Today we will conclude the conversation that I had with R.H. regarding the demand for an apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood. You may not agree with my answers, and I am sure many of you don’t. As you can guess, R.H. didn’t agree with me either.
It appears to me that instead of finding ways to justify why women should be held in submission, or subordination, and treated as second-class Christians, we would find any glimmer of hope in the scriptures and allow women to hear their calling from God. Instead, we have spent countless hours and meanderings on why WOMEN CAN’T. Surely our Creator is not pleased with these attempts to denigrate his creation that gives birth to all humans.
R. H. questioned my sentence “The Israelites/Jews knew better than anybody else that ruling authorities could be evil. They certainly lost their personhood under these authorities.”
R.H. What about the good kings such as King David?
Shirley: Well, some of them even lost their persons – particularly the man he had killed when he wanted Bathsheba.
R.H. You said that the new Christians did not have a ruler in Rome.” Paul said to obey the rulers so we know they had rulers.
Shirley: These were not rulers appointed and chosen by the Christian group. They were rulers who were already in place and had no identity as a specific ruler for these Christians. These Christians had no king, and no president.
R. H. Paul said to obey the rulers or we will incur judgment.
Shirley: We all incur judgment when we resist authorities, because authorities have the law that enforces obedience.
R.H. What do you mean that God does not deputize?
Shirley: Oh, boy. God does not give his authority to men to carry out his Godly dealings with humans. Even though the Pope may think he does, and even though complementarians think God gives men authority over their wives since the men are the representations of Jesus in a marriage.
R.H. Paul seems to say the exact opposite: God appointed civil rulers
Shirley: But they were not chosen by Christians to be their president or their king, or their leader – which is the point I made when I said they did not have a Christian ruler.
R.H. (He persists in the civil authority subject). It sounds as though Paul is teaching that the rulers who are in power are His appointed public servants, and Christians are to obey them. After all, why wouldn’t God’s people obey His public servants?
Shirley: Exactly. But they were not Christian authorities. We all know we must obey secular authorities. (some may have become Christians, but they were not designated as ‘Christian’ leaders to be leaders specifically over Christians. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. And it is important because we know that Christians must have secular law, but we do not have to have Christian lawmakers over us – such as the Pope or our pastor, or a deacon.
And yes, we know that civil authorities did evil things to people, and also Christian leaders did evil things to people.
R.H. But where does the Bible teach that authority leads to the loss of personhood? It seems to me that, according to Rom. 13, failing to submit to God’s appointed authorities carries a far greater risk of “losing personhood” than submitting to them (see especially verse 5).
Shirley: Paul is not saying that men should have authority over their wives in these Scriptures. I was at the James River Assembly of God church in Springfield, Missouri, which is a mega church, and a visiting author of some women-submission book was preaching that day in the pastor’s place. He stood there and told 3,000 people that we women knew that our husbands had authority over us. Then he went on to use these same scriptures
Now, R.H., I have answered your questions. You have one advantage over me – well, maybe you have 2 if you count that you are a male and God’s favored gender.
You have the advantage of being an educated Bible scholar of some kind, and apparently you know some Greek or Hebrew. But you have never been persecuted because of your gender, and you never will be. You will never have to fight for a seat at the table with Christ, as women have to. You will never have to answer questions such as this from someone who may have a damaging agenda against you.
So I ask you – are you a Saul or are you a Paul?
R.H. If you are asking me whether or not I intend to publicly attack you for your position, the answer is an absolute “No!”
What was I asking R.H.? Certainly the main concern I had in the beginning of this conversation was whether or not he was going to publicly ridicule me, or even sick the dogs on me. But there was a deeper reason. This reason I hope R.H. will discover for himself as I did not answer his question.
My fervent desire is that men like R.H. will begin to see this attitude against women’s equality as evil. That this attitude is not Christ-like and each person will have to make their own decision as to how they treat women’s equality. They have the choice to continue persecuting women like Saul did, or they can choose to turn from their ways like Paul did.
Will you work with me to turn the Saul’s of this world into Paul’s?
Note: You might find this article interesting. The title is 10 Majors that are no longer male dominated. I received this from my blog contact page and make no recommendations as to its content. I read it and found it interesting. I hope Tim is a regular reader and continues to read this blog. As always, you be the judge.