tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post6778513887643095125..comments2011-12-18T01:20:19.314-06:00Comments on The Jesus Agenda: The Full Stature of Women as Servants of Christ in His Church - Part 3Dave Leighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07847179298782279430noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-35047817727079230602011-12-18T01:20:19.314-06:002011-12-18T01:20:19.314-06:00Indeed.Indeed.Dave Leighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07847179298782279430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-59191756273144943302011-12-18T00:29:30.984-06:002011-12-18T00:29:30.984-06:00Dave, you might not like this, but my wife is prob...Dave, you might not like this, but my wife is probably more complimentarian than I. She sees me as a "spiritual head" (a term and concept I know you don't like). The "authority" that is exercised in our home is one of servant leadership, a laying down of ones life as Christ did, in which I never (EVER) make unilateral decisions, I see her (your right) as my absolute best friend. The term your friends use, mutual, genuinely describe our relationship. Yet there is a strong sense in which I lead and she follows. I can imagine it must be terribly difficult for an egalitarian to read those words without reading into those words a whole bunch of ideas I don't mean by them. And it is so terribly difficult to describe. I've failed here, no doubt, in provide that description with accuracy. If that makes me a "hierarchalists and patriarchists" blind to the oppression that must be going on in my very home in your eyes, than I related with your comment elsewhere that "with all your cordiality, such generalizations are still patently offensive."Derekhttp://covenantoflove.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-74333809690561288382011-12-17T17:38:36.703-06:002011-12-17T17:38:36.703-06:00(part 2)
As for the word "complementarian,&q...(part 2)<br /><br />As for the word "complementarian," it is indeed a good word. It is unfortunate, however, that it has become a euphemism for people who have seized upon one of its lesser definitions--and the one that is most vague. I am speaking, of course, of those who are in reality hierarchalists and patriarchalists. They know nothing of complementarity and seek to silence the better part of the Bride, while suppressed her gifts and muting the contribution women have made in history. Those who laugh at this allegation by dismissing it as "conspiracy theory" are blind to the oppressive policies and practices of patriarchalists taking place all around us.<br /><br />The fact that some, like you, are far less extreme and have happy marriages does not change the potential damage that can be, and has been, committed as a result of this fundamental flaw in how they misunderstand authority. My guess is that your marriage is far more egalitarian than hierarchal/patriarchal. (And by the way, most of my egalitarian friends have taken to calling themselves mutualists, instead, for clarity sake.) If your wife truly is your friend, then I doubt the issue of authority comes up with any regularity or serious concern. My guess is that you would not treat her any differently than you would your best friend. The nature of such friendship is usually built upon mutuality, not authority. And so I am very happy for you in this. <br /><br />Be that as it may, I know that volumes have been written on this topic by far more learned scholars than I will ever be. Thank you for the cordial manner in which you've offered your views and the gracious spirit you have in matters where we differ. I admire that. And once again, look up to you for modeling it for me. Peace.Dave Leighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07847179298782279430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-5720285202473747662011-12-17T17:37:49.844-06:002011-12-17T17:37:49.844-06:00Thanks for your thoughts Derek! Great input, as al...Thanks for your thoughts Derek! Great input, as always! <br /><br />My position is that the kind of authority Jesus GAVE his apostles had to do with preaching his message and exercising authority over demons, diseases, etc. Nowhere does he give anyone "authority over" another PERSON. In fact, this passage clearly denies it. The Gentiles exercise "authority over" each other (Greek exousia), but "NOT SO WITH YOU." I don't see how it could be clearer.<br /><br />What does get admittedly tricky here is that the discussion of authority hinges on a multiplicity of Greek words that all have the same English rendering (authority) but which have differing nuances in the original text. For example, the often-cited text of Paul saying he suffers not a woman to have authority over a man uses the Greek word "authentein," which is hotly debated as to its meaning. What makes it even more troubling is that it only occurs once in the entire Bible (a hapax).<br /><br />So when we drop back and look at other words that mean authority, the one that comes closest to how hierarchalists want to understand "authentein" is "exousia," which actually does mean "authority over." This is the word that occurs in the Matthew passage cited above, and which is denied even to the apostles. What's interesting to me is that this word is never used again of a Christian in relation to another Christian EXCEPT in 1 Corinthians 7:4-5, where it is clearly presented as a mutual thing within marriage. Beyond that, no individual Christian is said to have "exousia" over another. <br /><br />So what is the authority given to the apostles and to church leaders? It pertains to matters of faith and practice only. Those who remain within the boundaries of what Scripture actually teaches have authority to teach correct doctrine and to hold others accountable in matters of faith and practice. Their position does not, however, give them authority to contradict biblical teaching or to settle matters not addressed by Scripture. Thus they are not authorized by Christ to decide things like whether or not a parishioner should go on vacation, take a job, sell their house, marry the believer in the next pew, etc.--unless an aspect of one of these decisions has some kind of clear conflict with a biblical teaching, as in a moral issue or matter of doctrine. <br /><br />Now, of course, someone who leads well and has established their character as having wisdom and reverance may be empowered or authorized BY THE CONGREGATION to make decisions affecting pragmatic matters not addressed in Scripture--like the order of service, the hymn selection, how many days a week to have secretarial help, etc. But this kind of authority is not intrinsic to the leadership positions named in Scripture but is rather derived from the faith community, not from the Lord himself.<br /><br />(continued)Dave Leighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07847179298782279430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-17130647569448833752011-12-15T21:08:55.321-06:002011-12-15T21:08:55.321-06:00This is a pretty good post. To be sure, I like the...This is a pretty good post. To be sure, I like the formate and your writing style. Wish I was as gifted. :)<br /><br />In any case, I don't think you've shown (convincingly in my mind) that Jesus denied authority to anyone. I think what you've shown, rather, is that Jesus denied worldly authority. As you say, there is a "... kind of spiritual authority that does exist (the kind founded in character, biblical knowledge, wisdom, and servanthood)". Precisely right! I'm with you on that point and on the point of women apostles, prophetess, deaconess et. cetera. Yet I'm a complimentarian! :) As Wright says, "it's a good word".Derekhttp://covenantoflove.netnoreply@blogger.com