"Let's be humble about our position on women and realize that those of us who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God always should be careful to discover what the Bible means."
Wade Burleson
I firmly believe what the Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV):
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…
However, I must confess that I have always found these verses, also written by the Apostle Paul, perplexing to say the least:
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
Recently, my daughter and I visited a conservative church in our area. During the traditional 11:00 service, a woman read several passages of Scripture before the entire congregation, and the associate pastor delivered the message.
At the Southern Baptist church where my husband and I attend, women often participate during the service, from making announcements, to reading scripture, to directing the choir, to singing, to passing the offering plate and helping with communion.
I have been in Southern Baptist churches in the past where women were only allowed to participate in the choir and play the organ or piano. How can conservative churches vary so much regarding the role of women?
Wade Burleson has just written a blog post that addresses this confusing passage in 1 Corinthians. We wanted to share it with our readers who no doubt have experienced similar confusion. We are grateful to Wade for allowing us to republish his post.
Rightly Dividing God's Word: Christians Are to Serve Based on Our Giftedness, Not Our Gender (link)
Wade Burleson
I find it stunning that anyone who professes to believe in Christ's teachings and the infallibility of the Bible refuses to allow women to teach men, or forbids women from leadership positions, or demands Christians serve (or not serve) their King and His Kingdom according to their gender instead of their giftedness. I am shocked because this is so contrary to the teachings and ministry of Jesus in the New Covenant He came to establish.
Some of my Christian friends, usually men, will respond to me saying, "Listen, Wade, I simply believe and teach the Bible! And as long as I believe the Bible, I can't have a woman be in leadership over men, or have her teach men, or allow her to hold any position of Christian servant/leadership because the Bible forbids it."
That's not accurate.
The Old Covenant religion of the Hebrews did forbid women in the role of worship priest. But of course the Old Covenant also forbad the eating of pork, made Sabbath-breaking (Saturday, not Sunday) a capital offense, and forbad a host of other actions that have "faded away and disappeared" (Hebrews 8:13). Jesus made the former covenant "obsolete" and instituted a New Covenant in His blood, and made us all proclaimers of this new Way of life which is led by the Spirit (II Corinthians 3:6). In this New Covenant age, men and women serve the King and His Kingdom according to their giftedness, not their gender.
But again, my friends who say they believe the Bible will challenge me by quoting I Corinthians 14:34-35.
"The women are to keep silent in the assembly; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to even speak in the assembly." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
They will then sit back triumphantly and declare, "There you go! As long as I believe the Bible, I can't ever have a woman in leadership. The Bible means what it says!!"
Not so fast. My father has brilliantly pointed out the fallacy of this kind of thinking:
"Someone is going to say 'The Bible means what it says." But that may be the problem. I don't think the Bible means what it says as much as it means what it means and some interpretation must go into understanding its meaning. This would certainly indicate that we need to recognize the possible fallibility of our understanding of Scripture to stay away from the heat that sometimes happens in discussing it."
I want to prove that I Corinthians 14:34-37, in its entirety, derisively dismisses the Old Covenant Hebrew practice–a practice still in vogue in Paul's day among that Jews in Corinth–of forbidding women from even speaking in the presence of other men during an assembly. This I Corinthians 14 passage can only be understand in light of what happened to Paul when he visited Corinth (AD 50-51), the textual context of the passage itself, and the overall teachings of Christ and His apostle in the New Covenant. You may believe you know what these Corinthian verses say, but I'm asking you to discover what they mean.
Rachelle and I have personally visited Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Berea, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Sardis, Laodicea, Thyratira, Thessalonica and almost every other city or island where Paul traveled during his three missionary journeys. Paul was put on trial in the city of Corinth. He stood before a bema where the Roman pro-consul Gallio listened to the accusations of Paul's fellow Jews. These practicing Jews were not Christians, and they sought to convince Gallio that Paul was persuading people to worship God contrary to the law of God" (Acts 18:13) That's a serious accusation against a Jew; and Paul was a Jew. But the Roman pro-consul Gallio refused to make a judgment against Paul saying, "I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters" (Acts 18:15).
Gallio recognized that the conflict in Corinth was a Hebrew religious matter, not a Roman political problem. He did not even intervene as Sosthenes, a convert to Christ through the ministry of Paul as well as a leader in the Corinthian synagogue, was seized and beaten by the Jewish mob before the bema (see Acts 18:17). Paul was hurried out of the Corinthian market-place while Sosthenes was being beaten by the Jews. Paul was eventually secreted out of the city by fellow believers because of the Jewish threats against him (see Acts 18:18).
Many Bible-believing Christians pay little attention to the accusations Paul faced from the Jews in Corinth during his 18 month stay in the city (50 to 51 AD). The Jews sought to imprison him because of his influence among the people. When they failed to have him arrested, the Corinthian Jews beat Sosthenes for believing what Paul taught. The Roman pro-consul Gallio did not prosecute Paul under Roman law as the Jews wanted. Gallio was "unconcerned" with the Jewish religious matters, even allowing the Jews to beat those who believed Paul's religious message (Acts 18:17). Notice, again, the reason the Corinthian Jews gave to the Roman pro-consul Gallio for their anger against Paul – "he is persuading people to worship God contrary to the Law of God." The Law of God is what we now call the Old Covenant and all the practices of Hebrew worship found in the Old Testament and Hebrew traditions. A simple principle regarding our worship of Jesus Christ during this New Covenant age can be logically derived from reading Acts 18 and Paul's time in Corinth:
The more our corporate worship looks like Old Covenant Jewish worship (i.w. "a holy building in which to gather, authoritative male priests who rule over others, and a sacrificial system of actions designed to please God, etc…), the more our corporate worship is unlike Paul's and early believers' worship of Christ. (Wade Burleson)
The Jews who were worshipping in the synagogue of Corinth, however, were greatly offended by Paul's teachings. They heard it with their own ears! Paul was "persuading people to worship God contrary to the Law." This could not be allowed! After the Corinthian Jews dragged Paul before the bema to charge him with a crime and then beat Sosthenes in the public square, Paul escaped to Cenchrea and then Ephesus (see Acts 18:18). He later writes to the Corinthian church and was quite blunt about those Corinthian Jews and Judaizers who were infiltrating the church and causing him trouble. He calls them "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" (II Cor. 11:13), and he tells the Christians in Corinth to resist their false practices and to stand firm to the new "traditions" that Paul had taught them (see I Corinthians 11:2). Paul reminded them that the practice of empowering all followers of Christ to serve God as the Spirit gifts them–regardless their gender, economic status, or ethnicity–was precisely why the Jews zealous for the Law in Corinth dragged Paul before Gallio and why Paul had to escape the city. This is the context one should always have in mind when reading the letters of I Corinthians.
So, the startling prohibition of I Corinthians 14:34-35 seems discordant and unconnected to what Paul taught the Christians in Corinth as well as the entire first letter of encouragement he writes to the Corinthians. Look at these two verses again:
"The women are to keep silent in the assembly; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to even speak in the assembly." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
There's a very good reason why this seems discordant and unconnected to what Paul taught Christians in Corinth and every other city he visited to establish the new Way– it is! I Corinthians 14:34-35 is a quotation of what the Jews zealous for the Law taught about women in the assembly (synagogue), and not what Apostle Paul taught. Because Paul opposed the Jew' position in Corinth on women and worship, and because taught a new Way in the New Covenant – the Corinthian Jews and Judaizers brought Paul up on charges of blasphemy before the bema. So when Paul later writes to the Corinthian Christians (I Corinthians), he knows that all the Christians were familiar with the problem he had in Corinth, that they knew what the Jews taught about women, and they had heard him refute their teaching for 18 months. The Christians in Corinth were all very familiar with the the new "tradition" that Paul taught regarding the equality of women in the New Covenant, So he quotes what the Corinthian Jews taught about women in the synagogue (vs. 34-35),and then derisively dismisses it in the next two verses (vs. 36-37) just as he did during the 18 months when he lived among them and taught them the new traditions of the New Covenant in AD 50-51.
How do we know I Corinthians 14:34-35 is a quotation of what the Jews believed about women being silent in the assembly and not what Paul believed? And how do we know the very next two verses I Corinthians 14:36-57 are a powerful refutation from Paul regarding this tradition ? There are at least five solid hermeneutical reasons for holding to this view.
(1). As already mentioned, the two verses that contain the quotation of what the Jews believed about women (I Corinthians 14:34-35) are completely antithetical to everything Paul writes about women throughout the New Testament, especially his teaching regarding women in the rest of I Corinthians. These two verses (vs. 34-35) are jarring because they represent a position that Paul has already torn apart in his previous writings.
(2). The quotation of the Jews' belief in verses. 34-35 is extremely consistent with the Law of God in the Jewish practices and Hebrew traditions (e.g. "The Law"). The Jews in Corinth accused Paul of persuading people "to worship God contrary to the Law" (Acts 18:13). If women being silent in the assembly actually represented Paul's beliefs, the Corinthian Jews would have hugged and kissed Sosthenes and Paul, not dragged them before the bema in Corinth in order to imprison them and/or beat them.
(3). Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians in Greek. The written Greek language does not use "italics" like we do in our English to identify a quotation. To know being written something is a quotation:
a. The author must identify that what he is writing is a quotation (something Paul does elsewhere), or
b. the quotation must be so familiar to the audience that no identification of the quote is necessary, or
c. the author uses a Greek eta after the quotation to then refute it.
I believe both b. and c. are precisely how the Apostle Paul identifies he is quoting someone else in I Corinthians 14:34-35.
(4). The Jews in Corinth, like all orthodox Jews in Paul's day, believed women were not qualified to be learners in the synagogue, much less teachers, because the Law and the Talmudic literature forbade them from learning. A woman's presence in the synagogue was tolerated, but women were to be unobtrusive and silent, never interfering with the work of the men. The Jews believed when a woman desired to ask a question in order to learn, she was to maintain her silence in the assembly and wait to ask her husband after leaving the synagogue and returning home. The Jews believed the husbands were to be the source of their wives' learning. The Corinthian Jews were "zealous for the Law" and constantly opposed Paul's promotion of women as equal to men, including Priscilla and Aquila, the couple with whom Paul stayed in Corinth and who both later teach Apollo "the way of God more accurately" in Ephesus (see Acts 18:26). The quotation in I Corinthians 14:34-35 is consistent to the law of the Jews in Corinth, but it is absolutely contrary to the teaching and the practice of the Apostle Paul and the new Way of worship.
(5). Paul REFUTES the Jewish quotation in I Corinthians 14:34-35 twice in the very next verse (v. 36) by using the Greek letter eta. Go look in your interlinear Greek/English Bible and find the stand alone Greek letter eta in v. 36. You will see the eta twice in that one verse. It looks like this: η
The Greek eta has two possible markings that cause it to be translated with either the English word "or," or with the English equivalent of what we mean when we make a sound with our mouths like "PFFFFFFFFFFFFT!" This means "That's ridiculous!" or "Are you kidding me?" or "Nonsense!" This latter meaning, in my opinion, is precisely what Paul is saying (twice) in I Corinthians 14:36. In response to the Jewish quotation he has just given I Corinthians 14:35-36 Paul writes a Greek eta to illicit a sound from the reader "PFFFFFFFFT!" which is best translated "Nonsense!"
The original Greek text has no markings, so the translation of η must be made by translators based on other facts than the markings of the Greek letter. I believe the context, the culture of Corinth, and the radical nature of New Covenant worship taught by Paul (and resisted by the Corinthian Jews zealous for the Law) demands the η be translated with a "PFFFFFFFFFFFT!" instead of "or" (as is done in the NAS). Between the written evidences of Paul's exasperation with the Judaizers limiting the role of women, the same women Jesus came to set free, Paul derisively dismisses the Jewish practice by speaking to the Judaziers and making an appeal to the Christians:
"Do you believe the Word of God comes to you only? If anyone wishes to think himself a prophet or spiritual, let that person recognize that the things I HAVE WRITTEN TO YOU (not what the Jews zealous for the Law teach) are the Lord's (e.g. "the Lord Jesus Christ's) commandment." (I Corinthians 14:36-37)
So, after reviewing the important historical, contextual, and grammatical factors that help get to the heart of Paul's meaning in I Corinthians 14:33-37, and using PFFFFFFT to translate the η, let's give a translation that is consistent with the rest of I Corinthians, Jesus' teaching and the Apostles' writings, and the New Covenant way of worship which is totally different than Old Covenant worship:
"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the ekklessia of the saints. (Would you like an example?) "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If women desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in the church." PFFFFFFT! Such nonsense! Do you Jews who practice this believe the Word of God comes from you only? PFFFFFFT! Do you believe the Word of God comes to you only? If anyone wishes to think himself a prophet or spiritual, let that person recognize that the things I HAVE WRITTEN TO YOU (not what the Jews zealous for the Law are teaching) are the Lord's commandment."
The Apostle Paul quotes the Pharisaical Jews in Corinth the same way he quotes the pagan poets when he was in Athens. In Paul's famous message on Mars Hill, he says:
"God is not far from each one of us; for in him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, "For we His offspring." Being the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man." (Acts 17:27-29)
Are you familiar with the pagan poet Paul quotes from as he addressed the Athenians? Probably not. His name was Disoemeia, and he was a native of Paul's hometown of Tarsus. He was a Greek poet the Athenians loved to quote. He was also a worshipper of Zeus. I give you Robert Browning's English translation of Cicero's Latin version of Disoemeia's ancient Greek poem Divine Signs from which Paul quotes.
"From Zeus we lead the strain; he whom mankind
Ne'er leave unhymned: of Zeus all public ways,
All haunts of men, are full; and full the sea,
And harbours; and of Zeus all stand in need.
For we are His offspring: and he, ever good and mild
Gives favouring signs, and rouses us to toil.
Calling to mind life's wants: when clods are best
For plough and mattock: when time is ripe
For planting vines and sowig seeds, he tells
Since he himself hath fixed in heaven these signs."
Paul quotes both pagan poets and proud Pharisees in Scripture, and if you use these quotations as if they are the Word of God, you will make the same mistakes that pagans and Pharisees make in their religious practices.
Just because you quote a passage from the Bible does not necessarily mean you are revealing the mind of God. Serious, Bible-believing Christians recognize that no individual verse or passage of Scripture can be correctly interpreted outside of the textual context and an understanding of the cultural climate of those to whom the letter was initially written.
The issue of womens' function and roles in the church generates much heat in the evangelical church. Those of us who believe in the infallibility of the sacred text should be very careful before using one's views on this issue as the standard for Christian orthodoxy. There is at least the possibility, if I'm correct in my interpretation, that those who urge women to be silent in the church because they "believe what the Bible says" actually may have more in common in their positions with pagan poets and proud Pharisees than the teachings of the Apostle Paul and Christ Himself.
Let's be humble about our position on women and realize that those of us who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God always should be careful to discover what the Bible means.
First?
Wonderful article!!! I read it on Wade’s blog. ~~~~ thank you, Wade!!!!
However, in my home area of rural Southern Kentucky, you couldn’t get this understanding through the heads of most church men if you used a jackhammer! Very discouraging.
Many thanks to the DEEBS, the Burlesons, Eagle, Brad, Nate, and more, for putting up such great posts and sharing information. As for me, you folks keep my spirits up when my church just brings me down!
A little over a year ago, I felt almost defeated spiritually. But, I found all of you. Please keep plugging away. There are lots of commenters who lift my spirits, too!
@ Nancy2:
So encouraged by your comment and so glad Wade's post resonated with you, as it did me. Blessings!
But you see, gender is a gift. And it limits other gifts. It’s like when someone gifts you a bottle of alcohol. You can drink it, but you can’t drive, even if you are Dale Earnhardt Jr. QED, women can’t drive. Or maybe it’s that women are alcohol. Meh, all metaphors break down at some point.
“A 19-year-old Northern Virginia woman is being hailed as a hero after she lifted a pickup truck off her father and saved her family from a fire.”
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Virginia-Teen-Rescues-Father-by-Lifting-Truck-364605671.html
That was such a warm and encouraging article. Thank you to TWW for reposting, and thank you to Wade B. for the thoughtful insight, scholarship, and clarity of the points. It’s very timely for me, as my non-denom church continues to have our (male only) leadership seek to develop leadership qualities in young (male only) people. I don’t see any nefarious purposes, such as they want young men they can control. I just see them realizing that young people need to be encouraged and helped in learning how to be (male only) leaders of tomorrow.
As I reflected on these things recently, it occurred to me that all through junior high, and all through high school, and all through college, and all through my few years of teaching public school, I was encouraged to develop leadership. I was offered opportunities to join high school and college programs that honed leadership skills and I eagerly participated. I was invited to serve on committees as a public school teacher–and I liked it. In spite of all my volunteer service in the various congregations I have made my church home, I have never been encouraged to look at anything I do as “leadership”, but sometimes I have received nice thank you notes and a gift card for my “service” from The (men) Leadership. I have sons who have grown up in this church and who were given opportunities to develop leadership. Now that my youngest, a daughter, is a teenager, I keenly notice the subtle difference in how boys and girls are treated. My daughter has been offered none of the opportunities my sons had, yet she shows as much potential as they. I’ve recently seen her assess a situation with a small group of peers whose appointed leader (a boy) was not suited for the leadership task, weigh options, and work through the difficulties to help the group succeed. The adult leader (a man) even praised her ability to see a need, take the lead, and to keep feelings from being hurt. Too bad that will never happen in our church–she’s already learned that while The Girls are important when it comes to getting things done mostly behind the scenes, The Boys are chosen for more visible jobs. Sometimes I marvel that women and girls don’t lose interest in church, since they are subtly kept less visible. Our leaders are really very nice, very kind, very God loving men–but there is only one who believes that the Spirit is no respecter of gender when gifts are distributed. The others are averagely patriarchal in that kind and gentle way that makes women feel guilty for even noting it. Articles like this give me hope for my daughter.
Can Child Dolls Keep Pedophiles from Offending?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/can-child-dolls-keep-pedophiles-from-offending/423324/
“One man thinks so, and he’s been manufacturing them for clients for more than ten years.”
Tree,
The advocacy you give for your daughter at this time in her life will be only second in scope and efficacy to Christ’s eternal advocacy for her. I commend you for seeing what others will not, even possibly cannot.
Wade
Thank you for reminding me of that, Wade!
Remarkable, refreshing, informative post. Thanks to Wade B. and TWW.
The senior woman who brought my mother-in-law to the Lord (right before my mother-in-law passed away) had the gift of evangelism, no question. She carried in her purse copies of “The Jesus Pocket Promise Book” and shared every day with whomever she met along the way. She would ask me, “Does your church allow you to practice your gifts? Mine doesn’t so I do it outside the church anyway.” Thank God, she did (she, too, has since passed on), as she led my dear mother-in-law into the Kingdom.
Are there other places in the New Testament that an eta is better rendered “pffffft”? I’ve never come across such an interpretation before. In 1 Timothy 2 perhaps? Maybe Paul is quoting the ultra-cheauvanistic Timothy. Seems like that text should be also addressed.
Here’s what I got up last night. It tackles the issue where evangelicals claim that people who leave the Christian faith were never a Christian to begin with. That was discussed recently at Godless in Dixie.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/if-they-leave-the-christian-faith-they-never-were-a-christian-to-begin-with-a-pushback-against-that-line-of-thought-as-inspired-by-a-recent-godless-in-dixie-post/
On Wednesday I am getting up an Open Letter to P.J. Symth. I went and listened to Covenant Life’s new Senior Pastor yesterday. I sat through the service with someone from SGM Survivors. It’s going to be my recommendations on dealing with CLC’s past and polity.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
CBE has had “giftedness not gender” motto since their founding. They are accused of attempting to obliterate gender entirely. As in The women want to be men and the men, women.
When it comes to this topic, It is like trying to reason with middle schoolers.
This article by Wade is a fascinating idea and it seems plausible and well reasoned. It would be nice to get away from the issue of inconsistencies or apparent inconsistencies in scripture and the more stuff than can be solved the better.
Of course, once Paul is exonerated from the accusations of near lunacy for his alleged inconsistencies some folks will have to get off his case about some things-like his alleged attitude toward women. And, of course, if Paul is not understood as being the great silencer of women what does that do to the accusations against the more ‘liberal’ denominations that have not silenced women? Perhaps Paul is not a menace and perhaps we are not heathen. Now that is a thought.
Thank you! I’m nearly in tears. It has NEVER made sense to me why Jesus came to deliver only half of us from the law!!
@ Lydia:
Not middle schoolers, kindergarteners, for that is the level of argument for those who want women to be permanently and eternally subservient to men.
Kemi wrote:
One of the best comments EVER!
Even “giftedness” is no guarantee women will be encouraged to use their gifts. When my husband and I were teaching a Bible class together (couldn’t teach it alone you know…that would be exercising authority), the pastor called me into his office following one class. He said I was “out-shining” my husband and I should be more careful.
I respectfully asked if he was asking me to hide a lamp under a basket, he just gave me an icy stare and I sadly left his office. My husband and I resigned from that class as my husband was in no way gifted in teaching.
When the spirit is quenched by stifling the voices of women, the house of the Lord is often left desolate. The Lord sees the use of different weights and measures.
Daisy wrote:
O…. kay….
That was weird.
Also JAPANESE, and the Japanese have a reputation of being the biggest pervs in Asia (much as the French have among other Europeans). After all, this is a country where there are vending machines dispensing used schoolgirls’ underwear for the Shojo aroma fetish set.
Victorious wrote:
And the door is left wide open for Priapus.
Arce (a man) wrote:
i.e. the He-Man Woman-Haters Club from Little Rascals.
“GURLS ARE ICKY! GURLS GOT COOTIES!”
@ Victorious:
What a sad testimony. Sixteen years ago my family joined a Southern Baptist church in Raleigh. My daughters were attending a newly established non-denominational Christian school that was using the facility to get off the ground. It was exciting that they attended church and school at the same place. I loved it because it was just a five minute drive from our house. It also happened to be the church where Paige and Dorothy Patterson were members, although they were not often in attendance due to their extensive travel schedule.
Not long after we joined the church, I received a postcard from Anne Graham Lotz’s ministry announcing her Just Give Me Jesus gatherings around the country. I was so excited that Anne was reaching out in this way and took the postcard to church with me. I approached the woman who was in charge of the women’s ministry and handed her the postcard. She frowned and said something like: “She has no business preaching to men.” My reply was: “I think her main audience will be women.”
At that moment, my love for that Southern Baptist church began to fade and within a couple of years we transferred our membership to another Southern Baptist church (which by the way ended up being a worse experience for different reasons).
What a challenging time to find a church that truly appreciates the gifting of ALL of its members.
I am happy to belong to a wonderful SBC/CBF church in southeastern KY that has had women deacons since the early 1990s. Because of this action the church was voted out of the local association. The church is thriving and has been blessed with harmony between the members. If our church demanded male dominance, I would scoot out in a hurry! Count this 92-year-oldster a free and faithful Baptist!
Thanks, Wade, for your contribution.
Tree wrote:
They actually are. Different studies and books have been highlighting the exodus of women from churches over the last ten or there about years, and many are leaving because many churches favor males over females and don’t give females opportunities to do much of anything, other than work in church nurseries or kitchenettes.
I just saw an article several weeks ago (and I may have posted it to a prior thread) of how women are leaving Christianity and entering into Wicca and Neo Pagan religions because those non-Christian religious are viewed as being more affirming of women.
There is also a small trickle of blog posts and articles by Christian women warning churches of this female exodus, and how to retain women.
This page is one example:
Why are Working Women Starting to Unplug from Their Churches?
http://blog.tifwe.org/working-women-unplugging-from-church/
There was also a book (and a companion blog) about women leaving the Christian faith and/or church, called “The Resignation of Eve.”
JYJames wrote:
That was a point raised in a book with a chapter about why women are leaving churches.
The book said a lot of women are dropping out of churches to put their talents and skills to use in either charities they start up, or in already-existing para-church ministries, because churches won’t allow women to serve / lead / teach or whatever they are gifted for.
Daisy wrote:
The masculinists are far more concerned with men leaving the church. They have convinced themselves that if they can get the men, women and children are a given.
Deb wrote:
Wow, thank you, Deb!
I am a member of a PCUSA church, a denomination that ordains women. The pastor of my local church is a man, but he’s had men & women fill in for vacation.
I joined this church because of its position on women in leadership without being convinced it was the ‘most Biblical’ practice. I believe it is best for accountability’s sake, that women elders and pastors keep the community balanced, but I wasn’t sure about its Biblicity. Kind of like how Jesus said, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted divorces, but it’s not really the plan.” Women pastors isn’t really the plan, but because of the misogyny masquerading as Christianity, I’ll allow it.
But now? Now I can embrace my church’s policy as actually the plan all along.
I mean, we know Paul’s a sarcastic author. You can see that in Romans. “So, what, we should just be badder to get more grace? Uh, no.” To see this in that vein is so liberating.
Thank you for this gift.
Paul also mentioned that it’s best for a man to remain single, otherwise he would spend too much time with is wife, or some such! How about that?
Daisy wrote:
Well, I do have problems with this attitude. It appears that these woman just want to lead at all costs which is no different than a man who wants to lead at all costs. Their desires are to lead as opposed to being a servant like Christ. Leaving Christianity to “lead” in a Wicca organization certainly did make me question a woman’s (or man’s) faith. I understand not participating in church that demoralizes women. I don’t understand joining Wicca or neo Pagan religions.
Duke University study focuses on the changing American church
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Duke-University-study-focuses-on-the-changing-5845906.php
Bridget wrote:
No, it’s not necessarily about leadership or craving power.
Wanting a fair shake and a chance to use one’s talents or gifts (whether it’s in leadership or some other area) is not coveting power or wanting to lord authority over someone else.
Why is the status quo in the Christian faith okay, where men get to do all the leading? This attitude does alienate some women. Why is that okay, for men to run everything or have all final decision making abilities?
As for me, I have about zero desire to lead (as in have control over) men or anyone else, whether in church or where ever.
However, due to gender stereotypes and gender complementarianism in a lot of churches, I am severely limited in how and when I may work, serve, lead or do anything.
As a woman in Baptist circles (I was brought up Baptist) I will be limited to only cooking type chores or baby sitting, maybe being in the choir. I don’t have the interest or talent for either specialization. There is nothing else for women to do in Baptist churches.
Victorious wrote:
I’ve seen a number of Christian women say on other sites that they sincerely feel as though God has gifted them to be preachers and teachers, but when they approach their church’s preacher or denomination, they are told that cannot be so because the Bible supposedly condemns any woman ever preaching, teaching, leading, or whatever.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And, by the way, I don’t normally go seeking these types of stories out. That one came through one of my social media accounts.
Mara wrote:
Oh yes, it seemed to really start in the 1990s, when a few Christian authors began churning out books about why men were leaving the church.
Many of the churches consumed with why men are leaving think the solution is to further stigmatize and marginalize women or anything feminine already more than they have.
Anything perceived as feminine (such as flowers or mauve colors) must be ridiculed and rejected in church buildings, so some churches paint their walls black or grey and throw away all materials with floral patterns.
Which also gives rise to guys like “preachers” Mark Driscoll and John Piper who say Christianity is “masculine” and who mock any traits in men viewed as feminine (such as being emotional, crying, etc).
The message I get from all that, as a woman, is that anything female is evil, wrong, lesser, or bad, and God doesn’t value and love women as much as he does men.
You even have gender comp guys show up to blogs like this to tell us their spin on the Bible is that women are more easily deceived than men, which is why God doesn’t want women teaching, preaching, leading or doing much of anything that doesn’t involve baking and serving biscuits at church social functions. Which is also a condescending message to send women.
I can certainly understand from things like that why some women are ditching the Christian faith to go join a coven of Wiccans.
It’s not that they are craving power but that they are tired of being rejected or marginalized simply for having been born women.
BF&M 2000 Article xvii: ” ….. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper ……”
This not only applies to the home, but women are also expected to simply be “helpers” to the men at church, too. Sing alto and soprano in the choir, keep the kids quiet, bring the covered dishes, clean the church and the kitchen ……..
Our church has seperate classes for man and women. There is a mixed class, but women are allowed only to attend and not to participate in discussions. Women can’t pray out loud. Men can give testimonies from the pulpit, but women’s testimonies are given from the pew and consist of one sentence: ” I am thankful for my salvation, my church, and my family.” The women’s class I go to does have a Thursday night Bible study class at the home of one of the ladies. But, I refuse to drive 40 miles, round trip, to support the segregation of women!
Will somebody please tell me how this is “equal”?
If I may briefly wade in …
I took the subject of ‘silent women’ for a family bible study last week. I dealt with this passage and the similar one in 1 Tim.
I gave the 4 interpretations I am familiar with of these Corinthian verses, their strengths and weaknesses (or objections – some of which I learned on here!). The version you have explained was included.
There is no one understanding of this passage that doesn’t have its difficulties. Also avoiding making it say what you want it to say before you start (presuppositions).
Personally, I go for the judging prophesies view, as the entire chapter 14 is about regulating the use of tongues and interpretation and prophecy. Some versions e.g. RSV obscure this by their paragraphing at v 33. The silent women fits in neatly with this chapter, this gives the context, and makes sense without doing violence to other places in the NT.
But this view isn’t obvious at first sight.
I hope I was fair. One thing I did see more clearly than before was that this whole subject was contentious across the NT churches back then, there is nothing new under the sun.
Because we cannot be absolutely certain as to exactly what Paul was correcting, too much dogmatism here is unwarranted. But the basic gist is relatively clear.
Daisy wrote:
To walk away from God over a desire to lead is what I am questioning. There are plenty of places a woman can use who gifts that don’t require walking away from God. I say this as a person who is not involved in the institutionalized church but am still a Christian.
Dee, I got your texts last night. It was in regard to Lou and a catheter. He is the question that overrides all medical issues. And you may need to check with Kevin deYoung and Tim Challies….
Is the catheter “Gospel Centered?”
I’d also recommend asking Jonathan Leeman and John Piper’s PODCAST Q & A. Just a few ideas for you! 😛
Deb wrote:
I really hope you will write a post about it Deb. 😉 BTW…has David Horner retired yet? I’m going to miss hammering him on Twitter!
On the topic of women serving in the church, I must admit that I have grown to feel disgruntled with the church as an institution since I decided to start my faith from scratch a few months ago. For numerous reasons. I still attend services because I view them as useful to me – the worship time let’s me sit and have reflection with the Spirit, and the sermons can be great for learning.
But all in all I don’t want to serve in the church. I view my faith and my relationship with God as, well, mine. I’m wary of being affected by church doctrine or shoehorned into a form of service that just isn’t me. Truth is, my gifts aren’t really traditional churchy gifts, especially in the “traditionally female” sense. :/
@ Eagle:
Dee and I never attended the same SB church, but I did join a church ‘planted’ by Dee’s church. That’s quite another story!
@ Bridget:
I agree with you on this Bridget, but I want to take it even a step further. If a woman believes not just that she has certain teaching or speaking or preaching abilities but if she also believes that God has called her to that kind of ministry, and her church forbids her to do that, might she not have the responsibility to move to a different denomination that could be her place of service? Surely God was aware of her situation before He spoke to her about this. Surely He had some plan to work it out.
If she just stays and says, oh well what a disappointment, just how called did she consider herself to be in the first place? Maybe she just wanted to ‘do her thing’ since she had the abilities and maybe it was not about God and her in the first place. I am thinking that obedience has a price, and when one does not follow through on some alleged call I wonder about that choice.
So no, I do not think that everybody who may be naturally talented (as opposed to gifted by the Spirit) in this or that must necessarily be given the opportunity to do it officially at church, be they male or female. That is, I think, the other side of the coin.
@ Deb:
I heard about the “Gospel Centered Pool” and the “Gospel Centered Cell Phone” 😛
Thank you, Wade. The detail on eta is very helpful. How much trouble could have been avoided, had the Greek language had proper quotation marks!
This is another reason that I’m suspicious of people who argue for “the plain reading of Scripture.”. There are times when it becomes a license to ignore context and make the Bible say what a person wants it to say.
Seeing women as equals in ministry, not just allowed to speak but able to lead, has become a non-negotiable for me. Which has made finding a church in our small town very challenging.
Victorious wrote:
This is my step dad’s position. His view is that, in truth, women have been the backbone of the church whether folks want to admit it or not. He also thinks they are more stifled today than they were when he was young. He grew up with both men and women deacons and “circuit” riding pastors in a rural SBC church, so women were doing everything, anyway.
It seems like necessity breeds a whole different view, eh?
Daisy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Because it never was about “leading” in the Body of Christ. That is something tradition/history brought us as the normal.
Nancy2 wrote:
This sounds like a Piper church. Women were not allowed to read scripture aloud in the service because the act of reading it might “teach” men.
Hey, your church is only following the very successful “separate but equal” policy. Sheesh!!
@ Eagle:
I found out the other day on SBC Voices, there are “Gospel Dishes”. It means doing them to the Glory of God.
Lydia wrote:
Is that just me, but I just did the dishes here….and ” Gospel Dishes” has got to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of….
Deb wrote:
I wish I could remember the venue but there was an event years ago where she spoke and a bunch of men in the audience stood up and turned their backs on her. They came just to do that to her!
So mature and Christlike!
@ K.D.:
Not if you proof text 1 Corin 10:31. You can apply it to anything. I asked for the Gospel way to make buttermilk biscuits. They were not amused.
Lydia wrote:
As a single guy who loads his dirty dishes in the dishwasher, I suspect I fail at this on at least two counts. I can’t say that it’s costing me much sleep, nonetheless…
Nancy2 wrote:
In that kind of ‘equality,’ people of one gender are more ‘equal’ than others (or as Lydia said, “separate but equal,” which as we know from American history, is anything but).
Nancy 2, why would you hang around that kind of church?
Josh wrote:
Josh, I must have “satanic” dishes that sit in the sink too long while the kiddos fight over whose turn. :o)
The real priority in most evangelical (fundamentalist) Protestant churches is to preserve male dominance, not accurately interpret the Bible. That Wade is right in his interpretation does not matter, because the men in these churches will dismiss his analysis. Because nothing will ever change in evangelical churches, I became Catholic because women are allowed to do a lot more in spite of the Church’s conservative theology. I became a lector, which is not allowed in most conservative churches. Rather than endure the intense frustration of trying to be accepted in church, I recommend that women who are eager to use their talents find look to the secular world where there are so many opportunities.
I don’t know about gospel dishes, but there is a quote from St. Theresa of Avila about God being? or walking? among the pots and pans.
Teri Anne wrote:
Yep
@ Lydia:
Did you see that post about concern over IHOP? (Dec 15) (Which I agree with BTW…) I see another post at my blog asking where is this concern over CJ Mahaney?
I tell you Lydia I wish I could divide myself into two guys…that way I can write more. 🙂
For the past number of years, January has been designated as Spiritual Abuse Awareness Month.
Spiritual abuse manifests itself in many ways. One significant way is in multitudes of church leaders controlling and stifling women’s gifting in the Body of Christ—and using the Bible as their source document to uphold the male dominance position in the church.
In my research about spiritual abuse and recovery, a significant percentage of women told their stories about marginalization and that they and their spiritual giftings were being grievously quenched in their local churches.
My observation of this fact soon came to be stated this way: Women find that they so often need ‘to leave something’. Women need to leave their local church, to leave their denomination, and some find that they have to leave the church entirely. Further, a number of women found their way by switching denominations and taking formal Bible training at a reputable seminary. They found churches or denominations where their giftings were appreciated and got about preaching the Gospel and doing the work of the ministry, as the Lord had called them to do.
Spiritual Abuse Awareness Month can be a time to recognize this flawed theology and practice in churches and denominations regarding ‘the place of women in leadership’.
Thanks Wade and the Deebs for getting this topic underway on TWW! The emancipation of the other half of the human race continually needs to be brought forward for all to see—starting with how the Church ought to rightly view women in church leadership!
Lydia wrote:
They must not have a sense of humor. I got a big laugh out of that! 🙂
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2, one word: run! This is not true Christianity. Okay, that’s more than one word…but run!
Teri Anne wrote:
Yep. I would hope we would encourage them as scientists, doctors, engineers, etc, etc.
@ Eagle:
Concern over IHOP but so quiet for so long over Driscoll. What is wrong with this picture?
okrapod wrote:
Shh. Don’t tell the Patriarchal Neo Cal guys! :o)
okrapod wrote:
Precisely.
okrapod wrote:
I think that was Brother Lawrence, who called himself the “Lord of all pots and pans.” http://tenwaystopray.com/home/presence-brother-lawrence/
@ Patty in Massachusetts:
Thanks. I will make a note of that.
Lydia wrote:
I’ve heard this from more than one person, that gender restrictions and roles were not that big of a deal in ‘bible believing’ churches distantly past. Over the last 40-45 years or so, it’s become a big deal. Why is that?
Muff Potter wrote:
Power. They are afraid of losing it.
The ministers today really could care less about winning people to Christ. They’re more concerned with their bank account. The people they are baptizing are are the kids of members. They are people” stolen” from other churches. A female minister is a threat to them getting a job. Or keeping a job.
It’s all about control. These guys don’t care about most of the people in the seats. They put on a good show, but it’s just that, a show.
Florence in KY wrote:
@ Patriciamc:
My husband decided to move to this church in Jan. 2014. I’ve been toughing it out there just to save him the embarrassment, but I’m just about beyond caring anymore.
I believe fist Cor 14 is about bringing order to the church meetings. I do not see Paul quoting or speaking to legalistic jews. In fact the only rhetoric I see in the section discussed is Paul asking the Corinthian saints “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”, evidenced by the next verse to the same saints both men and women “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” In other words if you are so gifted then you will realize your prophecy doesn’t go against the commandments of the Lord. Seems that should have silenced anyone with a differing view.
Not quite ready to add “PFFFFFFT” to my Interlinear 🙂
Muff Potter wrote:
Here are a few reasons why: Paul Pressler, Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Al Mohler, Jerry Rankin ……..
@ Muff Potter:
I think it was Piper that wrote that the reason he and others started CBMW was because of the rise of feminism. They had grown up in a time and culture that said women stay at home and serve their families, and when feminism started to challenge women’s “roles” they essentially panicked over a loss of power and privilege*, as has been said. So they, and other old male pastors of their stripe, basically doubled down. It’s been in a spiral ever since.
*Piper didn’t actually SAY that, he said something about how “we believe it goes against Scripture blah blah blah.” But actions speak louder than words, no?
@ Lydia:
I believe Anne describes this experience in her book Hurt. I left my copy at our country home. I’ll look it up when I get back there.
On Linkedin, a discussion topic on Biblical Leadership, provided an opportunity to re-start a topic that a pastor had originally started, but then deleted. This topic is entitled: “Are Women Biblically Permitted to be Pastors? What does God say in His Word about the role of women in leadership in the church (as pastors/elders)?”
You can find this topic thread at:
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3056461/3056461-5893403618333184003
This discussion thread has been going for over 2 years (Dec.), on Linkedin. It has been an opportunity for various perspectives on women in church ministry to be examined, being supported by what people have understood from the Bible. This topic has gotten quite heated numerous times, which required a reminder that Christian people ought to respect one another’s views. Linkedin has an international draw from Christians worldwide. It has been an amazing journey.
This topic thread serves as a teaching opportunity to engage Christians who may not talk to others outside of their own bubble. It has engaged numbers of people who are asking questions about this topic. There has been an informal group who have been able to present an alternate and biblical view to those who are stuck with the so-called ‘plain reading of Scripture’.
This ‘plain reading of the Scripture’, without using adequate hermeneutical principles, naturally provides the apparently ‘obvious’ support for male dominance.
What really is being supported for millenniums is human/pagan culture and NOT the Bible. The New Covenant, which Christ came to institute and Paul was commissioned to teach and to see practiced, as Wade has rightly said, is the NEW ballgame.
If you feel inclined, please join in this Linkedin discussion.
@ Muff Potter:
An older woman who worked for the SBC gave me some insight on this. She thinks it all started from the 1964 civil rights act. She said the original act gave black women more rights than white women so it was rewritten. That seemed to be the start of it, she thought. Women were now a threat?
Teri Anne wrote:
Yep
Hi, All!
Fwiw, my 2 cents:
Through the prophet Joel, God spoke that both sons and daughters, even menservants and maidservants, would prophesy. At Pentecost, Peter affirms this teaching from God’s Word.
A “plain reading of Scripture” says:
“When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.” Acts 2:1
“They” being —
and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
. . . the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), . . . . Acts 1:13 -15
Peter explains Pentecost to onlookers in this way:
“but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;
yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.’ ” Acts 2:16 – 18.
Imo, if God says sons and daughters prophesy by the power of His Holy Spirit, they do. What’s to discuss?
Reference:
Joel (2:28 – 29):
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.
Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.
I haven’t read all the comments this time, but wanted to ask a question. I’d be interested in especially hearing what Wade would say if he sees this.
Which is the better choice?
Raise your daughter in a church that teaches gender roles but generally is acceptable doctrinally in other ways. This means mom doesn’t use her gifts, women don’t function freely, and the parents have to regularly deprogram their daughter regarding what they believe is false teaching about how God views and uses women in the kingdom.
or
Raise a daughter outside of a traditional church structure to love and serve Jesus as you are able. But you have no church family and are pretty much going it alone.
This is what we’ve been faced with. The churches here are either vocally complementarian or heretical or very different in terms of the basics of the faith. (Or rock concerts which neither my daughter nor I can deal with.)
Someone said up above that it’s a tough time to find a church and it is. It’s a terrible time to try to raise a daughter in the church if you disagree theologically with strict gender roles but you still believe in the authority of the Scriptures.
@ Q:
The verse refers to “the law” and it is not referring to Mosaic Law. Who else would be referring to traditional law but a Jew who thought it was important?
@ Sallie Borrink:
This is my problem!
@ Ardiak:
The Puritans had an answer for you. They contended that prophesying and preaching were two totally different things. Sigh.
Thanks for bringing up the Joel prophecy. It is often overlooked in these discussions.
Nancy2 wrote:
That sounds like a life and joy-killing place. I wonder if Jesus would be welcome there?
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Here’s a silly example of how spending five years at a family-integrated church with strict gender roles (which I largely disagreed with) made me a little paranoid: I began to worry a bit about whether my shoes should go in the top pocket of the shoe organizer or the second one. I thought maybe using the top pocket was bad because my husband is taller than me and “deserved” the top pocket. This is crazy, and keep in mind that I was raised in a regular family that believe any of this nonsense! So if five years as an adult could influence me so strongly, I would never raise a daughter in an environment like that.
* my family growing up didn’t believe in strict gender roles
Wade’s posts have been instrumental in helping me understand this issue. I go to a small church plant where both men and women preach-I wasn’t really sure what I believed on the topic and Wade’s hard work clarified it for me to the point that when I was asked to preach, I did!
Who’da thunk???
I so appreciate all the work he has done on this topic. I am 57 years old and just now feel like I am coming into my own…better late than never!
Sallie Borrink wrote:
I believe it’s also bad for sons to be raised in these environments. They will be very likely to get an entitlement mentality (about women being around to serve them and about always being right as the man) which makes for a rocky start to marriage. I’m so glad we escaped that church while my boys were young enough to not absorb that garbage.
@ Lydia:
I am a scientist, and I am working to encourage more women to go into science and engineering.
In my area, nearly every “non-denominational” church appears to be SBC. If you look at their websites, you’ll find that women are secretaries or preschool directors…maybe Sunday School for kids, but almost never deacons, elders, or pastors. I don’t know how many are secretly SBC churches and how many aren’t, but might as well be.
I’m not a Calvinist, so Presbyterian is out. I’ve settled on a United Methodist Church, which I won’t officially join because I don’t believe in taking membership vows.
Teri Anne wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it would be easier to get more women in these fields if there were part-time jobs available. It seems like 50-60 hours is the standard workweek for engineers at many companies, which isn’t too appealing for women who want to have kids. If 20-25 hour jobs were available, I bet interest would rise.
bunny wrote:
Good for you, bunny! I’m one who thinks the Body of Christ would be so blessed with a variety of preachers from within the local church. A request might be made based on the maturity of the believer with the option to accept or refuse. That might be followed by an optional Q&A session to address areas that may need clarification.
That would enable those with a gift of teaching and/or preaching to serve in that area without having to assume a position of “senior/lead pastor” or any title at all for that matter.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
I agree. We only have a daughter, but I pray her (hopefully) future husband and his family will avoid this stuff.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
It’s so subtle, but so powerful.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
We have visited one church, but we do not want to become members of a church again. The pastor told us that to attend and not become a member is akin to a couple that lives together but isn’t married.
So what is the point of visiting/attending if we know from the outset that we will be expected/pressured to formally join?
Sigh.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Ugh! How absolutely absurd! 🙁
Victorious wrote:
I know. It’s sad. What is especially sad is that this is a church that welcomes women using their gifts.
But they also ask members to commit to how much they are going to give each year and have a percentage that they expect members to give. It’s tracked as well. In my mind, that’s giving under compulsion and I think it’s wrong.
So much good with so much that I just can’t deal with.
Lydia wrote:
I think they are different. It is one thing to present something as having been received directly from the Lord as in ‘thus says the Lord’ thinking and something quite different to take something which is already common knowledge and expound on it. The prophesy in Joel deals in things we would call ‘supernatural’ like visions and dreams. It says ‘prophesy’ in this context. Sermons are not like that. Teaching is not like that. Ephesians 4:11 lists prophets as separate from apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers.
Of course if one thinks that prophecy died out along with the apostles when the Spirit eased out of the picture and that God does not do that any more, then you have to do something with the noun prophet and the verb to prophesy, and making it synonymous with preacher is one way of doing that I suppose. Honestly, I do think that this is part of what is going on. Two birds with one stone. Women can’t preach because that is not prophecy and women can’t prophesy because we don’t do that any more. Neat little thing there, that is.
@ okrapod:
I agree with completely with this comment. Teaching and prophesying are two different things.
If you go looking, you can find clear evidence that Paul is poking fun and/or dissing certain teachings. To me, the whole thing about hair and head covering is exactly that. If circumcision is of no consequence, why would hair length and having covering on one’s head?
@ okrapod:
I see where you are coming from but I don’t see why one was presented as OK for women but not the other. That has been the historical argument.
Do you think preaching and teaching are the same thing? Does every preacher think what they are preaching came from God? :o)
@ Teri Anne:
Thank you!
@ Lydia:
I believe “law” used in vs 34 would most likely be the Pentateuch and the one referring to it is Paul not in a legalistic way but as an example.
@ Q:
Then why would Paul ridicule what he wrote in verses 34 and 35 in verse 36? Ironically, the KJV has the best translation of this particular passage.
@ Q:
If you can show me that “law’ in the Pentateuch, I would love to see it.
@ Lydia:
Gen 3 would be one.
@ Q:
Where is the “law” in that passage”
Sometimes law means the whole Old Testament, sometimes the first five books, sometimes the Mosaic.
bunny wrote:
Best encouragement I’ve received in a long time. Thanks, Bunny.
Q wrote:
Genesis 3 is the curse not the law.
Lydia wrote:
Perfect way to put it.
I find the arguments using I Corinthians as a proof-text for barring women from leadership weak. Good job exposing that in this post.
My question is about the I Timothy 2 passage. I have heard an argument about headship not meaning headship. But I still wonder about the appeal to the Genesis account about the Fall. That does not seem to rely just on that one tricky word. Any thoughts?
Divorce Minister wrote:
I’ll just express the heretical idea that maybe, just maybe, we aren’t intended to take letters written to one congregation (Corinthians) or one person (Timothy) as prescriptive for all times, all places and all people.
/runs away.
mirele wrote:
agreed
Q wrote:
Dr. Wayne Grudem in his lengthy tome: Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth uses this same argument. It is circular (no matter what the radius of the circle) and special pleading at best.
Someday, somewhere, somehow, a spark will ignite a gathering of the Body of Christ and Church, as it was intended, will break out!! Believers in that place will suddenly realize that “From Him the whole body [the church, in all its various parts], joined and knitted firmly together by what every joint supplies, when each part is working properly, causes the body to grow and mature, building itself up in [unselfish] love” (Eph. 4:16 AMP) It will be a glorious manifestation of Truth in which a diversity of gifts will unite and flow unhindered by the teachings and traditions of men. Gender won’t matter in the light of His presence when “being one in Christ” is in operation. Lord, let it be on this side of Heaven!
Barb Orlowski wrote:
Calvary Chapel has taken this to a highly refined art form based on a selective literalism. In my opinion, they have probably the most intricately woven biblicism in all of Christendom.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
I didn’t grow up in a church environment, I didn’t come around till I was nearly twenty. I wonder what type church environment my parents would have picked or put up with as their marriage was a partnership. So in agreement with your comment I’m glad I didn’t grow up in a church that taught male superiority, whether camouflaged as complementarianism or some other un-clever label.
Unfortunately I still took from the culture a softer version of separate roles that have taken much of a lifetime to unwind. I’m sorry I didn’t treat the question with more importance sooner and come to conclusions and confidence in those conclusions sooner.
Now realizing I and so many of my Christian brothers and sisters are irrelevant in so many churches, unless your title is pastor, I have a much clearer perspective on what the gripe is about being devalued and held back. It is clear that any system that relegates women to the shadows robs them. It also robs all of us. That so many men continued to be trapped in thinking that devalues women reminds me of the poor schmucks that fought for slavery in the South when they neither owned slaves and were also harmed by the very same system.
Is there some ingrained need to put some in a lower position even when it harms yourself? Is it just about power and does it have that much allure?
mirele wrote:
I’ve had the same heretical idea!
Muff Potter wrote:
When I left an authoritarian church I visited around a number of churches and went to one service at a local Calvary Chapel. The message so long that my saving grace when I fell asleep was he still had not finished when I awoke. Upon researching I found, at least locally, that if I continued there it would be the equivalent of jumping out of the authoritarian pan into the authoritarian fire.
Lydia wrote:
I can handle middle schoolers. It’s the two-year-olds that give me trouble!
mirele wrote:
I’m with you 100% on this. Curiously, the Gospel Glitterati join us in this belief, but only insofar as it relates to setting aside Paul’s statement that it’s better not to get married.
@ Max:
I pray for this to happen everyday. Jesus also thus prayed, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.”
Muff Potter wrote:
I’m not familiar with that.
Circular, okay, I guess.
Muff Potter wrote:
Wayne Grudem makes assumptions and inserts his own opinions. I think, in his mind, he has added a few chapters to the Bible that aren’t really there!
A few of his buddies do the same.
That’s what I think anyway!
Q wrote:
Not much of a Grudem fan.
Can a tome also be lengthy?
Is that like a “big coincidences”
https://youtu.be/2d4wPaBNryA
Here is a brief description on Amazon about the book by Jim Henderson entitled: “The Resignation Of Eve: What If Adam’s Rib Is No Longer Willing To Be The Church’s Backbone?”
“In talking with women around the country, Jim Henderson has come to believe that there is an epidemic of quiet, even sad resignation among dedicated Christian women who are feeling overworked and undervalued in the church. As a result, many women are discouraged. Some, particularly young women, respond by leaving the organized church, or walking away from the faith altogether. Containing personal interviews with women and new research from George Barna, The Resignation of Eve is a field report on what women have to say about how they’ve been affected by their experiences within the church. It is crucially important because, across the board, the research shows that women are driving changes in the church, so what will happen if they resign? Inviting women to speak for themselves, The Resignation of Eve is a must-read, life-changing book for women who have been engaged in the Christian church as well as their pastors and ministry leaders.”
There is also a website with the same name:
http://resignationofeve.com
Barb Orlowski wrote:
Women are the chief support (backbone) of the “church”?
hmmm…
Women are the main supporters of this mess!
Why?
I never left Christ, his word, or his people, (ta da), but left this mess along time ago.
I guess, don’t follow women, right?
postscript. Thank you women.
Daisy wrote:
Its very sad, IMO, but I have a feeling that you may be right. 🙁
Daisy wrote:
If women are more easily deceived, how come all those manly dude bro elders at Mars Hill were so thoroughly deceived by the Driskle?
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Personally, I’d advise checking out the nearest UMC (of course, I AM UMC, so I may be prejudiced). Seriously, I would look for a more mainline church to associate with. We’re a lot more open to women’s giftings, & most of us are a lot less “out there” theologically than many would like you all to think that we are…
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Can I simply say, that the “pastor” is nutty as a fruitcake??
Teri Anne wrote:
I think this way of thinking does great harm to the cause of ‘unsilencing’ women.
The church does not exist as a means of self-fullfillment or pursuing personal ambition, neither for men nor women. It’s not about us or our best life now. It’s not about making us feel good about ourselves. Celebrity status or empowerment.
It should do us good and it should be a place of encouragement.
It’s not good to follow Demas and desert the apostle Paul.
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever.
The church would be vastly better off if we could get rid of the word ‘entitlement’, and reinstate the word ‘ministry’ in its original sense.
okrapod wrote:
MacArthur gets his undies in an uproar over this. He equates preaching with prophecy. Yet women in the early church could pray and prophesy, so I don’t see how he can reconcile this with his views on them being silent. He is so anti-charismatic he sacrifices his complementarianism to it!
@ Q:
So basically, God was not clear at all about His Laws. Got it.
@ Lydia:
No, God was clear. But human scribes, translators of ancient texts where no one speaks that language that way today, and the fact that those old texts were lost and recreated from memory during the exile, all make for human intervention in the process, and humans have biases that infect the product.
@ Arce:
Yes God is clear about His Law in the OC. Another problem for Q on this includes tainting Paul with the belief the cross/resurrection was not even enough for women. Paul is quoting then refuting tradition which we know as the
Mishna.
Arce wrote:
This is so true. As new translations emerge on the scene with just a little added word (for clarity supposedly), one removed (for clarity supposedly) and commentaries that (supposedly) clarify difficult passages, and voila!! A version that supports the desired agenda!
Divorce Minister wrote:
You can get a feel for the overwhelming presence and influence of the Temple cult of Diana/Artemis in Acts. This was Ephesis in the 1st Century. From what I have studied about that pagan religion, it taught Eve was created first. (This pagan religion was focused on childbearing because so many women died in childbirth). This was one of the few places women had power. Paul was making a play on their fear of childbearing with saved by THE childbearing (of Messiah even if they died) and not the pagan rituals.
Without cultural context, barren or single women are doomed by this passage. It has caused much heartache. It is worth checking out.
“Let’s be humble about our position on women and realize that those of us who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God always should be careful to discover what the Bible means.”
You could replace the word “women” with “creation”, or “physical world” and the final quote of this blog post would apply.
I am convinced that so much of the conflicts discussed on the WW is the result of men taking concepts in scripture to far/literal/etc and turning it into “look at how spiritual my interrepation is” and how you all need to follow my position and “fight the good fight”, etc..
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Ruh-roh! Sounds like 9Marxism has struck again!
(Or is it Chandler’s outfit, Acts29? Or is there any real difference? It gets so hard to tell them apart…)
Sallie Borrink wrote:
“Robber” Morris of Gateway might have gotten his hooks into that church as well.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/11/24/robert-morris-and-gateway-church-could-95-of-the-church-be-in-bondage-to-demons/
Thanks for the article Wade, I appreciate you and your work.
I think I may have mentioned this book before, but it was the best book I have read on this subject:
“The Full Rights of Sons” by Kathryn Elliot Stegall
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Rights-Sons-K-Stegall/dp/1457520001/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452693231&sr=8-2&keywords=The+Full+Rights+of+Sons
Here in Hong Kong the Anglican church has had women pastors since WW2. Seems to work well and certainly haven’t heard any negative comments.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Would it be easier for this church if the members just sign a form to allow the church to garnish wages???
Lydia wrote:
This interpretation means that “the veil of the Temple was rent in twain” for men only; not for women. Women are still restricted by old laws.
And the Great Commission is for men only (women are not allowed to do any of the things Christ instructs in the GC). The only catch for women is that we are obligated to submit to and serve the men. So, when men follow the GC, we have to trot along behind the men and support them!
The big problem is that most men (and a lot of women) buy into this interpretation!
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
No, it’s a CRC church and it’s standard practice in that denomination to do so.
The pastor is really a good guy and we like him and his wife. I was surprised when he said that. And disappointed.
Deb, Wade
Awesome post. I want to dive into the conversation but am busy with getting my elderly relatives settled in their medical care.
Herei s where I stand. If God gave me (or any other woman) the talent to teach something, then why not? One of my former churches would have done well to listen carefully to me when a pedophile situation blasted onto the scene. The men in charge, the supposedly god ordained leaders, screwed up badly and refused to listen to us.
According to the comp crowd, God gave those guys they *keys* and therefore they know better than women in their church. Many churches have effectively silenced over 50% of their church membership and in so doing, are missing out on the body of Christ since half of the body is missing in action.
@ dee:
PS I recently heard that the former lead pastor thought we were “out to get him.” He, to this day, still doesn’t get it. It had nothing to do with him initially and everything to do with him when he refused to listen. But, then again, he is a member of The Gospel™ Coalition’s council and it seems like everything, for them involves the role of women and the obvious leadership role of men.
@ Clarissa:
Thank you for that informative comment.
dee wrote:
The *keys* dangling between their legs?
@ Sallie Borrink:
We were involved with churches with which we had disagreements on gender roles, creation, etc. So long as there was no abuse, we continued. But we outlined for our kids where we disagreed with the church.
It was good for them to see that we could still move in all sorts of circles without always agreeing with the status quo. As they have gotten older, they are also quite flexible in their choices and are quick to disagree with whatever the latest “gospel™du jour” tertiary point arises.
What I have found interesting is that others have reached out to us through the years as they, too, have become concerned or disaffected from the teachings.
What i continue to strugle with us by what authority do any “Christian leader” get their “authority/keys” ??
dee wrote:
Jeff Chalmers wrote:
Well, some say by apostolic succession. Others do not say that.
@ Jeff Chalmers:
Quick answer…(This is not what I believe, BTW) It starts in the NT with Peter’s declaration that Jesus was the Christ and proceeds from there. It is a presumptive hermeneutic if you read their words. You start with the assumption and proof text it.
Scroll down to the second part of this post and you can read Jonathan *Keys* Leeman’s own words.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/10/15/jonathan-leemanmark-dever-the-keys-are-the-key-to-understanding-their-words/
Ken wrote:
Honest work is honest work, whether under the church’s umbrella or in the business community. A person who leads with integrity, either in church or out of it, is doing God’s work. Church work isn’t “holier” than non-church work. As a business person, I have mentored and helped far more people than I was ever permitted to do in church. If I have gifts that my church won’t let me use, am I supposed to twiddle my thumbs and not let anyone benefit from those gifts? That’s a bunch of malarky.
Thank you Wade. Finally someone has come out and said what I truly believe. Back in the late 1990’s, early 2000’s there was a lady by the name of I believe Lisa Bevere. She would speak on the Jim and Betty Robison show, plus at ladies meetings all over the country. I think most of you know who I am talking about. If I got her name wrong, I apologize. Lisa taught all this complimentarism stuff. She came out vehemently against women taking over authority from men by speaking in churches, Sunday school classes itself. If I remember correctly, she said once a boy reached a certain age, a woman should no longer be his Sunday School teacher. I would watch Jim Robison’s show a couple of times of week or so.I was going thru a lot of things at the time. My health wasn’t the greatest, kids were in middle school and high school, plus one child had health problems. The last thing I needed was to hear was her spout off these so called “truths” as she called them on tv. Then I would hear Robert Morris preaching also on the show about giving the first fruits to God. Jim would also try to raise money to pay for water wells in Africa. I sort of liked Robert Morris, but not his preaching so to say. When I look back at the things I heard, which I knew couldn’t be right, in lieu of Wade’s blog here, it amazes me. i am probably going to print out Wade’s blog to show people if there is ever any one that questions me about this topic in the future. As for me, I get the stitches out of my foot this afternoon. I am still in pain, but it is slowly getting better. Foot surgery is not for sissies.
Leila wrote:
I believe you are doing precisely what God intended. What you do does far more to instill God’s kingdom on earth than if we all hid our light under a bushel in a church building. I believe we are called to gather together as believers to pray and exort one another, but we are not called to use our gifts and talents solely within a church gathering. Jesus did not do that either. We 21st centuryites do far too much compartmentalizing.
Nancy2 wrote:
That’s the true true. Calvary Chapel’s school of ministry is still not open to women to this day. We (egalitarians) are not going to convince them otherwise, nor will they change our minds any time soon. The billiard balls have cracked loudly at the break and the game will continue. Christianity is still evolving shot by shot. It’s not done yet.
Ken wrote:
Twenty years ago I would have registered agreement, ten years ago it would have been guarded or hopeful agreement. Now I disagree. The objections don’t stem from a spirit of entitlement. I spent the last 25 years sucking it up, setting aside my disappointment with the dysfunction and soldiering on. I found my history there of seeing people coming in with enthusiasm, getting used up, and then cast aside by leaders and a system that had no interest in them personally or in developing them. It was spiritual abuse.
Forgive me if we are talking past each other, I believe the Church is not about ministry. Ministry should be just an expression of the relationships within the Church. Some may answer that our motivation should be our love for God but I figure I’ll see your love of God revealed in your love for people next to you. Going forward, if I sense a greater interest in people doing ministry than an interest in people, I will move on.
Bill M wrote:
That seems to be what Jesus modeled and taught while here.
I like how John Stackhouse described what passes for Evangelicalism/ministry: A Ponzi scheme.
Harley wrote:
Neeyyyahhhhhh. …….. More like teaching patriarchy. Lisa Bevere’s husband, John, wrote a book ….. “Under Cover”??? He teaches something very similar to Gothard’s “umbrellas of authority”. Women answer to men, church members answer to their pastor, and so on.
I’m glad you are feeling somewhat better and that you are “man enough” to cope with the foot surgery! I hope that the stitches come out easily and you are well on your way to healing.
Ken wrote:
Already done in comp churches. They don’t do “entitlement”.
They do “ministry” ~~~~ usually a “men’s ministry” and a “women’s ministry”.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Oh, now Todd! You know that only men can truly be sons of God! Women are just red-headed step children (snort)!
(No offense to any red-heads out there.)
Nancy2 wrote:
Truth is God gave NO law prohibiting women from teaching or leading men. Not one. That does not mean such things are not modeled in that Pagan patriarchal culture He was working to free them from. If that is the case we would have to say polygamy or slavery was God’s intention. Nope. He allowed it because of hard hearts. But He also attempted to regulate it. It was considered better than being cast out in the desert because your husband died.
Bridget wrote:
I do agree! You go Leila!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I spit out a piece of Fuji Apple I was eating for lunch when I read that….LOL!
dee wrote:
This is close to how we operated until it was outlawed.. The problem comes often in youth group where they dare mention another view and then are ostracized. Or the shy less confident teens who won’t say a word feel they need to agree to fit in. The peer pressure is horrendous. As if any disagreement, no matter how civily presented, is an insult to the leaders. I have seen many adults cave in to this, much less teens. It seems to be wrapped up in our identity with Christ too much to take it too lightly.
Church is voluntary but the leaders often act as if it is not. When they do this, the place becomes toxic.
Mine was even told by new YRR pastor she was not welcome at SS unless she attended worship,too. her SS teacher disagreed and that only caused more problems. Oy vey.
dee wrote:
The question becomes where is the line between putting up with teachings from the pulpit and in classes that you don’t agree with and it becoming abusive?
I sat in one church we visited and it took everything I had not to speak up during the sermon because the EVFree pastor was so smug and condescending about the way he was presenting the sermon. He claimed it wasn’t “him” putting women in their place. “It’s right here in the Bible. It’s not me saying these things. This is directly from the Bible.” His smug, flippant handling of these issues WAS abusive in my mind. My heart broke for the women sitting there who had to listen to this man every week.
Is that abusive or not? In my mind, it is. Maybe other people can suck it up and agree to look the other way. I can’t. I’ve seen too many women damaged to sit there and be complicit in such teaching.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
I agree with you. I see no reason to subject oneself and much less one’s children to such as that. There can be really minor differences which are best tolerated, but slamming women and blaming it on the bible is not minor.
zooey111 wrote:
It amazes me that there are so many in evangelical Christianity that want, yes want, the mainline churches to descend into heresy. I guess they want that in order to feel superior: “See, we’re truly chosen by God, you’re not.” The mainline needs people like you, the ones who aren’t “out there” theologically.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Sounds like Ashley Ray, Memphis Tn, who blames the nation’s moral decline on women and said:
“When the lady led, the human race fell,” Ray said. “When Adam allowed his wife to lead him — and it’s his fault, not hers — but when he allowed that the human race fell.”
Ray said he disagrees with people who interpret Ephesians 5:21 as calling for mutual submission that works both ways between husband and wife.
“There is, whether you like it or not, a divine hierarchy in marriage,” he said.
“There should be a divine harmony in marriage,” he added. “Wives must submit to their husbands. That will bring harmony.”
– See more at: https://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/30731-pastor-cites-feminist-rebellion-in-moral-decline#sthash.lexpsmns.dpuf
Sallie Borrink wrote:
This smug condescension is what I hear whenever the pastor at my church sneers about those “liberals” or “militant you-know-whos” or “feminists” (who have nothing in common with any feminist I’ve met). I don’t know that I’d call it abusive to myself, but I would understand if someone felt it were abusive, and I do find it grating enough that I’m not planning to stick around for the long term.
So, does this mean that TWW and Emmanuel Baptist Church would be in full support of women serving on deacon and elder boards and in the pastorate?
patriciamc wrote:
They want to see their slippery slope fallacy affirmed. I’ll also throw out there that you know someone doesn’t love their “enemies” when they gloat over their enemies’ downfall and go out of their way to believe the worst reports about their enemies, regardless of the veracity of said reports. That’s why I don’t believe anyone who claims that they “love the sinner and hate the sin” while falling over themselves to believe that said “sinners” are depraved far beyond reality.
Nancy2 wrote:
And the real reason they have to cling to this belief tighter than ever is that they have no other real way to explain why I’m not allowed to have a husband… 😮
(I’m only partly kidding)
Lydia wrote:
And within those congregations that believe the Puritans correct, where are their women prophets? Strictly speaking, prophecy deals with vision, revelation, insight and correction concerning the paths that people/groups take.
The women prophets are only outside, Dee and Deb among them. As prophets have often been, they are mocked for it.
Men leaders think they are insulting Deb and Dee (and Julie Anne and Barbara, etc) by giving them the label, watch-dog bloggers. But when haven’t prophets been watch dogs?
:eyeroll:
Josh wrote:
Josh, if you’ve done your research, you know these people blame “rebellious women” for the fact that some men want husbands and not wives, and some women want wives and not husbands! Women like Dee, Deb, Julie Ann, Barbara, and most of the female commenters on these blogs (myself included) are to “blame” for “gender confusion”!!! (Snort, eye roll, etc., etc., etc.,…..).
I wish I could say that I’m at least partly kidding!
It’s a great post with lots of great comments but the church keeps navel gazing on this issue. Trenches have been dug on both sides and nothing changes. I’m a complete egalitarian, men and women are equal. It seems that our society as a whole has moved on regarding equality (just like we moved on from slavery, and child labor – at least in principle), but still it’s battled about – and a lot of Christians refuse to fully let the past go.
Maybe Christianity needs to accept that it one voice in a pluralistic society centred in the worlds only superpower. Sounds familiar? I think Paul could empathize – he had the same battle.
I have to be honest. The secular world is more on the ball about this and many other issues. I’ve struggled with whether joining a church or rejoining Christianity is something I can do but it’s not.
I think this blog performs an awesome job of keeping it real and I believe it’s services will in high demand as others who struggle will need all the help they can get. I really like Christians (the regular folk anyway) but I’m not so crazy about Christianity.
Patrice wrote:
That’s called running scared. If those men didn’t see these ladies as threats to their manly authoritah, they would simply ignore them.
@ Patrice:
Great points!
@ Nancy2:
Driscoll did this over the Ted Haggard scandal. He blamed the wife for ‘letting’ herself go.
@ Clay Crouch:
I am definitely in favor of women deacons. My Southern Baptist church has deacons and trustees, and women are appointed to serve in both of these roles along with the men. It's one of the main reasons we joined the church. The couples class my husband and I attend has two teachers who rotate every other week – a man and a woman. 🙂
@ Deb:
Would your church ordain a woman into the pastorate? While Pastor Burleson takes a more liberal view of gender roles than the SBC churches at large, I couldn’t discern from the piece he wrote just where his gender boundary line is.
@ Clay Crouch:
I think it is missing the point to have an affirmative action mindset when it comes to this topic. The point is giftedness. Not gender. So forbidding a gender from serving is the problem.
Clay Crouch wrote:
I got the impression from Wade’s article that he does not have a gender boundry line when it comes to the gifting of men and women in the Church.
This post is being discussed over at the Free Jinger site. I hope it does some good since many people there have had bad experiences with fundamentalism.
http://www.freejinger.org/topic/25411-wade-burleson-slays-i-corinthians/
@ Clay Crouch:
No. I don't have a problem with that.
@ Patriciamc:
Thanks for letting us know. Glad Wade's excellent post is being read by many.
Tree wrote:
Yes! Thank you for naming this feeling and its source.
Tree wrote:
Two of ours, girls, have not only lost interest in church, but have turned away from belief in God altogether.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
No, I think the point is that alcohol can’t drive. Which is true. QED. Because some part of it is true, they think that must make all of it true. Even if it starts from a false supposition in the first place.
Daisy wrote:
Make that …kitchenettes… Our former church was family-integrated, meaning there was no nursery to serve in. The children sat through the service (and long sermon) with their parents. There was a “cry room” for those too young to sit that long, where mothers took their babies to nurse, and their toddlers.
Sometimes a father would take a small child out of the service for a spanking. Very seldom did I see a father holding a baby or small child, to give the mom a chance to listen and worship.
Bridget wrote:
Well, as I was told some years ago, there is a God-shaped vacuum in everyone. I haven’t read the article yet, so I may be off base, but it seems plausible to me that these women are looking for a place to worship where their spirits aren’t quenched and their gifts aren’t set aside as unsuitable because of their gender. Most of the churches I’ve had personal experience with are not places where women can worship freely in spirit and in truth. They may be able to lift their hands to the Lord in worship, but there are man-made chains hanging down… the traditions of men who say that women must check their brains and tongues at the door and be content simply to follow silently whatever men are up front in the church.
refugee wrote:
Well, I do see that when my son keeps the baby and the older child while their mother serves as a lector or as a lay eucharistic minister. Their father, my former husband, used to take care of the kids while I went off for continuing ed (before you could do that on line) and my father used to hold down the fort while my mother sang in the choir. That takes us back the greater portion of a century. I am thinking that perhaps what we are seeing in churches relative to what men do or do not do may be influenced by the family expectations and not just the church.
Daisy wrote:
Huh. You just reminded me of one of those other gospels, I forget which one, where Mary (Magdalene?) is told that she will be made into a man, and somehow that will make her acceptable to God. I am muddling the story badly. I don’t remember the details any more, just the gist.
Daisy wrote:
Oh, yes. Eve was deceived.
Adam, of course, deliberately chose to sin.
Hmmm. Wonder how that lines up?
Bridget wrote:
But you see, Bridget, if you have sat under the teaching that somehow women are lesser, are treacherous seductresses (watch out, men, they’re after you), are targets to be acquired and won, are willful and rebellious and easily deceived and needing constant supervision… and that this is all a part of “God’s perfect plan” for them… can you not understand why some might decide that God is a tyrant and a monster (which comes from the way women are treated and talked about and regarded, along with the horrible calvinistic doctrine that people are created intentionally by god in order that they may be destroyed, with no hope of salvation) and not a loving Father?
Can’t you understand why some would walk away, especially if they’ve never been given any reason to hope or trust, by the teachings they’ve sat under, perhaps all their lives?
Oh, God, please forgive me for raising our daughters in such a church! Please, help me to someday forgive myself… Why didn’t we walk away years ago? It’s as if we were under some sort of spell, called “righteousness” but really filled with fumes from the Pit.
K.D. wrote:
It’s not just you.
Although I did find Brother Andrew’s “Practicing the Presence of God” an interesting read, a number of years ago. (So long ago, I can’t tell you what I remember from the contents I read, but the title itself is thought-provoking and makes me think of Paul’s praying without ceasing.)
Florence in KY wrote:
I haven’t read far enough down to see her answer, but I dare say her husband wants to go to this church, and she hasn’t been able to argue him out of it yet.
refugee wrote:
Daisy was specifically talking about woman leaving Christianity to lead in Wicca or NeoPagan religions because they wanted to lead.
I was in such churches for over 30 years. I don’t participate in the institutionalized church at the moment, but it hasn’t caused me to walk away from God. My children are not believers at the moment, though they were brought up in churches that probably did more harm than good in revealing the nature of God to them. Some of my children were sexually abused (outside the church), but the messages they continually heard about God’s providence and sovereignty certainly made them think God was a monster, especially given the fact that they were far too young to process the theology they were exposed to.
Teri Anne wrote:
*sigh* Or leave evangelism and find a church like yours, which our former church considered apostate. (Catholics are eevil, did you know?) Honestly, sometimes in our old church I wondered why I bothered to go at all? There was nothing for me in those services (towards the end–there were happier times earlier where worship was a joyful duty), nothing but despair, and going through the motions, and trying to look “right” in order to avoid providing fuel for the vicious gossips there (at least one elder’s wife could be numbered among these).
“Look to the secular world for women who are eager to use their talents…” What we call “church” in this day and age sounds like the abomination of desolation, or whatever that term is, at least for women. And if church is a poisonous, unhealthy place for women, what makes it safe for men?
As Israel said in Egypt’s land, Let My people go!
Oppressed so hard, they could not stand. Let My people go!
Go down, Moses, way down in Egypt’s land.
Tell ol’ Pharaoh, Let My people go!
I’m sorry, fighting a migraine so not thinking as clearly as usual.
Bridget wrote:
Um, no. I seem to recall her disagreeing, and saying she wasn’t talking about women leaving to lead. Women leaving, period.
Not trying to be dissentious, or whatever the word is for argumentative.
Bridget wrote:
At least one of mine did walk away from God. She prayed the sinner’s prayer as a young teen (I know that the prayer itself doesn’t save you but it was the only thing she could think to do at the time, because she felt no assurance of salvation despite all the “lovely” covenant teaching at the church and is promises). She was desperate for salvation that night, anguished, but now she calls christianity a toxic system and wants nothing to do with it. She didn’t walk away in order to lead somewhere else. She walked away because she saw my spirit crushed (because I hung in there, stupid stupid STUPID, stupidity disguised as obedience) and decided she’d rather not, thank you very much.
Ken wrote:
The point is, women are unwelcome in ministry. Except in certain narrow, limited, constrained roles, like making meals for families undergoing hardship (such as hospitalization). If your God-given gifts don’t fit the “acceptable” ministries, then there’s no place in the church to use your gifts.
You have to go to the secular world to use your non-homemaking-related gifts, if you’re a woman. But then, a lot of the churches we’re talking about believe that would be an ungodly thing to do. Women belong in the home, they say.
Isn’t there a parable about burying one’s gifts?
Lydia wrote:
I like your previous comment:
It’s like trying to reason with middle-schoolers
Nancy2 wrote:
Perhaps that’s one of the clauses in the membership covenant.
Patrice wrote:
Our (former) congregation neatly dealt with this problem by declaring that the gifts ceased with the closing of canon, or something to that effect.
refugee wrote:
BINGO!
Nancy2 wrote:
I’m in kind of the same boat. We go to a kinder, gentler complementarian church, where the people are so loving and reasonable that I feel guilty for rejecting complementarian teachings.
Ken wrote:
I completely disagree, and thinking like yours (among a few other things) is what left me feeling worthless, as though God loves others but not me, that I shouldn’t have boundaries and that I should allow people to walk all over me and use me (which they did and it made me miserable), etc.
I am much happier now that I know it’s okay for me to put me first, go after self ful-fillment, etc. – basically all the stuff you are condemning.
Had I stayed in your line of thinking, I would still have clinical depression, low self worth, be a passive doormat, and so on.
I also found help in escaping the depression and other problems via the very methods you condemn on other threads: psychology, books by therapists, etc.
The church exists (in part) to meet the needs of each member. Most Christians deny this.
Many American Christians will quote the un-biblical “you should go to church to serve not be served” line at anyone (specifically any Christian) who admits to being weak in whatever capacity (emotionally, financially, whatever) and shame such persons if they ask for help.
Christians who are in need will be scolded, told to repress their needs, suck it up, and go serve someone else.
Repressing one’s pain and emotions like that (thru serving others, or however else) is actually mentally unhealthy and prolongs grief, or whatever other pain the person may be in.
If people have a particular talent, interest, or skill, and cannot find a way or place to use it in church, or are not allowed to do so, (and using one’s God given talents can be considered a form of self fulfillment, I’d say), watch as those persons bail and exodus the church.
Which is precisely one reason of several why more and more women are leaving churches to go serve or use their talents elsewhere.
And nobody wants to stay in a place where they know they and/or their skills are not wanted or used.
The Bible says you are to love others as you love yourself. If you cannot or do not love yourself, you cannot realize God’s love for you, nor can you help other people who need help.
refugee wrote:
Yes, exactly to all that.
My skills set, interests, etc, do NOT fit in at churches that have gender complementarian teachings or views.
Gender comp churches are always wanting to stick me (and/or other women) in Susie Homemaker roles, or around kids (like in the nursery).
I have no aptitude or interest in kid stuff, being around kids, or doing ‘Susie Homemaker’ stuff.
I’ve tried volunteering my particular skill set at a church or two before, and they never put it to use. And some seem puzzled and don’t know what to do.
@ Daisy:
*hugs* Daisy.
@ refugee:
This Daisy wrote:
is what I was responding to here
Bridget wrote:
I feel the same way whether it is about women “being more affirmed” or “leading.” Joining Wicca or a NeoPagan religion for “affirmation” makes me question whether a person was a believer.
You are certainly free to see things differently. Just to be clear, I am not speaking of children rejecting their parents’ faith, but a grown woman rejecting the Christ whom they loved.
I will be praying for your children. I know the heart ache.
Great post. I always took it as more a cultural at that time issue.
Even though I was brought up in a church that believed that (not in a hardcore manner) and I currently attend a church where there are women pastors but not elders, I have never bought into that way of thinking. One of the best teachers I had taught Bible in high school. She had a Masters from Fuller in the 60s, after having been a missionary in China during the communist takeover. Lucille was a strict yet wise and loving teacher.
This whole idea about gender roles (even in the secular world per Piper) would crack me up if it wasn’t so pathetic and damaging – I worked in the classified satellite industry (so i can say I know rocket science and orbital mechanics) and had the privilege of working with an Air Force Colonel, who was also in the astronaut program with NASA, and had PhD in Physics – who happened to be a woman, a very nice one at that….and it has frankly been great to be part of the generation where those opportunities have become available to women (even though there is definitely room for improvement)
anyone seen the latest Progressive Insurance commercials? I crack up and think of some of the posts every time I see them
Daisy wrote:
I would go a step further, I would expect more. Instead of a church that simply “allows” you to use your God given talents, look for people or a church that helps and encourages you to develop your talents.
The church is not supposed to be a place of limits where we allow someone to engage their talents it is supposed to be where we encourage one another and build up one another.
Mike wrote:
The “Where’s your husband” commercial. Yeah. I’ve seen the one with the hairdresser, too. I think the Progressive lady should send the hairdresser after the male announcer to give him a “make- over”!!!
Nancy2 wrote:
I know you’re not kidding (and “gender confusion” – could they have picked a better misnomer?). Anyway, let the record show that I knew whom I liked long before I ever encountered all of y’all rebellious heretics. ;-).
@ Daisy:
But that’s the thing: Ken’s comment is a red herring. This misdirection cloaks the belief that the desires you have to serve in “unapproved” ways are selfish, but if a man desires to serve in exactly the same capacity, he’s not necessarily assumed to be acting out of self-interest. That simply doesn’t add up in my book.
Josh wrote:
I picked up on that too. Another favorite tactic for complementarians is to note how Jesus didn’t see eqality with God as something to strive for (or words to that effect, whatever that verse is). They never use that verse on men, though.
Mike wrote:
*gasps and flutters hands* Does Piper know about her??? She might have been exercising authority over a man, who by his very nature is much more holy than she. *adds another hand flutter*
Patriciamc wrote:
Isn’t that the truth!
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Exactly – which is why there are about 50 gazillion Christian denominations – sometimes splits over interpretation of part of a single verse
Patriciamc wrote:
One rank below general managing multi-billion dollar programs when she retired – then – Engineering Director at Lockheed Martin, she became truly wicked – teaching leadership seminars to empower other women in the aerospace industry – Oh the humanity….
Mike wrote:
The ultimate theoretical End State of Protestantism:
MILLIONS of One True Churches, each with only ONE member, each denouncing ALL the others as Heretics and Apostates.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Thanks – I was drinking some water when I read your comment and had to wipe off my screen
Daisy wrote:
The love yourself doctrine is the most frequent heresy I have ever encountered. I can only repeat what I have already said about this:
You are to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. Two commands, not three. We love ourselves in the sense of put ourselves first (“me first”) by nature. The commandment is given to turn this around, so we start to consider the needs of others before ourselves.
This is not to say we don’t have legitimate needs, it is the focus that is the problem. Hence I part company with those egalitarians who complain they cannot use their God-given gifts not because this prevents them being a blessing to others but because it makes them feel bad about themselves. The focus is on self. We all do this by nature, there was no need for Jesus to command us to do this.
A specific example of this is marriage – the ardour with which a man provides for his own needs he now has to employ in meeting the needs of someone else, namely his wife. The way he wants his needs and aspirations met he now has to transfer to his wife For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it … however, let each one of you love his wife as himself. His priorities change. He may even have to start denying self …!
The commandment Jesus is reiterating is not against us providing our legitimate needs (I fear you may be misunderstanding me on this), it us aimed against us being selfish or self-centered, and I am sure you would agree the latter is wrong.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Quite so, but not to overlook that there are also a number of catholic disparate groups hurling accusations of ‘heresy’ and ‘not a true pope’ and such. And not to forget the number of disgruntled catholics who are not in some disparate group but who grumble none the less. It is not just a protestant problem.
But whoever does it, I agree that it is a problem.
Josh wrote:
My entire focus is on whether God himself approves of who is exercising any one gift at any one time. Nothing more and nothing less.
Ken wrote:
So, do you think God gives women gifts, and then forbids us to use them???
Daisy wrote:
It’s been my experience that churches actually create a toxic atmosphere for many people. They put people in boxes and expect them to behave in accord with such a role. This is very obvious when it comes to singles. They are often viewed as the church’s free labor pool and having lots of free time. Younger single men are considered irresponsible and older single men are looked at with suspicion and are not wanted in church. Julia Duin’s book, “Quitting Church” documents many of these experiences which show that they are not isolated to a particular church. All of this causes socially maladjusted behavior and depression.
Mr. Burleson tackles I Timothy 2:9-15 here:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/06/artemis-redux-women-and-i-timothy-29-15.html
Clay Crouch wrote:
We don’t “ordain” anyone at Emmanuel. We do not see a biblical precedent for bestowing “authority” on anyone – authority to give the sacraments, authority to baptize, authority to marry, etc… – so we don’t ordain. However, we do see specific needs in our community, nation and world, and have a host of gifted men and women called to meet needs. These needs are multiple and are met by people gifted with service (Greek: deaconia), teaching, missions, etc… so we will “lay hands on those gifted and called” and send them out on their tasks. The STATE requires a “license” to marry, so we will “license” those who are usually called upon to marry people (e.g. those who shepherd and care for others), so it makes no difference to us if the caregivers and shepherds are male or female when we “license” them for the STATE, because the STATE doesn’t care, and it seems according to the Bible, God never calls to minister to a need based on gender, but His call is always determined by a need and the giftedness of those He raises up to meet that need. So, you seem interested in “ordination” and I can’t speak for anyone else but our situation – we ordain nobody and license those who exhibit a call, a giftedness, and are in a position to need a “license” from the state.
@ Nancy2:
I think all gifts are in principle open to everyone. And by everyone I mean everyone!
So a woman may receive a gift for teaching. In Kenville she is free to exercise this gift amongst other woman in church, and without restriction in the home – including explaining the way of God more accurately to men. Personally I’m not convinced there is anything wrong with a woman bringing a short word of instruction to the church.
The only restriction for women is to exercíse self-restraint when in the gathering of the church, that is the time to desist from speaking, from being a teacher. And you know where that comes from.
Assuming such gifts are for today, if you have a ‘word’ or prayer or thanksgiving in tongues, but don’t have the accompanying gift of interpretation or there is no-one who present in the assembled church who does, you are to keep silent in church and use the gift privately at home.
So God indiscriminantly gives good gifts and regulates their use. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent. No-one has complete freedom to exercise his or her gift(s) simply as they think fit.
I hope that is a fair answer to your question.
Ken wrote:
And if I’ve understood correctly from your prior comments, you believe that God’s approval of those who exercise gifts is contingent upon the plumbing with which they were born. On that matter, I couldn’t disagree more profoundly.
@ Josh:
See the comment above this one. I think this has nothing to do with plumbing, and more to do with psyche, although that could set off a long discussion I’m not particularly eager to engage in!
Mike wrote:
LOL!
@ Wade Burleson:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’m sorry for the confusion in my use of the term “ordination”. Being an Episcopalian, that is my frame of reference. I couldn’t agree more with your position on giftedness and calling, not gender as the criteria for ministry. That being said, would I be correct in assuming that Emmanuel Baptist church would joyfully lay hands on a woman, so gifted and called, to the a position of Senior Pastor? If so, may your tribe increase!
@ Lydia:
Affirmative action did not cross my mind as thought about my question. See my response to Pr. Burleson.
Update – (I am actually a woman – I go by my female cat’s name here). My foot doctor told me to expect probably 2 or more weeks of this tremendous type of pain. I’ve had about 17 surgeries on my left foot alone. God is still faithful to me. My husband does the housework for me and we share laundry and cooking duties. When you deal with physical ailments like I do, things tend to bother me more at times. I listen more and read more. I began to realize how much more Wade Burleson’s sermons or blogs are always the right thing at the right time for me to hear. I’m glad I don’t listen to James Robison or other evangelists like him. I would rather have dozens of preachers just like Wade Burleson, or the pastor I grew up under, Dean Galyen, than any of these so called gospel glitterati that don’t go back to the original Greek when looking at scripture that was written in Greek.
@ Clay Crouch:
Baptist churches choose and hire pastors. They use the terminology ‘call.’ They say they called a pastor. This is usually somebody previously ‘ordained to the gospel ministry’ using the old time terminology. Frequently the process is that some young person grew up in a certain church, announced at some point that they felt ‘called by God’ to go into full time christian work in some ministry area, and they go off to school to prepare for that. After they graduate from bible college or university or seminary their ‘home church’ may ordain them after an oral examination as to doctrinal beliefs. This does not place them in any particular job. It is very much like when a doctor recently out of residency takes the board exams and passes. The young person is ‘ordained’ by the laying on of hands by several of the men who were on the committee which ‘examined’ him. There are no bishops, or denominational requirements as to education and if you look at the SBC website you note that the procedure varies from one autonomous church to another.
There is no concept of ‘Holy Orders’ similar to the episcopal or catholic understanding. There is no idea of apostolic succession so the issue of whose hands get laid on whose head is quite different. And nobody is ordained to the priesthood since there is no concept of priesthood as in episcopal or catholic thinking.
I don’t know if this difference is why you and Wade seem to be talking past each other to some extent. Here is the question you should ask Wade: Would your church call a woman as a teaching pastor? If you yourself resigned, would your church call a woman as senior pastor?
Any ceremony associated with such a call usually be an installation ceremony. It is highly unlikely that anything having to do with ordination would crop up at this point. Not at the level of calling a senior pastor certainly.
Do not ask him if he himself would receive the Eucharist at the hands of a woman priest. These are two very different ideas and very different systems.
@ refugee:
“We go to a kinder, gentler complementarian church, where the people are so loving and reasonable that I feel guilty for rejecting complementarian teachings.”
+++++++++++++++++
I wish guilt-freedom for you. GUILT-FREE, refugee!
I reckon it’s a religious reflex that is hopefully dying away, simply because you recognize it and can talk about it, and (presusumably) think it’s totally unwarranted and unrequired.
@ Ken:
” I think this has nothing to do with plumbing, and more to do with psyche”
++++++++++++++++
whose psyche?
@ okrapod:
Thank you for your explanation. Having lived in the south my entire life, I’m somewhat familiar with the basic polity of Southern Baptist churches.
I’ve noticed in most Baptist churches, including Pr. Burleson’s Emmanuel Baptist Church, that ministerial staff positions that appear to be open to women are limited to children’s pastor, nursery director, women’s ministry coordinator, etc. Please don’t infer that I consider those as lesser ministries. The nature of my question wasn’t about how one is or who has the authority to, “call”, “recognize”, “ordain”, etc. I was interested in the who is eligible detail. So, I posed the question to Pr. Burleson since I couldn’t determine if his personal position on Giftedness v. Gender included, for lack of a better description, pulpit ministry or senior pastoral positions. Evidently my initial question wasn’t stated clearly enough.
okrapod wrote:
Just curious why asking that question would be ill advised?
@ Ken:
I have also studied all the views and refutations to this one-precisely why no one should be dogmatic about the oppression of women being biblical. The irritation I feel from Wade toward his dogmatic colleagues is warranted.
@ Clay Crouch:
In my town, also in the south, there are multiple ‘conservative’ baptist churches and also multiple ‘moderate’ baptist churches with distinct differences between them as to staffing, but none has a woman senior pastor. The moderate churches are apt to have women who are actually ‘ordained’ as ‘minister of youth’ or ‘minister of music’ or such whereas the conservative churches have mostly men on staff and what women there are serve as ‘director of children’s ministry’ or ‘director of outreach.’ I don’t know if the salaries are comparable but the titles certainly are not.
In my town there is a school of divinity at a local more or less baptist university, but across the state there in one of the larger SBC seminaries. Our local school turns out students from various denominations including women and I know of at least one of the women who was ordained at a local moderate baptist church upon graduation. Needless to say the SBC affiliated seminary does not do that.
One of the local moderate baptist churches hired a woman who was ordained in a non-baptist denomination to be minister of something or other (I forget just what) but not senior pastor. That is so ‘unbaptist’ that I cannot believe it actually happened. So it varies among baptist churches even in the same geographic locale.
In my opinion, and I could be totally wrong, the women in ministry issue is composed of at least two huge variables, doctrine and politics. Even though a church may think that women would be eligible for the job of teaching pastor or senior pastor based on scripture they might hesitate to act on that or even to admit it since the SBC has taken a firm stand against women in those positions. They might not want to get dropped from the SBC and might not want to stir up contention in the church over the issue. I would hate to see Wade or anybody else have to choose between some ideology (women in ministry) and the welfare of their church. I am not saying that this is the case, only that I would hate to see it if it were.
Clay Crouch wrote:
Because that is so far outside baptist thought and practice that it would be impolite to ask him about it.
Ken wrote:
I can understand why that discussion might not be a path you’d enjoy traveling. It wouldn’t bother me, but it’d be tangential to the point of the matter at hand, so I’ll not pursue it further. Nonetheless, I reject the notion that there is anything about the female psyche that renders women ill suited for the exercise of any spiritual gifts that a man would be deemed suited to practice in an assembly of Christians.
Men and women (ignoring for now the fact that there is no 100% clear binary of sex, i.e. plumbing, or gender, i.e. in a loose and overly simplified way, psyche) do indeed have measurable differences in brain structure. However, the burden of proof is on you to prove that these physical differences provide a reasonable justification for the prohibition of certain types of service from women based on differences in “psyche.” Saying that “GOD WILLS IT” does not a valid justification make, when as Wade has demonstrated here, there is plenty of room for debate about whether God does indeed intend such a prohibition.
@ okrapod:
I’m waiting to see how Pr. Burleson will respond to my last question regarding his personal position on women serving as senior pastors. His initial answer to me was a little convoluted. He mentions licensing to marry and caregivers and shepherds in the context of giftedness, not gender, but nothing about senior leadership positions.
Clay Crouch wrote:
I don’t think his answer was convoluted at all if you understand where he is coming from. Have you read anything by Jon Zens? That might give you a better frame of reference for his answer both in terms of the ekklesia and Paul’s teachings on women.
@ Sallie Borrink:
I haven’t read anything by John Zens. So does that mean he doesn’t see women’s roles extending to senior pastor, teaching pastor?
Clay Crouch wrote:
Clay,
I don’t know you, nor do I know the backstory for your questions. I appreciate Sallie’s response to you (above) and give her words a hearty “Amen.”
However, to provide further clarity to you, let me respond to the women being in “pulpit ministry or senior pastor positions” at Emmanuel Enid.
Answer:
(1). I was called to those “positions” of ministry, and have served for 24 years as a teaching shepherd of Emmanuel Enid. That’s my service. Unless you are asking for someone else (male or female) to fill my role at Emmanuel Enid, I can’t answer your question about a female in my position, because I am in that position.
(2). If you are asking “hypothetically” if a woman could be the “Lead Pastor” or “Teaching Pastor” of Emmanuel Enid, I would respond – “If the congregation calls her.” I am only one vote, and as stated above, I’m currently fill the role of “Lead Pastor” (this is a corporate title, definitely not a biblical title) and part of my corporate responsibilities include supervising a large staff, planning and preparing a large budget, etc… I have no “spiritual” authority over anyone, but I have a heavy dose of corporate and legal responsibilities. Could a woman fill the corporate role of supervising men and women in a large institutional church – “Well of course. Probably better than half the men who do it now.” 🙂
It seems you are asking the question: “Can a WOMAN be a Senior Pastor?” The Bible knows nothing of “Senior Pastor” or “Lead Pastor” – only those who shepherd and care for people according to their giftedness. I’m filling a corporate role, and of course, a woman could fill that role. The problem with the Southern Baptist Convention is that they define “Senior Pastor” as an authoritative role OVER other people SPIRITUALLY and they say a WOMAN can’t fill that role.
I say neither can a man.
🙂
Mara wrote:
About a year ago on another blog, we were discussing some statistics on women leaving the church, and one woman noted that she had seen some posts on a Calvinist blog saying that if women left, it would be better for men because it would create more of a masculine church. Seriously. So the neo-cals truly value women less than men. Fortunately, God disagrees.
Lydia wrote:
Really?
Of twelve standard modern Bible commentaries,[7] almost all of them understand this is as a reference to the Law of Moses or a general principle from Genesis or the Old Testament; of these commentaries only one egalitarian commentary disagrees.[8]
https://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/what-is-the-law-in-1-corinthians-1434/#_ftn7
Scholarly Commentary
This suggestion has not found significant support among scholarly commentators, and remains a marginal position even among egalitarians. It is rejected by egalitarians such as Johnson and Witherington,[9] [10] [11] Fee,[12] Hays,[13] Horrell,[14] and Keener.[15] Thiselton notes other commentators rejecting the suggestion.[16]
Following the scholarly consensus, these verses are represented as Paul’s words (not a quotation from the Corinthians), by the CEV, GNB/TEV, HCSB, ISV, Message, NAB, NASB95, NET, NCV, NIRV, NIV, NLT, TLB, and TNIV. In fact, no standard modern Bible translation renders these verses as a quotation.
https://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/does-1-corinthians-1434-contain-a-quotation-from-pauls-opponents/
@ Ken:
Do you think that God ever “calls” men to exercise that same kind of “self-restraint>”? If so, when, why, and how?
Given how many male individuals seem to be completely unfit for ministry – and not just those discussed on this blog – why would/should entirely qualified women have to “exercise self-restraint” in staying out of the clergy, or even as interim clergy?
I do not understand your reasoning. I’m not sure that you really do, either, but it seems as if your constant repetition of the same things makes it so. Well, no. Not really.
@ Ken:
OK so you were in this *one* church where a woman got all crazy, per you (the Willow Creek one), and now all of us have a problem due to our “psyche”? (Hah, you’re using a psychology term there – gotcha!)
@ elastigirl:
Touché!
@ Wade Burleson:
Yes, my question was a hypothetical one. I understand your position now. May your tribe increase!
Can somebody give me chapter and verse as to which law Paul may be referring to.
If not, no problem. I have already said that there can be ‘errors’ in scripture-scribal errors, quotes from sources no longer available and such.
But if somebody has a reference I would like it, please.
Josh wrote:
Josh,
I don’t know if you’ve read previous articles on TWW, but Ken has stated on previous threads that women are more easily decieved than men, and that God holds husbands to a higher degree of responsibility than wives.
@ Nancy2:
Thank you for filling in the context. I read most of the articles here, but I don’t always have time to keep up with the comments. I was aware that Ken holds to a complementarian position, but beyond that, I didn’t realize that he, well, went that far. #smh
Q wrote:
Where have they found this law in scripture? If they understand this to be a reference to the Law of Moses or a general principle from Genesis, they should provide the evidence for silencing women.
Victorious wrote:
Exactly. They never reference it because it isn’t in the Old Testament. They also never address the crowds of people that Anna spoke to at the temple before Mary and Joseph brought Jesus there. (I think it was him…or maybe John the Baptist.)
Luke 2:36-38
There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.
Presumably there were many people awaiting “the redemption of Jerusalem.” How would this be okay but a woman teaching officially would not?
At my previous church women had to remain silent during the service. One week there were only two men present because the rest were away. After the sermon there was always an open mic time when the men could talk about whatever they were learning or ask for prayer. Since nearly all the men were gone, nobody could ask for prayer, because the women had to be silent. They could either pass a note to one of the few men to read aloud or ask their sons to speak for them.
It was so ridiculous that one time I needed to make an announcement about the church garage sale and I had to hand a note to a man to read it for me. Everyone took the “women’s silence” rule so seriously that if every man had been away or sick (it never happened, so this is hypothetical), then church probably would’ve been canceled that week.
People who are dogmatic about the women not speaking thing need to take it to its logical conclusion: If female missionaries converted people in tribe in some remote area, then the new church congregation would have to be run by a man/group of men who’d been a believer for just a very short time, regardless of other qualifications (well run family, so upright that even unbelievers can’t say anything bad about him, etc), rather than be led by an “easily deceived” woman. Clearly this would be ridiculous, but if the verses supposedly silencing women apply everywhere for all time, then God would rather have some areas go without church services than have women speak.
Another thing about this issue that bothered me was that women could sing at our church, but reading the lyrics, or even Bible verses, aloud was verboten.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
So they took the verse about women’s silence literally while ignoring the previous verse about “each one” participating in an assembly.
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1Cor. 14:26
Victorious wrote:
Yes, they interpreted “brethren” (“brothers” in many translations) as meaning “men” not “all believers.” Of course, with that logic, much of Paul’s advice would only apply to men and not women. It’s unfortunate that translators choose to translate the Greek word as “brothers” and not the more accurate “brothers and sisters.”
I remember at one meeting where I brought up how 1 Cor 11 allows women to pray and prophecy during the service and one of the elders looked at me and said (in front of multiple families), “Yeah, a case could be made for that, but that just isn’t what we do.” #@&*&^$@*&^*#@
Several months earlier, when DH voiced (our) public disagreement with the interpretation of the verses used to limit women, the elders organized a meeting to discuss it in more depth. They met for two nights for multiple hours…and women were explicitly not allowed to attend. DH recorded it for me on his phone, which gave me a chance to hear all the elders spend hours trying to quiet the opposition.
We left five years ago and the church has since ceased existing. The rumor is that several families have softened their stances a bit since then (although several of them attend a SGM church, ugh!).
HoppyTheToad wrote:
So women doing rap is likely out of the question.
Ken wrote:
It’s the same difference.
You are arguing that God created all female persons defective in some manner. You are arguing women should be limited in certain functions due to biological reasons.
You view also leads to the conclusion that the redemptive work of Jesus did not apply to females, only to men – which is false.
Daisy wrote:
I thought the same thing, but I’ll be a bit more blunt: Gee, our plumbing is just fine. It’s our heads that are screwed up – that’s why we are inferior to men!
Bridget wrote:
Well, I don’t know. Such women may feel deeply wounded or hurt that they are not being allowed to lead in churches.
Maybe they have leadership talents and abilities and are frustrated they aren’t permitted to use them in church.
I don’t think women should have to leave the church to put their leader gifts to use in some secular charity or para-church thing.
I never brought up leadership specifically; that was something you brought up, IIRC.
I have zippo, no, zero desire to “lead”.
One reason (of many) I am borderline close to saying “Ta-Ta” to the Christian faith myself the last 2 -3 whatever years is due to being marginalized over my gender and marital status by Christians at large and by many churches. (I have other reasons too, but this is one.)
I am not “Susie Homemaker,” but most churches try to cram a woman like me into Susie Homemaker roles.
I don’t want to lead. But my skills and talents (at making and repairing widgets, let us say) has no place in churches.
Author Julia Duin (a woman who has never married and only recently adopted a child) discusses the same thing in a book she wrote: she did not want to “lead” in her church either, but what skills she DOES have (that were non-leader-y) were ignored.
The church or churches she went to did not even try to figure out how to put her & her skills to use.
She offered to write a monthly letter for her church, or lessons, or whatever it was (she is a journalist), but her church turned that down.
Next up, she tried offering teaching harp lessons to the choir or church band, or some such, her church put the nix on that, too.
She went on and on with offering several other “non-leader” skills to her church, they turned her down on all of them.
She finally got burnt out on all this and other aspects of church life and stopped going to church for several years.
One of the reasons women are leaving the Christian faith for Wicca, they have indicated in articles I have seen on the topic, is not because they want to “lead,” or are power hungry, but because Wicca and New Age religions value and respect womanhood.
Christians say they respect females, but they really do not.
Women in Wicca and other such belief sets are not fed the Flag Ken sexist condescending cod swallop that they are more easily deceived than men, that their only value is in marrying, being mommies, nor are the expected to work in a kitchenette or baby nursery.
Their views and input are welcome in these other pagan religions.
The other religions I’ve read about are more explicitly pro-woman and show it on a practical level.
Christians pay a lot of lip service to respecting women, but when you look at how sexist their practices are (barring women from the pastor role merely on gender, etc), it betrays that sentiment.
Substitute the phrase “black people” for “women” in these discussions.
If churches were excluding black people from leadership (or whatever positions),
and/or insisting that all black people could do in church was baby-sit in the church nursery or bake cookies in the church kitchen,
and black people started to leave the Christian faith over this (because they find that New Agers are completely open and validating of black people and give black people the same opportunities as whites), would you really blame them for that? I could certainly empathize.
You want to go where you are truly wanted and valued, not a place that says from one side of their mouth “Or sure, we value you,” but in practice, out of the other side of their mouth, you see the total opposite message at work.
Nancy2 wrote:
And yet God used women in authoritative, teaching, etc, roles in the Bible such as Junia the Apostle, and Deborah (judge in the OT), etc etc etc.
Honestly, God doesn’t think women have a messed up psyche or whatever.
Men are not immune from the same possible problems some women have, so it beats me why Ken feels justified in limiting ONLY women in some things.
Then there’s stuff like this:
Study: Male, Female Brains Not That Different
http://www.voanews.com/content/study-male-female-brains-not-that-different/3106658.html
That last paragraph brings to mind Galatians 3:28 (for me).
Daisy wrote:
Any women have the characteristics or interest in playing professional football?
Pretty sure (besides money) they care about winning?
Q wrote:
Well he did say “sex” instead of gender!
Daisy wrote:
As a tomboy country girl who handles firearms well, and as a former high school math teacher, can you imagine how I feel in the female-soul-killing church my husband chose for us to join in 2013??????
I have no musical talent, my health prevents me from chasing toddlers around (I don’t want to do that anyway!), I love to teach older children (ages 12 and up) …….
Aside from bringing covered dishes to fellowship meals, there is no place for me in this church.
In our former church, I taught a mixed gender classroom full of teenagers. My husband drove the church van on Wed. nights and picked up a load of “unchurched” wild kids (ages ranged from 4-17). I rode shotgun with him as a bus monitor because my husband could not control the kids. On the nights that I felt too bad to go to church, my husband would be in a really foul mood. I had a productive purpose there.
Where we are now, I feel like I’ve died and no one cares! I don’t want to damage my husband’s reputation, but I don’t know how much more of this church I can take. I actually believe it it taking a toll on me physically and magnifying my health problems!
Sorry for the rant, I’m in a foul mood tonight!
Nancy2 wrote:
What’s the deal. What church? Why doesn’t your husband ditch them?
Nancy2 wrote:
Hey Nancy. I don’t know your husband, so I don’t want to misunderstand his intentions, but you’re clearly miserable in this church. If he’s aware, then he needs to work with you to find a place where you both are happy. Marriage isn’t about the wishes of just one partner.
Daisy wrote:
Amen sister!
HoppyTheToad wrote:
This reminds me of a story I heard back in college. A friend of mine went to the Church of Christ student center at her college, and during their weekly get-togethers, they’d sing hymns. One night, the leader asked for requests and said that if a person was male, then he could call out his request. I kid you not. My friend had grown up in such garbage, so she just shrugged.
Nancy2 wrote:
It was stress that eventually drove me from the plantation, it is important to pay attention to such things. Odd that my body sensed more clearly what my mind didn’t. I pray your husband can see the toll this church is taking on you and step back.
Patriciamc wrote:
ROTFL!
Anybody & anything that gives Piper the flutters is OK by me.
Bill M wrote:
I think it is called stress.
One Time I went to the doctor for unexplained pain, he asked “how is your life”, I said great! My kids are doing well in school, me and my wife are great, we are making plenty of money…
He said it was stress.
I thought no way.
I learned my body sometimes knows better.
@ Q:
This site contains some useful material summarising various evangelical views on a variety of NT teachings, but in fairness the owner himself is a Christadelphian of some sort – no trinity, no personal devil. This puts him outside the parameters of NT Christianity, and makes him an unreliable guide when he himself tries to interpret scripture.
@ Victorious:
Victorious!! Thou shalt not steal. That’s my verse on how you ‘do’ church!
Daisy wrote:
I protest, Daisy!! This is a complete caricature of what I believe and what I have written.
There could hardly be a greater deception than to jettison the Christian faith to embrace witchcraft and New Age occultism, breaking the first and highest commandment. and making yourself someone detestable in the sight of God.
Now on your own admission you are having problems continuing in the faith, and I would want to be the last person on earth to add to any discouragement. Quite the reverse. Don’t give in, keep going!
But have you considered this: the value of God’s free gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus is incomparably greater than any value a pagan religion or self-esteem teaching could ever give you outside of Christ Jesus? It’s worth far more than winning an argument over doctrine, hypotasso, roles, ministries, career, ambition, status, health & wealth in the here and now etc. etc.
For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life, because the whole world is in the power of the evil one.
Anything that seeks to knock God off the throne isn’t worth it, it comes at too high a price.
Q wrote:
Still interested in hearing these references about women remaining silent in church from the Law of Moses or Genesis.
What if the democratic consensus of standard Bible commentaries was that the moon is made of cheese? Something as black and white as a claim that “the Law says” stands or falls on whether the Law says it.
On the idea of scholarly consensus… Analytically-minded, predominantly intellectual, people – those who are most likely to become scholars, IOW – are people like everyone else. (My experience has been that we are generally derided and rejected in the UK charismatic/house-church movement, which has harmed both it and us.) That’s who we are, and that’s how we will be drawn towards Jesus: scholarship can be an act of worship as can many other things. (Or of idolatry.)
But there’s not much evidence that God either determines or reveals his will through scholarly consensus. The Sanhedrin at one point noted the twin facts that Peter and John were not scholars; and had been with Jesus. The council at Jerusalem was led by the same unlettered and unlearned Apostles, albeit now augmented by Paul who was both lettered and learned, and the elders – some of whom I don’t doubt were highly educated. Intellectuals have a place at Jesus’ table and a contribution to make to the life of the church. But when the totality of the Holy Spirit’s leading of the church is filtered through our interpretations of biblical texts, then the tail is wagging the dog.
Nancy2 wrote:
It’s that darned “hysteria,” don’t you know?
(Words for being crazy should be gender-neutral, but I’d make a case that we should diagnose men who insist that all women are crazy with testeria.)
Victorious wrote:
No one to my knowledge claims there is a law commanding silence.
For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
Paul is deriving a need for submission from the law in the context of women, prophecy and its evaluation , that is, the OT. And if you go back a bit he has paraphrased in a balanced way which part of the law he has in mind …
Ken wrote:
lol… hope you’re willing to share. It’s a verse that’s often overlooked in an effort to enforce the silence of women.
In reality, most congregations are way too large to literally implement such a system, but even so it appears that full participation by all members is permitted and even the best for edification of all.
@ Nancy2:
People keep asking you why you do not unilaterally do something about this-make your husband understand and such. I keep thinking that at one time in the past you may have indicated that your husband may be studying for the ministry. Is that correct? Has he adopted the thinking of your current church for biblical reasons as he sees it and as it pertains to his ministry goals?
If you did not say that about his studying for the ministry, I apologize for thinking that.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
He’s baaaaack! Good.
okrapod wrote:
You are right. My husband was studying to go into ministry (First it was disaster relief, but he changed direction without telling me.). He unilaterally decided to try starting a planter church 1300 miles away, and made plans for us to move without informing me. I leaned of his plans when I overheard him tell someone else. We almost divorced over it all. I asked him if he was just going to put me in a box and load me into the moving van with the rest of the furniture! He rented a storage bin, packed his stuff and left. I finally talked him into going to a Christian marriage counselor (a woman, ha!) — there are days when I wonder if that was a mistake!
I’ve tried telling him how restrictive this church is towards women, but he claims that, him being a man, he just doesn’t notice what I notice. I think it’s going to come down to me walking away from this church whether he likes it or not.
I used to be at church every time the doors were opened, unless I felt really bad physically. Now, I only go on Sunday morning. I’m going to start phasing that out, too. Actions speak louder than words.
@ Nancy2:
I am so sorry. It sounds like he has taken religion for a mistress, but for sure it was not Jesus who inspired him to act like this. I am going to step over some boundaries here, but given that his behavior is so over the line especially for somebody considering full time christian ministry, and given his military background, and even given your references to your facility with weaponry-please be sure that you are safe at all times.
You are important to us here and we care about you and what happens to you.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks, okrapod!
Victorious wrote:
Victorious,
I am not sure you will be given any explicit reference to “women” being silent in Tabernacle/Temple worship in the Law (synagogues were not instituted until the Exile in the 6th century B.C.), but by inference the only ones allowed inside the premises of the Tabernacle and the Temple were males. Later, in the synagogue, there came a tradition (called Oral Law or Talmud) where “the Law” was passed down by Jewish Temple leaders to the people, similarly to the way “traditions” and “practices” are assumed and “passed down” by one generation to the next in churches. Most people who agree with what I’ve written are emphatic that “the Law” Paul references is the Oral Law, and not the written Law, that Paul ridicules and sets aside for the new Way of following Christ in worship and service – that is, Paul advocates that people lead out and shepherd others in worship and Kingdom service because of their Spirit gifting, not their specific gender. This would have been contrary to the Oral Law, and “most scholars” would be hard pressed to answer your specific question about a specific prohibition for women serving or speaking in the Tabernacle/Temple and would simply respond, “It’s by inference.” However, in the Oral Law (Talmud), it’s by explicit oral instruction – no women! Ever! Paul says PFFFFFT! 🙂
@ Nancy2:
Good grief! I have no words… 🙁
Nancy2,
It’s none of my business, and whatever you decide is “right” because the Spirit guides far better than I, but I might offer an unsolicited word of encouragement.
The most important and impactful changes in my life came when the strong woman God gave me moved toward me in loving opposition and disagreement, and NEVER backed down from her views, but also never ran from me through the hurt of being dismissed. YOU have been gifted by the Spirit and have a great deal to offer your husband and the portion of the Kingdom of Christ where you know reside. Like Jonah, I would encourage you to move into Ninevah and preach the message of grace and equality, and you may be surprised at the repentance of the Ninevites because a strong woman won’t flee from them in their sin.
@ Wade Burleson:
You are so kind to explain this to me. I’m in full agreement! Thank you, Wade.
@ Wade Burleson:
Thank you, Wade!
*********** CRICKET ALERT *********************
Wartburgers who are sensitive to cricket are advised to skip this comment.
The third test looks interesting.
********** END OF CRICKET ALERT **************
@ Wade Burleson:
Thank your your comments on 1 Corinthians 14:34-37. Is there any historical evidence which documents how the Corinthian church conducted its worship services. What did they actually do when they gathered together? Without such evidence, it seems that all we can go on is opinion.
@ okrapod:
What a nice comment.
FWIW, I like to think the moon is made of cheese.
Q wrote:
Perhaps some do. Why limit them by telling all women no they may not or should not even try?
SEE IT: Female soccer player disguised as bearded man outplays male opponents
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/soccer/female-soccer-player-dresses-man-play-male-teammates-article-1.2425846
Wade Burleson wrote:
Why would they respond this way?
Could it be how they interpret “silence”?
Q wrote:
Then there is this:
Female high school football player in Texas a game-changer
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/female-high-school-football-player-in-texas-a-game-changer/
Snippet:
Another example.
Female Football Player Follows in Pro Brother’s Footsteps – ABC News
Snippet:
Another (story via stjoechannel .com):
Excelsior Springs High School Embraces First Female Football Player
Another (via a CBS news site):
Girl football player ousted from team for upcoming school year
@ Daisy:
Not quite professional, but I suppose you could also use that for theistic evolution. 🙂
Ken wrote:
Huh?
@ Ken:
No, that is the message your teachings send to women loud and clear. Saying you feel women are equal to men (but in “value” only) doesn’t negate the message your actions send.
As I said in my conclusion of that post:
———–
You want to go where you are truly wanted and valued, not a place that says from one side of their mouth “Or sure, we value you,” but in practice, out of the other side of their mouth, you see the total opposite message at work.
———
You also keep repeating the same message in your anti- psychology, anti self esteem postings here and on other threads that I as an individual do not matter. My feelings do not matter. My needs to not matter. I, in short, do not matter.
This was the very message I got ingrained in me while growing up, from Christian parents and churches we went to, and in Christian literature I’ve read since my teens years and into adulthood.
It’s the same exact message I get now from my Christian father and a nominal Christian sister (who screams profanities at me and who literally tells me she did not care one whit how the death of our mother affected me).
I have heard this message repeatedly (and it was often tied in to gender complementarian teachings I got in church and from my mother about how women were “supposed” to act or approach relationships and think about themselves)
It left me feeling like trash, no self esteem, I was a doormat who bullies took advantage of constantly, to the point I became depressed and suicidal for years.
So no thank you, I no longer buy into anti- self esteem, anti- psychology talk and “only go by the Bible and pray a lot” philosophy, as that approach kept me stuck in the depression and self hatred from my tween years until my early 40s, and there is still residual stuff like this left over even now for me. It does not help, Ken. It hurts.
Q wrote:
Why are we nit picking over professional?
Maybe some women can play pro ball or want to, and teh only reason they do not is because society keeps telling them that women should not. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
If you keep telling women they are bad at driving, at math, etc, don’t be surprised if they don’t go into math related career fields or drive more poorly than men etc etc
Q wrote:
I think they interpret the written Law (the Torah) to prohibit “silence” of women in worship because women were not allowed in the Tabernacle/Temple. The oral Law (the Talmud) which only began after the Exile (6th Century) was specifically expressed as “women keep silent.”
Josh wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Maybe that’s where “weak willed” comes from.
Okay let’s try a different approach, you girls can grow up and play professional football.
Step 1 – Claim it’s too violent and keeping women from using their abilities.
Step 2 – Change the rules using new definitions for words and differing hermeneutics as necessary.
Step 3 – Find “experts” to propagate steps 1 and 2.
Step 4 – Claim all professional sports were meant to be egalitarian.
@ numo:
“OK so you were in this *one* church where a woman got all crazy, per you (the Willow Creek one), and now all of us have a problem due to our “psyche”?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
maybe that’s code for “(she’s on her period)”
Step 5 – Claim the rule book and professional sports were made to specifically to promote equality.
Step 6 – Realize that wasn’t right.
Wade Burleson wrote:
Could be, but Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Jamieson Fausset & Brown, and the Treasure of Scriptural Knowledge all point to Genesis 3:16 which is absurd. Clearly (in my opinion) a stretch and lack of credible evidence.
Victorious wrote:
At least those are the commentaries available to me via the e-Sword program.
@ Q:
Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/10/1/80.abstract
@ Q:
If Women Assume Fake Names, They Do Better on Math Tests
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/if-women-assume-fake-names-they-do-better-on-math-tests-6390944/?no-ist
Snippet
Q wrote:
I would hazard a guess that the real basis and motive for pro sports is to make lots of money.
As to the motives of the players who want to get into pro sports, it may be fame, money, and/or a true love of the sport.
@ elastigirl:
I had actually assumed PMS… wish i was joking.
@ elastigirl:
I remember, back in the 70s, an infamous comment about “raging hormones” regarding congresswoman Patsy Mink -and all the rest of us, by extension. Made by a congressman, but can’t recall who atm. She was voting in opposition to him, of course.
Joe2 wrote:
Joe2,
One can logically assume from the text that the Jews who worshipped in the synagogue, the same Jews who brought Paul before the bema accusing him of blasphemy and beat Sosthenes were upset because Paul believed and taught differently than they, and we know from the Talmud that Jews DID NOT allow women to speak in the synagogue – so if Paul taught women shouldn’t speak in “the assembly,” then the Jews in Corinth wouldn’t be charging Paul with violating the Law.
Daisy wrote:
Here’s my analogy of “equal worth”:
Last time I checked, 10 U.S. Dollars and 9 Euros were equal in worth. However, if I go to pay for 10 dollars in merchandise with 9 Euros here in the United States ……. guess what’s gonna happen????
Best case scenario, the store manger will refuse my purchase. Worse case scenario, the store manger will call the law and have me taken to a mental facility!
Wade Burleson wrote:
If women are allowed to prophesy (because they are giving a direct revelation from God [not teaching or exercising authority over a man, that is clearly forbidden]) and pray in the assembly, then silence would not mean no talking at all. Right? But if women were asking questions in such a way as to undermine revelation or teaching or teachers (that could be considered a rebellious attitude) Paul may tell them “to hold their peace” and give an alternative, ask at home, bringing order to the meeting. That would be submitting to your leaders and husbands. “As the law also says.” 🙂
This story below sort of reminds me of gender complementarianism.
Gender comps like to put a positive spin on sexism, and say how sexism is really good for women and good for the church, and by golly, it’s so biblical.
Some book publisher put out a children’s book portraying slavery of black Americans as being a good thing that black people really did enjoy:
Children’s Book Paints Slaves As Happy Bakers For George Washington
http://newsone.com/3327963/childrens-book-paints-slaves-as-happy-george-washington/
If I am understanding the article correctly, it is saying that the book makes it look like a black slave, Chef Hercules, really enjoyed being a slave to George Washington.
He’s being paraded around as an example by some publisher that blacks really dug being kept as slaves – when the article says that Chef Hercules hated being a slave and tried to escape.
Gender comps will parade some women, such as… what are their names, Mary Kassian or Nancy Leigh DeMoss? around as examples of women who love their second class status in the body of Christ under complementarianism.
Those of us who express skepticism about the gender comp interpretation of the Bible, or who disagree with it, are dismissed as being God-hating feminists or people who don’t take the Bible seriously, or whatever else.
Now that I’ve got a free moment, I just wanted to give my two cents on the issue of women as a group being easily deceived. Today, women in Western society are active in all walks of life and have accomplished a great many things. Anyone interacting normally with society can see that women in general are no more easily deceived than men are. So, since the idea of women being deceived is nonsense, then the verses in Timothy must obviously mean something else, such as women not being educated in that society, and therefore would have had a harder time judging whether or not a teaching was false. Paul saw this and therefore said that women must learn. That was pretty darn radical for that time. Okay, rant over.
zooey111 wrote:
LOL! I aim to please.
Muff Potter wrote:
Muff, could you elaborate on what you mean by this? What are some of the teachings in Calvary Chapel that are an example? By the way, does Calvary Chapel support Complementarianism?
Nancy2 wrote:
Good one, Nancy! And I agree. I’ll take middle schoolers over the terrible twos any day.
patriciamc wrote:
Yes, most complementarians realize that this does not fly anymore, so most of them have dropped this rationale.
Some guy wrote a page discussing how gender comps keep cooking up new defenses every few decades or 100s or years to keep women out of ministry positions, and whatever else, when their old defenses no longer work:
On a New Defense of Complementarianism
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507
That comps keep moving the goal posts and redefining things and changing their justifications for comp as each of their points gets refuted over time is a good indication that complementarianism is not biblical base but is culture- based and eisegesis.
This mntions the YRR movement and its involvement with complementarianism, among other subjects or people discussed (such as John Piper):
Girls will be girls. By Carl Trueman
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/girls-will-be-girls#.VppuG5orKmW
Snippet:
Yes, I’ve been saying that for ages on this blog:
gender complementarianism is not pro-woman or pro-defense of Biblical fidelity (as its adherents sometimes seem to claim) but is anti- feminism.
Gender comp is a reaction against secular feminism and other social issues that trouble comps (such as the legalization of homosexual marriage).
Trueman explains on his page that he thinks it strange that well- known complementarian women have not been critical of the well- known complementarian men who have been writing or doing odd ball things in regards to gender related topics.
Another snippet (by Trueman):
I just found this on The Gospel Coalition site (written by a complementarian).
4 Dangers for Complementarians
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/four-dangers-for-complementarians
I was raised under gender comp. There are in fact gender comps then and now who do in fact teach that these culturally conditioned gender roles are biblical and that deviating from them is un-biblical.
This gets back to the fact that gender complementarians, barring only maybe one or two very specific points (eg, women should not preach), cannot agree with one another on what gender comp is, or how it should be lived, or what aspects of it are biblical or not biblical.
The person who wrote this page at TGC may not think that all women are more sensitive (or should be more sensitive) than men (or more nurturing, or more ‘what have you’) and may not think the Bible says all women are more X or should be more X, but I can guarantee you that some other comp out there on some other blog or site thinks so.
Like John Piper, Mark Driscoll, or the Duggar family – they would probably argue that women should be more X (X = culturally defined gender role) than men and that this is God’s design, and it’s biblical.
Up above there was a discussion about whether a woman should leave a church if her gift of leadership isn’t being used. My take on this issue is that there should be opportunities for women to exercise their gifts. If there are ten women in a church who have the gift of leadership and I’m one of them, it really doesn’t matter to me if five other women are selected to use their gifts and I’m not.
What matters to me is that there are women using those gifts in the body, the body is benefiting from those women using their gifts, and younger women and girls are seeing women function freely in the body.
If God gives me a gift, but chooses not to use it for a period of time, then that’s fine. It’s His gift to use as He sees fit. He might need the mix of those five women more than He needs what I would bring to the table. I have no problem with that at all.
What I can’t support is being in a church where no women with gifts of leadership will ever be able to freely function. The women lose, the girls lose, them men lose, the boys lose, and the entire body misses out.
Daisy wrote:
I’ve already said quote “This is not to say we don’t have legitimate needs, it is the focus that is the problem … The commandment Jesus is reiterating is not against us providing our legitimate needs (I fear you may be misunderstanding me on this), … ”
What is so difficult to understand about this? I haven’t remotely hinted that ‘you don’t matter’ or any similar sentiment. It is possible to talk at cross purposes when it comes to self-love, and I have tried to separate the legitimate from the erroneous use of this phrase.
Daisy you keep talking in terms of complementarian stereotypes, and I don’t fit your stereotype. There isn’t one size fits all on this subject, not least in that how this is viewed in the States is clearly different from how it is viewed in Europe – talking in generalities. Some European complementarians go to considerable pains to distance themselves from some aspects of the American variety.
You may have been hurt by this in your personal life, but this does not mean either a) there are no healthy functioning complementarian marriages or b) the complementarian understanding of scripture is necessarily wrong. It is ‘what is written’ that should be the deciding factor, not our personal experiences, whether good or bad.
Any marriage of whatever flavour is made up of sinners not yet made perfect.
numo wrote:
i) Wrong. The church I was in was one example or seeing 1 Tim 2 being disobeyed and it leading to trouble – indeed the very thing the passage is designed to prevent. The whole Willow Creek scene was an example of this, something I couldn’t fail to notice when reading up on it.
ii) I have not said ‘women are more easily deceived than men’. I have posed the question whether women are more prone to deception in particular areas of life or particular circumstances.
It’s clear from 2 Cor 11 that both men and women can be utterly deceived. But Paul’s limitation on women teachers in the mixed church is based on part on the rational that Eve was wholly deceived in a situation where Adam was not. You cannot simply ignore this. Why did Satan go for Eve rather than Adam?
Turning to experience, particularly in the area of the psychic, the occult, the mystical (inner healing etc.) women do seem to be more prone to this than men. Virtually but not quite all of the occult dabblers needing deliverance I have come across were women. This does not decide the meaning and application of the NT, but it is a case where experience tends to bear my understanding of it out. I don’t want to overdo this, but neither can I simply ignore it either. Anyone with a stint in the charismatic movement is almost certain to have encountered this kind of problem.
Ken wrote:
So you think blatant, open rebellion like Adam is better than being tricked? Ever notice how the NT holds Adam accountable and not Eve, not because he’s a man, but because he sinned and she apparently didn’t? Then when he got caught he immediately blamed God for the whole thing?
Ken wrote:
Unless you also include which areas you believe men are more easily deceieved than women, then you are in fact implying that women are more prone to being decieved than men.
Ken wrote:
So Adam was not deceived, he outright disobeyed God, yet this fact somehow makes Adam (because he is a man) more qualified to lead than Eve? This is according to your interpretation of the scriptures.
Why Satan went for Eve instead of Adam we do not know. Scripture is silent on this. Your assumption as to why may be completely wrong. Maybe she was more vulnerable (thereby deceived by Satan) because Adam did’t give her information that God had given him?
Ken wrote:
That reasoning is irrational. 1 Kings 13 relates the deception of a man of God by a prophet. Based on that should we be suspicious of all men since one was deceived? To me, this is an insult to Paul’s education, intelligence, knowledge of the law, and his commission as a champion in the transition from the OT law to the truths of the NT.
If the stereotypying of women based on Eve’s deception is a valid reason to exclude women from teaching in a mixed assembly, then we should disallow all men based on Adam’s intention, deliberate disobedience and blaming both Eve and God.
There is a difference noted throughout scripture in intentional and unintentional sin. Eve’s deception was not intentional; such is the nature of being tricked. Adam’s disobedience, on the other hand, was intentional and according to Job 31 tried to hide his iniquity.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Blatant, intentional open rebellion.
And Adam actually blamed Eve and God: “the woman whom thou gavest to be with me”, implying that if God just had not made the woman, everything would have remained perfect.
Adam was a bit like a 5th grader saying, “The dog ate my homework.”
Hoppy and Bridget:
i) Adam sinned with a high hand, deliberately. Greater accountability, greater responsibility. He abdicated his responsibility to be custodian of the word of God (the command not to eat). He listened to his wife when he should have held to the word God gave him. As a result, in Adam all die.
ii) Eve still sinned – she became a transgressor. She ‘was fully deceived’ – the passive implying an agent who did this. She was deceived by Satan as the agent.
In view of this, I suggested specific areas where Satan/the demonic is involved as areas where women are prone to deception on a greater scale than men. The occult, New Age, goddess movements etc. False spirituality if you like. Access to hidden knowledge or an immediate felt experience of the presence of God in fringe Christain circles, something not sanctioned in the NT. I’m not suggesting this is exclusively limited to women, as it clearly isn’t.
Why did Satan go for Eve? He was cunning, and as already in rebellion against God his creator attempted to reproduce this rebellion in our first parents. Bridget – I’m not sure the text itself lets us go much beyond this, you are right to warn against too much speculation here. But it’s interesting his strategy hasn’t changed; attempting to beguile women into thinking unless they have ‘equality’ in the sense of being allowed to do everything a man may do they are missing out on something, as though God is withholding something from them they really have a right to enjoy.
Deception amongst men imo is more often manifested in a lust for power and status. To dominate or be in control. ‘Wilderness’ type temptations.
The deception that you can be unrighteous and still inherit the kingdom of God may be an example where men are particularly prone to deception. Going by the usual perpetrators of abuse, I think that would hold water.
Do such men really think they are going to get a ‘well done good and faithful servant’, rather than a ‘depart from me …’?
I suppose all I am really saying is men and women have differing strengths and weaknesses, and this manifests itself in the Christian life and its spiritual warfare in differing ways.
Ken wrote:
So what can’t they do? Also, since there are many men in the church who believe the same way, are they *beguiled* as well or do only women get beguiled?
As for seeking power, there are two women running for President. Are the lusting after power or are they *beguiled.?*
Finally, as to unrighteousness and inheriting the kingdom of God, our righteousness is purely the righteousness of Christ which cover us. We still sin. So, when you call someone “unrighteous”, what do you mean? Is it based on a sliding scale? For example, you will make it in if you fib but not make it in if you question those in authority over you?
I have such a hard time with the lingo and I really would like an answer to my beguile, unrighteousness questions.
Now back to honing my scales for spiritual warfare…now about that….
@ dee:
They cannot teach or have authority over a man; must be silent during the evalution of prophecy as in the subject of this discussion (as I understand it). And out of the two views this is or is not for today, one is wrong and the other right; one means some are deceived into allowing women to do something the apostle would forbid or some are deceived into preventing them from doing something he would allow.
However, I don’t like slapping the word deception onto evey doctrinal difference.
The presidency is nothing to do with the church.
The unrighteous not inheriting the kingdom is an allusion to 1 Cor 6. “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, …”. Paul wouldn’t warn us not to be deceived if there were no danger of this. This list is what believers used to be – “And such were some of you”. Past tense. I’m not an advocate of perfectionism, but should someone return to the old ways, such as immorality which would include child abuse and spiritual wives, this indicates the perpetrator is deceived if they think they can live like this and get away with it. Same with being a drunken bully. Or verbal abuser. Either they had no salvation in the first place, or else in the end they may forfeit it. This kind of behaviour cannot be brought into the kingdom.
The RSV’s ‘sexual perverts’ refers to homosexual practice, and when that becomes the subject you will soon see how many are indeed deceived into thinking they can practice this and inherit the kingdom. I’m not talking about the Christian’s ongoing struggle with sin, nor lapses, or else none of us would ever get in – we do indeed need our sin to be covered as we confess it; rather I mean deliberately cultivating a lifestyle described in Paul’s list and presuming on the grace and mercy of God to forgive us for it.
Ken wrote:
1Tim 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Again, the act of being deceived was unintentional. When Satan told her “surely she would not die”, she reasoned that the tree of life would have prevented that. That was how the deception happened.
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate
Eve wanted to be prudent/wise.
H7919a (NASEC)
sakal (968a); a prim. root; to be prudent: – act wisely
That was the very thing Solomon wanted and God was pleased by that request. 1 Kings 3:9-10
@ Ken:
ken, you remind me of a kid on a school playground who enjoys taunting & poking at those he perceives as the underdog, for the pleasure of heightening his own perceived top-dogness.
Ken wrote:
So why do you keep wasting your time arguing your sexist points with a bunch of women, who “are prone to deception on a greater scale than men”?
dee wrote:
Many men in the church ARE beguiled by comp doctrine. They don’t just want equality. They want superiority of position. They have fallen into the sin of thinking more highly than they ought to. Then these men turn around and scold women for wanting full citizenship in the Kingdom of God rather than some man-made-up, lesser-than, second-class citizenship.
Yep there’s a whole lot of beguiling going on. And it’s the comps who are doing and being beguiled. Poor souls. I hope someday their eyes can be opened and they can flee this snare that is consuming them, their hearts, their wits, and their very souls.
Ken wrote:
Ken, if you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, then do you think one person can truly represent the entire human race? Eve as a person can no more represent all woman than I can. Adam can no more represent all men than you can. Clearly Paul was using Eve as an example of the uneducated women in the church, the women who should not teach because they were uneducated and therefore were falling for the teachings of the Diana cult among others. So, his command that they should learn was radically pro-female for his time.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
I don’t currently have the time or interest to go back and read all replies since I was last here (sorry), but I did want to respond to this.
Ken asked:
“Why did Satan go for Eve rather than Adam?”
Why are you assuming from this tid bit that all women every where for all time are more prone to being deceived, 1. just because Satan used deception on Eve, and 2. Eve fell for it in that particular case?
What if Satan had approached Adam first, used the same tactic and Adam fell for it, do you really think it fair or true for me or anyone else to then categorize all men every where down to the year 2016 as having something in their biological make-up that makes them more prone to being deceived?
And then to go on and say, “all men, no matter how otherwise skilled and gifted for it, should be barred from pastor roles due to this.”
Saying that all women are more prone to deception due to some inborn trait (which the Bible does not teach, you are but assuming this to be a fact of the female gender) reminds me of racists in the USA who used to say that all black people (due to in born traits) were more lazy than whites, or dumber, or liked watermelon. It’s offensive.
Common sense, personal observation,and plain old life experience tells you, Ken, that all women are not more easily deceived than all men.
Some men are easily deceived (which I think you have admitted to on previous threads).
It’s not true that men somehow rise above being deceived due to being male only. Yet, nobody is asking men to be barred from being treated as equals in marriage or from being preachers.
If being deceived is a reason to bar someone from pastorship or equality in marriage, men have to be barred on that basis as well. God is no respector of persons, the Bible says.
Ken wrote:
And since Adam knowingly, willfully, and intentionally sinned in the same situation, men are given more power and more control.
How does that make sense?
@ Daisy:
Re Ken and deception.
If you look up news stories and research about con artists and swindlers, you will find examples of MALE victims on those pages.
Such as
http://www.straightshooter.net/beware_of_the_con_artist.htm
There are a few examples of male victims on that page, including this part:
——-
And don’t think this [being conned, deceived] is limited to women. Go to the CUFF database and select the General Crime Description of FRAUD with the gender “FEMALE”. You will see some attractive ladies who have successfully convinced someone to hand over their savings.
And just because these women didn’t have the sophistication to protect themselves with the trappings of a civil agreement doesn’t make it any easier for the victims.
These women still got away with the victims’ money and even a warrant didn’t helped them get it back.
Ken wrote:
There are other parts of your post I could address, but there is something I have to do in real life (as opposed to on the internet), so I can’t sit here right now and address it all.
Women are held as liable before God for their own sins, as men are for their own sins.
The Bible does not teach that God holds husbands responsible for their wife’s moral failings (or “more” responsible for them), if that is one of your views.
If that is your view, it’s also not taking into account widowed women, women who never marry, or divorced women.
As far as I can recall, the Bible does not explain why Satan went after Eve first and why he chose the method he did.
Anything we come up with would be speculation. I certainly would not base an entire doctrine on it that limits 50% of Christians (ie, females) on it, which is what you are doing.
Is Adam solely responsible for the first sin?
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/gender-in-genesis-chapters-1-3/was-it-adams-responsibility-to-relay-gods-command-to-eve/
Ken wrote,
That is also speculation on your part and pretty much a mischaracterization on the anti-complementarian position.
It’s not ethical to portray what we’ve been telling you as though women are un-righteously coveting what men have and do, and in some kind of fit of jealousy or selfishness.
If a woman has the gifting and skill and interest to do “X”, she should be given a fair shot at doing “X” and not told that (due to your interpretation of the biblical text) she is forbidden.
I personally have no interest in being a preacher, but I am concerned about and for women who say they are led by God to be a preacher, it’s where their heart is, and they have the talent for it, but their denomination or church is telling them no, you cannot, simply because you were born a woman.
I don’t feel I am “missing out” on not being a preacher, Ken, because I don’t have any interest in being one myself. But it’s rotten that your type of theology is keeping other women from being one, if that is their dream and calling from God.
@ Daisy:
Link correction. I gave the wrong link to the wrong title.
The link in my post above was to this page:
Was it Adam’s responsibility to relay God’s command to Eve?
The link I meant to give was to
Is Adam solely responsible for the first sin?
http://newlife.id.au/christian-theology/is-adam-solely-responsible-for-the-first-sin/
But both links fit the conversation.
Ken wrote:
Ken, you’re writing this from your position of male privilege as males to a great extent are dominant in Western society. Therefore, you’re telling women that they should not seek equality with men (those at the top of society’s pyramid) is exactly – exactly – like white people telling black people that they should not seek equality with whites but should stay in the role God assigned them to. People used to quote scriptures for that argument too.
Daisy wrote:
Another thought I just had about this:
If Ken is trying to limit this “more easily deceived” stuff to matters of theology or spirituality only, it still does not fly, because MALE Christians are often duped by MALE false teachers or false doctrine.
This blog actually sees more wisdom and discernment and skepticism from its FEMALE commentators and readers than many males in the church world over.
I trust and believe in preacher Mark Driscoll about as far as I can thrown an elephant, yet look at all the MEN Christians who were duped by Driscoll and who still are!!
Ditto for male preachers such as Benny Hinn, Rod Parsely. These guys have men who follow their every teaching and who naively send them money.
I notice when Deb or Dee make a post exposing the lastest lunacy, greed, or abuse by MALE preachers (such as Furtick, Driscoll, Piper, whomever) some of their biggest defenders in the comment sections are by Christian MEN.
Yes, one sometimes see a female reader rushing on to defend these abusive or false male preachers, but it seems to me it’s usually male commentators.
@ Ken:
You don’t think men are after “false spirituality,” eh?
Perhaps you might look closer to home, instead of pointing the finger at women.
Also, what elastigirl said. You sound both arrogant *and* like you’re trying to convince yourself. Whst was that thing someone said about taking some gigantic piece of wood out of one’s own eye before….?
Patriciamc wrote:
Good point.
Isn’t there a part of the New Testament where Paul tells slaves to seek their freedom if they can?
1 Corinthians 7
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you— although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
————-
I believe I mentioned this story the other day on this thread:
Children’s book depicts slaves as happy, cheerful bakers
http://fusion.net/story/256078/a-birthday-cake-for-george-washington/
This is what Christian gender complementarians do with sexism:
romanticize it; or try to convince women they will be more fulfilled, more biblical, and happier if they just go along with being unnecessarily limited due to their gender.
Nancy2 wrote:
It doesn’t make sense. Never did and never will. It paints the Almighty as a mean kid with an ant farm, a magnifying glass, and a sun beam.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
This is the same thing I like to point out. So are men always blame shifters because Adam was the first blame shifter? 🙂
I do agree with Ken on one thing: In the USA today, pagan religions have mostly women participating. I think it is a mistake, however, to assume that this has always been the case everywhere and in every time period. I suspect that in biblical times, men and women were equally attracted to pagan/polytheistic religions. Perhaps a good question for Ken to consider would be “Why are women now attracted to pagan beliefs in much greater numbers than men?” And no, the answer can’t be that they are more easily deceived into these beliefs today in America while the men are less deceived into them than thousands of years ago.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Yeah, strangely enough, I never hear patriarchal/comp types say that.
I never had the faintest idea why black Americans say they are still held back by the culture until after spending years at a patriarchal church. (Of course, I grew up in a nearly all white area, so I never had a chance to ask any about their experiences.) By the end of my time at the family integrated church, I was starting to have some understanding of what it’s like to be subject to negative, limiting stereotypes. (Obviously I can’t relate to growing up this way or facing them in regular society all the time.) I now have much more sympathy for their struggle.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
I think I brought this up in this thread earlier or another one on gender, but there have been an article or two in the last few years that say more and more Christian women are leaving the Christian faith for pagan religions because those religions value women more, permit women to fully use whatever skills and talents they have, etc.
When I brought that up a few days ago, if I was understanding their point, someone else was wanting to construe this as meaning that such women are leadership-hungry / power hungry individuals, which really wasn’t the case.
My understanding of the articles I read about why women are leaving Christianity for Wicca and New Age and so on is over things like, women are hurt and frustrated that they aren’t being treated fairly by so much of the Christian church.
They just want a fair shake at using their skills in the church, and if churches wont’ let them, they will go to another religion.
Some of these women are also tired of being told they are second class citizens by Christians, or are are somehow defective just for being female.
Yes, I know Christians who believe in complementarianism mouth the, “You’re equal in worth but not in role” line often, but no matter how many times they say it, they are in reality treating women ‘lesser’ than they are the men (and some repeat obnoxious, sexist views that women are more prone to deception than men and so on)
So the message conveyed is, “We don’t really mean you are equal in value -we say we do- but our actions don’t bear that out”.
Some of these women stay in the Christian faith, but leave the church, but start their own charities or work for parachurch groups, so they don’t have to fool with the obstacles that the gender complementarians put in their place in churches.
This has some interesting and pertinent info:
Five Factors Changing Women’s Relationship with Churches
(it says that more and more women are leaving the church and/or the Christian faith itself, and breaks down several reasons why at the bottom of the page)
https://www.barna.org/barna-update/culture/722-five-factors-changing-women-s-relationship-with-churches#.Vp2NgZorKmU
About a week ago, someone on another site (maybe social media?) where I visit posted a link to a page (I didn’t save the link) that discussed how there are a lack of men members in Chinese churches, so women end up being the preachers in churches in China.
Women and the Church in China
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/women-and-church-china?page=show
I’m trying to find a page that is at least similar to the original one I saw about a week ago (that I mentioned in the post above), and I found this one page, where on one page-
Title: “CHINESE CHURCH ISSUES: WOMEN AS PASTORS”,
http://gospelinchina.com/2011/10/23/chinese-church-issues-women-as-pastors/
-the author, who seems to be a complementarian, is complaining out the yazoo about the lack of male pastors in China and how horribly un-Bible-y scandalous it is that their churches have lady preachers.
He argues at one stage that it’s better for Chinese churches to lack pastors than to have lady pastors.
The guy actually puts a dent in his own argument against women preachers on that page when he says:
The author is saying that as a point against churches having women pastors (I see that as being an argument in favor of).
He also says that comment just after spending a paragraph railing against male pastors who taught false doctrine who had blessed ministries. LOLOLOLOL.
He also says this:
What? Churches in America, many of which are run by men only, also tend to have more females than males in attendance. It’s been this way for decades, yes?
I can definitely testify to that. I was told by Mom and Dad if one life goal of mine is to get married (to a Christian man), to go join a church, because that is where I will find Mr. Right.
Okay, I tried that, but most churches I’ve visited lack single men of ages from like mid 20s to 50s.
Plenty of other marriage minded ladies like me can also testify to that: churches (and I went to gender complementarian Baptist churches) are not overflowing with men.
I remember reading critiques of Mark Driscoll’s gender complementarian Mars Hill churches, and they said that despite the fact his church attracted some 20- and 30- something male members, that the women still out-numbered all the men.
That was about the time when Driscoll started giving more sermons telling the women (who wanted marriage) that they were forbidden from marrying Non-Christians, and they would just have to deal with being single forever and learn to love it.
Someone suggested Driscoll was giving such sermons because the single women there who wanted marriage were stressing out or tired of Mr. Right to show up to Mars Hill, but MH did not attract enough men for all the women who wanted a spouse.
So, to the guy who wrote that web page about lady pastors in China: having male pastors does not attract more men.
Churches in the USA have lots of male pastors, and they are so desperate to attract men, they have to do desperate stunts, like give BBQ grills away on Father’s Day every year.
Everyone can argue till the cows come home the relative blame or deception of Adam vs Eve, the part I miss is why I should extrapolate that to all men and all women in all situations till the close of eternity. This strikes me as silly.
@ Daisy:
Wow, Daisy, this is a really interesting link. Thanks.
Daisy wrote:
Here is the link.
Daisy wrote:
Excellent insight.
@ HoppyTheToad:
What do you mean by “pagan religions,” exactly? If you’re referring to Wicca and a lot of other forms of neopaganism, there are lots more men involved than you might suspect.
Bill M wrote:
Exactly. We forget that we are also ‘sons of Eve and daughters of Adam.’ (Apologies to CS Lewis).
Patriciamc wrote:
That’s not what I am arguing for. I’m arguing for an analogy between Genesis 2 and 3 and a situation in NT church life, because the apostle Paul uses this to illustrate why he doesn’t permit women to teach or have authority over men. And in every location to boot!
To answer your other post, regarding justification there is neither Jew nor Greek, yet in the whole plan of God there is a distinction between Jews and non-Jews in the part played in the outworking of the plan of salvation. We gentiles need to be reminded of this sometimes (Rom 11 etc.).
This is the only distinction of race in the bible, and even then it is as much religious as anything else. There is no command or teaching anywhere in scripture to justify … white people telling black people that they should not seek equality with whites but should stay in the role God assigned them to.
Nancy2 wrote:
Not only that, Nancy, but Ken also opined as follows:
So men might be more prone than women to covet power and status, and be deceived by the desire to dominate. At the same time (according to Ken), God has decreed that men are more fit to lead, and to be put in positions where they’ll be tempted to dominate.
Clear as mud to me.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
It’s nice someone agrees sometimes!!
I think you have twigged where I am coming from. I posited the question as to whether women may be more easily deceived in certain areas of the Christian life or spirituality, and then gave reasons from experience and reading that makes me think this is so in particular areas.
I did not say men cannot be deceived. I did in fact say that they can! I was more critical of men than women.
Ken wrote:
What?
Ken wrote:
Hmmm. Perhaps your conclusions are based on faulty interpretation of the data. Fewer men than women attend church. Your conclusion is that many more women then men are involved in pagan religious practices and are therefore more easily deceived.
I say that is baloney. According to your conclusions, then, the men who are not practicing Christians are somehow less deceived than the women who are involved in pagan practices. So ignoring the faith is somehow less gullible, less deceived than participating in some sort of faith ritual according to your paradigm.
Here is an answer that describes the situation a bit better and does not put men on a pedestal because they simply choose to watch sports instead of going to church. The evangelical church has so marginalized women in their practices that women gravitate to faith practices that allow women to be in charge. Many pagan faiths honor women.
I say it is your belief that women are more gullible that has led to women feeling like they have little place at the table.
As I watch this world, which has been run by men for the millennia I have only one thing to say. Men have little reason to think they are less deceived.
@ Ken:
I would ask you a favor. If you are going to claim that women are gullible and easily deceived, then I would ask that you prove such a statement. I am serious.
I find it somewhat irritating that you would broad brush the entire female population based on some personal hunches and observations. As I have demonstrated above, you give men a pass on the deceived side when it is men who are in short supply in churches. And that is one statistic that has been used by pastors to launch the *men movement* in churches.
I would also be cautious in taking one incident in the Garden of Eden and applying it through the millennia to all men and women. Satan is the great deceiver and he has no problems with deceiving either gender. The state of the world speaks to his success in this matter.
In fact, I find it interesting that many men have sought to keep women subjugated throughout the centuries-not allowing them to own property, vote, etc. Women were thought not to be able to handle such manly duties. If that isn’t being deceived then I do not know what is.
dee wrote:
I can’t believe you really meant to say this. It begs the reply ‘so egalitariamism is not about equality, it is about power‘ – women demand ‘to be in charge’. And this is more important than salvation from sin itself?!
Most of the churches I have been in have not marginalised women. One man bands marginalise everyone.
Pagan religions might honour women with authority and power, but they dishonour God in the worst possible way imaginable. I don’t believe for one single second you think an eternity separated from God is worth it in order to have power and prestige in this short fleeting life. And that goes for men who abuse power too.
I haven’t said, and have been careful not to say, that women are ‘gullible’ or ‘more easily deceived than men’. My brush isn’t that broad! I have asked the question if they may be more prone to deception in a particular set of circumstances. You don’t have to agree with me. I’m going by experience that would back this up, but I said upstream I don’t want to overdo this aspect. It’s an attempt to flesh out a bit Paul’s ‘the woman was deceived’, in a specific set of circumstances in the NT church coupled with how this has worked out in real life.
I think in my charismatic era I saw both the very best – and the worst – of women exercising ministry.
I have benefitted from the discussions here, and learnt a lot. It was very useful for a recent bible study to be forced to think through alternitive understandings.
I’m not deliberately stirring things up or trying to be irritating.
I think the difference in approach we have is you see this primarily as a issue of men exercising an illegitimate authority over (subjugating) women, whereas I see it primarily as a question of the authority of scripture.
@ Bridget:
It was a bit tongue-in-cheek in view of the claim that Paul’s restrictions in 1 Tim were local and temporary to Ephesus that he explicitly states
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, … also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly … and so on.
Daisy wrote:
It isn’t!
(Flag Ken should probably read this post too.)
dee wrote:
If I understand you right, or even if I’m getting this wrong, this is an interesting point.
It brings to mind several inconsistencies or issues with Ken’s views.
Flag Ken would probably need to define “deceived” for us, and explain how it is he exempts men from the things he accuses women of.
I do think on an older thread, Ken did say he feels that some men can be deceived (?), but the way he keeps explaining his view on other threads, including this one, he contradicts this statement.
Ken does seem to think that all women every where for all time (in at least spiritual matters, or maybe secular life too?) are more easily deceived than men (it’s in women’s genes, it’s biological, or something. God did a shoddy job in creating women, apparently).
Point 1
If I get Ken right, he says he now attends ‘church X,’ and in the past, he attended ‘church Z,’ and he feels that ‘church Z’ had terrible doctrine.
Further, some of the women at ‘church Z’ agreed with, taught, or believed ‘church Z’s’ lousy teachings that he no longer agrees with, so from this, he infers all women are easily duped.
I would assume that Ken was not the only man attending church Z.
Surely there were other men there at Church Z who were fine with the same exact doctrine that the women were teaching or agreeing to, and that some of those some men are still members at that church.
Why does Ken consider the women there (at church Z, his former church) more gullible for being there but not the males? (That is a double standard.)
Point 2
And, however, (if I get your (Dee’s) points right), many men don’t attend either church X, Z, *or any church at all*.
A lot of American men choose to sit at home on Sunday mornings in their boxer shorts drinking beer and watching football on TV all day.
So, Ken seems to be saying it is a sign of being easily deceived to go to a church that in his view has terrible doctrine…
But (in Ken’s estimation (?)) it’s not a sign of being deceived for one to skip church altogether to sit at home every Sunday watching TV?
How is going to a church he deems false (due to his disagreement with their teachings) any more gullible than deciding to sit any and all churches out altogether, to sit at home playing video games on a Playstation all day, drinking beer?
Daisy wrote:
He mentioned this above on Jan. 14:
See the comment above this one. I think this has nothing to do with plumbing, and more to do with psyche, although that could set off a long discussion I’m not particularly eager to engage in!
He seems to have a habit of making unsubstantiated comments followed by a “not eager to engage in” the comment.
@ Victorious:
Or simply ignoring the people who point out the more problematic assertion he makes. I am tired of it.
numo wrote:
Of course, if those of us who are female are pointing out problematic assertions, and he believes women should not be teaching men (that would entail some measure of authority), he would naturally be constrained to ignore the assertions whether they have weight or not.
If he graciously acknowledged his erroneous concept and accepted theirs, he would be in violation of Paul’s admonition (in his opinion.)
Is Gram3 still reading here? She would probably be very interested in this.
This author’s new book sheds light on certain passages by Paul. He uses some ancient book, Ephesiaca, by Xenophon of Ephesus, to help understand the culture of the people to whom Paul wrote.
He doesn’t just mention the Artemis cult but found that the people of that cult associated it with another ancient god, Isis, which can have ramifications on understanding why Paul wrote what he did.
Snippet about that:
Source:
Wealth and the Earliest Christians — A Review of Gary Hoag by Lucy Peppiatt
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/01/19/wealth-and-the-earliest-christians-a-review-of-gary-hoag-by-lucy-peppiatt/?platform=hootsuite
Another snippet:
—–
The call to learn in quietness and submission and the prohibition against teaching is thus framed, in his [author Hoag’s] opinion, by verses that provide quite clear evidence that this section of the letter is targeting heretical thought and practice imported into the fledgling Ephesian church via the wealthy women from the Artemis/Isis cult.
—–
@ Victorious:
Oh, I think it’s simply that he’s convinced that he’s the only right-thinking poster here, as he’s argued with guys over many of these points in the past. By and large, he doesn’t acknowledge anyone who contradicts him or calls his views into question, regardless of their gender.
@ numo:
After all, the post is by a man. But I don’t see Ken engaging him – do you?
Ken wrote:
Can someone explain this to me?
I asked Ken but didn’t get a reply.
numo wrote:
Good point, numo.
Q wrote:
What Flag Ken does, rather than dealing with the arguments put forward by whomever you are quoting or linking him to, is to discount the person himself.
He will do so because Ken does not like that person’s theology,the type of church that person attends, or the style of font the author uses on his or her web page.
For example, I once linked Flag Ken to a post by a former Christian (who is now an agnostic) which poked holes in Ken’s complementarian position (the page was titled something like “The No True Complementarian Fallacy”).
Rather than deal with the points of the author (the agnostic guy), Flag Ken choose to simply say, “That guy is an agnostic, so I don’t care what he thinks about the Bible, so I don’t have to wrestle with his arguments.”
It’s the Genetic Fallacy at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
By this stage, it appears to me that Ken will only consider arguments put forward on points he disagrees on only if they are made by people who already share his opinions in toto.
You would have to find a twin of Ken who attends Ken’s same exact church, who is also a complementarian, who posts arguments against complementarianism, for Ken to take that person’s arguments seriously and interact with them.
(Ken doesn’t seem to care that people such as myself used to be identical to him in view points. I used to be a gender comp and still remain conservative. That doesn’t matter.)
@ Q:
Rethinking One of Paul’s Passages about Women
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/06/12/rethinking-one-of-pauls-passages-about-women/
Q wrote:
This appears to be a part 2 or a continuation of some sort to the link I just gave you:
Paul Subverts Male Authoritarianism
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/07/01/paul-subverts-male-authoritarianism/
numo wrote:
Ken would likely find some reason to discount Wade totally from the start, rather than trying to refute Wade’s commentary.
Maybe Ken doesn’t like the way Wade parts his hair to one side. Or he doesn’t like that Wade’s name starts with the letter “W.”
And if Wade doesn’t subscribe 100% to every view (especially in regards to religion) that he does, he won’t take it seriously.
IMO, It’s a very odd way of seeing life and things. You cannot be persuaded or have your mind changed on anything at all ever, if you always refuse to seriously contend with the thoughts of others who don’t always see God, the Bible, or life the way you do.
I wonder if Ken ever says to himself, “I might be wrong about thus- and- so.”
(I sometimes wonder if I’m wrong about some of my views or opinions.)
@ Daisy:
I thought the owners of this blog were two women who have egalitarian and old earth creation views but were orthodox in the Trinity, Atonement, resurrection, virgin birth…Then Ken says it owned by a man with unorthodox views and no one corrected him???
@ Q:
I missed Ken’s erroneous claim that this blog was operated by a man with unorthodox views. Could you point me to where he made that claim? Thanks.
Bridget wrote:
Heaven, too??????
Boy, is Ken going to be disappointed!
@ Q:
I think he was referring to another site altogether, but it makes no odds. Ken does ignore many people here.
@ Daisy:
See above, paragraph 3. He was referring to that person’s blog, not TWW.
@ numo:
Sorry, that was supposed to be for Q, but i got the formatting wrong.
Victorious wrote:
“not eager to engage in” = cannot prove ????
Q wrote:
Ken was commenting on the Scholarly Commentary link you posted on Thurs. Jan. 14 5:00 p.m. He posted his view of that on Fri. Jan. 15 4:08 a.m.
He wasn’t referring to TWW when he said “this site” but rather the one you linked to.
I think that’s right.
@ Deb:
Hi Deb, sure.
“This site contains some useful material summarising various evangelical views on a variety of NT teachings, but in fairness the owner himself is a Christadelphian of some sort – no trinity, no personal devil. This puts him outside the parameters of NT Christianity, and makes him an unreliable guide when he himself tries to interpret scripture.”
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/01/11/giftedness-vs-gender-guest-post-by-wade-burleson/comment-page-1/#comment-235237
@ Victorious:
and Numo
Oh, If that is the case, I am sorry for the confusion.
@ numo:
I assumed Ken was referring to this URL not TWW:
https://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/does-1-corinthians-1434-contain-a-quotation-from-pauls-opponents/
@ Daisy:
I believe you are correct.
I asked Ken here with no reply -http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/01/11/giftedness-vs-gender-guest-post-by-wade-burleson/comment-page-1/#comment-235290
I am sorry for the confusion.
@ Q:
Not a prob. What I said above is true, though.
If he disagrees with the conclusions of an author you point him too, he will dismiss them outright rather than trying to refute their arguments.
@ Q:
No problem. Glad we cleared that up. 🙂
@ Q:
No worries. He ignores things a lot.
@ Deb:
Me too!
@ numo:
and Daisy
Cool.
I listened to a little Sly and the Family Stone and Groove Armada as penance. Hope I don’t have to do that again. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
I miss Gram, I haven’t seen her for a while, she has thoughtful and informed comments.
Victorious wrote:
Correct. Thank you for dragging us back to reality. In case of potential misunderstanding, it is always better to ask – which Q did.
I did refer to the owner of the site Q quoted as ‘he’. Now we may not always agree on gender issues, but the owners of this site are plural, and I have yet to meet a Deb or a Dee who is male. Of course there is still time …
Daisy wrote:
You are Gail Riplinger, and I claim my $25. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
Regarding our recent bible study related to this theme at home, I’ve already said:
I gave the 4 interpretations I am familiar with of these Corinthian verses, their strengths and weaknesses (or objections – some of which I learned on here!). The version you [Wade] have explained was included.
There is no one understanding of this passage that doesn’t have its difficulties.
Personally, I go for the judging prophesies view, …
Because we cannot be absolutely certain as to exactly what Paul was correcting, too much dogmatism here is unwarranted.
I defy you to find an unwillingness to engage in different understandings and views out of that.
Of course I think what I say here is correct, or I wouldn’t say it. But that’s equally true of everyone else!
But I’ve never claimed infallibility. I don’t think I am any more dogmatic than many egalitarian commenters.
If I had engaged with Wade over his article, and attempted a detailed refutation of it (a rather impolite thing to do?), how long do you think it would have been before someone would have criticised me for it? And if I don’t do that, ‘Ken won’t engage’.
Insead I chose a middle position. And I don’t believe for one second that Wade himself thinks this is all there is to be said and the discussion is over.
numo wrote:
That’s unfair. I have reesponded to criticism, only to discover the reply hasn’t been read.
You’d be surprised how often I say something, for example, men are not exempt from deception, only to be accused of claiming this very thing later on.
There comes a point where you cannot keep on clarifying the same point over and over and over again.
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
You and Nancy raise a fair point, I’d like to reply later, but there’s far too much of me on this subject for one day!
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
In the context of 1 Tim 2 and Gen 2 and 3.
Adam was formed first. He was given God’s word – the command not to eat. Eve was created later, and there is no record of God repeating the word to Eve.
In the course of the fall, Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn’t. His failure was one of abdication of responsibility. He should have confronted Satan’s ‘did God say’ with what God had actually said.
It was his job to be custodian of the word of God and ensure it was obeyed. I don’t see how you can see any other way of understanding Paul’s reasoning here, unless you think Adam being formed ‘first’ conveyed a greater rank.
So too in Ephesus (and every place) Paul sees the ministry of teaching the word as something God gives men prime responsibility for.
The overseers in chapter 3 must be men whose qualifications first and foremost are of good character, but they must also be a competent teacher.
I see this passage as Paul trying to ensure there are no more little Genesis 3’s occuring in church life. He doesn’t want men abdicating responsibility and being silent, and women assuming authority and the office of teacher.
He doesn’t mention anybody as having authority as such. His forbidding woman to have authority over man does not of itself entail that men have some right to exercise authority.
Now this use of Gen 2 and 3 does match the possible cultural situation in Ephesus, and I can understand why egalitarians consider it therefore local and temporary. My problem with this is that Paul explicitly says this is for every location. Amongst other reasons.
This was written by Ken in the
“Should You Allow Someone to Be *In Authority* Over You in Matters of Doctrine?” here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/01/20/should-you-allow-someone-to-be-in-authority-over-you-in-matters-of-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-235728
Ken said (in the other thread, link right above):
As I noted up thread, Ken will not listen to any sources who disagree with complementarianism if they don’t share his theological views 100% (he will dismiss them out of hand as being “liberal” or “extra biblical” or not agreeing with his views on some doctrine or another), so I found this comment by him on the other thread pretty funny.
@ Ken:
You do have a bad habit of refusing to dealing with comments by people who hold opposing views to yours.
Instead of arguing against their points, which is the intellectually honest thing to do, you find some aspect that has nothing to do with their arguments in order to dismiss anything and everything they say.
You might not like that they typed their post in the color blue, for example, so you refuse to argue against the CONTENT of what they typed in blue.
You rather instead say, “Well, he typed that page in blue, and I don’t like blue, I feel that red is a better color,” and that’s it.
No rebuttal to WHAT the person said.
@ Bill M:
I haven’t seen Gram3 in awhile here either.
I’d like to repeat this, as I’m afraid it went overlooked (it pertains to the gender role debate, and it’s something Flag Ken should probably read):
Wealth and the Earliest Christians — A Review of Gary Hoag by Lucy Peppiatt
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/01/19/wealth-and-the-earliest-christians-a-review-of-gary-hoag-by-lucy-peppiatt/?platform=hootsuite
Another snippet:
—–
The call to learn in quietness and submission and the prohibition against teaching is thus framed, in his [author Hoag’s] opinion, by verses that provide quite clear evidence that this section of the letter is targeting heretical thought and practice imported into the fledgling Ephesian church via the wealthy women from the Artemis/Isis cult.
—–
Ken wrote:
You contradict yourself often. You speak out of both sides of your mouth.
You have in fact said on this thread, and older ones, that women are more easily deceived than men, and later tried to narrow it down to women’s “psyches,” rather than “plumbing,” whatever that means.
Ken wrote:
It’s not mutually exclusive, Ken.
I also abhor that you just so easily sweep people’s hurt feelings away as though they are nothing.
I’ve said this before but will say it again: one reason I was severely depressed (and to the point of suicide) for years is I was taught this utter garbage you keep foisting here, a lot of it under “gender comp” beliefs, that women are to be sweet, passive, unassertive doormats. This was further tied in with the notion that my needs and feelings are not important and do not matter.
Not only did I get this trash growing up, but I have an older sibling, my dad, and several family members who are still filling my head with this garbage.
The Bible says to love others as you love yourself. It’s in there. You want to down play that or explain it away just like you do with Eph 5.21 which says husbands are to submit to their wives (marital submission is not a one way street in the Bible). You’re not taking the Bible literally or seriously as you claim in other posts to do.
And, btw, I have seen women egalitarians on other forums and blogs express sorrow at how they are unable to meet the needs of other people – they want to help other people– but are unable to because their sexist churches (under gender comp) won’t permit it.
It’s not mutually exclusive. A person can feel bad and sad on their own behalf due to sexism as well as feel anger and sadness they are not able to use their gifts to help others.
I found it frustrating to. I went to churches offering my talents – to HELP OTHERS – and they would not permit me because gender comp churches don’t have roles for non-doormat June Cleaver types.
My talents do not fit the Stay At Home Wife And Mom Template that they ascribe to all women.
Ken wrote:
Post Script.
No, that is a lie from the pits of hell.
I grew up – due in large measure to gender complementarianism – being taught that me ever thinking of myself, even to get basic needs met – was “selfish.”
It’s not true that we all are naturally self-centered, or are raised that way. I was the opposite, always thinking of others NEVER of myself. I did not love myself or hold myself in high regard. I had ZERO self esteem.
I was trained from a young age to suppress MY needs and MY feelings, and to only serve others, which is how you are suggesting people should live.
That way of living fed back into depression and suicidal ideation and made me very codependent.
That in turn made me a very desirable prey and target over my life, from childhood at school, to dates, to office jobs as an adult, for bullies, users, liars, manipulators, and abusers.
Since I’ve had to un-learn all that “it’s selfish to ever think of yourself” nonsense, I’ve had to figure out who I am because I don’t know who I am.
I don’t even know who I am, or what I want or need, because I was brainwashed from youth to ALWAYS ONLY think of other people and THEIR needs and wants.
~That is a very dangerous position to be in, because dishonest people find it oh so easy to exploit you, and you don’t eve realize you are being exploited at the time.
The Bible says you are to love others as you love yourself. It does not contain a little asterisk after “as yourself” that says “Oh, you already love yourself, so there’s no need for you to practice that” – that is you inserting that in to the text mentally, Ken. It’s not there.
I sure as heck am in the process of learning to love myself because for years I disliked myself.
Ken wrote:
And, by the way, if you are using “being deceived” as a reason to keep women out of certain roles in the church, then fair is fair, and men should not be permitted those roles, either.
Ken wrote:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+love+yourself
Wade obviously sees it different. He says the only way you can truly love God is to love yourself.
Ken wrote:
Where does Paul say this?
Victorious wrote:
Thank you for sharing that link. I know it was meant for Ken, but I appreciate it, and I’ll have to look at it in a little bit.
Ken has some very skewed perspectives on some things. It’s not true that all or most people are self-centered, or that they already love themselves.
Especially for people who grew up in abusive homes as kids, or maybe later in life, in an abusive marriage where a spouse chipped away at their self worth daily.
Those types of people are going to have absolutely NO self love, but feel worthless.
I have seen many testimonies over the years from people who said they stayed away from God because they felt “why would God want to love a piece of trash like me.”
Then for whatever reason along the way, they realized that yes, God will accept them as they are, mistakes and everything, so they accepted Christ at that point.
-But these are folks who did NOT love themselves at all.
I struggled with those feelings for years, and the type of abuse I suffered in childhood (verbally abused by siblings, sometimes by my dad, and dad mostly ignoring me when I was a kid, which made me feel defective and rejected), while not as severe as other abuse stories I’ve read by others, made me feel like trash well into my adulthood.
I still struggle with some of this stuff to this day. I did not “love myself” at all. I am really confounded that Ken thinks everyone automatically loves themselves, or finds it easy to love themselves.
For Ken to say that everyone loves themselves and do not have to be commanded to, is incorrect and contradicts the Scriptures that say, “Love others as you love yourself.”
You’re being told right there to love yourself – not everyone loves him or herself, though.
If I still listened to people such as Ken, I would still dislike myself to this day.
After having read I don’t know how many books and blogs by psychologists / psychiatrists (some Christians, some not) in the last few years, and learning some eye opening things from them, I finally developed a glimmer of self esteem the last couple years.
I’m at least in a mentally healthier position now to recognize dangerous messages when I see them.
And the views Ken keeps promoting on this blog are dangerous or debilitating for anyone out there who is an abusive relationship, who may be in a depressive state, who may be suicidal, who has low self esteem, etc.
@ Bridget:
I desire then that in every place the men should pray … also that the women …
Isn’t it artificial to limit the ‘in every place’ to 1 Tim 2 : 8 to 10? There is continuity of thought here. And when Paul said ‘I do not permit …’ he wasn’t in Ephesus; wherever he was when writing this epistle, this was his instruction there as well.
Daisy wrote:
I’m so sorry for the way you’ve been treated, Daisy. But know that you are valued and loved by many here and your comments reflect a strong, firm, astute and compassionate understanding of human nature that is appreciated.
Ken wrote:
You can only come to this conclusion by using some heavy selective literalism along with some intense cherry picking. You cannot get to this place by honestly handling the full counsel of the Word.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/selective-literalism-female-elders
(Note to moderator. I had to enter a different email address because this comment wouldn’t publish with the one I’ve always used in the past. It keeps claiming that the usual email address I use is not valid.)
Bridget wrote:
He doesn’t. It’s derived from a particular view of Scripture. A view that in my opinion is not much older than 40-45 years and has its origin in American fundagelicalism. It holds that the ‘plain reading’ of Paul is the only valid one and that the Almighty has universal ‘commands’ he still thunders out of Horeb through Paul. And like Torah for the ancient Jews, they must be obeyed without question, no dissent, no discussion, no exceptions.
@ Victorious:
I read the link.
Now I know that most Christian teachers try to make you think that you are nothing but a worm; a vile, wretched sinner that causes God to want to puke when He thinks of you.
Most Christian teachers? I’ve virtually never heard one! Some religious induced guilt perhaps (had your quiet time today), but not the you’re worthless stuff.
I’m not talking about worm theology. In this I agree with Wade that the gospel ought to set us free from this – if he means accepting that we are new creations in Christ, have been forgiven, adopted as sons etc. No disagreement there, and it is possible to talk at cross purposes.
But this isn’t self love. I have tried to explain to Daisy I’m not talking about having legitimate needs and having them met. No man hates his own flesh – but when he gets married, he has to change this priority to his wife. It is the mode in which he is to love her: what he would like for himself he should provide for her: love her as himself.
Jesus only gave two commands – to love God and your neighbout. The mode in which you do this is as yourself. There is no third command to love your neighbour and yourself.
If you love yourself, that is, put your own needs first or be pre-occupied with self, you will not be able to love your neighbour or by extension God himself. You cannot simultaneously put yourself and your neighbour first.
When someone mistreats someone else, that mistreatment is self love. It’s a’ me first’ attitude, and who cares how it affects you. It’s not loving your neighour, its loving yourself and tough luck on your neighbour.
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, … lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.
The apostle here doesn’t regard self love as something positive, it replaces love for God, as can money and pleasure. Sorry to labour this, but do you see what I am getting at?
I think too many unthinkingly use the expression love yourself when they mean self acceptance in Christ, self-respect, dignity, freedom in Christ, not being controlled by others and so on.
It is best to avoid letting Jesus command be misused as a justification for the cult of self-esteem and selfishness that characterise so much, though not all, of modern western societies.
Muff Potter wrote:
But it isn’t even the ‘plain reading’ of Paul. It is cherry picking Paul with intensive selective literalism added.
Paul isn’t even close to ‘explicitly’ saying what Ken claims he says.
He’s not even subtly suggesting.
To get what Ken claims you have to apply different rules to different verses.
Mara wrote:
Daisy pointed me to this link, and I’ve read the article already. So this is for the second time of asking! I also commented, it being a different environment.
I’ve learnt a lot on this theme recently including some on here with whom i am not quite in 100% agreement, but I’m not going to let it dominate my thinking. Some of what I have learnt has been passed onto my family, but there are other issues requiring attention that I thought I had left behind years ago.
Ken wrote:
No not really. Paul goes from “all men everywhere” to “a woman” in the course of 8 verses. Paul was writing to Timothy, who was where? And again, to point to your literal sense . . . are women saved by childbearing? Single and barren woman cannot be saved? Christ has no bearing on salvation according to Paul then?
Ken wrote:
Ken, before I finish reading the rest of your comment, I want to ask….don’t you recognize hyperbole when you see it? Because that’s what Wade’s remark is. 🙂
Ken wrote:
OK, I can accept that. Self-respect, dignity, etc. because of who we are in Christ; partakers of a heavenly calling, filled with the fruit of righteousness, light and salt, etc.
@ Ken:
But every time I’ve tried to convey to you why your views are damaging and dangerous to someone who’s been in my position, you get into how it’s wrong for a person to love herself (though the Bible teaches that a person is to love herself), and you get into anti-psychology commentary, and so on.
You spend a lot of time arguing against concepts when I bring them up (such as having self love, having healthy boundaries, it’s legitimate to have needs and get them met, etc), then you later say you’re not opposed to those concepts.
Daisy wrote:
I think Ken is confusing self-respect with NPD.
Victorious wrote:
Thank you, Victorious, that means a lot.
I think you told me about that “Trying too hard” book? I did buy a copy about a month ago and read it. I got a lot out of it, thank you.
I don’t want to give the wrong impression about my up-bringing. There was no overt abuse. What I went through was more low key, but it still created problems for me as I grew up.
My dad was (and still is) very critical. I never got praise or compliments for what I excelled at.
He discounted my feelings, I was told (and still am) to stuff my feelings down, you would get criticized for making mistakes (so I became a perfectionist at a young age).
The majority of the time, my father never wanted to spend time with me when I was a kid (or older), even when I asked, so I felt rejected. I could go on, but that might give an idea.
My two siblings are similar to my father in those regards; my sister is even worse.
There was low key, steady, verbal or emotional abuse or rejection going on. But there was no hitting. I never got beaten or anything like that.
My mother was very loving to me (and to everyone) but was also a very passive doormat who hardly stood up for herself when my dad or siblings picked on her.
Daisy wrote:
Yes that book about trying to live up to others expectations was helpful to me as well.
Actually, your story is very much like mine so I could empathize. When my dad was on his deathbed, he asked me to forgive him. He was quite doped up with morphine and said that he couldn’t remember what for, but said that I would remember. It took me a very long time to remember the hurtful way he treated me because I got very skilled at burying those things. After his death, every time I heard the song “Our Father,” I would get angry and even shouted to the Lord that I would not forgive him. I hung onto that unforgiveness for a very long time and eventually gave in to the gentle prompting of the Holy Spirit.
I still have problems living up to the expectations of my sisters because I march to the tune of a different drummer than they do and they can’t understand why I am so different. I’ve had to distance myself from them in order to maintain my peace and contentedness.
Anyway, I think I have a lot in common with you and wanted you to know that you are appreciated and I pray God will heal your hurts as He has mine.
Ken, thank you for your response. I’m sorry that it’s taken a few days for me to reply. Life and weather have made me a bit busier than usual.
Ken wrote:
OK, I can see some sense in that.
No, this I can’t agree with. Based on your interpretation of Genesis, the teaching of the Word is something that those who know the Word have responsibility for. Apparently, Adam had that responsibility, but so do all of us (men and women) who know what the good news is.
The fact that, in NT times, most men were more educated than most women might explain why teachers in NT congregations were men. And particularly in Ephesus, if there were women who had been taught a lot of wrong-headed ideas about creation and relationships between the sexes, I can see why Paul might make a point of instructing such women to stop teaching for a while until they learned better.
So when Priscilla was instructing Apollos about the good news, was Apollos abdicating his responsibility by listening to her? Was Priscilla usurping his authority by presuming to teach a man? (Even though, at this point, she understood The Way better than him?)
In case no one has made this comment: First of all, my comment is not my own, it is found in “An Open Letter to Egalitarians-Revised 2003” which can be read in its entirety at http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/an-open-letter-to-egalitarians-revised-2003/.
N.B. The letter, being written to egalitarians, makes reference to them by using “you”. Also note that I have made some emendations that I hope clarifies what was written. I will enclose these changes and a final comment by the use of square brackets [ ].
“or” (Greek ē): In 1 Cor. 14:36, some of you argue that the Greek word ē (“or”) shows that the preceding verses are a quotation from the Corinthian church which Paul denies. Therefore you say that Paul is not really telling the Corinthian church [that],
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor 14:34-25 NASB)
Paul is not telling the Corinthians this, you say, because the next verse says, “Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?” (vs. 36). Some of you claim that the first word translated “or” might be paraphrased as, “Are you crazy?” This proves, you claim, that Corinthians have been saying, “the women should keep silence in the churches…(etc.),” and in verses 34-35 Paul is just quoting the Corinthians. You tell us that Paul’s response is to deny what they have been saying, and to say, “What! Are you crazy?” This, you tell us, is the force of the tiny Greek word ē, which is usually translated “or.” You tell us that ē, “or,” is used in Greek to deny what went before it.
Our problem is that when we look at other examples of e used in constructions like 1 Corinthians 14:36, where the following material is clearly false (that is, Paul and the Corinthians know that the word of God did not come from them), then “or” functions to show that the preceding material has to be true. This would mean that verses 34-35 are affirmed by Paul.
To put it another way, Paul is arguing:
You must do A.
Or: Is B True?
(No.)
Then you must do A.
This is just the opposite of what you claim. You claim that Paul uses “or” to deny A (verses 34- 35). In fact, we can find no parallel examples [in Greek writings] where it is used to deny both what precedes and what follows. This is also what all the Greek lexicons tell us as well. So our question [to you] is this:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for “or” (ē) is used to introduce what the readers know to be false, so the author can deny both what goes before and what follows?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if we cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.
BELLEVILLE’S RESPONSE (2001):
Belleville [this is referring to Linda Belleville, an egalitarian, a one-time adjunct professor at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary and currently Professor of Biblical Literature at North Park Seminary. cf. http://www.cbeinternational.org/persons/linda-belleville%5D apparently agrees with my own position on this egalitarian claim, for she says,
The council’s third challenge is rather puzzling. I know of very few evangelicals who argue that the Greek participle in 1 Corinthians 14:36 is Paul’s signal that he is responding to the Corinthian position (“Let the women in the churches be silent”)
She then says that the standard Greek lexicon lists only two examples where this particle shows disapproval of what precedes (a standard egalitarian claim), and both of those are different from 1 Corinthians 14:36 in that they have the particle twice, ē ē .16
While I am grateful that Belleville agrees with my objection to some egalitarian claims about this passage (the claim that 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is a Corinthian saying that Paul denies), it is unclear why she thinks this challenge to be “puzzling.” After all, this position on Greek e is advocated by Gilbert Bilezikian in his well-known book, Beyond Sex Roles. Bilezikian also claims support for this view from several other writers, including Katherine Bushnell, J. Sidlow Baxter, Joyce Harper, and Walter Kaiser.18 The view has been widely influential.
Nevertheless, I am glad to see that Belleville apparently agrees with my view, and differs with the unusual positions of Gilbert Bilezikian and Walter Kaiser on this verse. I am also glad that the editors of Two Views on Women in Ministry, James Beck and Craig Blomberg, also disavow this Bilezikian/ Baxter/ Kaiser view. They classify “the view that 1 Corinthians 14:33-38 [sic] is in any way a Corinthian slogan that Paul then refutes” as one of “the so-called hermeneutical oddities that some hierarchicalist authors have identified in the evangelical egalitarian literature.”19
If Belleville’s essay and the comments of the editors in this recent book are any indication, it seems that many of the more responsible egalitarian authors have no interest in answering this third question or in supporting the “hermeneutical oddity” that it challenges.
The third question, therefore, remains unanswered. Where are the facts to support this egalitarian claim that 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 are a Corinthian saying that Paul refutes?
[In short, Burleson appears to be doing some eisegesis rather than exegesis.]
Mark Mars wrote:
Would you be good enough to tell us where that law is? Where is the law in scripture Paul is referencing that mandates women must keep silent in church?
@ Victorious:
Victorious,
Good question. Here’s an answer I find to be fairly reasonable. It is cited from Ciampa, R. E., & Rosner, B. S. (2010). The First Letter to the Corinthians (pp. 727–728). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
What does Paul have in mind when he says that wives should submit to their husbands, as the law says?
If Paul intends to prohibit wives or women from participating in the judging/evaluation of the prophetic messages of others (cf. v. 29), Numbers 12:1–15 might be a candidate for his source since it deals with Miriam’s criticism of her husband, [sic] [should be brother] (the prophet) Moses. Paul alluded to Numbers 12:8 in 1 Corinthians 13:12.
A more common interpretation points to Genesis 3:16 and its statement to the woman that her husband will rule over her. That text may be the one Paul has in mind. However, it seems to deal with a domination resulting from the curse of the fall. Thiselton is probably correct to follow Bruce in understanding Paul’s reference to be to the creation narratives he usually points to when discussing relationships between men and women (cf. 11:3–12). In this case, the point would be that the law does not allow a wife to behave in an insubordinate way which brings shame on her and her husband, which is the kind of speech (in the worship gathering) Paul has in mind.
Footnoote added at the end: Also note that 1 Peter 3:5–6 points to Sarah’s obedience to Abraham (and the deference manifested when she called him “Lord” in Gen. 18:12) as the scriptural warrant for the submission of the wife.
[My comment: As an aside, where was Abraham when Sarah called him “Lord”? I find it interesting that it was (probably) not when Abraham could have heard her call him “Lord”! Why? Because, she was outside the tent, behind Abraham, listening to the angel’s prophecy!
I hope this helps.
Though it is interesting to ask what law Paul is referencing that suggests women must be silent, don’t overlook the fact, especially if you don’t like what I cited, that Paul goes on to say, “it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” The Greek word for “improper” is “aischros” has meanings of shameful or disgraceful. Both comments, the first basing his prohibition in the law, the second on the consequences of breaking that law, suggests that Paul is dealing with a serious matter.]
Under His Mercy,
Mark
@ Mark Mars:
I think “a” woman is an important point. What was happening in Corinth was “a” serious matter that was being addressed, but was it universal and for all times?
Mark Mars wrote:
Mark Mars, the only two things that were “cursed” in Gen. 3 were 1) the serpent and 2) the ground. There is no command anywhere in scripture for the husband to have authority over his wife.
Conveniently ignored in that commentary is the fact that in Genesis 21 when Sarah ordered Abraham to send Hagar away, he didn’t want to do it. God told him to do what Sarah told him to do and send Hagar away. So I see a mutual obedience with Sarah and Abraham.
It’s not a matter of liking or disliking what you cited, but it is a matter of providing credible evidence for silencing women in the church.
Here’s credible evidence from the Talmud/Oral Law that Paul is referring to and further evidence for the reason for his exclamation “WHAT???”
Here’s the references about women speaking from the Talmud:
“A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a).
“Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent” (summary of Talmudic sayings).
The Talmud Called the Voice of a Woman “Shameful”
“It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)
“The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness” (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)
If you do some research on the Talmud, you will find references to these attitudes among the Jews and see that those influenced the Jewish converts who were insisting on continuing laws as we see both Jesus and Paul continually refuting them. They wanted to continue to have the privilege of “putting away their wives”, circumcision, Sabbath regulations, etc.
In conclusion, there is no law in scripture that forbids women to speak in the assembly as Paul suggests in the same chapter:
…When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1 Cor. 14:26
Dear Mark Mars,
I haven’t read the entire open letter to egalitarians. It seems to raise some interesting points. I don’t know Greek nearly well enough to answer your questions, but I have a few for you in light of this article, written on “Diary of an Autodidact”.
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.jp/2016/01/control-reason-gospel-coalition-and.html
Why do the CBMW (from whom you quoted) or The Gospel Coalition seem incapable of speaking out, let along acting, effectively against abuse and controlling behaviour? And why do they constantly condone, shelter and promote men who have long ago disqualified themselves from ministry because of their abusive ways? I’m thinking in particular of C.J. Mahaney (see the second-most recent post here), but there are others.
Their attitudes towards abused women seem much more in line with those expressed in the Talmud. (Thanks, Victorious!) Not Christlike at all.
(My apologies to all if this is too far off topic. I leave this comment in the hands of the Deebs.)
@ Bridget:
Bridget,
My short answer is “yes!” to both. This matter is both universal and for all times. Two thoughts lead me to that conclusion. The first one is cited from, Ciampa, R. E., & Rosner, B. S. (2010). The First Letter to the Corinthians (pp. 732–734). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, is as follows.
14:37 Paul now brings in the full power of his apostolic authority in a remarkable way: If any think they are prophets or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. Those who ignore this will themselves be ignored.
Paul calls on members of the Corinthian church who perceive themselves to have a prophetic gift or other special spiritual enablement to exercise that gift by confirming that Paul’s instructions in the previous paragraphs were not simply the informed opinions of a Christian leader, but the Lord’s command, that is, instruction given through the prophetic gift by which the Lord himself is guiding the church through the apostle. This suggests that what we might otherwise have mistaken for mere rational moral and theological argumentation was actually a prophetic message, and thus that we should beware of assuming that prophetic ministry will reflect some stereotypical form of speech which is clearly distinguishable from other forms (such as moral and theological argumentation). This may mean, as was mentioned earlier, that there is a lot more prophetic ministry going on in our churches than we often recognize.
Paul, of course, has no doubt whatsoever regarding the divine authority of his message, nor any doubt that anyone who is actually in tune with the Holy Spirit and who has a gift of prophecy or discernment will be able to recognize that his teaching is marked by the very authority of Christ himself. To deny the prophetic authority of Paul’s teaching would not undermine Paul’s authority but reveal that other person’s lack of true prophetic or spiritual insight. Garland paraphrases: “If they do not recognize his instructions as valid, then they are invalidated as prophets and as spiritual persons.” As Thiselton puts it, “If a prophet’s utterance contradicts apostolic utterances (let alone biblical tradition), does not that of itself disenfranchise the currency of the prophetic utterance?” Carson notes how this verse ties together chapters 12–14. Here we find “a foundational test of the Spirit’s presence, of ‘spirituality’ if you like: submission to the apostolic writings, not simply because they are the writings of an apostle, but because they are the Lord’s command, and therefore tied irrevocably to the believer’s confession, ‘Jesus is Lord!’ (12:1–3).”
The expression if any think (literally, “if anyone thinks”) is precisely the same one that was used in 3:18 (“If anyone thinks they are wise”) and 8:2 (“if anyone thinks they know something”). Fee points out that it “is probably no accident that the statement ‘if anyone thinks that he/she is …’ (3:18; 8:1; 14:37) is found in each of the three major sections of the letter (chaps. 1–4; 8–10; 12–14) and reflects these three crucial Corinthian terms (‘wisdom,’ ‘knowledge,’ and ‘spiritual’).” This third usage of the expression brings in a third area of pride among some elite Corinthian believers, namely, a view of themselves as being especially endowed with the Spirit and prophetic gifts, along with Corinthian pretensions regarding wisdom and knowledge.
How much material does Paul have in mind with his reference to what I am writing you? Smit thinks that Paul is concluding (and referring to) all of chapters 12–14. The fact that v. 39 summarizes the emphasis of chapter 14 may imply that he has that chapter in mind. Given the high density of imperatives in the very specific instructions given in vv. 26–35, he may have those directives particularly in mind.
14:38 Paul makes a play on words which is open to various interpretations. The verb used twice in this verse is the same one Paul used in 12:1 (where it was translated “uninformed”). Although the word seems to be used with a different meaning (and context) here, Paul may have chosen it in part to serve as part of an inclusio echoing the language of the beginning of this unit on spiritual gifts. Barrett would translate it, “If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized,” and thinks that Paul means, “he does not recognize the man in question as inspired in his opinion, not that he does not recognize him as a Christian.” Garland’s view is more likely: “These words contain a far more serious threat” given that “[t]he implication of the passive voice is that such a person will not be acknowledged by God” and that Paul intends “a covert allusion to God’s judgment,” implying “the Lord will say to such persons, ‘I do not know you’ (Matt. 7:22–23).” Thus it serves as Paul’s “prophetic sentence of judgment” on anyone who would reject the authority of his teaching.
A footnote regarding Paul’s play on words: [Various commentaries point] to similar scriptural statements “announcing God’s eschatological punishment on those who reject the word of God” where the terms of judgment correspond to the original rejection of the person being judged, such as Mark 8:38 (“If any of you are ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of you when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels”) and 1 Sam. 15:26 (“You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!”).
The second comment comes from Lenski, R. C. H. (1963). The interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second epistle to the Corinthians (pp. 616–617). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.
Paul informs the Corinthians that what is recorded [the reference here is to 1 Cor. 14:34] concerning woman in Genesis is not a temporary arrangement but a permanent one that endures as such for the Christian Church. Any act on the part of woman which sets aside her subjection to man is in violation of “the Law,” the will of God expressed in creation and stated in his Word. An act of such a nature [i.e. where she sets aside her subjection to man] would be the speaking of women in the public services either in a tongue or in prophecy. Ergo, “let the women be silent in the assemblies.” Just how far this prohibition extends is shown by 1 Tim 2:12: “But I permit not a woman to teach, not to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.” In many places woman may speak and teach even publicy, but in no place where she will exercise “dominion over a man” by her teaching.
It is unfair to charge Paul with an inferior view regarding woman because he himself was unmarried and to assert that he voices only his own personal opinion when he gives such direction to the Corinthians. Back of Paul is the divine “nomos” or Word. And that binds him as well as us. Nor can one say that what Paul wrote was well enough for his time and age which assigned a different position to woman than does ours. If woman is now assigned a different position, this is done, not by God, but by man, and by man in contradiction to God. The claim that the sexes are equal collides with the simple fact that God did not make them equal, and no amount of human claiming can remove or alter the divine fact.
The various questions which are today raised in regard to the place of women in the church find their solution just where Paul found his when the question was touched regarding woman’s prophesying or speaking with tongues in public worship in Corinth, namely in the divine principle of the Law. Whatever sphere we may assign to woman in our church practice today dare not contravene her divinely ordained subjection and obedience, for this would conflict with God’s own order.
[So to sum up. The first citation is arguing that what Paul is writing in 1 Cor. 14 is from the Lord: it is not his based on his opinion, conjecture or supposition. Hence it is universal. The second citation is arguing that Paul understands the order God instituted at creation is the order He intended for ALL TIME. We need to understand that our coming to faith in Christ is a restoration to that order.
Now, to go against God’s order is dangerous – imagine you claim you can fly and so you jump off a building to prove it. God’s created order – that you are not a bird] and gravity – will show you otherwise.
Also, to go against God’s word is dangerous – God will reject you if you want to deny what He says is the truth. [2 Thess. 2:11-12: For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. N.B. One cannot properly understand the word “wickedness” without taking into account that it always includes a rejection of God’s word. cf. Rom 1:18-32]
Finally, remember that Christ prayed in John 17:17, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”
So, let’s not be ashamed of the only One who can save us – from the penalty of our sins, the presence of our sins, the power of our sins and the pleasure of our sins – let us not be ashamed of Him even if the world hates His word! cf. Rom.1:16-17
Let’s rejoice in Him and His word because if we do not reject God’s authority [cf. Jude 8-13], we will be will be made to stand before God’s glorious presence, blameless and with great joy. [cf. Jude 24]]
Under His Mercy,
Mark
@ Victorious:
Victorious,
I’m well aware of those quotes from the Talmud. Are you aware of the fact that the written collection of the oral sayings in Talmud was begun in ca. 200 A.D. (the Mishnah) with another group of sayings added in ca. 500 A.D. (the Gemara). Are you aware that the Jewish religion dramatically changed both in response to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and because of the spread of the Christian faith? These facts suggest that the Talmud cannot be used to interpret much of our scriptures.
If anything, our scriptures must interpret the Talmud, especially in light of what Paul says in Rom. 10:2-3: “For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.” I am very leery of using the Talmud to understand what Paul MEANS. At the most, it might be used to understand some contexts of scripture. But even then, you have to also sort through the issues I bring up in the first paragraph, which is often daunting.
Now, for one to say that Paul is espousing in 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 what you quoted from the Talmud is to do one of two things: either (1) one makes what the Talmud says to be God’s word, for Paul says that what he is saying is not his opinion but the Lord’s command (1 Cor. 14:37) or (2) one makes Paul inconsistent with himself based on the fact that he calls upon husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). I take the latter option. I believe that what the Talmud is saying is not what Paul intends for us to believe, for that would contradict what he says elsewhere.
Now, if these quote represent the attitude that some Jewish converts were holding to, then that may explain why Paul wrote what he did in Eph. 5. Regardless of the full context, which like you I desire to know in order to both fully understand and apply God’s word, we have to see that (1) Paul bases what he says on the fact that what he is speaking is God’s command and (2) to disregard what he is saying is to incur God’s wrath. (see my previous posts)
Under His Mercy,
Mark
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
Serving Kids,
First my quote from the CBMW is not meant as a blanket endorsement of them as an organization nor of anyone in the organization in particular. I found the comments made by Grudem to be pertinent and, because he interacted with an egalitarian, possibly of interest to WBW readers.
Now, in point of fact, I generally dislike Grudem. But, I hope to be the kind of person who though I may dislike someone, if they happen to say something I believe is true, I hope I will trumpet that truth. I hope you will do the same.
I share similar thoughts as you with regard with TGC and T4G in general. I wish they would stop condoning, sheltering, and promoting men who have long ago disqualified themselves from ministry. Of the various “Christian Celebrities” out there, I’m most partial to John MacArthur. [Not very partial to him, in an absolute sense; just the most partial to him, in a relative sense.] But even he “shared the spotlight” [N.B. I’m being a little lose with the facts to make a point] with CJ at one of the recent T4G meetings and I was greatly disappointed in him.
The real problem, as I see it, is: why haven’t I and many other men received a better education and training within the full context and authority of scripture to live our lives as leaders – at home and in the church – without in various ways abusing our leadership.
In other words, the abuse of leadership, as horrible as it may be (and it is!) does not in any way negate the teaching of scripture that calls for men to lovingly lead at home and in the church.
Under His Mercy,
Mark
Mark Mars wrote:
Paul was a Pharisee who was well grounded in the OT scripture as well as the Oral Law. He used Olympic sports, running the race, shadow-boxing, etc. as analogies or metaphors to make his points. Those examples, as well as his knowledge of the Talmud provide valuable evidence for understanding his words.
The Corinthian letters were written in response to the turmoil in that church which were conveyed to him and he is responding to their questions. To those at the Corinthian church Paul was both clarifying and refuting. One example is found in 1 Cor. 7:1 where Paul says “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” How absurd is that when the rest of the chapter encourages mutual agreement when abstinence is desired by one and that each has the authority over the other in terms of sexual intimacy.
Again, Paul clearly says he is responding to questions asked in a variety of areas. And again, that Jesus and Paul both refute error on the part of the Pharisees and Jewish converts cannot be ignored and can be understood when taken in context.
Glaringly absent anywhere in scripture is a command for husbands to have any authority whatsoever over their wives with the exception of 1 Cor. 7 where the wife has the same authority over her husband.
@ Victorious:
Ok, part of the problem with citing the Talmud is that many of the sages in question hadn’t been born in Paul’s day. Another is that it is a compendium of dialogues written over a *long* period of yime – and you can find plenty of quotes in favor of women in it, too.
Either way, it did not yet exist at the time of Christ.
But hey, i agree on the rest. 🙂
numo wrote:
The “Oral Law” was passed down orally from generation to generation from the time of Moses.
continues:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2056/jewish/The-Oral-Law.htm
Victorious wrote:
I’m sorry.
Thank you for your encouraging concluding comments.
I used to read letters people sent to Dear Abby, Ann Landers, and so on, and wondered how it was they could write things like, “Dear Abby, I cannot stand my family. So I moved 2,000 miles away to be away from them.”
My mom was the one I was close to in the family. I think Mom encouraged me to repress a lot of stuff I knew and lived in denial about the mistreatment I got from the rest of the family.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the rest of my family, but they can be pretty freaking insensitive, some are very verbally abusive.
I can now understand why those people in those letters to “Dear Abby” said they had to move away from their own families.
I think I’ve had more kindness and consideration shown to me on blogs like this one and a few others, from some Christians – and Non-Christians – than I have from my own family (most of whom are church going Christians) since my Mom passed.
But anyway, yes, it does sound like many of your family experiences are like mine – harsh/ critical/ emotionally with-holding father, with critical or nasty siblings.
I have been there (and am still living that), though I severely cut contact with one sibling and hardly hear from the other one.
@ Victorious:
And the oral law translated into practice such as strict rules at synagogue for the separation of women that some converted Jews were concerned about.. That is what I think 1 Corin 14 is referring to: tradition based on oral law. How could it be otherwise considering other previous parts of 1 Corin? Paul would be contradicting himself.
He was simply responding to questions and situations all through 1 Corin.
@ Victorious:
I would not rely on the Lubavitchers per a straightforward, mainstream *history* of the Talmud or Mishnah. You might want to look into some non-Chabad articles on them and their late rebbe (Yiddish for rabbi), Menachem Mendel Schneerson.
In one sense, they know a lot, as adult men have bern studying both Torah snd Talmud since very early childhood. But they are a sect that does not interact with other brsnches of Judaism, and cannot even desl with modern Orthodox scholarship, so… i know their site looks legit, but one of its main purposes is to get non-observsnt, Reform, Conservative and modern Orthodox Jews to convert to the Lubavitcher sect of Hasidism. They leave out plenty!
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Weren’t women among the first to preach about the risen Christ to a bunch of men, the twelve?
I wonder about complementarians on this score.
If I am remembering right, God entrusted women to preach the Gospel the very first time, but now, in 2016, they insist it is unbiblical or heresy, or whatever, for women to preach the Gospel.
@ Victorious:
They slso are, on one level, seriously literalist in their interpretation of the Hebrew Biblr. Includes literal 6-day creation, etc.
@ Victorious:
You might also want to have a look at this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism
It is probably not the best into to the world of these folks, but the opening section alone is worth the reading time – very concise and clear.
Mark Mars wrote:
“Lovingly lead” is a euphemism for “have authority over.”
The NT does not say men – husbands or not – are to have authority over women. EPH 5.221 discusses mutual submission of all believers (husbands do not get a pass).
Jesus Christ taught that his followers are not to lord authority over anyone else – whether done “lovingly or not.”
Female believers have the Holy Spirit residing within them and ergo do not need a husband or other man to be their covering / spiritual teacher/ loving leader or however you wish to phrase it.
I will also point you to this page
(some complementarians do not “lovingly” lead their wives, which is problematic for your position):
The No True Complementarian Fallacy
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
@ Mark Mars:
Historically, creation order is a fairly recent argument for male superiority. In 1st Timothy, It is more likely Paul is mentions the creation order taught by the cult of Diana which was huge in Ephesus. There simply was no reason to trot out creation order in any other context because women had few individual rights until after the Enlightenment. The cult thinking of Creation order was resurrected to counter act too much independent thinking or the idea of mutualism in marriage.
Which also begs the question of why God did not follow suit with primogeniture? Piper used that one but it makes no sense in light of what is written in the OT.
@ Lydia:
Lydia, did you see this link:
Wealth and the Earliest Christians — A Review of Gary Hoag by Lucy Peppiatt
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/01/19/wealth-and-the-earliest-christians-a-review-of-gary-hoag-by-lucy-peppiatt/
@ Daisy:
Yes, even Calvin was closer to the meaning as he translated it “domineer”. Calvin did not have to worry about individual equal rights. :o)
Can’t we just stop and imagine the mess that made up the early church with various pagan and Jewish converts all with traditions. Without that backdrop, we miss the larger, more important message.
Just to piggyback on this, it is even more interesting to me that Jesus went to John the Baptist first to set the stage, so to speak. He was an outlier in Judaism. He was not even pro temple or synagogue.
@ Victorious:
Victorious,
I would rather question my beliefs and values and how they impinge on my interpretation of scripture than to take the plain teaching of scripture and say that what it is teaching is wrong or absurd.
That “Paul was a Pharisee who was well grounded in the OT scripture as well as the Oral Law” I can more or less agree with. However, to continue to make him out to be someone who values the tradition of the Pharisees is to go completely against what he says in Phil 3:3-11 where he says:
“. . . for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.”
This is a person who though he may have a knowledge of the Oral Law (or the Talmud as you say, even though the Talmud was not begun to be compiled until almost 150 years after Paul and is likely not the Oral Tradition that Paul was taught, but even if it is, he), is someone who is repudiating this tradition (cf. Col. 2:8 where he says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ . . .)
In short, he does not want to live in such a way that he believes his righteousness comes from actions, but are the result of all the spiritual blessings he has because, by God’s merciful grace and gracious mercy, he is in Christ (Eph. 1:3-11). Nor does He want to live according to what passes for man’s (empty) wisdom. He wants to live according to the full counsel of God’s word (Acts 20:27).
There are many speculations about why Paul wrote Ephesians. My speculation is that coupling Acts 20:28-30 and 1 Tim. 1:3-7 suggests that Paul is trying to help the Ephesian disciples be grounded in God’s truth so that they will not be drawn away from God, so that they will be able to discern the will of God (cf. Rom. 12:1-2) and walk in it (cf. Eph. 4:17-24).
One of the ways men are drawn away from God is to believe that they have something which God has not given to them (cf. Acts 17:24-25), something which makes Him and other men indebted to them. In particular, they have thoughts, ideas, words, in short, a “wisdom” that they think is more important than God’s words and God’s truth.
Now, Christ displayed His complete dependence on God’s words, saying and doing nothing more than what the Father said to Him and showed Him (cf. all of John, but in particular John 5:19-20). I encourage us all to be thoroughly grounded in the truth of God’s word, not accepting what passes for the empty “wisdom” of men and women, so that we may enjoy all the “spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3)
Under His Mercy,
Mark
@ Mark Mars:
I have never heard of the authors you quoted, except maybe Carson, if you are referring to DA Carson, so their writing means nothing to me at this time. As to your long comment, it is quite the cut and paste from all over scripture. It is an argument I have heard before in support of the women must submit club. Do you believe that women cannot speak in worship and are saved in childbearing as well?
Mark Mars wrote:
There it is . . .
@ Mark Mars:
I have been reading Victorious for a long time and I think you have misunderstood her point. She knows full well Paul strenuously refuted 1 Corin 14: 34-35 in verses 36-38. I think you have missed her point about Paul as an educated Jew.
Victorious, correct me if I am wrong.
@ Bridget:
Exactly. What is plain and clear about being saved in childbearing? Yet, Mark emphatically states that when it comes to Pauls teaching, right actions do not save. Strange that. It is the “plain reading”, after all, concerning women and childbearing. :o)
Mark Mars wrote:
@ Daisy:
Daisy,
Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:37-38 that what he’s written is the Lord’s command and that if one disagrees, then he won’t be recognized (see my previous comments). Sounds to me like this comes close to YOUR definition of what it means not to “lord authority” over someone. If so, then you are saying that God has no authority over you, for what Paul wrote was the Lord’s command.
Think about this: if Paul is teaching that a wife does not have to submit to her husband, then by Paul’s logic, he’s also teaching that the church does not have to submit to Christ and, by extension, that Christ does not have to submit to the Father.
If this is true, then as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15.19, “we are . . . to be pitied”.
I encourage you to read 1 Pet. 2:13 – 3:15a. When you get to 3:1 and Peter says “In the same way” ask yourself, “In the same why as what?” If you follow Peter’s logic, you will realize that he’s calling us to act in the same manner Christ did. How did He act? Notice Peter’s answer in 1 Pet. 2:21: “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.”
But before he mentions that Christ suffered for us, leaving for us an example to follow, notice that Peter says, “For you have been called for this purpose, . . .” What was “this purpose” to which we’ve been called? Is it not the purpose stated in 2:13-20: to submit ourselves “for the Lord’s sake to every human institution . . .” whether or not we suffer?
Now in 1 Pet. 3:1-6 when Peter is talking about a wife’s submission to her husband, I don’t notice any veto rights. “Honey Pot, I don’t want to do that. I’m not going to do that.” Why not veto rights? Well, how can a marriage, as it was intended to be (cf. Eph. 5, Col. 3:18) survive the husband or the wife has veto rights? (Think about Col. 3:19 – what would be the reason for husbands to become embittered? Wouldn’t it be because their wife was not submissive?)
Now notice what Peter says in 1 Pet. 3:7: “Husbands, in the same way . . .” What’s that way again? It’s the way we saw earlier: to submit ourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.
Now Peter knows that it is difficult for all of us to submit, but especially for women who live in more fear of what that submission entails, and so he calls upon the husband to live with his wife in an understanding manner. What’s that understanding? It probably includes several things. Surely it includes what we see in 1 Pet. 2:13-20 where there is either freemen who have to submit to the King or slaves who have to submit to their masters. With this context in mind, Peter is calling upon the husbands to put themselves in their wives places in light of the fact that they are in the same place as their wife, but with respect to the King or a master.
How would you like to be treated? Then treat your wife in the same manner.
So Peter calls upon us to all to submit, without fear of doing what is right. It’s just that each of us have a different person to submit to.
Under His Mercy,
Mark Mars
@ Lydia:
Lydia,
When I read the “Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome”, I read that many women were very emancipated by modern western standards. You might want to brush up on what rights women had in ancient Greek and Roman cities before you say otherwise.
Under His Mercy,
Mark Mars
All,
Thanks for the interaction. I appreciate it. In the past I have only lurked on this blog. Today, my Saturday plans were changed and I had time to participate in the discussions. But now it’s Sunday where I am and I need to go to bed.
I don’t know if or when I will get to interact again. Until then, “humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you..” (1 Pet. 5:6-7)
May God Bless you and Watch Over you!
Under His Mercy,
Mark Mars
Lydia wrote:
Thank you, Lydia. You are correct in that I wasn’t calling Paul’s words absurd per se. But those who advocate solely for the plain and always literal interpretation of scripture would find not touching a woman contradicted within the same chapter. It’s obvious that Paul is responding to letters from the Corinthians, not only here in verse 7:1, but other places including chapter 14:34-35. In other words, Paul was not advocating keeping women silent in churches.
I believe it was late when I posted and now it’s early….so I hope I’ve clarified any misunderstanding of my words.
Bridget wrote:
Ah, yes, the “plain reading of scripture”. An idea which, through the centuries, has been used to keep black people in chains, Jews in torture stocks, astronomers in contempt, and women and children in abusive and dangerous situations.
Isn’t it strange how those in power always take the Bible to “plainly read” whatever will keep them in power… and give them more of it?
Mark Mars wrote:
Nonsense! There are over 50 or more verses in the NT admonishing mutual behavior and attitudes toward one another that “clearly” includes all believers regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, etc. There are no exceptions to “one-anothering” when it comes to love, submission, devotion, serving, deferring, patience, and understanding.
Mark Mars wrote:
No, the real problem is that convincing ourselves as men that we’re leaders — simply because we’re men — can’t be done without abusing that power. Unless, that is, we choose to live in functionally mutual relationships, in which case “complementarianism” is an utterly pointless construct.
I’ll declare what I think is true, but if I have to quote someone to do so, I’ll quote someone I actually respect.
As far as I’m concerned, unless the CBMW can:
a) make an unqualified statement denouncing abuse;
b) explain what “complementarianism” is in real and unambiguous terms; and
c) stop promoting fools and profiteers as legitimate teachers,
it has no credibility with me, and I will regard anything they say about their pet doctrine as coming from questionable motives.
@ Mark Mars:
No, comps use terms such as “servant leadership” or “loving leadership” but it’s all euphemisms for saying men should have authority or control over women.
Terms such as “servant leadership” are not in the Bible.
Male control over women is an outcome of the Fall as God predicted in the book of Genesis; it is not God’s intent for any man to rule over women, not in marriage, and not in the church.
I grew up in a gender complementarian home and was brainwashed with this stuff my entire life but realized by my mid – 30s it is bunk and it nothing but good old fashioned secular sexism with a few misapplied and cherry picked Bible verses used to prop it up.
In my opinion, the analysis below applies to most sub-sets of Christainity… They almost always take one aspect of scripture and elevate it, then claim they have the “true way”. But if you really look into it, their “position” is not as sound as it initially looks. That is when these “groups” start getting nasty and attack the person asking questions instead of debating the theological issues…. In supertitles matters, it is very easy to jump from the “issue at hand” to whether the questioner is a “true believer” or a “compromiser” or “lukewarm”, or you name your favorite tar baby…
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
P.s.
I forgot to mention the “other” approach. To deflect off the weakness of a particular theological doctrine, another approach is to blame current cultural problems on the lack of believing in their “true doctrine”. It is always easy to claim how it “use to be” when it is long enough ago that no one is around anymore…
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
That is all true, but sometimes women buy into this stuff, too. I know I did growing up because other Christians told me women being second class in church and not being permitted to hold teaching, preaching positions was God’s intent and anything else was icky, horrible secular feminist thinking.
I was looking for an article the other day about why women leave church when I found this other page about it. I think this is by a woman. On her page, she writes:
Source:
Nine Reasons Discerning Women Are Leaving Your Church, by Michelle Lesley
http://michellelesleybooks.com/2015/07/24/nine-reasons-discerning-women-are-leaving-your-church/
Lesley has one or two points on that page I could agree with, but that part about women? No.
She’s really fooling herself there. Women are generally afforded more opportunities and respect outside most churches than they are within churches.
That is one huge reason they are leaving church – they are leaving not because women are allowed into leadership positions in churches (certainly not in gender comp churches, which is most of them), but due to the opposite reason: women aren’t allowed to do much of anything in comp churches.
Gender complementarian churches are especially bad, because the majority of their focus remains on married mothers.
Any women who do not fit the paradigm of ‘June Cleaver, Stay At Home, Married, With Children’ is overlooked, taken advantage of (as free church labor) or excluded.
We single women (and childless, child free, divorced and widowed) get tired of being excluded.
We further get tired of the sexist tripe – and with lame’o, scant biblical justifications for the sexism (e.g., Adam was created first, supposedly all women are easily deceived, etc – which is insulting), so I say “adios” to such churches.
I don’t want to spend my Sunday mornings in the company of people who think I am somehow inferior to some of the human population because I happened to be born female and that I am never-married / childless. More and more women are not putting up with this stuff, and they are voting with their feet, by getting up and leaving.
I’ve already posted links on some other thread with studies by Barna and others about how the number of women leaving church has gone up.
I’ve also read a book or two with chapters on the topic, and it’s the same in the books… and the women give the same or similar reasons why they are quitting.
Gender comp is driving most women away, it is not a selling point or a good retaining feature.
I think it’s especially a hard selling point for women who grow up as Non-Christians who hear the Gospel for the first time later in life.
The only reason I put up with comp for years is that I was raised in it and was brainwashed to view the Bible through a sexist lens. When you grow up with it, it seems normal.
I can see how a 30 year old atheist women would look at it and be completely turned off and see comp for what it is: sexism, pure and simple.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
I agree. Gender complementarians are more about what they are against (liberal social positions and feminism) than they are pro- whatever.
Gender complementarianism is a sledge hammer they use to fight against things they dislike or perceive as scary or wrong, such as feminism.
It’s not a position that is truly grounded in the Bible. It’s reactionary against social issues they are uncomfortable with.
I find it odd how they use comp to fight against or opine about everything from secular feminism to divorce, legalization of homosexual marriage, dating, marriage, when / how / if / where women may hold jobs outside the home, etc.
Comps are pushing rules over various issues and people where even the Bible doesn’t really go or obsess about.
Also, gender comp IS the status quo. A lot of complementarians like to argue comp is “counter cultural.” No, it really is not.
Men have been in control over women in many nations, religions, and cultures since time immemorial.
Some wings of Islam are highly oppressive against women and have even more severe rules dictating what, when, and where women may go, talk to, marry, work, date and dress, more than gender complementarian Christians.
Some of the mindsets or rationales I’ve seen among such Muslims is the same (or similar) to what Christian gender comps believe about women, dating, marriage, etc. It all comes down to thinking men have a right and/or sacred duty to control the lives or bodies of women.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Like Pastor Ashley Ray, Memphis, TN. A couple of months ago, he preached a sermon in which he basically blamed all the ills in our society on women failing to stay in our places and submit to men. He even went so far as to imply that women are to blame for homosexuality!
Nancy2 wrote:
Yep…our feminist rebellion is destroying America…. ugh!!
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/baptist-pastor-commands-wives-to-submit-the-feminist-rebellion-is-destroying-america/
Nancy2 wrote:
I have seen a Christian article or two where the writer or preacher quoted blamed hetero single adults for the rise of homosexuality.
But I totally see what you mean. I often see gender complementarian writers and preachers blame most everything on women, feminism, and such.
Jesus taught that the problem with people is each their own sinful heart, not culture or external stimuli, but so many comps want to keep blaming feminism or women.
Like Adam in Genesis: “God, it was this woman you gave me…”
Victorious wrote:
I may have seen that same story awhile back.
As of right now, I don’t have the stomach to click and read (perhaps later), but just from looking at the URL:
“baptist- pastor- commands- wives- to- submit- the-feminist- rebellion -is destroying- america”
I can already guess his take is on cultural ills and what he thinks the solution is.
Even if I grant him his view – that women not submitting is a “feminist rebellion” that is destroying America, it’s too late.
I don’t think part of the population (Baptist women) submitting to their Baptist husbands is going to put the horse back in the burning barn.
I’m pretty socially conservative. I do appreciate socially conservative positions, but I’m not naive enough to think America is ever returning to the 1950s June and Ward Cleaver era. I also don’t idolize the 1950s.
I wish other conservatives would let that dream die already.
Screaming at Non-Christians to shape up (as conservative Christians often like to do), or screaming at Christian women to submit more, is not going to be like a time machine effect that resets everything back to 1955.
Other thoughts about this:
“baptist- pastor- commands- wives- to- submit- the-feminist- rebellion -is -destroying- america”
1. How would every Baptist wife submitting to her Baptist husband change secular feminists or get them to change their views on stuff? I’m not seeing the connection.
(I do realize some comps think that comp marriages can model Christ to the unsaved, but as Dee has said on this blog several times over (paraphrasing her take, which I agree with), “Huh? [and] I doubt it.”)
2. He’s got a problem.
Not all women who are against the “woman submit” view are “secular feminists.”
There are more and more conservative Christian women who no longer agree with gender complementarian biblical interpretations.
Daisy wrote:
America wasn’t perfect in 1955. Crimes were committed; there were closet homosexuals ……..
We would have to go back to before women had the constitutional right to vote and the right to own property. Only then will our country be “One nation, under God!” again!
Women (like us) who think they should vote, own property, work outside the home, and drive automobiles are nuthin but trouble! ( SNORT!)
@ Mark Mars:
It depended on status and dont forget Rome included a lot of territory and religions they tended to be tolerant of for peace. The Paterfamilias was the basic foundation. You are familiar with the Roman household codes?
Phoebe and Lydia were such types. Well heeled. But do not forget there was always a leash. It was a caste system society even within Judaism. No one was thinking in terms of individual civil rights. Why would you want to go back to that mindset?
@ Victorious:
I think it is 58 “one another’s”. Funny how so many look for exemptions so they can be on top….in a godly way of course. Sigh.
In addition to feminism, I have many times heard that us securely, godless scientist are also the cause of our ills. Yet, theses same “pontificators” embrace all of modern medicine and technology! While I do not agree, I respect Amish that will say some of these things, but then try to life without them….conversely, I have no respect for the pontificators that view all, or most science with suspect….. It use to bother me, now I just blow off and consider such pontificators as not worth my time,
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2 wrote:
“Secular”, not “securely”. That evil technology of auto correct is at again..
Nancy2 wrote:
I agree with all that. I was just a part of gender comp stuff long enough to know what they think and why (though I now find a lot of their reasoning weird).
They view the 1950s through rose colored glasses.
Speaking of women and voting.
David Barton tackles women’s voting rights
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/david-barton-tackles-womens-voting-rights
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
“Isn’t it strange how those in power always take the Bible to “plainly read” whatever will keep them in power… and give them more of it?”
++++++++++++++++
or how intelligent ‘plain-reading’ advocates miss the fact that ‘plain readers’ come to different conclusions.
@ Mark Mars:
“The real problem, as I see it, is: why haven’t I and many other men received a better education and training within the full context and authority of scripture to live our lives as leaders – at home and in the church – without in various ways abusing our leadership.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
because the whole idea crystallized relatively recently out of fear of women & as a gimmick to make church attractive to men so they’d want to come. an agenda of appealing to base aspects of human nature to promote one group at the expense of another.
this is a gimmick, not a doctrine.
Mark Mars wrote:
NO, it is: As the “law” says. So it is a “law” so it is somewhere.
So where is this law? God is very clear and detailed as to His law that He gave the Israelites after coming out of centuries in slavery to Pagan rule. Surely, you can point us right to it in Leviticus or somewhere.
It not some vague reference that has to be read into. It is described as a “law”. So where is it? I have looked high and low. I could only find it in the Oral Law Tradition which was eventually written down and codified in the Mishna/Talmud.
Even if you found such a “law” (which you won’t) are you willing to then bet that the death and resurrection means something different for women? That they must have a mediator if married, to explain church to them? No Holy Spirit for women? Because that is the outcome.
BTW: The word “silent” in that passage means no sound at all. No singing, no saying hello, etc. Are you familiar with some of the synagogue traditions?
Paul totally refutes verses 34-35 in verses 36-38. Ironically, the KJV has the best translation.
Daisy wrote:
Check this out, Daisy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/
Finally!!!
Lydia wrote:
Snippet:
It’s kind of like the equivalent to the Christian gender complementarian war against Christian women (or any woman) wearing yoga pants and egalitarian Christian women telling those comps to go take a long walk off a short pier.
When it’s not mimicking Mormonism, Christian gender complementarianism sure likes to mimic some types of Islam. 🙂
@ Daisy:
That should have read,
“To us [Muslim ladies who wrote the article]”
My browser quit on me and messed up my post there a little bit. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
And this guy is now Ted Cruz’ PAC leader.
Bridget wrote:
Wayne Grudem and Rick Warren jumped on board the Marco Rubio train.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Thank you for your reply.
May I throw in some points from our recent family bible study on silent women?
It’s specifically in a teaching/learning situation that Paul wants the women to be quiet. She must not be a teacher of men. I take it the situation in mind is the gathered church. So when may women teach?
i) In the family, notably Timothy’s mother and grandmother were in the faith, which they passed on to Timothy. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasised.
ii) Priscilla and Aquilla. I said ‘I don’t believe Aquilla ministered the word, whilst Priscilla made tea and biscuits’!! I’ve know some excellent husband/wife teams in this kind of personal ministry. Especially to evangelicals to whom the Holy Spirit is the Unknown Person of the trinity.
iii) The older women are told to teach the younger what is good and to train them in Titus. Amongst other things to be submissive to their husbands – which is a safely check on this being mangled by a male teacher who wants to assert some kind of authority.
I also made the point that Jesus first appeared to a woman after all the celebrity hero apostles had cleared off.
I personally don’t see why a woman couldn’t bring a short word of instruction under ‘when you come together, each one has … ‘.
Since women clearly can – and should – teach, this is why I don’t believe they are instrinsically gullible or ‘more easly deceived’ as such. I have been careful not to say this. But you cannot ignore this aspect (of deception), it is one of Paul’s justifications for his restriction.
I do think when this particular instruction of Paul is set aside this can lead to trouble; it’s the combination of men abdicating responsibility and women taking it over that is wrong. It’s out of order.
I have also argued that I think women may be more susceptible to deception in certain areas of spiritual experience. If you had ever spent time amongst charismatics, I reckon you would have seen this first hand.
Daisy wrote:
It’s called nuance Daisy. I have specifically said we have legitimate needs several times now, and here we are again with you ignoring this.
I have differentiated between legitimate needs, and the sin of focussing on self. Yes we should ‘look after our own interests’, but ‘also the interests of others’, and Jesus’ command is to make sure we do the latter.
You have said several things in posts above about ‘what Ken says’ that are simply not true. For example, about not engaging on the no true Scotsman fallacy, to which I have replied at least once if not twice. But on your own admission you don’t read everything (which is you perogative), but you then miss replies with the attendant danger of misrepresenting what someone really thinks.
If you don’t agree with something, fine, but please quote it and say why you think it’s nonsense.
The discussions here are to some extent about academic ideas, how we are to understand the bible, although of course with real life application. When I disagree with you, I’m not making a personal attack on you. I’m not into that.
Everyone here is free to ignore everything anyone says if they consider it wrong.
Victorious wrote:
Now look, I have told you several hundred thousand times that I recognise hyperbole when I see it …
Wade is a preacher. All preachers like to soup it up a bit to get the attention of their audience. On this occasion, if I didn’t quite take him literally, the broad brush was very considerably (I exaggerate not) too wide.
Ken wrote:
What you call “nuance” I still think is speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
I have never said people should be totally self-absorbed. But you routinely characterize my comments about how it’s totally valid and “biblical” for a person to get their needs met as being liberal, selfish, or ungodly.
There is also no harm in a person stepping outside of Bible reading and prayer to seek help – from a psychologist, for example, yet you characterize that as being worldly and wrong.
I read enough of your posts to get the idea of what you think.
@ Ken:
You’re not the only one to have been in a charismatic church or three. I saw a lot of deceived men in those places. Women, not so much, though as you take your own experience as decisive, i doubt that whwt I’m saying here will matter.
Written by a 30 year veteran of the charismatic movement…
numo wrote:
I have not made claims of speaking ex cathedra!!
I have referred to experience and said I don’t want to make too much of it. I’ve never said men cannot be deceived. I’ve not made my experience the norm let alone definitive.
I’ve not claimed any scientific study of deception based on gender. But I do have my perception over the years which backs up a proneness to deception amongst women in particular esoteric pseudo-charismtatic errors. You don’t have to agree with it, your experience might be different.
At some point though, egalitarians have to face what Paul was getting at by the deception of Eve being part of his reason for the restriction in 1 Tim. You may come to a different conclusion to me over this question, but it is not an illegitimate question.
Ken wrote:
Years amongst charismatics here. Men were as deceived as women, if not more. When the deception in men was combined with “men have authority” in church and home, the deception then affects entire church communities and individual families.
@ Bridget:
I suppose the real point is to avoid deception regardless of where it is coming from.
The last straw for me was Toronto, and it was a woman who pointed me away from this, for which I am still very grateful. Goodness knows what I might have got into if that hadn’t happened. As I’ve said, I’m all in favour of Priscilla’s and Aquilla’s!
Daisy wrote:
No, I don’t; which only goes to show there is no communication going on here.
I think we would both be better off by dropping it now.
Ken wrote:
Re: Part 1.
So, all women everywhere, some of whom may be called by God and gifted to (and interested in) preaching /leading are not permitted to because of persons such as yourself who perceive women as being easily duped, and due to a handful of women you knew in some church years ago.
And yet you call out others for looking to historical, extra-biblical sources to explain the context of the Bible as not being sola scripturaish enough?
If I mention women’s hurt feelings as being one problematic aspect or outcome of gender comp (and why so many women are leaving churches in droves and/or dumping Christ in favor of Wicca), you brush that off.
Your incorrect understanding of doctrine trumps human feelings (contra Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1 – 2).
As to your 2nd half:
There is no need to extrapolate that Paul was applying the ‘Eve being deceived stuff’ to ALL women EVERYWHERE for ALL TIME.
Paul was dealing with a problem in a particular church dealing with a particular problem of a limited scope.
Based on my understanding of some of the articles I read on this, there were women there in that particular era and church and geographical region who had previously belonged to some pagan religion that taught their goddess deceived their pagan god to take authority over him..
They thought that thought was cool and they were trying to apply these pagan notions into their teachings about Jesus and Christianity.
Paul was trying to correct that very specific problem to get the women in THAT church to behave. He was saying those set of women (or a singular woman) in that church were deceived on that matter. He was not saying any or all women are born being more apt to be deceived.
All this, or similar, has been pointed out to you above by Dee (I don’t think you ever replied to her post?), myself, someone else on prior threads, and I gave links to a study by some guy who did a study on the passage that sheds more light on what Paul meant.
People who are egalitarians, or who reject gender comp and go by other labels, have in fact explained this before.
The information is out there, some of us have shared it with you on this blog.
Here’s a series of articles by an author who is not comp about Eve being deceived:
http://newlife.id.au/?s=+eve+deceived&sbutt=Find
Bridget wrote:
I remarked above, or on another similar thread, that surely there were MEN in the charismatic church Ken went to, and there must surely STILL be men in attendance there.
Yet, he ascribes being deceived as being a predominantly feminine issue.
(Even though the Bible does not teach there is anything inherent in the female gender that makes them more prone to being deceived on spiritual matters. He is assuming that.)
Daisy wrote:
But, IIRC, his daughters are exceptions to that assumption!
Ken wrote:
Any time I’ve mentioned how gender complmentarianism has damaged me or has hurt myself or other ladies, and when I’ve explained that gender comp is nothing but codependency for women,( with a few Bible verses applied on top to make it look “biblical”), and how comp has the same negative results as codependency –
As in, comp is identical to codependency in many areas, such as telling women it is wrong or selfish to have boundaries, to get their own needs met, etc.-
You then reply by saying things like it’s wrong for folks to get their needs met (but then you later waffle when pressed on that), people already love themselves so don’t have to be taught it’s okay to love themselves (I strongly beg to differ on that)-
You say you don’t like talk of boundaries, because you hate or distrust psychology and books by Cloud and Townsend (who are Christian psychiatrists who explain what boundaries are.
C and T did not invent the concept, btw – the Bible teaches the concept of boundaries).
I’m not the only one who sees this in your posts.
Others here are confused (I’ve seen them make posts saying so), because you affirm one thing in one post, but then deny later you did so, or condemn something in one thread but in another say “no, I never said that.”
You also want it both ways on some issues.
Either women are born totally deceived on spiritual stuff or not, and men are not deceived….
But you hem and haw later; “well, of course some men some of the time are deceived, and maybe not all women are every day, but yada yada, but even tho men are sometimes deceived, only men should be allowed to preach lead because they aren’t born with this problem.”
I’m just reading what you’re typing. I’m not putting words in your mouth, or certainly not intentionally. I think the problem is that you or your views are not consistent.
But that is part of the problem with gender comp itself, it’s inconsistent on many topics.
A lot of the time when you get into practical applications of complementarianism, it is inconsistent from one comp to the next.
Like some comps teaching it’s okay for women to speak to men, while ones like Piper say women should not be cops and talk to men.
Some complementarians say women can read from the Bible during a church service, others say “no way.”
Even if comps all agree that women should not do “X” (whatever X may be) they cannot give you straight, consistent reasons among themselves or each other as to WHY women should not do “X.”
Ken wrote:
But it sure does put the cross/resurrection in an untenable perspective for females. You might want to rethink your interpretation of such which has a very unique historical context you continue to ignore to prop up your idea of prominence over females. . Those “easily deceived” women were prophesying in Cornith and were also chosen by our Lord by the empty tomb to take the good news to men. Our Lord trusted them.
Daisy wrote:
It is one of oldest patriarchal tricks in the book. You see, if you believe the body operates on giftedness, not gender, then you are just selfish and want power that is verboten by Paul. But of course it is not about power when they promote male rule in the body. Then, it is biblical according to their interpretation. It becomes a circular argument. If you don’t agree with his interpretation, you are deceived, selfish and want power. See how that works? It has been around a long time. It is futile.
Lydia wrote:
I have noticed this, too (even among non- complementarians even on this very blog sometimes).
Women asking to be treated fairly and equally and to have a fair shot at being a preacher / teacher (if they felt led or gifted for such roles) are characterized as being power hungry or wanting authority just to rule over people with an iron fist.
(Their motives are automatically cast in the most negative light.)
I’ve already mentioned on one of these threads I personally do not want to be a preacher.
Also, I’ve often felt more comfortable being a follower, not a leader. I’m pretty much the antitheisis of “power hungry” or the “seeking authority” type.
But for disagreeing with complementarians, for thinking OTHER women should be allowed to preach / lead if they are called or gifted in that area, I get accused (indirectly) of being power hungry. It’s so baffling and frustrating.
And yes, I notice the double standard. When comp men want to hold on to authority over men AND women in the faith, they claim they are being “servant leaders” or “lovingly leading others” (they employ euphemisms).
It’s loving and biblical when male complementarians (or their female supporters) seek influential positions for men – but not when women merely ASK to be considered for the same positions.
All the sudden when women ask for the same opportunities (or walk away from the faith to go join a Wiccan group), then it becomes “they are just power hungry” (or they are “deceived” / “selfish,” or some combination of all those things).
It’s really a way of silencing their opponents, of not considering their views and grappling with them.
@ Ken:
Yet you said this a few posts upthread:
“If you had ever spent time amongst charismatics, I reckon you would have seen this first hand.”
Which is what I think might pass for ex cathedra from the way you’ve said it. You reckon they would have seen it 1sthand if they had *ever* spent *any* time amongst *charismatics.
Please quite trying to wriggle out of and/or explain away things that you *have* said, and said *unequivocally.* Because this is inexcusable behavior in online discussion; you are evasive like this quite a lot. I’ve never wanted to have to follow up on a series of your posts, but this… just speechless.
numo wrote:
Insinuating that charismatic women are more easily deceived, ergo, all women are more easily deceived!
Yeah, I read the post.
Ken wrote:
So, when a man abdicates responsibility, the woman should sit on her duff and let everything fall apart, just to make sure she doesn’t get things out of order?
@ Nancy2:
He has bern saying this same thing for the past seversl years.
numo wrote:
There are a lot of men in Charismatic churches or who believe in Charismatic stuff.
But I guess Ken gives the Charismatic men a pass.
The male Charismatics are not considered as being “easily deceived”. Only the ladies.
Daisy wrote:
c. J. Mahaney, for starters?
Ken wrote:
I’m not ignoring anything. For one thing, I don’t agree that Paul has restricted teaching to males only in the gathering of believers. For another, I don’t see his mention of Eve’s deception as an attempt to buttress any such restriction. It makes much more sense to me as a correction to a false teaching that might have been going around. If some in Ephesus were trying to teach that Eve was made first, and that Adam was the one deceived, then it was important for Paul and Timothy to teach the actual story from Genesis. I don’t know for sure that this was the case, but I find it a more reasonable proposition than yours.
Ken wrote:
Ken, I suspect one of the problems between you and Daisy right now involves choice of words. When you talk about “loving yourself” in your posts, you seem to be equating that with self-worship or focussing on self. But I get the feeling the Daisy is using “loving yourself” in the sense of caring for oneself, and recognizing one’s worth in the eyes of God — the kinds of things you support, but you use terms like “dignity” and “self-respect” to describe them.
I can understand where Daisy’s coming from; when I use terms like “self-esteem” and “loving oneself”, all I mean is knowing and being assured of one’s worth as a child of God. Ironically enough, I remember C.S. Lewis also once speaking positively of loving himself, and associating terms like “dignity” and “self-respect” with the sin of pride. And I think this difference in terms is part of what’s causing you and Daisy to speak past each other.
I might be wrong. If so, I trust either or both of you to correct me.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
I think you are right. I have tried to disentangle legitimate needs from selfish wants, but I can’t get through to Daisy on this.
I’m afraid Flag Ken has come to mean a red flag for her, and she automatically thinks she is bound to disagree with almost anything I say. It really would help if she could get beyond the stereotypes. I think she gets needlessly defensive when I am not intending to be belligerent.
There are unpopular ideas in the NT about ‘putting earthly things to death’ and ‘denying self’, and our local church unfortunately has taken on board the ‘say yes to yourself’ mantra. This has produced bad fruit particularly in some of the youth group who have been brought up on this stuff, with almost no difference in bahaviour with the culture at large, where saying yes to yourself is the norm.
Now none of us likes these ideas, but too much of this only ever being positive and you get to a point where we confess how valuable we are so often that you could be forgiven for thinking God ought to be grateful that we are in the team! My wife and I have joked about this, but the substitution of psychology for the liberating truths of the gospels and other NT writings is a poor exchange, and isn’t funny.
The church is not all bad – far from it – but the mixture is difficult to take, and manifests itself in the focus shifting not always so subtly from God to man. And I mean man in a generic sense!
The church is – surprise surprise – heavily into Jesus’ three commands to love God, our neighbour and ourselves.
Nancy2 wrote:
I have been careful not to say ‘women are more easily deceived’. I gave three examples upstream of where women may legitimately teach, which would be absurd if they were instrinsically easily deceived. It negates that idea. I’ve said I’ve experienced excellent ministry from women who happened to be charismatic.
I’ve also acknowledged that deception is an equal opportunities employer. Yes, men can be deceived. Often they are the deceivers.
Genuine question: why do you and many others continually ignore these qualifications and insist that I think ‘women are more easily deceived’?
I have said that women seem to be prone to deception in particular areas. That’s my perception. It’s based partly on charismatic experience, and partly on the spiritualities being propagated in the church growth movement. I wouldn’t make too much of this, but it nevertheless something to take into account.
Such perceptions are not decisive in the whole silent women issue, what the NT says decides this, but they are not completely irrelevant either.
I asked my sister about this out of curiosity, and she didn’t seem to think the question demeaning of women. She’d have said so if she did! The very question seems to touch a raw nerve, and I don’t see why.
If the apostle’s teaching and restriction are for the blessing and protection of the church, wouldn’t it be folly to disregard them?
I find John MacArthur’s version of this – no spoken contributions by women in the gathered church – too restrictive by far, but if for argument’s sake he is actually right, is it really such a big deal if women have been reconciled to God and received the free gift of God of eternal life in Christ Jesus?
Ken wrote:
You’re still saying women are more easily deceived – whether it be in spiritual areas or in secular matters doesn’t make much of a difference, because you are using this to bar women from having an equal opportunity to men in or out of the church.
You chide others on other threads for using “extra biblical” sources to make points, and you scold some women for being motivated by having hurt feelings over being marginalized due to gender-
Yet you base your own (sexist) views that all women are more easily spiritually deceived not on the Bible, but on your feelings and personal experiences with a handful of women at ONE church ten, or whatever number, years ago.
Please, do show us the verse in the Bible that says all women down to the year 2016 in every nation are more easily spiritually deceived than men due to Eve in the Garden, and that this prohibits any and all women from ever leading, teaching, or preaching ever. I’d like to see those biblical passages.
You said:
Yes, men can be deceived. Often they are the deceivers.
To be consistent with your own position, then, if being ESD (“easily spiritually deceived”) is a disqualifier, then men should not be permitted in preaching, leading, teaching positions, either.
That you only want to bar women (and given some of your other condescending views about women) leads me to believe you don’t like women.
You have some attitudes that women are somehow lesser, not as capable, not as intelligent, or not as “whatever” as men are.
You said:
Genuine question: why do you and many others continually ignore these qualifications and insist that I think ‘women are more easily deceived’?
Because you have said as much on older threads when asked why you felt that women should not have certain roles in churches or marriage.
When pressed for details, rationales, and/or Bible verses proving this proposition, that is when you began tacking qualifiers on later, telling us, why no, you don’t think all men are immune from deception, either.
I think the problem is your views are inconsistent, they are not biblical. You can’t come up with a biblical, solid, coherent defense of your views.
If 10 – 15 people on a comment section on a blog are taking your comments in a way that you consider wrong, I doubt if the problem is with all 10 -15 readers.
It’s either your communication style, or your view, that is off. I do think you “weasel word” things and/or backtrack on your comments when people begin poking holes in your views.
@ Daisy:
See my post on the other doctrine thread as to why I’m not going to respond to the contents of this post.
There is no communication going on, and tbh I’ve got tired of having to endlessly repeat the same thing on this subject. I am, believe it or not, only human, and I don’t want to repeat what I don’t think about deception another couple of hundred times. It’s not very edifying for anyone, is it? And it’s rather pointless.
Ken wrote:
Ken wrote:
Ken wrote:
Here is how I responded about this situation up thread:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/01/11/giftedness-vs-gender-guest-post-by-wade-burleson/comment-page-2/#comment-236304
I don’t think you are totally intellectually honest when discussing these topics with those of us who disagree with you about it.
One minute you’re saying one thing about an aspect of this topic, and after being challenged on it, you back track and insist you never said the thing you did and so on.
When you’re not consistent on what you believe or why, it makes it confusing for others to follow you.
How Lady Bible Hunters Made the Victorian Era’s Most Stunning Scriptural Find
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-lady-bible-hunters-made-the-victorian-eras-most-stunning-scriptural-find
by Ailsa Ross
Snippets:
—-
Scottish twins Agnes and Margaret Smith were the last people you’d expect to discover one of the earliest known copies of the gospels, but in a dusty closet in an Egyptian monastery in 1892–without a university education or formal language training between them–the God-fearing twins uncovered the Syriac Sinaiticus.
… Born in 1843 and raised by their father, the twins were inseparable from a young age. And they were privileged:
Educated as if they were boys, for every language they learned, the girls would be taken to that country by their father. And so it was that the twins had mastered French, German, Spanish, and Italian by their teens.
The twins’ father died when the sisters were 23, and they received a huge inheritance of about a quarter of a million pounds. Alone in the world and now exceptionally wealthy…
…As would become characteristic of the women, they refused to follow the mores of the time: Instead of having a male chaperone, they let themselves be accompanied only by a young female teacher.
…Back in Britain after their adventure, the twins dedicated themselves to mastering more languages, including ancient and modern Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic.
….Agnes had been learning Syriac–a branch of Aramaic, the language Jesus would have spoken–in the six months before the trip.
Just as well, because she managed to do what so many male professors and scholars had failed to do in their searches of the monastery–she found what appeared to be an ancient manuscript of the four gospels.
..the male professors did not dispute that Agnes had physically come upon the manuscript, but they refused to credit her with much more.
—-end of snippet——–
This story is interesting on several levels.
One thing is that they were single and without a father at a young age. They didn’t have (or need) a husband or a “male covering,” as some many gender complementarians insist women need.
The page says both women married for the first time n their 40s but their husbands died just after a few years into the marriages.
@ Daisy:
Well, they did have a lot of money, and that, I’m certain, opened many doors for them. They were unusual in that respect.
Ken wrote:
First, you have to be able to demonstrate that it’s indeed the Lord’s command through Paul for the blessing and protection of the Church and not just an answer to a specific instance at Ephesus to his protege Timothy.
For many of us, starting out with say Katharine Bushnell, and continuing into the present day, we are not convinced of the former.
Kens mantra is if we disagree then we just don’t like the unpopular teaching. After all the exegetical/historical debate, that is what he is still spouting. I think he enjoys it. It is all about being on top.
The arrogance is astounding and I doubt he can hear the typical patriarchal ring to his words. He turns his restrictions, subjugation and silence of half of all believers into the “blessing” of a new law given by Paul. Because Paul is somehow in the law giving business. So a historical situation with a pagan temple cult Ephesus is turned into salvation by childbearing, primogeniture by creation order, silencing of fellow believers and the oligarchical caste system which our Lord told us not to emulate.
Does not sound like our Lord at all, thankfully
Ken wrote:
Who was it that preached the slaves (Eph. 6) were better off being slaves?
Indeed! Especially since 1 Cor. 14:26 encourages full participation of all believers in the assembly.
Good try, Ken. Even Paul demanded his rights and didn’t settle for anything less. We recognized he was a joint heir and exercised them to refute the erroneous teachings of his day.
Ken wrote:
I don’t ignore your qualifications, Ken, but there are two problems that I perceive with them.
1) I find ones like this so vague as to be unhelpful. Women “seem to be prone to deception in particular areas”? What areas?
2) You mentioned earlier more specific aspects like New Age and wanting equality, but are you suggesting that all women are prone to deception regarding these? Without exception? Given all the variance in human personality, I find that very difficult to swallow. And if there are women who aren’t prone to deception in such ways, why should they be barred from teaching or leading assembled believers (assuming they have adequate knowledge and training)?
Ken wrote:
Sorry, Ken, but this sounds for all the world like a white man suggesting that black people should have been content with Jim Crow.
“So what if you can’t vote, or hold office, or use the same water fountains as white people? You’re still living in the greatest, most powerful country in the world! Isn’t that enough? What more could you ask for!?”
Ken wrote:
Wouldn’t!t it be better if women just abstained from attending church and stayed home? Couldn’t we better serve our masters by staying home and cooking and cleaning? After all, women aren’t allowed to serve God – we must serve men. Those of us who can’t sing and don’t tend to the children serve no purpose at church, aside from being arm candy for our husbands. God must not even communicate with women, since we must submit to the authority of men and not God.
The Apostle Paul commanded this …. The Apostle Paul commanded that …. The Apostle Paul commanded the other…. Everything is based on what Paul said!
Somebody correct me if I’m confused here, but didn’t the Apostle Paul have so much respect for the humans who were in authority over him, and their rules, that he landed his butt in prison and was finally executed?
If we take scripture as it is “plainly written”, ISTM that Paul contradicted his own teachings in some cases!
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Seeing as you have asked, as it’s afair question, but with more than a little reluctance.
All the cases of deliverance (or similar) including testimonies bar one I have come across were women. All of the occult involvement I have personally known about it was females who were involved. I think all of the devotees of inner healing with its ‘other Christ’ and ‘other spirit’ were women. The literature advocting this doctrine I read was predominantly by women.
Outside the church, most mediums are women, most but not all astrologers.
This is only anecdotal, and I will repeat I don’t want to make too much of it.
Enter Willow Creek. With all the caveats about what is found on the internet, this seemed to follow in the tradition of being into deceptive and dangerous religious practices.
It’s still possible to find some of the names: Mindy Caliguire, John & Nancy Ortberg, Ruth Haley Barton, Sibyl Towner, Keri Wyatt Kent, Susan Shadid. The name Kay Arthur comes to mind. The kind of books they were into were mostly written by men to be fair, but it was difficult not to come away with the impression this kind of demonic infiltration via mysticism was worse amongst women.
Willow Creek was the egalitarian flagship, and yet it was heavily into deception. I might add that some of the books popular there were to be found on our local church bookstall, but to what extent the practices had been taken on board is difficult to say. I didn’t stay around to find out, because not rocking the boat was more important than discernment.
Our housegroup listened to a sermon from Willow Creek dubbed into German from one of the female leaders, which I listened to with as open a mind as possible, but it was doctrinally fluffy and off. It was New Age influenced, because I recognised the names she quoted. The bible was conspicuous by its virtual absence.
It’s a moot point if sticking with Paul’s restriction in 1 Tim 2 would have prevented what happened at Willow Creek, I appreciate that. It would certainly not guarantee this.
The charismatic movement, which did so much good in unsilencing women and giving them the opportunity to ‘minister’ in all sort of areas and gifts, and I’m still all for this, ended up as having a justified reputation for gross doctrinal error and practice, and there are a good number of big name female ministries that are very dodgy, as well as fake apostles and celebrity male preachers in what usually goes under the charismatic umbrella today.
Now none of this decides whether 1 Tim 2 is still relevant today, but neither is it irrelevant. I have in my time wondered whether it is for today, though perhaps never very seriously.
The particular area where women to me seem to be prone to deception is a desire to experience or perhaps better to feel the immediate presence of God or some other spiritual entity. To meet with God in ways not sanctioned by the bible.
This is part of the reason I would be very reluctant to set aside apostolic practice. It’s why I tend to be on my guard in churches where this has been done. As I’ve said before, I tried it not long ago and it only took two weeks before the false doctrine came to the surface (centering prayer).
So you might see why I have this perception. Now a scientific study might show my perception to be wrong, and it’s true I’ve seen plenty of fake amongst men, deceivers and being deceived. And I’ve been in deception myself with regard to a few of the shephering/discipleship doctrines.
I could probably flesh this out a bit more, but there comes a point where you want to leave behind being preoccupied with what’s wrong, and concentrate on what is good and right and holy and true instead. It’s much more edifying!
Lydia wrote:
Lydia: briefly:
Ken doesn’t like non-complementarians appealing to extra-biblical sources in this context (he feels that is a “liberal” and hence shady practice),
But was okay with that same type of practice (using Greek lexicons or whatever) in the other thread to defend the use of the word “obey” in some translations.
I was about to respond to this (your points above I quoted), but saw that Serving Kids kind of beat me to it in another reply.
Serving Kids wrote:
Yes, my impression as well.
Swap out the word “women” for the phrase “black people” in Ken’s (or most gender complementarian responses), and it’s the same.
People are being told to stay permanently in second class due to only having been born with some trait or another. Not based on skill, talent, character, but inborn traits.
And we’re further told this is God’s intent.
And even though the Bible says God is no respecter of persons and instructs followers not to play favorites.
(And Gal. 3:28, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female in Christ.)
For those of you who may have missed it, I think Ken told me above the other day in this thread he won’t he coming back to this thread again.
I don’t know if he meant he would not be reading it at all again, or just not replying to me, or what exactly.
But I still enjoy reading your responses to him, even if he does not participate in this thread. 🙂
Power striving is inapropriate within a body. It is cancer. Anyone who trusts in his/her own strength has a false hope. Of myself I can do nothing. Lordship of Christ over the Church is good and full of good fruit. We’ve witnessed a church(s) doing her own thing for a long time. She even tells Christ that she’s got it under control and figured out. This is why we killed Christ, he was on our turf. Leading your wife like Christ leads the Church includes a ton of freedom for the wife and a lot of pain and accountability for the husband. Power is not a license for cruelty, it is self-sacrifice. Anyone who fights over it has already lost.