Thursday, November 02, 2006

SOME THINGS SURE/SOME THINGS NOT SO SURE---PART IV

I'm continuing to look at some things I'm pretty sure about and some things with which I'm struggling and I hope, growing. Today I follow up on what was said last post about the Church, only this time, where I see women in leadership. I have to say this is one of my weakest areas of theological certainty. This, along with my views on the Second Coming, is going through a major review as I attempt to understand the text of Scripture unencumbered with my particular history and tradition. I'm grateful for both, just attempting to not build my theology on either as, I'm sure, is true of all of you.

Having said that, I need to really begin with a view I now hold, with great conviction, concerning the New Covenant. I have been caught up in past years in building A lifestyle based primarily on performance or the keeping of rules, including the Ten Commandments, that I now see was confusing the Old and the New covenants.

There is a basic difference between the covenant God had with Israel which was founded upon the Law of Moses as the standard of behavior and the New Covenant. Jesus has established the New, ratifying it with His blood, setting aside the Old or really fulfilling it since it was Christocentric in it's ultimate purpose anyway.

The New is, by definition, a Christ centered rather than Law [read rules here] centered covenant. Some people try to make the ten commandments applicable to the New Covenant by dividing the Law of Moses into three parts. Thus you wind up with the ceremonial, the civil, and the moral law. [the ten commandments] With the moral law extending to the New Covenant [in their way of thinking] since it is descriptive of the character of God. The problem is the Jews would not recognize such a division. The law was "one Body" of law and could not be broken into parts. Whatever happened to the Law of Moses happened to all of it. It was, as I said, fulfilled in Christ.

That is not to say the New Covenant is antinomian. [without law] We are "in-lawed" to Christ as I Corthians 9 says. We are to "hear ye Him" as admonished by the Father at the baptism of Jesus. And, by the way, nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New covenant, with only the "Sabbath" commandment not. In my understanding now, the "sabbath' was a unique sign given to Israel in their covenant with God. We are, as New Covenant people, in an "eternal sabbath" according to Hebrews and rest every day of our lives in the Grace of God.

This is not to say I hold to a two covenant concept as do some Premillennialists, a covenant of works and a covenant of Grace. Nor do I hold to the one covenant of Grace with different administrations as do reformed folks. I'm convinced there were several covenants that prepared the way for the New covenant. I say this because when past covenants are talked about by Paul the Apostle, it is always in the plural as in Eph.2:12 and Rom. 9:4.

All of this to say, Jesus is now our Prophet, Priest, King, and Lawgiver. So we look to Him for instructions for living and the New covenant is the declared guide for behavior. If asked, "how do you read the Old Testament now?" My answer is, Christocentricially. Through the lens of Christ and His work on the Cross. All of the Old was getting us ready for the New. I take everything said in the Old "to the Cross".

Now, this New covenant is different than the old ones in several ways. Let's take an example. The source of authority and power lay with men in the Old. The lifestyle that grew out of the covenant of the Law of Moses was gender based to say the least. The identifying of the wife as part of a man's property as were his slaves, oxen, and asses, in the 10th commandment, certainly shows that.

We are all aware it was based on race as well. God's covenant with ISRAEL made stipulations for foreigners, but they were stipulations, not the norm. Then age was a factor in authority. So that, as one man said, "If you were an 'old Jewish guy' you had it made in that day.

But the New Covenant as announced by Peter was different totally. Remember he said, [after assuring them all there was no drunkeness involved in what had happened] "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all Flesh: [think of how a Jewish person heard this. Gentiles are now included. Forget race as a problem] and your sons and your daughters [forget gender as a problem] shall prophecy, and your young men [forget age as a problem] shall see visions, and your old men will dream dreams; and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit and they shall prophesy." Acts 2:16-18

So you can now see my conviction [things I know for certain] about the New Covenant and it's unique lifestyle of freedom in Christ because of the Grace of God. And you can see I believe there is no inherent authority/power or lack thereof because of age, gender or race in the New Covenant. But having said all of that, you can see that brings me to some things I'm still growing in, and it pertains to women in ministry.

When I take this clear statement of the source of Power and Authority being the Spirit of God in the New Covenant, and, upon whom He places that power and Authority is not determined by men or systems of theology or Baptist traditions, but it is by His sovereign will and purpose, I have a problem. I must face and now think through women in ministry if I'm going to be consistent.

What compounds my problem is that I struggle with the meaning of some verses. For example in Romans 16:1-2, Phebe is called a "deacon". I know the KJV says "servant" and I know that's a fair translation of the word. But when used of men it is left "deacon" or translated "minister" most of the time. Why the difference? Add to that, in verse two she is called a [KJV] "succourer". Some translations say "helper". But when used of men in 1 Tim. it is tranlated "manage", "rule". The word literally means order, to arrange, to rule, to manage, or to help. Paul said she did this with him and his ministry. She, of course, helped, but why not translate it as... ordered, arranged, managed, as it was of the men mentioned in 1 Timothy.? I'm afraid there COULD be a bit of gender bias in the translators minds that is uncalled for in the New Covenant.

Add to this my seeing the 1 Corth.14 passage where the women are told to "be quiet" as a word given to several troublemakers in that passage. The tongues speaker who isn't waiting to see if a translator is present. [v27] The prophet who doesn't care if anyone else has a prophetic word.[v30] And the women who think they are more qualified than men because they are women.[My supposition here is based on what I'm about to say] [v34] "Be quiet" is the word to all of them. Why single out women as the group that is forever to keep silent?

This idea of women being created first and superior to men was a staple doctrine of the mystery religions of Corinth and Ephesus and many of the women of these churches in Corinth and Ephesus were new converts out of that particular belief system. It is no wonder Paul had to tell Timothy to not let a woman have "authority" over men. That word is used ONLY in the 1 Tim. verse and was, perhaps, a street word that spoke of using sexuality to take control to men.

The context of all of this is a correction of an old pagan belief system held in the past by these new converts that have now come into the New Covenant where the Spirit is the source of power and authority. So it is a good word for all and anyone who tries to be superior to others in the Body life experience. "Be quiet" and respect others annointed of the Spirit to minister. That same problem was faced in Ephesus with the same admonition. At least this may be the meaning. You see where I'm still trying to grow and learn.

The traditional hierarchical, man is the boss, women are equal in value but their roles are the, "keep quiet and recognize the authority of men because they're men," roles, don't seem to fit the New Covenant as Peter announced it. So, I've got a problem.

The other day I read a marvelous blog by Todd Littleton in which he refered to a statement made by someone who said, "the greatest danger to continued orthodoxy in the evangelical movement [that's the SBC and others] is egalitarianism. [This is evangelical feminism in his thinking] The other side is complementarianism or the same value exists between the sexes but differing roles based on their sex and are compimentary to one another. [But I'm fearful that many really see it as...the man's the boss only he's not to be mean about it.] Todd said he must be, and used a word new to me, in a "liminal" state. [That means...in between, transitional, liminal state.] That's quite a confession for any SBC pastor to make. He made it about himself. I join him in that state. I guess that creates a new catagory of men called "liminaltarianist".

Seriously, I just think there is a lot of praying, thinking, questioning, and researching of the text yet to be done on this very important issue of women and ministry. I've begun my study. It's part of my "some things I'm not so sure about" theological journey at the moment. I'll keep you informed.

Paul Burleson

32 comments:

guymuse said...

What a great post. This one is a keeper! I thought you did an exceptional job at tackling a difficult subject. Especially good was the first part on how we are to handle the OT (old convenant) and the NT (new covenant). While in seminary one of my biggest struggles was understanding how binding the OT was upon a NT Christian. I never really got the answers I was seeking, and have continued to struggle with this issue to the present. Today's post helps a lot.

As for the second part to your post, I join you as being a new member of the "liminaltarianist" club. What a great term! Personally, my problems with women in ministry are not so much theological, as they are cultural. Culture, upbringing, "the way we were taught", etc. all have greatly influenced our understandings and positions on this particular subject. Most third world nations (like where we live) did not grow up with these biases, and don't struggle near as much as we do when they read the "be quiet" I Cor. passage that is generally used to prohibit women in ministry. For example, I am not aware of any evangelicals in Ecuador (including Baptists) who question having women deacons. That is a non-issue here. Most churches that have deacons have women serving in this capacity. It is more divided over women pastors, but even there, most are far more open than I have encountered back home in the States.

I personally want to be true to the Scriptural intent of the passages in question, but refuse to be intimidated just because so many in our denomination insist upon one interpretation. These matters do not seem to me to be so clearly defined in Scripture as we are made to feel by those with the loudest voices. One of the first conversations I want to have in Heaven is with Paul who penned these words, and ask him face-to-face, what on earth he REALLY meant when we wrote those words to the Corinthian church? Until then, I will join you as a good liminalist until further clarification.

Paul Burleson said...

Guy,

I'm always a bit uneasy when talking about things I'm unsure about. The first part probably showed a bit more clarity and conviction because...I'm not as clear are confident about the second part. But your gracious words sure settled some of that uneasyness...Thanks.

Paul B.

Paul said...

Consider the "liminaltarianists" camp a growing number. I, too, thought this post was superb.

Reading it reminded me of something I read from NT Wright a while back. He said that the apostle Paul would be shocked to know that some were taking his writings and making them a new law. As you pointed out, they are much more occasional than we often recognize.

Keep up the good work/words.

Paul the lesser

Paul Burleson said...

Paul,

I don't know about this "lesser" thing. You Littleton boys are second to know one in this blogging arena. I still have your post dated February 15 on The Bible and Rebaptism in my research files for use anytime I study/research baptism. It is one of the most definitive statements I've yet to read.

No flattery, just honest appreciation.

Paul B.

Paul Burleson said...

And, I do know how to spell "uneasiness" forygive me my fixatyion withy the lettyer y.

Paul B.

Bob Cleveland said...

Two things:

First: 1 Timothy 2:12: But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
(NAS)

I'm not comfortable dismissing that based on what we discern Paul was trying to accomplish. I surmise that is one reason you're struggling with this (AMEN to the struggling .. we need more of that, not less).

Second, wouldn't it be liminalist?

I, myself, would have a major struggle with this, too, were I to delve into it as you have/are. Peg is strongly in favor of the traditional stance that women should not teach, nor exercise authority, over a man.

God has a sense of humor. All this, and this morning it was announced that a woman will be leading the Episcopalian Church in the US.

Paul Burleson said...

Bob,

As always, good to hear from you.

As to 1 Tim. 12...That's the verse which has the only use of that word translated "authority" in all of scripture. It isn't even in the Septuagint. My research shows it was perhaps a street word [slang] that smacked of using sex to control/influence. If that's true...well, it's open for study isn't it. :)

Also, the phrase "to be silent" is the same phrase used in verse 2 where Paul is saying be peaceable and quiet in relationships...ie don't stir things up. Could it be that's the meaning when you put the whole thing together. Just wondering.

Finally, you are probably right on the "liminalists" thing. Guy Muse said the same. "Liminalarianism" would be the movement, "Liminalists" would be what we are individually.

I think we may have a new movement on it's way. :)

Paul B.

Anonymous said...

Paul, first, thank you for tackling a difficult subject. I think all too many, particularly in our denomination, either avoid discussing their doubts about traditional teaching for fear of being lambasted a "liberal," or, on the other extreme, never doubt their traditional beliefs because they never really study or question them, stopping at a couple of verses read in one way and one way only, without thinking of how those verses fit in the big picture.

Second, I've enjoyed reading a number of comments on this subject of late on other blogs (it has been a big topic lately) and found this gem by a woman who is in the same state. You can find it at http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/11/02/women-beginnings-and-endings/. As she writes about it she includes this gem of a statement:

God could make women inferior. He really could. I believe that, and I believe that if HE did it, then it wouldn’t be wrong. The only thing wrong would be our perception of it (if we didn’t like it), because God is God—the way He sees things is the best way to see them, the way HE wants it is the best way, etc… I totally totally totally believe this (and this is why I did not have a problem with the idea of being made for the sole purpose of supporting a man).

But, she goes on to talk about why she questions this...

Bob Cleveland said...

If I might lay aside the log in my eye to scratch the inevitable itch, let me make one other studied, thoughtful, sagacious, perspicacious and pertinent, apropos and cogent statement:

The words is "its". "It's" is limited to the contraction of "it is".

And here I trusted what you had to say! At least, until I noticed THAT. You may knock on the Tent Door once you have cleaned up that language, sir.

PS: I really want to be a SUBliminalist. (You'd never know THAT until you got unusually thirsty, or went out and bought Playboy, though)

Paul Burleson said...

Bob,

It's its isn't it.

Paul B.

Bob Cleveland said...

Paul:

Yes it's.

So .. now .. with THAT out of the way, I'm actually going to have to THINK about what you wrote. Thanks a lot, fella ... there goes my spare time between now and the San Antonio.

SBC Layman said...

Paul,

I will add something to the things I am not sure about concerning convenants.

I have been wrestling with the phrase "covenant of love" (NIV)found in Deut 7:9,12; 1 Kings 8:23; 2 Chr 6:14; Neh 1:5, 9:32; and Dan 9:4

Other more literal translations render it
covenant and lovingkindness or covenant of mercy or
covenant and mercy

As we weave through the entire message of the bible, I am beginning to think that this "covenant of love" or "covenant of mercy" is the one covenant that God has with His creation. The covenant that has been from the beginning and continues to this day. The covenant that binds all others, whether they were with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Israel, or the Church.

And that the Word enables us to see the revelation of that covenant of love in its many phases and applications. And that the Living Word (Jesus) is its full revelation.

But again, its one of those things that while I am sure of it, I am not so sure that it would defend well to the experts in systematic theology. (to those that hold to federal, old covenant, new covenant, etc.)

Troy

Bob Cleveland said...

Paul: If I might be serious (ahem) for a minute: you referred to Reformed Theology folks as holding to two covenants. I'm not sure the context in which you referred to that, but when I was a presbyterian, and we studied the Reformed doctrines, they emphasized that there is only one covenant for mankind, namely the one that God made with Abram (and later sealed by Himself, via Abram's dream). That makes it a covenant which only God affirmed, and this only He can break.

They further said that even Jesus' reference to the "New Covenant" (in His blood) is actually a new administration of the old covenant.

I don't recall any reference to any difference in the covenant for men and women.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Excellent post. I, too, have found it difficult to reach a firm position on this issue. I have found that each side makes persuasive arguments; that is, they are persuasive until I read the other side's arguments. The one thing I am convinced of is that since both sides appeal to Scripture to support their positions and follow sound principles of exegesis and interpretation, we should not make this issue a test of fellowship or cooperation. Perhaps I'm being naive about this, since on both sides those who are fully convinced would say that the other side is wrongly exegeting or interpreting the biblical text.

Paul Burleson said...

Bob,

Sorry I'm late. I traveled all day Saturday and am now in Burlington NC getting ready for the morning service.

You can get serious any time. Just don't stay that was. :)

Of course you are correct. That's what I get trying to contrast the dispenstional view I've held in the past and my mind getting ahead of my fingers. It has been corrected in the post, and is as originally intended to be.

As to the different, administrations of the Covenant of Grace, you're correct again. Reformed folks view the New Covenant as a different administration of the One.

However, I like the idea that, since the word "covenant" is a word generally limited to an historical context, it is best to hold to the "purpose" of God, as Jon Zens uses it, [instead of the idea of a covenant of Grace made before time began] in bringing Christ into the world. And different historical covenants being part of that historical process with the New Covenant "finishing" the work. This would make more sense of the plural use of the word "covenants" by Paul.

Paul Burleson said...

Tim,

It sure is good to have you back. Your posts are still among my favorites on any subject.

Paul B.

Strider said...

Thanks for this excellent post. One of the arguments from the 'conservatives' is that all this equality for women stuff is just a capitulation to our current societal trend. I find this really outrageous. The world has a view of women and it is clear everywhere you go. They are cattle, they are inferior, they are not to be listened to. I work in a muslim country and I have a really hard time accepting a postition that is in line with the Koran- and yes, most conservative theologians sit right next to Islamic fundimentalists on this issue. I sat and watched the Jesus film next to a Muslim man a while back and I was embarrassed the whole time. Jesus was constantly in inappropriate situations with women. He traveled around with them, he talked to women he didn't know- alone, and he let a prostitute cry on his feet and wipe him with her hair. I was uncomfortable but Jesus apparently was not. Women were central to his ministry- they were the first to see him raised and first to believe and proclaim his resurrection- and they were central to Paul's ministry. If they are not central to ours then who are we following- Mohammed is not my role model.
Keep challenging us!

Anonymous said...

That's exactly what I would have said Strider. Being a woman myself and being thought of that way in the work place and in the church from as long as I can remember it's not fun I can tell you. It makes one's self esteem go to zero.

Paul: I too read of Jesus and his relationship with women. He appeared to elevate them if I am reading correctly, so I am just wondering why we are looked upon as lower. Why can we not use the intelligence God gave us to our fullest degree? The world lets us, so why doesn't the church? Why do we have to act like we are less intelligent on spiritual things than what we actually are or be accused of usurping men's authority? We both have the same Holy Spirit illuminating us as we read and study God's word do we not? I'm sincerely asking.

Paul Burleson said...

Strider and Debbie,

I'm sorry for the delay in posting comments the last few days, but I've just concluded several days of ministry in North Carolina and returned home to Oklahoma. Thanks for waiting.

Strider, I have to agree that the attitude of many in our culture remind me of the misogynistic attitudes of religions and cultures of foreign lands more than the Grace culture of the Kingdom. But facing it with the text of scriptures properly handled with clear interpretation will help I believe.

Debbie,

Your "Why" questions are valid. I would simply respond by encouraging you to live by the truth you know and see in scriptues and trust other Kingdom folks to honestly examine these issues too. I believe they will be examined by many in an honest fashion.

Because I sense some legitimate frustrations in you, I would encourage you to also keep making it your goal to be what God wants you to be in whatever context you find yourself and pretend nothing. I have a feeling that's what you're doing and more power to you.

Thanks for commenting, both of you.

Paul B.

Bob Cleveland said...

Another thought just stopped in.

Why did Jesus have to tell us to pray for, and respect, those in authority over us? Might it be that He knew our nature was not one of submission?

We got it honest .. Adam and Eve met with God personally and THEY wouldn't do it, either.

The very nature of the Christian's duty is to submit to the interests of others. Jesus had plenty of authority but He did nothing of His own preference except to withdraw from the throng to spend quality time with His Father.

My wife reads scripture and says she must be submissive toward me, and she is. I read scripture and the paradigm of Jesus' relationship with His church forces me to face my duty to sacrifice my own desires, in honor of my bride. My only excuse for exerting authority over her is where scripture demands I do that.

What I fear is that we can easily examine scripture in light of a desire to make men's & women's roles, duties, "privileges", authority, etc, equal. That would certainly be a human-nature, and a society-pleasing, sort of thing to do.

I don't want to go there. I want to stand on what's plainest in scripture.

And, with that, I don't even think I made my thoughts clear. Oh well......

Paul Burleson said...

Bob,

As always, thanks for weighing in.

As I understand the word "submit" in scripture, I see it fundamentally meaning to "serve". It generally does not have the idea of "boss" or "authority" in it at all.

In fact, there are two words, if I remember correctly, for "submit". One means "one of equal voice and equal value choosing to serve another of equal voice and value. [Huppotasso]
It was used of Jesus "submitting/serving" the Father. [They were equal as you and I know, and He could have said 'No' to the Cross or His statement that He could have called all those Angels is meaningless.] But He chose to serve the Father's Purpose in redemption. [By the way, the Father wouldn't have made Him either.}

The other word "submit" is one meaning "an inferior serving a superior." [Children serving/obeying parents for example, the inferior being their age/experience I would assume.] This word is never used of husbands and wives. It is only the first word that is ever used in marriage.

So what I see is two people of equal voice and equal value choosing to serve one another out of reverence for Christ, and one never making the other "do" anything. [Eph 5] When this is done both being filled with the Spirit, [it takes the Spirit to do it] whose the "boss" won't even be asked. Both will know Jesus is.

Two final thoughts. I'm wondering in what situations do you see the scriptures demand you exert authority over your wife? How would that fit with the command to not "lord it over" her?

Also I'm confident you or I neither one will allow culture to set our standards of relational behavior. We're both too commited to the obedience of scriptures as we understand them, and we're both too hard-headed to care what other people [culture] think anyway. :)

Paul B.

Anonymous said...

I think you should continue this exploration with another post!! Even what you write above in the comments about the word submit is very helpful. Thanks again.

Paul Burleson said...

Bryan,

I've certainly seen more interest generated over this topic than any I can remember. I've received several e-mails because of a desire for privacy in comments, which express a real desire to be true to scripture and open to change where warranted. Some have disagreed but have done so in a gracious manner. I like that. Makes me glad to be a member of the Kingdom with lots of brothers AND sisters who are serious about sharping our understanding of what God is saying. I'm sure still learning. Good to hear from you as always.

Paul B.

Bob Cleveland said...

Paul:

My Strong's says the word means to subordinate; reflexively, to obey. That's most everywhere I see the word "submit" in the NT.

The authority I see comes from Paul's statement in Ephesians that the husband is the head of the wife, as Jesus is the head of the church. My personal interpretation is that I'm responsible for the goings-on in my home .. for its leadership .. but it must be the same sort of sacrificial non-self-interested Leadership that Jesus gave when He was here, and still to this day.

To obey Jesus, Peg has to be submissive to me. To obey Jesus, I have to have a sacrificial attitude toward her. Add to that the instruction that I am to live with her in an understanding way, per 1 Peter 3. So I must, if I want God to be in control, sacrifice my preferences and understand my wife, granting honor as a fellow heir and in light of the fact that she may be a weaker vessel in some ways.

Nowhere in any of that does God approve of, or mandate "Lording it over" her. I might have the authority but I DARE NOT do that. To do that would cost me God's blessing. And it would grieve Jesus, particularly in light of all He's done in our marriage.

Paul Burleson said...

Bob,

I think the end result of what we're saying is pretty much the same. The difference might just be in our understanding of "why" we get to where we are.

Kittle's Word studies is my source for words. But I would make just a comment or two and we can certainly both be correct or incorrect and go on in love from there. I know you know that.

My understanding is that "authority" is not inherent in a person or position, but in the annointing of God for His purposes. This is a basic premise of the New Covenant from Acts 2. So a Pastor [placed there by God] has "authority" as he serves/lives faithfully by example and teaching of scriptures. But if he sins morally, church members have the "authority" to confront and are not unsubmissive/unserving if they do so. A husband has "authority" [read headship] when he [placed there by God] serves/lives faithfully but if he sins, the wife has "authority" to confront and is not unsubmissive/unserving to do so.

Authority is derived from God's annointing and purposes and where "headship" is refered to, it may be that sanctification [set apart for something special] is the purpose. So that, If a woman is a believer and the husband and children are not, she has been sanctified to serve/live to fulfill God's purposes in that family. [See 1 Corinth.7:1-16]

It is true that the husband is usually the one, [See Eph.5:26] but God's purpose is the source of "authority" not the person or position.

Finally, I really do not believe that loving a wife as Christ loves His Bride, the Church, is less submissive/serving than submission [the woman's] is. I want to be THAT kind of head.

By the way, remember that Christ is sanctified by God, ["all authority is given to me"] the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, ["ye shall receive power/authority] and the family is sanctified through the husband, or wife if the husband is not a believer, so live in the "power/authority of the Holy Spirit. [The whole of Ephesians 5]

This idea of headship/sanctification is not original with me, but it has struck a cord in me with a consistency of scripture that is a great help/blessing to me.

Paul B.

Bob Cleveland said...

Paul:

I think we do agree. If we're disgreeing about anything, it's probably about agreeing.

You going to Arlington? I am, Lord willing.

Paul Burleson said...

Bob,

I'll see you in Arlington...the Lord willing.

Paul B.

Anonymous said...

Paul: I like Bryan hope that you also keep going with this but if God leads you to something else I understand.My husband has always allowed me freedom to do what I wanted to do. I am fortunate in that area, but do not want to go past what the Bible does.

I have heard you preach many times before and have found you to be solid. I would like to see what you discover in this study. Thank you so much.

Paul Burleson said...

Debbie,

I hope I'm not overstepping a line of respect here, that is not my intention at all, but I wonder what you think of this. Remember, I know it's just communication through words, but words are important in conveying where we are.

So...what do you think of this?
"I've always been free in Christ to obey Him and my husband has recognized that freedom." I know that's probably what you mean and I think you are to be commended [as is your husband] for recognizing your uniqueness in Christ. This speaks of "partnership" to me while "allow" speaks of "Lordship". That's the essense of what you and I are talking about here and you've got a good handle on it. Those words convey it. What do you think?

Paul B.

Anonymous said...

That's a wonderful way to put it. My husband has definitely recognized my uniqueness . LOL I never thought of it the way you put it and you could never cross the line of respect. I need and like straight shooting. Thank you as this answers a lot of things that I was thinking. :) I just never knew the freedom I had in Christ as a woman until the last few months and even more in the last few days.

Paul Burleson said...

Debbie,

It's people like you that makes being part of the Kingdom/family so much fun.

Paul B.

Anonymous said...

Well the last post you wrote in answer to my question made a light bulb go on which began to flicker a few nights ago. :) Thank you.