Is patriarchy a private revelation for Christians only?

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. (Isaiah 3:12)

(Tim, from 2004) Over the years I've heard many Christians confidently declare that, though Scripture is clear on the role of women in the Church and home, it's silent concerning their role in secular society. But those making such statements mean by "silent" only that there's no silver bullet text forbidding a woman to serve as a queen, president, CEO, general, or judge.

Many doctrines central to our Faith are not laid out in Scripture explicitly, but implicitly, and both methods are a legitimate path for God's Truth to come to us. There are times when God is pleased to reveal His Truth with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer: "And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger" (Luke 2:12).

Other times it pleases God to speak in parables. In fact, on more than one occasion the People of God were rebuked for approaching God's Word with a wooden literalism when the truth being communicated was meant to be understood on a different level. Consider this exchange...

between Jesus and His disciples:

And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."  

They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, "He said that because we did not bring any bread."

But Jesus, aware of this, said, "You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 16:5-12)

Yes, as Protestants we hold to the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, and therefore oppose the notion that a believer must have a college or graduate degree in order to understand God's Word. Rather we confess that:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession of Faith I:7)

Yet again, this is not to say that the meaning of Scripture must always be what occurs to us at first blush (or most immediately). Many of the doctrines of our Faith are inferences and deductions from the study of God's Word; they're the product of coming to understand types and anti-types, of "getting" the point of the story. In fact, it may even be said that much of Scripture is intentionally hidden so that some people won't "get it." How else are we to understand the answer Jesus gave to this question posed by His disciples:

And the disciples came and said to (Jesus), "Why do You speak to them in parables?"  

Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." (Matthew 13:10-13)

For these reasons, I've never put much stock in those who say the Bible is silent concerning the proper roles of men and women outside the Church and home. The Apostle Paul was not limiting the application of the order of creation of man and woman to the Church when he wrote, "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" (1Timothy 2:12,13).

Rather, he was applying the universal order of the sexes that God established for all His creation in the Garden prior to the Fall to the particular needs of the church of Ephesus in his own time. And those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will understand the application of those same Creation truths to their time and place, whether it is the year AD 62 or AD 2004, whether the place is Ephesus or Bloomington, whether the society is ecclesiastical or domestic or civil.

Granted, it is generally true that Christians are not in a position to enforce God's order of creation of the sexes in the corporate or legislative or military or judicial worlds as they are in the church and home, but to jump from this admitted difficulty in living out God's Truth to denying that truth's application in those spheres shows a lack of faith--not a sensitivity to the limits of Biblical truth and application.

The sincere student of Scripture will see that proper inferences and deductions from God's Word hold as much of the Holy Spirit's authority over our lives as Scripture's explicit commands. Again, as the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. (Westminster Confession of Faith I:6)

So let's not be sloppy in our application of Scripture, carefully adhering to those commands "expressly set down" while eagerly claiming freedom in other places which are only deduced through "good and necessary consequence." It is the second category of revelation that is more likely to show whether our obedience is aimed at pleasing men or God.

And while I recognize that over the centuries the People of God have been placed under many rules that were a direct violation of the freedom of conscience that the Holy Spirit gives to us in all matters where Scripture is silent, the relationship of the sexes is not one of those areas. Scripture is clear in revealing that from the beginning God created woman for man, from man, after man, that man named woman, and that through man (not woman) death came into the world.

When we walk out the front door of a Christian home or church, then, we do not cease being sexual creatures--specifically men and women. Nor does our sexuality cease to have the meaning God gave it in the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall. We may hate that meaning; we may deny that meaning any application in our lives and the lives of our family and church; but we may not claim that Scripture is silent concerning the meaning and purpose of sexuality outside the church and home.

To do so would be to deny truths deduced by "good and necessary consequence" from God's Holy Word.

Comments

[Ethan]

I thought the OPC report regarding women in combat made an excellent case for this line of thinking.

http://www.opc.org/GA/WomenInMilitary.html

Apparently there was quite a bit of debate regarding this particular report, many did not agree such implications could be made.

[Ross]

I'll raise here the question I raised on the other thread, if in a slightly different form. (What I said there, was that it didn't seem to me that Paul was addressing the situation of the civil powers in 1 Ti 2, not directly anyway).

Given what Romans 13 says about submission to the civil authorities, what might we do about it if Hillary does get elected in November? (perhaps a bigger if than 48 hours ago)

[Tim Bayly]

We would submit to her authority because her authority is established by God, just as her husband's was also established by God: "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Romans 13:1).

Further, when we stop to consider that Senator Clinton is committed to the protection of murderers of unborn children, to rebel against her authority because she's a woman ruling man seems to strain at a donkey while swallowing an elephant.

If we've spent thirty-five years submitting to civil authorities who advocate the murder of unborn children, why would we start rebelling now?

[Kevin Donald H.]

Scripture says: "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man."

Tim Bayly says: "We would submit to her authority because her authority is established by God."

Tim, your statement contradicts the plain teaching of scripture. Either your exegesis of this verse is wrong, or you are rebelling against God.

[David Gray]

>Tim, your statement contradicts the plain teaching of scripture.

I'm assuming you are bright enough to recognize the spurious nature of your argument and are throwing it up out of pique. You should reconsider.

[Ross]

Um, I only raised this question because I am intrigued as to how the teaching about complementarian roles might extend into the civil domain; not to use this as a chance to start off a 'spurious argument' with the moderator or indeed anyone else.

I am well aware that one might preach against women in civil leadership, but I suspect that that is about all you could do. Disagreement with this view welcome.

[Keith LaMothe]

Tim,

Thank you for continuing to challenge us (or at least me).

So, taking my professional situation as an example:

- I work at a fairly large public university.
- There are a number of layers of authority over me, some of those positions are held by women
- Two particularly important positions are held by women I've personally met and admire. Compared to what others might do in their place, they make the difference between my job feeling like "wow, we might actually get something worthwhile done as an institution" (which it does) and "my department's just a couple squaddies in the trenches while the whole army's wandering around confused" (which it used to).

As far as I understand your doctrine of sexuality (i.e. patriarchy or "father rule"), I agree completely. In the post above you sink the "Biblical gender roles don't apply outside the church" idea like a meteor hitting a canoe. So I ask these questions in a non-rhetorical, tell-me-what-you-really-think fashion:

- Am I sin for being under female authority? Make no mistake: if one of those ladies tells my department what to do, we do it, and not just because we like them.

- Assuming I can keep my job, in what ways should I act differently towards my female superiors than my male superiors?

- If I was ever in a position of hiring a position that would have supervisory responsibility, would it be sin to hire a woman? (on a related note, if I did in fact prefer hiring males over females in that situation in my present institution, I would be fired ipso pronto, but that's beside the point of the moral question)

Thanks,
Keith

[Tim Bayly]

Dear Keith,

Somehow, I missed this earlier today. Please bear with me until tomorrow, when I'll try to respond, OK?

Thanks for your understanding,

[Tim Bayly]

>Am I in sin for being under female authority?

No, I don’t think so. Your submission to your employer (the university) is what has placed you in submission to a particular woman. So, honoring the authority you work under seems to me to take precedence over the particularities of the local human manifestation of that authority (such as that person being a woman).

God commands us to submit to authority. This woman has been given authority over you. This is contrary to God’s created order. But it neither gives you license, nor does it require you to defy that authority. You may choose to remove yourself from that situation by resigning your job, but how many jobs are there in this evil world that don’t involve a similar weighty conflict of conscience?

But this is a matter for the individual conscience before God. There may be reasons why one man can’t live in a situation that another man can.

>Assuming I can keep my job, in what ways should I act differently towards my female superiors than my male superiors?

My dear wife, Mary Lee, and my mother, Mary Lou, and I are sitting here laughing and laughing. I asked them how they thought I should respond to this second question and Mary Lee said...

My mother’s still giggling.

Hope that helps with your question, dear brother.

But seriously, Christian men and women are not to hide our lamps under a bushel, but to be salt and light, to witness to God’s truth and beauty. And there are few places more vulnerable and open to that truth today than sexuality. As I often say when I speak on this subject, “What truth would be more evangelistic to Chelsea Clinton than the Fatherhood of God?”

Again, the particularities are up to you as you’re led by the Holy Spirit. But one thing for sure: Every one of us is privileged to live, not as “gendered beings,” but as “sexed beings.” God gave it to us and we are to live it out in a way that testifies to God’s intent in giving it to us. Biology is destiny after all, and a wonderful one at that.

We should start by opening and holding doors, standing when a woman walks into a room, or whatever else seems to us to be an appropriate expression of giving special honor to the weaker sex—without, of course, ever using such actions to shove into an unbeliever’s face that we consider woman the weaker sex. So our witness is out of love, not cantankerousness, or worse, censoriousness.

>If I was ever in a position of hiring a position that would have supervisory responsibility, would it be sin to hire a woman?

Well, if by "supervisory responsibility" you mean that the position would involve a woman exercising significant authority over men, then all things being equal, a Christian shouldn't take that step. That seems obvious. But of course, all other things are never equal, are they? So, for instance, we may one day soon face the choice of voting either for a pro-abortion man or an anti-abortion woman for president. Speaking only for myself, I’d choose the anti-abortion woman. Your mileage may differ, though, and God bless you.

[Fr. Bill]

Keith,

I am asked your questions often. I concur in everything Pr. Tim says above. To it I would add this:

Because the modern workplace is filled with sex-related conflicts of conscience for the orthodox Christian, it behoves him to anticipate (so far as possible) the "fallout" and to ameliorate it if he can. It's hard to give rules for this, as the particulars are apt to vary wildly from place to place.

The best examples I can give are from a woman's perspective, provided by the evaluations of a female family member who is an attorney. Early on she chose to avoid certain professional areas of law, because they were peculiarly appropriate for masculine temperaments. In other words, for women to work in these areas would result in masculinizing the women.

So, she avoided criminal prosecution. She avoided litigation entirely. She avoided the cynically named "family law." Her entire legal career involves what she calls "governmental law" -- the legal aspects of state and municipal regulatory agencies. She's soon to retire, and her current work is to research and write judicial opinions for the judges of a state appellate court. Before that, she managed the admissions division of the same court, evaluating all appeals to that court for legal soundness, correctness of form, compliance with court-established criteria, and so forth.

Pr. Tim rightly says that sex-related issues and situations are ripe with evangelistic opportunity. They are also ripe with occasions for a Christian to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, conferring on him at the end a sagacity born of conflict.

[Keith LaMothe]

Tim,

Thanks for the response (and thanks to Bill too). I'm glad to provide y'all with some laughter, it is a gift of God.

As far as submission and giving special honor (as appropriate), that is more or less what I'm doing, though I should keep the evangelistic aspect more at the front of my mind.

This university is a nice place to work, and overall pretty good to us. Despite the various complications, I may serve the people here in good conscience. Should that change, I'll take my leave, but that's an obvious consequence of having to hold our relationships with the world in an open hand.

Blessings,
Keith

[Eric]

If God has said it with the subtly of a parable, then on the basis of what authority do you drive it home with a sledgehammer? You are taking what is perhaps implied and making it explicit -- attaching a "Thus sayeth the Lord" to your own particular interpretation, not of Scripture, but of the "created order."

[Tim Bayly]

Actually, it's the Apostle Paul who uses the sledgehammer. And if I recognize it, don't punish me unless you're willing also to punish Calvin, Luther, Knox, and a whole host of other church fathers spread across two thousand years.

[Ross]

As a point of clarification, did Luther and Calvin ever address the concept of women in civil leadership? A quick look through Google doesn't turn up anything.

[Tim Bayly]

Chrysostom: Woman was not made for this, O man, to be prostituted as common. O ye subverters of all decency, who use men, as if they were women, and lead out women to war, as if they were men! This is the work of the devil, to subvert and confound all things, to overleap the boundaries that have been appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God has set to nature. For God assigned to woman the care of the house only, to man the conduct of public affairs. But you reduce the head to the feet, and raise the feet to the head. You suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed. (Homily on Titus 2:14).

Martin Luther: Although it [the female sex] has not been destined by God for government of the state or church, where the greatest strength of character and wisdom is required, they [women] have nevertheless been ordained for the care of the home. For the longer they deliberate about important and difficult matters, the more they complicate and obstruct the business. But the first impulse of their nature in sudden dangers is usually excellent and very successful. (“Lectures on Genesis,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 6 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970], pp. 59-60)

Calvin: About the government of women I expressed myself thus: Since it is utterly at variance with the legitimate order of nature, it ought to be counted among the judgments with which God visits us… (John Calvin in a letter to Bullinger dated April 28, 1554.)

Calvin's quote would be the universal belief across church history, evidenced not only by quotes like his, but even more by the absence of a record of debate until recently. Similarly, abortion was universally condemned but there aren't many traces of its condemnation in the written documents of the church. And this is not because abortion is a modern phenomena.

Only in the last thirty years or so have pastors started saying that the texts of Scripture dealing with sexuality and authority are limited in their application to the church and home, and that the Bible is silent or ambiguous about women exercising authority over man in other contexts.

Everyone knew what the Apostle Paul was saying when he wrote "Adam was created first, and then Eve." It wasn't a live issue.

[Brady]

>Well, if by "supervisory responsibility" you mean that the position would involve a woman exercising significant authority over men, then all things being equal, a Christian shouldn't take that step. That seems obvious.

I don't think it is as obvious to many Christians as you think. Just because something is obvious to you does not make it obvious to all Christians. It doesn't even make it true.

[Keith LaMothe]

Brady,

Well, it was obvious to me, I was actually expecting Tim to answer that one more firmly than he did.

To submit to a lawful authority that is defying nature (in a non-apocalyptic-evil sort of way) is one thing for a Christian to do, to establish such a defiance is another.

Blessings,
Keith

[Kevin Donald H.]

>Well, if by "supervisory responsibility" you mean that the position would involve a woman exercising significant authority over men, then all things being equal, a Christian shouldn't take that step. That seems obvious.

>>I don't think it is as obvious to many Christians as you think. Just because something is obvious to you does not make it obvious to all Christians. It doesn't even make it true.

I am with Brady on this one. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would effectively end property and business ownership for women, since property management and business activity require authority over others, including men. If that were the case, we get into a hairy mess of inheritance rights - when a business-owning husband dies, is it permissable for his wife to step in and run the business? When dad dies, can his daughters inherit and run the ranch and still be in God's will?

Tim, do you think it is against God's created order for a woman to own a business and run it? Or own property, such as a farm, and manage it with men performing the labor under her direction? How do real life situations like this play out for you - do you see them as acceptable or unacceptable in light of your view of the role of authority between the sexes.

[Fr. Bill]

This is an interesting discussion, except for this: Pr. Tim's critics (among them a slanderous detractor, if you follow links to his blog) keep asking -- "But what about this?" or "but, what about that?"

Such questions lead to light when they seek light. But, here they seem to seek smoke with which to obscure the Bible's blatant, in-your-face patriarchy, a patriarchy which manifestly tosses the world's egalitarianism to the ground and dances on it.

Kevin's questions, for example (just because they're the most recent as I type this), are answered expressly in the OT, by pattern and precedent. I'm assuming Kevin (and others; I'm not trying to pick on Kevin here) have not read the relevant passages, else they would not have raised the issues they raise. There is a passage in the Law (hint, hint) that expressly addresses what happens when Dad dies and leaves only daughters to run the ranch. Can you think of it? There's a passage that lauds a woman for buying and selling real estate. Can you think of it?

There are passages (including Judges 4-5) that directly address the righteousness and wisdom of a woman ruling. Pr. Tim has already mentioned them.

The social/civil criterion at issue here is not hidden under a bushel basket in either Testament.

On another note, I have been party (as a consultant) to the councils of congregations (vestries, elder boards, etc.), where the issue of women in teaching or ruling authority over men in the church was at issue. In every case, I heard egalitarian proponents advance this argument: "Men serve under the authority of women in the workplace all the time and no one gets bent out of shape. What's the big deal in the church?"

I ask the same question of Kevin, or Eric. If women can serve in executive capacities over men in the world, why should they not do so in the church? But, if it is anything from foolish to wicked for them to do so in the Church, why should it be wholesome for them to do so in the world?

[Tim Bayly]

>I'm glad to provide y'all with some laughter, it is a gift of God.

Yes, it is. Just wishing I could reproduce my wife's quip without causing scandal. It was funny, funny, funny.

[Tim Bayly]

>>I don't think it is as obvious to many Christians as you think. Just because something is obvious to you does not make it obvious to all Christians. It doesn't even make it true.

Responding kindly, in kind: "I'm absolutely shocked, greatly disappointed. This will mean reordering my entire life. Please don't tell my wife and children, my congregation, or the elders and pastors I work with. Things might never be the same."

[Stephen Baker]

This all reminds me a quote from Kierkegaard:

“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. ‘My God,’ you will say, ‘if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world?' Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”

[Brady]

>Responding kindly, in kind: "I'm absolutely shocked, greatly disappointed. This will mean reordering my entire life. Please don't tell my wife and children, my congregation, or the elders and pastors I work with. Things might never be the same."

Following your line of reasoning about a man not being in a position where he would have to hire a woman into a place of authority:

No man could ever be in upper management in the USA (if he does, it is illegal for him to discriminate in his hiring decisions based on sex, and that would violate the law of the land). In fact, I am not sure, but I would guess that even the President is not allowed to make sex-based choices in whom he appoints to important positions. This would mean that a Christian could not be the President of the United States without violating your interpretation of the natural order.

Apparently, as Christians, we should stick to middle-management or less, or else work somewhere with no hierarchy.

Or else we must violate the law of the land by making discriminatory choices, which I know you also believe is bad according to the scripture.

[David Curell]

>This would mean that a Christian could not be the President of the United States without violating your interpretation of the natural order.

Brady,
Tim has made his point from scripture. He has proven that his "interpretation" represents the historical position. You have offered no valid argument against his position (unless you were to maintain that the 'Its difficult to obey these commands in our culture so it must be the wrong interpretation' position is an argument)
Has God exercised His "No" only over areas approved by the culture?
Has He exercised His "No" only over areas approved by 'missional' churches and Tyndale Publishing (publishers of NLT gender neutral (bible?))?
God does not require us to approve of (or even to understand) His commands, He simply expects faithful obedience.
Your words expose your infidelity (unbelief).

[Brady]

>Your words expose your infidelity (unbelief).

Thanks, I needed the dictionary on that one.

Let Tim defend his owns beliefs.

[Stephen Baker]

Brady,

As fellow pastors in Tim's church, Dave Curell and I happen to share Tim's beliefs.

[Kevin Donald H.]

So according to Tim Bayly, because of "God's created order of the sexes," godly women cannot own businesses where men work, so that men will not be under their authority. Godly women cannot own properties such as farms where men work. Godly men must choose between discrimination against hiring women for certain positions (and thus breaking the law) or not taking job positions where this would be required.

Welcome to Islam.

[Chantal]

Kevin Donald H.,

It is obvious that you haven't thoroughly read Tim's posts.

Perhaps you should refrain from commenting until you do. Your "welcome to Islam" was ridiculous.

[Tim Bayly]

>So according to Tim Bayly, because of "God's created order of the sexes," godly women cannot own businesses where men work, so that men will not be under their authority. Godly women cannot own properties such as farms where men work.

Tim Bayly said what?

Well, as long as we're making things up, don't forget the one about godly women not being able to spank their sons.

But seriously, Brady and Kevin, it would be helpful if you'd make some effort to tell us the basis for your claim that Adam being created first has no significance or application outside the home and the church. The burden of proof is not on those who affirm the significance of God's created order across all of life, but those who deny it.

Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, and Knox see it. Why can't you?

[Kevin Donald H.]

>>> Tim Bayly said what?

How can a reasonable person conclude otherwise? I asked about this upthread, and you declined to give a straight answer. Others have also asked, and your answers are far from straightforward.

A simple yes or no on your part will bring clarity to this matter.

Do you agree with the following statement:
Because God's created order prohibits women from having authority over men, it is wrong for Christian women to own a business, farm, or other economic enterprise where men work under her authority.

If your reply is no, you will have my swift apology for misjudging you. If your reply is yes, you will have my thanks for stating your position so clearly. If you continue to avoid the question, I can only conclude your theology is inadequate to address this question.

[David Talcott]

Brady and Kevin Donald H.,

You would both do well to consider comments like this one which Tim made just two days ago under the "Is Patriarchy a private revelation for Christians only?" post:

> Am I in sin for being under female authority?

No, I don’t think so. Your submission to your employer (the university) is what has placed you in submission to a particular woman. So, honoring the authority you work under seems to me to take precedence over the particularities of the local human manifestation of that authority (such as that person being a woman).

God commands us to submit to authority. This woman has been given authority over you. This is contrary to God’s created order. But it neither gives you license, nor does it require you to defy that authority. You may choose to remove yourself from that situation by resigning your job, but how many jobs are there in this evil world that don’t involve a similar weighty conflict of conscience?

But this is a matter for the individual conscience before God. There may be reasons why one man can’t live in a situation that another man can.

>If I was ever in a position of hiring a position that would have supervisory responsibility, would it be sin to hire a woman?

Well, if by "supervisory responsibility" you mean that the position would involve a woman exercising significant authority over men, then all things being equal, a Christian shouldn't take that step. That seems obvious. But of course, all other things are never equal, are they? So, for instance, we may one day soon face the choice of voting either for a pro-abortion man or an anti-abortion woman for president. Speaking only for myself, I’d choose the anti-abortion woman. Your mileage may differ, though, and God bless you."

[Fr. Bill]

"How can a reasonable person conclude otherwise? I asked about this upthread, and you declined to give a straight answer. Others have also asked, and your answers are far from straightforward."

Yesterday, Kevin, I asked if you'd read the passage in the Law about what happens when Dad dies and there's only daughters to run the ranch. Did you miss that? If not, how can a reasonable person conclude otherwise than that you know neither the Scripture nor the power of God?

Or what about that exemplar of womanhood who is praised for dealing in real estate?

You see, your challenges are really to create smoke, as I suspected.

Will compliance with Biblical patriarchy bring one into conflict with the egalitarian spirit of the world? You betcha. And those in such conflicts do well to debate and discuss how to comply with the Bible's prescriptions and to remain unspotted (though, probably, not unpersecuted) by the world.

But your challenges seek, instead, to maneuver patriarchalists into what you suppose are contradictions, conundrums, and absurdities which validate your rejection of God's teaching and your embrace of the world.

You want Pr. Tim to state things flat out. We wish you and others like you would simply do as genuinely honest egalitarians (such as Paul Jewett) do: state flat out that the Bible and its authors are wrong, that their overt patriarchalism is pernicious, and that we must be careful to repudiate the Bible's teaching where it conflicts with egalitarian values.

[David Curell]

Brady and Kevin Donald H,

What you are asking has been asked before by men who loved to lay snares:

“In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her.” (Matt. 22:28)

Of course, Jesus' response applies to your questions as well:

But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken[deceived], not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection so they attempted to trap Jesus concerning it. You do not believe in patriarchy so you attempt to trap those who do with hypothetical scenarios. Hypothetical theology is vapid. I very much doubt that either of you would accept responsibility for actual souls -- souls for whose care you will one day give an account. This was also true of the Sadducees.

[von]

Your discussion here has generated some over on 'winging it': http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2008/01/saying-what-it-says.html

Von

[Tim Bayly]

Dear Von,

So far as I can tell, not one commenter objecting to your good articulation of the order of the sexes God instituted has dealt with that order, instead simply (and naively) saying, over and over again, that Paul is speaking to the church. Duh.

But as I said above, the Apostle Paul is applying to the church the order of the sexes God instituted in His creation, and that creation order has application everywhere man is man and woman woman.

This is what all previous generations of Christians have understood, but this generation absolutely refuses to see. Sad.

Thank you for your faithful witness. Don't allow people to dismiss it as theonomy--it's not.