Wednesday, April 23, 2008
"Eve the Destroyer".... And .... Why So Much Concern Over Bruce Ware versus John MacArthur?
I was recently contacted by Ethics Daily who asked me to comment on my response regarding the request of the unnamed apologetics organization to take my presentation about patriarchy offline. I commented about my thoughts and reaction to the whole matter. Feel free to read more about it at Ethics Daily.com.
Apparently more than a few people have read about this issue before I was asked by the unnamed apologetics organization to remove their name and the name of the unnamed seminary that hosted the conference. I agreed to take down these names from my writings, but unfortunately for those who would "like to pretend as though the workshop never occurred," I did not agree to remain silent about the greater issue and what one has called the "jackbooted thuggery" to which I've been subjected. (The disclaimer offered by the unnamed apologetics organization deemed me "misinformed," a statement that others and I myself believe lacked Christian charity and integrity given the context of the situation.)
But Why Not Concern over John MacArthur?There has been much concern over my citing of Bruce Ware's beliefs about the Trinity and how the ETERNAL Subordination of Jesus relates to women (versus the functional/economic subordination as was necessary for the unfolding of the kenosis of Christ). But...
What about John MacArthur?
Why would Bruce Ware be of greater concern? Though John MacArthur of Grace To You does not teach a view that holds that Jesus Christ is of lesser authority and power than God the Father (such that Jesus does not have the authority even to answer prayer professed by Dr. Ware), why has there not been an equal outcry over my citing of MacArthur's teachings about women?
Here are some examples of John MacArthur's statements about women and sin entering the world through Eve:
High Calling of Women, pt 4
“The weakness of a woman is that she needs a head.”
“No daughter of Eve should follow the path of Eve and lead to tragedy by entering into the forbidden territory of rulership that was intended for man.”
“And the intent of what the Word is saying here is that a woman needs protection, that she has a certain vulnerability. She was designed with the need for a head. She was designed for the need for a leader. She was designed with the need for a protector and a savior.”
The Creation of Woman
“So that the male was given the dominion and authority over God’s created world, and by that fact is the reflected glory of God. In other words, he bears the role of ruler in this world. The fall didn’t change any of that. The man still bears the authority after the fall.”
The Subordination and Equality of Women
“The woman is the submissive one by creation and by virtue of her weakness in the fall that she confirms her submissive role.”
“It’s because of creation. It is the way God intended it from the beginning.”
The Role of the Godly Woman
“The origin of woman and her need for being is God’s clear statement that man is in authority and she is in submission.”
The Curse on Man: Part 1
MacArthur says that God blamed Adam for sin entering the world because he was the head, although the source of sin came from Eve. (this contradicts ! Tim 2:14)
Confrontation in Eden
“Eve was created to be led by Adam”
“She was created by God for a wonderful purpose, to be his true helper.
She became his destroyer. She was created to be lead by Adam.
She became Adam’s leader with disastrous results,”
God’s Pattern for Wives, Part 2
“A woman is saved from the stigma of having lead the race into sin as Eve did.”
Who exactly is it that I am misrepresenting? Exactly how have I misrepresented them? For citing a book author and another seminary professor's estimation of these teachings? For saying that "I have a problem" with these teachings? It appears that I am not the only one who finds some inconsistencies in the manner in which this matter has been addressed.
It's interesting that on the Ethics Daily.com main webpage this morning, the citation of "my chastisement" follows an article about Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" film. How ironic! As I watched the film this weekend, I could not help but sadly realize how analogous the film's subject is to my own experience concerning these matters of presupposition about gender and the suppression of criticism.