiah 3:9-13)

A couple clarifications before I stop.

First, servant leadership is the only kind of leadership Scripture recognizes as godly. To say that one believes in servant-leadership, then, is similar to saying that one believes in servant submission. Every act of the believer is to be modeled after our Lord Who came, not to be served, but to serve. So yes, I believe very much in servant-submission and servant-leadership. Yet not in such a way as to obscure or oppose male authority or to connive at female rebellion. There’s a reason the Holy Spirit almost always addresses marriage by calling husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, His Bride, and gave Himself up for her; and wives to submit in everything.

On this blog, we typically oppose those who oppose the plain Word of God concerning authority and submission in the relationship of the sexes, not because we believe sin is more frequent among those called to submit, but rather because the doctrinal attack, today, is not against man loving woman, but against woman submitting to man. In our pastoral care, my brother and I are always harder on men than we are on women. To whom much is given, much shall be required. But in the realm of doctrinal controversy"which is the realm this blog normally inhabits"we focus on the breaches in the wall. And the attack of feminism on God’s Truth is one breach that is clear and growing.

Second, the outworking of the principle of father-rule in the secular world is exceedingly complicated and difficult. The world rejects this principle and any believer who believes and seeks to follow it will find himself in very troubled waters. It is anything but clear when and how believers ought to speak up or to act on this principle in the military, for instance, where superior officers are often women.

Let me be clear, here: I am not saying that Christian men should rebel against authority when, contrary to God’s Creation order, it is exercised by woman. If a female police officer pulls me over and tickets me, I’ll respect and submit to her, not because she has a gun and a radio, but because she has been placed over me by God, bearing the sword in His behalf.

Still, I will recognize that her authority is contrary to God’s creation order in the matter of sexuality, and it will grieve me causing me, like Lot, to gnash my teeth. And this is how every biblical Christian should view the exercise of authority by woman over man no matter where it occurs. As the Holy Spirit said, woman is not to teach or exercise authority over man because Adam was created first, and then Eve.

Years ago, my friend, David Wegener, was interviewing Marvin Olasky for a newsletter of the organization we both worked for, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. David asked Marvin whether he’d ever vote for a woman for president and Marvin responded, saying that he might vote for a woman, but it would be a shameful thing. I forget his exact words except that he did use the word ‘shame.’

That’s about right. If I’m faced with Hillary Clinton on one side and Rudy Guilaianni on the other, I might well vote for Mrs. Clinton if I believed, for instance, that she would do a better job of defending the unborn children. But I’d bear such a vote with shame.

For now, I’ll leave it at that. There is much left unsaid and many clarifications needed, undoubtedly, but my time is up. I’ll trust our good friends who possess great wisdom to take up their keyboards in my behalf, now, in explaining and applying what I’ve written.

Dear friends, please help! Please join David and me in using the gifts God’s given you to teach everying Jesus commanded. Thanks.

(By the way, a lengthy paper on the outworking of these principles in the military may be found here at the Presbyterian Church in America Historical Center.

Comments

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Tim: .... it's claimed that history is filled with terrible examples of the abuse of this authority by man, and that manís repentance is the order of the dayónot womanís submission.>>>>>

I think that I have just had an "Aha!" moment.

The phrase "man's repentance is the order of the day" is what struck me. I used to be friends with some egalitarian feminists and their sympathizers. When I would argue against what they were saying, I was called sick. I was told to repent.

They felt justified in sending me literally dozens of hate emails - and continue to slander me and engage in character assination right to this very day.

They see what they do to me or to any other person who dares to defend the Biblical pattern as defeating the enemy who does not go along with them in their righteous cause to force men to repent of their evil ways. It takes me time, but I can figure things out. After three years of this kind of thing, I finally understand "why."

They would act all offended, and even demand apologies, and get all irate. Of course, silly me would grovel to them, beg forgiveness, and even seek reconciliation! I now repent, of course. I have recently repented of my groveling, my begging, and even the apologies themselves. I have retracted all of those.

Any woman who would dare to go along with the Biblical norms is a traitor and must be forced against the wall, and shot at dawn - figuratively speaking, of course. A la pared! I think I've got it!

I couldn't figure it out, since to my way of thinking, I was just doing the same thing they were doing - presenting my ideas for discussion, and trying to find points of agreement in all the disagreement, and trying to gain a better understanding of God's revealed will.

Call me a slow learner, but I think that I now understand what happened to me. To their way of thinking, I wasn't just dumb and wrong, I was promoting something as evil as satanic Islam. I needed help, and was sick - and still am, according to them. Hide your children! Sick your dogs on me! I am the enemy!

It's not about logic and presenting a good argument and responding to the challenges put to you - as I was taught. No, I am not good at logic. I was not trained in it at all. However, I did the best I could.

It did not matter. It was what I was defending - husbands as the heads of their wives and male-led church government - that they could not abide by.

...and I dared to define myself as a wife and mother! Why, didn't I know that by accepting these definitions instead of defining myself, I was in danger of being abused! I was actually told that.

I am in agreement with the CBMW on male headship in the home and in the church. I don't know that I am in total agreement with Tim, or with anyone else here. I do agree with the CBMW.

BTW, the fact that I later participated in the CCC list, and actually found points of agreement with those evil patriarchalists and even enjoyed the discussions on hair and clothing - and studied out the issue of head coverings - made it much worse for me. Even so, they had me pegged as evil long before I was tainted by the guys of the CCC. I am like those Muslim women who are willing to coerce their sons into doing honor killings, and associated with great evil.

Of course, I was told that I was promoting a great evil long before I rejoined the CCC.

Sorry for my wordy testimony, but Tim's little phrase has been worth the price of the admission for me.

[Lane Keister]

It's so sad that feminists, who are supposed to be "pro-women" will berate a woman like yourself, Donna, who simply wants to follow Scriptural teaching. Rejoice, sister, that you ahve been counted worthy to suffer for the Lamb. Regards, Lane Keister

[Kamilla]

Good Morning Pastor Tim,

While I was waiting for the delightful video of your grandson to load on my snail-like dial-up connection I had an epiphany this morning. I don't think I have ever once heard an evangelical feminist say what blessings their children were. I don't know why such a realization should be so shocking, but it was.

Having never been blessed with a husband or children myself, I find myself having less and less patience with those who have and don't value them as such.

Kamilla

[Light M.]

Kamilla said:
"I don't think I have ever once heard an evangelical feminist say what blessings their children were."

I don't know if I would call myself a feminist, although I have occasionally had the word flung at me as an epithet. I am an egalitarian Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. So, if you are one who would call me a feminist, let me be the "first" in your hearing to say what a blessing my kids are. I am blessed with four wonderful, godly children, two boys and two girls, ages 9 to 16. They are an unending joy and delight to me and my husband. I thank God for them every day, and I'm quite vocal about it in real life. In fact, I'm sure I bore many people often with anecdotes of how funny, smart, clever, generous, and loving they are.

Hope that brightens your day just a bit, Kamilla. :)

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Lane:
It's so sad that feminists, who are supposed to be "pro-women" will berate a woman like yourself, Donna, who simply wants to follow Scriptural teaching. Rejoice, sister, that you ahve been counted worthy to suffer for the Lamb. >>>>>

Lane, thank you for your kind words. It means a lot to have someone notice that, in spite of all my human frailty. I do believe that the Holy Spirit has done a work in me, and that He continues that work - even using such difficult circumstances in my life for my own good, my own purification, and His glory, most of all.

Lane, I don't mean that I am lilly white and they are evil - though I do think that there are a lot of false teachings in the feminist side of egalitarianism, and several prominent false teachers operating among them. I think that most of them are believers, but confused as most of Evangelicalism is in our day. They have a certain zeal for the Lord.

I know that there are egalitarians - such as Dorothy L. Sayers - who were and are orthodox and traditional even in their understanding of the masculinity of God. It's the radical feminism that married itself to egalitarianism which is what we see winning the day in groups like the CBE.

It could be that I deserve some of what they say and have said to me. I will grant that. No problem.

What always confused me, though, were their demands for my repentance. I would apologize, confess what I though were my sins and offenses, but there was never any resolution.

Now I understand why, a bit better - besides just the fleshly tendency on our part to not be able to give up a grudge. I can understand how warring sides can get mad at one another and then have trouble reconciling, and see one another as mean and bad. That all comes from our sinful, fleshly natures.

I could not understand that when I tried to reconcile, they told me to repent. You don't tell that to someone who is trying to resolve issues unless there is something else going on.

That something else is, I believe, what Tim nailed in this post. It explains why I was not just told that I was sinning, but that I was sick and in need of help and guilty of promoting murderous evil. After all, it is men's repentance that is the order of the day.

So, in supporting the traditional understanding of women, creation, and the fall - as Mary Kassian has written about - I was supporting pure evil.

No, I don't mean that I am innocent of all anger and bad attitudes and a desire to "get even" or "settle the score."

For them, I am guilty of all that and much more. I am guilty of promoting and even enabling evil - something much worse, IOW. For that I must repent - besides for all the personal "junk." I can repent of the first, by God's grace. I dare not repent of submitting myself to the plain teachings of Scripture.

[Robert Perry]

I would argue that the key issue is not that God forbids women to exercise authority over a man, though that is true. Rather, I would argue that the key issue is that God's Word makes it very clear that the marriage relationship is one of His key pictures of His grace to His people.

In other words, to invert the ordinary structure of authority in marriage or the church is to invert our relationship to God.

[Joan]

In what passage does God forbid all women in all places a position of authority? 2 Timothy is speaking to the church and God. No, it may not be the norm to have female heads of state but it does happen and I see nothing in scripture to forbid it. How about male household servants? Was it a cause for "gnashing of the teeth" for the mistress of the house to exercise her authority over her servant? Or, did she really have no authority over her male servants? She is not merely an extension of her husband's authority, either. She is the ruler and guardian (look up the word "manager" in the Greek) of her home, according to scripture. Also, a mother has authority given to her by God, Himself, over her own children. Some teach that her husband gives her such authority, which is nonsense. The Bible makes it clear that children are to obey their parents and to honor mother and father. There is no distinction between their authority. Proverbs is full of examples of sons having to listen to their mothers' teachings and commands.

I would like a biblical answer, one from the pages of scripture and not just "well, Deborah doesn't count". That is a slippery slope, indeed!

Just so you know where I am coming from, I believe that the passage concerning authority and women is limited to the church setting because that is the context of that passage. Meaning: no female elders/pastors.

Light, I am glad to hear that you love children. I know quite a few egalitarians with several children who love being mothers and think their children are great blessings from God. In fact, I know some who have entire blogs devoted to their days with their children. I just hope that people will truly read your post and take you seriously and think before they make such statements.

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Joan:
I just hope that people will truly read your post and take you seriously and think before they make such statements.>>>>

Why not ask for clarification from the person who made the original statement? That is what is often wrong with these discussions. We don't ask for clarification, and may totally misunderstand the person speaking.

For example, is Kamilla egalitarian or complementarian? Did you ask her?

Then, she may be speaking from her own experiences in talking with egalitarians. In fact, she may have even more experience than some of you have.

I have noticed the following when arguing with some egalitarian feminists. They give the impression that working with women and children in the church is somehow beneath them. If they can't exercise authority over men, then they are not happy. If the doors to being made a pastor, or adult Sunday school teacher remain closed, then they are terribly offended.

My question is what is wrong with women and children that they are not worth these fine women's time and effort?

Joan:
I would like a biblical answer, one from the pages of scripture and not just "well, Deborah doesn't count". That is a slippery slope, indeed!>>>>

Deborah was not a military leader. Didn't you notice? Then, she was an exception to the rule of men's rule. Haven't you noticed that men ruling is the norm? Yes, there are some exceptions. If you want to guide your understanding by the Word of God, then you will notice that looking for a woman ruler anywhere in the Bible - OT or NT - is like looking for a needle in a haystack. There are some women needles, but the haystack is decidedly male.

That may be the real significant observation to make - not that Deborah was a judge and the commander of the nation's troops asked her to go up with him. Did she carry a spear? Did she kill some of the enemy? Was she a military strategist? If so, then please provide the Scriptural support for that.

In the laws about Israel's draft - and there was one - could you point out to me how many women were to be inscripted for the defense of the country? No, it's not a slippery slope. This time there are NO needles in the haystack.

Some want to make women ruling either the norm, or at least a 50/50 proposition.

If women rule society, then who will be caring for the children? No, women can't do it all. It is one or the other.

Ah! I know. Day care!

[Joan]

LOL! Donna, you made my day! You want to to make sure that I am not jumping to conclusions but then you go on to say that egals arent happy unless they are in authority over men and they consider teaching women and children as lowly tasks and that they are too good for them?

I am not the one making broad, sweeping statements about any group. I am not the one who said that egalitarians don't talk about their children and about what blessings they are. I hardly know any egalitarians but the ones that I do know talk about their children all the time. In fact, there was an egalitarian on the CCC list who was a homeschooling mom Jeannie) of 6 who spoke of her children often. It is disingenuous of those who are on the CCC list to make such a statement! I already know that Kamilla used to be an egal but got burned by them and now is no longer considering herself an egal. I read her posts on the CCC list so I know pretty much.

I am sure you read that I clearly said that women ruling is not the norm? So, you must be arguing with someone else then?

And, Deborah doesn't count, at least that is what I am told, so I won't even bother with Deborah. She is a mere blip on the radar screen. As an aside, do you know how much the Jews revere Deborah and many name their daughters after her hoping that they, too, will aspire to such greatness! I would think it would be insulting to a Jewish person to hear how Deborah doesn't really count.

Also, you seem to be reading things into my post that are not there. Why don't you just ask for clarification? I said nothing about women in the military and I made no mention that a woman should be involved in combat. You would probably be relieved to know that I do not support women in combat but I do think there are places where their support is quite necessary.

And, I am a big proponent of moms staying home with their children. I have several children and I have scrimped and pinched in order to be able to make it on one income so I can be at home. By all means, a mom should be there to care for her little ones. Of course there are always exceptions (when a woman is abandoned and has no other choice or her husband is disabled or unable to make enough to support the family) but the norm should be for moms to be at home with their little ones. So, you ain't got me on that, either. LOL!

I would rather just spend my time not arguing with strawmen. My time is very limited. I am a full-time homemaker running a very busy household and I try to run a tight ship. :-)

So, where does the Bible tell us that women cannot have authority over a man outside of the church/home? And, you could also answer my question about women having authority over male servants.

And I am sure you are relieved to know that there are egalitarians that love children and have big families and consider them to be blessings! Now you have Light and Jeannie, two people you and Kamilla are familiar with to know that that assertion is false. I am sure I could find more. Are there any egals left on the CCC board? Or someone could post this question over on the CBE board and ask them what they think about children? Could be the start of something quite lovely!

[David Gray]

>So, where does the Bible tell us that women cannot have authority over a man outside of the church/home?

Anyone know where the Bible tells us not to practice necrophilila? Or is it to be inferred?

[Kamilla]

David,

Oh, man, did you give me a flash back to an old Tom Lehrer album (and yes, I do mean vinyl) where he uses that word! In my experience, egalitarians are much more likely to be found defending solitary pleasures than necrophilia.

Joan,

I wasn't aware that CBE had gotten back into the board business. I know they have a blog but it's not something anybody can post a new thread to, is it? I have read Light's post but I'm not sure which Jeannie you're talking about, I do recall one who was very proud of her second husband and how good he was to all the children (hers and theirs). I had forgotten and stand corrected.

Now, as for broad, sweeping statements, if you meant me when you said, "I am not the one who said that egalitarians don't talk about their children and about what blessings they are", I suggest you go read my post again. That's the same sort of broad, false claim that caused me to give up on dialoguing with Egalitarians all together.

Kamilla

[Kamilla]

Joan,

By the way, part of the point of my post was how refreshing and delightful it is for father-rule folks like Pastor Tim to share his delight with us in such a manner. If I had to prompt him, go ask him pointedly if he thought his children and grandchildren were a blessing, it would be a much less convincing display of such claims. IOW, if something is truly a blessing in your life, I probably won't have to make a point of asking you about it to hear about it.

Kamilla

[Michael McMillan]

>So, where does the Bible tell us that women cannot have authority over a man outside of the church/home?

Joan, Isaiah 3:12 was quoted early on --"O my people... Women rule over them." Is this said in a positive or negative way? What is this referring to? Not female Sunday school teachers. (Those don't "rule" anyway.)

If the Bible DID say it in black and white, the egals would still vigorously deny it, as they deny the things that ARE spelled out. Many comps would likely do the same.

This reminds me of secularist thinking, where we are only supposed to think christianly inside the four walls of the church. Everywhere else, we are supposed to keep our odd opinions to ourselves and humanism is to prevail.

Either the man is the head of the woman, or he isn't. The human race fell in Adam, not Eve, because he was its federal head. Fruit-eating wasn't a church-related function. Is Christ only the head of the man when he is in church? Can the man be the head of Christ outside the church? Does the created order and Eve being deceived rationale only refer to the church? How artificial (and convenient) is that thinking!

--Michael McMillan

[David Gray]

>In my experience, egalitarians are much more likely to be found defending solitary pleasures than necrophilia.

I'm sure that's true. However her argument, at the level she makes it, could be made on a vast number of issues, that one included.

[Jack's Pipe]

We always hear about Deborah, but never Athaliah...

[Joan]

Good point, Jack! Yes, Athaliah was a wicked thing, wasn't she? We should hear about her! We should talk about Jezebel, too. We should talk about Salome who danced for John the Baptist's head.

Now, can you think of any wicked male rulers?

And, how does that figure into your equation? Wicked female rulers prove??? But, a plethora of wicked male rulers (I could come up with probably hundreds of names right off the top of my head) mean????

I am still waiting for someone to show me from SCRIPTURE where it limits a woman exercising authority outside of the church. I thought the necrophelia comment was cute but not very logical. I know that was just a "shoot from the hip" type of answer and not a serious one at all. If we were in a theology class, we would all get a hoot from that answer but then someone would make an honest and serious attempt at answering this very simple question, wouldn't they? And the professor would quickly put such an answer in its rightful place.

BTW, someone who is astute in the scriptures can easily find a verse in the Bible concerning dead bodies. And then we have the whole doctrine of sexual intercourse and when it is permissable for one to have intercourse and that is only in the bonds of marriage. I am assuming that marriage is a state entered into only by living people since dead people can't make vows and dead people are released from their marriage vows since "death do us part".

I haven't made an argument. I asked a question. I can't even make an argument until the question is answered, can I?

[Jack's Pipe]

Well, given that she was the only female ruler of either kingdom, and a usurper at that...

[David Gray]

>BTW, someone who is astute in the scriptures can easily find a verse in the Bible concerning dead bodies. And then we have the whole doctrine of sexual intercourse and when it is permissable for one to have intercourse and that is only in the bonds of marriage. I am assuming that marriage is a state entered into only by living people since dead people can't make vows and dead people are released from their marriage vows since "death do us part".

Those are all implicit, just as the reply referencing Isaiah 3:12 you had received was. By now presumably the professor is enquiring where you had previously attended school...

[mas]

I've mulled this over for the last few days and I think Pastor Tim has it right. He says it kindly but feminism and the evangelical push towards egalitarianism are just sin. As I see it the sins of pride and selfishness. Women, at least those I see in America, are not content with the role and position that God has given them. Like when Eve fell for the serpent's trick that she could be like God, women today want to be like men. Unfortunately now we have men wanting to be women...

Denying father rule outside of the church but saying that it is how things should be inside the church and home is being double minded. God warns against this in James.

[CJ]

I seldom post here, but....
Kamilla said,
"IOW, if something is truly a blessing in your life, I probably won't have to make a point of asking you about it to hear about it."

Really? So, Kamilla, my healthy digestion is a blessing in my life, and so is my '89 pickup truck (which keeps running -- no kidding -- mostly by the grace of God) but I don't go burbling about either of them all over blogdom.

[CJ]

Michael MacMillan quoted the verse,
"[As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

It appears to me that this verse is describing part of a larger situation in Judah, a situation where the social order had been disrupted: most of the men were missing (killed in warfare, maybe, or perhaps very much alive, but with each tending to his own private interests and allowing the nation to go to rack and ruin?), and famine and widespread shortages were occurring:

Isa 3:1 ¶ For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water, Isa 3:2 The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, Isa 3:3 The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the ounsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.

Judah was in a state of "Civil Emergency" where there was no one left who was qualified to lead Israel, and lawlessness resulted:

Isa 3:4 And I will give children [to be] their princes, and babes shall rule over them. Isa 3:5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. Isa 3:6 When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, [saying], Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and [let] this ruin [be] under thy hand: Isa 3:7 In that day shall he swear, saying, I will not be an healer; for in my house [is] neither bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people.

God was angry, and had allowed this to happen. So, let's look at WHY this had occurred. Why was God angry with His people?

The Bible says that Judah had sinned: "because their tongue and their doings [are] against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory. Isa 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide [it] not."

Note that the writer does not say that Judah's sin was Sodomy; rather, he said that they arrogantly flouted their sin as did Sodom, and hid it not.
The writer also hints that what was occurring in Jerusalem was occurring as a natural result of that sin:
Isa 3:10 ¶ Say ye to the righteous, that [it shall be] well [with him]: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.
Isa 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! [it shall be] ill [with him]: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.

Adding to and perhaps because of this anarchic mess, Jerusalem had been stuck with women and boys as rulers -- leaders who didn't know how to lead -- which perpetuated the problem:

Isa 3:12 [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

So, what was the sin that had caused all of this?
The Bible says,
"The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor [is] in your houses.
Isa 3:15 What mean ye [that] ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts."

The wealthy men of Jerusalem had been oppressing the poor, and "eating up their vineyards", avariciously gathering up what was not rightfully theirs.

And where was all of that wealth going?
"In their (your) houses"... and in those houses we find the rich men's wives, the haughty, stuck up, spoiled women of Jerusalem, wearing the ornaments bought with the "spoils of the poor":

Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

...They were literally covered in all sorts of ill-gotten finery:

tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon, Isa 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, Isa 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, Isa 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels, Isa 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, Isa 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails

....though to be fair, we have to admit that those women were modest -- note the bonnets,the cauls, the mufflers, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples. They were covered up from head to toe, but at the expense of the poor, sort of like the privileged women in Victorian times (and certain women today), who could afford to be "keepers at home" because their husbands were wealthy.

But that didn't wash with God:
Isa 3:17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
Isa 3:18 ¶ In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon, Isa 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, Isa 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, Isa 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels, Isa 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, Isa 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
Isa 3:24 ¶ And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty.

Isa 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
Isa 3:26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she [being] desolate shall sit upon the ground.

But this begs the question...

These folks were reaping the results of their sins (Isa 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! [it shall be] ill [with him]: for the reward of his hands shall be given him),

... so perhaps instead of focusing on the fact that women and boys were running the country, we should be asking how the actions of those greedy "princes" of the people, who robbed the poor to enrich their own houses and buy expensive things for their wives, brought about such anarchy in the nation?

[David Gray]

>so perhaps instead of focusing on the fact that women and boys were running the country

Depends on the question at hand, doesn't it?

[David Bayly]

Kamilla, I think CJ just proved your point:

"I seldom post here, but....
Kamilla said,
'IOW, if something is truly a blessing in your life, I probably won't have to make a point of asking you about it to hear about it.'

"Really? So, Kamilla, my healthy digestion is a blessing in my life, and so is my '89 pickup truck (which keeps running -- no kidding -- mostly by the grace of God) but I don't go burbling about either of them all over blogdom."

Kids sure are a blessing.... As great a blessing as my '89 pickup or my unconstipated bowels.

David Bayly

[Robert Perry]

Does Proverbs 31 really describe a woman with authority over male servants? Look closely; it mentions servant girls, but not servant men--who most likely would have been working with the father & sons in the fields, no?

And in the same way, did not Deborah tell Barak that God's will for him was that he would go alone to attack Sisera--and His penalty for Barak if he demanded that Deborah go also was that a woman would kill Sisera?

We're dealing, again, IMO, with something a bit deeper than a mere set of commands, but rather with the created order. Not that either is trivial, but let's try to appreciate what's really going on here!

[CJ]

Mr. Gray wrote,
">so perhaps instead of focusing on the fact that women and boys were running the country
Depends on the question at hand, doesn't it?"

Sure does.. and to use Isaiah 3:12 as a proof text to show that women teaching or holding authority over men is always wrong is to misuse the verse by wrenching it out of its context in the chapter.

If situations where women hold authority over men were ALWAYS wrong, God wouldn't have raised up Deborah, Priscilla's teaching of Apollos would not have been met with approbation, and the prophecy of Lemuel's mother, as taught by her to her son, would not form be the 31st chapter of Proverbs, and would never have been immortalized in Scripture, ALL of which is "given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" of both men and women.
These may be non-normative cases, but they happened nonetheless, and with God's approval, and God DOES NOT make mistakes. If you dismiss these cases, and say that they don't count, you dismiss the Word and the wisdom of Almighty God.

I'll close this comment with a final bit of scripture, where Jesus upbraids His followers in part for not accepting the "teaching" of a woman. It is pointedly appropriate, I think, that this subject has come up so near the Easter season:

Mar 16:9 ¶ Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Mar 16:10 [And] she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
Mar 16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed her not.
Mar 16:12 ¶ After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
Mar 16:13 And they went and told [it] unto the residue: neither believed they them.
Mar 16:14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

[Tim Bayly]

CJ, you’re the one who calls Isaiah 3:12 a “proof text.” None of us have. Instead, those of us who really believe and honor God’s order of sexuality point to Genesis and all the New Testament texts that explain the meaning of Genesis. Since it’s apparent you’ve missed all those texts, let me place them on record once more.

First, God created Adam and Eve “in His Own Image,” thereby revealing their essential equality.

“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).

Second, God created Eve *after* Adam (order of creation).

“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13).

Third, God created Eve *for* Adam (purpose of creation).

“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’ So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man’” (Genesis 2:18-23).

Fourth, God Created Eve *from* Adam (body of origin).

“For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” (1 Corinthians 11:8).
Fifth, Adam *named* Eve.

“Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.… The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

“The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man’” (Genesis 2:19, 22-23).

Sixth, *in Adam* we all died; *not in Eve*. Nowhere does Scripture lay the blame for the Fall at Eve’s door.

God, walking in the Garden in the cool of the day, inquires of Adam “Where are you?” When Adam responds by explaining that he and Eve found themselves naked and hid, it is notable that God directs His follow-up question again to Adam asking him:

“Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” (Genesis 3:11).

It was Adam, not Eve, who was required to explain the tragic alienation from God they both had suffered, and this despite Eve having been the one deceived, the first one to sin, and the one who enticed her husband to follow her into that sin. God first held Adam responsible for the Fall despite Adam being the second sinner in the Garden—after the woman, Eve.

It is *because of the sin of Adam, not Eve,* that the race of Adam remains under the curse of judgment and death down to this present day.

“Therefore, just as *through one man* sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from *Adam* until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of *Adam*, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14, NAS95).
And again:

“For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as *in Adam* all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

Seventh, *God has named the human race ‘adam,’* and this name reinforces what the whole account of the creation of Adam and Eve reveals-that the first woman was made after and for the first man and that for all time this structure is to be mirrored in the lives of God’s people by their living together under patriarchy, not matriarchy or egalitarian utopianism.

And eighth, when we leave the Genesis account and move into the New Testament epistles, we see that *the Apostle Paul prohibits the exercise of authority over men by women by saying* “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, *for Adam was created first, then Eve”* (1 Timothy 2:12a).

Thus Scripture demonstrates that the principles enumerated for us in these first three chapters of the Bible are timeless boundaries for all mankind. We are dealing here, then, with an order of creation which is universal in it’s application.

The whining of those who say they haven’t been shown biblical arguments yet is wicked. There’s no one so blind as the man who refuses to see.

If we were to ask how the above texts might be rewritten so that they would be more clear in teaching patriarchy or father-rule, and its applicability across races, nations, and time, it’s impossible to conceive of a stronger statement than this:

“I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, for Adam was created first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12a).

But were we to desire to have less clarity and perspicuity in the above texts, there are an almost-infinite number of ways those texts could be rewritten so that evangelical feminists would no longer have to deny them (“Paul was just being rabbinical there”) or lie about them (“this passage only has application to the church, or the church and the home; certainly not anywhere outside the church and home”).

Thankfully, though, the Holy Spirit recorded God’s order of creation as clear as clear could be. And only those with seared consciences, and those vulnerable sheep led astray by them, have ever failed to see it.

Finally, when and where have David or I ever spoken dismissively about Deborah or other women leaders in Scripture? Let me answer for you: Never.

Deborah was a woman; Deborah was a judge; Deborah led in Israel. God set Deborah as a judge over His people to lead them. There, does that do it? God sent Mary Magdalene to the Apostles to tell them about the Resurrection of our Lord. God used Priscilla and Aquila to “explain” things to Apollos. God sent the Woman at the Well into her village to tell everyone there about her Master. There are others. Shall I go on?

No one is dismissive of any of these women or their work. Rather, those of us who honor Scripture do not use these historical facts of the sovereign work of God as weapons to oppose the order of creation God decreed, or the significance of that order God has commanded us to obey. These are all the exceptions that prove the rule.

The man sitting next to me, who certainly knows the Bible better than I ever will know it, just reminded me that there is, in fact, one woman in the New Testament who teaches within the church. Stumped? Remember “the woman Jezebel?”

“But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols” (Revelation 2:20)

[Kamilla]

Good evening Pastor David!

Methinks if I had been more precise and said, "someone" rather than "something", CJ would still have found something with which to disagree.

Now, having been blessed with an exquisite lunch of sea bass and having spent the last several minutes watching a robin flit through the back yard, I am going to turn off the computer, get into my 98' Malibu (a blessing though I still have the occasional minute of mourning for my '88 Camry), and drive over to church services.

A wonderfully blessed Easter to all,

Kamilla

[Light M.]

Tim, how do you envision your worldview of "no woman ever over any man in authority" actually playing out properly in the world today?

[Note from Tim: Of course, this is no quote of me, nor does it even accurately state the Scriptural doctrine of father-rule.

And now, we head into Ms. Morton's "Look at the birdie!" evasive ploy, and as we allow her to direct our attention in another direction, we no longer are thinking about the many, many direct statements of God's Word listed above, every one of which is a divine rebuke of Ms. Light's rebellion. Dear reader, learn to recognize such tactics and to expose them. Otherwise, many will be misled. And I write this having watched and carefully read Ms. Light's scores of posts on this blog, alone.]

Real life situation: my cousin Greg and his wife Sharon own a cattle ranch in Wyoming. In late 2005, Greg passed away, leaving Sharon to raise their three young daughters alone. They had always worked the cattle ranch business together, with several male hired hands. Sharon is still doing that. Is she in sin, because she is in authority over the male ranch hands? And, I think even more to the point, whose authority is she usurping in this situation? Should she sell this land that has been in Greg's family for 150 years so that she does not sin? I am interested in your take on what would be most glorifying to God in this situation.

To adhere to this doctrine, how do you see it playing out in the United States today? Can a woman be a surgeon? A manager? A school principal? Can she, in fact, even own a business if there are male employees?

Sort of a side question. Is it also sin for a man to answer to a woman's authority in the workplace? If it is God's ordained creation order, should not a godly man resign rather than support a perversion of this creation order?

Orthopraxy is the other side of the orthodoxy coin, so these questions are quite relevant.

[Tim Bayly]

Light, when you express some minimal agreement with the biblical doctrine that the order of creation of man and woman has bearing on all of life, and that its bearing is directly connected to the exercise of authority, I'll be happy to begin to address your questions. Not until then.

Also, you claim to be quoting me above, but (of course) you're not.

[CJ]

Tim wrote,
"CJ, you’re the one who calls Isaiah 3:12 a “proof text.” None of us have."

Tim, nobody had to call it a proof text, because MacMillan used it as a proof text right in front of everybody. I was merely referring back to the obvious.
Likewise, I was pointing out the obvious when I cited Deborah, Priscilla, Lemuel's mother, and Mary Magdalene as women who either taught men, stood in authority over men, or both (and I forgot the woman at the well, thanks for mentioning her), and who did so with God's blessing. These are not exceptions that "prove the rule"; rather, these women and their work prove that God has no rule against women in general* holding authority or teaching men in general*.
If God did disapprove on principle of all cases of women teaching men, He would not have approved of the cases I cited, and Jesus would not have upbraided His disciples for not listening to Mary Magdalene.

Now, if you want to ignore these cases, or explain them away as "exceptions that prove the rule" (I'm still not sure what you mean by that), that is, of course, your right. I'm a woman, and so I'm not preaching to you -- all I've doing is provide Scriptural proof that God does not disapprove of every instance of women teaching or holding authority over men. Your argument is not with me, it's with Scripture, and with Him.

*(I am aware of the chapters in Genesis which you cited, and they are useful in showing God's plan for men and women, but what they show us is that a husband is to be in authority over his wife, not that all men are to be in authority over all women. Reread the chapters and verses you've quoted, with this idea in mind, and you will see what I mean.)

Oh, and if I do not post here again this weekend, have a Blessed Easter..... CJ

[Tim Bayly]

CJ, the "proof text" is identified by the Holy Spirit: "For Adam was created first, and then Eve.”

The Holy Spirit Himself identifies Genesis as the proof text in 1Timothy 2 where He instructs us that woman is “not to teach or exercise authority” over man "for Adam was created first, and then Eve." Also because “it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman….”

This is the doctrine of God concerning man and woman—not husband and wife. To limit its application to man only as husband and woman only as wife is perverse. The Holy Spirit is here teaching us the meaning of sex, not the meaning of marriage. Authority in marriage flows from the structure and order of sex as God created it in the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall.

You may hate this order. You may deny it. You may oppose it. You may seek to have it circumscribed and limited. You may teach your children to hate it, too. It simply doesn’t matter. This universal law has more solidity and mass than the Rock of Gibraltar. The unanimous witness of the church across the ages upholds this as the plain meaning of these texts.

May God give you grace to obey this truth so that you may come to understand and love it.

[Charley]

Dear Baylys,

As much as I find Light's continual chafing against the clear teaching of Scripture to be heretical, I find myself having to ask a similar question.

Please note that I am as doctrinally complimentarian as one can get....

But how does someone like me actually apply these clear teachings of Scripture to a world that denies them at every turn?

For instance, I was in the military and had many women who ranked higher than I in my chain of command. This is a decision of the U.S. government...but how should I have dealt with it? More currently I am an airline pilot (a first officer). What do I do when I am assigned a trip that has a woman as a captain? As a captain, she has the authority in the cockpit.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful consideration and for your uncompromising stance in this area against a culture that hates you for it.

Blessings,

Charley
http://www.homedisciplingdad.blogspot.com
http://www.riseupandgetserious.blogspot.com

[Archie]

CJ,

The point is that the arguing that you are using could also be used to justify murder. After all, God commanded it several times in Scripture. See Deut. 20:16ff for one example. There are many others, just like there are examples of women who were placed in leadership by God. However, God telling the Isrealites to kill all men, women, and children does not mean that murder is now acceptable. If I tell my son that he can go get a piece of candy that does not mean that he can go get one in the future every time that he wants one. The exception does not negate the rule.

[Karen]

Interesting comments from Peter Leithart's blog:

Silencing women
[Bible - NT | Link | Print]
Rosenstock-Huessy notes that the ancient world observed a division of labor with regard to speech: "Women are expected to contribute wild, passionate, inarticulate shouts of blind feeling. Men are expected to build on this natural stratum the structure of high and articulate speech. . . . Women and children yell, weep, shake; men act and speak."

Against this background, Paul's instructions for women to be silent have a different impact than is often thought:

"When Paul asked that women be silent in church he said it at a time and within a world in which the women - Jewish and Gentile alike - were expected to utter terrible wails and yells, to be Sibyls and Bacchants, to utter passionate cries at any funeral. The modern detractors of Paul usually have not the faintest idea what they attack. Paul made formal speech accessible to women by freeing them from the burden of pre-Christian ritual in which they strewed ashes on their heads, punctured their breasts and uttered long-drawn cries for days [think of contemporary Islamic funerals]. Paul was faced with passionate people who stammered and had fits under the new dispensation of freedom, who had been obsessed by spirits and by demons of their clan or family."

Thus, Paul's instructions "laid the foundations of a new truth that women may from now on participate in the word as well as men." And Paul's instructions were heeded: "We no longer fear that we should hear hysterial cries in church. Women behave as respectably in religious gatherings as though they were men." The silence of women was a roadbloack against relapse into hysteria, and particularly the re-confinement of women to the "irrational" sphere of yells and wails. "Women keep silence," paradoxically, frees women to speak.

posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 05:17 PM

[Stephen Baker]

Karen,

Leithart's post illustrates the silliness that occurs when we miss the forest for the trees.

Notice the passage in question:

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” 1 Timothy 2:11-14

Leithart focuses in on the one phrase, "remain quiet." He says that, if we only understood as much as he does about ancient cultures, it would be clear to us that Paul isn't actually saying that women shouldn't speak. In fact, Leithart enlightens us, it is the exact opposite! Paul is really saying that women SHOULD speak in church! Why didn't we understand this sooner?

Of course, it really is silly to say such a thing. Again, Mr. Leithart misses the forest for the trees. By zeroing in on one phrase, he misses the clear point: "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." The "remain quiet" is defined by the "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man."

Now, maybe Mr. Leithart isn't trying to say that women should teach in church. Is that what you think Mr. Leithart is saying, Karen? I can't image why else you would post it. If you think that is what he is saying (which I strongly suspect he isn't), then you can plainly see from the context of the actual passage that it cannot possibly mean that.

[Stephen Baker]

Actually, in reading Leithart's comments again, it seems clear that he actually IS saying that women should be allowed to speak in church. He says, "Paul made formal speech accessible to women."

Am I understanding him correctly?

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Joan:
I am sure you read that I clearly said that women ruling is not the norm? So, you must be arguing with someone else then?>>>>

No, Joan, I am arguing with you.

You might want to ask Kamilla what she is, even so.

You might ask her why she said what she did and why she came to that conclusion. Did you ask HER for clarification? I still do not see you addressing her directly. Why is that?

Joan:
And, Deborah doesn't count, at least that is what I am told, so I won't even bother with Deborah.>>>>

The fact that Deborah was an exception to the rule is not the same as saying that she doesn't count. What she does not do is provide a loophole for women who wish to abandon their God-assigned role of keeper at home. The exception does not negate the rule. What is the rule?

cj:
If situations where women hold authority over men were ALWAYS wrong, God wouldn't have raised up Deborah, Priscilla's teaching of Apollos would not have been met with approbation, and the prophecy of Lemuel's mother, as taught by her to her son, would not form be the 31st chapter of Proverbs, and would never have been immortalized in Scripture, ALL of which is "given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" of both men and women. >>>

No one says that Deborah does not count. No one says that a woman in authority should not be obeyed. What is said is that Deborah was an exception, not the norm, and that her example should not be used to try to force women out of the keeper at home role and into the workforce. Neither can she be used to justify women's ordination to the pastorate or women as elders.

cj, do a simple exercise. Find all the female rulers in all of the Bible, both OT and NT. Then make a complete list of all the male rulers of all types in both OT and NT.

Compare the length of the lists. What rule do you see developing? What is the nature of the very few exceptions? At the least, they are very few, and they are exceptions.

...unless you are a stereotypical female and can't do the math.

Then, which system - feminism or patriarchy - will project more of its values into the future? Which will leave a legacy?

As Mark Driscoll said, patriarchy always makes a comeback. Now, why would he say that?

God bless,
Donna L. Carlaw

[Karen]

Stephen,

I posted the comments from Peter Leithart because I thought they were interesting and thought provoking.

[Joan]

Kamilla,

What are you? Not that it matters to me but for some reason Donna wants to know. I am not sure what you are has to do with what you wrote. I have much experience in the secular world and I can guarantee you that I hear women talking about their children as blessings all the time. Maybe she thinks that your former egalitarian state has some bearing on your statement?

And could you clarify how you came to the conclusion that evangelical feminists (aka egalitarians) do not speak about their children being blessings? It sounded like you said that you never hear evangelical feminists speaking of their children as being blessings.

Here is what you DID say:

"I don't think I have ever once heard an evangelical feminist say what blessings their children were. I don't know why such a realization should be so shocking, but it was."

I find this very hard to believe. You "ever" once heard an evangelical feminist talk about their children as blessings?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you and you really meant that you have heard egals speaking of their children as blessings? Your denial of what you actually said was confusing.

Donna,

What are you arguing with me about? You confuse me. It seems like your post rambled on about things that I really don't have a disagreement about. So, what did you want to argue with me about?

It would really help if you would go back and truly read what I wrote. That way I won't have to argue with you about things I already agree with you about.

And, could you take a stab at some of the questions I asked? How about the one about the broadbrush statement you made that egals are only happy when they are ruling over men and they think that serving women and children is beneath them?

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Joan:
You confuse me. >>>>

I agree with you that you are confused, but please don't try to blame me for it.

[Joan]

Donna,

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that your last answer is just about all I can expect as far as reasonable conversation with you. At least I don't have to waste my time.

I am sure that you don't have problems confusing anyone else with your posts. I am sure that I am the only one. Right?

[Tim Bayly]

Charley wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>
As much as I find Light's continual chafing against the clear teaching of Scripture to be heretical, I find myself having to ask a similar question.

Please note that I am as doctrinally complimentarian as one can get....

But how does someone like me actually apply these clear teachings of Scripture to a world that denies them at every turn?

For instance, I was in the military and had many women who ranked higher than I in my chain of command. This is a decision of the U.S. government...but how should I have dealt with it? More currently I am an airline pilot (a first officer). What do I do when I am assigned a trip that has a woman as a captain? As a captain, she has the authority in the cockpit.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful consideration and for your uncompromising stance in this area against a culture that hates you for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear Charley,

Thanks for your excellent question. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Ms. Morton’s question. Rather, everything hinges on the person who asks it and the reason it’s asked.

As I’ve said more than once in what’s written here, the working out of sex relations outside of the church and home is a very difficult thing, largely because of the degree to which our culture defies God’s order in almost everything it does. And this not simply in the matter of authority, but also purity. So, for instance, one of the principal reasons Christians will oppose women in combat is the destruction of modesty and purity it causes. It’s not simply the violation of the very nature of manhood and womanhood it represents that causes concern among believers in the military. We oppose women having their hands on the trigger of the ICBM down in the silos of North Dakota, but also their being cooped up in those silos for days on end, alone with a man who is not their husband.

So when it comes to the matter of the relationship of man and woman outside of the Christian home and church, there are a whole host of issues beyond authority and submission. There is the question of the proper interface between the Christian and the secular world. There are matters related to chastity and purity. (In this connection it’s interesting to note that Calvin opposes women soldiers under the Seventh Commandment.)

Anyhow, without writing at length, I’d simply respond that you’re asking the right questions and the very fact of asking them, if asked out of a good conscience seeking to honor God’s Word, is a victory for the believer living in our perverse and evil generation. And I’d add that in both cases you cited, as I’d see it, the principle of submission to authority takes precedence over the principle of the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

But really, all exercise of authority in this present world is a very corrupt enterprise, if we look at it in the light of Scripture. Every pastor and elder and husband and father and mother who is a believer is a jar of clay. And outside of the Christian home and Church, every governor and president and general and captain and policeman and judge and principal and professor and crossing guard is a jar of clay. In other words, even Christian authorities will, through their very real sins and failures, present their subordinates with a whole host of excuses for stiff necks and rebellion, if that’s the inclination of a man or woman’s heart. And unbelievers in authority even more so.

This is why we must recognize that defective and sinful authority of any category—whether judges accepting bribes or mothers being petulant and guilt-tripping their children or pastors being cowardly and not guarding the good deposit or airline captains being woman—is still put over us by God and we are called to submit to them. Yes, there are occasions when we are not to submit to them (“we must obey God rather than man” occasions), but in my opinion, a woman officer in the military or cockpit of an airplane is not one of those occasions.

I may be wrong, here, in my application of the doctrines of sexuality, authority, and submission. I welcome disagreement from our readers.

Yet, only disagreement that’s in evident submission to the underlying biblical principles.

There can be no proper discussion of those issues that doesn’t start with the acknowledgment that God made man and woman with a certain order that involves authority and submission, and that this order applies to all of life. Any discussion that is productive, biblically, will require agreement that woman exercising authority over man is contrary to God’s creation (pre-Fall) order—and that His order is not applicable only within the safe environs of the Christian home and Church. Rather, it’s applicable verywhere man is man and woman is woman.

Joyfully embrace this gift from God and then live it out according to one’s own conscience after seeking wise counsel from our wives and children and pastors and elders and fathers and mothers and other first officers of airlines who are Christians.

Thanks for asking the question, brother. Anyone reading who has wise counsel on this, we’d all love to hear your wisdom.

But only if you agree with the biblical doctrine of father-rule. Those who reject that principal have nothing to say on this subject. The foundation of their convictions is quicksand.

[Kamilla]

Hello Joan,

Previously you said, "I already know that Kamilla used to be an egal but got burned by them and now is no longer considering herself an egal. I read her posts on the CCC list so I know pretty much."

If you have read my posts over at the CCC-Forum, as you say, you already know what I am. If it matters nothing to you, why ask simply because Donna suggested it?

I never denied what I said ("Your denial of what you actually said was confusing"). If you can't understand the difference between a faulty recollection (I have never claimed my retention and recollection were anything but!) and an absolute claim, I don't think I can help clear up that difference for you.

Finally, where I quote you at the beginning of this post you seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. Whatever I consider myself to be, it has nothing to do with getting "burned" by anyone. I may be a bit of an idiot about some things, but I am not such an emotional cripple as to believe the truth is determined by my feelings or how I think people have treated me.

Kamilla

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Joan:
I am sure that you don't have problems confusing anyone else with your posts. I am sure that I am the only one. Right?>>>>

Joan, why get so personal? What you are confused about is Deborah's place in Scripture. Just because you have not "seen" explanations about her place and purpose does not mean that they have not been given.

Your confusion is your own, not mine. Why don't you own it as such?

I think that what I say here is crystal clear, but your thinking has been muddied by false teachings about Deborah.

Again, what is the rule to which Deborah is an exception?

Joan:
And, Deborah doesn't count, at least that is what I am told, so I won't even bother with Deborah.>>>>

The fact that Deborah was an exception to the rule is not the same as saying that she doesn't count. What she does not do is provide a loophole for women who wish to abandon their God-assigned role of keeper at home. The exception does not negate the rule. What is the rule?

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Light:
To adhere to this doctrine, how do you see it playing out in the United States today? Can a woman be a surgeon? A manager? A school principal? Can she, in fact, even own a business if there are male employees? >>>>

The question is not what CAN a woman do. The question is what SHOULD women be doing.

How about this from the whacky world of female rule? What do you think of that Nancy Pelosi over there in the Middle East? Did you like her headscarf?

We have waited 200 years for this?

What SHOULD that woman be doing? ...oh, ye who like bizarre examples...

[Karen]

Did I dream it or was there as lengthy response to the Leithert quote by one of the Pastors Bayly? If there was, where did it go? I am a little confused by this new blog to start with and sometimes when I log in, the colors do funny things. Help...

[Joan]

Donna,

Here is what the Bible tells women about what they should do:

1 Cor. 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;

Paul tells them to remain single so they can serve the Lord unhindered.

1 Cor 7:32 "But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. 34 There is[a] a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction. "

Paul tells women that he wants them to be free (to remain single and not get married) from the care of wanting to please a husband so that they may serve the Lord WITHOUT DISTRACTION.

1 Cor. 7:39 "A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God."

The Bible tells women they are happier if they remain single.

What should women be doing? It seems that it is better for them to remain single so they can serve the Lord without distraction and that they are happier if they do so.

I guess it isn't always as cut and dried as we would like it to be. I will admit, it would be easier if there was just one thing that women should be doing but it seems that the bible allows for a woman to make some choices about her life and the direction the Lord shows her to take. It looks like the role of wife and mother isn't the only role open to women.

[Joan]

Donna:
"Again, what is the rule to which Deborah is an
exception?"

Joan:
The rule, as stated by Tim…

[Note from Tim: No, Joan, you haven't gotten it right. Here is what I actually wrote: "…God made man and woman with a certain order that involves authority and submission, and …this order applies to all of life"--not just the home and the Church. This is a statement that's quite different than the position you attribute to me--that "all men are over all women at all times." If I believed what you've written, I would never have encouraged men to submit to a female pilot or police officer.]

…is God's divine order is all men are over all women at all times, no exceptions, and the exceptions that happen mean God is judging people for violating this rule.

And I just don't see that kind of "rule" and "exception proving that rule" when I read the story of Deborah.

Btw, Donna, are you talking to yourself, or were you
suggesting I was using Deborah as a "loophole" so that
mothers and wives would abandong their homes? That
wasn't the thrust of my question, I don't think that
is right, I didn't suggest it, nor did I insinuate it.

I just disagree with belief that male authority
always and everywhere applies outside of the church
and home, and the arguments I've heard thus far have
not persuaded me to believe this.

Donna:

"I think that what I say here is crystal clear, but your thinking has been muddied by false teachings about Deborah."

Joan:

What exactly is it that I said about Deborah? What are these false teachings that you think I have bought in to? I think you might have me confused with someone else. I purposely didn't use the scriptures on Deborah because, on this very blog, it was said by someone that she doesn't count and no one corrected this person. I can be dense but when someone makes such a statement and it is met with no resistence, I realize I would be barking up the wrong tree to go there.

"The fact that Deborah was an exception to the rule is not the same as saying that she doesn't count. What she does not do is provide a loophole for women who wish to abandon their God-assigned role of keeper at home. The exception does not negate the rule. What is the rule?"

I don't know. What is the rule? I never claimed that the exception negates the rule. In fact, I do not think the exception negates the rule. I don't think God ever violates His standards. So, I don't believe in exceptions. I believe that there must be something we are missing.

I don't think I am the one that is confused and it is evidenced in your questions and assertions. I asked a very straightforward question. I asked where the bible teaches that women are never to have authority over a man. I asked about the example of a woman having authority over a male servant. [crickets] To whit, not one person has answered me about that example. Can a woman have authority over a male servant? Or does that male servant, because he is a male, have authority over his mistress? Since, anytime you have a male and a female, you have a man who has authority and a female who is submissive to his authority.

I was given Is. 3:12 to "prove" that women should not rule in the secular sphere. That verse, unfortunately, does not prove that nor does it teach that. It would be helpful not to rip verses out of their context and make it teach something it is not teaching.

I even said, Donna (were you listening?), that male leadership is the norm. I also stated that I believe that 1 Tim is speaking about the church and that pastors/elders are positions that are only open to males. I am a firm believer that if a woman is a mother, then that is her primary calling and she should move hell and high-water so she is able to be their full-time care-giver. I do not advocate mothers, especially of young children, "having it all". Apparently when I agree with you, it doesn't count. :-)

But, when there are seasons in a woman's life where she is freed up from childcare responsibilities then there is nothing that prevents her from pursuing a career, as long as it does not cause problems in the home and in her relationship with her husband.

I do not think there is a problem for a woman to have authority over a man when it comes to things outside of the church. I don't have a problem with female captains and male co-pilots. I don't have a problem with female police officers. In fact, I think they are needed, especially for female rape victims and victims of violent crimes. I don't think it is a problem for a woman to write out a parking ticket and give it to a man. I don't think it is a problem for a woman to run a ranch alone (her husband has died) and be in charge of male ranch workers. I don't know why it should be a problem for us as believers. I mean, how much authority does a pilot have over their co-pilot? "Lower altitude to 15,000 ft. Turn north. " This is not earth-shaking stuff. This is NOT the authority that the Bible is referring to.

Honestly, I, as a woman, am not under the authority of every man and if a man doesn't like working for a woman, he can always just up and quit. When I worked, I had no problems with bosses and their authority. And if I had ever been asked to do something that I felt was wrong, it would be a no-brainer. In fact, all of my bosses *asked* me to do things. I don't think I was ever commanded to do anything.

Really, how much "authority" does a boss have over an employee? Not much. We are free to walk away at any time. So, employment relationships are really a non-issue, imho.

Do you agree that all men have authority over all women? Do you believe that a woman may never have authority over a man outside of the church? Just look at some of the examples. Do you really believe that the Bible teaches that a male servant is over their female mistress?

Acts 16:13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us."

The members of LYDIA'S household were baptised and the she invited them to HER home. She invited them to come and stay at HER house. She even PERSUADED them.

Now, am I to believe that these household members didn't include male servants who were under Lydia's direct authority?

[Joan]

Hi Kamilla,

Thank you for taking time to answer my questions. I asked because Donna kept on telling me to ask you. I really don't know why she wanted me to ask you since I pretty much knew your story from the CCC list. I thought it might help her to submit to her request so we can move on to the real issues at hand.

I know you are not an idiot. I have read many of your posts and you seem like a very intelligent, reasonable and capable person.

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Thank you, Joan, for your responses. I think that I will leave it there and let you have the last word - well, except for this little note.

Have a blessed Easter along with your loved ones.

God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw