tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.comments2011-12-18T01:20:19.314-06:00The Jesus AgendaDave Leighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07847179298782279430noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag: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-17930798519384506962011-12-17T18:31:35.094-06:002011-12-17T18:31:35.094-06:00(part 2)
I sincerely wish you and your bride well...(part 2)<br /><br />I sincerely wish you and your bride well in your wonderful bliss. And I am sincerely happy for you. However you and she mutually agree to conduct your relationship with each other is between the two of you and your God. I only have the best hopes for you as you do so. Be loving and wise. Make sure your security is not misplaced or based on unverified assumptions about each other. And don't worry about who else agrees with what the two of you choose. I'll be cheering you on as one of your biggest fans!<br /><br />Sincerely.Dave Leighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07847179298782279430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-45277736151851736612011-12-17T18:31:16.303-06:002011-12-17T18:31:16.303-06:00Derek,
Again, thanks for taking time to interact ...Derek,<br /><br />Again, thanks for taking time to interact with me over these things. I think we are both on a journey in such matters. Your graciousness is always refreshing and inspiring.<br /><br />Let me see if I can offer some responses that will help.<br /><br />You wrote: "[Complementarianism] is not [new], it is the egalitarian who must swim upstream against Church History."<br /><br />Yes, I suppose some will see it that way. But the same was probably said of justification by faith, the radical reformation, and abolition. In each case we (I mean to include myself within these traditions) protested that it was the church that had strayed historically from the intent and spirit of the New Testament's teaching. And we were right. Let's not "beg the question" (in the precise meaning of that phrase); the very debate is over what view was the original view, not how later generations came to regard it.<br /><br />You wrote: "I don't think biblical hierarchy jeopardizes equality (as your article assumes), especially since biblical hierarchy is upside down."<br /><br />Derek, I'm sure you are sincere in this. But I would put it to you that you have come to accept this idea while missing its contradictory nature. Hierarchy and equality are opposing ideas. I taught my children a basic tenet of logic while they were still learning to talk and I still have to remind myself of it often: "A cannot equal non-A." It amazes me how the misnamed complementarian camp repeatedly breaks this rule by invoking the idea that something can be so spiritually while not so in reality. This is a foreign idea to the Hebraic mind and therefore to the authors of the NT. And I have to wonder, it it is so spiritually, why are they against it being so in reality?<br /><br />We experimented with this idea in America during the last century in the area of race relations. It was called "separate but equal" and it failed miserably.<br /><br />Jesus told us that whatever his followers declared to be so on earth would be so in heaven, and vice-versa. He did not recognize that it could be any other way.<br /><br />And so I contend that the idea that hierarchy can exist between equals is double-speak. They cannot be equal and yet greater/lesser in the same sense they are equal. And so it is only in Jesus' voluntary choice to become human that he assumes a place lower than the angels. It is in his humanity that it is so. But with regards to that which he emptied himself of in order to accomplish this, and in regards to that which is restored when he hands the Kingdom back to the full Godhead, he is in every way equal to God without the slightest hint of eternal subordination or hierarchy. For if such a thing existed within God it would destroy what it means to be One.<br /><br />And so I would venture to say your marriage is in a happy state because you both feel mutually valued, loved, and respected. You both probably even "treat each other as more important than yourselves" (Phil 2). Should either of you start treating the other as less than equal, I will guarantee you that the effects will disturb that happiness within one or both of you, and might even cause lasting damage to your relationship and trust.<br /><br />Note what Jesus modeled with regards to his Bride. He not only washed his disciples' feet, but he lifted us up with him to reign at his side in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority (Ephesians--note past tense). Those who treat their spouses in this way will enjoy the kind of bliss you describe. But those who feel they have to keep their partner under their authority or control have planted mines that will come back to haunt them.<br /><br />I have witnessed this and experienced it, in addition to seeing it clearly presented in God's Word. And this is why I am a convinced mutualist.<br /><br />(continued)Dave Leighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07847179298782279430noreply@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-32375939543944275162011-12-15T21:54:04.075-06:002011-12-15T21:54:04.075-06:00Dave, you have thought about these things far long...Dave, you have thought about these things far longer with to a far greater depth than I have. But rest assured I have no "social agenda" to create a "hierarchy within the family". My only agenda is to be faithful to God's word and the testimony of the Church. To put it as you have suggests a conspiracy on the part of those you disagree with who are merely attempting to be faithful to the biblical testimony. Complimentarianism is not knew, it is the egalitarian who must swim upstream against Church History. (Capital "C" and "H")<br /><br />I also suggest you have made a fundamental mistake in the main point of this post regarding hierarchy and the trinity. I suggest this with humility because I know that you have done far more work in this area than I have and thus I admit in all probability that I may be wrong. I don't think biblical hierarchy jeopardizes equality (as your article assumes), especially since biblical hierarchy is upside down.<br /><br />Frankly, I don't understand the whole egalitarian/complimentarian debate probably because my marriage with my wife is so amazing the in practical terms, that makes the debate moot for us. Have women been abused through the ages as a result of fallen mans devilish authoritarianism? Absolutely. Does that mean we should chuck out the baby with the dirty water? Absolutely not! As you said elsewhere, there is a relational authority among the people of God (I would suggest, even in the home) that is upside down and Kingdom based. There are two words that when married together convey this idea. They are "egalitarian" and "complimentarian".Derekhttp://covenantoflove.netnoreply@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.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-24951990271126267302011-11-20T05:22:04.149-06:002011-11-20T05:22:04.149-06:00Good article. Heaven is the only place it's po...Good article. Heaven is the only place it's possible because of sin. <br /><br />AnnetteAnnettenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-84869010883575415422009-07-16T07:33:41.005-05:002009-07-16T07:33:41.005-05:00I wonder if you've been following the debate o...I wonder if you've been following the debate on this subject on Wade Burleson's blog here - http://www.bit.ly/23c8Hk and here - http://www.bit.ly/OcOmQUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03170963188314229313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-35990967655509688902009-07-13T12:44:13.999-05:002009-07-13T12:44:13.999-05:00Hi Alex!
I've posted a response at Christspea...Hi Alex!<br /><br />I've posted a response at Christspeak to your comments there. As or your thoughts on the OT priesthood, I would point to how Hebrews tells us that the New Covenant priesthood is Melchizedekan, not Levitical, and that the old rules do not apply any longer.<br /><br />Jesus, our High Priest, calls us all into that new family of priesthood. And according to Paul in Galatians, we are all now sons, regardless of our gender or social standing (Gal 3:26-4:7). This status of sonship is a specialized term that speaks of holding a legal position with inalienable rights attached.<br /><br />By granting women "sonship" status, Paul is saying that God has given them all the rights associated with sonship. Just as you would not deny God's son the right to teach truth, or lead in service of God, etc., neither can you block any of these sons from doing so. And this is all-inclusive, not just of biologically male sons, but also of those who become sons of God by faith and baptism into Christ (. 27).<br /><br />It is clear from the context and from the practice of the early church, that the ramificaitons of this new status impacted the Jewish-Gentile believers, and the master-slave believers (cf Phlm 1:16) in ways that gave them equal standing in the church.<br /><br />I believe that with time, as you look at the NT in this light, you will begin to see all kinds of examples and demonstrations of it that you may have missed before. I know I see new ones everyday.Dave Leighhttp://www.thejesusagenda.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-64095661599404983032009-07-13T05:44:50.598-05:002009-07-13T05:44:50.598-05:00Hey Dave - good thoughts. I've always been a ...Hey Dave - good thoughts. I've always been a complentarianist, and, though I can't say this post has totally changed my view, it has given me a good amount of things to dwell on. A lot of my "final judgements" in this doctrine especially are reserved for when I learn Greek a lot better (though I did recongnize "arche" when you talked about it :P).<br /><br />Anyhow, I just posted a quick entry on my own blog in response to some thoughts from the discussion over at Jesus Creed. I didn't know if you would see my comment there (its comment #18 on the 8th post in the series) -- if you get a chance, I put more on there about the OT priesthood -- but I was wondering if you could take a look at my blog post and give me some feedback on my thought process there.<br /><br />It's always nice to have a real discussion "across party lines," so to speak :)<br /><br />http://christspeak.com/2009/07/13/imagery-marriage-part-2/ChristSpeakhttp://www.christspeak.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341015080898492602.post-17502659884432657272009-07-12T08:18:01.370-05:002009-07-12T08:18:01.370-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com