Great topic.
Albertabeef, I thought that the context of the "no longer male or female" was to clarify that in the matter of recieving salvation by faith in Jesus, that all are eligible. THere is no discrimination against anyone, all are "Abraham’s seed according to the promise".
I had not heard that the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church interepreted that male headship was to diminish or be abolished. I find that suprising.
My take on the topic is similar to several posts here so far. That headship is not dominance or "leadership from the top". It is not that the leader is better than those he leads. It is Christ-like service. Giving never taking. Living so that those within one’s family (jurisdiction or leadership) are provided for in every way to the end of their growing and flourishing into a fullness of life in Christ. It means getting under and pushing up. It means pursuing hearts. It means loving unconditionally. It means be willing to give one’s life for the life of the other. It means considering the other more important than yourself. Thats headship. Thats leadership. In agreement with a previous post, both wife and husband are to mutually submit or "be subject" to each other. Well what person on earth would not want to submit to someone that loved and served them with their whole heart?
Cornelius Plantinga makes draws the analogy of animal husbandry, which involves creating an environment in which the animal can flourish to its fullest potential. Interesting use of the word husband there. I don’t mean and I don’t thnk Plantinga means to make any connection to animals and wives.
All this said, I also think that to really get pumped about roles and gender differences between spouses, one has to try to mesh it with the the Biblical principle of "the two shall become one". Anyone out there have insights on that? I try to wrap my mind around it and it takes me to some pretty wild conclusions. Especially in the context of differentiaton of roles.
Or does anyone have any insights on how the marriage relationship, or "diversity and unity/oneness", mirrors the relationships in the Trinity?
I imagine that if we understood headship in the same way that Jesus and the Holy Spirit understand the headship of God the Father, that we in the post feministic era (are we post yet?) would not get defensive when words like submit or domain or headship are spoken.
As for the whole Biblical support or male headship I have heard that male headship is established in the genesis accounts of chapters one and two. And that it flows from a Biblically consistent principle that the one that comes first has responsibility for those that come after (chronologically). In the creation account that plays out in that God told Adam not to eat of the tree, not Eve because she wasn’t there yet. Adam was responsible to tell Eve what God said and follow God’s word and help Eve to do the same. So, after they sinned (during which time Adam passively stood there and did nothing while Eve was being tempted), God came looking for Adam to explain what he did, not Eve. Adam set a precedent that I think men everywhere today still struggle with, by first being passive and second by passing the buck, and not taking responsibility before God for their family.
Paul talks later about the first Adam and the second Adam, how the first brought death but the second (Christ) brought life. Any insights out there on how this fits into the discussion? (In that Paul says Adam brought death and not Eve?)
Richard out
richardgreencfr
Aug 14 2006
08:02 am
Great topic.
Albertabeef, I thought that the context of the "no longer male or female" was to clarify that in the matter of recieving salvation by faith in Jesus, that all are eligible. THere is no discrimination against anyone, all are "Abraham’s seed according to the promise".
I had not heard that the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church interepreted that male headship was to diminish or be abolished. I find that suprising.
My take on the topic is similar to several posts here so far. That headship is not dominance or "leadership from the top". It is not that the leader is better than those he leads. It is Christ-like service. Giving never taking. Living so that those within one’s family (jurisdiction or leadership) are provided for in every way to the end of their growing and flourishing into a fullness of life in Christ. It means getting under and pushing up. It means pursuing hearts. It means loving unconditionally. It means be willing to give one’s life for the life of the other. It means considering the other more important than yourself. Thats headship. Thats leadership. In agreement with a previous post, both wife and husband are to mutually submit or "be subject" to each other. Well what person on earth would not want to submit to someone that loved and served them with their whole heart?
Cornelius Plantinga makes draws the analogy of animal husbandry, which involves creating an environment in which the animal can flourish to its fullest potential. Interesting use of the word husband there. I don’t mean and I don’t thnk Plantinga means to make any connection to animals and wives.
All this said, I also think that to really get pumped about roles and gender differences between spouses, one has to try to mesh it with the the Biblical principle of "the two shall become one". Anyone out there have insights on that? I try to wrap my mind around it and it takes me to some pretty wild conclusions. Especially in the context of differentiaton of roles.
Or does anyone have any insights on how the marriage relationship, or "diversity and unity/oneness", mirrors the relationships in the Trinity?
I imagine that if we understood headship in the same way that Jesus and the Holy Spirit understand the headship of God the Father, that we in the post feministic era (are we post yet?) would not get defensive when words like submit or domain or headship are spoken.
As for the whole Biblical support or male headship I have heard that male headship is established in the genesis accounts of chapters one and two. And that it flows from a Biblically consistent principle that the one that comes first has responsibility for those that come after (chronologically). In the creation account that plays out in that God told Adam not to eat of the tree, not Eve because she wasn’t there yet. Adam was responsible to tell Eve what God said and follow God’s word and help Eve to do the same. So, after they sinned (during which time Adam passively stood there and did nothing while Eve was being tempted), God came looking for Adam to explain what he did, not Eve. Adam set a precedent that I think men everywhere today still struggle with, by first being passive and second by passing the buck, and not taking responsibility before God for their family.
Paul talks later about the first Adam and the second Adam, how the first brought death but the second (Christ) brought life. Any insights out there on how this fits into the discussion? (In that Paul says Adam brought death and not Eve?)
Richard out