# The Head of A Woman Is Man (Am I Wrong?)



## Wanderer (Jan 26, 2009)

Hello:

Below are some excerpt from a transcription of a sermon that I heard preached from the pulpit last summer. When I heard this sermon, I was deeply concerned about what was preached. Since then I have expressed concerns to many others in my church and the church's leadership. However, everyone just looked at me like I was being sinful for not agreeing with this sermon. Here are the various excerpt which are in italics with my questions in bold:

*Is a man's Headship Role Only Ceremonial?*



> _Notice that Adam's original position as head of the human race was ceremonial.
> 
> And emphasizes the man, it implies God's original will that every husband and every father assume a ceremonial role that reflects the original headship of Adam. Ceremonial role not an authoritarian one. To clarify God's will to wife and children taking the lead in pointing them to God. Not originally to rule but instead to point to the way to the only one who is worthy of rule.
> 
> And men take on once again the ceremonial role of headship in the home pointing to the Lord Jesus is the only worthy ruler, and women joyfully submit, agreeing that Christ is indeed the only one who is worthy to rule._




*Is Patriarchy Wrong, and Christian marriages should discard it?*



> _Now you notice that since patriarchy, the rule of men over women was decreed by God after the fall it therefore as a result of sin.
> 
> And patriarchy still dominates our homes in a fallen world. But we can begin to relearn God's original design of headship. Which points to Him as our one and only authority.
> 
> ...




BTW, I have transcribed the whole sermon which is about eight pages typed. And I can assure everyone, that the above excerpts are the main key points. Right now my believe is that this teacher is teaching his flock that patriarchal marriages is wrong, and that marriages should be egalitarian in nature.


----------



## discipulo (Jan 26, 2009)

So sad that instead of influencing the World, by being Salt and Light, so often churches embrace the ways of this decadent society, in detriment of a Biblical Worldview.

I truly appreciate the courageous and most needed effort Reformed Baptists Wayne Grudem and John Piper are making to bring the Church back to a sound Biblical Doctrine of Gender. 

While also encouraging several other Reformed Authors to reflect, teach and publish on this vital matter to the Christian Families and Church.

Amazon.com: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books

Amazon.com: Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Foundations for the Family Series): Wayne Grudem: Books

Resources online

RECOVERING BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD: Table of Contents


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 26, 2009)

I'm not sure what he is trying to say when he says ceremonial. Is he saying that this law will end when Christ comes back and that the husband/wife relationship reflects what the church has with Christ? If so, the I would agree. This law isn't an everlasting, moral law. When Christ comes back marriage will be eliminated. But until then, the husband is head of wife. If you start picking at this law to dismantle it before Christ comes back, then you have to also dismantle the part of the text which states that Christ is head of the church. I guess I would have to know what his motives are.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 26, 2009)

sjonee said:


> I'm not sure what he is trying to say when he says ceremonial. Is he saying that this law will end when Christ comes back and that the husband/wife relationship reflects what the church has with Christ? If so, the I would agree. This law isn't an everlasting, moral law. When Christ comes back marriage will be eliminated. But until then, the husband is head of wife. If you start picking at this law to dismantle it before Christ comes back, then you have to also dismantle the part of the text which states that Christ is head of the church. I guess I would have to know what his motives are.



Sarah:

Here's an additional excerpt from the sermon:



> _Notice that Adam's original position as head of the human race was ceremonial. It was not authoritative. He was a placeholder and a witness. He was not king over the rest of humanity. The only authority Adam had been given was over other creatures. Over the animals. Not over other people. And the authority he had over the animals was something to be shared by all humanity. God created man in his own image in the image of God he created him male and female. And God blessed them and said to them be fruitful increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. And rule over the fish and rule over the birds and rule over everything that moves on the ground. To charge the rule or have dominion was given to all mankind male and female to jointly rule over all the other creatures._


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 26, 2009)

Even before the fall Adam was head over Eve. The husband didn't become head over the wife because of the fall. The fall produced rebellion in the heart of the wife against her husband. That's what changed. Eve was a helpmate to Adam. So I would have to say this preacher isn't correct. Adam wasn't king over all people but he was head over Eve and that is what his sermon is about...the husband's headship over his wife.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 26, 2009)

"Is patriarchy the rule of men eliminated in a Christian home? Not yet, as far as I can tell. But the more men and women are filled with Christ spirit, less struggle there is for power in the home."

That is so sad and distorted an understanding. Husband headship is to prevent a power struggle? 

Going on 30 years here, and headship is not about preventing power struggles 

And you wonder why the divorce rate of Christians is almost the same as heathens......


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 26, 2009)

The pastor you're quoting from is coming from the usual egalitarian perspective that is rampant in both the liberal and evangelical parts of the church, and gaining strength everywhere. His perspective is that which says that sin brought headship, and that since we are redeemed in Christ (I'm sure he quotes from Galatians 3:28, wrongly) there can be no head in the home. 

He's out and out wrong, as the headship of Adam over Eve is part of the created order. The curse brought about what any thinking person would expect would come about given a created order where Adam was head. Namely, Adam would abuse his headship by lording it over his wife, and Eve would despise Adam's headship, and seek to be the head herself. What a Christian marriage should seek is a proper headship as created by God between Adam and Eve - not to dispense with the headship entirely. That's foolish and entirely unbiblical.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 26, 2009)

> The pastor you're quoting from is coming from the usual egalitarian perspective that is rampant in both the liberal and evangelical parts of the church, and gaining strength everywhere.


Amen. And sadly enough, he's in the PCA. Hence my avatar.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 26, 2009)

I am encouraged by the response on the PB. 



> But the more men and women are filled with Christ spirit, less struggle there is for power in the home. Why? Because as men rediscover Biblical headship they stop point to themselves as the authority.


Interestingly, this is true, but not as he meant it. When the marriage is Spirit filled and Christ centered there is no struggle for power because both husband and wife embrace their God ordained place in creation as a privilege from their Creator. In such a situation the man perceives no need to "point to himself as the authority."


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 26, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> I am encouraged by the response on the PB.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Precisely. When a man and a woman in the home are both dedicated to and submitted to Christ their Lord, and under His authority and His Word, they understand their proper roles - AND, I might add, they understand their sin tendencies according to the curse in Gen 3:16ff. The woman understands that she needs to pay special attention to her desire to usurp the proper authority in the home - and the man needs to pay special attention to his desire to lord it over his wife. There's no "struggle" per se, in a home where the appropriate relationship of husband and wife, as God created and intended it to be, is understood. Each has an important role to play in the sanctification process of the other - that is, the progressive conforming of the other to his or her appropriate place in the home. The man doesn't need to "point to himself as the authority" because both he and his wife understand that is his rightful place.


----------



## KMK (Jan 26, 2009)

I had no idea that the PCA had drifted so far into liberalism. Would this PCA Pastor be in the minority or majority in his views on male headship? (The only contact I have with PCA Pastors is here on PB)


----------



## CDM (Jan 26, 2009)

My thoughts found in the PB's Theological Journal:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/place-women-church-19543/

I focused on Pre-Fall / Creation.


----------



## Skyler (Jan 26, 2009)

I have a few questions that I've been discussing with a friend of mine, related to this complementarian/egalitarian issue.

First of all, mangum, I read your article, and you pointed out that deacons were to be men. However, at the end of one of Paul's epistles, he refers to a woman(Phoebe) as a deaconess. Is he using the word in the same sense, or does he have a different meaning in mind than in 1st Timothy?

Secondly, does the "older women teaching younger women" apply also to the parental relationship--e.g, should mothers teach their daughters and allow the husband to teach the sons, or are mothers also permitted to teach their own sons? How does this relate to the command to treat older women as mothers?

And finally, what about the various prophetesses/leaders/etc. in the history of the Bible?

Thanks!


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 26, 2009)

Diakonos means servant in Greek. Presbutero means elder or older. There are Church offices by those names, and there are simply servants and older persons. It is never inferred that Phoebe occupied a Church Office, only that she served. Paul would certainly have been contradicting himself, and therefore scripture contradicting itself, if Phoebe were an Officer. So which meaning do you suppose God meant when referring to Phoebe?


----------



## Skyler (Jan 26, 2009)

Brad said:


> Diakonos means servant in Greek. Presbutero means elder or older. There are Church offices by those names, and there are simply servants and older persons. It is never inferred that Phoebe occupied a Church Office, only that she served. Paul would certainly have been contradicting himself, and therefore scripture contradicting itself, if Phoebe were an Officer. So which meaning do you suppose God meant when referring to Phoebe?



If I were in my friend's shoes, I suppose I would argue that as the Bible never contradicts itself; it was using the typical masculine language to describe a gender-neutral position, and Phoebe was an example of a female occupying the station of deacon.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 26, 2009)

Skyler said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Diakonos means servant in Greek. Presbutero means elder or older. There are Church offices by those names, and there are simply servants and older persons. It is never inferred that Phoebe occupied a Church Office, only that she served. Paul would certainly have been contradicting himself, and therefore scripture contradicting itself, if Phoebe were an Officer. So which meaning do you suppose God meant when referring to Phoebe?
> ...



Except that the word in question, when referring to Phoebe isn't masculine, it's feminine. It's exactly the word Paul or any Greek speaker would have used to describe someone who served the church and who happened to be female. 

The question about female deacons is far deeper than (and never based solely on) Romans 16:1. Deaconess proponents need to do a lot more than point to Phoebe, an instance that doesn't help their case at all. They need to deal with the commandments concerning Deacons being men (which each instance does), and explain why, if they want to resort to the "wives/women" statement in the passage in 2 Timothy, Paul didn't simply say "deaconess" instead of "women" if he wanted to outline characteristics of deaconesses, as they argue.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 26, 2009)




----------



## Wannabee (Jan 26, 2009)

You might be passionate about this Todd, but your assessment isn't quite accurate. Check Henry Alford on this, if you have it. I don't have electronic, or I'd paste it here. He does a good job on both the Romans and 1 Timothy passage.

There is no feminine for deacon. The declension in Romans 16:1 is accusative, which is the same in both masculine and feminine when singular. This is apparent as Jesus referred to with the exact same word in Romans 15:8, as is Timothy in 1 Tim 3:8. 

Part of the problem with 1 Timothy 3:11 is that there is no possessive pronoun, though one is imposed on most translations. Another problem is that such a restriction is not placed on the elders, which seems a bit incongruous. 

The argument isn't as clear and easy as you imply. There are good commentaries on both side of the discussion, as well as good lexicons that admit the difficulty in arriving at a solid conclusion. In my recent study I was persuaded that women do have a role as servants/deacons(esses) in the church, which I found substantiated both exegetically and historically. However, because of the challenges in the exegesis, I respect those who differ responsibly.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 26, 2009)

I am quite sure there is a place in the church for women to be servants. Couldn't they be called deaconess with a definition attached to deaconess such as one who has no authority in the church except in regards to their immediate duties. For example, the woman who is in charge of eliciting people to contribute food for newly birthed mothers could have authority of when the food needs to be distributed and what type etc?


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 26, 2009)

sjonee said:


> I am quite sure there is a place in the church for women to be servants. Couldn't they be called deaconess with a definition attached to deaconess such as one who has no authority in the church except in regards to their immediate duties. For example, the woman who is in charge of eliciting people to contribute food for newly birthed mothers could have authority of when the food needs to be distributed and what type etc?



I take the fact that a deacon must be the husband of one wife as a requirement. And that a husband and wife are yoked together in this work. In so much that she is to accompany her husband to visitation, and to assist her husband in dealing with members of the opposite sex. 

After, all, it would not be prudent for a Male deacon to visit a young widow woman by himself. 

So, what I am saying is that I see when a Man is ordained as a deacon that is wife also has a very important role in his office as a deacon.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 26, 2009)

That may be a good inference, but taken to its logical conclusion would require all deacons to be married. That's not really what the statement means. It simply states that he is currently a one woman man.
The position of deacon has no authority. It is a servant position, period. It's been distorted, mostly by independent Baptist churches, if I understand correctly, to be a board of rulers. Inherent in this is the problem of having the authority in the deacons, with the responsibility in the pastor/s. If something goes wrong, the pastor's to blame. But his hands are tied by overbearing deacons. It's a disaster and split waiting to happen, generally.
Deacons only have authority where it has been delegated by the elders. Deacons do not rule. They don't have to be "apt to teach." They serve and free the elders to minister the Word and pray. This role can be readily filled by both men and women as servants in the local church.

NOTE - We've strayed from the topic. It might be appropriate to move the last few posts to a new thread if further discussion is merited.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jan 26, 2009)

KMK said:


> I had no idea that the PCA had drifted so far into liberalism. Would this PCA Pastor be in the minority or majority in his views on male headship? (The only contact I have with PCA Pastors is here on PB)



This pastor is definitely in the minority in the PCA. I have not heard this kind of teaching in the PCA churches I have been in.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 26, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I had no idea that the PCA had drifted so far into liberalism. Would this PCA Pastor be in the minority or majority in his views on male headship? (The only contact I have with PCA Pastors is here on PB)
> ...



It's good to hear that he is definitely in the minority. However he's in the majority with my church's Session. In fact they are 100% behind him.


----------



## brianeschen (Jan 26, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> The position of deacon has no authority.


If a deacon has no authority . . . why are they ordained in Acts 6?


----------



## calgal (Jan 27, 2009)

Who is the true head of the household? Is it a man or God?


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 27, 2009)

brianeschen said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > The position of deacon has no authority.
> ...


First of all, are we certain that this is the position of deacon? It's really not made clear that deacons are an office of the church until Paul's pastorals. But, I agree, and think that this is the inauguration of the deacon position. Is this an ordination? I don't know that I'd call it that. But I suppose we can, or at least we could say they were "assigned" or "appointed," as the Scripture does. The people chose and the apostles appointed and prayed over them.
I avoid ordination because you imply authority in ordination, and there is no implied authority in Acts 6. What was the purpose of the men appointed to serve?


> Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”



The purpose of the deacons was to serve to free up the elders in order that they could focus on serving through the ministry of the Word and prayer. There is no authority implied in this passage, other than what might be delegated by the elders in order for the "deacons" to perform their function.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 27, 2009)

*Some More Quotes From the Sermon*

_Genesis three God said to the woman, I'll greatly increase your pains in childbearing, with pain you will give birth to children, your desire will be for your husband he will rule over you. And now the word for rule is different, than the one used in the creation narrative. This word implies control, government, mastery, authority. And for the first time, one person, the husband, is said to rule over another person. The wife. Male headship in the family still flows out of Adam as our source. But once that source was corrupted by sin, headship was corrupted to. Into something it was never intended to be, originally. And the leadership which originally pointed to God as the only valid authority in life became a leadership which assumed authority over the wife as if the husband were God.


I think the roles given a husband and wife are equally difficult. The husband must deny his fallen tendency to dominate and humbly serve God by dedicating himself to his wife's spiritual welfare, washing her with the Word. And the wife must deny her fallen tendency, to either exalt her husband as God, your desire will be for him, or fight him and attempt to be God himself. And instead submit to her husband's suggestion that Jesus Christ is the only the only one that is going to be God around here. Adam's sin condemned us even before we got around to sinning, which we would. But Jesus' righteousness saves us, even before we get around being righteous. Which we will. In first Corinthians 15 we are told that just as we born the likeness of the earthly man, so we shall also shall bear the likeness of a man from heaven. In other words, Jesus' righteousness not only saves us once for all and guarantees us eternal glorious future. But his character is something we begin to share in this life. Doesn't happen overnight. We spend years falling back into imitating Adam in many ways trying to claim the authority of God in our lives and over other people. But Jesus' spirit changes our, our DNA, are spiritually DNA, and overtime begins to have an impact on how we think, how we feel, how we relate. Until Christ's return we always have one foot in this fallen world, but by faith we place our other foot in paradise. The paradise which is to come, which is in a way the paradise that once was in Eden, before sin ruined everything. _

Above are some more quotes from the sermon. I would appreciate to hear what others think about these statements...


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 27, 2009)

The guy seems to almost have a grasp of it, but has caved to societal pressures/psychobabble. Interestingly, he states, "And the leadership which originally pointed to God as the only valid authority in life became a leadership which assumed authority over the wife as if the husband were God." This is a case of reacting to an inflated view of the truth. The husband's authority is not inherently his own, but delegated by God. As with all authority, we are to obey as unto God. Scripture makes this particular relationship absolutely clear. Perhaps the preacher should ponder whether or not Jesus is God...

Ephesians 5:22-29
22Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 27, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> You might be passionate about this Todd, but your assessment isn't quite accurate. Check Henry Alford on this, if you have it. I don't have electronic, or I'd paste it here. He does a good job on both the Romans and 1 Timothy passage.



Yes, I was wrong about this - the word is in the accusative, and
could be, as you say, either masculine or feminine. I did let myself
get ahead of better judgment and didn't check what I thought I
recalled from the Greek text. I stand corrected with regard to this
assertion... but the case doesn't rest on Romans 16:1 as you know.


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 27, 2009)

Brad said:


> > The pastor you're quoting from is coming from the usual egalitarian perspective that is rampant in both the liberal and evangelical parts of the church, and gaining strength everywhere.
> 
> 
> Amen. And sadly enough, he's in the PCA. Hence my avatar.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 27, 2009)

calgal said:


> Who is the true head of the household? Is it a man or God?




Simply this. The man is the head of the household, and he is the true head, for this is how scripture portrays his role. Just like Christ is the true head of the man. No where in scripture can I find where the Lord would indicate otherwise.

One must remember, that when a couple is married, that they do become one flesh. And that marriage has two main purposes. The first purpose is clear in Genesis. God saw Adam was alone, and declared that it was not good. So he made Eve to be his companion and helpmate. (The command to be fruitful and multiply was a command given later, and if this was a main purpose for marriage, then many barren couples would be in trouble in that they could not possibly fulfill their purposes. Also it is God who opens and closes the womb, and I don't see God working at cross purposes. Though the rearing of children is important. The thing is that children in a married couple's life is only for a short season)

Second, God uses the marriage relationship terms in such a matter through out all of scripture to give His children and understanding about how he will deal with his church. Hence the husband/wife relationship and the church/Christ relationship are rouphly spoken as being symbolically equivalent to each other. And I would argue that one of the main purposes of marriage is so that the believer will be able to understand the church/Christ relationship. Meaning that God has determined before hand that certain type of relationship will be part of human life and history so that His people will be able to gain understanding of their God. And I argue this because without these type of relationships in the world and the understanding of these roles we would have a lack of understanding. Some of these key relationship modes are the following:

subject/King
slave/Master
child/Parent
wife/Husband
soldier/Commander


Note, that in all cases, that God himself is the King of Kings, Lord of Lord, and the head of all those who are in authority. But if a King is place over us, it is not us to question if he is true King, or if a Parent is place of a child that that Parent is a true Parent. One must remember, that God has place all those who are in authority, and therefore if they are a King over a people, they are a true King given that authority by God himself and his subject are to obey him and give him honor as their King. If a women finds herself married to a husband, she is according to the scriptures to obey him as her head. 

Now with that said, there are limits to obedience. And limit is pretty much clear. Those of us who are indeed subjects to the King of King, and the Lord of Lords are not to obey another as to disobey the law of God. In these cases we are to disobey, but only to the point where we are not disobeying the law of God.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 27, 2009)

Very well stated Mac.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 27, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I had no idea that the PCA had drifted so far into liberalism. Would this PCA Pastor be in the minority or majority in his views on male headship? (The only contact I have with PCA Pastors is here on PB)
> ...



Not on the Left Coast.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 27, 2009)

Even if the pastor were right, in that both man and woman were originally created to have a parallel relationship only, (apart from a vertical one of authority), why would he argue that it should be this way while we are still on this side of glory? If sin were the cause of it being created in the first place, then it makes sense to me that, as long as sin is still present, the proper order of submission that he says was established because of sin, has to still remain in place as well.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jan 27, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Even before the fall Adam was head over Eve. The husband didn't become head over the wife because of the fall. The fall produced rebellion in the heart of the wife against her husband. That's what changed. Eve was a helpmate to Adam. So I would have to say this preacher isn't correct. Adam wasn't king over all people but he was head over Eve and that is what his sermon is about...the husband's headship over his wife.



I'm not sure this is correct. Remember, Eve is said to be a helper "comparable" to Adam. In an unfallen world, just as in heaven, I don't think there was any intended headship/authority among humans. Without sin, why would there need to be?

Having said that, I think the pastor is very wrong (I picked "grave error") and believe the man is indeed the head of the household.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 27, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > Even before the fall Adam was head over Eve. The husband didn't become head over the wife because of the fall. The fall produced rebellion in the heart of the wife against her husband. That's what changed. Eve was a helpmate to Adam. So I would have to say this preacher isn't correct. Adam wasn't king over all people but he was head over Eve and that is what his sermon is about...the husband's headship over his wife.
> ...



Mason,

Christ was not a subject of the Fall, and He had a head:


> But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3)


Headship and authority are not sinful concepts, any more than emotions are a result of the Fall. It is the sinful application of these things that is a result of the Fall.

By the way, I also think it is "grave error." I'm not convinced that an egalitarian cannot be a Christian, although I think especially today, feminism and egalitarianism are destroying the Church.

Blessings,


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jan 27, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > sjonee said:
> ...



I agree, Pastor Greco, but in a sinless world why would there be roles of authority? Are we to believe there is going to be some sort of human authority system in heaven? I don't think that's taught anywhere in the Bible - in fact, with the abolition of marriage I would say the opposite can be inferred.

And is the Son subject to the authority of the Father within the Trinity? How can that be the case if the persons of the Trinity are equal in "substance, power, and eternity?"

I'm not arguing, just wanting to understand this better...


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 27, 2009)

It's not an issue of "substance, power and eternity." It's an issue of order and position, as exhibited and ordained by God. Headship isn't a matter of value. It's not a matter of superiority and inferiority. One is not more valuable than the other (necessarily). Man and woman are equal in value, dignity and as image bearers of God. The man, however, has been given the privilege and responsibility of leading the wife. She has been given the responsibility and privilege of helping the husband. Each is to embrace their own position regardless of the faithfulness of the other. When both embrace their God ordained position then it is glorious. When one usurps or abdicates then it is awful. But even on embracing their role faithfully when the other is not is a glorious testimony of the love, character and order of God.
Same can be said for the Trinity. They are equal in stature, power, importance, but not in position. They have different roles.
There is no "most valuable player" in the church. Yet we each function differently in the body. We each have our part, and when any one part of the body hurts, the whole body knows it and works toward restoring that member of the body. 
A king is no more valuable than a pauper. In the world's eyes he is. But in the eyes of God the king has authority delegated by God in a certain realm, and is accountable for that authority. The pauper has whatever authority, or servitude, God has ordained in his life, and is accountable to God for it. All men are accountable to God for being faithful within both their delegated authority and servitude. Have we served as Christ? Have we submitted as Christ? Have we lead as Christ? Have we loved as Christ?
This order began before we can possibly know, but is clearly present in the Garden as Adam is given the order to obey by faith, but fails to submit, both abdicating his responsibility as Eve's head, and usurping God's role as head by partaking. Order of submission is not a result of the fall; it predates it. However, the abuse of order is definitely both a cause and result of the fall.


----------



## Clay7926 (Jan 27, 2009)

I'm also very refreshed that everyone here is on the same page on this issue. Scripture is completely plain on the husband and wife's roles in the marriage relationship. The view espoused by this gentleman sounds a lot like ideas/concepts that my non-Christian friends share concerning marriage. It's disappointing, to say the least, that rather than try to redeem the world's view on marriage, there are some of us in the ranks of believers who want to mimic the world's view rather than God's view. It's taking the easy way out.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 27, 2009)

I'll tell you what, one of the things that I find so beautiful is a woman who understands and loves her role as a helpmeet. To me, that is _such_ an attractive quality. 

As Henry said, the Scriptures are plain on this issue.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 27, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I agree, Pastor Greco, but in a sinless world why would there be roles of authority? Are we to believe there is going to be some sort of human authority system in heaven? I don't think that's taught anywhere in the Bible - in fact, with the abolition of marriage I would say the opposite can be inferred.
> 
> And is the Son subject to the authority of the Father within the Trinity? How can that be the case if the persons of the Trinity are equal in "substance, power, and eternity?"
> 
> I'm not arguing, just wanting to understand this better...



Mason,

Thank you for the interaction. For the record, I never inferred that you were arguing, and I was only intending to delve further into this with you as well. Please don't take my brevity for hostility, even if (in this case) it is not the soul of wit!

Anyway, I would say that in glory we have a different estate than in the garden. We can see that in the garden there was marriage, and authority within marriage. But in glory, our Lord tells us, _they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven _(Mark 12:25). So I do not think authority and hierarchy is an ontological thing - whether between men and women, or the Father and the Son. It is an economical reality. The Son is under the authority of the Father in His office and role as Mediator, not in His essence (cf. WLC 9, 11).

So I would agree with you respecting authority in glory, and say that the current reality is not the same, but rather is a passage into the reality of glory by way of analogy (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35-49).

Does that make sense?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jan 28, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, Pastor Greco, but in a sinless world why would there be roles of authority? Are we to believe there is going to be some sort of human authority system in heaven? I don't think that's taught anywhere in the Bible - in fact, with the abolition of marriage I would say the opposite can be inferred.
> ...



Thanks Pastor Greco and Pastor Johnson...very helpful comments. I've always "assumed" headship/subordinate roles were given as a result of the Fall. Thank you for your insights - they have definitely changed my thinking.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 28, 2009)

I'm still amazed about what my pastor preached.

Here's another quote:

_Well of course, sin did enter our experience. When Adam chose to sin. Yes I know Eve sinned first. But it was Adam's sin that ruined humanity. Not Eve's. Because he was the head. And it was his responsibility to adequately brief Eve about what God said. We are told that Eve was deceived, she wasn't adequately prepared. _


So from what I believe he is saying, Adam caused the whole human race to fall because he didn't give his wife a good enough briefing about the tree?


To me Adam's sin was that he didn't adequately prepare his wife to debate with the Serpent of what was permitted and what wasn't permitted is utterly ridiculous. For we all know, she replied to the Serpent that she wasn't to eat of it or even touch it lest she die.

I'm still in disbelief that anyone could say these things.


----------



## calgal (Jan 29, 2009)

Mac

Have you brought your concerns to your pastor about this issue? It seems that you are quite upset at the sermon and talking to him would be the next logical step.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 29, 2009)

calgal said:


> Mac
> 
> Have you brought your concerns to your pastor about this issue? It seems that you are quite upset at the sermon and talking to him would be the next logical step.



Already have. Several times, along with several other elders. I'm considered by them as being the one in the wrong.

BTW, there is a whole lot more that I am with holding right now that has been going on. His sermon was the most shocking undeniable publicly thing that has occurred. Which teaching I believe that the most novice of believers should be able to refute.

My next steps are to take it to Presbytery, where I pray that it will be resolved quickly and peacefully and that God's name will be glorified in the process. I would normally not right about these things on the internet, but the fact is that I have been struggling with my pastor about these issues and others for a long time, and I have no allies within my local church on these issues. And quite frankly, I was starting to think that I was crazy, in that everyone in this church that I came accross when I expressed my concerns seemed to look at me as that I was the one who was in error. 

So for over a two years now, I have been wrestling with my pastor, other elders, and other local church members about the issue of patriarchy vs egalitarism, along with some other core beliefs about marriage. 

I've started to believe that either I am right and the church I attend is no church of Christ, or I am wrong and I should not consider myself to be a Christian. For the church that I am a member of and my current believes are not compatibly with each other. 

Needless to say, that within my local church, I stand alone on this issue. And that is why I made my first post asking, "Am I Wrong"?


----------



## charliejunfan (Jan 30, 2009)

Yes the head of a woman is man, not men. Only women's father or husband has the authority.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 30, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I've always "assumed" headship/subordinate roles were given as a result of the Fall. Thank you for your insights - they have definitely changed my thinking.


Mason, I'm working on a sermon on Ephe 5:22ff right now, so this stuff is going through my mind anyway. I hadn't realized this, but the teaching that headship is a result of the fall is liberal egalitarian teaching that was heavily influenced by the feminist movement. It's really fascinating. If you have Grudem's _Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood_, read chapter six. If you don't the link is in the title here. 
Here's a quote. Number 3 directly relates to this teaching.


> There are basically four types of misinterpretation of our passage as a result of feminism’s influence.
> 1.	Ephesians 5 has exegetical mysteries that make its teaching unclear, and therefore unusable for either side of the gender debate. They assert that the command to submit in 5:22 is rendered unstable by the requirement of mutual submission in 5:21. Christian egalitarians also argue that the term “head” (5:23) is unclear, since it may mean source or leader.
> 2.	Ephesians 5 presents a temporary injunction, adapted to local conditions that no longer obtain, so that the teaching no longer requires literal obedience.
> 3.	The Bible does teach that women ought to be subordinate to men, but the subordination of women to men is a consequence of the curse. Since we should ever seek to reserve the effects of the curse, the church should steadily strive to eradicate female subordination.
> 4.	Ephesians 5 does not support the traditional view at all. Rather, when Paul commands Christians to “submit to one another,” he abolishes authority structures in the family, forbidding it even as a temporary measure. Ephesians 5:21 overrides or trumps 5:22.


I don't own the book, but found it while doing some research and listening to a sermon on Biblical Headship by Voddie Baucham (pod link provided). It looks like a good one to own. May God bless you as He has blessed me in the clarity of these teachings.


----------

