I wish I was joking, but I’m not.

“According to the ESS folk at the CBMW (the headquarters of the hierarchical complementarian camp), wives will continue to submit to their husbands in heaven/the consummate kingdom/eternity. If it comes out of pre-Curse Genesis, then it must continue into post-Curse eternity, so it seems. This is more like Islam than Christianity:”(Laura Vaivada)

“Finally, consider that in the new creation, those who were husbands in the former dispensation will, at last, be unencumbered by the flesh. They will be able, as never before, to genuinely love “as Christ also loved the church” (Eph 5:25). They will, as never before, have the capacity to relate to those they love “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” (1 Pet 3:7). Consider, moreover, that in the new creation those who were wives in the former dispensation, will have the mind of Christ, “who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and . . . humbled himself” (Phil 2:6-8). They will see in the example of Christ, as never before, the beauty and glory that inheres in gracious, selfless submission. With both man and woman thus perfected and transformed, are we to suppose that the new creation will abandon the order established in God’s original creation? I think not. Rather, such relations will bring to each true joy, and to God, more glory than before.”

Relationships and Roles in the New Creation by The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
I’ve been following an excellent thread on Facebook. I want to copy/paste some of it here and then link to the entire thread (HERE) in case anyone wants to head over there and read/participate. I want you to know about this because there should be a huge outcry against it.

The thread started with a link to an article written by Aimee Bird (Mortification of Spin). Carmon Friedrich starts the comment thread with this:

Carl Trueman makes the case that with eternal subordination of the son (ESS) theology, the “New Calvinists” are ripping creedal Christianity from its foundations. QUOTE: “Because we live at a time when good teaching on the differences between men and women is needed more than at any previous moment in history, it is sad that the desire to maintain a biblical view of complementarity has come to be synonymous with advocating not only a very 1950s American view of masculinity but now also this submission-driven teaching on the Trinity. In the long run such a tight pairing of complementarianism with this theology can only do one of two things. It will either turn complementarian evangelicals into Arians or tritheists; or it will cause orthodox believers to abandon complementarianism. The link is being pushed so firmly that it does not seem to offer any other choice.”

The thread continues:

Carmon: Sadly, these guys are ignoring Aimee, because she’s a woman (even though she had a distinguished pastor writing the last two posts about ESS on her blog). Now, Carl Trueman has thrown down the gauntlet on this VERY important fight. Hold onto your tickets for your ringside seats. This may make some people yawn, but trust me…this will rival any match Muhammed Ali ever fought.

Laura Vaivada: Yes! Hold onto your tickets because this is not a fight we are either giving up on or that we are willing to lose. I have recently heard comments like “Yawn – who cares?” and “As to the inequity between men and women in the church, it doesn’t matter to me.” I have seen mockery, arrogance, and every defense under the sun. This is a slipperly slope theologically, and a slippery slope morally. The “complementarians” (oh, how I wish they hadn’t co-opted that wonderful word for their heretical agenda) are in their dying days. They may think they are doing good, but God will not be mocked and He certainly won’t let them demote God’s daughters to second class citizens. All I see is immature and prideful people elevating one sex over the other and claiming “manhood”. Many of these people should know better – God’s Kingdom is an infinite sum game, not a zero sum game. Manhood and womanhood are rooted in character and ethical obedience to His eternal moral commands. To start cherry picking which character traits one prefers to see (or one observes) in one sex over the other (e.g., men strong, dominant, bold, etc. and women gentle, quiet, nurturing) is antibiblical and from what I’ve seen in how it tears up both sexes, it’s satanic. It puffs up the men and demoralizes women.

I’m all for biblical complementarianism and faithfulness to God’s eternal, moral ethical/judicial standards for the covenant, but I am against the modern attempts to split moral commandments by gender and then rely on the “ideal” of the 1950s or the 1980s to in order to prove “manhood” or “womanhood.” I really fear for these people who are so puffed up they are willing to distort Christian trinitarian orthodoxy in order to maintain their power (on the one hand) or their irresponsibility (on the other). In both cases, it’s spiritual and moral immaturity that is the result. And I don’t care whose initials follow the statements.

Kimberly: Please help me understand when you say “I am all for biblical complementarianism” what exactly does that look like? I have only been taught/exposed to what it looks like in present time in a hyper-patriarchal setting which is not something I exactly agree with.

Laura Vaivada: Kimberly, here is what I just typed on another post to give you a little bit of what I mean by “biblical complementarianism” or what some of us call “covenantal complementarianism”.

We believe men and women are different and gloriously so. And they are complementary – like red is to green, blue is to orange and yellow is to purple. Or like 60 degrees is to 30, 72 degrees is to 18, or 46 is to 44 in a complementary angle. There is no hierarchy in complementarity. Male and female are first and foremost individuals, not collectives. No woman speaks for me, and I don’t claim to speak for other women (and same for men), for each of us will manifest our individuality as imago Dei’s differently – everything from our individual intellect, artistry, emotions, will, experiences, birth order, parents, upbringing, preferences, interests, gifts, and so on… you can put in hormones and how we are “wired” in that list too. In other words, not all men are wired the same nor all women, yet we are different.

My problem with the “manhood” and “womanhood” folks is they want to take what they “observe” (or “prefer”) to be true in some populations (western), and then make it prescriptive for all men or all women, such that if a man doesn’t embrace these observed or preferred characteristics, well, he’s not much of a man and same with women. In other words, they draw lines about what is “normal” or even “mandated” gender characteristics based on some criteria that is not biblical. Much of that is along moral lines which I’ll get to in a second. But let’s take other attributes of humanity for a second. It used to be that Christians embraced the old idea (taken from Plato/pagans, etc.) that men were superior in “reason” while women were more “emotional.” Even the term “hysterical” comes from the word meaning uterus. For years a man who was “emotional” was “effeminate” and if a woman exercised her intellect, she could be seen as a usurper. But we know that a man who is less intelligent than a woman is no less a man, and a woman who controls her crying at the death of a loved one (in contrast to Jesus who wept) is no less a woman. So men and women are not defined by intellect or emotions. What else? Height? Size? We could go on and on trying to find criteria to define men and women. But all we would find are generalizations about what we observe, and preferences for what we would like to see. The point is, if we use any of these criteria, we must be willing to say “If x is a man, then not x is not a man.” And we can’t do that.

So then there are the moral characteristics which we see. Well, a man should be more “bold, determined, persevering, courageous, decisive” and a woman should be more “gentle, quiet, submissive, nurturing, empathetic.” But each of these are moral qualities. Each of these describe the character qualities that are eternal consistent with God’s moral law which reflect the character of Christ. Every Christian is commanded to be 100% Christlike, that means every one of these moral qualities is to be cultivated in every human being – male or female. So a man is still a man when he is gentle, quiet, submissive, nurturing and empathetic, and a woman is still a woman when she is bold, determined, persevering, courageous, and decisive. It’s not a matter of either/or, but both/and – at the right time, in the right context, in the providences of God. Sometimes we are sinful when we are compassionate when we should be bold, or we are sinful when we are decisive when we should be submissive. So application will vary. The standard will not.

To me, biblical complementarianism is when a man and a woman, in their whole beings – gifts, intellect, emotions, moral character, etc. – come together and edify one another, build each other up to be more of the man (male imago Dei) that God intends him to be, or more of the woman (female imago Dei) that God intends her to be. They complement each other as green and red do.

So with regards to the patriarchal worldview, authority, and the like, this too is a big question that has taken me and others such a time to work through and we are still undoing many of the presuppositions, paradigms and traditions many of us have been taught in this area. Let me attempt to answer by describing “skopos” of Scripture as I understand it.

First of all, for men and women, “authority” in God’s original design in Genesis was over things, the creation, not over people, period. No human being is supposed to have authority over another human being – in fact, I would even argue it’s impossible. Christ has authority over all things and through His Spirit we have delegated aspects of His authority over the creation where we are responsible for our bodies, our attitudes, our resources, our relationships (how we love our neighbour), our consciences, our actions, our motives, etc. But nowhere does any person have authority over these things for another person. It may appear that we do, but in reality only God can control a person’s heart and mind, not any other human being.

I believe the “authority over” people came with the Fall in Genesis 3:16 and we would see mankind wanting to take over God’s position as ultimate authority, and become as gods ourselves, ruling over people, not just the creation. More specifically, we see in Genesis 3:16-17 that the man would now rule not only over women (and she would “desire” that idolatry herself), but also over men. History and the Bible confirms this. So does Matt 20:25-27 “But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave [one who submits to another].”

However, with the Cross, the curse has been reversed and the sanctification of the Church and the world in general (John 3:16) is taking place in history, slowly but surely as we overcome the curse by the power of the Holy Spirit who once again has authority over His sons and daughters. Thus here is an eschatological presupposition that I hold: The goal of the Gospel is to “abolish all power and all authority” so that only Christ reigns in the end (1 Cor 15:24)… In other words, the Gospel reverses the curse of human hierarchies. Christ is putting down all power and rule and authority that is opposed to or independent of Him. … This applies to every institution: family, church, state…. The goal for every Christian is 100% Holy Spirit-driven self-governance. Every Christian including men, women, singles, marrieds, husbands, wives.

Thus, all human authority is temporary in nature and is NOT to be fixed by sex (an immutable characteristic) or position (husband or wife). Any *human authority* (that is where someone takes on the role of governance for another who is too weak or immature (e.g., children) or sinful to be able to govern him or herself. Thus marriage between two people is not something where a husband by virtue of being a man has “authority over” his wife because he is male. Marriage is to be where the husband and the wife *serve* each other, *submit* to each other (Eph. 5:21), take on the role of a “slave” or “servant” to each other, helping each other become more self-governing in Christ, able to discern His will and call for them as individuals (the many) and for their marriage in general (the one).

The husband and wife will “lead” the other through service in the area(s) in which he or she is intellectually, spiritually, morally, gifted, etc., stronger, in an attempt to edify the other towards the goal of Spirit-led self-governance. This is our sanctification, our mutual sanctification and God in His wisdom created marriage we could do this with our spouses in an intimate union, illustrated by the head/body metaphor which refers to “unity” and “communion” not authority/hierarchy. In this case, women cannot help *but* teach by example and by word, and men cannot help *but* teach by example and by word. In other words, “leading” and “teaching” are part of being human, not male or female. The question is whether one will lead in righteousness and justice (biblical truth) or in sin. One leads by virtue of being a redeemed imago Dei.

Thus, regarding the difficult verses, they must be interpreted in light of this covenantal and eschatological understanding of the Bible, of the covenant, of creation, fall, and redemption, of authority and sanctification.

I believe that the verses in 1 Timothy regarding silence and women not teaching or having authority over a man were specific to a situation in Ephesus at the time, not a “universal command” to all women at all times, universally binding as part of the God’s eternal moral commandments for all human beings.

First of all, women certainly were allowed to speak and teach (even men) in the New Testament. Junia was a fellow apostle/missionary to the nations with Paul (a position which ranks above prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher – Ephesians 4:7-16) and Paul commended her (Rom 16:7). There were female prophets in the OT and NT. And we know that Jesus Himself made the woman at the well the first evangelist to the male and female Samaritans. Paul was also aware that his friend and co-labourer for the gospel, Priscilla, was a teacher of men – Apollos in particular – about Jesus (Acts 18:24-26). Deborah had been a prophet and a judge (applying the Word of God to contemporary situations), and so on. There had been praying and prophesying in the church by women. The idea that women are not to teach men (the least of the 5 gifts) is not only not in the Bible, but it’s actually impossible – we’re always teaching everyone we contact in some form or another – the question is not teaching or not teaching, but what are we teaching?

Thus the 1 Timothy 2:5-15 verses cannot mean an absolute prohibition of teaching. And I’ve already explained what I mean by “authority”. But of course a woman can have “authority over” a man as we saw Abigail command a lot of men under her authority. Here’s something, however, the word used for “authority” here is not the typical “exousia” as used in the other 32 passages of the NT. Instead the word used is “authentein” which was rarely used in the NT and in the culture, but when it was used, it indicated something violent, murderous or suicidal, perhaps pertaining to the ritual violence to which men were historically subjected that was symbolic of murder and suicide in the worship of the goddess Cybele/Artemis. Thus, correct meaning should be determined by context.

There was a lot of false worship, false doctrine, false teachings going on at that time. There were Gnostics (Essenes) and goddess worshipers there, including women, who were disrupting things during the worship service and needed to be “shushed”. These women (some say they were wealthy women, others say they were teaching false doctrines, attempting to add Gnosticism to the truth faith, etc.) needed to learn quietly with all submissiveness, just as any man would be expected to be quiet, self controlled and stop disrupting the service.

In the context of the pagan doctrines of the worship of Artemis, etc., including violence against men (authentein), castration, prostitution, and wrong views of creation (female fertility gods gave life and male gods like Zeus brought disaster), Paul was correcting the false teachings being introduced into the church (all of Ephesians supports this), correcting the pagan view of what happened in creation and the fall, correcting the fertility goddess cult teachings, as well as specific women who were particularly disruptive.

Thus, we could interpret Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:12 as “I do not permit those women to teach false doctrines nor to instigate violence against a man.”

“Nowhere in the text is there anything about wives being subordinate to husbands or women to men. This is not about governance of the family or the church in general. Gender was not the issue. Paul was not prohibiting all women for all time from leading, teaching or speaking in the church. A thorough investigation of the context and language of his letter demonstrates that he was warning Timothy – clearly and repeatedly – to guard the gospel of Jesus Christ against syncretism with ascetic cult movements found in Asia Minor.

“The practice of examining the Bible in light of its context and the manner in which it has been translated [often with patriarchal presuppositions inserted in the text] seems to be addressed in CBMW Danvers Statement. Unfortunately it is described as “technical ingenuity” that is allegedly designed to obscure the Bible’s apparently clear message. However, looking into the history of Bible translation is not technical ingenuity; it is quite simply responsible scholarship.

…”C.T. Malcolm (1982) provides a description of patriarchy in the church that aptly summarizes the situation I’m describing: ‘Many women I have counselled have moved directly from a home where the father had the last word to a home where the husband played the same role. They first learned about their limitations as little girls growing up. Then as the men they married continued to treat them like children, the problem was compounded. Finally, if their churches do not encourage them to use their talents for others, they shrivel up in their service and often in their love for the Lord (p.31)”

At this point she links to another article called Let My People Go: The Impact of Patriarchy on the Church.