I hope the winsome wenches of Wartburg have a wonderful time with Wade.

Of course Dee!

I don’t know the woman involved here or the details, but I do know that Andy Davis is closely connected with Scott Brown of Vision Forum fame (having spoken at some of his conferences), so his association with Brown could be influencing any errant views he has on this. In some of these self-righteous circles it is even considered sinful for a woman to teach other women the scriptures in a women’s Bible study, since they view this as only the husband’s responsibility.

Knowing FBC of Durham’s congregation very loosely, I cannot imagine that they would ever have placed any woman in authority over the congregation prior to Davis’ arrival. Is this what happened?

Dee and Deb, I am as ardent of a supporter for the woman’s role in Christ’s church as you are. I do believe that some churches swing to extremes on this issue. On one hand we have churches where women are in authority as pastors over entire bodies of believers and on the other hand we have churches where women are mere decorative wallpaper. Each group can take a few scriptures out of context to support their arguments and ignore the rest of what the Bible says.

How any pastor can argue against the value of a deaconess in a church is ludicrous, considering the very word is used in the New Testament by Paul. Did Davis say he was against having “deaconesses” in the church he pastors?

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a helper of many and of myself as well” (Romans 16:1-2 RSV)

“Therefore, my brethren, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm thus in the Lord, my beloved. I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (Philippians 4:1-3 RSV)

It was not until Christ came to earth that the dignity of women began to be realized and this in a world which very much denigrates women as a whole.

Acts 18:26 ESV “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”

Romans 16:1-2 ESV “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.”

Romans 16:3 ESV “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus.”

Luke 8:1-3 ESV “Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.”

Titus 2:3 ESV “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good….”

Philippians 4:3 ESV “Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.”

Then there are scriptures dealing with the issue of women serving in authority over the church and they cannot be ignored. When Adam and Eve sinned, they each brought particular curses down upon themselves. See Gen. 3:17-19 regarding Adam.

Regarding Eve: Gen. 3:16 “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'”

So as a result of Adam’s sin, he has to work by the sweat of his brow and as a result of Eve’s sin, she in in this position:

1 Corinthians 14:34 ESV “The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”

1 Timothy 2:11-14 ESV “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

1 Corinthians 11:3 ESV “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

One day things will change:

Matthew 22:30 ESV “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

We are all one in Christ Jesus, fulfilling equally important but different roles until the time of the resurrection. Is this what you believe, Dee and Deb?

Galatians 3:28 ESV “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

All I know is I really want to be authentic with the scriptures and take them all into account building “precept upon precept” accurately.” Be a Berean.

Muff, you pose an interesting question. What I find are scriptures pertaining to authority and the use thereof, not a complete abolishment of authority.

Here are a few good questions worthy of searching the scriptures to find answers for:

Do church leaders have limited authority, or do they have unfettered authority?

Are church leaders merely teachers of God’s word and managers of churches, or are they God’s representation on earth?

Does the Bible teach that churches are to have their own governments running them?

Bereans don’t decide that Junia can either be a woman OR an apostle but cannot be both, even though the plain reading of the text makes her a woman AND an apostle.

Bereans don’t translate the Greek word for deacon as deacon for men but servant for women.

Bereans don’t just dismiss the possibility that the Elect Lady in II John could be a house church pastor/elder simply because they build their foundation on traditional and poor translation of Paul’s words to Timothy over some unrelated matter.

Bereans don’t pretend that Deborah never existed or try to insult every Hebrew male that lived in her day to make an excuse for her existence in order to support their pet doctrine that is not built “precept upon precept” but built on the traditions and misinterpretations and mistranslations of men.

A good place to start understanding precepts it to start where Jesus tells us to start.
Build your house on the bedrock of the words of Jesus, THEN the foundations of the apostles and prophets will be built precept upon precept.
You are placing the foundations of the apostles on the sands of the traditions of men.

Bereans look at all sides of an issue and examine the whole of the Scripture to see which things are true.

There is well reasoned debate on whether or not Junia is a feminine noun or not. It is difficult to determine since evidence seems to support both options. But it seems that the majority of references support the feminine form – though we cannot say it is conclusive.

In the scriptures we know that some apostles performed miracles and wrote scripture, while others were simply “sent.” It is possible that anyone involved in Christ’s ministry prior to his death and who saw him after his resurrection could be referred to as an apostle. If Junia was “sent” or involved in Christ’s ministry or saw him after his resurrection, then she was not in authority in any way.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume Junia was in full authority. Would that mean that it is okay for women to be pastors and elders since Junia would have been exercising that authority over men in the church? First, even if that were the case, the office of apostle is finished and Junia’s case would only apply in the early church and not today.

There are different uses of the Greek word “apostello” and it cannot be demonstrated conclusively into which categorical use of the term Junia should fit. Even if Junia were an apostle in the sense of having seen the risen Lord it doesn’t mean she was in authority in the church. Therefore, for someone to conclude that Junia was a woman apostle in full authority in the church cannot be maintained from the Scriptures.

The word for “deacon” is the Greek word diaconos, which can be translated as “servant,” “minister,” or “deacon.” The use of this word in the New Testament can describe a variety of forms of service, but it does not encompass the aspects of oversight and governance that the office of Elder does.

Deborah led ancient Israel, not the church. There is a difference.

It’s not clear that all apostles had the same level of influence. Paul considered himself the least of the apostles at one point yet not inferior to them at another. The Twelve did seem to have a significant role the others didn’t have. When we consider that Jesus was reconstituting Israel around Himself appointing twelve new tribal heads for a completely reconceived concept of Israel this would make sense.

But this would not preclude women being apostles in some other sense besides being one of the Twelve, and it wouldn’t mean that the Twelve would come to decisions without meeting with all the other apostles. Sure, there’d be an assumption that apostles “have” to be men but that would be conflating the appointment of the Twelve with every other person Jesus ever sent out. An argument that women couldn’t be apostles may have the simple problem of wrongly assuming that an apostle automatically had the same symbolic role as one of the Twelve for reconstituting the leadership of the people of God. In Deut 16-18 tribal chieftains were supposed to adjudicate difficult cases and so, by way of a rather broad proposal, perhaps the Twelve had a role of teaching but also fielding difficult cases that weren’t immediately covered or touched upon by Jesus’ teaching. If this seems abstract and pointless that might be because it is, but it’s stuff I’m mulling over in some other contexts. I’m throwing it out for consideration.

Eagle –

He is causing division and what’s worse is that he seems to consider it some kind of righteous division because of how he then classifies those who disagreed with him. He brought biblical trurh and they rejected it (according to him), now he classifies the others as unregenerate. And he has now declared himself God? Because he knows who is not saved!

WHAT DAVIS WANTS TO DO

“THE REFORMATION OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH IS ONE OF THE GREATEST DISPLAYS OF GOD’S GLORY THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE. MY PRAYER IS THAT GOD WILL USE THIS NARRATIVE TO EFFECT SIMILAR REFORMATION IN OTHER CHURCHES AROUND THE WORLD FOR HIS GLORY.”

This is the scariest statement to me. He gives glory to God. He claims reformation for the church. He prays that God will use THIS NARRATIVE (his??) to effect similar reformation around the world. He sounds like he is giving glory to God, but it sounds to me like he is glorifying himself and his good works in this effort. And (IMO) in reality he DECEIVED people into what he calls “reformation.” I’m sure this will all add to God’s Glory.

Ted –

If only the many hop and popular leaders of our day understood the scriptures you expounded on above!! Maybe they should all switch places with the nursery workers for a year and change dirty diapers and be spit-up on, or do all the janitorial duties in their church for a few years. And make that a true swap, as in the total life swap and with no one knowing who they were before – but they know who they were with their same thoughts and emotions 🙂

Dee, my wife is also authentic which is one of the things I love about her.

I do hold women equally accountable to men, so I’ll be glad to respond to your 10 questions once you respond to the 3 questions I asked you in post 3:48.

Eagle, you’re on a roll! Heheh!

“I was most unhappy with the unregenerate statement. i know some people involved and they are the most delightful Christians one could ever hope to meet.”

Dee,

I absolutely agree! They are indeed delightful!

The final word concerning authority in the church can be found in two places in Revelation concerning the Nicolatians. Many should be very afraid. Conquerer of the people is what it means. And that is what we are seeing. I fear for these charlatans and those taken in by them.

I was most unhappy with the unregenerate statement. i know some people involved and they are the most delightful Christians one could ever hope to meet. But, according the Calvinista Davis, they are unregenerate. I never knew God needed a helper in the judgment department. — Dee

There used to be a troll (don’t remember the name) on Internet Monk with a similar attitude. My response was usually along the lines of “What would Christ do on Judgment Day without (insert name) standing at his right hand like a secret police informant going ‘Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat! etc’?”

And my response for Calvinistas who “draw the circle of the Elect tighter and tighter” has always been “Gonna be mighty lonely in Heaven with you being the only one there.”

Put it that way and you see just how absurd that attitude can be.

HUG, Nicolaitians has been sort of a tablua rasa term in the hands of people obsessed with saying groups of Christians they disapprove of have to be evil. There’s no joy in the journey when there’s a destination to get to. 🙂

Ted – I’ve never seen Dee “bait” anyone.
And some of her best friends are “liberals,” too. 😉

Ted: “Biblical arguments are rather pointless if not supported by scripture”

The problem with your ‘biblical’ argument is the fact that it is based on poorly translated, cherry picked verses that had little to do with each other and everything to do with social and cultural situations that Paul needed to address in the churches he wrote to.

The problem with your ‘biblical’ argument is the fact that the conclusion of your argument works in direct opposition against the words and actions of Jesus Christ, Himself.

But the web of ‘biblical’ ‘proof’ that you and teachers like Piper and Grudem and others has been repeated and taught and promoted that it has been accepted as undeniable truth. It has gotten so bad that a certain Bible was even specifically translated for the sake of supporting the ‘biblical’ ‘proof’ these men put forth. And this ‘proof’ has become the new gospel and so unquestionable so that real and honest examination from any other angle is rejected for no good reason, except the reason that is does not support the ‘biblical’ ‘proof’ woven together by men with agendas.

Now I understand that you want scriptures to support my position. So hopefully, later today, when I have more time, I will produce those scriptures. And they will all be from the red letters of Jesus, our Bedrock and Chief Cornerstone that the builders at CBMW reject. Oh, I might quote Paul where he says, “follow me as I follow Christ,” and, “If any man or even an angel comes preaching a different gospel, let him be accursed.”

Excellent comment. You have a wonderful “voice”. May our churches be filled with women like you.

Re “women keeping silent in church” and “exercises of missing the point”:

Ever heard of “Castrati”? The word means “male soprano” and how you get them, i.e. “Castrated One”. They originated in Church choirs in Italy sometime between the Renaissance and the 18th Century because “women must keep silent in church”, i.e. were forbidden to sing in choirs. However, the choirs still needed high-pitched soprano voices. Hence the manufacture of Castrati.

Castrati had to be castrated before puberty, before their voice changed to adult male pitch. This was long before anesthesia or germ theory or antiseptics. The survivors had to be trained from castration in vocal music, with a high washout rate. Maybe one in a hundred made it into the Church choirs; I don’t know what happened to the other survivors.

All so “Women shall keep silent in Church”…

Dee wrote:

“So what happens to single women? Do they get to have Christ as their head since they do not have a husband? Don’t laugh at the last question. Many of today’s authoritarian churches now appoint men in the church to be the head of the single women. So, do they run all their decisions through their head?”

Exactly. And I would also like to know this: if God appointed the husband as the spiritual head and leader over his wife; if this is specifically taught in the bible without exception and is the way a “biblical” and “gospel” marriage is supposed to be;(some would even say the wife goes through the husband to “get” Christ)…or, at least, that the husband determines what Jesus would desire for them…knowledge of His will for them…life decisions, etc., then what happens when the Christian husband tragically dies first leaving his wife “uncovered?” My main questions is why would that ever happen? If one believes in a sovereign God, who plans all and knows all, like the CBMW would promote, why would God ever take away a wife’s spiritual covering if that (having the husband be her spiritual covering) was His very plan in the first for “biblical” marriage and necessary for her spiritual growth? Don’t laugh at my silly question. 🙂 Sure she can remarry and get another “covering” but what was wrong with the first one?

I used to have a single friend in a church that teaches this. She had to have the following: a male authority- a deacon, I think, was assigned to her to run all (ALL) things through him; an older female to shepherd her (even though my friend was in her early 50’s) and a married couple to be her covering to teach her about marriage, I guess. She never thought any of that was odd and seemed to like having not to make decisions on her own or to simply trust that the Lord would direct her Himself. I am not saying counsel is wrong or bad…this did seem like too much, imo.

“If you have a story we should write about, let us know.”

Lol… well, since you asked Dee, I was very disturbed after reading this article the other day. This statement at the end I found just incredible…am without words, really. My husband and I are not “signed members” of a church. This article made me want to remain as we are…not reverse our situation. When speaking of committed the author means a signed membership…I guess if you are not “signed up” don’t think of yourself as committed?

“What many Christians don’t realize is, to remain aloof from a committed fellowship to a local church is to walk in spiritually dangerous territory. It’s thin ice. Such a person is unaccountable and unprotected.”

http://www.9marks.org/blog/what-say-non-committal-church-attenders

Maybe no one else will find it or the article troubling, but I did. I do realize that upon entering 9Marks territory I should expect to find a lot to do with “joining a church”…it’s what they do…however, I was disturbed by the sweeping statements and the “either you join or you are in spiritual danger” tone.

Dee,

There is textual evidence that Paul was often quoting a letter or other communication from a church and then responding to it! That means that proof-texting is dangerous, because you may be quoting the non-inspired piece from the church, not the inspired answer. I think the whole “covering” thing is just that, as I have read other theologians remark. After all, why would head covering be important when circumcision was not!!!!!!! We need to use a bit of common sense when reading scripture and not blindly apply some little piece everywhere.

BTW, GOD did not say women should not have authority over women in church. Paul said that, using the personal pronoun in “I permit no” Paul was a redeemed and only partially reformed Pharisee and Jew by tradition.

RE: Headless Unicorn Guy on Thu, Dec 08 2011 at 10:57 pm:

“…The Nicolaitans” were REALLY the ROMAN Catholics…”

If you’re a true Bible believing Christian, you know for sure that Catholics are going to hell if they don’t repent of their licentious worship of the Babylon Whore and continue to take part in her fornications. And if Billy Graham doesn’t repent of his ecumenical heresies regarding Catholics, he’s goin’ to hell too!

Y’all have a nice day … ===> (smiley face goes here)

My simple but politically incorrect belief:

In this world; testosterone will rule. (biology is destiny)

If you have a problem with the rule of testosterone; your problem isn’t with men, it is with God who created men, women and testosterone.

It does not appear that testosterone rules in the final existence.

Ted, The irony is that you are making a cultural arguement. And that is exactly what comps do when it comes to egalitarianism or mutualism (which is what scripture is teaching).

Comps claim that egals make cultural arguements instead of scriptural ones.

Now, anyone who tries to say that men and women are not biologically different are nuts. but what on earth does that have to do spirituality? Is your wife a pink Christian? You a blue Christian. Do sex organs come into play when it comes to salvation or sanctification? When it comes to being Christlike? If yes, then how can she ever hope to be Christlike since she is female?

Yes, let’s do an exegesis and start with the horrible translation of Gen 3:16.

Sure was Arce. Anybody who knows Muff and his liberal-apostate-heretic leanings will quickly figure out that it’s just another one of his lame attempts at comic relief & satirical caricature.

Testosterone = men thinking with two little below the waist orbs instead of their brain.

“Testosterone appears to have been present before the fall”

Care to source that? Or explain what you mean? Are you suggesting Eve needed tampax before the fall, too?

I hear that a similar “Raleigh edition” of this article (Davis’s) will be hitting the presses.

(note: I don’t blame testosterone. I think doing so is a sorry excuse for hierarchy teaching in the church.)

Ted –

I don’t think you’re a bad guy. I rather like you. I also think that when you read what I have to say, you will feel that I am not “hearing” you. I think that would be a good experience for youl.

I hear you say that you don’t “hear” women. So it seems that it is important for you to “hear” men. I know that all caps is annoying, but honestly, WE HAVE BEEN HEARING THE MEN SPEAK A WHOLE LOT FOR THE LAST 20 CENTURIES.

I understand that you think that everyone is important. That the women who work in children’s are just as important as the men who speak from the front, and I really do appreciate you saying that. I will tell you, however, that I have worked in children’s ministry for 20 years, and this is not true. It’s just not. I know that there are people who see it and believe it, but in practice the man pastor in the front of the room is much more important than the lady kindergarten teacher. Sorry. I am older than my pastor and have many more years experience in ministry and nobody is going to listen to me. That’s just the way it is. I’ll hear a lot of nice words, but my opinion means nothing next to his. MEN RUN THE SHOW AND THEY CAN’T HEAR ME. Just like you can’t “hear” women. And they are pretty much relieved to read in the Bible that they aren’t supposed to hear me.

You’re a nice guy and say nice things about women. I don’t think that you hate women. I don’t think that you think that you are better than women. I do think that you need to learn to “hear” a woman speak. It would be good for you.

Women have testosterone, too. Eve came out of Adam. They were “ADAM” which means human and both created in His likeness. God talked to the “HUMAN” in Gen 1 and gave the HUMAN dominion over the earth. I find it really strange that so many ignore Gen 1.

Have a safe and enjoyable trip, Deb and Dee!

The whole “manly men” concept as it’s being advanced now sounds a lot more like Lionel Tiger than Jesus…

Bridget, I think they win both ways. They can blame testosterone for their need for power and preeminance and at the same time blame women’s hormones on their “emotions” and being easily deceived.

Sounds like excuses for lots of sin to me for both men and women. If a born again woman is easily deceived or allowing her emotions to rule her then the cross was for naught. Same for men and their testosterone. Just a cultural excuse for sin.

I work with Case Workers in a Foster Care agency and none of them have ever brought up de-testosteronizing any male. They all have husbands or fathers or boyfriends or grown sons that help them keep things in perspective.
Men with testosterone do not an abuser make. Only the ones that worship their testosterone and view women/children as objects to be sacrificed on the alter of their testosterone.

Now, some of our very fertile moms that produce kids they can’t take care of and/or give birth to babies addicted to drugs… Sometimes it is hinted that their tubes should be tied. But even that is not taken at all seriously, only said in frustration then forgotten as they get busy figuring out where to place another infant.

Arce –

Did the judge give a reason for this ruling? Are parenta not responsible for their minor children?

Eagle – you know, the Qur’an instructs both men and women to be modest in their dress. If you take a quick look at traditional mens’ clothing from West and North Africa, the Middle East and much of Central and South Asia, you can see that this is true.

Burqas come largely from Pashtun tribal tradition in Afghanistan. There are cities in Afghanistan that used to be pretty cosmopolitan, prior to the Russian invasion and the warfare after they left + rise of Taliban and then the US invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun_people

WTH – yes, that’s what I was alluding to above…

I figured as much but I wanted to make the point less allusive. 🙂

Ted,

In your first comment above, you mention the curses in Genesis.

You seem to say that women need to just accept their lot in life where “and he will rule over you” is concerned, and not seek solutions to make things easier from a comfort level and a practical level, as well as not seek to rectify the inherent inequity. Not even where dignity is concerned.

Is it only women who need to do this? What about men and the curses that apparently apply to them? Are they also to embrace the fact of their curse and not seek to mitigate it?

You quoted the women’s curses verbatim (for the sake clarity). I’ll go the distance & quote the men’s curse verbatim (for the sake of clarity):

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground”

So, it seems to say that there will be an inequity between effort and energy put towards subsistence and the return on such investment. Men will work their butts off in struggle, and the productivity yielded will be disproportionate to the effort and energy put in. Success will be elusive (due to a variety of things messing up the ideal conditions for seedtime and harvest).

You seem like someone trying to be fair and reasonable. If you feel women are to accept their lot in life and not seek relief and a more equitable way, then I assume you would also find it fair to apply that same principle to men as well.

Therefore, these must be the conclusions:

•Men (& you, Ted) are to accept the inequity between their strenuous efforts and resulting poor yield. They are not to seek to find ways to improve things to make their efforts smarter, more efficient, more productive, so as to reduce the harvest of thistles and thorns (let alone a meager harvest — certainly not a plentiful one). Men are to accept this poor state of affairs in the pursuit of subsistence, despite what it means for their family if they have one. Their family will naturally not have enough to eat, and they certainly will have a husband and father who is too worn out from all the struggle and toil and disappointment to have much left for relationship with them. But the men are to accept this, and not seek to rectify things. No matter the ramifications for their loved ones.

Furthermore,

•Ted, if your wife has been pregnant or may someday be pregnant, she is to accept her increased pain when it comes time to deliver her baby. She must not seek a better way. She must not have an epidural or any other kind of treatment or method to ease her pain. That would be inappropriate (wrong?). She must accept her pain, and not complain.

The ridiculousness of this line of thinking is quite obvious to me — anyone else? I could even argue that Adam & Eve’s future generations (the Messiah? the human race?) would not have survived without doing their darnedest to find every way possible to rectify that “thorns and thistles it shall bring forth” bit.

But, Ted, you seem to argue that it is inappropriate / wrong / sin (?) to do any such thing.

Or perhaps you think that it is entirely appropriate for men to seek to rectify their curse (I don’t know). If so, you have made it clear, though, that the rules are different for women.

Ted,

Me again. You see, your comments have been a bit provocative (whether or not you intended that).

RE: “Overall, our schools and universities promote faulty values by teaching people that knowledge and position are everything in life. Many graduates come out puffed up with pride and expecting to attain high positions due to their educational background, and in God’s eyes this is not where real life is at. In fact, there is a scripture saying that knowledge puffs up…”

–You make it sound like expertise and excellence in the pursuit of knowledge, and feeling good about one’s accomplishments, is shameful. I don’t get it.

It’s the pursuit of excellence in knowledge that has brought about a whole host of things (penicillin for one) that makes even your life, Ted, healthier, easier, and better. I know nothing about you, but I think I can say that were it not for people who pursued knowledge and excellence and made it a priority, your life (& my life) wouldn’t be nearly as good as it is.

Sounds like you’re saying one cannot aim high in achievement and at the same time be engaging in “real life” according to God. (And they certainly shouldn’t feel good about their accomplishments, should they.)

Let’s cheer the oollege graduates on who have gained true expertise and knowledge and tell them to go for the stars and be all they can be (even women!), and bring that kingdom of God with them into the environments of those high positions they are qualified for through their educations background.

Mara – Seconded!!!

elastigirl, you’re very eloquent. 🙂

I love this quote from “Are Women Human”:

‘I am occasionally desired by … the editors of magazines to say something about the writing of detective fiction “from the woman’s point of view.” To such demands, one can only say, “Go away and don’t be silly. You might as well ask what is the female angle on an equilateral triangle.”’ (p. 41)

The entire story of the Bible is thusly:

1. Creation and edenic existence, f/b rebellion
2. The Fall to the ministry of Jesus — a record of God attempting to redeem a people who continually rebel and wander off, living in the consequence of the Fall. Anticipation of redemption.
3. The ministry of Jesus, especially The Resurrection and ascension: Redemption becomes available but the world is not redeemed only those who believe. The curse is broken and the era of the church begins until
4. The end of time: The new (redeemed) earth — an edenic existence restored, but w/o sin.

The curse of the Fall does not apply to those who are redeemed by faith in Jesus. Therefore, Christians should not place themselves back under the curse in their thinking and understanding of human relationships. Paul was right when he said “In Christ, there is neither . . ..” If you insist on all kinds of gender distinctions in your church and its staffing, you are choosing to be OUTSIDE of, and not IN, Christ!!!!

Should be “the” skilled trades in the above comment.

Convinced that deacons or elders were not originally offices in the first place. Locality determined much of the issues not some convention. Locality determined welfare of the church as well.

Casey, Acts is still Acts. There’s no doubt the earliest deacons were appointed by an ad hoc committee to address a specific problem and may not have been conceived as having any permanent role. The fantasies of restorationist movements that wipe out all the “institutional” things sounds cute as an ideology for “real” Christian fellowship but the existence of real deacons to help me keep a roof over my head and network job leads is something I appreciate even if other folks at TWW would like to imagine that the apostles didn’t appoint any deacons in Acts. 🙂

numo, I hear you! I’ve been unemployed for more than two years and haven’t even managed to land a job flipping burgers. It can be a problem when you develop a whole set of skills in non-profit fundraising and data management that aren’t great sells to employers in either fhe non-profit or for-profit realms.

“Convinced that deacons or elders were not originally offices in the first place. Locality determined much of the issues not some convention. Locality determined welfare of the church as well”

Casey, Excellent point. We do not see the same structural prescription for every Epistle when it comes to deacons or elders. Also, I did a study on the Greek word for “appointed” and it can also mean “handstretching” as in voting. Let’s face it, in most cases, we are going to eventually know who is the spiritually mature in the Body of Christ and we will gravitate to that person. It could be a little old lady or the janitor. But when we think of it as an appointed “office” it is usually some mover or shaker within the church. That is why “office” is not in the Greek. It is a function and the qualifications are spiritually mature, humble servant,etc. It is not glamorous or career building in its true form.

What WTH said shocked me a bit, too.

But you know, I don’t think it was so much misogynic as it was a testament against what misogynic teachings force women into becoming.

When all your doctrine allows you to do is get married, stay home, and make babies, what way to do you have to move up except by marriage. You certainly can’t do anything about it youself.

“Staying home and having children is an honor and a great priviledge. We demean women who have made that choice by such blanket statements, which are in fact, misogynistic because they are demeaning to women who have chosen to be mothers and stay home to raise their children, despite the scorn of their radical feminist peers and men who are lazy and mooch off of the efforts of their hard-working wives.”

Ted, Staying home to “raise” children is a fairly recent event starting in about Victorian times with the rise of the middle class. Women have always worked going back to the distaff and making things to sell. You need to do some research on this. You have it backwards. Throughout history only rich women did not work at something to help the family survive. Women haev been strapping babies to their backs and working to help the family survive for thousands of years. Very few women have had the means to devote their time to children and basic homemaking. You have bought into a cultural Ozzie/Harriet lie. Most marriages have historically been a finanical partnership even when women were considered legal chattel. You can check out the Proverbs women, too. She was a real estate agent and ran businesses. :o)

And real men like intelligent savvy wives. :o) I hve found that patriarchal men are intimidated by such women.

“

RE: Wenatchee The Hatchet on Sat, Dec 10 2011 at 10:25 pm:

The irony is even richer here that when free market fundamentalists and many Christian conservatives trot out Smith & Ricardo as icons of laissez faire-mercantilism, they never mention what their two icons were dead set against.

Smith had nothing good to say about the British mercantile system which is the forerunner of our current American system of corporate plutocracy. He took pages & pen pains to make it clear that his “invisible hand” of capital and modest growth only worked well at a local and sustainable level.

Ricardo made three things clear: 1) capital must not be allowed to chase cheap labor over seas 2) trade imbalance cannot be tolerated 3) there must be full employment among trading partners

There is much middle ground. I ran a home-based business and had access to grandparents of my children for some of their care, and a Christian daycare/preshcool. My spouse taught school (public) in part as a mission activity. I focused much of my travel on the summer when she would be available for the child care. My children were advantaged by the daycare/preschool situation, which was in a Nazarene church, getting exposure to other children, which could not happen in our neighborhood. When both parents are available for significant face time with children and there is Christian care available, a woman can have a career and marriage and a family as well. As it was, without her income, I would never have been able to start and grow my own business, which in four years, allowed her to stop teaching until the children were in high school.

Ted,

Having children is an honor and a great privilege, whether anyone (man or woman) can stay home with them or not. And I’ve faced some nasty condemnation from folks at my church, who don’t want to pay my junior-staff member husband a living wage, but still judge me for having a child in daycare. I’d never demean anyone with the will and the means to devote themselves to full-time homemaking.

As for Wenatchee’s statement, “…marriage is still more about social class and upward mobility and status than a lot of those complementarian would-be-Vision-Foruming-homeschooling-baby-making-machines want to admit.” my freshman sociology prof would agree. If you’re a young girl who’s been raised to believe your only calling is to get married and have children, you’re not going to date any guy who doesn’t have or isn’t pursuing a decent career. Such a girl’s social status is determined entirely by her husband’s position.

TedS, Mara, I’ve had my sister approached by women who thought it was a miracle that she got pregnant because she and my brother-in-law simply waited a few years after being married before they had their first child. My sister and brother-in-law didn’t even want kids when they first got married and in neo-Reformed land that meant they would have been told they shouldn’t even be getting married with an attitude like that. Now, with baby five on the way, they’ve certainly changed their minds about kids and I love my nieces and nephews. We watch Powerpuff Girls, Mr. Bean, Batman, and Kipper together.

So my beef isn’t with marriage or kids, it’s with the stratification and status-mongering I’ve seen happen where single people are considered (and consider themselves) to be less fully adult or fully human because they haven’t paired off yet. I’ve seen women lament that they can only wait until they are pursued while I’ve heard guys lament that they pursue and keep getting rebuffed by women who go for more macho, aggressive, assertive types who live up to some stereotype of the F-150 driving dude. Sociologists have done a bit of digging in the last century and have noted that while there’s the romantic narrative of “it just happened” with falling in love a lot of people don’t “happen” to just “fall in love” without coming across someone from a similar social and economic strata.

And that’s not a bad thing because one of the biggest indicators of future domestic violence can be with the guy who “marries up” to a woman who is smarter than he is or has more potential earning power than he does. Seeking social and economic equality in a marriage is something that was considered desirable even in patriachal settings.

Meanwhile, when I read Christian single women say they can’t do anything but wait to be pursued so they can fulfill God’s design for them of marriage I wonder what it is they feel they can’t do. It’s not like Ruth was even remotely subtle about seeking what would be her rights and interests within that time and place. Lobbying for a kinsmen redeemer to marry her was a legal right she had every reason to invoke.

When this topic of singleness and marriage gets to be a sore spot for me is when certain relatives suggest I’m not assertive enough in pursuing women, forgetting that a guy who has been unemployed for two years has a couple of higher priorities than dating. Or when single guys with jobs lament to me their single status while they know I don’t even have a job. Or it gets to be a sore spot when single guys who wish they were married already tell me about how they went on a date and there was no “chemistry” on the second date like there was the third. That’s when I’m tempted to steer them to the website You Are Not So Smart and have them read the article about misattribution of arousal. For single women, enjoy being single. Do stuff. Don’t spend your days waiting for Mr. Right to seek you. Don’t settle for a moron because intellectual and earning potential disparities are at the top of the heap of indicators of future domestic violence. If you’re smarter than him (whoever he is) and have more earning potential than he does, don’t convince yourself it’ll work out. Odds are pretty good that if a huge fight comes up and he isn’t your intellectual or earning equal he’ll be tempted to even the odds through sheer physical force. This is one a reasons why guys who “marry up” in neo-Calvinist circles sometimes worry me. Even in patriarchal societies it was understood that you wanted the man and woman to be as evenly matched in a marriage as possible because it made the marriage more stable. Giving the woman full veto power before the marriage is no consolation for the man always having the veto ever afterward, is it? I think that if a couple of professed complementarians were actually honest about their marriages they would have to concede they have egalitarian marriages while advocating for complementarian ecclesiology.

I agree with parenting being an important and high calling. I made the decision to stay-at-home full time with my children despite being reviled for doing so by my parents, especially my mother.

I am the type of woman who was a natural-born mother. I loved the whole process of having children and raising them. It was an incredibly creative endeavor, with each day bringing new discoveries and fresh changes in growth and development. To have been an intimate part of my children’s lives each and every day was something I wholeheartedly embraced. I knew it was my calling that God gave me the faith to do.

I think because it seemed to natural to me that it was easy for me to believe the argument that it was God’s plan for every woman. Plus, when I became a Christian in college in the late 70s, this type of teaching was very popular. All I heard was the hierarchicalists teaching that subjugated women by telling them their place in the home and in the family was not that of the men i.e. we weren’t allowed to do the same things like teach, preach or lead anything.

I didnt recognize it at first, but I felt a sense of resentment toward women who enjoyed positions of teaching/leadership only because their husbands were pastors. It was as if no women could possibly be gifted and privileged enough to provide teaching and leadership unless she were married to a church leader. I knew this wasn’t true. But these same women seemed to enjoy having the best of both worlds while planting the ministries proud flag of ownership in the personal lives of every female church member: you are to submit and make the home the center of your lives because we say that is God’s plan for your life. And we get the credit for your faith in submitting yourself to what we tell you to do!

Moreover, I felt a sense of resentment toward women who were married to “good guys” who “loved them.” And because they were such good husbands, the wives got to enjoy doing all sorts of things because their husbands didn’t object to them working outside the home, teaching or leading the women’s ministry, managing the household finances, or such things are moderating a blog, etc. It’s all because they were blessed enough to marry good men, and through their husbands godliness and the love they were shown, they were able to have a full Christian experience.

And these women seem to flaunt this in front of the women whose husbands weren’t in leadership, or who didn’t treat them like queens. They loved to brag about how good and godly their husbands were, emphasizing the belief that the more spiritual the husband was, the more godly the wife was.

A woman who wasn’t as privileged or whose husband wasn’t a supportive husband wasn’t as “blessed.” She had to sit on the sidelines. Sucks for her! If only her husband allowed her to enjoy a life as blessed and full as the other women!

And so it is with the whole complementarian/egalitarian debate. I recognize feeling resentful toward women who have no problem living within a framework of female submission, because for them its never an issue. For them it works because their husbands are so good and so godly and they have never had to feel like they were sidelined because of their husbands. They never had to feel like if they just prayed harder or submitted more, then maybe someday their husband would find the magic and become a loving, supportive spouse – and then maybe their dream of teaching, or writing, or being able to manage a ministry or a business or a blog might come true.

But if the husband doesnt support it – too bad. Wish your husband was as good as the woman’s who’s allowed to do all those things!

Evie: “Sucks for her!”

BINGO!

I’ve preached against the “Sucks to be you” gospel given to women in the past.

Certain men have exchanged the pure words, the pure gospel of Jesus Christ for a gender gospel. Gender roles now save you.

Are you married to an abusive man but he’s never been unfaithful? Oh well, sucks to be you. Go back home and submit.

Did you spend everything you had to support your husband as he climbed the corporate ladder, and now that he’s a success he likes his secretary better than you and left you? Oh, well sucks to be you. Figure out how to survive with no skills, no college education, and a bunch of kids you keep having to go back to court for to get minimal child support.

Did you marry a good man, but there was and accident and he’s laid up and now you have to be the bread winner to support him, again, with no marketable skills? Oh, well, sucks to be you. You’re on your own sweetie.

Never mind that you followed all our rules about roles and rules. God’s Word works. And if it’s not working for you. Something must be wrong with you. Because there is nothing wrong with this gender gospel that we have cooked up.

And if I’m reading WTH right, he’s dealing with the male version of the “sucks to be you” gender gospel.

I could say more, and I just might later. But right now I have to get ready for work.

Two excellent quotes that bear repeating in my opinion:

Arce wrote:

First and clearest: Paul said that “In Christ, there is neither male nor female.” That means any insistence on gender distinctions in service to Christ and His church are NOT IN CHRIST, but outside of Christ, and hence in sin.

Then Mara wrote:

Certain men have exchanged the pure words, the pure gospel of Jesus Christ for a gender gospel. Gender roles now save you.

Nothing like cutting straight to the heart of the issue. I dare anyone to disagree with them.

Mark Driscoll:

“Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them. Ladies, if the hair on the back of your neck stands up it is because you are fighting your role in the scripture.”

Dr. Bruce Ware came very close to saying just that in a sermon I heard on the CBMW site. He hints that the proper “biblical” role for woman does define their salvation in a sense…to not do as he teaches is for a woman to be in rebellion against God. Nor does she have a proper fear of the Lord. I do not know that, if pressed, he would come right out and say a woman cannot be saved if she does not embrace her “role”, but it sounded disturbing enough to me.

Evie 11:55pm–I experienced the same thing with regards to the elders’ wives being the only ones who can lead the women’s bible study groups. No one else. I imagine just because of who they happen to share a bed with gives them all the same gift. Who knew!How fortunate for them all. 2 classes of people. Should not be.

Mara –

I didn’t know that some of these guys were actually verbalizing this stuff. MD shouldn’t be leading or preaching at all if he has a different Gospel for women than men! Do women in his church not confront him or are they taught to not study scripture?

Diane –

The elders are then able to control what is taught in the bible studies. Their wives then don’t address anything that might be outside the “practices” of their church. The teaching is very contolled. The true gospel is not preached. Usually it comes down to practices being taught.

The women in his church are not allowed to confront him.
I guess one woman tried to set him straight on something and Driscoll turned to her husband and told him something along the lines of, “If you don’t shut her up, I will.”

No. The only way for women to have any say on this is to vote with their feet. They need to leave Sovereign Grace, Mars Hill, CBMW, etc. They need to gut these organizations by leaving them and let the men figure out how important their self-proclaimed priviledge and authority are to them. The men in power will hear nothing else.

There are plenty of churches out there. There are churches that don’t center their gospel on the bedrock and chief cornerstone of gender. There are other churches who don’t idolize gender roles, the family, and the structures of men. Women need to go find those churches and let the dead bury their dead in the churches sold out to gender idolotry.

Mara 02:37pm–

So the women, at least some of them, maybe most of them, would you say they like being treated that way? Is it a form of pride in them that makes them feel so biblical and superior by being treated in this manner? Or do you think most hate it and are trapped? Would they even be “allowed” to seek a different church?

I hope you can make sense of my last comment with all the typos.

Diane @ 12:05

I think this explains the theological reasoning behind having the elder’s wives teach the Bible studies. The are are to help their husbands. If your husband does not teach, then you are not to teach. You are to help your husband in what he does. (I don’t believe this, it is just the reasoning used. Well, I do like to help my husband, but I also think that I can do other things as well.)

http://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/representation-and-ordination/

It’s the last of a 3-part series.

Dana –

Also, they may not be gifted as a teacher – but be required to teach? But, then again, if they are lead by their husbands it might not be that difficult. The teaching might be all scripted out and edited by husband/elder. This approach combined with 10-20 second responses by attendees could keep everything manageable 🙂

No real discussion OR possible controversy will arise. Nothing like being Bereans! Oh, I forget. Only men can be Bereans since women should only view scripture as their husbands tell them to view it!

Well Dana, your link was…well, interesting. My goodness he makes it all seem so complicated. 🙂 At least it is for me…this imaging and reflecting is all new to me.

“This position of honour is not merely one of reflected glory from her husband, for she is an expression of her husband’s glory.”

Can’t quite figure out just what all this really means–so I don’t get reflected glory… but I am an expression of glory? So women make the men look glorious. I remember reading the whole quote you posted above and thinking –wow—I can be all that–admired by all the other women in the church just because my hub is an elder?? Honored and revered? But I can’t image my husband. I never knew I couldn’t — never even knew it wasn’t an option…since I can’t now, it makes me really want to image him. I think I’ll ask him if I can image him just once.

Diane – Wow. It never occurred to me to ask my husband if could image him. I don’t know. Maybe imaging him could dampen all my glory, er, his glory. Or infringe on my exalted place. Hmmmmmm….

numo – Yeah, I know. What I don’t understand is all the people just eating that stuff up.

I read through much of that link as well and came away feeling like he was trying to find a way to support women in ministry but had to find some qualifying factor along with being a believer.

What really bothered me was that most of the justification for his position was pulled out of the OT and the law. Nothing much was said about our position in Christ or the New Covenant we now live in.

well, that comment was somewhat repetitive! 😉

Rebellious image stealer—that be me.

But thanks, Dana, for explaining the above and for the link. It brought back to my memory something I had read at the CunBMW about how a woman is only supposed to work by helping her husband if she works outside her home. (She would be submitting to another man if she worked for him and that is a no no.) Such silliness–so many rules–who can bear all that?

There must be some reason women would like this way of life…but I am at a loss for an explanation…except for the exalted place enjoying, esteemed, honored, glory reflecting/expressing, revered, wisdom giving, imitation demanding, pre-packaged bible study teaching, counsel giving, spiritually guiding (ooops-that reminds me–better get myself a new friend and drop the one that has the problem) elders’ wives who have it all going on.

Arce,

Sorry I haven’t responded sooner to your 12/12 @ 12:19pm post sooner.

There’s a lot I want to say in response, but first I want to tell you that your Mom sounds like she was a good woman who set an excellent example. I appreciate what you shared and that you included the statement, “She felt the freedom to do these things.”

I wish I had felt that same freedom and I blame myself in many ways for not having taken more initiative in my marriage, and for having allowed myself to be controlled to the extent that I was.

I’ve identified several factors as to why I became so subordinated to the extent that I was and they include the following:

1. I was verbally abused by my Mother growing up who constantly told me I was a non-person.

2. My mother hated stay-at-home Moms and still does. From the time I was a girl, she painted the picture of a woman who didn’t work and who stayed at home full-time as one who was worthless, lazy, ate ‘bon-bons,’ watched soap operas, had her hair in curlers, and probably smoked.

3. Not long after I was born-again at 18, and shortly before I got engaged to a guy I never dated at 20 (who I married 2 months later after turning 21), I read a book entitled, “How To Be The Wife Of A Happy Husband” by Darian Cooper. After having attended the “Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts” by Bill Gothard as an impressionable new believer, and being desirous of pleasing and serving God with my whole being, I felt compelled to conform my life to the ‘biblical’ model of the “Christian woman” – which seemed right to me since it was such a contrast to what my angry, abusive, working mother valued.

4. My (ex)husband was controlling and shut me out of the finances, because, according to him they were ‘his.’ While members of an SGM church, my repeated attempts for help with our marriage (we were in and out of counseling during our 12+ years there) never resulted in any real change because men were the ‘heads’ and the ‘leaders’ of the household – instructed to manage the family finances. I tried and tried but there was nothing I could do to bring balance while not understanding how I was enabling things to persist. I did part-time work and did studies to make Christmas money, but other than that I was home full-time.

5. Having alreading mentioned, the church we were in provided me with little support because my husband was not required to submit to me.

I continued to believe in male headship/female subjugation until reading Gilbert Bilezikian’s book, “Beyond Sex Roles What The Bible Says About A Woman’s Place in Church And Family.” Reading that book confirmed what I knew to be true but which had been suppressed under years of false-teaching.

I cannot say if reading this book pre-divorce would have saved my marriage. But I know there were several factors that contributed to my having been a door-mat for many years. I wish I had had more confidence in myself and in the real truth of God’s word!

p.s. Please, I encourage anyone reading this who desires a more comprehensive understanding of the Bible, including some of those difficult passages regarding women & submission, please read Bilizekian’s book, “Beyond Sex Roles.” I trust you will be as blessed as I was. Make it your Christmas gift!

The quote you posted here sounds more Mormon than Christian… though I think a lot of the evangelical/fundy world is closer to Mormonism than any of them would ever want to admit. (am not saying this to be harsh toward Mormons, either… it’s just that I think there *is* a definite link between the two religions in terms of certain ideas and practices, re. gender roles especially.) — Numo

I’m sure Eagle would agree; he’s made the comparison lotsa times.

My theory is that Mormonism originated around the same time & place as the Revivialist tradition among Evangelicals — the “burned-over district” of upstate New York, at the time (1830s) the Weird Religion Capital of the USA. (Kind of like how California is today.)

As a Jesuit homily said during that Harmonic Convergence panic, Spiritualism, Mormonism, and Seventh-Day Adventism all originated in that area within a few years of each other. (And those are just the ones we know of because they survived to this day. Includng a LOT of short-lived communes of these New Religions — like the nudist one that lasted only until its first Pennsylvania Winter.)

It was called “the Burned-Over District” because everyone there had been burned out by Revival after Revival after Revival, Anointed Apostle after Anointed Apostle after Anointed Apostle, Revelation after Revelation after Revelation.

As Mormons originated alongside the Evangelical High-Pressure Revival and Holiness/Separation movements, I would expect a lot of commonality in trappings and behaviors.

Hi H.U.G, and thanks 🙂

The Mahaney’s have always used their marriage & family like it was the ultimate model for everyone to aspire to. You’re right, no one else was to rise above them. It all had to do with this notion that they possessed special and unique powers because of CJ’s apostle/leader status. The power was understood as God’s blessing, and their marriage & family was the showcase. If CJ dismissed SGM Pastors/CGL’s on the basis of problems w/the wife or kids, he knew his ducks needed to be in a row.

So, yes, in the SGM bubble, no one was a better woman than Carolyn Mahaney. No children were as good as the Mahaney girls. No one was more of a manly sports enthusiast than CJ and no one could manage the home and shop for time better than Carolyn. No one understood sex, romance and the glory of God more than CJ & Carolyn. Why need the gospel? Just focus on CJ & Carolyn. Dress like they tell you to dress! Think like they tell you to think! Read what they suggest you read! Watch the Superbowl like they do! Take a vacation like they do! And when they pray and ask for the Holy Spirit to speak, insert either CJ or Carolyn for the Holy Spirit!