The latest hire at God's World Publications...

Actually, Rob, she originally allowed comments under her post, but later banned them. If you think it "censorship" for us not to allow linking to posts that ban comments, so be it. But note that the authors of such posts are free to comment here even while banning comments on their own sites. Personally, I think that magnaminous on our part--not "petty." Over the years, it's amazed me how often we've been accused of "censorhip" of comments on this site by the very people who disallow comments on their own blogs. (And no, I'm not speaking of you.) So now, if people want to promote something they've written in response to this blog, they'll have to allow the same degree of debate we allow here. Seems a basic rule of fair debate to me.

Dear Mark, I'll take your word that Ms. Harris has pulled her post now. It was there when I was writing about it earlier today. As for selective quoting, my point was to call attention to things contrary to Scripture. That someone writes "men and women are different and ...the differences are good" is something every feminist and patriachalist would be equally comfortable saying. It's about as newsworthy as writing "monkeys and zebras are different and ...the differences are good." Once again, all Ms. Harris had to do was allow comments under her post and we would have linked to her post so everyone could read it in its entirety. And we told her this by private E-mail.

>>>But I also believe that we are known by our love... not our incredible ability to tear each other apart, make incredible assumptions about another's faith because of a theological disagreement<<< Mark, you are a breath of fresh air. You have your priorities right. Scripture is right, true, and perfect. Sometimes, our understanding of it is not. Instead of arrogantly accusing our brothers and sisters of willful rebellion when they disagree with our possibly flawed interpretation of scripture, it would behoove us instead to humbly recognize that they, too, and have no less earnestly sought God's truth.

>Sometimes, our understanding of it is not. Instead of arrogantly accusing our brothers and sisters of willful rebellion when they disagree with our possibly flawed interpretation of scripture, it would behoove us instead to humbly recognize that they, too, and have no less earnestly sought God's truth. Presumably Jefferts-Schori gets the same benefit of the doubt? Mitt Romney? David Koresh?

>trash her character... It's her denial of the Word of God I'm opposed to. Beyond this, I know nothing of her character. As for attacking Ms. Harris at her workplace, I can see how it might appear that was my goal, but it wasn't. Rather, I wanted our readers to communicate to God's World Publications their concern that someone who so clearly rejects the authority of Scripture is hired to do editorial work there. I hope that clarifies matters.

Something else you snipped out as non-newsworthy: "An evangelical feminist is a feminist not because the Bible is irrelevant to our 'modern, sophisticated, egalitarian, evolved, educated world,' but because it is relevant, because 'there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'" Again, I disagree with how Alisa takes this passage, but I fail to see how this in any way is "so clearly rejecting the authority of Scripture." --- An aside, Mr. Gray, did you just compare rejecting traditional gender roles to rejecting the Trinity? The Branch Davidians? Are we to equate gender roles with the nature of Christ? Is there then no Biblical issue on which one can be mistaken without being in blatant sin or rebellion against God?

Mark, Just a point of clarification, please? You said: "I'd like to say it's justified anger, but perhaps it is not." So, if I understand you, you believe your anger is justified, but the anger you see displayed here by those defending two millennia of universal church witness on the biblical teaching of patriarchy and a male eldership *is not* justified?!? Oh my. Kamilla

Kamilla, "So, if I understand you, you believe your anger is justified, but the anger you see displayed here by those defending two millennia of universal church witness on the biblical teaching of patriarchy and a male eldership *is not* justified?!?" I said I would like to say it's justified, but I don't know. I'm young -- a college student -- but one thing I've learned about myself is that my perception of my own motives and the true motives themselves are often different things. I self-righteously defend my actions one day, and the next day upon a more considered examination discover that all my bluster was really a show. So, no, I didn't and won't assert that my anger is absolutely justified. My immediate thought is that I am upset because a friend of mine has been vilified as some rebellious-against-God, authority-of-Scripture-denying, disingenuous sinner by individuals who know nothing of her save a couple hundred words of writing. But I know myself well enough to know that I don't know myself or my motives well enough. So, no, I won't claim righteous anger, though I'd like to think (wouldn't we all?) that it is such. Kamilla, what or who are they angry at? Where is it directed, and what is causing it? I will say this: disagree with Alisa. God knows I do, and we've talked about it a couple times. I don't even mind when you say that she's interpreting it "how she wants to"... some of that may be true. It can be in my life. I strive to read passages as they ought to be read, but I know that sometimes I twist them to fit my own preconceptions of what it should say or my comfort level with the violent and shocking grace that is Christ the King. But the harsh, hostile, and (dare I say) hypocritical (I didn't even try for the alliteration, honest!) way in which a disagreement became a personal attack was inappropriate, in my opinion. Perhaps my response was too. I will let others judge that; but even should you decide that I responded poorly, do understand that that does not automatically mean that the original post was therefore proper or correct or cordial or loving or... --- Tim, You informed your readers of your "offer" to Alisa in the original post's comments section. She responded to your readers with her reply in the same comment section -- clearly meant for public consumption. She also emailed you a response that was more self-deprecatory. Her email was to you. Her comment on the post was to you and your readers. You chose to post the unflattering email directed only to you, as opposed to the public comment. Perhaps I am reading a bit much into your approach. However, everything you've written seems deliberately calculated to make Alisa look as bad or radical as possible given the material at hand. It smacks of pettiness and presumption (<--deliberate alliteration). [I clearly have no life when school is not in session.]

Sue, If you don't want to genuinely discuss the issue why the hand waving? And Aristotle? If Aristotle tells you something that is true does it make it distinctively a pagan teaching? And then you demonstrate that Aristotle does not teach specifically what church and scripture have taught. So what is the point? Rather what has the church and scripture taught, regardless whether or not Aristotle or Kant agree with it.

But Sue it is from God. Eve was created prior to the fall correct? Read Genesis 2:21-23 and see how Paul quotes and uses it in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Tim 2:9-14. Paul's admonition is from a pre-fall mandate, not one given after the fall. Therefore women submitting to their husbands is a positive-moral law, one that transcends man's fall not one created as a byproduct of the fall.

Kamilla, "I'm puzzled by your puzzlement. Do you really not understand at whom the anger is directed and why?" Correct, I do not. Watching this whole business unfold, I can't really believe that "Ms. Harris'" writing is the source. The spite and anger of this post is entirely out of proportion. Alisa was friendly and self-deprecating; Tim was hostile, condemning, and self-righteous. Again, the proposed source does not bear out the reaction. The anger comes from somewhere, but it isn't entirely a result of Alisa. "Either your friend is denying Scripture's authority or she is genuinely a member of the first privileged generation to understand what it all *really* means. In that case, all the giants upon whose shoulders we sit have been leading us down the path of rebellion and destruction for 2000 years." You seem to live in a very comfortable world where you either get everything right or you deny Scripture's authority. I truly hope God does not use that same standard in judging you and your theology. Kamilla, I am a conservative a la Eliot, Lewis, Chesterton. I believe that tradition -- the manner in which believers have lived out their faith in community for two thousand years -- should hold an incredibly high place in understanding Scripture. Humility dictates that we be incredibly cautious and prudent in disagreeing with this tradition. However, to say that any deviation from this tradition is clearly either (A) denying Scripture's authority or (B) must be right... is a bit Manichaean, and it surely sounds like a 16th-century Roman Catholic argument against the Reformation.

I hummed "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" whilst reading your post. Seemed appropriate. Or maybe "The B-I-B-L-E." What I gather is that the anger comes from the radical feminists and not Alisa's egalitarianism. But I'm sure she's pleased to be lumped in with lesbians and pagans. Slippery slope or not, I'm not one to scream at dancing because it leads to sex. As a student of the above-mentioned individuals as well as, I should add, Kirk, I'm finding that you've placed gender roles in the category of dogma... right there alongside Jesus' divinity, His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection, and redemption by grace through faith.

Ben, I'm not saying it minor, but it surely isn't dogma either, and we should stop treating it as such. The "it's serious" argument has always been used to justify treating all Scriptural truths like dogma. Sorry, doesn't fly. It IS serious. With the massive divorce rate running around, gender and sexual confusion abounding, and the general loss of an appreciation for the image of God, we'd better take the issue of gender identity seriously. But it is NOT dogma. To treat a believer as anathema or "the enemy" because of disagreement on one issue falling outside of right and proper dogma is, in my opinion, flirting pretty heavily with James 4:11-12 (not to mention James 2:12-13).

Mark, I suspect you're fighting above your weight in this discussion. The fact that you think you agree with us doesn't grant you any special privilege to oppose here. In particular, you should possess a basic knowledge of terms when you take your superiors in age, position and learning to task. I read you saying the orthodox position on male-female roles isn't "dogma" and I wonder where you were taught the meaning of that word? Of course it's dogma, brother. That's so elementary I don't know how to communicate with a man who suggests it isn't. In Christ, David Bayly

But Sue it is from God. Eve was created prior to the fall correct? Read Genesis 2:21-23 and see how Paul quotes and uses it in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Tim 2:9-14. Paul's admonition is from a pre-fall mandate, not one given after the fall. Therefore women submitting to their husbands is a positive-moral law, one that transcends man's fall not one created as a byproduct of the fall. Benjamin, Paul says that woman does not compel man - why - because, although she does give birth, she is not the progenitor of man, but man is the progenitor of woman, they are equal. [SCRIPTURE INSERTED: (1 Corinthians 11:3-16) "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God."] Woman was deceived first [SCRIPTURE INSERTED: (1 Timothy 2:14) "...it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."] she was already deceived when Adam, the one who brought sin into the world, committed his sin. So woman cannot control man. But she is preserved in childbearing - childbearing is integral to woman as being the first in order is integral to man. However, Paul does not then say that man is in charge of woman. [SCRIPTURE INSERTED: (1 Corinthians 11:3) "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."] [SCRIPTURE INSERTED: (Ephesians 5:23, 24) "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything."] In fact, Paul explicitly says in 1 Cor. that authority is reciprocal. [SCRIPTURE INSERTED: (1 Corinthians 7:1-5) "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."] This is the ONLY place where authority between men and women is stated in the Greek NT. Woman is the authority, the despot, in her own house. 1 Tim. 5. [SCRIPTURE INSERTED: (1 Timothy 5 in its entirety) "Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, 2 the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity. 3 Honor widows who are widows indeed; 4 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 5 Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. 6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 9 A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work. 11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. 13 At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. 16 If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed. 17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. 21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. 22 Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin. 23 No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. 24 The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after. 25 Likewise also, deeds that are good are quite evident, and those which are otherwise cannot be concealed."] From the early church fathers up until after the Reformation, it was understood from the text of Gen. 3:16 that woman was subordinated by the fall. [EARLY CHURCH FATHERS INSERTED: (Referring to Romans 1:26,27) CHRYSOSTOM writes that this text “is an evident proof of the last degree of corruptness, when both sexes are abandoned, and both he that was ordained to be the instructor of the woman, and she who was bid to become an helpmate to the man, work the deeds of enemies against one another.” CHRYSOSTOM ALSO WRITES: "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."] The belief in the essential subordination of woman was a part of the pagan cultural matrix, and that is why refromers appealed to Aristotle to prove woman's continued subordination after their redemption in Christ. REFORMERS INSERTED: LUTHER ON SATAN'S TEMPTATION OF EVE IN THE GARDEN BEFORE THE FALL: "Satan’s cleverness is perceived also in this, that he attacks the weak part of the human nature, Eve the woman, not Adam the man….Just as in all the rest of nature the strength of the male surpasses that of the other sex, so also in the perfect nature the male somewhat excelled the female. …Satan, therefore, directs his attack on Eve as the weaker part and puts her valor to the test." CALVIN ON SATAN'S TEMPTATION OF EVE IN THE GARDEN BEFORE THE FALL: "Moreover the craftiness of Satan betrays itself in this, that he does not directly assail the man, but approaches him, as through a mine, in the person of his wife. This insidious method of attack is more than sufficiently known to us at the present day, and I wish we might learn prudently to guard ourselves against it. For he warily insinuates himself at that point at which he sees us to be the least fortified, that he may not be perceived till he should have penetrated where he wished."] You give me the 20th century interpretation of Paul in 1 Tim. 2 and I am trying to show you that it is not necessarily the historic one. There have been a variety of contortions of scripture called in to subordinate wives who are explicitly given equal authority in their marriage union in 1 Cor. 7. [SCRIPTURE INSERTED: (1 Corinthians 7:1-5) "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."] There have also always been women preachers since the reformation, Mary Dentiere, Margaret Fell, Mary Fisher, Elizabeth Fry, Catherine Booth, Monica Storrs, and so on. These women are associated with mission and evangelism, fighting alcohol, prostitution, poor prison conditions and slavery. They were founders of the purity movement of the 19th century. The preaching of women has been associated with the purposes of purity and the gospel. In British Columbia women missionaries evangelized and held church services all over the province and especially in the north for all of the previous century. It is deeply to be regretted that some Christians cannot distance themselves from the pagan patriarchal structures. [SCRIPTURE INSERTED: (1 Peter 3:5-7) "For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. 7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered."]

Rev's. Tim or David did you insert the quotations into Sue's response? Because I hardly think she would contradict herself like that. If you did I think it would be best to make your own comment.

Thanks Rev. Bayly. My question was more one seeking clarification as to the appearance of quotations than wondering about your right to be editors.

Sue, in your first comment you're trying to argue that Scripture is unclear on this subject, but your arguments don't work. You do bring up a few places where Scripture is indeed unclear: Gen 3:16 and I Cor 11:10. But, the complementarian/patriarchalist argument isn't based on those verses. Proper Bible interpretation begins with the clear and moves to the unclear. For the most part you ignore the central passages which teach on this subject: 1 Tim 2:9-15, Col 3:18, I Pet 3:1-7, and Titus 2:3-5. You discuss the very unclear I Cor 11:10 as if that were the Biblical basis for male headship, yet ignore the preceding 9 verses as if they were irrelevant. So, if you want to argue there's no Biblical basis for male headship, you would do well to address the passages above first. Arguing that Gen 3:16 and 1 Cor 11:10 are unclear doesn't exactly get you there. You do address one of the central texts on this subject, Eph. 5:22-24, but your arguments don't work. You first suggest that Paul's command for wives to be subject to their husbands may be an extension of the command in verse 21 for all Christians to "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ." That interpretation doesn't work when you look at everything Paul says about the submission. He says it is to be to the husband, just as it is to the Lord. He then gives a reason for this command: the husband is head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church. Just as there's a fundamental asymmetry between Christ and the church, there is likewise a fundamental asymmetry between the husband and the wife. One is the head of the other, and hence the one ought to submit to the other. Continuing to try to explain this passage you write "Wouldn't it be amazing if marriage was a microcosm of the way fellow believers were taught to treat each other." In fact, it is. At all levels we are to obey those in authority over us. Men have authorities over them just as women do. Elders lead the church, elder women lead younger women, parents lead children, husbands lead wives, and rulers (kings and public officials) lead their states and their subjects. Everywhere we are surrounded by authority and called to submit. Of course, all authority is given for a purpose: the glory of God and the benefit of those who are lead; and, all authority is limited in scope: the king cannot tell us not to worship, just as the husband cannot tell the wife to commit sin. So, you are actually right--this passage is indeed just an extension of the rest of our lives together. Finally, in exegeting this passage, you point out that "The rest of the chapter speaks not of Christ who is in authority over the church, but of Christ who gave his life for the church. That is a form of submission." And, you are quite right. A husband's leadership is for the good of the whole family--he ought to give up his life for his family. There's a sense in which that's submission, but it's not a submission of authority or headship. Getting away from your exegesis, you are also making some pretty wild historical claims. First, you're just wrong that the Reformers got their doctrine of female subordination from Aristotle. Read what Luther has to say about reason, or Calvin about the philosophers and you'll see they were no friend of the ancient Greeks. You're also placing great weight on a single passage from Aristotle on how a woman has no authority (from Politics 1.10), but I don't see why. The idea that male ought to rule over female can be found throughout ancient texts, both Greek and Hebrew. It's not as though a quick perusal of the Old Testament leads to some sort of egalitarianism. It may be helpful to reconsider these words from the editor's note to Knox's work on the rule of women: "Knox knew that his 16th-century opponents expected citations from classical and patristic sources. Therefore, the reformer takes aim at both the position and polemical methods of his critics by quoting some of the stoutest comments imaginable, refuting the government of women. Whether Knox personally joins with the ancient authors in every detail is immaterial; by numerous references to antiquity, the reformer demonstrates that there is a venerable history of opposition to the rule of women. Still, Knox points out that his main argument, even if stripped of the patristic citations, is fundamentally based upon the authoritative word of God. "For as I depend not upon the determinations of men, so I think my cause no weaker, albeit their authority is denied unto me; provided that God by his revealed will, and manifest word, stands plain and evident on my side" (p. 400)." This idea is not one which we derived from the pagans. Further, you argue that this idea is not one which has been held consistently by the church throughout the past two millenia. Suffice it to say I don't find your counter-examples convincing. Do you have any pre-20th or 19th century authors arguing that women should have equal authority with men in the church? Finally, you place great weight on the evolution of English translations of the Bible. You seem to think this is evidence that prior to the 16th century Christians did not think wives should be subject to their husbands. For instance, you write "As we have seen 1 Tim. 2:12 was never translated with the word authority before Beza in the 16th century. Even then it was "usurp authority."" I'm not sure what you meant by "as we have seen" since you didn't give any survey of the history of interpreting I Tim 2. But, regardless, I assume you're talking about how to interpret the word authentein in I Tim 2:12. I am not familiar with the history of translating that word, but both both LSJ and BAGD agree that it means have authority over. I would be pretty surprised if you could come up with many examples of pre-16th century authors thinking that it should be translated something much different than "have authority over." Finally, a few remarks on your latest comment. You finally address (well, at least very briefly refer to some aspects of) some of the central patriarchal texts, but you don't do a very good job! I mean, look, you discuss I Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23-24 where is says man is the head of woman and the wife is to be subject to the husband. Then, you jump over to I Cor 7's discussion of sex in marriage, where both husband and wife have equal authority in the marriage bed and say "aha! See--men and women have equal authority." But, Sue, every complementarian is happy to say that husbands and wives have equal authority over sex within the marriage--that's pretty clear in I Cor 7. But, that doesn't do much of anything to help us understand the other passages you cite. Do you really think it's correct to take a passage with narrow, limited scope (I Cor 7 dealing with sex) and argue that it should control our reading of several different passages with unlimited scope (I Cor 11, Eph 5)??? Isn't it much more clearly the case that the latter passages are the general overarching principles and that I Cor 7 is about a narrow part of life, namely sex within marriage? I'm just honestly astounded that you are trying to argue this. I Cor 7 so obviously has limited application--the authority there is "over the body"--i.e. regarding sex! Further, you assert that "authority" appears only once in the Greek NT in connection to men and women, in 1 Tim 5. I have no idea which word you're referring to--is it oikodespotein in verse 14? There is a sense in which that means authority, but it more naturally means managing a house, or keeping house. That older women should teach younger women to keep house certainly does not establish that women are to rule over men in the home (if you're really arguing this, it also conflicts with your earlier arguments that there should not be any hierarchical relationship between husband and wife!) I hate to disappoint you, but there are many other words which mean authority which are present in the new testament, such as arche, dunamis, and exousia. There are also other words which are the opposite of having authority, meaning to be subject to, such as hupotasso, which is the word which occurs at Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, Titus 2:5, and I Pet 3:1. If A is subject to B, then B rules over A. There is also the word Kephale, or head, which appears in I Cor 11 and Eph 5:23 and which directly includes the idea of authority. Both of those words deal directly with authority and give the authority in the marriage relationship to the husband.

I concur wholeheartedly with Kamilla. As someone who was an egalitarian as recently as 6 months ago I have seen how this issue really is a kickstarter for further movement away.

Mark, Oh, I have shown, quite adequately, that it is a valid argument and *not* mere assumption. If you're not yet convinced, browse the archives for more. Though I believe at this point the only thing which will likely convince you is bitter experience. The primary reason I participate in these public forums is in the hope of preventing some (perhaps unknown) souls from traveling through that cold and bitter landscape. SDG, Kamilla

"And so women are deprived of free toileting rights, free coughing rights, further education or career, exercize and hobbies, friends and leisure because of the vow to obey. Can you guarantee that this does not happen?" Can you guarantee me that a marriage of "mutual submission won't be ripped to shreds by an addiction to pornography? A wife's desire for freedom? Repeated adulteries? Phooey! You understand nothing of submission and a wife's vow to obey. Kamilla

"Nobody can guarantee to you that the person you live with will not sin" "We live in Christ, not in our spouses" And yet you fail to see the significance of those two truths. Kamilla

Dear Sue, I'm very heartbroken to hear about the violence you've experienced at the hand of a sinful man. I'm also sorry that your church was impotent in helping you. I won't ask you to make your situation public, of course, but I wanted to comment on what you said about the recent changes in the law. I don't mean to quarrel, but I do not understand how mutual submission between spouses (and among Christians in general) would enable a church to respond more effectively to your plight. The feminist lobby and the law were able to help you because the civil law exercises authority over the citizens, an authority that the citizens cannot easily escape. See how useful (and necessarily) one-way authority can be! If a husband is unfaithful to his vows (as you have explicitly described), I see no problem with the church exercising its authority to discipline the man, perhaps even going as far as annulling the marriage. You must agree with me that a husband's authority must be checked somehow. Unfortunately, many (most?) churches have long ago abdicated their authority over anything having to do with real life. And consequently, Christians have gotten used to being their own masters. Instead, a Christian ought to be a "man under authority," and humbly acknowledge and submit to the God-given authorities above him. This includes the case where a wife is called to submit to her husband. Sue, while you ask for guarantees, I think you know full well that men cannot offer you reliable guarantees as God can. Sinful men constantly pervert and subvert their God-given (and God-restricted) authorities. Their sins have terrible consequences, not only for themselves, but to those in their spheres. As we shoulder the natural consequences of the sins of others, we look to Christ, to the cross and the resurrection for faith, courage, and peace. This is the law of Christ.

Dear Ross: I was told by one conservative, Reformed missions leader (not with Mission to the World, the PCA's missions organization) that 1 Timothy 2:11-14 applied to the church, not to mission work. Thus, it wasn't a problem for a woman to serve as a country leader for that evangelical mission organization and to exercise authority over male and female missionaries. DW