Big News!

Lighter discourse: tell jokes, discuss film, art, books, poetry, whatever makes you feel good.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts:1410
Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: Big News!

Post by KR Wordgazer » Mon May 26, 2014 12:27 am

Today I posted a follow-up called "Male Headship and the Problem of Power."

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2014/05 ... power.html
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Big News!

Post by Metacrock » Tue May 27, 2014 9:02 am

KR Wordgazer wrote:Today I posted a follow-up called "Male Headship and the Problem of Power."

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2014/05 ... power.html

I could not make a comment on your blog becuase the thing that you see to prove you are not a robot I couldn't see. I guess I am a robot. I wish you would put this comment on there:


you did great Kristen! I'm not sure if you said this or not, it's a simple point but it really goes to the heart of their argument: no passage says "spiritual" head. 1 cor 11 says man is he head of woman (which we can read 'source' historical source references in creation--kephale meaning source rather tha physical head) it does not say 'spiritual head.'

even if you assume it says head and interpret it to men "boss" (that's not valid but if you do" there is no part of it that says "spiritual head."

Even in a conservative comp home wouldn't the mother have the right to speak up and say "Hey I think there's some spiritual problems here?" They are not willing to grant women even rights that are not taken away in scripture.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts:1410
Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: Big News!

Post by KR Wordgazer » Tue May 27, 2014 5:38 pm

Thanks, Joe! I went ahead and put your comment up. I agree that "spiritual" head is their interpretation and there's no support for it in the text. Of course, most soft complementarians (as my opponent and the moderator both were) like to say "spiritual head" because they believe men are only divinely appointed to lead women in spiritual matters, which is where they place the home and the church. In the secular world, they believe women can lead just as much as men.

It doesn't really make sense, but that's how they justify letting women run for political office or manage businesses.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Big News!

Post by Metacrock » Tue May 27, 2014 8:51 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:Thanks, Joe! I went ahead and put your comment up. I agree that "spiritual" head is their interpretation and there's no support for it in the text. Of course, most soft complementarians (as my opponent and the moderator both were) like to say "spiritual head" because they believe men are only divinely appointed to lead women in spiritual matters, which is where they place the home and the church. In the secular world, they believe women can lead just as much as men.

It doesn't really make sense, but that's how they justify letting women run for political office or manage businesses.
I do sort of see where they are coming from on that but it's still wrong.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply