You're quite welcome, and the same to you.


Doors cannot be obeyed; they have no authority. And what I was pointing out about Peter is that he was the only person anyone could possibly say Rhoda "obeyed". Look again at why I mentioned him. So no, I did NOT misrepresent your argument (it was a hypothetical addition), and I am not suffering from paranoia of males. Nice ad hominem. It's one thing to say someone is stretching a point but quite another to cast aspersions on their motives for making it. After that nice intro, it's quite a cheap shot.

You have to already know that I understand figures of speech, but the point again is this: the door has no authority; it cannot be obeyed, listened to, or answered. Remember why you used this as an example? To argue in favor of the Greek word meaning "obey". In spite of both of us knowing "answer the door" means "go see who's there", you have argued that it means the door can be obeyed; I find this laughable.



Maleness is a flesh-based quality, for life. This is mutually exclusive to gift/spirit-based qualities. To be assigned anything at all due solely to one's flesh is what flesh-based means.

And what is "headship" but a made-up word? It is not in scripture in any form, and the Greek word for "head", kephale, never meant boss or authority. It was either the literal head or the figurative "source" as in the "head of a river". Paul used the head/body analogy and twice called the head the source from which the whole body grows. I examine this issue of husband as "head" thoroughly in my other articles, esp. the Commentary on 1 Corinthians.

And as with "lording over", it matters not one bit how well or poorly men wield this imaginary "headship". Abraham and Sarah challenging each other is exactly what proves by example that what Peter said about her use of the word 'lord' is that it was not a title of authority he always held over her, however he might have handled the job. How that isn't my "best argument", I'll never know. You even seem to switch back again to agreeing that this 'lord' was nothing but an honorary title at best, so this undermines your whole argument for what Peter was telling Christian wives.


This is a good example of equivocation: "mutual means one-way 'headship'". No, mutuality, by definition, cannot have "headship"; it's either mutual or it isn't. Boss/helper is NOT mutuality as in equal. If he's always in charge, and she's always the helper, what kind of equality or mutuality is that? If I get to post here but you only get to proofread and email me with typo corrections, is that "mutual" or equal? Not in the slightest. I may benefit, but what do you get except the sheer joy of correcting me?

True equality and mutuality is like the left and right hands; they are mirror images of each other with neither bossing the other. They are more alike than different. They benefit each other and both get their orders from the head, not each other. I don't know how else to explain this. Bottom line is that it is the fallacy of equivocation to turn equality into one-way "headship".


I've run out of ways to say it, sorry.


All I can do at this point is ask you to read it again.



Harmonized with the world, no. It's impossible to do that without directly defying Jesus' clear words against the world's ways. He never said that the world's chain of command was only bad because it was handled harshly or imperfectly; he just said the whole structure was bad, and that his kingdom was the exact opposite in structure.

Let me emphasize that I've been talking this whole time about the church, the Body of Christ, not the surrounding culture or society. We are not the world, we are a "new creation" wherein there is no "male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Jesus wiped the slate clean and turned "roles" on their heads (there's that word again). This is beginning to remind me of Orwell's Animal Farm, where "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Equal means equal, not sanctified inequality, and certainly not silly role playing. Unlike that song, we are NOT the world.

There's care, there's leading by example, there's protection.. but NONE of those require authority. The guards on the city walls are not the kings and magistrates; doctors are not governors; shepherds are not necessarily owners. Moses had authority as a prophet of God, and the apostles had authority as Jesus' inner circle charged with establishing the church. But who after that has the same authority? Who else can add to scripture? I cringe at the thought of anyone today blindly obeying the average pastor as they would Moses or Peter!

The point once again being this: It is fallacious to try to compare the authority of God, Jesus, Moses, or Peter with that of a pastor or husband. Apples and oranges.

Another point is that I'm talking about the church, the Body of Christ-- NOT Israel. You cannot get doctrine for the NT from the OT. The purpose of the NT is to give us "the teachings of the apostles", and it is their authority we obey. The Holy Spirit is given to ALL believers, who will recognize a truly gifted teacher and learn from them. Then, when they do, they too can become teachers. See? Temporary, nurturing, and serving without permanent authority.



Husbands do NOT have "special roles", especially ones that just happen to always look like authority over wives. She is not a child or slave but a grown human being! And I find it disgusting for any sexual relationship to involve one-way authority. Paul actually only spoke of spousal authority as completely mutual and equal: each one has rights to the other's body. That's it. Again, read my commentary for details. Any "role" based solely upon the flesh and for life (unlike the others you tried to equate: elders and parents) is a matter of being, not role playing. "Woman" is not a game I play, it's who I am. And again, no Christian should even want to rule over another adult; didn't we learn anything from the sin of racism? Why is sexism somehow different? See [link to www.fether.net]



Again, focus on the scope here: the church, the Body of Christ. Tell me again which arm rules over the eye? Our authority is the Holy Spirit and the scriptures; if you're neither of those, you don't have it. Period.



Stop right there! If you want to dissect the Trinity and push "eternal sonship", I've got plenty of material to refute that, even against the popular author John MacArthur. This is the old Arian heresy in sheep's clothing. Jesus is the God/Man, the incarnate God, in whom "the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily". Are you familiar with the term "hypostatic union"? See [link to www.fether.net] . Either there is one God or there are three; either Jesus is equal in being to the Father or he is not; either we remember that Jesus BECAME the son at a point in time ("you are my son, today I have become your father") or we ignore it just to prop up the phrase "separate but equal" (the slaves saw through that easily enough, and it isn't any less transparent to women). Look at Phil. 2:5-11 and tell me what it is that Jesus BECAME or TOOK UPON HIMSELF at a point in time, which means it could not have been an eternal lower rank. And what about the Holy Spirit? Third God in line?



Who is objecting to helping others? Straw man. Are children under parental authority for life, as adults? Are elders bosses over young believers, or are they mentors and teachers who we'd be wise to emulate and learn from? And PLEASE try to remember that we're talking about the Body of Christ, not the world.

Mutual, equal, gift-based service!



::eyes rolling::
Well, at least you're admitting the parallel between slavery and "headship". Once again: this all goes back to YOUR using Peter's statement about Sarah calling Abraham 'lord', which IF we use your "obey as God" definition, WOULD BE idolatry. You seem to keep forgetting who it is that drew the connection in the first place.


::face palm::

Really, this is ridiculous. One body proves MY point that the parts do not boss each other, even nicely! And if you want to make the Holy Spirit a third-ranking God, see [link to books.fether.net]


No. If you truly believe that there is rank or hierarchy in the Trinity, you are arguing for Tritheism or "three gods". That is heresy.

Agree, it has run its course; we're going in circles now. But thanks for at least not calling me Jezebel.