Welcome to Adobe GoLive 6

LK: Okay Jen, the gloves are off. Enough of this namby-pamby agreeing about everything. Let's tackle something we don't see eye to eye on--the concept of male headship and its impact on women in ministry. After many years of doing my best to prayerfully and objectively consider the issue, this is how I've come to understand it--male headship, as it has been traditionally conceptualized, is biblically superceded and fulfilled by the concept of joint headship. This means that women should be as fully invited into and invested in ministry as men have been. What do you think?

JS: As in, women pastors?

LK: As in, ordained women pastors, subject to the same criteria as male pastors--absent a spirit of militancy, which is so destructive to the body of Christ.

JS: I have never been able to commit myself to women's ordination because of the absence of a scriptural precedent for it. To chalk that up to culture alone doesn't really make sense because headship was instituted in the Garden of Eden, where no humanly-devised culture existed. In 1 Tim. 2:12, the order of creation is cited as at least part of the reason for female submission: "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." Exactly how headship looks in the practical realm, I don't know, but I know the Bible presents male headship as a reality.

LK: I respect your thoughts here. And I'm glad you brought up creation because I also understand that to be the setting in which God established the perfect precedent for every area of life. Before sin, there was no division of headship. God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion...over every living thing that moves on the earth'" (Genesis 1:26-28, NKJV). God created Adam and Eve in perfect equality and invested them with joint dominion over the earth. Prior to the existence of any humanly-devised culture, God's divinely-devised culture was perfectly democratic, egalitarian, monogamous and free, (not to mention vegetarian). The entrance of sin has brought a long litany of deviations from that perfect standard--tyranny, slavery, polygamy--personal and political abuse of power on every level. It seems to me that the whole purpose of the plan of salvation is to perfectly restore in humanity that which was lost--including the concept and practice of shared headship.

JS: So then the question is; can we expect that restoration to be complete on earth, in these sinful bodies? Here's another way to frame the question: Was the reason God brought about a "pecking order" because Adam and Eve were not born again, or just because they were fallen beings? If the former, then we can expect the pecking order to be annulled when our hearts are changed. If the latter, we must wait until our sinful bodies are made sinless. And if you embrace the former, what do you do with the fact that Jesus said that the church would have both "wheat" and "tares" until the "harvest"?

LK: Or maybe we could frame the question this way--Did God say to Eve, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you," punitively or redemptively (Genesis 3:16)? If punitively, then Eve and all her daughters are under obligation to submit to male headship of any stripe, as long as time shall last. But if redemptively, which I believe is more in keeping with the character of God, what's being described is a "pecking order" that will graciously work itself out of a job. He has admonished, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Yet His sacrificial example doesn't stop there; in giving Himself for His church, Christ empowers her to rule with Him here and now, promising, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). And when it's all over, He'll invite His victorious bride, "Sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne" (Revelation 3:21). We serve a power-sharing God. He exercises authority over us in order to invest us with it, that we may share dominion with Him.

JS: But even the power-sharing God employs headship. "God is the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3). There is no dual headship in nature, either--any animal with two heads is considered an anomaly. Leslie, I feel as if you think headship curtails freedom and automatically equates to one person bossing another around. But headship is not a power-distribution issue so much as a role differentiation issue. Sin's presence establishes that need even more fully. It's as if an emergency situation makes it necessary for us to buckle into our respective roles for the purpose of greater efficiency. Now, you talked about women submitting to headship of any stripe--I don't think that's ever been God's plan. Husbands are to love their wives in the same way that Christ loved the church--"as the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23). Male chauvinism is anything but a saving—“redemptive” as you say it--exercise. Wives are to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (vs. 22). Wifely submission is predicated upon the presence of self-sacrificing love in the heart of the husband. If he is self-centered, lustful, belligerent, unthinking, and generally unchristlike, this model of headship doesn't work. But in that case, the man has broken the heaven-ordained pattern, not the woman. Much teaching on this subject puts the onus on the woman to submit even when her mate is acting more like a pig than a person.

LK: So from what you and I have said so far, it looks as if we're in agreement on this point--when God established headship, He did so redemptively, not punitively, and it was never His desire that it be abused, as it often (should I say generally?) has been, historically. And I agree with you that a two-headed creature would certainly be an anomaly. That's not how I conceptualize joint headship--I rather conceptualize it, in marriage, as two people mutually submitted to Christ, retaining their individuality yet becoming "one flesh," which is symbolic of their being progressively fused into one spirit, one purpose, one love--just as the Trinity is made up of three distinct Persons who are, in essence, One. And I appreciate what you said about role differentiation--men and women are biologically and to some extent, psychologically different, which certainly figures into childbearing and rearing, not to mention the dynamics of romance--vive le difference! But when role differentiation is used to prevent women from becoming fully received into ministry, or any other calling/profession for which they are qualified, I'd say that "curtails freedom." What do you think, Jenpen?

JS: I think that the funny thing about this is that you are the one who hates to get up and speak, and I have traveled around the country preaching for the past several years. Currently, I’m in the middle of an evangelistic series. Functionally, I'm much more like a pastor than you. So maybe the reason you're so bold for women's ordination is because it's miles away from what you would ever do, and you can easily theorize about how great an idea it is without the threat of actually having to do it. So take that, Ms. (not Mrs.) Kay! But I'll be generous. Now that I've analyzed you, I'll give you a chance to exercise your newly acquired shrinking skills on me.

LK: Well, that's convenient. You know you're busted so you think you'll wiggle out of it by putting the heat on me. But since you requested my incredible shrinking services, which have been honed by my having taken three whole psychology classes, here's my analysis--you'd be a great pastor if you'd give yourself permission to believe it, and you might actually have become one by now if you'd been nurtured in a more supportive theological climate. So take that, Ms. Schwirzer.

JS: Take it I will. You see, I have learned the art of womanly submission.

LK: Jen, you have been taken over by aliens! Have you been watching daytime TV and scarfing Cosmic Brownies? What'll I do without your opinionated little noggin to synergize with? We'll be accused of false advertising.

JS: No brownies, no Oprah, no soaps. I'm clean. But I thought that in the context of this discussion I should exemplify the virtues of a submissive woman. Of course, you're not my husband, so I guess I can fight with you to my heart's content. Do you find that comforting?

LK: Very. You had me shaking in my Birkenstocks for a minute. So I guess we can agree on this much--two heads are still better than one, as long as those heads are submitted to the overarching headship of Christ. When that miracle takes place, everyone comes out a winner. Are we in sync with that?

JS: Yes, we’re in sync with that. My own marriage is not comprised of constant top-down decisions imposed upon a subordinate, but rather two people submitting to each other in the Spirit of Christ (Ephesians 5:21). In reality, both Mike and I do a lot of yielding. Now, tell me that's true of you and Don.

LK: Yep, it's true, though sometimes our road to submission is paved with some pretty animated dialogue--maybe you and Mike can relate. Now I'm thinking we'd better "head" on out of here and leave our gentle readers in peace. See you later, Jen-erator?

JS: Yes, Les (bowing submissively) . . .sayonara.

Selected comments:

"I have done some seminars on "Principles of Biblical Authority" so am very interested in this area. History (biblical, secular, church) is replete with examples of how these principles work, and what happens when they are violated. The whole Great Controversy began over a violation of this principle. Nothing is more important. This is why the angel of Revelation comes down having great authority. How can we be prepared for God's kingdom if we do not understand the principles that are the foundation of it, how His authority works, what it is based upon, and how we are rebels from our very nature due to the fall?"

-Fred Bischoff, California

"I've got to go along with Leslie on this one. She even sounds like SHE didn't vote for Bush

P.S. Although as an environmentalist and conservationist, I must say to you both that I feel this "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion...over every living thing that moves on the earth" business has been twisted to embolden most of the timber barons, oil companies, industrial polluters, whale hunters, family planning critics, various corporate greedheads, and political thieves (e.g., GWB) of this land... My version of the Bible would suggest that we endeavor to live in harmony with the earth."

-Stuart Wilson, Texas

"Who of our ordained pastors will be brave enough to publicly voice doubt about EG White's divine ordination and still be able to retain his own human ordination? Most who doubt her do not dare say so. Few will even have the guts or decency to stand up for what they believe when it threatens their careers. (Just wait until the "little" time of trouble and we'll see how many are left!) But to be fair - in practice, most of us degrade the Testimony of Jesus Christ and as verily rebuff Him as the Jews did of old. I must confess, "We have verily denied our ordination of God when we do not follow His Testimony and if we persist, we shall no longer qualify to be ordained of men." On the other hand, Ellen White proved over and over again, her ordination was of God. If the church in her time had not considered her to be in some way fully ordained, then again I must say, "Shame, Shame on us!" I am inclined to agree with Wieland and Short who voice support for corporate repentance. When will we right this offense to God? He has been very patient with us."

Jim Burry, New York


Heads, We Win LK: Okay Jen, the gloves are off. Enough of this namby-pamby agreeing about everything. Let's tackle something we don't see eye to eye on--the concept of male headship and its impact on women in ministry. After many years of doing my best to prayerfully and objectively consider the issue, this is how I've come to understand it--male headship, as it has been traditionally conceptualized, is biblically superceded and fulfilled by the concept of joint headship. This means that women should be as fully invited into and invested in ministry as men have been. What do you think? JS: As in, women pastors? LK: As in, ordained women pastors, subject to the same criteria as male pastors--absent a spirit of militancy, which is so destructive to the body of Christ. JS: I have never been able to commit myself to women's ordination because of the absence of a scriptural precedent for it. To chalk that up to culture alone doesn't really make sense because headship was instituted in the Garden of Eden, where no humanly-devised culture existed. In 1 Tim. 2:12, the order of creation is cited as at least part of the reason for female submission: "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." Exactly how headship looks in the practical realm, I don't know, but I know the Bible presents male headship as a reality. LK: I respect your thoughts here. And I'm glad you brought up creation because I also understand that to be the setting in which God established the perfect precedent for every area of life. Before sin, there was no division of headship. God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion...over every living thing that moves on the earth'" (Genesis 1:26-28, NKJV). God created Adam and Eve in perfect equality and invested them with joint dominion over the earth. Prior to the existence of any humanly-devised culture, God's divinely-devised culture was perfectly democratic, egalitarian, monogamous and free, (not to mention vegetarian). The entrance of sin has brought a long litany of deviations from that perfect standard--tyranny, slavery, polygamy--personal and political abuse of power on every level. It seems to me that the whole purpose of the plan of salvation is to perfectly restore in humanity that which was lost--including the concept and practice of shared headship. JS: So then the question is; can we expect that restoration to be complete on earth, in these sinful bodies? Here's another way to frame the question: Was the reason God brought about a "pecking order" because Adam and Eve were not born again, or just because they were fallen beings? If the former, then we can expect the pecking order to be annulled when our hearts are changed. If the latter, we must wait until our sinful bodies are made sinless. And if you embrace the former, what do you do with the fact that Jesus said that the church would have both "wheat" and "tares" until the "harvest"? LK: Or maybe we could frame the question this way--Did God say to Eve, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you," punitively or redemptively (Genesis 3:16)? If punitively, then Eve and all her daughters are under obligation to submit to male headship of any stripe, as long as time shall last. But if redemptively, which I believe is more in keeping with the character of God, what's being described is a "pecking order" that will graciously work itself out of a job. He has admonished, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Yet His sacrificial example doesn't stop there; in giving Himself for His church, Christ empowers her to rule with Him here and now, promising, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). And when it's all over, He'll invite His victorious bride, "Sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne" (Revelation 3:21). We serve a power-sharing God. He exercises authority over us in order to invest us with it, that we may share dominion with Him. JS: But even the power-sharing God employs headship. "God is the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3). There is no dual headship in nature, either--any animal with two heads is considered an anomaly. Leslie, I feel as if you think headship curtails freedom and automatically equates to one person bossing another around. But headship is not a power-distribution issue so much as a role differentiation issue. Sin's presence establishes that need even more fully. It's as if an emergency situation makes it necessary for us to buckle into our respective roles for the purpose of greater efficiency. Now, you talked about women submitting to headship of any stripe--I don't think that's ever been God's plan. Husbands are to love their wives in the same way that Christ loved the church--"as the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23). Male chauvinism is anything but a saving—“redemptive” as you say it--exercise. Wives are to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (vs. 22). Wifely submission is predicated upon the presence of self-sacrificing love in the heart of the husband. If he is self-centered, lustful, belligerent, unthinking, and generally unchristlike, this model of headship doesn't work. But in that case, the man has broken the heaven-ordained pattern, not the woman. Much teaching on this subject puts the onus on the woman to submit even when her mate is acting more like a pig than a person. LK: So from what you and I have said so far, it looks as if we're in agreement on this point--when God established headship, He did so redemptively, not punitively, and it was never His desire that it be abused, as it often (should I say generally?) has been, historically. And I agree with you that a two-headed creature would certainly be an anomaly. That's not how I conceptualize joint headship--I rather conceptualize it, in marriage, as two people mutually submitted to Christ, retaining their individuality yet becoming "one flesh," which is symbolic of their being progressively fused into one spirit, one purpose, one love--just as the Trinity is made up of three distinct Persons who are, in essence, One. And I appreciate what you said about role differentiation--men and women are biologically and to some extent, psychologically different, which certainly figures into childbearing and rearing, not to mention the dynamics of romance--vive le difference! But when role differentiation is used to prevent women from becoming fully received into ministry, or any other calling/profession for which they are qualified, I'd say that "curtails freedom." What do you think, Jenpen? JS: I think that the funny thing about this is that you are the one who hates to get up and speak, and I have traveled around the country preaching for the past several years. Currently, I’m in the middle of an evangelistic series. Functionally, I'm much more like a pastor than you. So maybe the reason you're so bold for women's ordination is because it's miles away from what you would ever do, and you can easily theorize about how great an idea it is without the threat of actually having to do it. So take that, Ms. (not Mrs.) Kay! But I'll be generous. Now that I've analyzed you, I'll give you a chance to exercise your newly acquired shrinking skills on me. LK: Well, that's convenient. You know you're busted so you think you'll wiggle out of it by putting the heat on me. But since you requested my incredible shrinking services, which have been honed by my having taken three whole psychology classes, here's my analysis--you'd be a great pastor if you'd give yourself permission to believe it, and you might actually have become one by now if you'd been nurtured in a more supportive theological climate. So take that, Ms. Schwirzer. JS: Take it I will. You see, I have learned the art of womanly submission. LK: Jen, you have been taken over by aliens! Have you been watching daytime TV and scarfing Cosmic Brownies? What'll I do without your opinionated little noggin to synergize with? We'll be accused of false advertising. JS: No brownies, no Oprah, no soaps. I'm clean. But I thought that in the context of this discussion I should exemplify the virtues of a submissive woman. Of course, you're not my husband, so I guess I can fight with you to my heart's content. Do you find that comforting? LK: Very. You had me shaking in my Birkenstocks for a minute. So I guess we can agree on this much--two heads are still better than one, as long as those heads are submitted to the overarching headship of Christ. When that miracle takes place, everyone comes out a winner. Are we in sync with that? JS: Yes, we’re in sync with that. My own marriage is not comprised of constant top-down decisions imposed upon a subordinate, but rather two people submitting to each other in the Spirit of Christ (Ephesians 5:21). In reality, both Mike and I do a lot of yielding. Now, tell me that's true of you and Don. LK: Yep, it's true, though sometimes our road to submission is paved with some pretty animated dialogue--maybe you and Mike can relate. Now I'm thinking we'd better "head" on out of here and leave our gentle readers in peace. See you later, Jen-erator? JS: Yes, Les (bowing submissively) . . .sayonara. Selected comments: "I have done some seminars on "Principles of Biblical Authority" so am very interested in this area. History (biblical, secular, church) is replete with examples of how these principles work, and what happens when they are violated. The whole Great Controversy began over a violation of this principle. Nothing is more important. This is why the angel of Revelation comes down having great authority. How can we be prepared for God's kingdom if we do not understand the principles that are the foundation of it, how His authority works, what it is based upon, and how we are rebels from our very nature due to the fall?" -Fred Bischoff, California "I've got to go along with Leslie on this one. She even sounds like SHE didn't vote for Bush P.S. Although as an environmentalist and conservationist, I must say to you both that I feel this "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion...over every living thing that moves on the earth" business has been twisted to embolden most of the timber barons, oil companies, industrial polluters, whale hunters, family planning critics, various corporate greedheads, and political thieves (e.g., GWB) of this land... My version of the Bible would suggest that we endeavor to live in harmony with the earth." -Stuart Wilson, Texas "Who of our ordained pastors will be brave enough to publicly voice doubt about EG White's divine ordination and still be able to retain his own human ordination? Most who doubt her do not dare say so. Few will even have the guts or decency to stand up for what they believe when it threatens their careers. (Just wait until the "little" time of trouble and we'll see how many are left!) But to be fair - in practice, most of us degrade the Testimony of Jesus Christ and as verily rebuff Him as the Jews did of old. I must confess, "We have verily denied our ordination of God when we do not follow His Testimony and if we persist, we shall no longer qualify to be ordained of men." On the other hand, Ellen White proved over and over again, her ordination was of God. If the church in her time had not considered her to be in some way fully ordained, then again I must say, "Shame, Shame on us!" I am inclined to agree with Wieland and Short who voice support for corporate repentance. When will we right this offense to God? He has been very patient with us." Jim Burry, New York