I want to add some further clarity to my Review of Dr. Segrave's article "Marriage without a Helpmate" published in the January 2020 edition of Pentecostal Life. As there are several among our fellowship that are using their disagreement with Dr. Segrave's article as an opportunity to gather their "torches and pitchforks" and rally a posse against the author, that is not my intent at all.
Before I ever posted my Review to this blog, I first emailed it personally to Dr. Segraves for his review, as I believe this was the Christian thing to do. Only after I received Dr. Segraves's response to my Review did I then publish my Review to this blog for others to read (in light of the fact that his article is also public in Pentecostal Life).
Dr. Segraves offered a very detailed response to my Review. His comments to my Review equal close to 20 pages, which includes various quotes from his earlier published works. My intention was/is to publish his complete response to my Review here on this blog, but since a lot of his comments quote his published work from WAP, I wanted to wait until I attained permission before doing so.
In the meantime, Dr. Segraves has reached out to me indicating that he will publish an edited version of his response to my Review on his blog and post the link on his Twitter account. First, I am honored that Dr. Segraves even knows about this blog. Secondly, I fully support any response he has to my Review, even if I do not totally agree with him on every point.
I see that my Review in just a couple of days has already been read by almost 100 viewers. So, just to let any further readers know, Dr. Segraves and I do personally know each other. We have taught classes on the same Purpose Institute campus, have exchanged several emails over the years, enjoyed theological conversations with one another, and I honor him as an Apostolic academic and for his work in the Kingdom.
Upon receiving Dr. Segraves's response to my Review, I sent him the following message, which will serve as my final comments on this article:
Dr. Segraves,
Thank you for your detailed response. It certainly adds a lot more clarity to your article. I just want to add a few responses to your comments:
1. I understand that a "woman's role is not limited to procreation." My statements dealt specifically with the phrase "help meet" or "suitable helper." All the other animals had a compatible mate for procreation, except Adam. Hence God created him a "help meet" or a companion suitable for procreation. Nothing in this statement suggests this was her only role.
2. The sources you quote on Gen 3:16 and your own comments indicate that "desire" is a desire for authority or to dominate her husband. If this is the case, and I agree it is, Then this is a change in the original marriage formation. Your own comment to this is the tension caused by the Fall can be lessened, where a husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church and where a wife views her submission to her husband as service rendered to God. I totally agree with this and think this is is a much better explanation of Eph 5:21-25 than was printed in Pentecostal Life.
3. Concerning "head" (kephalē), I have read Bilezikian, Fee, and other's comments on 1 Cor 11:3. They seem to quote one another and/or Liddell & Scott. While I do not agree with his view on women in ministry, Wayne Grudem offers a solid examination of the two questionable classical Greek sources mentioned by Liddell & Scott, one of which is actually a textual variant (the other text lists Zeus as the "archē")
Regarding my quotes from the LXX, everyone one of those passages DO contain kephalē in the LXX.
[Judges 10 LXX; Judges 11 LXX; NOTE: Apparently, there is a textual variant in the LXX between the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus https://en.katabiblon.com/us/?text=LXX - this bracketed sentence was not in my email back to Dr. Segraves].
Go back and look at Judges 10:18, 11:8, 9 where you say that " kephalē " does not appear. It does appear, along with "archontes," and I think they are used synonymously with the meaning of "leader, authority." Although I do know some Apostolics that use "the head of the wife is the husband" to teach male dominance or that women are inferior, I by no means believe this or even imply it. Likewise, I think you recognize the validity of my statement, "We commonly understand that 'source or origin' establishes authority" with your statement, "Hopefully, these biblical texts do not call on a wife to submit to her husband's authority in the sense that children are to submit to their parents' authority!" Certainly, they do not indicate the same "sense" of subjection, but they both indicate some level of subjection to the authority of either the husband or parents.
[Judges 10 LXX; Judges 11 LXX; NOTE: Apparently, there is a textual variant in the LXX between the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus https://en.katabiblon.com/us/?text=LXX - this bracketed sentence was not in my email back to Dr. Segraves].
Go back and look at Judges 10:18, 11:8, 9 where you say that " kephalē " does not appear. It does appear, along with "archontes," and I think they are used synonymously with the meaning of "leader, authority." Although I do know some Apostolics that use "the head of the wife is the husband" to teach male dominance or that women are inferior, I by no means believe this or even imply it. Likewise, I think you recognize the validity of my statement, "We commonly understand that 'source or origin' establishes authority" with your statement, "Hopefully, these biblical texts do not call on a wife to submit to her husband's authority in the sense that children are to submit to their parents' authority!" Certainly, they do not indicate the same "sense" of subjection, but they both indicate some level of subjection to the authority of either the husband or parents.
I do want to specifically address this comment about I Cor 11:3:
If kephalē in I Corinthians 11:3 refers to “the husband’s position of authority over his wife,” it also refers to the authority of Christ over every man (with the contextual indication that Christ is not the authority over women; that is man’s role) and that God is the authority over Christ. This creates questions about the deity of Christ and His relationship with God. The context provided by I Corinthians 11:11-12 indicates I Corinthians 11:3 refers to source or origin.
This, of course, reflects Bilezikian's comments, but I have read your similar statements in your symposium paper on this subject. However, even understanding "head" as source can raise the same supposed issues you've mentioned, "Is Christ the source of 'every man' and not the source of women?" "Does God being the 'source' of Christ create difficulties in our view of the Godhead." Of course, all of these statements are red herring arguments. There is a noted contrast between the statements "the head of every man (plural) is Christ" and "the head of the woman (singular) is the man (singular)." I think you and I would agree, whether "head" means authority or source, that "every man" implies all mankind. Likewise, we would agree that there really are no difficulties in our view on the Godhead no matter which view you take: God (deity) is the "source" of Christ in that Christ is "God manifest in flesh" or God (deity) is the authority over Christ in that He humbled Himself and became obedient even unto death.
4. Finally, I do agree that there is a sense of mutual submission in marriage. Man is not autonomous from the woman and the woman not autonomous from the man. Likewise, the husband's body is not his own, but the wife's; and the wife's body is not her own, but the husband's. I do not think that Eph 5:21 is specifically teaching "mutual submission" in marriage though, especially in light of the synonymous passages in Col 3. However, even if it is, I think you would agree that this "submission" is expressed through a wife's obedience to her husband (as illustrated through the church's subjection to Christ) and a husbands love toward his wife (as illustrated in Christ's love for the church). Likewise, I would disagree that although there is "mutual submission" this means "the authority is mutual." I do believe that the husband is the final authority. Your concluding questions about exercising spiritual gifts and whether a woman is married to an unbeliever are covered by Paul's qualifying statement, "as it is fit in the Lord." I believe that God calls women into the five-fold ministry, which includes being a pastor. I have been associated with many women preachers over the years, all of which understood their husbands to be their "head" in the sense of "authority." So, I get asked all the time, how it is that I believe that a wife can pastor her own husband. My answer is, the same way God called Deborah to be Judge over all Israel, which included her own husband Lapidoth.
Anyway, I greatly appreciate you and your contribution to Apostolic academia. I am not sure if it was the editing process or the constraints of the word count, but I think your article has been misunderstood by many readers. Thank you once again for your detailed response and clarification. God bless.
Jason L. Weatherly, MDiv (student), USGT; BS summa cum laude, CBC
Below is a link to my book on the subject of women's role in the church entitled Great Was the Company of Women: An Apostolic Theology of Women in Ministry.
Below is a link to my book on the subject of women's role in the church entitled Great Was the Company of Women: An Apostolic Theology of Women in Ministry.
No comments:
Post a Comment