Comments on: Consistent Application of Gender Rules http://pursiful.com/2007/01/consistent-application-of-gender-rules/ Darrell Pursiful's blog Mon, 14 May 2012 13:24:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jeremy Pierce http://pursiful.com/2007/01/consistent-application-of-gender-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Jeremy Pierce Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:44:10 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=245#comment-368 Of course I disagree with the Patterson view, but that's not what I was saying. I was giving a reason why 3 and 5 are straw man arguments even against the Patterson view. His view is that it's wrong for those in authority to put women over men. He doesn't say, as far as I know, that those put under the authority of women should buck that authority. Those are very different claims, and the command to submit to authority in scripture doesn't depend on that person's being a legitimate authority. Romans 13 would be almost never applicable if that were true, because hardly any civil authority didn't have its roots in someone usurping power at some point. Of course I disagree with the Patterson view, but that’s not what I was saying. I was giving a reason why 3 and 5 are straw man arguments even against the Patterson view. His view is that it’s wrong for those in authority to put women over men. He doesn’t say, as far as I know, that those put under the authority of women should buck that authority. Those are very different claims, and the command to submit to authority in scripture doesn’t depend on that person’s being a legitimate authority. Romans 13 would be almost never applicable if that were true, because hardly any civil authority didn’t have its roots in someone usurping power at some point.

]]> By: D. P. http://pursiful.com/2007/01/consistent-application-of-gender-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-367 D. P. Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:29:13 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=245#comment-367 Hi Jeremy, I'm glad you think #3 and #5 are straw men. It would certainly be ridiculous to assert such nonsense. It seems, however, that Dr. Patterson and you disagree over the scope of womens' subordination. You limit it to the marriage relationship and the local church setting (as do McKinnon, Burleson, et al.); Patterson extends it to academic settings as well. Perhaps by raising these straw men, Dr. McKinnon is trying to nudge Dr. Patterson back toward the complementarian mainstream? Hi Jeremy, I’m glad you think #3 and #5 are straw men. It would certainly be ridiculous to assert such nonsense. It seems, however, that Dr. Patterson and you disagree over the scope of womens’ subordination. You limit it to the marriage relationship and the local church setting (as do McKinnon, Burleson, et al.); Patterson extends it to academic settings as well. Perhaps by raising these straw men, Dr. McKinnon is trying to nudge Dr. Patterson back toward the complementarian mainstream?

]]> By: Jeremy Pierce http://pursiful.com/2007/01/consistent-application-of-gender-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-366 Jeremy Pierce Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:36:55 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=245#comment-366 I don't know of any complementarians who take the view that it's wrong for a woman to have authority over a man in any context. The standard view is that it is exactly two contexts -- the marriage relation and the authoritative teaching of the local church. Some do extend this to other roles in society, as Piper and Grudem do in their introduction to <i>Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood</i>, but what they do not do is say that men under women's authority in the workplace, in the military, and so on should refuse to obey their orders or refuse to submit to authority. They specifically deny that view and say that at most what men in such positions should do is (and it's really vague what this means) to submit in a way that somehow reflects God's creation order. I don't know what that means, but they specifically say men should submit to women in such secular contexts. Thinking it's wrong for someone else to have put a woman in that position is consistent with thinking men under such a woman should still submit. In the light of that, 3 and 5 are outright straw men if used against any mainstream complementarian position (including the Piper and Grudem one, which is what was used to justify this case). Even 9 and 10 misunderstand the Piper/Grudem position, since they don't think all men are over all women, although that one I can see allows a little more confusion. They do think every husband is over his wife, and they do think the elders (all male) are over every member of the congregation. They don't think any male is over any other woman, but they do think it's bad in some sense (and thus worth avoiding) for women to be over men. But that's not the same as thinking every man is over every woman, since it's consistent with everyone else on the same level with respect to each other, aside from husbands to wives and elders to members of the congregation. I don’t know of any complementarians who take the view that it’s wrong for a woman to have authority over a man in any context. The standard view is that it is exactly two contexts — the marriage relation and the authoritative teaching of the local church. Some do extend this to other roles in society, as Piper and Grudem do in their introduction to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, but what they do not do is say that men under women’s authority in the workplace, in the military, and so on should refuse to obey their orders or refuse to submit to authority. They specifically deny that view and say that at most what men in such positions should do is (and it’s really vague what this means) to submit in a way that somehow reflects God’s creation order. I don’t know what that means, but they specifically say men should submit to women in such secular contexts. Thinking it’s wrong for someone else to have put a woman in that position is consistent with thinking men under such a woman should still submit.

In the light of that, 3 and 5 are outright straw men if used against any mainstream complementarian position (including the Piper and Grudem one, which is what was used to justify this case). Even 9 and 10 misunderstand the Piper/Grudem position, since they don’t think all men are over all women, although that one I can see allows a little more confusion. They do think every husband is over his wife, and they do think the elders (all male) are over every member of the congregation. They don’t think any male is over any other woman, but they do think it’s bad in some sense (and thus worth avoiding) for women to be over men. But that’s not the same as thinking every man is over every woman, since it’s consistent with everyone else on the same level with respect to each other, aside from husbands to wives and elders to members of the congregation.

]]> By: Heather Goodman http://pursiful.com/2007/01/consistent-application-of-gender-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-365 Heather Goodman Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:34:12 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=245#comment-365 Some days I wake up a rather liberal complementarian, others, after coffee and a morning stretch, I'm egalitarian. As a friend says, we're complegalitarian (which is a nice way of putting, I'd like to not have to decide, thank you very much). That aside, I'm appalled at this, well, er, development (regression?). And the worst of it, chalk another one up to Christians acting unethically. Some days I wake up a rather liberal complementarian, others, after coffee and a morning stretch, I’m egalitarian. As a friend says, we’re complegalitarian (which is a nice way of putting, I’d like to not have to decide, thank you very much).
That aside, I’m appalled at this, well, er, development (regression?). And the worst of it, chalk another one up to Christians acting unethically.

]]> By: D. P. http://pursiful.com/2007/01/consistent-application-of-gender-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-364 D. P. Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:36:41 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=245#comment-364 Michael: I agree with you about the men-only pastorate. But since Dr. Klouda herself apparently accepts that position, as do so many of her blogging supporters, it just makes this whole fiasco that much more bizarre. Michael: I agree with you about the men-only pastorate. But since Dr. Klouda herself apparently accepts that position, as do so many of her blogging supporters, it just makes this whole fiasco that much more bizarre.

]]> By: Michael Westmoreland-White http://pursiful.com/2007/01/consistent-application-of-gender-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-363 Michael Westmoreland-White Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:48:37 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=245#comment-363 As an egalitarian the only thing I found wrong with his post was that he DID agree that the role of pastor is off limits for women--which is both exegetically and theologically shaky, to say the least. As an egalitarian the only thing I found wrong with his post was that he DID agree that the role of pastor is off limits for women–which is both exegetically and theologically shaky, to say the least.

]]> By: Kyle http://pursiful.com/2007/01/consistent-application-of-gender-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-362 Kyle Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:46:33 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=245#comment-362 Wow. I'd thought McKnight's recent post was hyperbole. Clearly I was wrong. Wow. I’d thought McKnight’s recent post was hyperbole. Clearly I was wrong.

]]>