Headship Series

[Sudsy]

And here is an opposing view series -

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resour ... hip-part-1

This reads like a liberal attack piece and not an actual constructed argument for why headship is wrong based on Scripture. Why? well for starters there isn't a Scriptural argument.

Wrong, the scriptural arguments are in part 5.

[temporal1]

The Order of The Headship - Part 1 of 4 - Matthew Milioni
https://www.youtube.com

Thank you for adding this much needed topic in today’s out-of-order world.

Sin is to blame, not headship order.

When results are negative, questions (to God) should be:
WHAT AM I GETTING WRONG?
WHAT IS YOUR WILL?

[Ernie]

Does MM refer to the word complementarianism, and if yes, does he use it in a favorable context?

[barnhart]

I have some thoughts about this but haven't listened to his entire presentation. At this point I would simply say there are reasons to be suspicious of Patriarchy from a New Testament perspective. Maybe after I hear him out, I will offer an alternative view.

[Sudsy]

And here is an opposing view series -

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resour ... hip-part-1

This reads like a liberal attack piece and not an actual constructed argument for why headship is wrong based on Scripture. Why? well for starters there isn't a Scriptural argument.

It’s discouraging to begin a topic in good faith only to be attacked on the first page. i had no idea what egalitarianism was, not interested in learning more. esp not in this topic.

it suggests the poster did not view/listen to the OP videos.

I read enough of the first video to know this was not in support of egalitarianism but when I get the time I will give a listen to all of these.

So when there is another point of view related to the topic than that of the opening posts, that is an attack ?

Was the 'attack' on the slave system something that should have been left alone because Jesus only talked about how a believer should live within that system and did not preach that the system was wrong ?

I believe there are teachings in the NT that need to be looked at again and again in the culture we live in. Like foot washing, the holy kiss, musical instruments used in worship and some other NT practises. I know some believe if we follow NT practises as they were in that era and culture when they were written, that this is a 'more correct' way to live the Christian life. Anything short of this is going down some 'slippery slope' or often referred to as becoming 'liberal'.

But others, even within Anabaptist circles, consider more of the timing and cultural settings of these instructions and look for the reasons behind these to see if they are forever literal practises in how we are to live or perhaps they are more hindrances to furthering the Kingdom than they are in building the Kingdom.

So, if one wants to give a certain point of view on a subject in an OP(s), and only get 'Amens', then I would say this is more preaching than exploring scriptural texts. I am puzzled by OPs that provide some sermon material like this and there is no comment made by the OPster as to why this thread is made.

[temporal1]

So when there is another point of view related to the topic than that of the opening posts, that is an attack ?

i’m interested in Outsider’s pov, as OP and as one who doesn’t post a lot.
speaking for myself, when beginning a new topic, it can be dismaying to receive “opposing views” ON THE FIRST PAGE.
topics often deteriorate as pages move along. often, OPs will make requests regarding feedback, Outsider didn’t, which is also fine.

also, your posting history reflects disdain regarding headship order. (thus, this reads like an attack, certainly not in support.)

for myself, knowing how hurting the world is, fatherless homes, crimes, chaos, i appreciate men who are willing to step up, study, analyze, and strive to live out male leadership roles - when the world, including gov programs+policies are against them.

The results are in. When experiments fail, start over.

i sense the world is pushing matriarchy. not an improvement.

When folks criticize patriarchies out of hand, i internalize this in similar ways when hearing criticism of Christianity out of hand.
Certainly, there are bad examples! But what a loss to not learn more, to strive for Truth, to allow negatives/wrongs to define.

[Soloist]

And here is an opposing view series -

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resour ... hip-part-1

This reads like a liberal attack piece and not an actual constructed argument for why headship is wrong based on Scripture. Why? well for starters there isn't a Scriptural argument.

Wrong, the scriptural arguments are in part 5.

I disagree that there are Scriptural arguments, but I only saw his part 1 and 2. I'll read the next ones. His links were poorly arranged.

[temporal1]

I disagree that there are Scriptural arguments, but I only saw his part 1 and 2. ..

When our daughter married, i suggested, a litmus test for a good marriage is, “is everyone thriving?”

MM didn’t use these words, but i don’t see any conflict with what he was saying in Part 1.
God doesn’t design to fail or harm.

[Sudsy]

Got through the first video. So far, no issues.

[Outsider]

Wrong, the scriptural arguments are in part 5.

Those aren't scriptural arguments. They're semantical arguments.

I think you have a wrong-headed view about what headship entails. You seem to think that it means women can't witness for Christ- they can. The series I posted addresses that. You seem to think that it means the man should rule his wife with no regard to her thoughts or feelings, and this is untrue. He should care for her as he cares for himself.

These observations would probably be more appropriate to the thread we were previously discussing these same matters on, but we never got beyond the headcovering/headship issue.

What about eating things sacrificed to idols? Going to nosh down on food offered to Krishna or Shiva?

What about blood? A lot of people eat blood sausage. Is that to the benefit of the church in being more "diverse" and "inclusive"?

Things strangled? That blood issue again.

And howabout "sexual immorality". After all, if they're not hurting anybody, what's the problem?

Where do you draw the line in regard to ritual cleanliness and ritual observance?