What does Male Headship teach?

After writing  42: A bizarre gender debate. I was reflecting further on the questions and why they would be asked. That led me to wonder what Male Headship Churches (especially those that use the marketing term Complementarian to describe themselves) teach about those who disagree on gender to them.

If members of a complementarian Church are asked what an egalitarian (I still don’t like the term but anyway) like myself believes and how I live what will they answer? What will they have been taught?

Well the same blog that brought us those bizarre questions also brings us this:

The androgynous, asexual, gender-bending, role-reversing view of modern egalitarianism is so unattractive to me that I cannot help but think most of us publicly embrace it simply because it saves time and bother when we are in public. Link:  Role Calling: John Ensor on Gender Issues

Let me sum up my understanding of egalitarianism (or feminism) more simply and see what it means for life.

  • I believe women and men are equal, that gender should not predetermine roles (the only exception are roles that require specific biology eg childbirth).
  • I believe this understanding is clearly supported by Scripture, despite the Bible having been written within a patriarchal society.
  • I do not believe that all people are identical
  • I do believe that some people are created, called and given gifts that make them particularly suited to some roles – but that this is not determined by gender.

So how does this match the description by John Ensor:

androgynous:

1: having the characteristics or nature of both male and female
2 a
: neither specifically feminine nor masculine <the androgynous pronoun them> b: suitable to or for either sex <androgynous clothing>
3: having traditional male and female roles obscured or reversed <an androgynous marriage> From
androgynous – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Which of these are egalitarians being accused of? Clearly from what I have said I don’t believe in 1, but I do believe in 2 and 3.
What we wear is governed by (among other things) cultural norms, technology, comfort, fashion and rebellion. I don’t see why it should have anything to do with gender (except there are some general shape and size differences by gender). Some traditions are clearly there to enforce gender roles (clothes that stop you performing tasks not permitted for your gender) and should be challenged.

asexual:

1: lacking sex or functional sex organs <asexual plants>
2 a
: involving
or reproducing by reproductive processes (as cell division, spore
formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of
individuals or gametes <asexual reproduction>  <an asexual generation>
b: produced by asexual reproduction <asexual spores>
3: devoid of sexuality <an asexual relationship>
From
asexual – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

I assume we are not being accused of definitions 1 or 2.
I just do not understand the accusation that understanding women and men to be equal and that roles are not assigned by gender makes anyone devoid of sexuality (the quality or state of being sexual: a: the condition of having sex b:
sexual activity c: expression of sexual receptivity or interest
especially when excessive: sexuality – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). I have never heard anyone complaining that their sex life is bad because their partner treats them as an equal (and I have heard plenty whose sex life is damaged by not being considered equal).
If there is something here about certain sexual positions (male on top) being defined by gender, then I recommend trying a bit of variety :-)
I have been trying to think this through (and coming up with many dirty comments) but I just cannot understand what this accusation is about. Jane is my equal and I definitely find her sexy and I am pleased to say that vica versa applies here (and after 20 years of marriage things in this area just keep getting better – something I did not believe was possible say 19 years ago). Having kids around stops things getting excessive :-)

gender-bending:

Iniitially it sounds really painful – like non permament, repeated circumcision. Apparently it means "a person who dresses and behaves like a member of the opposite sex" gender-bending – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

To me it sounds like a way of enforcing a particular understanding of gender role by making it a requirment for men to get throttled by ties and women squashed by corsets. Now I have nothing against ties or corsets (wonder if the latter might make it look like I have sucessfully lost some weight), other than they are uncomfortable. But to imply that not waering such garments is heinous offense is ridiculous. Sadly there are many examples where a fixed understanding of gender and appropriate clothing has lead to some very unsafe items (such as stilleto heels – make a woman unable to do practical actions, slower than men and needing to be protected while damaging their ankles and backs).

role-reversing:

Not in the dictionary :-) Essentially a tool of repression. Those in power (men) find ways to keep that power (male headship) and try to enforce gender roles to protect themselves, part of that is to be derogatory about those for whom these fixed roles are wrong.

Yes I believe in role-reversal where that role is fixed by stereotype, prejudice, gender, race, sexuality, age, hair colour,income,  …  Break out of this oppression. Find yourself, the persojn you were created to be.

I repeat what have people been taught if they believe that this definition bears any simularlity to reality?

Does anyone really know egalitarians who are androgynous and asexual as a result of supporting equality and non gender based roles? Note that both gender-bending and role-reversing are simply insults based on a male headship view of the world, outside that culture they are utterly meaningless.

Whatever these guys are smoking it sure ain’t good for them :-)

[Update]

Just reading the original post again and I was struck by this:

Since most American cares now do not have a keyhole on the passenger
side door, men are being told in now uncertain terms that chivalrous
door-opening is out of style. In our sterile environment, a man merely
pushes the key fob and the woman opens her own door.

Whhhhaaaaaatttt!!!!!

a) Are supporters of Male Headship so stupid that they cannot realise that unlocking the car and opening the door are 2 separate actions and that by replacing the keyhole with a keyfob has no impact on the use of the door handle. Duuhhhh!

b) I would assume a 50% chance that if opening a door for a woman it would be the drivers door.

c) I would assume a 50% chance of it being the woman holding the keyfob.

d) Let her open her own door :-) I mean all this talk of opening doors for people I assumed meant when both going for the same door. Or for example when my Mother-in-law now needs help getting in and out the car. If I got out the car, ran round and opened the door for Jane I would be worried about the conseqences for her health, I mean heart attacks are a serious business.

e) Did someone really write this in a book and then someone else is recommending it. Wow.

Please tell me this was a joke and there are not really people thinking this.

Related articles

19 thoughts on “What does Male Headship teach?

  1. PamBG

    I read the text about The androgynous, asexual, gender-bending, role-reversing view of modern egalitarianism and I didn’t actually assume that it was a serious statement. I took it rather as an hyperbole and as hitting out in anger.
    It’s the equivalent of me calling a complementarian a ‘chauvinist pig’.
    If someone really believes that this is what Christian egalitarianism is about, then I wouldn’t even know how to begin to try to disabuse them of the idea.

    Reply
  2. Dave Warnock

    Glad I made this a post instead of a comment. My comments on both this post and on the one about the bizarre gender debate have not been published.
    Pam, I agree that in one sense it is not serious. But on the other hand it is part of the insidious nature of Male Headship that it gets away with outrageous claims simply by repeating them a lot and denying that anyone has successfully critiqued them.
    I do think we need to go through the rubbish point by point showing why it is rubbish, refusing to let them pretend we don’t exist.
    I find their characterisations of people who believe in gender equality to be plain nasty as well as wrong. And I will continue to say so even when they censor my comments.

    Reply
  3. PamBG

    Glad I made this a post instead of a comment. My comments on both this post and on the one about the bizarre gender debate have not been published.
    It was only after posting a response that I saw on the blog that he states that he might not allow all posts to be published. I probably wouldn’t have answered if I’d read that first. In the event, though, my comment did get published.
    Glad I made this a post instead of a comment. My comments on both this post and on the one about the bizarre gender debate have not been published.
    Perhaps you are right. I guess it’s me coming from the perspective of having been in that environment. I feel that it’s almost impossible to shift the ideas of people who have an inerrantist view of the bible. They read a verse and then act like their opinions are also without error. You may have more energy for this type of debate than I do.
    I find their characterisations of people who believe in gender equality to be plain nasty as well as wrong.
    I find the characterisations nasty too. I guess I project scenarios like the following:
    a) A young woman who wants to be a wife and mother who feels that these roles are devalued; or
    b) a young man still searching for his own identity as a person (remember how darn difficult that was?) and as a man who feels that his masculinity is not valued in today’s society. He imagines an ideal world where all men were valued. (He’s missing the bit of history where rich men oppressed poor men.)
    I’ll probably get myself into trouble for this, but ever notice how the Real Experts on Theology and Marriage often seem to be in their late 20s and have been married for 5 years?

    Reply
  4. Phil Whittall

    There are extremes and daft characterisations on both sides. Personally I think it’s strange to make much comment at all, other than that I understand the biblical arguments made and think they’re wrong and explain why. It’s like saying if you don’t believe in 6 day creation, you’ll end up an atheist. Daft. Just as saying you believe in an egalitarian view makes you a gender bender or that holding a complementarian view makes you a sexist, chauvinist pig.
    Pam, my experience is that those who think I am wrong on this issue are no less/more likely to admit that they may be wrong than I am, views of inerrancy aside.

    Reply
  5. PamBG

    Pam, my experience is that those who think I am wrong on this issue are no less/more likely to admit that they may be wrong than I am, views of inerrancy aside.
    I certainly don’t believe in trying to refute other people’s experience. That’s not my experience. Generally, I find it difficult to have any kind of dialogue that progresses anywhere. A recent conversation on my own blog has been a welcome exception.

    Reply
  6. blue, with a hint of amber

    I don’t like any post like the one quoted just reels of a list of statements, using them as a weapon rather than saying what their issue is.
    I enjoy this blog because you tend to explain as you go along, which is to your credit because then there is a consistency. At least people know what they are being accused of!
    I see the “androgynous” comment as a direct stab at what the author of the post would see as a mistaken view of creation – in terms of Adam being gender neutral before Eve.
    The rest unclear to me to be honest. I can only assume that those are the concerns of where the eglitarian position could lead, especially in terms of sexuality. I also think quite a lot of the emotive speech used in the debate is based on people’s own experience – whether that is men feeling undervalued, women feeling undervalued, men feeling manipulated, women feeling abused or whatever. The huge popularity of books like “Wild at heart” shows that there is an issue in where the church has left the idea of masculinity. Having said that, I am not a great fan of the book, but am just intrigued why so many men describe it as such a blessing to them.
    In this whole discussion for every post you find bashing egalitarians in an unfair way, you can find one bashing complimentarians, in an unfair way.
    Being a charismatic I know what it is like to google search something and find a ream of posts condemning you to the pit for speaking in tongues or visiting a church that has ever sent someone to Toronto. It is the way of the world with the internet – those with moderate views in any camp are rarely bothered about an issue enough to blog about it, meaning cyberspace itself becomes a charicature of what the huge majority in either camp believe.

    Reply
  7. Dave Warnock

    Hi Bwahoa,
    “I see the “androgynous” comment as a direct stab at what the author of the post would see as a mistaken view of creation – in terms of Adam being gender neutral before Eve.”
    Ok, but is there any scholastic support for that view? (and I don’t mean the xyz [no names needed] style of simply shouting my arguments loudly while ignoring all critiques).
    While I don’t read Hebrew my understanding is that Hebrew experts are clear on this (just as the Greek experts are clear that Junia was a woman and an Apostle).
    I just cannot get a mindset that can jump to gender equality means no sex. I like sex :-) Yes I know they say sexuality not sex but without one the other ain’t going to be of much interest.
    The funny thing is that for me male headship sets up mutual undervaluing. Women feel undervalued because they are not equal. Men feel undervalued because the one person who would normally help them feel valued (their wife) is not their equal and so their opinion does not count as much.
    Trying to base your value on being superior to those you have decided are not your equal is a sure fire loser. Anytime you meet a woman who is better than you at anything your ego will take a bashing.
    I don’t see any need to bash complementarians in an unfair way. Their totally pathetic arguments leave plenty of scope to bash them in a fair way :-)
    I agree there are plenty of extremists on the internet, that is why I choose to be a loud moderate (well that and being unable to be a quiet anything!), balance needs to be added.
    On this issue it is also much easier for me to keep arguing as a man, it does not have the same cost as it does for a woman.
    By the way I know all about being condemned, try being an evangelical who does not accept penal substitution as the only model of atonement.
    I am pro charismatic (although not very charismatic myself) and have friends who went the whole way into the Toronto blessing, afterwards we together accepted that there were good elements but also excesses that were not of God.

    Reply
  8. blue, with a hint of amber

    “While I don’t read Hebrew my understanding is that Hebrew experts are clear on this (just as the Greek experts are clear that Junia was a woman and an Apostle).”
    For every expert wheeled out by one camp the others have “experts” of their own.
    It is a bit like saying something is “scientifically proven” – there can be different experts saying different things and whole schools of scientific thought saying different things to each other – but they are all “experts”.
    A few questions I would like to engage with here.
    - Why would the first “Adam” need a “helper suitable for him” if it was complete in its reflection of both genders?
    - What is the purpose in creation of making a first gender neutral human?
    - If Adam pre fall was androgynous then was it fully human? Did God give the command to not eat the fruit to both men and women in Gen 2:17 because it is addressed to a non gender specific being? Where does that leave us with passages like Romans 5:12-21?
    - How does it work that the command not to eat the fruit could have been given to androgynous pre-Adam but the sin itself was done by the male Adam? Where does that leave us if Adam has changed in biological, and by assumption eternal nature in between the command and the fall?
    - Does any other writer anywhere else make reference to a pre eve adam being a genderless human?
    Why is the masculine form is always used? The same form used of Jesus in many cases? Why didn’t anyone refer to this pre-adam ever again? Or did they?
    - In Gen 2:22 when specifically describing the process for making a woman, why doesn’t it specifically state the process for the making a man? At no point does it describe a change in status, or name, for the man. Surely if masculinity entered the world at this point it would be worthy of a mention, especially by writers in such a patriarchal society?
    - In Gen 2:23 was woman taken out of man, or woman taken out of gender neutral first Adam? Again where did man come from, and why does the account only tell us where woman came from? Was man what was what was left over once woman was made? Or did God also make Man at that point? Is the danger we read something from silence. To me it implies man was already there.
    - In Gen 1:26-27 it uses a plural term for men and women – “them”. If “Man” in v26 was a singluar, noun relating the first non gender specific Adam then why does it use a plural to describe “them”. I don’t think it can be referring to anything other than “man” as in “mankind” rather than the proper noun for an apparently androgynous Adam. That is the big issue for the scholar’s isnt it – was Adam (noun) or adam (mankind)?
    - Surely in Gen 5:2 it must be referring to “mankind” rather than a single, noun, an androgynous Adam? Male and female he made them, and named them man: is there reference he made them from something else? Or are they presented as just two distinct categories?
    I appreciate the opportunity for discussion.

    Reply
  9. Dave Warnock

    Bwahoa,
    Here I am intending to be specific about the “experts” I meant scholars of the language rather than theologians of one kind or another.
    One of the problems I have with some in the male headship camp is the way scholarship is ignored. We saw that a great deal in the attacks on the TNIV where a whole way of understanding gender in Greek was invented (male representative language) which makes inferences based on grammatical gender that are not supported by anyone else.
    Trying to pick up some of your points. Remembering that these are my thoughts, they evolve and I don’t claim that they are authoritative.
    “Why would the first “Adam” need a “helper suitable for him” if it was complete in its reflection of both genders?”
    Clearly it was not someone of a different gender that was needed for adam to be complete. It was a companion that was like adam in a way that nothing else was.
    “What is the purpose in creation of making a first gender neutral human?”
    Actually a prior question is how to reconcile the two accounts of creation. Only in the second account is the first human gender neutral.
    Maybe it was so that the human would understand their own needs, maybe it was about giving freedom.
    “If Adam pre fall was androgynous then was it fully human?” I guess since the creator called it human then we should.
    Romans 5:12 You are starting from a whole different place about how to use Scripture. Paul referencing Genesis causes me no problems, it is about connecting Jesus into God’s story, in showing Jesus to be the solution, the end. It is not about biology.
    The approach to scripture and the mindset that we use is so different that many of your questions just do not seem relevant to me.
    “In Gen 2:22 when specifically describing the process for making a woman, why doesn’t it specifically state the process for the making a man”
    That is exactly what I would expect in a patriarchal society. The man is seen as the whole and fully complete while the woman is shown to be less than the man, to come from him. So I expect the extent to which this was an equal division to be lost in a patriarchal society.
    “In Gen 2:23 was woman taken out of man, or woman taken out of gender neutral first Adam?” to me it implies than it was divided in two creating him and her. From some reading I have done recently rather than one rib we should be thinking more of one side which would support this view.
    re Genesis 1:26-27 here we have a different creation account (different order, humans created male and female from the beginning etc). It is only by attempting to force an inerrant view on scripture that these questions surface (questions that the inerrant view cannot answer in my opinion). v26 the word is human beings not “Man” another reason why we need gender accurate translations.
    Gen 5:2: well either it is referring to the 1st creation account in which case no problem as human beings were created male and female . Or it is working on the idea that creation of human beings was not complete until there was both Adam and Eve.
    So one of the problems is that of asking questions of a world view from another world view. I don’t have a problem with multiple world views (being somewhat post-modernist) but it is not something that those who believe in male headship are comfortable with. These questions don’t pass through world views very well, if you see what I mean.

    Reply
  10. Blue, with a hint of amber

    Yes I do see what you mean about world views.
    But equally – if we recognise that world views are colliding – why does a single issue like this become the focus?

    Reply
  11. Sue

    This link may help explain that there was an established rabbinic tradition that the first human was androgynous. This is not necessarily a non-patriarchal interpretation either. It is simply the one interpretation that seems to be favoured by Hebrew readers of a Hebrew text.
    Since ezer is boethos in Greek and clearly a name used for Christ in the early church, there can hardly be any sense that it is auxiliary or subordinate. It means succourer, rescuer, intercessor. But I interpret it as a word of mutuality, an ally, and many others see this in it as well. That men and women are to be allies one of the other. Kenegido is used for the two hands, they are keneg’do – opposite each other, not different but opposed. Keneg’do would not include the fact that one hand is dominant. The feet likewise are keneg’do, opposite each other, and so are a husband and wife, allies to each other. Or should be. As a woman who has put in her time as servant and subordinate help, I did not find that a garden of eden experience.

    Reply
  12. Dave Warnock

    Sue, Thanks for that, very interesting to see how far back this reading goes.
    Bwahoa,
    I don’t think it is one issue in fact but a number that tend to see the same people on each side try these:
    complementarian vs egalitarian
    inerrant view of scripture vs everything else
    penal substitution vs all other models of atonement (including penal substitution as one of many)
    modern vs post-modern
    authority vs inclusion
    righteousness vs justice
    strong calvinist vs everyone else
    Other divisions among Christians see far more cross over compared to the ones above (eg charismatic or not)
    From my perspective (being on the right hand side) I feel that I am being continually told that my views are unbiblical, wrong and that there mist be no compromise from the left hand side. It feels as if it makes it hard to reach out to bridge the world view gap.

    Reply
  13. Blue, with a hint of amber

    I think that is a really useful list.
    The issue it does raise is the value of debating specific topics when it is actually a much wider issue.
    So Mr left hand side thinks to himself “I can’t hold my view if you don’t believe scripture is inerrant and I can’t hold your view because I do believe scripture is inerrent.”
    I do agree that the terms we use are so vitally important to bridging the gap, and not using inflammatory terms is important.
    “An incorrect understanding of scripture” gives more room for unity as it recognises that it is a valid view from scripture, even if it is wrong, as oppose to “unbiblical” which draws a line in the sand between “us and them”
    But the whole process works both ways. I stand by my point that in the blogging world you tend to find only people who care passionately about stuff enough will write about it, and that leads to a polarised view of what the other side is “thinking” as such.
    I have more in common with a moderate eglitarian than a hardline complimentarian, and more in common with a moderate Arminian than a hypercalvinist, so all is not rosy on either side of the list!
    It is interesting that the left hand side fits really closely under “reformed” versus the rest of christendom! That in itself is quite an interesting situation because my own experience is that I have only ever been attacked for being a charismatic, rather than anything else.
    But thinking back that was probably by people who held a much stronger reformed theology than I do, so they probably thought I was being “unbiblical”, which is sort of ironic.

    Reply
  14. PamBG

    “An incorrect understanding of scripture” gives more room for unity.
    In a coldly intellectual sense, saying ‘I believe you have an incorrect understanding of scripture’ may give more room for unity. I’d like to share why I still find this a struggle.
    Trying to give a concise picture of my context, I grew up in inerrantist Lutheranism; very much like hard-core Calvinist, only Lutheran. But a huge emphasis on ‘having the right understanding of doctrine’ as the way to be saved. Fiercely cessationist. I came to the UK and joined a mainstream URC church where I was comfortable for the first time. Then I moved house and, low and behold, my parish C of E church was what would now be called a GAFCON-sympathetic church. The only difference between my Lutheran upbringing and this church was: a) Calvinism and b) a split in the congregation’s beliefs about the works of the Holy Spirit.
    In both the Lutheran and the Calvinist C of E context, living from day to day in the congregation ‘having an incorrect understanding of scripture’ effectively meant that I was viewed as not being a Christian. I was considered to be ‘a nominal Christian’ – someone who came to church every Sunday and who might someday be saved (if only my church friends kept badgering me enough).
    I’d studied theology in university and considered myself a committed Christian for over 20 years, but still I was ‘not a Christian’.
    So, from a practical point of view on a daily basis, I don’t actually believe that viewing me as someone with ‘an incorrect view of scripture’ actually opens windows for discussion at all.
    What would open a window for discussion? Honestly, I just want to ‘be heard’. I consider that I have ‘been heard’ by someone who disagrees with me if he or she can repeat back to me in an accurate manner what I’ve told him or her about my beliefs. I don’t expect the person to agree with me at the end of our conversation. I expect an accurate representation of my views and that can be followed by ‘But I don’t agree’.
    So something like ‘So you believe that some women are gifted for eldership in the church? I disagree’ Rather than ‘So what you are saying is that you are a man-hating feminist’. (That’s an exaggerated example to make the point.)

    Reply
  15. Blue, with a hint of amber

    Point made very well Pam!
    “I disagree with your understanding of scripture”
    Are we getting closer?!!!
    Recognises: disagreement & both sides trying to understand scripture.
    I think jumping to conclusions from anyone’s perspective is a danger – whether that is chauvinists keeping their power base secure or feminists hating men. We shoe horn people into camps without listening to what they are saying. There is so much guilt by association.
    I consider myself a product of elements of the anabaptist movement in terms of my understanding of baptism – but I am not going to set up a city state and start marrying many women! Every theological construct has skeletons in the closet and lunatics screaming from the fringe.
    Questions for you Pam, what made other people think you were a “nominal” christian?
    And what made you a “real” christian?

    Reply
  16. PamBG

    “I disagree with your understanding of scripture”
    Are we getting closer?!!!

    Yes, that’s much better than ‘Your view is wrong’. But it’s also very important to me that I feel the person has understood my position and can repeat it back to me, even if they disagree. You and I came to that point on our discussion on my blog. That happens rarely, in my experience.
    Questions for you Pam, what made other people think you were a “nominal” christian?
    And what made you a “real” christian?

    First I’d like to say that I believe that God knows if anyone is ‘a real Christian’ or ‘really saved’. But it would be true to say that I saw myself as saved as they saw themselves.
    What made me a ‘nominal Christian’ in the eyes of both denominations, I think, was not viewing the bible as verbally inspired, inerrant and infallible. For the Calvinists also, my disbelief that God creates and sustains the hell to which he sends each person and my view that Penal Substitionary Atonement is not the only theory of atonement.
    That makes it all sound very academic and it didn’t get that academic. Putting in the language more commonly used by people, 1) I didn’t believe the bible was true; 2) I didn’t believe in hell; 3) I didn’t believe in the saving work of the cross.
    What makes me believe I’m saved, at the end of the day, is something I think is more subjective than anything else. I confess Jesus as my Lord; I believe that my salvation and the salvation of the universe were effected by his life, death and resurrection; I trust in God’s grace and forgiveness through Christ. And very subjectively, I trust in the Triune God and I know and have known his mercy, grace, strength and love.

    Reply
  17. Lin

    “The androgynous, asexual, gender-bending, role-reversing view of modern egalitarianism is so unattractive to me that I cannot help but think most of us publicly embrace it simply because it saves time and bother when we are in public”
    If you have been reading these types long you start to see the same rhetoric. CBMW’s Russell Moore, teaches that egal marriages are ‘same sex’ marriages. This is where the above statement comes from. He is very popular with the comps and you see his rhetoric repeated all the time especially among the 20-30 year old crowd.
    Everything is divided along roles for each sex. The newest insult to come down the pike from the CBMW crowd is that egal men are effiminate ergo same sex marriage. If that does not keep egal men quiet, nothing will! :O)
    They are losing this debate with scripture interpretation (and they know it) and that is why you see the insults and the laser like focus on ‘roles’.
    I was in the belly of compland for 20 years and I know exactly how they think. I helped market this stuff. Comp books, seminars, etc are very popular. Careers and followings are made on this role and rule stuff not to mention money. It sells well. People love formulas, rules and roles instead of Abiding in Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit. They would rather follow man.

    Reply
  18. PamBG

    People love formulas, rules and roles instead of Abiding in Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit
    This is exactly what Paul struggles with in the book of Galatians, isn’t it? “But we need rules and instructions and roles to follow! How will we know if God is with us if we don’t have specific instructions about what to do?’

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>