“Many never realize they always had the key in their pocket, so they die at the locked door, never reaching deep inside to pull it out.” ― Anthony Liccione link
I was contacted by a reader who spent many years in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. She offered to submit a post to help us all to understand some of their core beliefs. Her name shall remain anonymous for a number of reasons. However, the Deebs know her identity.
I was surprised to see that the OPC sounds like many super conservative Reformed and SBC churches. They believe that:
- the pastors are anointed,
- that the church holds the keys to the kingdom which means they can judge whether or not a person is a Christian
- that when the pastor preaches. he speaking the very word of God.
It appears the leaders do not think too highly of the priesthood of the believer and are not really big into revivals. It is the pastor's responsibility to do the Great Commission stuff like teach and baptize. Basically, pastors were born to speak and the church member was born to listen, agree, and give money.Also, I bet TWW readers can guess what their views on women after reading that list.
SHAME ON THEM
After spending upwards of twenty years in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) also known sardonically as the Only Perfect Church (OPC), I think I have seen a new low in the denomination with the conviction in North Carolina of a pastor for not getting his disabled wife to church often enough. This is really incredible.
The minister [mentioned in Dee’s previous article] who was defrocked in 1977 had taken vows to uphold the strict subscription of the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms’ Sabbath view. He may have disagreed, but he probably should have known better than to organize sports on Sunday given his vows. Ditto for one pastor who privately “spoke in tongues” in 1976, another well-known no-no in the OPC. Similarly, neither the secondary subscription documents nor the Bible, seem to favor an evolutionary view of humanity, so it comes as no surprise that such a view is strongly discountenanced by the denomination. But convicting someone for not forcibly hauling a disabled family member to church to partake of means of grace? In such a scenario one wonders, What Grace?
ALL YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE OPC BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK
If you want to really understand the culture of the OPC, your best bet is to read (or at least peruse parts of) a very long article by John Frame, a fair-minded, sensible, and most importantly, peaceable Reformed professor and church musician. He wrote “Machen’s Warrior Children” and it may tell you more than you ever wanted to know about Reformed denominations. Please be sure to read his closing “Observations” and “An Unrealistic Dream”. Although he posted the “Warrior Children” article on his (and Vern Poythress’) website in 2012, it was actually part of a book that was published in 2003, so it’s not really up-to-date with current controversy (controversy being the gist of the article and the raison d’etre, it seems, for the OPC). This “warrior” complex explains much of what is wrong with the OPC, and Frame has said it well.
Despite what you may think of Frame’s own take on doctrine and practice, he’s still too “liberal” for some of the OPC and URC (United Reformed Church) people. He’s had his share of grief from Westminster Seminary in California https://www.wscal.edu/ and was blessed enough to escape it. He also wrote another book well worth a read, The Escondido Theology, which Westminster Seminary, California vociferously protested and bashed.
INSULARITY AND THE FAMILY FEEL
Another element that contributes to the denomination’s problems is its insularity or parochial mentality. It is a small denomination. Wikipedia notes:
“270 churches, 49 mission works, and 30,555 members and 534 ministers”
and also largely white. Small churches draw people who are disenchanted or neglected by larger and more flourishing one–let’s face it, small churches are desperate for members, and OPC churches are no different in that respect from other small congregations. A person of moderate wealth can immediately become a big fish in a small pond, or a person of deep Reformed theological persuasion can likewise rise to the “top” most easily. Small churches have a tight, family feel and this is comforting for many people. In many if not most OPC congregations, everybody gets to know everybody’s business, if inclined to do so, and many are so inclined.
Depending on the congregation you may find lots of little friends for your children, or you may be in a church with an elderly demographic. The OPC published an article by Jeffrey J. Ventrella warning Reformed churches not to adopt a “hyphenated “identity. I have been in congregations that varied in their hyphenation, be it holding to the republication of the covenant of works, two kingdom theology, theonomy, framework Interpretation (of creation), amillennial, postmillennial, and panmillennial (a joke, as in “it all pans out in the end”). I have never heard of a premillennial OPC, however.
A THEOLOGY CLUB
To be a part of a denomination for nearly 20 years and never see a conversion is so disheartening. It’s downright deadening to one’s spirit. Anglican John R. W. Stott advised that congregations feature testimonies of converts as an encouragement to the flock, but when no one is converting to Christ, this is an impossible task. Having left the OPC and become part of a flourishing, evangelistic congregation, I cannot stress enough how much of a faith-builder it is to hear people say things like, “Five years ago today I was an atheist but I had no one to thank,” and then hear of her conversion to Christ (not to “the Reformed faith”). It sounds so much like the early Church, experiencing the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
Instead, many Reformed churches, the OPC among them, tend to grow almost exclusively by children born to members, and by membership transfers from other Reformed churches either because someone moved residence or because of disenchantment with one’s current congregation. The Church becomes more like a theology club than a living organism, the Bride of Christ.
HIGH CHURCH PRESBYTERIANISM
This is a recent trend in the OPC. The OPC is all about ecclesiology and this is its latest manifestation. Keep in mind that no pastor is going to proclaim, “We are having a new focus and it’s called High Church Presbyterianism.” This focus is, I am sure, the basis of the conviction of the North Carolina pastor whose wife supposedly had no access to the means of grace because she wasn’t regularly at church.
One of my friends used to tell me that the OPC “is getting like the Roman Catholic Church” and I used to tell her she was nuts. But now it seems that churchmen in the Southeast Presbytery of the OPC do view themselves as grace-dispensers. I should not be surprised. The move to High Church Presbyterianism has been promoted by one D.G. Hart, OPC elder, “religious and social historian”, and name-caller extraordinaire. This is the man who promotes respect for Reformed ministers (he claims he does, because they hold the keys of the kingdom) yet he dares refer to George Whitfield as “Boy George”. I suppose under Hart’s paradigm Whitfield didn’t have his ordination right, or his preaching ended in revivals. Revival is another no-no for the high-minded OPCers.
So take all Hart says with a grain of salt and a small glass of sherry. High Church Presbyterianism is spreading through Reformed churches like measles at Disneyland. Consider this analysis your vaccination. Hart presents the pieces of what he calls “the mosaic” of High Church Presbyterianism. I will enumerate them and call them pieces of the High Church Presbyterian “puzzle”. We should not be surprised either than Hart relies strongly on Calvin, Calvin, Calvin. If you do not, and try to rely on the Bible, he will call you a Biblicist, Biblicist, Biblicist. You need a strong stomach to endure the dish that this OPC elder serves up. (Ed. note For any interesting discussion on Biblicism, see this article at First Things.)
Puzzle Piece 1: An order of worship (i.e., a liturgy).
Most churches have a set list of elements of worship and most print them in a bulletin to make the service easier to follow. But that is not enough.
Puzzle Piece 2: Written prayers.
There’s nothing wrong with written prayers. After all, a written prayer is just a prayer with a lot of thought behind it, set down on paper ahead of time. It helps the nervous person who is in a dither, come prayer time. There is nothing wrong with formal, written prayers. But a person who prays spontaneously or maybe with a bit of forethought but who is not referring to a form is not to be despised, either.
Puzzle Piece 3: Weekly communion and the Real Presence.
This is our Christian battery charger. Weekly charges are the best way to stay energized spiritually. The Roman Catholic Church goes further with daily communion. If their theology was right, maybe daily communion is the way to go. That’s for High Churchers to answer, not Low Churchers like me.
The Lord’s Supper = the visible Word.
With this I agree. It shows forth the Lord’s death, something we should be focusing on—the Cross, the provision of Christ to renew us and later to renew the world when New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. The push for weekly communion is not necessarily bad, but not needed, unless one wants to avoid the moniker “Low Church Presbyterian.” The Real Presence is a doctrine that rebuts the idea that the Supper is merely a memorial. Thus, if Christ is really present (not physically, but spiritually) then communion is a big thing. Thus the infirm, homebound are in big trouble for not taking it. But why can’t the Lord’s Supper be brought to the infirm? Give a short sermon, read the Bible and pray, and then share in Communion. It seems like the gracious, loving and common sense thing to do.
Puzzle Piece 4: The Word should be preached.
This is a no-brainer. But, the preached Word carries far more weight for High Church Presbyterians than the Word read at your house or favorite coffee shop. Why? The Second Helvetic Confession says in its first chapter: “THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD.” Here we see a problem—a reliance on creeds and confessions (written by men and therefore subject to error).
Wisely, the Westminster Confession of Faith itself says that creeds and confessions “may err and many have erred” and are therefore not to be made the rule of faith and life. But if you are a Biblicist (bad, remember) you may tell me that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and how will they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:13-17) Good question. Back in the days of the New Testament it was probably very hard to know God’s Word without a scroll to read or a preacher to preach, and scrolls were not widely available. Also, the whole Word of God was not written at that time. And even then, the Ethiopian eunuch could not understand what he read. He needed help. I agree.
But if this verse is used to mean that faith only emerges when one hears a preacher at a church service, then I think we have pushed the logic too far. In fact, and I know my sample is limited, I know more people converted by reading the Bible on their own, than converted by the preaching in a church. And, to push the matter further, if the Word preached = the Word of God, then when we hear differing interpretations of Scripture by pastors of the Gospel (even pastors in the same denomination), who is right? I am puzzled.
Puzzle Piece 5: Pastors rightly ordained hold the keys to the kingdom ("On the meaning o rightly ordained: that’s the subject of another paper that I am not qualified to write, but trust me, you won’t find a lot of Scripture references in the answer). They let in and let out; they tell who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. It is the pastors’ job to do the Great Commission which involves teaching and baptism. You are snarkily warned by D.G. Hart that next time you deign to go spread the Good News, take a bottle of water with you for baptisms.
There are other interpretations of the “keys of the kingdom”. One involves the use of one key for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. See Acts, Romans, and Galatians. That makes a lot of sense to me, but then again, I am Low Church. High Church believes pastors hold the keys and it’s a scary thing to be shut out of the Church by them. You may ask, but wasn’t the man convicted in NC for not taking his wife to church also a pastor? How was he wrong, but the others right? I cannot solve this conundrum for you.
Puzzle Piece 6: This states: “the priesthood of the believer has been much abused”.
I heard a sermon in a ‘high church’ OPC on 1 Peter 2:9,
” But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
The verse was read in its entirety and the sermon covered every part of the verse except “a royal priesthood.” That was totally left out. Odd, wasn’t it? The work of ministry is for ministers, not individual laymen. And again, in Ephesians 4: 11, 12, the KJV (not normally used in this church) includes a useful comma when it says: “And he gave some… pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry. The pastor and teachers perfect the saints and do the work of ministry. Other Reformed and even other OPC ministers think otherwise. They believe that pastors and teachers equip the saints to do the work of ministry (no comma). Another OP church puts on each of its bulletins, under the pastor’s name, “Every member, a minister.” This is a case of High Church vs. Low Church in the same Presbytery.
WOMEN IN THE OPC
In one OPC we belonged to the pastor recommended women in the congregation read The Total Woman by Marabel Morgan. Of course, many of the women talked about it as “the totaled woman” and paid no attention. This pastor had many oddities, if one can call them that. He told women that sleeveless dresses and tops were sinful. (Women opposed it with the slogan “A woman’s right to bare arms”.) I first heard the words, “touch not the Lord’s anointed” at this OP congregation. What a useful phrase! It was really sad because the targets of his pulpit tirades were only thinly veiled. Yes, he used the Scripture but in a most unscriptural way. He was a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.
I heard one female speaker at a women’s retreat at another OP church say “If you are married, you are married to the perfect spouse!” Yeah, what about the woman whose spouse is an adulterer or an abuser? This was such shallow thinking, and poor teaching, possibly a result of believing that whatever is, is right, because God ordained it. It was a convenient but incorrect way to view the world.
Some sessions (elder boards) in the OPC handled marital problems with much discomfort and ineptitude. They were not trained to do effective counseling. I think it is presumptuous of a man, whether he’s an elder or a pastor, to try to counsel women on sexual matters. How difficult would it be to find an older, wise woman who could do this? Even if one is opposed to women’s ordination, utilizing the gifts of unordained women in a congregation is one of the wisest things a church can do.
Case in point: One man we knew well, in fact, a former elder of ours in the OPC, divorced his wife. First, he declared her not a Christian, though she was a deep lover of Jesus and attended church regularly. He left for another large Presbyterian congregation in a different denomination. He then claimed his wife had deserted him, so the divorce was OK. Shortly after the finalized divorce he married someone in his new church. Before long he and the new missus joined other OPC just minutes from the one where his ex-wife was a member. He was given communion without a hitch because (I surmise but have no proof) he was wealthy and theologically “sound” (in knowledge, not practice). The elders at the new church never contacted the ex-wife to hear her side of the story. This was a real tragedy.
One young woman, home from college, noted that in her home OP church the elders talked enthusiastically with her brother, but merely said hello to her. She also mentioned how, for the most part, women talked to women and men talked to men before and after the services. When she ran into an elder after church when her brother wasn’t around, she was greeted and then asked how her brother was doing at college! She couldn’t figure out why her college experience wasn’t worthy of a conversation. I cannot buy the view of the Christian Curmudgeon who says that the way Dr. Valerie Hobbs was treated is just the way people chat in the South. Absolutely not. The elder that spoke so unkindly to Dr. Hobbs was at minimum a boor, and more likely a practiced intimidator.
BASHING EVERYBODY?
This article is not an indictment of everybody in the OPC. I have met and been supported and nurtured by some of the godliest people around. They are wonderful and precious people whom I love deeply. That being said, it is difficult for anyone to rise above the church culture, ecclesiology, and governance of the OPC. Since one must take a membership vow of obedience, and since the OPC has been experienced by me as lacking in many ways as “a place of grace” I would advise against membership there.
THE NEED TO LEAVE
My experience in several OP churches mirrors that of those folks in 9Marks churches who experienced so much grief when they decided to leave a church like Capitol Hill Baptist. You must join a new and approved church or you will be hassled. If one is strong minded and perceptive of the inconsistencies and unjust actions of a church, you will eventually run afoul of the powers that be. I did that, and then sought advice from a professional counselor who happened to be Reformed himself. After hearing my story he asked if I had ever been in an OP Church before and I said I had. He asked how that experience had been. I said, “Not good.” He said, “I thought so. You need to leave the OPC,” and offered the name of a nearby PCA. I am now happy to be part of a truly Christ-centered, living, gracious Church. I plan to stay here.
Lydia's Corner: Exodus 35:10-36:38 Matthew 27:32-66 Psalm 34:1-10 Proverbs 9:7-8
@ Gram3:
I recall doing translation work back in my college days, and though it was a lot of work, it was perhaps the most rewarding of my exercises. I actually understood the English language a lot better studying Greek – finally figured out what subjective and objective meant 🙂
Translating that massive sentence at the beginning of the book, v.3-14, and diagramming it all out was a real treat; though no English translations that I’m aware of leave it in one sentence.
Gram3 wrote:
It is sinful to add words to the text which imply there is an imperative command when there is none. That is legalism.
Absolutely. But you also know that just as words seldom perfectly translate across languages, so grammar seldom perfectly translates as well. You know that because you (rightly!) read from an interlinear text. The translator has two tasks – understand what is meant by the words and grammar of the original, and make it understandable via words and grammar in the second language.
I think we would agree that it’s not as though the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV, who all insert the word “submit” just pulled it out of nowhere with no reference to context, and hopefully we could agree that they weren’t co-conspirators working for the subjugation of women. While every translation (including interlinears) admittedly has a certain amount of interpretation built into it, just by choosing certain words and not others, and more when grammar is added, I don’t know of a widely read and widely accepted translation that divorces the idea of submission from v.22, even though the actual “word” isn’t there.
So the question I have to ask myself is, “what does it mean for a wife to be in submission?” And for my part, I think Ken has done a fair and clear job of laying that out. I also think your phrase “general submission” is great, though maybe I’m not understanding it as you mean it.
I think it was Lydia that referenced submission to the wife as a keeper (despot!) of the home – and I totally agree! I submit to the rules of “take your shoes off” and “honey would you do the dishes tonight” and “hang this picture” “move the couch” and so on and so forth – it’s her domain and I’m happy she’s the despot, cuz she’s the prettiest one ever!
I don’t think that’s contrary to a wife submitting to her husband, and because I’m not inferior when she asks me to do dishes, she’s not inferior when I ask her to trust my decisions, either. So I’m not finding conflict between a man as a head in general authority in a home, and submission to his wife’s given domain (I can’t help but think that phrase will bite me in the next few comments) at the same time
@ Joe:
Sorry it was Victorious who mentioned the Timothy 5 text, not Lydia.
@ Joe:
I do think the issue would boil down to what “submit” means and that could look very different from one culture to another. In one culture and one time in history it might mean walk three paces behind at all times and have no personal discretionary money and no input in child rearing. In our culture it might mean to integrate one’s own abilities and opportunities with those of the husband to make the marriage work (as opposed to pursuing one’s one separate goals exclusively and to blazes with what he wants.) In other words, to submit one’s life plans to the good of the marriage and not just to the good of the individual. I am pretty sure it could not possibly mean the abuse and crushing and destruction of anybody because that is no how the way it is between Christ and the church.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
So why don’t you all take up the subject, just for a break from this, as to how a woman can prophesy and pray in church while remaining silent. Or why the author would seem to equate teaching with domineering when a woman does it but apparently not when a man does it. Or why there seems to be a discrepancy between Paul to Timothy about a woman teaching but when Jesus corrected one of the churches in Rev about a particular woman he did not go on and say that they were supposed to not have any woman in that function in the first place. Or why the great defenders of grace trumps law (the neo-Puritans) would focus on the great defender of grace vs law in the NT (Paul) and try to turn everything possible about what he said into new laws.
And if that’s no fun, there is alway eschatology.
@ Nancy:
Ha! That’s awesome 🙂 perhaps we shall!
I am impressed: did you women go to seminary, or did you grow up in a modern day equivalent of a Rashi’s daughter’s home, where you came from families of Biblical scholars? This is all Greek to me, but most impressive.
Joe wrote:
A conspiracy isn’t necessary or desirable. The only thing required is a cultural assumption, and the cultural assumption in the church and nearly universally in history has been male authority. Period. No questions need be asked, thankyouveddymuch, as my Scottish/English friend says. Equality and mutuality was unpossible and unthinkable until certain people saw that it was quite thinkable. It was only after the possibility of an erroneous understanding of Paul was recognized was it also possible to start figuring out what he is getting at and why.
With translations, there is a translation tradition as well, and prior meanings are adopted because reinventing wheels is tedious, and rocking theological boats which might toss some important people into the water can be a career-ending move. The science is settled, so to speak, which throws Semper Reformanda right out the window as a practical matter.
Adding words to the text *which are not necessary* to make sense of the text should not be done. In Ephesians, it makes perfect sense to read vss.21-22 just as they appear without paragraph breaks and “helpful headings” which make no grammatical sense and are unnecessary. But to hide the grammatically awkward and incomplete sentence of “Wives to your own husbands” which results from the verse break, it is necessary to add an imperative to get to the “right” result.
Adding “symbol of” in 1 Corinthians 11:11 is unnecessary *unless* what the text says does not fit your agenda. In exigent circumstances like that, it is perfectly understandable that somebody like Grudem would see the need to edit the Holy Spirit, and so the ESV “translation” indicates that the Holy Spirit said something he did not say and which is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit actually *did* say.
Why conservative Christians turn a blind eye to this totally escapes me. It is no different, in principle, from taking away from the text, but for some reason one is acceptable while the other is not. In fact, this is not a matter of principle but rather one of agendas and interests that are vested nicely the way things are.
Joe wrote:
Not going to bite you, but I will challenge you to show these prescribed domains in the text. I’m not denying that the texts says that wives submitting to their husbands is a good thing. I *am* denying, however, that the submission is only always one way. It is ridiculous and silly for adult Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit to go through this.
The problem is that the assertion is that God ordained two classes of people: Leaders and Followers. Leaders are always male and followers are always female. Females can never be leaders (at least at home and church) and males must never be followers (at least at home and at church.) This is an assumption and an assertion without textual warrant. If we want to say we are protecting the authority of the text, then we need to do just that. That is the issue. God did not create a hierarchy between males and females. He did not create us to be over one another but to work alongside one another.
Nancy wrote:
That’s a good way of putting it. When a man and a woman decide to unite, then each of them should be also deciding to give up unilateral control of anything. That is the principle Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7. Both should be focused on mutual goals which each is prepared to pursue together. Business partners do this all the time, so how much more should two people with the indwelling Holy Spirit be able to walk together in that Spirit?
I think the thing about submission is more the attitude than a particular action which, as you said, is culturally informed. And that attitude is described beautifully in Philippians 2. I truly think if we meditated on that we would not have so much disagreement about a whole host of things in the church!
Let’s assume a comp marriage where the husband provides all of the income. In my view, he is laying down his life and submitting the fruit of his labor to his wife and children. A wife who bears children is laying down her life, possibly literally in the third world, for her husband. We simply do not need rules and roles if we have the right attitude toward one another.
I don’t call myself Egalitarian because that *might* imply to some a strictly 50/50 scheme which might not fit some couples and which would, therefore, be just as legalistic as the comps. I do not understand why this is so complicated, and I’ve been married a very long time without all the nonsense.
I always thought that an argument for egalitarianism was found in Galations 3:
26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
The late Roger Nicole, a Reformed Baptist and inerrantist was Egalitarian. I have one of his articles on the topic and will reread it.
Vincent Word Studies says this re: Galations 3:28
With this putting on of Christ, the distinctions of your ordinary social relations – of nation, condition, sex – vanish.
Then he references these:
Romans 10:12 Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
1Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Col 3:11 … a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.
@ Victorious:
Right. The human markers of status are abolished, and all are brothers and sisters of the Heir and are all thus fellow-heirs on an equal footing. Paul introduces himself as a true apostle of the Lord Jesus, and continues the teaching of the Lord that families and tribes and religious affiliations do not matter in the Kingdom.
The CBMW crew wants to limit the effects of this Kingdom order to ultimate salvation alone. But that sort of limit does not fit within the context and the overall theme of resisting the false gospels of the false teachers who add requirements above what Christ has accomplished for us. Paul makes that clear from the start of chapter 1. And the CBMW rules and roles do add to the Gospel. They even say that “comp” is a gospel imperative, so their argument fails.
Chapter 5 begins the theme in Paul’s epistles of “walking in the Spirit” or “life in the Spirit” that he carries through the subsequent epistles when he addresses various issues that come up. And that is not done by following systems and rules. It is done, as Paul says, in the Spirit which produces the fruit of the Spirit which include all of the “benefits” that the CBMW system of law promises but can’t produce. Only the Spirit can bring unity to churches and to marriages and to all relationships.
Mark wrote:
I don’t know about egalitarianism as a system, but Galatians certainly demolishes the human hierarchies and levels of privilege and status that people set up. Thanks for bringing this up, since Galatians is believed to be Paul’s first epistle. Why people want to go back to that “law of the slave” is beyond me. But, Peter was persuaded by the false teaching of the Judaizers because it seemed right to him, so there’s a lesson for all of us in that.
Here is a link. You probably have read it already
http://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/An-Evangelical-Tradition-web.pdf
Roger Nicole’s essay is in this PDF.
Mark wrote:
Thank you for that link which looks very interesting.
@ Mark:
Oh my. That is such good stuff. The takedown of WayneGrudemGoWayneGrudem’s “logic” is absolutely priceless. It seems I’m not the only one refusing to buy into his “intellectual writing style” while ignoring what he is actually saying.
There was a very interesting footnote about one of the early egalitarian women, Grimke, who noted that white women bear moral guilt for ignoring and not speaking up about the plight of black women who were sold in the marketplace used sexually and otherwise. White women then are like the Gospel Glitterati Gals now. I had never though about that. At all. And I agree with her.
Again, thank you for linking that. Made me stay up way past my bedtime!
Gram3 wrote:
In my old RSV, I have put words that have been added in brackets as I have come across them in studies and commentaries. Eph 5 : 22 is included. I’ll stick up for translators here in that it is not always possible to render the source language literally, and some additional wording may be necessary to make a grammatcially complete sentence. I think you are wrong to assume when this is done that it is sneaking an interpretation in by the back door.
As regards the Eph 5 passage, submit in verse 22 is taken from v 21. I think you might get away without it in this case; submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ – wives to your husbands as to the Lord. It still makes sense, but presumably the translators thought repeating the verb was better English.
The participles are descriptions of how believers relate to each other as a church, and the wife/husband verse is a specific example of this. If you look at the compressed parallel in Colossians, the imperative is used there, so I don’t think the standard, ‘literal’ translations can be faulted for using a similar construction in Eph.
I have always used more than one translation. The RSV has liberal tendencies, so I liked the NASB (quite popular in the UK) for more conservative version though rather wooden English, and the GNB for a version that avoids NT jargon (justification, redemption etc) that not everybody understands. The NIV has a tendency to leave words out. This makes for better English, but occasionally the words left out are important.
It’s a fascinating subject, and I had better not start waxing lyrically about it for too long!
@ Mark:
Mark,
going to seminary would probably have the opposite effect! There is very little academic scholarship in too many seminaries today. Not all but a large amount! Think of it… Wayne Grudem is considered scholarly by thousands of young seminary students and pastors. It is indoctrination, not scholarship.
When my daughter was little she called it the “cemetery” and I have to agree with her. :o)
The truth is for about 30 years, the movers and shakers have been able to marginalize any biblical scholars who disagree with them. The internet changed all that. Many have been around the whole time it was just hard to find them.
When you are told over and over that the bible says you are not really full heirs of ALL God has promised in Spirit and that you have specific roles to play, wouldn’t you go and study it in depth? I spent well over 15 years on this and other doctrines that were “essential” to be “orthodox” in most of evangelicalism. I was not raised patriarchal or even comp. My mom thought all that was silly and functioned fully in the church. My grandmother graduated from Moody and was known to preach here and there with no problems back in the day, so I did not come from that world. But I saw others who did not come from the comp/pat world totally embrace it as the “answer”. Why?
I got around the seeker movement where it was more comp lite but it was still a big deal. I could never really accept it because it went against Who Jesus was and what He was about. But it was everywhere so best to get educated about it.
During my study I came across so many interesting scholars or just lay folks who presented grammatical and historical contextual arguments that made much more
sense in light of a God who rescues and seeks to establish His functioning kingdom now. Would He really want over half of His Body to be silenced?
My first burning question was if gender roles are so important then what do I do about my Savior coming as male? How can I be like my Savior if there is a male way to be a follower of Christ? Dumb Question? Perhaps but it led me to study up on the Hebrew understanding of “Son”. Now I know why the Godman called himself a “Son” and I realize He has fully adopted me as a “son”, too, with everything His inheritance has to offer.
there is so much in scripture these “scholars” ignore that tell us more than we can imagine. Luke 8 is one of them:
8 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
that passage alone obliterates gender roles in many ways. But it is totally ignored as is Romans 16. both are totally radical for the 1st Century. If there is one single gender exception: There is NO rule. there can’t be so let us really dig into 1 Tim and Eph 5, the clobber passages and see if perhaps we are not understanding them correction within context and grammatically.
Back when I was into this and into deeply for quite a few years, I ran across Cheryl Schatz. She had a ministry to the cults of Mormon and JW. She had sort of exit group meetings for those coming out of those cults and one man challenged her that she was not to teach men or lead the groups. She took him up on it and spent a ton of time delving in and did some great DVD’s concerning her scholarship.
She recognized ESS as an excuse for hierarchy right away. Know why? It has both Mormon and JW tendencies in that it lessens Jesus Christ as God in the flesh. He is a lesser god in ESS.
I mention that because it is very serious. It is not just about wanting equality. It is about what this doctrine does to our Savior and how many people believe whatever they are taught without checking.
here is what Cheryl Schatz taught me: Find one single prohibition against women teaching men in the OT. Just one will do. It cannot be the simple fact that patriarchy existed and was practiced. It has to be a real prohibition from God.
There isn’t one. but we are told that there is a new prohibition concerning women functioning in the Body in the NT. That Paul prohibits what Jesus Christ never prohibited. That Yahweh in the OT never prohibited.
the gender folks will even go as far as to totally redefine the Joel Prophecy to make it fit their agenda. The more one studies this issue and their interpretive assertions the more sinister one finds the entire issue. Can you imagine? Teaching sin as virtue?
.
Ken wrote:
But that is precisely my point. It is *not* necessary to do what is done in 5:22 or in 1 Corinthians 11:11 to make sense. That thought makes perfect sense without the “help” of the translators who are acting as interpreters and, worse, *presuming* authority they do not have, namely to change the word of God to mean what he has not said. Why do conservatives like you and others defend this? We would all be up in arms if someone took something *away* from what God has said, but Grudem and the patriarchals get a pass. I don’t understand this. Should we not be principled about something like translation?
Except they didn’t repeat the verb. They borrowed a *participle* and changed the borrowed participle into an *imperative* verb. That is not honest translation, and it changes the meaning into something it is not. The authority resides in Christ, not in the husband in this case or in any case. Your rendering above is exactly how they should have rendered it but did not. As you say, it is an example of what submitting looks like.
Check out the link from Mark above. There is some good information there.
Gram3 wrote:
Attention one and all. The following is sarcasm.
Well, you must have come from an unusual situation indeed because I know for a fact, having watched some old movies, that the whole culture was steeped in pat/comp back in the day, and if you are trying to make yourself some exception I am not buying it. I do know that the Nancy person has denied this about the culture back then, but movies are movies and they never misrepresent anything. And besides, the conservative resurgence is after all a ‘resurgence’ so it must be that they are just getting us all back to where we used to be or they would not have used the word ‘resurgence.’ So if you come along and think that I am going to look with a critical and discerning eye at either hollywood or the CR, you have another think coming.
Off sarcasm. I was not raised pat/comp or anything like it either nor were my friends and classmates back in the day.
@ Nancy:
For crying out loud. Gram3 did not write that. Lydia wrote that. How did this happen? I would not know how to make this happen even if I wanted to.
Link to Lydia
@ Lydia:
@ Nancy:
That happened to me last week, too. I even retried linking to the correct link in the comment box (without posting) and it (mysterious tech demon) continued to link to the wrong comment. You and I must be plagued by the same demon 😉
Nancy wrote:
I just used the “for crying out loud” expression on another thread a few minutes ago! I guess we are the only ones who use expressions like that any more. Another one is “for pity’s sake.” Never hear that any more.
@ Bridget:
I am glad you told me that. I was beginning to suspect the onset of dementia on my part. That would be early dementia of course, well not very early, to be honest not actually early at all. Okay, it would be “eventual dementia” but I can still pretend.
There is one thing, though, and I find this delightful and will pass it on. I have reached the age in which significant cognitive decline is expected, except some of us don’t do much of it. They are now calling us ‘super agers’ I think. Our bodies may or may not have set out on some path of self destruction but our minds have not so much. The researchers are trying to find out why that is. So, at last and at last I have made it into some category or other. This time I don’t mind being in a category.
Gram3 wrote:
There is a manuscript variant here, so at least the RSV and earlier versions might have been following this variant reading, I don’t know. Submit in the imperative does appear in v 22 in a largish number of MSS with the exception of a few but early MSS.
If the participles are a description of what you do if you corporately go on being fully in the Spirit of v 18, I’m not sure wording this to make this something you should do is doing violence to the text; it is at least implied. The command to be filled results in the 5 participles.
Apart from the MSS difference, Colossians does make the submit imperative – in English, so I assume in Greek as well! This does not mean the translation in Ephesians should be determined by Colossians, but it does mean the imperative is not false.
I think, incidentally, that submit here (and it is not obey) is primarily a command to cultivate an attitude of heart rather than a particular behaviour. An unloving husband can force his wife to obey him, but he can’t force her to submit or respect him. The submission is voluntary, it has got to come from within, and God commands it without doing violence to her will as only he can. It is first and foremost to him, as to the Lord, a little phrase that can easily be missed.
I think it is a crying shame if we evangelicals can only ever argue about what this means, Rachel versus Wayne. The basic thrust of the whole passage is not that difficult to grasp, is it?
Lydia wrote:
I am developing a theory so let me put it out there and see what other people think. I have wondered long and hard why some people can look at some things in scripture and say ‘that was then and this is now’ while others seem to want to take everything that was ‘then’ and make it ‘now.’ That is pretty straightforward, however. They just do or don’t much buy into the idea that something might indeed change even in application between then and now.
What amazes me however is a third group, and I think there is a link here, is how the CR / pat-comp crowd not only want a vigorous current living out of everything that Paul said about women to the extent that they carry it way to extremes and even call it necessary for the gospel, and at the same time take what Paul said about the gifts of the Spirit and vehemently deny that any of that ‘then’ could be ‘now.’ This even to the extent of having conferences which include pro-comp stuff on the one hand and conferences which are anti-Spirit stuff on the other. They are dead serious about both these things. I think that perhaps it is because the Spirit cannot be controlled, and if you believe the Joel prophecy and also the NT the women are not left out. Then if you look at where women have the most opportunities in christianity it is in the traditions that still believe that the Spirit is with us and doing his thing, so to speak (and this is not just the pentecostals/ charismatics.)
Can it be that they are willing to knowingly try to suppress the Spirit in order to suppress the women? Could the woman issue be some of the driving force in their attitudes toward the Holy Spirit? Or perhaps their neglect of the Spirit left a problem area which opened the door for some of their attitudes toward women.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, I think there is a reason they could function so easily. I think folks were less threatened at church because women did not have all the equal rights they more firmly secured in the 70’s and on. I am not saying they were “hired” to preach. I am saying they could preach/teach with men there and it was never a big deal. And keep in mind I am only talking church here. I am sure it was not like that in medicine or any of the professions.
What I mean by equal rights is more in line with financial, hiring practices, acceptance to university and so on. I am old enough to remember my dad being very upset with men who died and their bank accounts frozen until probate leaving the widow with no way to withdraw money. He hated it that these women were not a part of the picture concerning family finances…even knowing where the insurance policies were. My mom was always asking if he could help some widow from church because he knew people like lawyers, bankers, etc, from his business.
They also married very good men who were not threatened. I will say that both my mom and grandmother married men much older than themselves which might account for some of it.
Ken wrote:
OK, I posted this before but I hope it will be helpful here since we seem to misunderstand Paul’s intent in Ephesians (and other places). It’s a bit lengthy so I’ll post it in three parts.
This passage becomes clear as to Paul’s intent when we read it as presented; “from the bottom up” rather than the popular “top down” method. I see this as Paul’s appeal to the “stronger” to change their perspective of the “weaker, more vulnerable” and his attempt to “level the playing field” so to speak. Notice in the series who Paul mentions first to accomplish his purpose.
Let’s first look at the message (from the bottom up) to slaves and masters. We know slavery was rampant but from the beginning, this was never God’s plan nor did He establish a system of domination of one over the other among His people. We see, throughout scripture God’s efforts to protect the well-being of slaves and educate slaveholders how to treat them fairly. With the many scriptures in the OT that support fair, just treatment of slaves, we look at Paul’s admonishments to both slaves (weak and vulnerable) and masters (strongers and more powerful)
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ…Eph 6:5
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening…Eph 6:9
Paul is not supporting nor endorsing the continuation of the practice; on the contrary, he is appealing to their sense of fair treatment one to another to ensure a peaceable relationship in an existing situation and time that permitted privileges to one to the exclusion of the other.
We know he continued in this effort to eradicate the existing system and implement one that is patterned after mutual respect when he encouraged Philemon to change his attitude toward his slave to one of a brother in Christ. He further tells slaves that if they became a believer while being a slave, to remain in that position (because of the late hour) but if they could become free, to rather do that.
We see his view of slavery in other places which you can research yourself that the system that allowed for one having power over another was never God’s plan and you will see progressive efforts throughout the Word and throughout history to eliminate and/or rescue those who have been oppressed by such a system.
Word to children and parents next.
Paul’s words to children and parents…
Next we can briefly look at Paul’s admonishment to children and parents. Again, we know from scripture (and history) the harsh manner parents have treated their children; i.e. “Passing through the fire” and offering them to false idols, selling them as slaves. We see the relationship between Saul & Jonathan, Absalom’s rebellion against his father David, and the stoning of a rebellious son whose parents brought him to the elders of the city to complain that he was a drunkard and a glutton. Compare the treatment of the father to his son in the parable of the prodigal son.
So Paul entreats children (weaker and more vulnerable) to be obedient to their parents (stronger and powerful) so it will be well with them in their care and then admonishes the father not to be harsh nor to exasperate the children but to instruct them in the way of the Lord.
Children,obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Eph 6:4
Again, Paul does not endorse nor encourage an authoritarian, harsh relationship between parents and their children, but appeals to peaceable respect between them.
Nor does Paul expect a life-time of obedience of children to parents, but only until they are mature enough to “leave his father and mother” to possibly cleave to a wife.
Next we look at the wife/husband relationship.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. When I listened to Johnny Mac on tongues, he is so gunning for tongues and anything charismatic he actually ditches his complementarianism. He said what he does on Sunday from the pulpit is ‘prophecying’. Now my bible says the women may pray or prophesy, therefore why can’t they take a turn one Sunday morning? Well of course they musn’t teach. OK, let them prophesy instead!
When you come together, each one has is for everybody according to the gifts granted to them/the gifts they have prayed to receive. If you want your church to be completely dominated by bible teaching more or less to the excluson of all else, you have to suppress this verse, or say it is not for today.
I also think that the gifts are a good example of divine/human cooperation. He, the Spirit, gives then as he wills, yet he tells us to pray for them. I wonder if this hurts calvinist sensibilities? What do you think?
And finally, we turn to Paul’s efforts to raise the status of wives and curtail the practices of harsh treatment toward them in an era that previously permitted polygamy, concubinage,
marriage by purchase or by capture in war, slave-marriage, and putting away wives for any cause. He first speaks to the wife as the weaker, more vulnerable vessel:
…..and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself the Savior of the body. Eph 5:23
Paul is not establishing nor maintaining a system or relationship that was historically abused by husbands. He is appealing to the wife to see the husband in terms of Christ’s saving the church. He’s encouraging a new perspective and attitude toward the one who will love her and sacrifice for her as Christ did.
But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything Eph 5:24
Paul is comparing the church being in the care and nourishment of Christ to the wife’s being the recipient of the care and nourishment of her husband. We know this by the words of admonishment to husbands to care for (nourish) and cherish her as Christ does to the church.
And then to the stronger, more powerful husband:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…
Eph 5:25
He makes no mention of authority, control, or power in this relationship. Only “agape” love which gives itself up for another. This is radically different than the pattern of husbands to their wives which de-valued her, divorced her for any reason, and took multiple wives in total disregard for the original purpose of marriage.
In keeping with Paul’s efforts to change the erroneous concept of the husband’s authority, we find him specifically saying that the wife has equal authority in the home (1 Tim. 5:14) and the same as the husband in the sexual relationship. (1 Cor. 7) Surely we cannot interpret his words as commands that encourage anything other than mutual, reciprocal, loving, respectful treatment.
Paul’s closing remarks to wives and husbands clearly compare their relationships to that of Christ to the church. The “mystery” of Christ’s relationship to the church is Christ’s giving Himself, humbling Himself, emptying Himself, and His servanthood as exemplary of His willingly subjecting Himself on behalf of the Church. In other words, He subjects Himself not to her, but for her sake.
Rather than the current, popular reading of this passage from the “top-down,” as implying authority, Paul intended it to be read and understood from the “bottom-up” position as a protective measure for those most vulnerable which was radically different from the “assumed” authority of the times.
Paul knew Israel’s history of oppression and abuse by those usurping power over others. He also knew Jesus’ words that “it shall not be so among you” and would never contradict nor endorse anything different than loving one another as He has loved us. No hierarchy between individuals intended. regardless of the relationship.
Remember the importance of understanding the author’s intent and how it would be received by those who heard them.
Nancy wrote:
I so agree with your entire comment and long wondered the same thing. I came to the conclusion that Satan is delighted at the possibility over one half of the body of Christ is vulnerable to these doctrines of men that will keep them from functioning in their spiritual gifts in the Body. The eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need of you.
Paul actually talks about this conundrum in 1 Timothy. Are they deceived out of ignorance? If so, we must have compassion and try to teach them truth and be Bereans. Or, are they deceiving others on purpose? Harder to answer. But I do know that Paul names names when they deceive others on purpose.
I am content to simply disagree with those doctrines and make my case if anyone will listen. the other is above my pay grade. However, I do not think any focus on or application of a doctrine that shuts down any adult member from functioning in their spiritual gifting in the Body….is from Christ.
Ken wrote:
Ken this is what the Puritans tried to do. They basically changed the definition of preaching and made prophesying a totally different category which is murky at best. I am sure they were not the first but I just came across their laborious explanations so it stuck with me. How is preaching not teaching something? Prophesying is communicating revealed truth. that could be truth from scripture, too, as in preaching.
Ken wrote:
I never did get calvinism splattered all over me, so I don’t know what it ‘feels’ like. I am only able to listen and observe, so I am limited in understanding in that way. What it looks like is that some of their ideas when carried to the extreme and put into practice are totally antithetical to…( I will skip the impressive verbiage) some of their ideas surely are just plain nuts. They don’t seem to recognize a contradiction when they see one. They seem to think that the pew sitters are brain dead. They value themselves and their ideas to an extremely ridiculous level. And they claim special seats in the synagogue for their leadership, so to speak. They wear their religion like a fur coat in July and step over the needy on the sidewalk en route to pray long prayers on the street corners. They are not the only ones, but I just happen to be talking about this current bunch of neo-puritans right now.
And yes they have told the Holy Spirit to do what they tell Him and to do no more or less than that. (I have a terrible urge to burst out laughing right now at such absurdity, and I have to remind myself how serious such a thing is.) Sins against the Holy Spirit (and I have no idea what Jesus meant by that) are as bad as it gets, apparently. I have no idea where people cross some line or what that line is, but IMO it is rank idiocy to push it to see how far one can go in this area.
Ken wrote:
Absolutely is an attitude submitted to Christ which is demonstrated by submitting and loving. I don’t think anyone would make the argument that wive should not, therefore, love their husbands though the CBMW types make the argument that this teaches that husband should not submit to their wives. I don’t know how it is possible for a man to lay down his wife for his wife without submitting himself to her. The logic must be applied consistently for it to be valid.
Colossians is parallel in many respects to Galatians and Ephesians. I believe they are supplemental (or complementary!) to one another. The point of both sections addressing relationships is that those relationships look very different under the Kingdom ethic. The point is not to avoid submission. I think there should be *more* submission and deference and considering others more important than self.
The problem is that submission is made into a duty for only females and thus “being submissive” becomes a property attached to being female. That is wrong and harmful to women, as we see demonstrated all over the world. The husband/master is made into Christ, and that is wrong when it is made to mean other than being like Christ. And being like Christ is exactly what women are to do. Christ was humble and humbled himself. The wives at Colossae are called to submit themselves, and the husbands are *not* commanded to take authority over their wives. That is because the authority of both ultimately is Christ.
@ Ken:
Do not put me in the same box with Rachel Evans. We have very different views about a lot of things. I have no idea why she comes to her conclusions.
Wayne or Rachel is a false dichotomy for men and women.
@ Victorious:
Excellent analysis. Thank you for putting the issues so well. I think that we forget that Paul often spoke pastorally. He dealt with the facts on the ground. It simply would not have worked to come in guns blazing and demolishing the existing social structures. That might well have made things *worse* than they were for the weaker.
Instead, the wise thing is to instruct people how to behave like Christ while in their present state. The result of both husband and wife striving to be like Christ within a marriage would actually and practically speaking look very much like what we mean by mutuality. That Paul did not abolish social structures does not mean that he was endorsing them much less commanding that they continue in perpetuity!
@ Lydia:
I agree with your agreement with Nancy. Who would not delight in his foes unilaterally disarming half of their forces? I think Satan is quite pleased because it is a win-win. Silence half the church *and* drive a wedge between men and women, husbands and wives. Perfect scenario for the enemy.
Ken wrote:
There are actually two rationales for denying women an authoritative voice, and that is really what we are talking about. A social pecking order with big economic incentives.
Grudem is a continuationist, so he parses the distinctions between prophesying and authoritative teaching/preaching. He must, therefore, also deny the authoritative nature of prophesying. Otherwise women would have an authoritative position. I have tried to find the obscure bright line between prophesying and authoritative teaching, but I have had no success. As usual, the lines are whatever they need to be in order to ensure that no woman is ever in an authoritative position over any man.
MacArthur approaches the woman problem from another angle. Women were prophesying in the NT church but the NT church practice is not normative. Therefore, the gift of prophecy is no longer necessary in the church and besides it is different from OT prophecy anyway. Hence, women no longer have any authoritative role.
Once you understand the obsessive motivating Fear of Woman, the incongruous positions make some more sense. How much better if they would love their sisters in Christ instead of fearing us.
Ken wrote:
Completely off topic, but this wouldn’t offend Calvinist sensibilities, as most Reformed doctrine definitely asserts there is cooperation with the Spirit for the believer. That is, while “Regeneration” is something the Spirit does, “Sanctification” is something the believer and Spirit do in cooperation.
(Not wanting to argue for or against anything here- just clearing it up for anyone who wanted to know what Reformed folks assert about the Christian individual’s role in Sanctification si).
Jeff S wrote:
No, actually you were right on topic. But Ken was asking about the gifts. So what would the calvinist sensibilities be to the following:
“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; Acts 2″17 (ESV)
What would be their response if some “daughters” prophesied. This is the issue. Would they say that it is okay for the Holy Spirit to perform his functions within the role they perceive for him (I think you said redemption and sanctification (no argument there from me and probably no argument from anybody) but then would they cry foul at prophecy, visions and dreams, not to mention tongues and healing and even maybe ‘miracles’ and such? I am thinking along the lines of John McA and thinking that they would not tolerate any such behavior.
It has been my observation, much to my surprise, that the majority (by membership) of christian denoms have a place for such things within their faith and practice, and I am thinking that the neo-puritans do not. It is this apparent attempt to limit the work of the Holy Spirit that I call into question.
If I am mistaken about calvinism per se and if J McA’s attitude is an aberration please let me know. I don’t what to be incorrect about the neo-puritans.
@ Nancy:
I still don’t think that decades prior to the 1980s were a cake walk for women. There’s a lot of sexism out there.
I was myself brought up to believe in gender complementarianism by my traditional Christian mother (though she did not use that phrase to describe her beliefs about gender), and I was exposed to it a lot growing up in the 1980s.
I definitely got the message from my Christian parents, churches we went to, Christian TV shows I watched, and Christian books and magazines I read that women are to be below men and be passive.
I did not hear, read, or see messages of empowerment from Christians during my youth or young adulthood.
“22 Vintage Ads Designed To Keep Women In Their Place”
http://www.dose.com/lists/2633/22-Vintage-Ads-Designed-To-Keep-Women-In-Their-Place-The-Last-One-Hit-Me-So-Hard
That site (or another one like it) I saw yesterday had a vintage ad showing a young lady smoking and the ad asked, “Is College Bad For Women.” I’m not sure the age of that ad.
@ Nancy:
I’m less knowledgeable about how Reformed doctrine officially views modern day prophecy. I *believe* there are some who say you cannot be Reformed and believe in modern prophesy, the logic being that there is no need with a closed Cannon, but I don’t think it’s universal. Of course, the definition of Reformed is very fluid depending on who you are talking to- many would say if you do not practice infant baptism, you aren’t Reformed.
The WCF itself seems to deny modern day prophesy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
However, I know the two pastors of my church believe in modern day prophecy. Would they let a woman do it? I actually believe they would, but I’m not sure. I know their policy (which they’ve never actually used) would be if someone claims to have a prophetic word to share, that they would pull the person aside with an elder or two, listen and pray for discernment, and then allow the person to share with the congregation.
I do think they (my pastors) see prophecy as distinct from teaching. But I really don’t know the details tbh so take everything I say with (half) a grain of salt.
@ Daisy:
I am sorry to hear that. I graduated from med school in 1964, and my experience seems to have been very different from yours. We were in SBC churches and I went to public schools. I have no explanation for the differences as you describe them, except that I would never describe my mother as ‘very traditional’ at all. Of course, not everybody’s ‘tradition’ is the same as everybody else’s ‘tradition.’ There is also the fact that if you grew up in the 80s that was 40 years later than when I grew up. A lot of cultural change can happen during that time. And I went to ‘downtown’ moderate baptist churches in the 40s and 50s which was way before the conservative resurgence. Other than that, I can’t think of anything.
Daisy wrote:
Oh my! How awful… 🙁
Daisy wrote:
That’s because it took until the 1980’s for the CBMW viewpoint to gain enough strength. But even before that was Gothardism, so that is probably what you were up against. Even people who never set foot in a Gothard event were influenced by the teachings of “umbrellas of authority” and “chain of authority.” I guess that it could be argued that Gothard paved the way for CBMW, and Grudem and Piper and the buddies took it to the next level by reaching into denominational entities and seminaries and also providing Gothardism with a veneer of “scholarship.”
Gram3 wrote:
Believe me, I wouldn’t dream of it. The varieties of opinion on this are far more nuanced than that, and it doesn’t help to stereotype the view you don’t agree with as somehow monolithic.
I can understand Evans enjoying rattling the cage of some of the evangelical subculture in the US of the more po-faced wife submitter variety, but she bothers me. From what I have read of her, I think someone close to her needs to warn her about the direction she is going in. If there is a ‘word in the word’ for her, I think it might be
Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
There seems to be some very real spiritual blindness there, an inclusivity of what God does not allow us to include. The bible is not God, not the third person of the trinity, yet our attitude towards it is a pretty accurate reflection of our real attitude to the God who gave it.
Gram3 wrote:
I think that is correct. I discovered something based on what you said. I am going to comment on the ODP a little later, and I want to get your take on it.
Gram3 wrote:
Steve Taylor, circa 1985:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKlZ7U67Uio
@ Victorious:
Just to let you know I did read through your posts. 🙂
I agree with reading the whole section you refer to as a unit, regardless of direction. The relationships between various groups are set out, and the obligations and responsibilities these entail. The servant or slave/master one is probably most removed from today, and it is interesting Paul does not quote anything from the OT on this, it is not a God-sanctioned institution – though there is legislation regulating it to be found there.
The children/parents teaching is grounded in the OT in part, family structure here goes right back to Moses.
The wife/husband relationship is likewise based on the OT in part, going right back to creation at the beginning of Genesis. In one sense there is nothing new here.
Well you know where the discussion on the original creation order, the effect of the fall, and the NT interpretation of this will go and how long it might go on for, but perhaps it might be in order to take a break from it for a while!
Ken wrote:
That would be shocking to all of the conservatives like Dabney and Furman over here who argued that God did not forbid slavery but only regulated it. They cited Paul as evidence since he could have clearly outlawed it but did not, therefore God approves of (humane) slavery. The best of these men said that slaves must be treated well, not unlike the Gender Hierarchicalists today. But the conservative anti-abolitionists said that God, in fact, did ordain an Order of Creation including racial ordering and gender ordering with white males at the top of the hierarchy and that God did that for the good of society, again not unlike today’s Gender Hierarchicalists. God did not ordain any hierarchies. Anywhere. He commanded us to imitate Christ, not follow man-ordained institutions with their rules and roles that ultimately are self-serving.
Dabney and Furman: weren’t they Calvinists who believed in a hierarchical order?
Mark wrote:
Yes, they were both Calvinists. Dabney was a Presbyterian from Virginia and Furman was a Baptist from South Carolina.
I recommend that people read what their arguments were for themselves and compare those arguments to the current arguments in the gender hierarchy debate.
Is there an association between Calvinism in American South and Calvinism in South Africa and association with racial hierarchy? It seems hierarchy has been an important belief in Calvinism, such as the place of people, since it is all preordained. We have seen this ordered approach manifested at various times of history in terms of race and now sex? I often wonder if there is a correlation to these failed experiments in human history– Southern slavery and apartheid– and if conservative Calvinism was used to support these racial hierarchic systems? I am just wondering……
@ Mark:
I don’t know what rationale was used in South Africa. As I understand it, the Dutch settlers were Calvinists of some sort and then there were the English. I only know what I heard from some friends who were from Durban. He is Dutch background and she is English, and it seems there was even a cultural hierarchy between those two in the past.
Definitely in the American South, it was a combination of the Order of Creation which applied to both races and sexes and also the Curse of Ham which was assumed to apply to Africans for some reason. The thinking at the time was Japheth was “white” and Shem was “red” and Ham was “black.” The narrative went that Ham, the “black” son had a moral defect which made him do what he did. Just like with Eve, that moral defect is projected onto the entire class which he was assumed to represent. The Curse of Ham, which was actually the curse on Canaan, included subservience in perpetuity to Japheth’s sons, the “white” people. Not sure where Shem fits into this, but there’s probably some anti-Semitism there as well.
It is truly revolting, and I would not have believed it if I had not actually heard these stories. The sinful bent of humanity is to set ourselves above one another, with Biblical justification which must make God grieve. That sinful bent expresses itself even within a subjugated class, as we see in the SBC with women where degree of submissiveness confers virtue.
@ Gram3:
To clarify, the moral defect attributed to Ham was supposition not based in the text but necessary to the rationale. I didn’t want to imply in any way that there is some moral defect rooted in race of any sort. This fabrication was used to justify what was unjustifiable.
Gram3 wrote:
I am uncertain submissive is all that submissive. Submissiveness confers virtue? But it also confers manipulation and passive aggressive behavior. I prefer a plain spoken opinionated woman to a Southern Belle. At least there is some transparency there and I like to know as a man where I stand. I will never forget seeing that video with Mike Huckaby’s wife reading that poor highway patrolman the riot act. Submissive, my foot!
Gram3 wrote:
You are absolutely correct. I have read somewhere or other that the comment about Ham seeing his father’s nakedness was an idiomatic expression that meant more than just accidentally glancing on some person who was naked. That expression is used elsewhere in scripture as to uncover the nakedness of, I think. That may be where some moral defect idea is from. Some have said that some same sex incestuous act was involved. That idea could play into the accusations of alleged sexual aggression in general.
This came up in a classroom discussion of some piece of literature in a certain high school classroom recently and in explaining the literature there was a disclosure of the thinking of some white people against the alleged descendants of Ham. One of the students heard about this for the first time. He was shocked and appalled that anybody thought that he or others could not ‘control themselves’ and some societal healing work had to be done right then and there in the classroom.
This stuff is so bad, and to think that it gets embedded in christianity is shameful. Let me say, and believe me here. Not everybody thinks this way. Some of us never even heard it growing up. But it has been there, and may still be.
@ Gram3:
I have seen some reference that correlate slavery with a Calvinism. I am not totally convinced.
South Africa
https://www.ucumberlands.edu/academics/history/files/vol3/BlakeWilliams91.htm
American South. From
http://civilwarbaptists.com/featured/slavery/
“In Alabama, one Baptist news editor in 1850 said of slavery, “As a question of morals, it is between us and God … as a question of political economy, it is with us alone, as free and independent states.” The same year, Alabama’s Bethel Baptist Association, reflecting Calvinistic theology, insisted the master-slave relationship was the product of God’s providence. In 1856 an Alabama Baptist labeled slavery “as much an institution of Heaven as marriage.” And in 1860 another declared, “The best defense of slavery … is slavery as it is.” (See Wayne Flynt, Alabama Baptists in the Heart of Dixie, p. 108)”
Mark wrote:
Regarding South Africa, I don’t know whether the CoE whites were more or less supportive of apartheid than the Dutch Calvinists. Not familiar with South Africa, though I have visited!
The American South’s agricultural economy was dependent on slavery. There is an argument that England’s industrial base was somewhat dependent on importation of cotton, so there’s that. Bottom line is I think that economics trumps doctrine. Calvinism might make slavery more plausible, but I think that maintaining the economy and also the social order trumps any theological system.
What interests me is the way that the Bible was misused to support something which we know is very wrong but which respected Bible teachers said was part of God’s “good design” and the Order of Creation. Just like the CBMW crowd does today, the slavery apologists were saying that the abolitionists were godless atheists influenced by the French Revolution who wanted to overturn God’s rule and his word. Like the Gospel Glitterati, they say that the problem is not hierarchical authority but the abuse of hierarchical authority. The parallels are striking to me.
@ Mark:
The other thing that makes the parallels more ironic is that there is currently a long-overdue examination of the racist roots of the SBC and the other southern churches. Yet, no one of these SBC leaders who has suddenly noticed how wrong the Biblical arguments were seems to also notice that they are using those same arguments about women now. Very odd.
@ Gram3:
So strong is the desire for power….
If you’ve never heard of Stanford University’s “Prison Experiment” (1971 I think) look it up on google and you won’t believe what happened with that experiment. Students turned on their peers and inflicted cruelty simply because they were told they were “guards” and the others were merely “prisoners.” The experiment got so out of hand that it had to be called off earlier than intended. It’s a real eye opener.
Victorious wrote:
That and Milgram give a truly scary insight into human psychology. The need to dominate and control and the fear of man are deeply ingrained. Why we cannot see that God does not intend that for his people escapes me.
@ Victorious:
It really is amazing how easily people will obey someone they deem as an expert or authority in an “official” environment. The do the same thing with leaders in a spiritual environment.
@ Mark:
Broadus’ bio of Boyce has this whole section on how Boyce was this great man who saw slavery as God’s way to evangelize the African slaves. There is some really interesting demographics on slave owners in the South which is a much smaller percentage than people think. (It has been a while since I read up on this) Anyway, many slave owners are traced to a variation of the Reformed religion but that was also quite normal. For example, Boyce attended Princeton where he became a Calvinist. He went on to be president of SBTS.
http://civilwarbaptists.com/
Bruce Gourley has done some excellent research and written quite a few books. Check him out.