1

“The Temple of God is no longer a building, it is the soul of a believer (I Corinthians 6:19). The priests of God are no longer just male, they are both male and female (Galatians 3:28). The rituals of God are no longer holy days, sacrifices, and feasts, but faith in Christ and love for God and our fellow man (Colossians 2:16; John 13:3).”

Thanks, Wade Burleson. Clearly stated, keenly understood.

I am going to start this out by reminding everyone that I am completely DONE. The women who posted the purloined SEBTS documents online stepped on my last church nerve on Friday. The closest I’m going to get to any church is the sidewalk, with a sign.

With that out of the way…

I know lots of people like Wade Burleson, but Wade, you stepped on my last nerve here by trying to drag “liberal feminists” in your post. Where in the church are you seeing women in complete positions of authority over men? I’m going to tell you NOWHERE. Not even in the Episcopal Church, which ordains women and has had a woman as its presiding bishop. But she didn’t set up a feminine priesthood over men and when her term was over, she left and Michael Curry (a black man) was elected in her place. This is simply not the case in the SBC, where the purge of women from positions has been going on for the last couple of decades.

I understand why you did it, you were trying to set yourself up as the middle ground between the patriarchs running the SBC and the “other,” the “liberal feminists.” But it was extremely uncool, untrue and uncalled for.

And your discussion of the Jewish temple, the siddur and Jewish worship reflects a nearly complete ignorance of what goes on in Judaism today. This is not what goes on in Judaism. I’ll say it feels anti-Semitic to me and veers really close to replacement theology. I’d note that three of the four branches of Judaisum (Conservative, Reform, Restorationist) ordain women rabbis.

I suppose what you wrote resonates with people in the SBC, which, of course, is your constituency. But I would suggest that saying “liberal feminists” are a problem and a bogey bear, along with highly inappropriate Jewish stereotyping isn’t going to translate your post to the many, many people outside the SBC who are now watching this Dumpster fire for what’s next.

Signed, One Who Is Done, D-O-N-E, DONE. And yeah, I’m a “liberal feminist,” an SJW. I’ll own it.

(Sorry, Dee and Deb, I had to say this.)_

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: And your discussion of the Jewish temple, the siddur and Jewish worship reflects a nearly complete ignorance of what goes on in Judaism today.

I thought he made that distinction in his post? He said something or other about that being true of ancient Israel, he wasn’t saying that was true of Jewish people today.

If you look at the Gospels, some of the Jewish men, even the disciples of Christ, were shocked Jesus spoke with, taught, and hung out with women, because their culture and/or religious views back then were that women were not worthy or were dangerous to be around.

Daisy: Secular, liberal feminist pleas for men (or culture) to be more equitable to women and girls is often mis-perceived by conservatives and Christians as those women being power hungry,

Exactly. If you are not a feminist today – as a man or a woman – you are against a few simple things:
– that women have as much of a say concerning their own lives as men have always had
– that women receive equal pay for equal work
– that society does not treat women condescendingly and belittle their achievements and opinions

If you can’t agree to these three points, you are placing yourself outside of educated and civilised society.

And it seems to me, some of both sides of the current sbc wars are in exactly that position: neither educated nor civilised – and multiple PhDs do not make a difference here.

If we agree to disagree on whether there are roles for men and women, than not only are we asking complementarians to accept those who believe men and women can have any part in the church, but likewise those who believe all the offices are open to anyone have to accept those who do not. From what I have seen, neither camp is willing to do that.

Gus: Exactly. If you are not a feminist today – as a man or a woman – you are against a few simple things:
– that women have as much of a say concerning their own lives as men have always had
– that women receive equal pay for equal work
– that society does not treat women condescendingly and belittle their achievements and opinions

If I might attempt to steer the boat very slightly here…

To say that I (as a person included in the generic “you”) must accept the label “feminist” in order to believe things that I have already come to believe as a human being isn’t helpful here. “Feminist”, like any “-ist” label, has meant many different things over the years and, as this post and discussion together show, still means different things to different people today.

If, in private, you need to think of me as a feminist to help clarify/categorise what I believe, then I can easily accommodate that. You can think of me as being an apple or a pink unicorn if it helps. But no -ism, not even feminism, has any mortgage on equality, education or civilisation; no more than does patriarchy own God.

…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

Here is a list of gifts I found in Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12, and Eph 4. There is no mention of gender association in any of them.

1) apostle
2) prophecy
3) miracles
4) healing
5) tongues
6) interpretation of tongues
7) word of knowledge
8) wisdom
9) discerning of spirits
10) giving
11) exhortation
12) ministering
13) showing mercy
14) faith
15)pastor/teacher
16) evangelism
17) helps
18) administrations
19) hospitality

One of the things that I find disheartening (but also clarifying) in the current arguments in favor of various forms of hierarchy in the churches (gender-based hierarchy is not the only one) is that while it is true that there is a discernible super-/sub-ordination relation in the archetypes that the hierarchists point to (God over the Creation, or Christ over the Church), these hierarchies have a strong, perhaps dominant, component of “self-giving love” that seems to be consistently overlooked in the arguments in favor of super-/sub-ordination in the churches and in other realms.

God gives Himself to His creation — all the “communicable attributes” present in the world come from God. He labors on its behalf, sustaining it in existence, “holding all things together”.

Christ gives Himself to and for the Church.

It’s a hierarchy of self-giving love.

Why don’t we hear more about this from complementarians?

Irene,

But he does call the person who doesn’t feel that liberty the weaker brother. He also continues to teach and lead them into maturity. Further, that stumbling was an actual loss of faith, not just being offended or having a different opinion. The new Christians Paul was talking about in Corinthians were in danger of drifting back into paganism and worshipping idols. I don’t think a Complementarian is going to worship idols if a woman prays during services.

drstevej:
Is the gift of gab gender-neutral?

Looking at a sample of just my son and my two daughters. Oh yes. 😉

Samuel Conner:
It’s a hierarchy of self-giving love.

Why don’t we hear more about this from complementarians?

Didn’t complete the thought.

Wade’s post looks like a appeal to “agree to peacefully disagree” on a what he argues is a non-essential aspect of theology and practice. I personally doubt that is possible. I suspect that for many complementarians, too much of the rest of theology is implicated, elements of anthropology, ecclesiology, even Christology and Theology Proper (many complementarians see gender with the Godhead, and it’s “male”).

For me, it would be more possible to regard complementarian believers with a measure of complacency (versus an alarmed intuition that “these people are actually damaging the Body of Christ”) if their rhetoric and practice aimed toward the “hierarchy of self-giving love” that is strongly present within the “vertical” hierarchical archetypes that they point toward to justify “horizontal” hierarchies in the churches.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,

Totally agree about being a done. Been one for a while. 🙂 However alt left “authoritarian-Christianity” both and male and female are not that unusual, either. Power is funny like that. Power people start thinking they know best for others, enact more rules and lead accordingly.

Here we have legal action against parishioners who invested in and supported their local parish being sued by leaders (male and female) to aquire properties that will just sit empty. Now headquarters is going bankrupt.

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/home-page-news-and-views/why-is-the-episcopal-church-near-collapse.aspx

There are no laws preventing any women from forming a church and leading it. Thank goodness! 🙂

Samuel Conner,

I just started reading Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It is the most frustrating and awful thing I’ve ever read. But, one positive (maybe the only one) is that Piper does spend most of his time in that first chapter talking about how men need to be kind and not authoritative. He actually avoids the word authority. It doesn’t negate the message and the flawed logic behind nearly every page, though.

Everything I have read from Complementarians is always so full of fear. I don’t understand what they are afraid of. It doesn’t quite feel like regular legalism (if I don’t do A, B, and C I’m going to hell), it’s like they somehow really think society will completely collapse. Which is weird, because so many of these guys are neo-Calvinists. It’s like, “once saved, always saved, unless a woman is teaching, then we’re all going to hell.”

Preacher”s wife–

Some people will drop out of fellowship if the church is completely run by women. Also, I think men in general will step back and play video games. That isn’t what we want either.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,

I also get your concern about Replacement Theology. It makes me very uncomfortable. Sometimes language can be imprecise. In the early years of Neo Cal, I started to become very uncomfortable with their absolute lines drawn with the “New and Old” Covenant language. There really isn’t any good terminology because it all comes with a lot of baggage. I see God in the OT as wanting the Jews to be the light of the world, too. Same with Christians. Sadly, Christendom is making the same mistakes they did! That is a bit general but works for me. 🙂

Jack: ’m going on memory but the whole purpose drive program was to convince through a form of god focused manipulation that the main reason you were Christian was to get into a church.
There was even a covenant at the beginning to prevent people from dropping out.

Bingo. It was all predicated on churchianity. It was the mega church Bible.

Preacher’s Wife:
Samuel Conner,

I just started reading Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.It is the most frustrating and awful thing I’ve ever read.But, one positive (maybe the only one) is that Piper does spend most of his time in that first chapter talking about how men need to be kind and not authoritative.He actually avoids the word authority.It doesn’t negate the message and the flawed logic behind nearly every page, though.

I got that impression also — that Piper does call men to imitate Christ’s self-giving – from Jon Zens’ brief review of Piper’s older book “What’s the Difference?” and that is IMO commendable. My concern is with what I hear coming out of the wider movement, and with what I have seen at ground level in my own (albeit limited) experience. And the problem isn’t just gender-based hierarchy (as Wade notes, those who aspire to be great ought to become the servants of all). The mentality in the big independent churches seems to be that burden of protecting the honor of God’s Name does not fall on the powerful exalted leaders to lead in ways that accurately image Jesus, but on the powerless followers to conceal from public view what they are suffering at the hands of those more powerful than them.

2 Samuel 12 comes to mind: “But the thing David had done displeased YHWH”

One wonders if the sword (metaphorically speaking) will ever depart from this house.

I do want to be clear that I’m grateful Wade is out there as a support for the women who have come forward regarding Paige Patterson. It’s just that his post rubbed me the wrong way. That is all.

Preacher’s Wife: I just started reading Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It is the most frustrating and awful thing I’ve ever read.

Wanting to be able to explain my complementarian faith to others, I read that book … and before I was finished, I was an egalitarian. Yes, it’s that poorly reasoned.

okrapod,

I am so sorry about the bone scan. But I’m so proud of you for the way you seem to be handling things!

The key and critical passage is 1 Tim. 2:11-15, and I think Burleson’s exegesis of this passage misses the point. He, like many others, goes on the hunt (eisegesis, importing meaning into the text) of a contemporaneous Hellenistic cultural context for the passage because he cannot come to grips with the plain meaning of the text.

The cultural context of the passage is clearly The Fall itself:

Gen. 3:16: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”

It is evident that a Hebrew scripture is the cultural context, the thing Paul had in mind in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 (in fact, the more familiar with Paul’s writings one becomes, the more one realizes that this is Paul’s modus operandi):

“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection (“HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE”).
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing (“IN SORROW THOU SHALT BRING FORTH CHILDREN”), if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

2 Tim. 2:11-15 then, does not represent a new restriction or additional burden placed upon women. It says nothing that was not said from the very first pages of Scripture. It is an acknowledgment that, even though the Messiah has appeared and much of His mission has been accomplished, the earth is still under the consequences and penalty of The Fall, and will continue to be so until Messiah returns again.

“22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

One can accept it or reject it.

I have nothing else to say here.

Irene,

Dropping out of fellowship is not the same as renouncing God. It’s also a conscious decision to separate, which is not at all what Paul is talking about when he mentions weaker brothers. Paul is afraid that these former pagans will see Christians eating in temples and assume they are participating in the pagan temple worship. Then they will get the false assumption that God is just one of many and fall back into pagan society. So, are there people that will stop being a Christian because a woman is praying?

Also, that is a terribly low view of men. As though men specifically are just naturally lazy and want to check out of society. That’s as sexist as saying women just want power so they can control everything.

Another problem with the kind/benevolent argument in complementarianism is that what is kind is always defined by a man, because husbands/pastors (and often men in general) are the ones who get to make the “final” decision.

So a man can decide that his wife doing whatever he wants her to do, with no discussion, is the only way she is allowed to be “kind” in their relationship. I’ve seen a whole lot of Christian men define “not hitting her” as the only requirement for being kind for themselves, but they held almost impossible standards for their wives.

There tends to be a large amount of tunnel vision and entitlement that comes with the ability to make all the decisions.

(whether it be conservative patriarchalism or liberal feminism)

These things are not equivalent! Most ‘liberal’ feminism is a reaction to patriarchalism.

The real way through is equality.

But if conservative, Bible-believing, Christ-loving, Spirit-filled, graced people demand conformity on over the “roles” of men and women in the home and church, then we are trifling with subtleties while ignoring certainties.

With respect, gender roles are only a side issue to men, who have not been restricted in any way. The view of these things affects everything women do in the church, however, positively or negatively, for women.

Lea,

A quote from a commenter on that cray website:

“In the plainest meaning of the words, the “help” is the one that carries out the instructions. The “helped” is the one who gives the instructions. In that dynamic, before the fall, when was Eve ever NOT the help for Adam?? In that dynamic, before the fall, when was Adam ever NOT the giver of instructions to, and therefore the head of, Eve?? ”

This is…a view I haven’t heard.

I don’t think any of these guys have a correct understanding of what a strong help is…

Lea: With respect, gender roles are only a side issue to men, who have not been restricted in any way. The view of these things affects everything women do in the church, however, positively or negatively, for women.

So true. When I got fed up and said something to hubby, he said he didn’t notice, maybe just because he’s a man.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: I understand why you did it, you were trying to set yourself up as the middle ground between the patriarchs running the SBC and the “other,” the “liberal feminists.”

I’m sure Wade means well, but yes.

There is a huge issue in the church where people feel the need to shore up their bonafides (I am comp, conservative, not a SJW, etc) before they feel like they can be heard. This inclination in too many churches to shut your ears when you hear someone who disagrees or takes a different positions is a HUGE problem. Not saying Wade is like that, but he is in that world. Many people in that world conscious or unconsciously feel the need to ‘affirm such and such’. That Sam Rainer guy who wrote about the SBC being a dumpster fire felt the need to go on about how he really did practice gender roles at his church so it’s ok to listen to him. NO. Let’s listen to everyone who has information and knowledge to give!!!

I’ll listen to the crazy rantings of people like Doug Wilson and Tim Bailey because I want to know where these things are coming from. You can listen, assess and agree or disagree with people who aren’t on your ‘side’. So tired of this stuff.

Irene: And since Paul specifies that those who do feel liberty in any area need to give up their liberty if it causes a brother to stumble, that requires those in the camp of everyone being equal to allow men to be elders.

OR maybe men should give up their liberty so as not to cause their sisters to stumble. Unless men are actually the weak ones here, which seems to be the point many comp folks make. In which case, they really aren’t up to the level of spiritual maturity to be in charge of anything.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Tandt isn’t being sarcastic. He has commented on other blogs supporting strict Complementarianism.

Hey – don’t burst my bubble. It’s fun in here.

Lea: There is a huge issue in the church where people feel the need to shore up their bonafides (I am comp, conservative, not a SJW, etc) before they feel like they can be heard.

i.e. Having to Virtue Signal about their Pure Ideology and Loyalty to the Party Line.
Otherwise they are Enemies to the Tribe.

“Pledge alliegance to the Flag,
Whatever flag they offer…”
— Mike and the Mechanics, “Silent Running”

drstevej:
Is the gift of gab gender-neutral?

Definitely.

Leila: Wanting to be able to explain my complementarian faith to others, I read that book … and before I was finished, I was an egalitarian. Yes, it’s that poorly reasoned.

When you’re airtight arguments and God Saiths actually convince the reader in the other direction…
That’s Bad.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: I am going to start this out by reminding everyone that I am completely DONE. The women who posted the purloined SEBTS documents online stepped on my last church nerve on Friday. The closest I’m going to get to any church is the sidewalk, with a sign.

And yet another Walks Away From Omelas…

Lea: A quote from a commenter on that cray website:
“In the plainest meaning of the words, the “help” is the one that carries out the instructions. The “helped” is the one who gives the instructions. In that dynamic, before the fall, when was Eve ever NOT the help for Adam?? In that dynamic, before the fall, when was Adam ever NOT the giver of instructions to, and therefore the head of, Eve?? ”

Bet that guy’s well chuffed that God is his “very present help in trouble”.

Preacher’s Wife: Besides, my daughter asks for help all the time, does that mean I then become subordinate to her?

This is a ‘plain meaning’ of help they often miss. Weaker ask the stronger for help. People with less knowledge or skill ask for help from those with greater.

Their logic is poor, as happens when you began with the end in mind.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

I did not know there was a “good” comp. I thought the people who coined the term, defined it? Is it being rehabbed? 🙂

Tandt:
The key and critical passage is 1 Tim. 2:11-15, and I think Burleson’s exegesis of this passage misses the point.He, like many others, goes on the hunt (eisegesis, importing meaning into the text) of a contemporaneous Hellenistic cultural context for the passage because he cannot come to grips with the plain meaning of the text.

The cultural context of the passage is clearly The Fall itself:

Gen. 3:16: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”

It is evident that a Hebrew scripture is the cultural context, the thing Paul had in mind in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 (in fact, the more familiar with Paul’s writings one becomes, the more one realizes that this is Paul’s modus operandi):

“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection (“HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE”).
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing (“IN SORROW THOU SHALT BRING FORTH CHILDREN”), if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

2 Tim. 2:11-15 then, does not represent a new restriction or additional burden placed upon women.It says nothing that was not said from the very first pages of Scripture.It is an acknowledgment that, even though the Messiah has appeared and much of His mission has been accomplished, the earth is still under the consequences and penalty of The Fall, and will continue to be so until Messiah returns again.

“22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

One can accept it or reject it.

I have nothing else to say here.

Tandt.
You quote extensively, which is something that always attracts my attention on blogs. The handling of Scripture always carries the possibility of influencing the impressionable, or vulnerable.

You process the scriptures incorrectly. You do not follow the unfolding of the text.( in this case Genesis) You then have difficulty interpreting doctrine from the original error, and proceeding through following text, as well as the following historical timeline.

Go back and review your comment. Here is your original error point:

THERE WAS NO FALL
Adam died the same day he ate the fruit. Death and fall, are different words. They mean different things. If you wish to find and example of a “Fall”, your example would be Lucifer.

The gender rolls you advocate as ideals, are in fact flaws in the Creation. Just as diabetes is a flaw. Crime is a flaw. Death itself is a flaw. The entire Creation is filled with flaws.

God subjected the Creation to frustration. Subjugation of women, is something that happens. It is not a goal. Sexual domination of women happens. It is not a goal. There are many things that happen, and are never goals.

Nick Bulbeck: To say that I (as a person included in the generic “you”) must accept the label “feminist” in order to believe things that I have already come to believe as a human being isn’t helpful here. “Feminist”, like any “-ist” label, has meant many different things over the years and, as this post and discussion together show, still means different things to different people today.

You are, of course, completely right. Labels are often not helpful, especially since they can mean many different things and are often so emotionally charged. So I would say that the 3 criteria I named above (agency, equal pay, equal respect) make me a feminist, not a Feminist. Strangely, the CBMW crowd (the usual suspects like Piper, Grudem, Moore, Mohler, etc., not to forget their BFF, CJ) would probably agree with me there – the 3 core values mentioned above would make me a feminist in their eyes, albeit an evil Feminist.

So – for me – small-f feminism is just a shorthand for agreeing to these 3 core values, whereas capital-F Feminism is, of course, a very different animal with a whole structure of critical theory behind it. I do not agree with some parts of that although I must admit that I do not know very much about it beyond a few things.

The fact that I need to use shorthands such as “feminist” to describe someone who thinks that women should have equal agency, pay, and respect, shows how far humanity still has to go if it is to ever achieve these values not only for men and women, but for all groups. ATM we seem to be backsliding …

If you think that all humans should be treated equally well, then “humanist” might apply 😉 …. but that opens another can of worms.

It’s really hard to view comps as harmless and people I must just agree to disagree peaceably with when comp is literally something that affects almost every area of a woman’s life, while men benefit from it. I’m a 3rd generation preacher’s kid. I’ve seen how it works. I know the drill. And I know who really benefits. I want no part whatsoever of it.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Hey Nick,
Tandt isn’t being sarcastic. He has commented on other blogs supporting strict Complementarianism.

As I wrote to Nick below the other post where Tandt posted comments, it really IS very difficult to know it these days.

OTOH, he might be a very cunning egalitarian who really wants to push comp the edge of reason, and beyond …

Gus,

Sigh. If wimmenfolk would just stay in the kitchen, where we belong, we wouldn’t have to deal with all this mess!

Tandt: The key and critical passage is 1 Tim. 2:11-15, and I think Burleson’s exegesis of this passage misses the point. He, like many others, goes on the hunt (eisegesis, importing meaning into the text) of a contemporaneous Hellenistic cultural context for the passage because he cannot come to grips with the plain meaning of the text.

The cultural context of the passage is clearly The Fall itself:

Gen. 3:16: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”

I trust you recognize the Gen. 3 passage as negative, adverse prophetic words from God. They are conditions the two will encounter outside of the garden. If you see that as a command for the husband to rule over his wife, then all males must work in the field of agriculture only; must sweat (no air-conditioned offices) and eat only plants.

It is evident that a Hebrew scripture is the cultural context, the thing Paul had in mind in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 (in fact, the more familiar with Paul’s writings one becomes, the more one realizes that this is Paul’s modus operandi):

“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection (“HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE”).
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notice the first few words of verse 11 that are routinely ignored….”Let the woman (singular) learn….” so she will not be deceived. Women in that culture were not allowed to sit at the feet of teachers as the men were so Paul is encouraging this. That’s what makes the story of Martha and Mary so encouraging since Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus in a position of learning and He somewhat chided Martha for being so distracted while praising Mary for her interest in the more important thing.

Paul was appealing to their logic and common sense….since Adam was formed first…it’s now the woman’s turn. LET HER LEARN so she will not be deceived as Eve was.

Nick Bulbeck,

Woot, woot!

Max,

“Where would TWW readers place gender roles in a theological triage? The New Calvinists are acting like the “beauty of complimentarity” is at the top of their list of essentials, just below authoritarian patriarchal control of the church.”

I didn’t think cosmetology was catagorized under triage …..

Irene: And since Paul specifies that those who do feel liberty in any area need to give up their liberty if it causes a brother to stumble, that requires those in the camp of everyone being equal to allow men to be elders.

I think the Bible tells the weaker members to stop passing judgement on the stronger members.

Victorious: If you see that as a command for the husband to rule over his wife, then all males must work in the field of agriculture only; must sweat (no air-conditioned offices) and eat only plants.

Looks like I was typing basically the same thing as you at the same time. Tandt illustrates the problem with wooden literalism and taking passages out of context. Your reply is very good.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): He picked cherries, because he’s 8″ taller than me; I went up in the attic to get jars, etc, because ….. he’s 8″ taller than me …….

Now ‘THAT’ is the “beauty of complementarity” exercised in a practical way!

drstevej: Is the gift of gab gender-neutral?

I was engaged to a man who talked non-stop, and the few times I tried to talk about anything, his eyes would glaze over, and he would act bored.

So, I would shut my trap, and he’d immediately resume talking. The guy never, ever shut up, and was very self-absorbed.

To this day, I resent the hell out of gender stereotypes that say all women talk more than all men. So false.

Do Women Talk More Than Men
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/do-women-talk-more-than-men/

Nancy2(aka Kevlar):
I’m a fixin’ to go wipe down and label the jars of 3 batches of cherry jelly that hubby and I made together.

I’m driving through 5 states to come to your house for dinner tonight!

Samuel Conner: Why don’t we hear more about this from complementarians?

Because the primary interest and focus of complementarians is not to love and respect women, but to control them and have power over them.

All that complementarian talk about “servant leadership” and “equal in value just not in role” is to keep the women from noticing what’s really going on (or from caring about it), that they are being “nicely” and “sweetly” subjugated. So the men get to be in charge.

(Their other ulterior motive is to use complementarianism as a battering ram against social issues they disagree with.)

Preacher’s Wife: I just started reading Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It is the most frustrating and awful thing I’ve ever read. But, one positive (maybe the only one) is that Piper does spend most of his time in that first chapter talking about how men need to be kind and not authoritative. He actually avoids the word authority. It doesn’t negate the message and the flawed logic behind nearly every page, though.

But Piper is the same guy who coached women to stay overnight in an abusive marriage or what not.

Even the “nicer” types of complementarians and their nicer tone on complementarianism are dangerous and sexist at the root, something the ‘nicer’ ones have a difficult time understanding or accepting.

Preacher’s Wife: Everything I have read from Complementarians is always so full of fear. I don’t understand what they are afraid of. It doesn’t quite feel like regular legalism (if I don’t do A, B, and C I’m going to hell), it’s like they somehow really think society will completely collapse. Which is weird, because so many of these guys are neo-Calvinists. It’s like, “once saved, always saved, unless a woman is teaching, then we’re all going to hell.”

Lately, complementarians are posing complementarianism as a “cure” for “gender confusion.”

I wrote a blog post on my own blog mentioning that complementarianism actually creates gender confusion for some people, it does not erase it or clarify gender.

Gender complementarianism in its present form has been around for about four decades, but it’s not eroded or prevented the rise of transgenderism and etc, so why they think their comp is going to fix stuff like that now, I have no idea.

Some guy at Julie Anne’s blog thinks (naively) that doubling down on complementarianism will halt or cut down on sexism in churches, even ones that are already very firm on believing in and teaching complementarianism.

I’ve tried explaining to that guy at Julie Ann’s SSB blog ’til I am blue in the face that if complementarianism did not help fight sexism before the “me too” and “church too” movement etc, (but actually contributes to it, which it does!), doubling down on complementarianism is not going to fix it.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results each time.

Irene: Some people will drop out of fellowship if the church is completely run by women. Also, I think men in general will step back and play video games. That isn’t what we want either.

One reason of several why I dropped out of church attendance is complementarianism.

If you visit forums, blogs, and online groups for egalitarian (and other non-complementarian) Christian women, a lot of them are done with complementarianism, so they stop attending churches that promote or defend or believe comp.

Leila: Preacher’s Wife: I just started reading Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It is the most frustrating and awful thing I’ve ever read.

(Leila replied),
Wanting to be able to explain my complementarian faith to others, I read that book … and before I was finished, I was an egalitarian. Yes, it’s that poorly reasoned.

Wow. Probably not the sort of testimony the authors of RBMW would want to hear, LOL.

You think you all have a problem? Hah. The whole idea that Adam was created first is off the map for some of us. There is no evidence that our species once existed as a solitary male.

Now, that said, some folks not too long ago thought that they could trace back the male line via the Y chromosome and come to an original male. They ended up saying, IIRC, that Adam was a unique mutation among existing human like primates (earlier human species) and was or played a role in the evolution of sentient modern humans. An unexpected larger, healthier and smarter individual with incredible sexual success in passing on the mutation. Unfortunately since it would have been a Y chromosome mutation the male progeny would have carried the evolutionary step forward, not the female. What I was reading was written by some journalist, so it was understandably limited. But anyhow they thought they had found Adam. But not a similarly mutated X chromosome.

Hey, makes as much sense as Mohler et al. And it does have its uses since many a divorced woman swears that she was formerly married to a mutant.

ishy: I have to admit I totally don’t get the complementarian argument for roles based on Genesis 3. It’s clearly a curse. They will talk about men being cursed in those verses, but for the women, it’s God’s “design”. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I also do not think this is an area where we should “agree to disagree”. It seems like the people who say stuff like that about complementarianism to me are always men.

It’s easy for YOU to agree to disagree because you can do whatever you want as a man in the church. The way Christian men in complementarian circles treat women can be truly atrocious and often no other man will stand up and say something about it. That’s wrong.

And Piper rings a bell to call his wife to bring him tea. Sorry, but I think men like Piper think being benevolent includes their wife waiting on them hand and foot.

I agree. With all of it.

As for the wonky Genesis interpretation – the complementarian men will always make themselves exempt and hold these wacko interpretations to uphold the idea that men controlling women is “biblical.”

They get to have their cake and eat it too. They don’t have to live by the same rules they put women under.

Tandt,

There are plenty of other non-complementarian papers and articles addressing that same passage, such as:
DEFUSING THE 1 TIMOTHY 2:12 BOMB
http://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/

Complementarians are the ones who tend to ignore cultural context and are guilty of eisgesis.

Irene:
To me, it doesn’t sound like the commentators here understand feminism as it is taught in state universities. They do not teach equal respect, but women taking all the power. In case you don’t believe me check out what Canadian philosopher and professor Jordan Peterson says about it.

A funhouse-mirror genderflip version of Comp Patriarchy.
“I am Me and He is She and We Are All Rule 63’d.”
Like Communism & Objectivism — total opposites on the surface, identical beneath.
“No Right, No Wrong, Only POWER.”

Lea: Comments are a dumpster fire of course:
“Good thing my wife belongs to me, not my pastor, that I’m her head. I don’t have any problem telling her or her rude, disrespectful, intrusive friends no.”

And complementarians expect single women such as myself to want to marry complementarian men why, exactly?

I’m okay with either remaining single, or marrying a considerate atheist or perhaps marrying an egalitarian Christian man.

Great job at killing single complementarian men’s chances at getting wives, comps! You comps are a perpetual-single making factory.

You make marriage look terrible for women, so of course they’re not going to want to opt in and marry a male comp.

Irene:
To me, it doesn’t sound like the commentators here understand feminism as it is taught in state universities. They do not teach equal respect, but women taking all the power. In case you don’t believe me check out what Canadian philosopher and professor Jordan Peterson says about it.

I believe Rush Limbaugh originally coined the term “Feminazi” to refer to this type of X-Treme Feminism. (But since then, broadened it to mean “any broad who doesn’t agree with me”.

I call it “Female Supremacist” (funhouse-mirror genderflip of “Male Supremacist”).

And the Male Supremacists can point to such Female Supremacists to justify anything they do in return.
“It’s Us or Them. Kill or Be Killed, Eat or Be Eaten.”

Daisy: Great job at killing single complementarian men’s chances at getting wives, comps! You comps are a perpetual-single making factory.

You make marriage look terrible for women, so of course they’re not going to want to opt in and marry a male comp.

That’s what Patriarch-arranged Christian Courtship(TM) is for.
Such men can only get married if the women have absolutely NO choice in the matter.

I Fear A Cage:
It’s really hard to view comps as harmless and people I must just agree to disagree peaceably with when comp is literally something that affects almost every area of a woman’s life, while men benefit from it. I’m a 3rd generation preacher’s kid. I’ve seen how it works. I know the drill. And I know who really benefits. I want no part whatsoever of it.

With that backstory, your handle “I Fear a Cage” is very appropriate.

Victorious: Notice the first few words of verse 11 that are routinely ignored….”Let the woman (singular) learn….” so she will not be deceived. Women in that culture were not allowed to sit at the feet of teachers as the men were so Paul is encouraging this. That’s what makes the story of Martha and Mary so encouraging since Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus in a position of learning

I love the way you linked the two…let the woman learn. [so she can go on to teach, perhaps? Like Pricilla]

Geoff Smith: So it’s not a wise tactic to say that the word has been erroneously translated. Besides, “in a quiet fashion” doesn’t go very far to remove the basic problem that I Timothy 2 presents.

How about “the word has been erroneously emphasized?” It is, as I mentioned and I’m sure you’re aware, being used to silence women in the church in whatever scenario determined by those in authority.

I am convinced that there are many so-called-commands about women that are words written to Paul from those newly converted Judaizers who are used to the laws and regulations practiced in synagogues. Paul quotes their concerns and responds to their letters by emphasizing the freedom from those legal, oppressive, and unjust practices.

I’ve read that Paul used what’s called an “expletive of dissociation” by Greek scholars. The word would be translated “What?!” or “Nonsense!” or “No Way!!” today. Apparently it’s used in the following verses in 1 Cor. alone:

1 Cor. 1:13; 1 Cor. 6:2; 1 Cor.6:9; 1 Cor. 6:16; 1 Cor. 6:19; 1 Cor. 7:16; 1 Cor. 9:6; 1 Cor. 9:7; 1 Cor. 9:8; 1 Cor. 9:10; 1 Cor. 10:22; 1 Cor. 11:22; and 1 Cor. 14:36

In other words, Paul is refuting many of the issues causing confusion in the church of Corinth. Knowing this, many of the verses being taught as mandates, are actually being refuted by Paul as erroneous.

Irene: To me, it doesn’t sound like the commentators here understand feminism as it is taught in state universities. They do not teach equal respect, but women taking all the power. In case you don’t believe me check out what Canadian philosopher and professor Jordan Peterson says about it.

Really Irene? The guy who thinks makeup means a woman is basically asking for it??? Sheesh.

What university did you go to, where you took a class in ‘feminism’ and learned this?

The only time I have seen women talk about taking over is of the ‘why don’t we try it this way for the next 500 years or so, just to even things out’ variety. Which is an obvious joke.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): along with a German chocolate cake …….

Oooh…I think there may only be a couple state between us…

Geoff Smith,

There is a link in the article if you would like to take your concern directly to Wade. He may well have a response for you.

Irene: In case you don’t believe me check out what Canadian philosopher and professor Jordan Peterson says about it.

Peterson is sexist.

Peterson came out with some comments (I think this was in a New York Times piece) suggesting that women (and feminism) are to blame for the violence sprees of “Incels.”

Ergo, Peterson seemed to suggest in the interview that women should be forced (by whom, the government in each nation?) to marry off all these “incel” guys.

(Doesn’t matter what the women want.)

But then, after much push back over this, Peterson claimed he was misunderstood and tried to walk back his comments.

Peterson then began saying that culture should encourage monogamy, and that should help the sexist Incels to get dates and wives.

Peterson basically blames women for the sins and flaws of men – just as your average complementarian does.

Jordan Peterson’s moment of fame — and the dangers of patriarchal pseudoscience
https://www.salon.com/2018/05/22/jordan-petersons-moment-of-fame-and-the-dangers-of-patriarchal-pseudoscience/

I would be very wary of appealing to Peterson to make anti-feminist points, as he has his own set of issues.

Victorious,

In my own personal experience, there are some women (men, too) that need to remain silent in the churches. There are also some women (men, too) who should be heard.

Daisy: Going by their interpretation of “help,” that would mean God is a lesser, weaker being, only there to act at the bidding of Israel, like make Israel sandwiches, because that’s all God is good for.

By the by. (This is especially for Irene and Lydia if she is still on this thread.)

Be super careful when fighting the extremes of liberal / secular feminism who you choose to quote on that score.

I say that because some of the “anti feminists” you quote are anti- equality for women.

Peterson, who Irene uses as a resource, may speak to the excesses of liberalism and feminism, but, he does not fully and truly support the equality of women.

Peterson mostly supports sexist assumptions and gender stereotypes about women to bolster his points-

Peterson defends the status quo, (which would have men in charge, since they always have been in charge of women and culture), and he thinks feminists (and all women) would be happier to just let men lead, because that’s what men are good at and more adept at, by doggies.

One time on Twitter, Lydia RT (re tweeted) a tweet by some guy who was saying that some women just want a man’s wallet, so he was saying that women can be just as bad as men are.

(That RT showed up in my Daisy Twitter feed.)

Okay, when I sent that guy a tweet describing how most of my female family have been the victims of male gold-diggers (including myself, my ex took financial advantage of me of years, for many thousands of dollars)…

That guy Lydia RT replied to me by suggesting I was lying, and he, and maybe one other guy friend of his, started lobbing sexist comments at me like, “why don’t you go make me a sandwich.”

Just because a man (or woman) critiques secular feminist over-reach does NOT mean that individual is “pro-woman.”

A lot of the men (and some women) who speak out against feminism online (to defend men) are sexist, they are members of “M.R.A.” (Men’s Rights) type groups who perceive women as being threats.

These are not the people you want to go to in order to find arguments against the errors of militant feminism.

Some of the people tweeting or writing books about militant feminism actually dislike women (they don’t even like “softer” forms of feminism):

They like sexism just fine, they argue against equality for women, they claim that sexism in Western nations is over-stated, etc. – they are part of the problem.

Those types of secular critics of liberal feminism are very much like the “softer” gender complementarians.

Soft Gender Comps aren’t overtly abusive to women and don’t strike or beat women or openly defend such behavior, but, they still favor a scheme that favors men over women and keeps women oppressed, and they try to use the Bible to justify it.

Daisy: Lately, complementarians are posing complementarianism as a “cure” for “gender confusion.”

I wrote a blog post on my own blog mentioning that complementarianism actually creates gender confusion for some people, it does not erase it or clarify gender.

Gender complementarianism in its present form has been around for about four decades, but it’s not eroded or prevented the rise of transgenderism and etc, so why they think their comp is going to fix stuff like that now, I have no idea.

Some guy at Julie Anne’s blog thinks (naively) that doubling down on complementarianism will halt or cut down on sexism in churches, even ones that are already very firm on believing in and teaching complementarianism.

I’ve tried explaining to that guy at Julie Ann’s SSB blog ’til I am blue in the face that if complementarianism did not help fight sexism before the “me too” and “church too” movement etc, (but actually contributes to it, which it does!), doubling down on complementarianism is not going to fix it.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results each time.

I think it causes more gender confusion. My husband is a chatty, emotionally intelligent, with a more sensitive personality, who has an eye for colors and decor, hates sports, will not hunt for sport & loves classical music. That went over really well growing up in a gothard/ATI/hard comp background.

Samuel Conner:
One of the things that I find disheartening (but also clarifying) in the current arguments in favor of various forms of hierarchy in the churches (gender-based hierarchy is not the only one) is that while it is true that there is a discernible super-/sub-ordination relation in the archetypes that the hierarchists point to (God over the Creation, or Christ over the Church), these hierarchies have a strong, perhaps dominant, component of “self-giving love” that seems to be consistently overlooked in the arguments in favor of super-/sub-ordination in the churches and in other realms.

God gives Himself to His creation — all the “communicable attributes” present in the world come from God. He labors on its behalf, sustaining it in existence, “holding all things together”.

Christ gives Himself to and for the Church.

It’s a hierarchy of self-giving love.

Why don’t we hear more about this from complementarians?

It is given lip service in the phrase “servant leadership”.

Daisy–ok! Forget that I mentioned Peterson. Do you understand (or agree) that the universities are teaching militant feminism, which is different than saying everyone deserves respect (I agree) or that you would like women to use their gifts in the church (I agree) or even that you would like the head pastor of a church to be a woman (I disagree with that)? I would like us to define what we are talking about here.

I Fear A Cage: I think it causes more gender confusion. My husband is a chatty, emotionally intelligent, with a more sensitive personality, who has an eye for colors and decor, hates sports, will not hunt for sport & loves classical music. That went over really well growing up in a gothard/ATI/hard comp background.

That is one of the main points I have in my blog post about this.

Comps define “biblical manhood” or “biblical womanhood” to mean such specific things that if one falls outside those parameters, it leads to confusion.

Comps tend to define girl to mean “one who likes to wear the color pink, hold pretend tea parties and play with Barbies.”

That was the definition I received as a girl growing up in complementarian churches and in a comp family. Problem is, I was a tom boy. I hated pink and did not care for Barbies and tea parties.

Because I did not live up to the Christian box of “girl” it made me feel as though there was something wrong with me, and I had failed God.

There is more than one way to be a girl, and it does not have to be the complementarian way.

Their stifling definitions of “boy” and “girl” can cause boys and girls who don’t fit to feel left out and confused.

Point number six on a church website’s “our distinctives” page:

Family is a focal point. Property and buildings are intentionally “men friendly” because the family and church are strongest when men are present and leading.

Daisy: I tend to do all the listening and consoling, but the minute I go to these same people months later needing to talk about me or some problem I was having, they’d make up excuses and leave, or avoid my calls, etc.

They’re selfish, that’s all. I hope you find some people in your life who aren’t, Daisy.

Lea, I challenge you to look at University of Oregon’s Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. I assure you, this is not a joke about women taking a turn running things.

Irene: Do you understand (or agree) that the universities are teaching militant feminism

I mean, I went to a university and they didn’t teach me any ‘militant’ feminism. I am sure someone, somewhere is teaching something dumb about every subject imaginable though. I don’t think it’s too relevant to this thread.

refugee: Perhaps, then, they see themselves in a position to give instructions to God.

I mean, even in their example…didn’t GOD give the instructions to Adam???

These guys are illogical and their arguments are based solely in their emotions 😉

Daisy: And complementarians expect single women such as myself to want to marry complementarian men why, exactly?

I’m okay with either remaining single, or marrying a considerate atheist or perhaps marrying an egalitarian Christian man.

Great job at killing single complementarian men’s chances at getting wives, comps! You comps are a perpetual-single making factory.

You make marriage look terrible for women, so of course they’re not going to want to opt in and marry a male comp.

To answer your initial question: Because you’re only a woman who doesn’t know what’s best for you. It’s okay, though. They’re right here, ready and willing to tell you how to live your life, down to the smallest detail, if necessary.

In total agreement that they make marriage look totally unpalatable. (However, all they have to do is point to the verses about suffering for the sake of Christ… there! All better!)

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of brainwashed women out there who think they have no choice. Thus, the system perpetuates itself.

refugee: In total agreement that they make marriage look totally unpalatable. (However, all they have to do is point to the verses about suffering for the sake of Christ… there! All better!)

Then they tell you marriage is to make you ‘holy’ not ‘happy’. Which sound fun.

*whichever, not who ever…

Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

No, but when Paul speaks/writes apostolically, he speaks authoritatively on the Lord Jesus’ behalf. “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope….” So *I* do not permit isn’t Paul’s private opinion. At the same time, I should say that this does not make the complementarians right! It’s just not the right hill on which to stand, etc.

My blockquote got a little messed up…

Geoff Smith:
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

No, but when Paul speaks/writes apostolically, he speaks authoritatively on the Lord Jesus’ behalf. “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope….” So *I* do not permit isn’t Paul’s private opinion. At the same time, I should say that this does not make the complementarians right! It’s just not the right hill on which to stand, etc.

Apparently, “Greet your brothers with a holy kiss…” isn’t he right hill on which to stand, either.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): I guess you can’ be holy if you’re not married

Well if that means I get to be happy…tradeoffs?

Just throwing this out there with all the language talk, but in Greek an equally valid translation could be “I am not permitting…” which implies the injunction may only be temporary and not timeless. Also the word for Authority should be translated in a way that conveys force or violence, such as “Usurp Authority.” One of the big problems with Bible translations is how political the process is. Lifeway doesn’t even sell NRSV translations because of the gender neutral language, and they effectively destroyed the 2011 NIV for the same reason. Some verses continue to be translated a certain way, because that’s how it’s always been done. And the most of the major translations are done by evangelicals. Make no doubt, they are good translations, but they are all flawed in some respects.

It seems to be that the comp side has been so much more vocal and prolific with their message. Also, the comp interpretation is the traditional one, which means it is the interpretation our parents, grandparents, and great-great-great grandparents were familiar with. That may hold a lot of sway for some people.

Preacher’s Wife,

“But, one positive (maybe the only one) is that Piper does spend most of his time in that first chapter talking about how men need to be kind and not authoritative. He actually avoids the word authority. It doesn’t negate the message and the flawed logic behind nearly every page, though.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

nice-sounding, perhaps. but subjugation with kindness is still subjugation. bah! (an edited-down sound of my feelings)

i think most of them are very saavy and coy (we could say, manipulative) with what they really believe versus how they present it. (of course a few of them are real clodhoppers)

Lydia: I also get your concern about Replacement Theology. It makes me very uncomfortable.

Same here, I reject it (replacement theology) too. There are also fundagelical sects who go whole hog in the other direction, even to the point of trying to breed a perfect red heifer for the new temple in Jerusalem.

Preacher’s Wife,

“Everything I have read from Complementarians is always so full of fear. I don’t understand what they are afraid of. It doesn’t quite feel like regular legalism (if I don’t do A, B, and C I’m going to hell), it’s like they somehow really think society will completely collapse.”
++++++++++++++++++++++

i think they are afraid.

i think it boils down to fear of losing their comfort zone.

i think their comfort zone is located in their ego and their libido.

the 2 bullet points are fear of woman and fear of homosexuality.

doctrine invention to the rescue! complementarianism is a nice and tidy way to control everyone else to preserve their comfort zone. what a racket.

elastigirl: the 2 bullet points are fear of woman and fear of homosexuality.

Because homosexuality is about as un-manly-man as you can get.
Because a bigger, stronger, more dominant, more Manly Man can use you like you use a woman.

(I have a longer essay explaining male supremacy’s love-hate relationship with male homosexuality, but every time I try to post the comment it vanishes into the void.)

Meanwhile, my daughter just came in singing “Father Abraham had many sons…” I stopped her and we had a discussion about why it’s better to sing “Father Abraham had many kids…” and that it might take awhile, but eventually it would catch on at church.

elastigirl,

Oh man, RBM&W literally says that if you don’t model their version of masculinity and femininity then your kids will be gender confused and/or gay and they heavily implied feminism leads directly to lesbianism. What!? How is this still a thing! Again, this book is sooooooo bad!

FW Rez: Point number six on a church website’s “our distinctives” page:
Family is a focal point. Property and buildings are intentionally “men friendly” because the family and church are strongest when men are present and leading.

And that means zippo to women like me who’ve never been married and never had children.

And there are more and more never married/ childless adults in American society as time marches on. They really ought to figure out how to appeal to singles not just married guys with kids.

okrapod: That said, I believe there should be laws permitting assisted suicide as well as actual euthanasia when required. I do not believe that gratuitous suffering is a religious virtue. Unavoidable suffering for a cause, sure Suffering due to persecution, sure. Suffering just because we cannot cure this or that-yet-no. This is one place where I differ with the RCC. If suffering for its own sake is good, then we should not be trying to cure things in the first place. That latter, of course, has been an idea taken up by some individuals from time to time in the name of religion. No. Just no.

Well said okrapod, and I shout AMEN from the back pew.
Shmuley Boteach says pretty much the same thing; suffering sold as a good thing, is a concoction conjured up by Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant variants).

Boteach’s essay can be read here:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/religions-must-repellent-idea_b_2478914.html

Wade, please correct me if I am wrong. I read your previous post on “The Woman Error in 1 Timothy 2:12” that you referenced in this post. You make the point that there is a definite article before the word “woman” in both v. 11 and v. 12, and before the word “man” in v. 12. You state, “The definitive article “the” is in the original Greek (i.e., the woman) not the unfortunate “a” woman (NIV, NASB).” This then allows you to translate it “the woman, and the man,” thus making your point that it is about a specific woman and specific man, and not men and women in general. I am reading the Nestle Aland 26th and 27th editions, and that is categorically not the case. All three of the references (twice to the woman, and once to the man) are anarthrous. There is no article present. Can you explain this please. Thank you.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar):
Lea,

Feminism ….,, Just another word that has been twisted and redefined .,,

My Dear Wormwood,

I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics, specifically the redefinition of the Enemy’s words into their “diablolical meanings”.

Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape

P.S. Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of the Enemy’s altar!

Lea: I don’t know that I ever saw the original cartoons, but man I loved the toys! I had the stable too.

When I was 10 yo, I had my own, real pony ……. a stud Shetland. I would disappear into the bottom-land woods for hours ……. always riding bareback …… Tonto, going it alone … always winning.

okrapod: I think that Paul was speaking with apostolic authority, but that does not mean that the statement was not culture and time specific to that circumstance. Such a statement might have a totally different meaning and impact now and here. Or not.

When we find a statement of Paul’s that obviously contradicts another of the same topic, both require further study. If Paul was advocating (actual) silence for women in 1 Timothy but advocating orderly worship by each contributing their gift in an assembly (1 Cor. 14:26), we know one is being interpreting incorrectly.

When those who advocate husbands’ authority over wives ignore 1 Cor. 7 where Paul clearly teaches mutual authority for both. One is obviously contradicting the other or one is speaking to a particular situation for resolution and not meant to be a forever principle for every situation.

As I mentioned previously, it’s important to understand and evaluate Paul’s words in light of the letters he is responding to for clarification. Unfortunately, many of those questions have no quotes which would make it easier to understand, but a study can be done rather easily to determine those instances i.e.

1Cor. 7:1  Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Headless Unicorn Guy: We had a guy in local Furry Fandom who was infamous for that — except in-person, not over-the-phone.

He would do it in person too, but he was only there rarely and usually we would just let him talk.

Nice guy, but I was very glad the day I realized when I was ready to go I could just start talking about myself for a sec!

Victorious: If Paul was advocating (actual) silence for women in 1 Timothy but advocating orderly worship by each contributing their gift in an assembly (1 Cor. 14:26), we know one is being interpreting incorrectly.

And have we not heard multiple possible explanations for that situation. All I know for sure is that they can’t all be right.

refugee: To answer your initial question: Because you’re only a woman who doesn’t know what’s best for you. It’s okay, though. They’re right here, ready and willing to tell you how to live your life, down to the smallest detail, if necessary.
In total agreement that they make marriage look totally unpalatable. (However, all they have to do is point to the verses about suffering for the sake of Christ… there! All better!)

I left that bubble a long time ago.

Every so often, I chat with an older Christian lady from my dad’s church. She’s quite nice in many ways, but is still living in that bubble which can make it awkward or frustrating to talk with her at times.

Avid Reader: By the way, let’s not go from one extreme to the other. No one is suggesting that churches should have only female leadership. All we want is for each person to develop the gifting that God gave them.

I am always mystified by people who think because I rant and rail against complementarianism that I must hate all men or I want women to rule over men.

Which I don’t.

I’ve actually spent more time on these blogs discussing how women have let me down. (I have verbally abusive women family members and friends I’ve discussed, and one of my worst bosses ever was a woman.)

I sure as heck don’t want a matriarchy, where women rule all men, but I’m not a supporter of patriarchy or its watered-down brother, complementarianism, either.

Beakerj: I agree with this. I think who mention ‘militant feminists’ or ‘liberal feminists’ are taking a few on the extreme edge & acting as though this is what all who claim the label feminist are like.

I mention that in one post on my blog.
Part of the problem with conservatives (of which I am one myself) is a lot of them don’t go to the primary sources, but rely on second-hand summaries of what feminists believe.

Conservatives will tune in or read stuff by Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and other prominent conservatives.

These conservative media guys either mis-characterize or mis-understand what liberal feminists are saying,
OR, they will cherry- pick the most crack-pot, wacko femnists with the most crazy or extreme opinions they can find, and parade them on their shows, as if to suggest that such crack pots are representative of all feminists.

Of course, liberal news sites are just as bad. I’e seen them do the same thing to conservatives.

That’s why it pays to get out of your own bubble (regardless of which side you’re on), and read straight from the horse’s mouth. Don’t merely rely on your favorite right or left wing blogs or news sites.

Once I started reading liberal feminist writers first hand for myself (not regurgitated by Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, etc) I came to see that they’re not as looney as they’re all made out to be.

I don’t agree with liberal feminists on everything, but they’re reasonable on some topics.

ishy: Do you understand or agree that many Christian colleges or seminaries are teaching militant patriarchy? Both of the ones I attended are. And they use the word “complementarianism”, which is often argued by soft comps that isn’t the right definition.

Even the complementarians who are supposedly doing comp right (according to comps) such as Paige Patterson at the Southern Baptist seminary was participating in cover ups of rapes of Christian women students by Christian men students.

Headless Unicorn Guy: The secular universities teach Female Supremacy and the Christian colleges teach Male Supremacy.

The Christian colleges that teach male supremacy tend to teach it all over the place in mandatory bible classes and chapel and so on and so forth as I understand it.

Meanwhile I went four years without ever sitting through a feminist theory class, as I suspect do most college students.

I don’t think these are at all equivalent in impact.

Preacher’s Wife: Everything I have read from Complementarians is always so full of fear. I don’t understand what they are afraid of. It doesn’t quite feel like regular legalism (if I don’t do A, B, and C I’m going to hell), it’s like they somehow really think society will completely collapse. Which is weird, because so many of these guys are neo-Calvinists. It’s like, “once saved, always saved, unless a woman is teaching, then we’re all going to hell.”

Love this! And so right on, about Calvinists’ inability to actually live out what they claim to believe. If everything is predetermined and ordained, what’s there to sweat over? Even if those ‘evil’ women grasp power, didn’t God ordain them to do so?

Daisy: Even the complementarians who are supposedly doing comp right (according to comps) such as Paige Patterson at the Southern Baptist seminary was participating in cover ups of rapes of Christian women students by Christian men students.

I heard that story about the abused woman with my own ears during that time…

Another predatory pastor is brought into the Light with his misdeeds: https://meighanmaia.wixsite.com/blog/blog/silenced-no-more

Even though there is deletion on twitter and the church website, he shows up in a video on Liberty Church Network: “Doing Life with Pastors”.

Muff Potter: Same here, I reject it (replacement theology) too. There are also fundagelical sects who go whole hog in the other direction, even to the point of trying to breed a perfect red heifer for the new temple in Jerusalem.

And as I noted at Interent Monk some three weeks ago, said fundagelicals open themselves up for manipulation by the Israeli government (who are themselves in Survival Mode).
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/80663#comment-1112850

“IT’S IN REVELATIONS, PEOPLE!”

ishy: However, they seem to give special dispensation for leaders to make big errors that they do not make any allowance for in members. So I don’t think many of those leaders really believe it all. I think they just covet that feeling of absolute authority.

And being the Ones on Top Holding the Whip.

ishy: jyjames:
Another predatory pastor is brought into the Light with his misdeeds: https://meighanmaia.wixsite.com/blog/blog/silenced-no-more

I read that story. It sounded exactly like grooming to me. Super creepy!

Not just “sounded like”, Ishi.

That was reminiscent of the chat logs on “To Catch a Predator”:

“I’m Chris Hansen, Dateline NBC, and we’re doing a series on men who cruise the Net for sex with underage teens.”

Daisy,

I wanted to respectfully disagree with your take on Peterson. I’m not sure why. I’ve found his take on the Bible particularly helpful. Reading certain things metaphorically or archetypically as he advocates has helped me stay engaged with the Bible rather than just walking away.

Let me start by saying, if I shared your interpretation of what he is saying, I would not want anything to do with it either. That would be disgusting. I don’t think that is what is going on. If you still disagree after this, that is perfectly fine with me. Also, I could be wrong. He could be a bad, sexist guy. I don’t thinks so, but again, I could be wrong.

Peterson is a follower of Karl Jung, whose theory of psychology was about archetypes. Think of 100 people coming up with a story about a brave man. Then 100 groups combining these stories. Then 100 of these groups combining these stories. That would lead to an archetypal story of bravery. What I think Peterson is saying is that in myths and stories across culture, society is represented by male characters and nature is represented by female characters. Society can protect you, but it can also be a tyranny. Nature gives you life, but it also is chaotic and can kill you. That isn’t to say men and women are all this way, but that these ideas are represented in myths and stories by men and women. Peterson thinks that when people call the university system, for instance, a patriarchy that needs to be torn down, what they are saying is that they want to tear down society. Sometimes society needs to be torn down, when it is a tyranny, but sometimes it is an important structure that protects us.

In reference to “enforced monogamy,” that is a term of art in anthropology that refers to a societal incentive system that values monogamy over promiscuity. I know I would never want to force anyone to marry, but I do think monogamy is better for society than promiscuity or polyamory.

The Daily Caller article was funny to me. It is basically saying, “Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand Christianity like I do, therefore he isn’t one.” It reminds me of a scene from Parks and Rec where some people are arguing that Twilight is too Christian, and others are arguing that it isn’t Christian enough. I’m interested in what someone has to say when they are in that weird middle place where there are accusations from both sides.

One final point and then I’ll shut up. What really frustrates me about Peterson and in conversation in general is how our experience shapes so much of what we say. It seems like guys like Peterson talk like they live in a world where fundamentalist evangelicalism doesn’t exist, and in a way they do. Peterson lives in Toronto and has taught at Harvard and the University of Toronto. How many evangelicals does this guy actually know? 10? Many people who comment here grew up in evangelical churches, so we can’t imagine a world in which evangelicals don’t exist, even though there aren’t actually that many of us in the world. This shapes our perspective in certain ways. Looking around me in the large, state university that I teach in, I don’t see a ton of evidence of patriarchy. But when I look in an evangelical church, I see it ALL OVER THE PLACE. I don’t know if it is actually possible for people not to look at there experience and extrapolate it out for all of humanity. It may be something we can’t overcome. That is what someone like Jonathan Haidt thinks for instance. Haidt says that the only solution is to constantly be talking to people we disagree with. I try to do this as much as I can, and when I do it in a genuine way, I find myself better off for it.

Muff Potter: Well said okrapod, and I shout AMEN from the back pew.
Shmuley Boteach says pretty much the same thing; suffering sold as a good thing, is a concoction conjured up by Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant variants).
Boteach’s essay can be read here:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/religions-must-repellent-idea_b_2478914.html

Thanks for this! I have fought with this idea in my mind for a long time. The worst was when I was in biblical counseling.

I don’t think anyone actually acts on the idea to get more suffering, they just tell other people to.

Daisy: Part of the problem with conservatives (of which I am one myself) is a lot of them don’t go to the primary sources, but rely on second-hand summaries of what feminists believe.

Conservatives will tune in or read stuff by Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and other prominent conservatives.

Just another example of the Media Echo Chamber effect.

And with today’s Social Media, it’s possible to go for years in your own little Echo Chamber without ever encountering anyone who doesn’t Agree Completely With You.

Preacher’s Wife: One of the big problems with Bible translations is how political the process is. Lifeway doesn’t even sell NRSV translations because of the gender neutral language, and they effectively destroyed the 2011 NIV for the same reason.

The problem really isn’t the translations, the problem is that the churches do not teach how we are supposed to read the Bible. Reading the Bible isn’t just about reading the words. It isn’t just about knowing the context in which it was written. It isn’t about reading the commentaries written by others. The only way to truly understand the Bible, is to read it with the Holy Spirit. I grew up with the KJV and I still prefer it, but even though that is a “conservative” translation, I am an egalitarian because I read the words in consultation with God. We believe that the words were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so we should only read them under the Spirit’s guidance.

However, many churches are afraid of Holy Spirit and have seemingly removed that part of the Holy Trinity from the equation. They don’t want the Spirit to cause trouble and upset their hierarchy and authoritarianism. Which is NOT the historical position of Baptists, that believes in the priesthood of ALL believers, with the only hierarchical position being the head of the Church, which is Christ. And, Christ leads and speaks to us through the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is important, but too many raise up the Bible, almost to the point of ideology. The Bible is the inspired word of God, but the Spirit IS God.

elastigirl: they are afraid the text will be demonstrated fallible and errant.

Yes. I think they are afraid if they question anything their faith will go.

LeRoy: In following a link he provided regarding an article he wrote on 1 Tim. 2:11-12, I believe he is incorrect on his insistence on the direct article. Would someone with some expertise check this?

I have no expertise, but it is easy enough to find an interlinear on line, and it looks like ‘a’ and ‘the’ are not actual words in the greek but are added by the translator, I suppose either because of some grammatical necessity by some greek grammar rule or else because that made sense to the translator.

I do think that under the circumstances somebody who is an authority on greek grammar needs to explain that to the general public one way or the other if an issue is going to made of it for doctrinal purposes.

Max: “Gender Roles Not An Essential of the Christian Faith”

Several years ago as the New Calvinist movement penetrated SBC ranks, the infamous Dr. Mohler suggested that a “theological triage” be used in the SBC to distinguish the “essentials” of faith within the denomination. Such triage would be used like emergency responders do in a disaster to prioritize primary, secondary and tertiary victims needing attention. Dr. Al, of course, was trying to get Southern Baptists of different theological persuasions to focus on essentials, rather than debating non-essentials such as non-Calvinist vs. Calvinist beliefs … it was a diversionary tactic. It was an interesting way to look at things, but he didn’t list soteriology (God’s plan of salvation) as a first level theological issue in his triage! As a non-Calvinist whosoever-will sort of guy, I would place God’s plan of salvation at the top of the list of Christian priorities – Jesus did, it’s called the Great Commission.

Where would TWW readers place gender roles in a theological triage? The New Calvinists are acting like the “beauty of complimentarity” is at the top of their list of essentials, just below authoritarian patriarchal control of the church.

https://albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/

That is pretty sobering, even for someone with few illusions left of anything Calvinist. This whole thing is really as bad as it looks. I find myself at a loss for words, as I think how few people would believe what is really at work here.

Headless Unicorn Guy: AKA “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN!”

Though Tandt’s accompanying quote really should be “quotes” plural. A full-auto barrage of Bible Bullets worthy of a Calvary Chapelite, doubleplusduckspeaked like an MP3 playback loop. THAT automatically sets off all the alarms.

Or as a friend used to put it, “So, when dem folks are done beatin’ one another bloody with their bibles, who cleans up the mess?”

Victorious: I am convinced that there are many so-called-commands about women that are words written to Paul from those newly converted Judaizers who are used to the laws and regulations practiced in synagogues. Paul quotes their concerns and responds to their letters by emphasizing the freedom from those legal, oppressive, and unjust practices.

I’ve read that Paul used what’s called an “expletive of dissociation” by Greek scholars. The word would be translated “What?!” or “Nonsense!” or “No Way!!” today. Apparently it’s used in the following verses in 1 Cor. alone:

1 Cor. 1:13; 1 Cor. 6:2; 1 Cor.6:9; 1 Cor. 6:16; 1 Cor. 6:19; 1 Cor. 7:16; 1 Cor. 9:6; 1 Cor. 9:7; 1 Cor. 9:8; 1 Cor. 9:10; 1 Cor. 10:22; 1 Cor. 11:22; and 1 Cor. 14:36

In other words, Paul is refuting many of the issues causing confusion in the church of Corinth. Knowing this, many of the verses being taught as mandates, are actually being refuted by Paul as erroneous.

This is not only very likely, it makes the most sense out of passages that otherwise make no sense. And yet conservatives have been brainwashed that such ‘possibilities’ are merely attempts to avoid the commands of scripture by God-hating liberals. Trust me, I’ve heard the line a hundred times. It is pretty impossible to have a reasonable discussion about serious reasons for re-examining what you have been told with people who have been caustically set against others.

And to think, should this be the case, today’s comp/conservatives are basically pushing the very ideas Paul was rejecting. Try getting them to consider that and see how far you get.

okrapod,

Not an expert in Greek grammar, but I have finished my Greek and Hebrew Language requirements for my MDiv and I think I can answer this question. Granted, I have not read Wade’s linked article yet, so I really don’t know what exactly he’s arguing. Greek has a definite article (the), but no indefinite article (a, an). Typically if a word does not have any article in Greek you could provide and indefinite article in English. So in John 1 of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible it says “the Word was a God” instead of “the Word was God.” It’s a technically plausible translation. Typically, you would never add a definite article if in wasn’t there in the Greek. What is odd about this passage in 1 Timothy is that Paul begins talking about women, plural, then in vs 11 he suddenly switches to woman, singular. Some argue that because of the situation in Ephesus Paul is singling out a particular woman is assuming and grasping authority and teaching heresy. There is no definite article there, but it would make a lot of sense if there was one. Others assume that Paul is talking about Womankind and therefore this is a universal command. Frankly, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is a strange text and I have not yet read two scholars that completely agree, so I would not exactly put all my eggs in this particular basket.

elastigirl: –they are afraid the text will be demonstrated fallible and errant.

That really is too bad. My faith in Jesus of Nazareth and belief in his supernatural agency stands on its own merits. I do not require an inerrant and infallible Bible, nor do I require some iron-clad Euclidean style proof.
It’s simply what I choose to believe of my own volition.

Irene,

There are egalitarian sites out there which discuss that passage and many others that come up frequently in complementarian debates.

http://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/

Daisy: In the 1980s, he wrote a few more similar books, in one of them, he was predicting that the U.S.S.R. would usher in the end times. We’re now in 2018, and there is no USSR, and we’re all still here.

Ya’ gotta love ol’ Hal anyways. He’s still pluggin’ away and pitchin’ on Daystar (fundagelical tv). Prolly’ still makin’ some decent bucks too!

SBC Says Women Not Barred From Presidency, Pastor Dwight McKissic Suggests Beth Moore
https://www.christianpost.com/news/sbc-says-women-not-barred-from-presidency-pastor-dwight-mckissic-suggests-beth-moore-224745/

So when will you be running for SBC President, Deb? 🙂

Irene,

Starting in vs 11, it could legitimately read, “Let a woman learn in quietness and all submissiveness. But I am not permitting a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, but to be in quietness.” It’s not a big difference by any means. For me, “I am not permitting” could imply that one day Paul will permit or that perhaps in other places he is. To the best of my limited knowledge, there is nothing in the Greek to indicate which English form to use since Greek doesn’t differentiate between simple present and present continuous. Also, Paul is not negating authority of any kind, but the overbearing totalitarian kind. Secular writings of the time used this word to refer to people who bullied or coerced others. He’s also not dictating silence; but a quiet manner. So, the whole verse isn’t necessarily quite as stark and cut and dry as it’s been presented to me before. All that to say, our English translations are phenomenal translations of a 2000 year old text. But a committee full of Western, white, evangelical men, is still going to have a certain world view and bias. Just like I have as a Western, white, “liberal” woman.

Right now my husband is studying and teaching Romans, and if you haven’t heard there’s been a bit of a dust up between Piper and his band of Reformers and N.T. Wright, Dunn, and Sanders over the New Perspective of Paul (which is a misnomer, since it is really just a 1st century version of Paul, but it’s kind of a long explanation for a comment on a blog). Anyway, Romans is hotly contested and a lot of the popular translations, especially NIV and sometimes ESV, have a definite slant in the way they translate some stuff. It’s frustrating, but it’s illustrative of how translations can have agendas.

It is really easy to find interlinears and language resources online, my favorite Greek and Hebrew resources are:
http://biblewebapp.com/study/
and
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/2-12.htm

elastigirl:
Jarrett Edwards,

“The only way to truly understand the Bible, is to read it with the Holy Spirit.”
+++++++++++++++++

the problem is that every pastor, every church, every denomination, every translating team believes they are reading it with the Holy Spirit.

But, they clearly aren’t when they teach that you must come to the same conclusions that they have. While I do believe that the scripture is everlasting and unchanging, I don’t believe that the meaning of each verse is universal. It is the Holy Spirit that guides us on how to apply a scripture to our lives. And, how the Spirit moves me to apply a scripture to my life might be entirely different than how the Spirit would guide you to apply the same verse to your life.

Muff Potter,

“–they are afraid the text will be demonstrated fallible and errant.”

“That really is too bad.My faith in Jesus of Nazareth and belief in his supernatural agency stands on its own merits. I do not require an inerrant and infallible Bible, nor do I require some iron-clad Euclidean style proof.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

i fantasize about an undeniable discovery, like an alien being, or The Dead Sea Scrolls Part 2 confirming the “expletive of dissociation” mentioned above, that throws an undeniable wrench in wooden interpretations of scripture that christian legalists love to foist on people.

what fun to watch them scramble!

P.S. GMFS

We have ScotRail WiFi! Yay.

Gus: If you think that all humans should be treated equally well, then “humanist” might apply …. but that opens another can of worms.

You’re not wrong there! I did consider using the label “humanist”, but decided against it… broadly, I’d sooner identify as humanist than as christian these days, though. As you say, it’s difficult to know what another person will think when one uses any given label, but I suppose I’d put it this way: With a lot of folk who call themselves christian, I don’t – on balance – want them thinking I’m one of them.

Anyway, that’s enough consecutive comments for one morning. We’re not far fae Waverley the noo anyway.

okrapod,

You have touched me with your wisdom. I continue to pray for you.

okrapod,

Yeah, I know. Errata all over the place, was/were, extra words, fly by seat of the pants punctuation. Step over it. I have said before that (a) I almost failed freshman english and (b) I type faster than I think and (c) comprehensive and accurate editing is beyond me.

But I am a heck of a good homeschool math teacher for a certain sixth grader. So leave me be.

elastigirl: i do think the absolutes are very few. really and truly, no one will go wrong in this life or the next settling down with “love your neighbor as yourself”, and letting all the theological consternation go. what a happy way to live.

You also never go wrong feeding the hungry, and taking care of widows and orphans.

I agree with you, yes.

okrapod,

Reply 1 of 2

In your very moving comment further up the thread (which may, or may not, have been intended to move, but there it is) you touched on matters of life and mortality with great frankness and honesty. I feel the only way I can properly honour it is to be equally frank.

I concede first that none of us knows How Long We’ve Got. The train on which I sit as I type may derail at 100 mph between Winchburgh and Linlithgow and I may not survive the journey home. But this is unlikely to happen. (Ironically, as I typed that, we slowed down for a signal and are now stationary in exactly that section.) Nonetheless, in context, it is not meaningless to ponder the fact that we may not have you at Wartburg for as long as we’d like.

I do not want to leave it too late to say this; like Ken A (and possibly others of our many Ken’s), I have been moved often by your wisdom and have appreciated your presence and contribution both in the years in which we’ve both been regulars together. It has been a privilege, and will continue to be, for as long as.

Wonder how Paige’s speech preparation is coming?

drstevej: Wonder how Paige’s speech preparation is coming?

It’s probably not the same one he initially intended to deliver. However, I doubt seriously that he will take the stage. Surely … surely … some messenger is prepared to make a motion to remove him from the program at the beginning of the conference, to be followed by an overwhelming vote to do so (unless the parliamentarian declares it out of order).

okrapod,

Reply 2 of 2

As a declared agnostic, I am now free of the obligation to all the BiblicalBiblical as I now call it, though even as a Christian I was of much the same view. The Bible itself declares (indeed, it quotes Jesus himself as saying) that God gave us his very self, in the person of his son among us, and then his spirit among and in us. The bible never says that this was a mere blip before God finally gave us a more perfect revelation than God As Man, in the shape of 10% more scripture.

I have no problem in facing up to the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible, because I have no need to pretend that the bible is God, nor even infallible in itself. Also, I can easily imagine the possibility that the Holy Spirit would present us with a limited and fallible bible, with its many different voices, if his intention was never that we trust it but trust him. The idea being that we ponder the limited and fallible bible and its examples of people like us grappling with questions we, too, must grapple with. They also grappled with questions that aren’t major issues any more, and likewise, we must grapple with questions they never dreamed of. As we do so, we could learn to walk in step with the spirit, and find our own voice such that we could say (like the early church) “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”.

This is not the same as saying the holy spirit creates confusion (though I’ve been accused of claiming that!). It’s saying the holy spirit creates diversity.

Of course, all this is hypothetical, because there is no Holy Spirit any more. Or so we’re told.

truthseeker00: That is pretty sobering, even for someone with few illusions left of anything Calvinist.

I suppose the neo-Cal brethren would call my thoughts on Al’s theological triage another conspiracy theory … but, darn it, we Non-Calvinists would stop theorizing if the New-Calvinists would stop giving us so much evidence to support the theories!

Ken F (aka Tweed): I think their view of God is the problem

False teaching/theology always has a wrong view of God, man, sin and salvation. Within SBC, Non-Calvinists and New-Calvinists accuse each other of that … perhaps not directly, but in the respective theologies they hold. It is impossible for two distinctly different theologies (particularly re: God’s plan of salvation) to coexist in a single denomination; thus, the New Calvinists are in a gradual process of making reformed theology the default in belief and practice in the SBC.

okrapod: I have no expertise, but it is easy enough to find an interlinear on line, and it looks like ‘a’ and ‘the’ are not actual words in the greek but are added by the translator, I suppose either because of some grammatical necessity by some greek grammar rule or else because that made sense to the translator.

I explained in a post much earlier in the thread that Burleson is simply wrong. There are no definite articles in the Greek text where he says they are. Another poster later in the thread pointed out the same thing. I posted my critique on Burleson’s web page, but as of last night, it has not been published.

There is nothing ambiguous about this. The presence or absence of a definite article in Greek is a translation issue, but if the “the” is not there, it is not there!

I do think that under the circumstances somebody who is an authority on greek grammar needs to explain that to the general public one way or the other if an issue is going to made of it for doctrinal purposes.

Robert: If you consider the TEC, ELCA, and PCUSA, for example, we have churches that long ago approved women’s ordination but now also have abandoned the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, biblical teaching on human sexuality, the final infallible authority of Scripture, and many other things that touch on essential Christian doctrine.

Oooh, scary.

Or maybe this is just the kind of scare tactic’s people use to keep you trapped in a church that considers you to be inferior. ‘Where else are they going to go?’ to quote some ‘well respected’ person in evangelical land.

Nick Bulbeck: Also, I can easily imagine the possibility that the Holy Spirit would present us with a limited and fallible bible, with its many different voices, if his intention was never that we trust it but trust him.

Paul himself said ‘For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.’

Can we not talk about how if you truly believe in an ‘inerrant’ bible, you have to believe that we don’t understand everything?

‘For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.’

I have always sort of casually dismissed people who claim to know the end of the world/revelations dates because the bible says ‘no man will know’ when the world will end. Perhaps I should casually dismiss people who claim to fully understand every little thing, and their interpretations, because I know they don’t know fully.

okrapod,

” I think that bible-only people do go beyond what scripture actually says, and I think that they are unaware of what they are doing”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

…perhaps making such remarks as “Jesus says…” and “scripture’s command” in reference to Paul’s opinions. it’s a bit shocking to hear such things articulated.

okrapod: It is one thing to believe that scripture is true. It is quite another thing to claim for scripture beyond what it claims for itself. I think that bible-only people do go beyond what scripture actually says, and I think that they are unaware of what they are doing.

Excellent points. What a revelation it was to realize that when Paul writes about scripture he is probably NOT writing about himself! I think in emphasizing this particular verse, it is not taught as what it actually is.

Robert:
I’m fairly certain that no complementarian would say that differing with them on the roles of men and women means you are going to hell, at least none of the mainstream complementarians.

You would be incorrect about this. The New Calvinists who leads the SBC, teach that gender roles are a soteriological issue. Not holding to their idea of gender roles is a proof to them that you are not saved. Bruce Ware and Denny Burk, along with Al Mohler, have written extensively on the issue.

New Calvinists hold authoritarian structures as the image of the gospel, and marriage the ultimate picture of leadership and submission, a theology they call eternal subordination of the Son. Though some like Mohler have claimed to not believe in eternal subordination of the Son, Mohler’s seminary still teaches this theology through Bruce Ware, so I have trouble believing him.

okrapod,

Fair enough, but if you look at the next generation of church leaders they recited what the apostles wrote at length, Just one example the letter Clement wrote from Rome to the church at Corinth, you torches a few men for their behavior, they had orally accepted the early writings and were using them to guide and shepherd, long before the cannon was complete and accepted.
Many also believe that Clements letter was so powerful that because it came from Rome, yada yada yada, ground laid for the bishop of Rome had a greater authority than the other Bishops. Have you ever read the didache?

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/06/complementarianism-is-good-word-that.html

Lea:
I am in a different sort of denomination than Baptist now, one with more structure and consistent training of ministers and consistent theology. But the people in the pews certainly can and do differ with ‘official’ doctrine. I think people travel so much between denominations at times and they may never truly lose what they were taught as children, even if they change their minds, or expand their knowledge, in some ways. It seems to me that peaceful coexistence with people who disagree with you on a few points of doctrine should not be so difficult. But that assumes no wish to control what other people think.

I think it’s generally true on the issue of salvation. But I also think that there are only a few major categories of soteriological beliefs: salvation by personal faith through Jesus alone, salvation by works, salvation by election. Those have shades, but I actually think most people and religions fall into the salvation by works category, even a lot of Christians.

I have been in a church which was half “once saved, always saved” traditional Baptist and half New Calvinist. They didn’t talk to each other even though they claimed they were getting along. Each group stayed in their little clique.

There are a lot of other theological issues that I do think people are able to cooperate and disagree, but the most common sources of disagreement end up not being theological at all, but on who controls the power and where the money goes.

Robert,

“The complementarian would argue that the same hermeneutic that produces women’s ordination taken to its logical extent would lead to other things.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

so, let’s deny half the world agency and a voice for the sake of keeping things the way we like them on other issues. because our interpretation is the only correct one, anyway.
—————

“There is some evidence for this in this thread. We have some commenters complaining that Wade is trying to stake a middle ground between complementarianism and liberal feminism. For these commenters, not going all the way into other liberal feminist issues is not enough.”
++++++++++++++++++++++

advocating for a woman’s freedom to exercise 100% of her agency, voice, and to participate in all levels of society just like a man is taking things a bit too far, isn’t it.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): https://sbcvoices.com/breaking-patterson-has-withdrawn-from-sbc18-convention-sermon-and-evangelism-task-force-report/

He waited until the eve of the convention. SBC drama at its best (worst).

He will probably deliver a farewell via social media or religious press … or show up at a pro-Patterson church for a final standing ovation.

Everybody is too fast for me on the first one, but it’s all good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/06/08/controversial-southern-baptist-leader-paige-patterson-has-stepped-down-from-his-high-profile-sermon/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.103e269edef8

__

“Before Egalitarianism, IAM?”

hmmm…

And once upon a time, the Lord made some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists,some shepherds, some teachers: that the saints might have all things necessary to work and minister with all to the edifying of the body of Christ till we —every one in the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God —would grow up unto a perfect man after the measure and fullness of Christ.

Thinking the matter through, apparently the Lord has done his homework and made a plan…

huh?

High speed screws in the water?

What?

Sorry to bust your bubble folks, but both Complementarianism and Egalitarianism are both proverbial strawmen argument(s) designed to divide the body of Christ; —to deny it of its power and effectiveness when in a day and time where the fields are significantly, and visibly white with harvest.

Time is precious. Go fish.

ATB

Sòpy

;~)

– –

“I will be praying every day that you will cling to the whole Bible as the Word of the living God and at the same moment give that Word to every lost person on this globe, knowing that Christ died for all and that every man, woman, boy, and girl who comes to the Lord Jesus in saving faith will be saved.” (Paige Patterson, Christianity Today, 8 June 2018)

The conclusion of Patterson’s letter to Southern Baptists. If you read between the lines, he articulates the difficulties ahead for traditional SBC members as New Calvinism sweeps through the ranks preaching a gospel contrary to “Christ died for all.”

Lea: ishy: 2) Tim Fall has done some research and found a video where Al Mohler has admitted he was in a secret society at SBTS called Dodeka. Only for “elite” white male students.

Is this real?

If it is, this will not end well for Dr. Al.

I was wrong, it was a video of Patterson claiming Mohler was in a secret society. I had about five different tweets all saying different things. Anyway, there is historical record of this group at SBTS and several people have shared that.

okrapod,

I appreciate hearing your perspectives at TWW more than I might express. Thank you for your wisdom. With all selfishness, I hope you can continue blessing us for a good long time.

ishy: Sorry, Todd Wilham!

Max: If it is, this will not end well for Dr. Al.

Googling “SBTS Dodeka” gets this about Herschel Hobbs:
http://equip.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/sbjt_071_spr03_dockery.pdf

Page 14, top right: “During his years at the seminary Hobbs developed strong friendships and created a wide-ranging network that would serve him well throughout his life. Many of these relationships grew out of his involvement in a “secret supper club” called Dodeka, the Greek word for twelve. Each year, twelve couples were invited to join this exclusive group. Herschel and Frances were received as members during their first year at the seminary (see My Faith and Message, 63).”

So, a bit of evidence that the club exists, or did at some point.

Max:
Dr. Mohler on (1) role of women in ministry, and (2) Dodeka secret society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTQOnv21Z8&feature=youtu.be

Begin listening at 26.00

We wondered how these guys were all so well connected. I think we might have a clue now.

Another horrifying story of pastoral child molestation. Patterson and others make appearances in rejecting and blaming her when she tried to report him:

https://twitter.com/wad3mullen/status/1004800555020111872

Robert: We have some commenters complaining that Wade is trying to stake a middle ground between complementarianism and liberal feminism. For these commenters, not going all the way into other liberal feminist issues is not enough.

What I pick up from Pastor Wade’s post is that he wants to make it clear that while he takes a position that women are equal to men that he is not a liberal.

I don’t agree with labels when it comes to a lot of what we’re talking about here.

This is about right and wrong.

Daisy has declared herself “conservative” and yet supports full equality for women, and there’s a fair number of commenters have the same opinion.

Women and men are equal. In every single way. Under the law, in ability. Women can be evil, men can be evil, women can be good, men can be good.

A woman is perfectly capable of having position of authority. There are many world leaders that are women, women in congress and the senate and I firmly believe that it is only a matter of time before Americans elect a female for President (note – not starting a political discussion, I do not mean any particular person)

This does not negate the biological differences between men and women but that’s got nothing to do with equality.

I have said again and again that the bible reflects the culture from whence it came. If Christians accept that Jesus was the son of God then I find it interesting that none of the gospels state that he was an elitist in any way, shape or form. The gospels don’t support the position that men have any special place. Ok, the disciples were guys but is it possible that women didn’t get any billing because the gospels were written in a patriarchal culture? Because there’s ample evidence that women were part of Jesus’ group, they were the first to find the tomb.

Paul was educated as a pharisee. Of course the letters attributed to him reflect that.

Using the bible as a how to manual for running a society is a non starter. It’s a history, philosophy, interaction with the divine (or a mythology depending on your point of view).

These folks get all literal about gender roles yet seem to enjoy a pork sandwich, or surf and turf at Red Lobster!

This just gets annoying at best but takes a darker turn. If you’re telling me Christianity is about love and we’re taking the bible literally then you can’t ignore all the “put to death” admonitions in the old testament, or the God-ordained slaughter of enemies – this scares me about fundamental outlooks, this is why people commit terrible crimes. This is why abuse runs rampant.

I don’t care what the bible says. Men and women are equal. Period. Full stop.

The great irony is that equality that people have worked for so hard has it’s origins in the Christian missive to love thy neighbour and treat others as you would treat yourself.

It’s free lunch day at work – my ham and pineapple pizza awaits.

ishy: 2) Tim Fall has done some research and found a video where Al Mohler has admitted he was in a secret society at SBTS called Dodeka. Only for “elite” white male students. https://twitter.com/ThouArtTheMan/status/1004962520661090304

If it’s indeed true, it will mean the collapse of his ‘Eastern Front’ so to speak. And after that, there’ll be nothing to prevent Ivan from driving all the way to, and laying waste to his Berlin (so to speak).

ishy: We wondered how these guys were all so well connected. I think we might have a clue now.

Southern Baptists should have sent Mohler packing while the window was open in 1993, especially after his SBTS convocation address where he declared his plans to “reform” the denomination. The man is slick, I have to give him that much.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar):
okrapod,

I am so sorry about the bone scan. But I’m so proud of you for the way you seem to be handling things!

Ditto! Blessings to you, Okrapod! I always appreciate reading your posts. They’re filled with the wisdom of many years of life’s experiences.

Daisy,

Oh no, Barbie is evil in those circles. I mentioned her once and you would have thought I committed the unforgivable sin.

okrapod,

Profound!
I would rather have the access to the divine strength! Though I must admit the thought scares me on some level.

Dr. Ken,

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/06/complementarianism-is-good-word-that.html?m=1

ishy: The scariest thing to me about all this Dodeka stuff is that while it sounded like Mohler “repented” of the white supremacy thing, apparently the idea of them being elites didn’t bother him at all.

Wouldn’t you love to know who belonged to Dodeka for the last 50+ years?!

Bridget: This is not a “now” issue. It has been around for thousands of years.

Note that Benn specified 6000 years.
(6022 years, actually, according to Bishop Ussher. Armageddon should have gone down 22 years ago.)

Muff Potter: ishy: 2) Tim Fall has done some research and found a video where Al Mohler has admitted he was in a secret society at SBTS called Dodeka. Only for “elite” white male students. https://twitter.com/ThouArtTheMan/status/1004962520661090304

If it’s indeed true, it will mean the collapse of his ‘Eastern Front’ so to speak. And after that, there’ll be nothing to prevent Ivan from driving all the way to, and laying waste to his Berlin (so to speak).

“Two broken Tigers afire in the night
Whisper their souls to the wind;
We wait in the ranks for the final assault to begin.
It’s been almost four years that I’ve carried a gun,
Back home it will almost be spring,
The flames of the Tigers are lighting the road to Berlin…

“Oh, quickly we move through the ruins that bow to the ground;
The old men and children they send out to face us they can’t slow us down,
And all that I ever
Was able to see
The eyes of the city are opening
Now it’s the end of a dream…”
— Al Stewart, “Roads to Moscow”, 1973

Daisy:
Andy Savage Calls #ChurchToo Movement ‘Very Attacking,’ Sees #MeToo Movement as ‘More Biblical’
https://www.christianpost.com/news/andy-savage-calls-churchtoo-movement-very-attacking-sees-metoo-movement-as-more-biblical-224747/

Oh, please let Andy Savage share more of his opinions on calling out sexual abuse in the church. It is so edifying for us all to hear the concerned perspective of a proven predator.

Max:
DEB … perhaps you can employ some investigative reporting re: DODEKA

I just alerted Wondering Eagle along the same lines; let’s see what Intel he can dig up.

And as far as I know, “Dodeka” is Greek for “twelve”.
Could these guys have thought of themselves as the New Twelve Apostles?
(If so, that one-ups both Skull & Bones AND the Bohemian Club…)

Robert: I’m fairly certain that no complementarian would say that differing with them on the roles of men and women means you are going to hell, at least none of the mainstream complementarians.

What they would reply is that those denominations that have approved women’s ordination for the most part have also abandoned other key issues of the Christian faith. So while women’s ordination itself might not be an issue of salvation, the approach to Scripture that leads to it tends also to lead to other things.

I rejected complementarianism years ago, and my views on biblical interpretation have shifted, but I remain am a conservative.

I wouldn’t say my biblical hermeneutic is conservative or liberal because I think both sides get it wrong.

I’m wary of people who think anyone who rejects comp automatically turns liberal, or rejected comp due to liberal feminism, none of that has been true for me.

Most comps probably would say that rejecting comp won’t send you to Hell, but they imply it, or they imply it will lead you to reject Christ and hence it is a Gospel level issue. You pretty much laid out that very case in your own post.

I have seen some of them equate gender role theology to Gospel level importance in some of their blogs.

ishy: 2) Tim Fall has done some research and found a video where Al Mohler has admitted he was in a secret society at SBTS called Dodeka. Only for “elite” white male students.

Come to think of it, you can’t get more “elite” than God’s Spesul Pets, The Predestined Elect…

Bridget: This is not a “now” issue. It has been around for thousands of years.

Jesus talked about categories of eunuchs, including some who were eunuchs from their mother’s womb. Whatever that was, perhaps undescended testicles or perhaps ambiguous genitalia, or who knows what, Jesus did not condemn them and said that they would be given compensating realities to make up for their lack of children.

We need to be careful to not condemn or belittle people whom Jesus has authenticated as valuable persons. That bit about made themselves.. I have a real problem with that, but I cannot prove from the text that Jesus had as much problem with it as I do.

Daisy: I wouldn’t say my biblical hermeneutic is conservative or liberal because I think both sides get it wrong.

Me too.

Robert: The complementarian would argue that the same hermeneutic that produces women’s ordination taken to its logical extent would lead to other things.

One point I just made on my blog is that the same biblical interpretation non-violent complementarian men use to defend “no women as preachers, wives should submit to husbands”

-is the same exact biblical interpretation that sexist and violent men use to justify their domestic violence, covering up rape of Christian female students on college campuses, etc.

Why Gender Complementarianism Contributes to Sexism and Abuse of Women and is Ineffective at Halting It
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/%E2%80%A2-why-gender-complementarianism-contributes-to-sexism-and-abuse-of-women-and-is-ineffective-at-halting-it/

okrapod: You really are a bit of a rascal at heart.You know that, don’t you?

Yes. My wife tells me that all the time!

You have to admit, Mohler’s involvement with the secret society “Dodeka” and his rise to the SBC throne is rather bizzare.

Max: You have to admit, Mohler’s involvement with the secret society “Dodeka” and his rise to the SBC throne is rather bizzare.

Oh yes. About one more revelation about that man and I might cross the line into some really odd speculating about some things.

Daisy: having peach and joy

Ha ha, “peach” – that should have been “peace.”

(She doesn’t think a truly saved Christian could ever have anxiety and depression, so, if you do, you never really trusted in Jesus.)

Daisy: She would never come right out and say having peach and joy are essential to “be saved,” but she was certainly (it sounded to me) implying I must not have ever “really” accepted Jesus as my Savior (even though I had), because if I had, in her view, I’d never, ever have anxiety or depression.

One-Upmanship Smackdown!

ishy: Another horrifying story of pastoral child molestation.

I read that one too. It tells you just how difficult it is to get these men to LISTEN. And, quite frankly, to care. I wish to use stronger words but am being polite for Dee and Deb’s sakes.

They don’t care if a teenage girl is used and abused by her youth pastor. This is no longer an incident or two, but I direct theme. This what they are being taught, that it doesn’t matter. That it is not important. This is wrong.

Daisy: (She doesn’t think a truly saved Christian could ever have anxiety and depression, so, if you do, you never really trusted in Jesus.)

If she ever gets into a depression or a situation she can’t get out of, make sure you can be there to parrot her exact words back to her. Over and over. Same tone, same words, same delivery.

ishy: The scariest thing to me about all this Dodeka stuff is that while it sounded like Mohler “repented” of the white supremacy thing, apparently the idea of them being elites didn’t bother him at all. And both him and Patterson are guilty of orchestrating takeovers against the wishes of the whole denomination. What kind of man does that?

Definitely interesting.

Lea: My mom wouldn’t let me have barbies when I was a kid lol.

When my daughter was a child we strictly limited her Barbie collection to two, maybe three, but no more. She had a friend who had masses of barbies. Barbie dressed like this, or like that or a multitude of other Barbie personas. We thought that our kid there was more to life than dressing Barbie.

Today that childhood friend is the owner of a very successful bridal and formal wear shop and makes a pile of money in the process. My kid is a poorly paid public school teacher. Just saying.

The world has climbed into the proverbial basket. Today at the school where my kid teaches one of the students tried to attack an assistant principal. He called for help on his walkie talkie and the cops sprayed pepper spray. No injuries.

I am going to ask her is she wants some Barbie dolls when she gets home.

Lea: Oh no, Barbie is evil in those circles. I mentioned her once and you would have thought I committed the unforgivable sin.

My mom wouldn’t let me have barbies when I was a kid lol.

When my son was about 5-6 yrs. old, I bought him a GI Joe and my husband had a fit! Not even the macho, macho man was considered acceptable. I paid him no mind, however and Joe hung around for a few years and even got a jeep for traveling….

Daisy: I’m wary of people who think anyone who rejects comp automatically turns liberal

It’s a circle. The comps reject women, so they are rejected in turn. They leave, and go somewhere that doesn’t treat them like dirt. If it is ‘liberal’ so be it.

Of course, they’ve also made ‘accepts women ministers’ the definition of liberal…so that’s fun.

okrapod: So Paul said not to exceed what is written. In First Corinthians, which the intro to my bible says was most probably written in 55 AD, the NT was not available at that time. The gospels were not written yet, as far as we know. I am checking with ‘author and date’ in the intro to each writing in my bible. Paul was the first to write stuff in what we now call the NT. So what is it that was written that Paul was talking about? Did he refer to the OT and if so what in the OT since he was prone to quarrel with how people considered the OT law, so if not the Law then what? Was it a prophecy? Read in context it does not seem to have been. Was Paul saying don’t listen to anybody but me and only follow what I say if I have put it into writing? That does not seem to be how he worked even when he disagreed with such big league players as Peter.

So, don’t go beyond what is written. Here is an excellent example of where we have to go beyond what is actually written (spelled out) to try to determine what he even meant by that statement.

It is one thing to believe that scripture is true. It is quite another thing to claim for scripture beyond what it claims for itself. I think that bible-only people do go beyond what scripture actually says, and I think that they are unaware of what they are doing.

If one knows a little of the history of ancient times – and I know precious ‘little’ – one might see that much of the issue in Jesus’ day was that the so-called ‘Church’ of the day was ruled by authoritarian teachers who, in their attempts to ‘lead’ the people in the proper way to serve God, far exceeded what was actually written in the Law of Moses. They, in their superior understanding, created theology, doctrine, creeds and principles by which the law was to be interpreted and performed. They had their ‘high priests’ (sort of like a Paige Patterson with sidelocks ) whose word was unquestionable.

What I hear when I read the many here, and elsewhere, who disclaim the faulty teaching of falsely authoritarian rulers, are essentially the same words as Paul’s – ‘Let’s not exceed what is written’.

Ah, but what’s a priest to do? Much like our elected representatives, who provide job security by constantly passing new laws, our church ‘rulers’ have to ‘rule’. And they get the men to submit to their authority by granting them their own little fiefdoms, over which they, of course, have the final authority.

Jesus also spoke to the problem of illegitimate teachings, essentially casting off countless scrolls of do’s and don’t’s with a few mere words: love God and love others as self.

Imagine, if we took his ‘words’ as The Word of God, and refused to exceed what he commanded. It would eliminate most of the scrapping.

Lea: It’s a circle. The comps reject women, so they are rejected in turn. They leave, and go somewhere that doesn’t treat them like dirt. If it is ‘liberal’ so be it.

Of course, they’ve also made ‘accepts women ministers’ the definition of liberal…so that’s fun.

I think it’s also a way the leaders keep the peons from looking too hard into it. There’s a lot more ambiguity in the Bible than most fundamentalists are taught to accept, as has been discussed earlier in the thread. I find most people I talk to with black and white interpretations of the Bible almost always start these big issue topics with some sort of assumption that drives their interpretation.

I’ve made a semblance of peace with the ambiguity, but I remember being called a heretic by at least one person for saying so.

Victorious: When my son was about 5-6 yrs. old, I bought him a GI Joe

When my son was about that age we got him some of those little green army men. They are plastic now but they were metal back then. He loved it. So now he is out in the desert in the middle east on active duty with the army. I partly blame myself. I am only half way kidding.

Lea: Is this real? #runstoinvestigate

Clips of Patterson’s claim, and of Mohler’s admission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp0rYcSc_tg

truthseeker00: I hope someone can, because precious little is coming up.

Well, if Dodeka is/was “secret”, little would be coming up! Mohler admitted to belonging to it at Southern – calling it a sort of dinner group. Patterson & Vines painted a more sinister picture of the secret society. But as you note, conspiracies are flying about in SBC these days – hard to figure out who the good guys are among the elite, if there are any.

Lea: They are not in your denomination because you drove them out.

Yes, as the young female seminarian exclaimed in the following Q&A with Al Mohler: “By God, we are called, too!”

Begin listening at 27:20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTQOnv21Z8&feature=youtu.be

Jack,

I agree with everything you said, all of it.

I think the prosperity gospel preachers are peddling another gospel, ( Paul warned us about that)

All those guys and the gals too, Paula white, et al disgust me

Sòpwith,

Egalitarianism is a response to complementarianism.

Lea: HUG were you a buffy fan? There is an entire episode dedicated to some frat guys who were sacrificing to a snake god at regular intervals in the basement to go on to great wealth and power in society…

Never was a Buffy fan.
Firefly, on the other hand…

Lea: Max: https://sbcvoices.com/women-you-are-not-the-backup-plan/
This article…I want the facepalm emoji.
As the narrative has begun to change, we are finding our churches incredibly malnourished of women who know how to teach, lead, and dig deep into the Gospel.
They weren’t wanted. They were told not to. They left.
This article almost blames women for not being there, instead of putting the blame where it belongs. I know women trained in ministry, serving faithfully. They are not in your denomination because you drove them out

I’ve said the same thing about artists and creatives.

Why is Christianese “art” AND “STORYTELLING” a pile of pious crap?
Where are the Tolkiens and Lewises of our generation?
YOU DROVE US OUT AND/OR TURNED US INTO PILES OF ROCKS.
WHY STICK AROUND WHERE YOU KNOW YOU’RE NOT WANTED OR APPRECIATED?
Because you drove out and/or turned into a pile of rocks the next Tolkien or Lewis.

Daisy: I wouldn’t say my biblical hermeneutic is conservative or liberal because I think both sides get it wrong.

I did want to clarify that up until a few months ago, I would’ve slapped the “conservative” label on to my self in regards to biblical interpretation, but the more reading and pondering I’ve done about this, I don’t think I can “wear” that label (but I’m also not a liberal on this, either).

Headless Unicorn Guy: One-Upmanship Smackdown!

The funny thing is, I really do think this woman means well, but some of her views or comments come across kind of bad, she makes me feel as though I’m not measuring up.

She pulled something similar regarding my mother a few months back.

I told her how when my siblings were teens, my mother made my sister take a certain album by, let’s say, “Rock Band X” back to the store because the lyrics were too dirty in Mom’s opinion, but she allowed both my siblings to keep hard rock albums, by, let’s say “Band Z.”

After I told this story to the Lady from My Dad’s Church, this lady told me had it been HER kids, she never would have allowed them to have albums by “Band Z.”

And that was even though I had just informed her my mom listened to “Band Z” herself and determined there was nothing “satanic” or bad about them.

But this lady made it sound as though my mother’s faith or morals were not up to snuff – or not as much as hers – since my mother (who was a very devout Christian, but not a weirdo about her faith) let them keep the ‘worldly’ rock albums.

I felt insulted by that but was in such shock I kept my mouth shut.

Headless Unicorn Guy: If she ever gets into a depression or a situation she can’t get out of, make sure you can be there to parrot her exact words back to her. Over and over. Same tone, same words, same delivery.

That would be tempting.

It’s very easy to say the sort of stuff to hurting people that she was saying to me, and holding to those assumptions she was holding, BUT, it only works if your life is working.

If your life is going okay, no financial problems, no relationship issues, your mental and physical health is fine, you can easily preach that Emotional Wellness Gospel and such.

That type of theology does not work once your life falls apart.
And Jesus never said in the Bible that if you follow him he will wave a magic wand and remove all pain and problems from your life.

Lea: My mom wouldn’t let me have barbies when I was a kid lol.

My Mom not only bought me Barbies but sometimes to get me to be more “girly” she would also buy me the larger baby dolls, the kind you could feed with a little bottle.

I did have a toy play house as a kid, but I dug it because I liked miniature stuff, not that I was so much into “playing house” like other girls were.

My Mom did give in on occasion and buy me the stuff I gravitated toward, like Hot Wheels toy sports cars and Bat Man toys.

Beakerj,

I will look at your link over the weekend
Is your work through a religious vain, or a social out reach?

I believe all people are image bearers of God, the imago dei

Kudos to you for your work…

Lea,

Comps seem to think if someone rejects comp, they either turn liberal, or, liberalism caused them to leave comp.

I left comp not because of liberalism or feminism, but because it makes the Bible look as though it’s contradicting itself (there are examples in the Bible of women leading men with God’s approval), and, I’ve remained conservative even after rejecting comp.

I think their false dichotomy is one thing that keeps a lot of “fence sitters” in their camp for so long: they tell people your only two choices are to
1. stay comp, which = biblical, conservative, and godly,
or
2. reject comp = be a liberal, feminist, support abortion, vote Democrat

___

Daisy: “Egalitarianism is a response to complementarianism.”
 
Yes, if you want to join that type of discussion. Sure. Fine. Yep! Go for it! But IMHO there is really no need for that type of discussion in a truly Spirit led fully scripturally functioning body of Christ. Neither is complementarianism.

Just sayin’.

The problem arises when these 501c3 churches begin to function in the flesh outside the parameters of sensible comprehensive scripture use and most of all NOT being holy spirit led. Bringing this little proverbial ‘Murphy’s War’ into the church means it has failed in both their understanding of scripture, and in their determination to follow the Holy Spirit consistently. It also helps if the body there is really functioning properly, with each member of the body with the liberty of functioning in their gift.

Most 501c3 churches in the U.S. unfortunately follow the non-profit corporation model, not the book of Acts model: where all are allowed to use their gifting to build up the body, being spirit led.

Find a fully functioning unincorporated house church, and you will notice the difference.

—> Single, middle aged, unattached women are always welcome!

P.S. The Holy Spirit is welcome as well!

(grin)

(imagine that!)

ATB

Sòpy

🙂

– –

From CNBC:

“Why is it that women have more depression than men? Studies show that when the position of women and men change, when women get the right to vote, for example, measures of income and sex equality, the gender difference in depression goes down.”

Source:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/kate-spade-suicide-gender-role-in-mental-illness-diagnosis-treatment.html

Ct,

Yup…

It isn’t that women need to be allowed the positions of authority men have. It is that men have business trying to be in authority over others in the church. If a man is sinning, why on earth should a woman fight for the right to commit the same sin?

Florence in KY: Folks, I am proud to be a liberal! To me, being a liberal means to be a person who is free to be the person God has called one to be, whether male or female. A person who is free of bias and believes that with God there is no male or female, bond or free, “Jew or Gentile,” but all are loved the same by God. Also, that “Whosoever will” may come to God, through Christ. God’s love is God’s gift and is free to ALL. It is God’s will that NONE may perish. I am a 94-yr-oldster and have these things on my mind, for such a time as this!
Blessings!

You preach it, sister. The only reason conservatives are afraid of being called ‘liberal’ is that they have been told all of their lives how evil, godless and dangerous liberals are . . . scare tactics to keep people from thinking for themselves.

Jeffrey Chalmers,

PS… another nasty training my fundy background did to me and is taking me a life time to over come…..they taught: A true “spirtual warror” moves through life with the “sword of the spirit” dividing good from evil….

truthseeker00,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTQOnv21Z8&feature=youtu.be

meant to include the link

*could

linda: If a man is sinning, why on earth should a woman fight for the right to commit the same sin?

Is that what you think women desire?

linda: It isn’t that women need to be allowed the positions of authority men have. It is that men have business trying to be in authority over others in the church. If a man is sinning, why on earth should a woman fight for the right to commit the same sin?

And P.S.
The same attitudes and biblical interpretation comps use to bar women from being preachers, teachers, etc, is the same exact ones they use to say that wives must unilaterally submit to husbands, which is another odious view.

truthseeker00: There is something almost sinister about Mohler so forcefully condemning marginalizing another human being because of race – but asserting that it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss and oppress women.

This is one aspect of complementarianism that really, really bothers me.

Most comps will condemn racism (which they should of course do), but they use the same biblical interpretative methods that white Christians in the USA in the past used to justify whites owning blacks as slaves, to justify male rule of women.

They’ll condemn racism, but then turn around and defend sexism / patriarchy / male hierarchy as being right, true, biblical, and godly.

Daisy,

I partially agree. Although they condemn racism I have seen them turn a blind eye to it. Doug Wilson has wrote a book on Southern slavery which have offended many people. Thabiti Anyabwile has recently made a statement saying that all white people are complicit in the murder of MLK. Todd Wilhelm wrote a blog post on that, and James White took issue with Anyabwile. To my knowledge, neither Wilson nor Anyabwile have been held to account by the other TGC leaders most likely because the other leaders are too busy writing anti-gay and anti-women polemics.

Florence in KY: I am a 94-yr-oldster

Love it! You are so cool! Please keep posting here;)

linda: It isn’t that women need to be allowed the positions of authority men have. It is that men have business trying to be in authority over others in the church. If a man is sinning, why on earth should a woman fight for the right to commit the same sin?

Linda, the issue is that women need to be allowed (just as men are) to serve in the areas of their gifts, qualifications and callings. In other words, they are also “servant leaders” and shouldn’t be denied to lead in some areas currently reserved for male “servant leaders.”

ZechZav: most likely because the other leaders are too busy writing anti-gay and anti-women polemics.

Notice how they never want to write negative articles about heterosexual men. I might still be a Christian if conservative Christian men would spend just fifty percent of their time trash talk child rapist and wife beaters. Something that is rampant in conservative Christianity. But they want to keep the spotlight on opposite of them. Gays and women. These men are not respectable.

linda: Victorious–no, don’t buy the servant leader thing one bit. All of us are servants of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Linda, please notice I put the term “servant leader” in quotes as it is one that has been invented in an effort by some in authority to placate those who object to that authority.

If you are “called to preach” or “called to teach” or “called to exercise the gift of administration” you will find a way. And it most definitely may be outside the doors of the local 501(c)3.

…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. 14:15

The concept of mutual ministry of individual gifts includes all of them. To imply that one must go outside the body to express that talent/gift/ability or strength goes against the very purpose of the assembly…that is edification and building up Eph. 4.

Years ago when my husband and I were co-teaching a class on marriage, we received many good reports. Except…from the pastor. He stopped me in the hallway to admonish me for “outshining my husband.” I was astonished and asked him if he was requiring me to hide my light under a bushel. He simply walked away, but my husband and I resigned from teaching since my husband had absolutely no gifting in the area of teaching whatsoever.

If we can’t make those who are focused on maintaining power and authority in the church, then we need to focus on and encourage those who are being told “…. “I have no need of you.” The perfect assembly is one that recognizes each member and acknowledges (in actions rather than words alone) that ” one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” 1 Cor. 12

But who cares?

I believe we should care.

Nick Bulbeck: Alternatively, you may be just as agnostic as I am!
I’ve met a number of agnostics among professing christians over here. That is, they’re settled in a congregation but don’t actually expect “God” to do anything other than provide them with placebo-like emotional support, or receive credit when the proverbial cookie crumbles in a favourable way.

Part 1

That depends entirely on what ‘just as’ means and what ‘agnostic’ means.

I wrote a really good reply and discussion to you on this topic, but realized it was long enough to be a chapter in a book and deleted it.

You and I are coming from a very different starting place.

For one thing culture. UK and then Scotland is a very different cultural experience that the upper south of the US. New world vs old world for one thing. When you say ‘over here’ that is entirely different from when I say ‘over here’.

For another thing your personality and mine are very different, judging for example on job choices. You thrive apparently in a job situation which would drive me up a wall. In fact, when I left clinical work and went to work for the gov sitting at a desk I felt like I had been abandoned by God-and told Him so. That is just a personality difference.

Third: your religious background is different from mine and your current religious expectations are things which totally do not register with me-apart from bible verses from my youth which just prove how wrong you are and how right I am.

(continued)

Ricco: Not every difference of opinion is capitulation. I’m not here to throw stones at people who read the Bible in a more conservative way or who believe that religious systems are an unmitigated good in the world. I used to think that way. Then some tragic life experiences shook up my world and it was either find a new way to believe or stop believing. If that is capitulation, then lock me up.

Robert’s comment makes me think of Matt. 15:14 about the blind leading the blind. For almost all my life, I blindly and trustfully followed the teachings of whatever man was in the pulpit, following in my bible and doing my best to be a a Berean. I even said many of the things he said in his comment, including that woman preachers were not the problem but seemed to be a first step down some slippery slope.

I could say that it feels now as if the scales have been taken from my eyes. I see things much differently now. Who is to say that was or was not the Lord’s doing?

I’m fairly certain of what Robert and the others of his tribe would say, as I spent decades in that tribe. I just don’t think they have cornered the market on truth as they appear to think. As I was once led to think.

It is difficult not to have a checklist to follow anymore. It can be lonely not to be surrounded by others who reinforce the belief that I’ve got it right… because they’ve got it right… or perhaps only because they can sound very persuasive in their explanations.

I am thankful for this platform and the discourse among the variety of commenters. Okrapod, Nick, Ricco, elastigirl, Sopy, Muff, the Kens, Jack, jyjames, beakerj, Daisy, Nancy2, ishy, Gram3… I could go on for pages, but my autocorrect is going nuts with the screen names. Okrapod, you are in my thoughts today. Thanks for your taking the time to wrestle with hard thoughts.

Thanks, Deebs.

Lea,

Yes! Robert is no doubt well-meaning, but he repeats so confidently the words and cliches found in the manipulative “we’re right and they’re all wrong” slogan that kept me in an abusive church way too long, it makes it difficult for me to seriously consider his words. I now have a large salt shaker at the ready to dispense grains of salt as needed.

Sòpwith:
Q. Daisy, do you presently attend Egalitarian church services anywhere?

What does that matter?

Max:
Speaking of gender roles, the New Calvinist complementarians over at SBC Voices have brought out their wimmenfolk to chime in on things.It’s strange, I don’t ever recall them inviting blog pieces by female members of their tribe before.Maybe the new reformers want to come out more female-friendly than the SBC traditionalists, who are being portrayed as dirty ole men.

https://sbcvoices.com/women-you-are-not-the-backup-plan/

What’s better than a few Judas goats to lead the unsuspecting women to slaughter? (Or slavery, bondage, second-class status, derivative salvation, etc.)

okrapod: When my son was about that age we got him some of those little green army men.They are plastic now but they were metal back then.He loved it.So now he is out in the desert in the middle east on active duty with the army.I partly blame myself.I am only half way kidding.

My younger girls had a fascination for army men toys. (I always get a hoot out of the army men figures in the Toy Story movie, lol.) Neither has any interest in the military as adults. I did not encourage Barbie dolls for several reasons (didn’t forbid them), but they are amazingly fashionable in their makeup and hair and clothing, even with a mom with no fashion sense and limited Barbie play. Go figure.

Ricco: Then some tragic life experiences shook up my world and it was either find a new way to believe or stop believing. If that is capitulation, then lock me up.

If I may be so presumptuous, I’m going to rephrase the first sentence there. ISTM that you encountered important and game-changing and (for want of a more eloquent description) unsettling new evidence.

Under these circumstances, I think there’s more than one coward’s way out and there’s more than one courageous way forward. You chose one of the latter. It takes more courage than people think to change one’s beliefs. To end up at the same point by a different route: I agree that what you describe is not capitulation at all.

refugee,

“Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet,
She takes her stand.” (Prov 8:1-2)

refugee: It is difficult not to have a checklist to follow anymore. It can be lonely not to be surrounded by others who reinforce the belief that I’ve got it right… because they’ve got it right… or perhaps only because they can sound very persuasive in their explanations.

I completely agree with how lonely this feels. It seems like everyone I meet is either very into religion and checklists or has no interest in the topic whatsoever. I want to talk about these things, but I want to be in conversations where people feel free to say what they really believe. I echo your sentiment about being thankful to the Deebs for creating this space. They are really special people.

My one principal that I hold to in this time is “I won’t say your words.” If I don’t really, truly believe something to be true, then I WILL NOT say it. This has become hugely important to me, and has lead to me not saying as much, because how many things do I actually believe for sure? I’m just not going to be anyone else’s ideological sock puppet ever again!

refugee: It is difficult not to have a checklist to follow anymore. It can be lonely not to be surrounded by others who reinforce the belief that I’ve got it right… because they’ve got it right… or perhaps only because they can sound very persuasive in their explanations.

I am thankful for this platform and the discourse among the variety of commenters.

May I second this? I too have felt very ‘alone’ since leaving behind all that I and my family have ever known as ‘serving God’ – and my family not understanding at all. Not that I would wish this on anyone else, but it is encouraging to know that others have come to some of the same conclusions I have, and not because they have given up on God.

refugee,

refugee: What’s better than a few Judas goats to lead the unsuspecting women to slaughter? (Or slavery, bondage, second-class status, derivative salvation, etc.)

It seems to me that we are in a place where men are quite confused. I think that’s the kindest way that it can be said. When feminism broke loose, men were confused. And then the SBC pastors, authors, celebrated men, made sure to tighten the screws even further but to present it to, “in the kindest sort of way.“ So much so that the women ought to be “gracious” in their subordination being that the men have been so gracious to consider them equals, sort of.

Wow…wonder where these women are today in ministry? Doubtful that the SBC retained them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTQOnv21Z8&t=1463s

P.S. The word, “offices” connected with pastor or deacon is not a part of the original language.

Nick Bulbeck: You have no idea how wrong you are on this point.

Oh, sorry Nick. I thought you were an IT person-desk, computers, complexities, that sort of thing. But since I am not wrong about me, then I must be wrong about you, so again, sorry.

truthseeker00: it is encouraging to know that others have come to some of the same conclusions I have, and not because they have given up on God

It is important to note that most of the “Dones” are done with the institutional church, but not done with Jesus! As agonizing as it has been – to leave behind the familiar – many of the Dones now realize that it’s not about religion, it’s about relationship. Now, if you could round them all up, we would have CHURCH!

ishy,

I am unaware of any place where Ware, Burk, or Mohler have said that if you disagree with them on the issue of women in leadership, you are not saved. And I’ve read a lot of what they’ve written. Can you point me to a source where they say otherwise?

Ricco,

My simple answer would be that while changing one’s mind on many issues is not necessarily capitulation, believing that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and that sex outside of male-female marriage in any form can be morally licit is a capitulation to the culture.

Jack,

What I pick up from Pastor Wade’s post is that he wants to make it clear that while he takes a position that women are equal to men that he is not a liberal.
I don’t agree with labels when it comes to a lot of what we’re talking about here.

Daisy has declared herself “conservative” and yet supports full equality for women, and there’s a fair number of commenters have the same opinion.

Sure. I support full equality for women as well. But it’s liberal feminism that says full equality for the women in the church means they have to be ordained.

Women and men are equal. In every single way. Under the law, in ability.

Not really. Men as a whole have greater upper body strength. Women can give birth; men can’t.

Women can be evil, men can be evil, women can be good, men can be good.

Sure.

A woman is perfectly capable of having position of authority. There are many world leaders that are women, women in congress and the senate and I firmly believe that it is only a matter of time before Americans elect a female for President (note – not starting a political discussion, I do not mean any particular person)

Sure.

I have said again and again that the bible reflects the culture from whence it came. If Christians accept that Jesus was the son of God then I find it interesting that none of the gospels state that he was an elitist in any way, shape or form. The gospels don’t support the position that men have any special place. Ok, the disciples were guys but is it possible that women didn’t get any billing because the gospels were written in a patriarchal culture? Because there’s ample evidence that women were part of Jesus’ group, they were the first to find the tomb.

I’m not sure I would call it elitist, but Jesus does accept worship, which makes at least him elite. Of course women were part of the group. But the same gospels that aren’t afraid to make women—who were unqualified as witnesses in first century culture—certainly would not be afraid to make them part of the twelve Apostles if in fact they were.

These folks get all literal about gender roles yet seem to enjoy a pork sandwich, or surf and turf at Red Lobster!

There’s a reason for this. Apparently you haven’t studied biblical hermeneutics very much.

This just gets annoying at best but takes a darker turn. If you’re telling me Christianity is about love and we’re taking the bible literally then you can’t ignore all the “put to death” admonitions in the old testament, or the God-ordained slaughter of enemies – this scares me about fundamental outlooks, this is why people commit terrible crimes. This is why abuse runs rampant.

I don’t ignore any of that. I would also say that if Christianity is about love, then it’s about love as God defines it, not love as defined by postmodern Western thought. God-ordained slaughter of the Canaanites was a good and holy thing. The death sentences as given in the OT were good and holy things provided they were actually enacted properly. In most cases, the death penalty was only a maximum sentence. It was only mandatory in cases of what we would call first-degree murder.

I don’t care what the bible says.

So, you’re not a Christian then, right?

The great irony is that equality that people have worked for so hard has it’s origins in the Christian missive to love thy neighbour and treat others as you would treat yourself.

That’s true.

It’s free lunch day at work – my ham and pineapple pizza awaits.

One of my favorites. I hope it tasted great.

Robert: ordained

If “ordained” included training and skill in dealing with scams and predators in the church, it might mean something.

Robert: ’m not sure I would call it elitist, but Jesus does accept worship, which makes at least him elite. Of course women were part of the group. But the same gospels that aren’t afraid to make women—who were unqualified as witnesses in first century culture—certainly would not be afraid to make them part of the twelve Apostles if in fact they were.

Well, he did claim to be the son of God so you don’t get much more elite than that. But we do have to take the bible in the context of it’s time. So women got second billing in written record but they were part of the group, not subordinate to the group. If I’m remembering the gospels correctly.

Robert,

ordained schmordained

Robert: So, you’re not a Christian then, right?

former Christian. The bible for me is not inerrant or infallible. I’ve never had a donkey talk to me so I’m kind of thinking that some of the stories may have been embellished.

Robert: One of my favorites. I hope it tasted great.

It sure did! Thanks for the discussion!

Robert: The great irony is that equality that people have worked for so hard has it’s origins in the Christian missive to love thy neighbour and treat others as you would treat yourself.

Not so. It has its origins in the first five books of Moses (Torah).

Robert:
elastigirl,

You’d have to defend the idea biblically that women exercising 100% agency requires them to be ordained. By that logic, most people who have ever lived in the church have been prevented from exercising 100% agency because they weren’t ordained. Men included.

There is much more to these prohibitions on women then ordination, and they flow throughout the church. You are either unaware or purposefully obtuse if you don’t see this. Especially considering the way this mindset affects advice given to women in these types of churches. The mancentric perspective is not healthy.

okrapod: It is was temporary

If it was…

okrapod,

So I conclude (a) that the scripture is pretty much all over the place on dietary rules as pertains to gentiles and (b) the answer is forget the rules (Peter), but obey some rules (Jerusalem) and give up your dietary freedoms when necessary (Paul).

Your conclusion is incorrect. All of those passages are easily reconcilable if you want to. If you’re convinced that the Bible is merely a human book, then I can’t help you.

Maybe this sort of thing is what causes Episcopalians to try to use some reasoning along with some traditional teachings when the conclusions of scripture require it.

Reason and tradition aren’t bad. They’re necessary. But if your reason leads you to deny Scripture as God’s Word—which is the default TEC position these days on any passage of Scripture that they can’t make agree with post-Enlightenment matters—then you’re doing it wrong.

Jack,

Except that there are lots of passages in the OT the suggest that the Gentiles will worship the God of Israel without having to become Jews.

Robert: Your conclusion is incorrect. All of those passages are easily reconcilable if you want to. If you’re convinced that the Bible is merely a human book, then I can’t help you.

Many people interpret the Bible the way you do. That is undeniable. But all you willing to call people as diverse as Pope Benedict, Richard Roth, Pete Enns, Baxter Kruger, Paul Young, Athanasius, Origen, Jordan Peterson, Rob Bell, Andre Rabe, Jen Hatmaker, and Wayne Jacobsen all heretics? There is huge diversity here, but all of these people read the Bible at least somewhat non-literally. This isn’t an appeal to authority, it’s a demonstration of diversity. I don’t want to break communion or fellowship with anyone just because they have a difference of opinion about the Bible, sexuality, church tradition, or any other issue. I want to come together and share the meal with all who would come. I’m not going to be the one to turn anyone away

okrapod,

So your parish disagrees with the TEC leadership. Good. One has to generalize to some degree when talking about these things because the numbers are so large.

I can say also that the ELCA and the PCUSA are non-Christian bodies, knowing full well that there are a few orthodox churches still in those denominations. That doesn’t negate the fact that at the national level, they ceased being Christian years ago.

I’m well aware that there are a handful of dioceses left in the TEC that could be called orthodox. My local diocese is one of them. But the national TEC is no longer even remotely Christian. When you are more willing to sell a parish to a Muslim group than to the Anglican group that is in the church and wants to leave the denomination, at a national level you’ve basically surrendered any right to be called Christian.

TEC won’t be able to hold it together. The national leadership is a different religion than Christianity altogether.

Robert: Pope Benedict, Pete Enns, Paul Young, Rob Bell, and Jen Hatmaker are definitely all heretics.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying

Robert: are definitely all heretics

The fun thing about what you say here is that all famous Christians are heretics – all of them. Every one I’ve ever looked up on the internet is a heretic by someone’s standard. Even Athanasius: https://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/athanasius-the-heretic/.

It really boils down to a question of “says who?” Who gets to decide what is heresy and what isn’t? Is it someone like a pope? Is it a council of bishops? Is it people like you and me making it up as we go? If we claim that the Bible informs us, then we have to consider that the first full listing of the NT was by Athanasius, the heretic, in the year 367 (some people say Origen had an earlier list, but it does not matter because he was also a heretic). I do believe that the “church fathers” got it right when they formed the canon of scripture, and that there really are formal heresies as defined by historical councils. But in the end it all has to be taken by faith because there are no airtight arguments anywhere in all of this (except for the fact that the internet proves all famous Christians are/were heretics).

Ricco: I don’t want to break communion or fellowship with anyone just because they have a difference of opinion about the Bible, sexuality, church tradition, or any other issue.

That is my feeling also. That does not mean that I do not hold beliefs, or that I would not try to convince somebody of what I think. But break fellowship over doctrine-no. There is no such thing as salvation by dogma alone.

Ken F (aka Tweed): (except for the fact that the internet proves all famous Christians are/were heretics).

Ken F, you are a treasure!

Robert:
Lea,

So you believe that women can exercise 100% agency and not be allowed to be ordained?

I’m not playing word games here.

They are not truly equal Under a comp system. Period.

Robert: I can say also that the ELCA and the PCUSA are non-Christian bodies

Oh honey. You are way above your pay grade on this.

I have nothing more to say to you I think.

Max,

Thanks, Max. I enjoy reading your comments. We have a lot in common, having lived through good times and not so good times in the SBC.

Lea: Robert: I can say also that the ELCA and the PCUSA are non-Christian bodies

Get used to this sort of talking. Used to hear every week how ungodly all those ‘liberals’ were. Then it was the evangelicals. Then it was the ‘soft’ Reformed. I am not kidding you. My poor 85-year-old mother used to ask me, ‘Why, oh why, do we have to constantly hear everyone else condemned?’ She rarely complains, but it hurt her deeply to hear every family member and friend she had condemned as a heretic because they were not Calvinist. I was sorry I brought her there. I finally sprung her, and now she sits happily under a pastor who not only believes that God loves everyone, but who actually encourages the congregation to go home and study what he taught to see if it holds up to scripture. Far cry from the ‘When I speak from the pulpit, I speak for God’ we used to get.

Robert: I don’t mean this as an insult, Jack, but you really need to study some hermeneutics of the law. The law was not meant to be woodenly applied. The book of Numbers specifically says that the only crime for which a ransom cannot be accepted is our equivalent of first-degree murder. That tells us that the judges of ancient Israel applied ransoms in some cases instead of the death penalty. The case law of the OT tells us that the judges were to take the situation into account

No offense taken. You can probably run circles around me when it comes to quoting the bible.
But you can make the bible say anything you want.
I do remember a whole lot of smiting in the ot.
In the infallible bible God either said these things or he didn’t. I’ll take your word for what numbers says but by that logic even the ancient Israelites found God a little too bloodthirsty.
Y’know maybe we won’t slaughter disobedient tykes, we’ll plea bargain to a fine and time off for good behaviour.
I think it’s in Matthew where Jesus stated he didn’t come to change the law.
I know there were foreigners living in Israel in the old testament but I mostly remember them being condemned. Except Ruth. Which is a bible story I kind of liked.
But Peter had his dream and Paul said it was cool and the Romans were probably happy they could be saved without a knife to the you know what.
So who do we believe? Jesus defending the law? God espousing the law? Paul saying don’t worry about? The ancient Israelites writing divine parking citations?

You can hermeneutically say that Paul was bankrolled by a number of wealthy female patrons. Wonder if he had their heads shaved if they spoke out of turn?

Just sayin’

A certain fundamentalist went up to the temple to pray, but alas he spent his time thanking God that he was not like that guy over there, or that other one, or for that matter the rest of the motley crowd at the temple that day….

Max:
Florence in KY,

See you there or in the air, Florence.

You rock, Max.

Lea: And yet, you only restrict women. Maybe you should rethink your logic.

He can’t.
He’s MALE.
Really hard to rethink something when you Personally Benefit from it.

Serving Kids in Japan:
Why the second one, Robert? Why is “sex within heterosexual marriage only” a hill to die on?

If it’s a ‘cultural’ thing it’s certainly not a *new* one, considering it is all over the OT with polygamy and concubines and slaves and so on and so forth.

truthseeker00: Lea: Robert: I can say also that the ELCA and the PCUSA are non-Christian bodies
Get used to this sort of talking. Used to hear every week how ungodly all those ‘liberals’ were. Then it was the evangelicals. Then it was the ‘soft’ Reformed. I am not kidding you. My poor 85-year-old mother used to ask me, ‘Why, oh why, do we have to constantly hear everyone else condemned?’

Because a Mass Movement can do without a god as long as they have a Devil (and his Witches hiding under every bed). You need a Vast Enemy Conspiracy Everywhere to keep your weapons loyal, inside the fortress, and whipped into a frenzy.

Headless Unicorn Guy: a Mass Movement can do without a god as long as they have a Devil

Something to ponder, folks.

okrapod: We all are aware, are we not, that ordination as we understand it and practice it is not in the bible. Ordination, the word of course, is not in scripture. Neither are there instructions for the ceremony or for any particular occupational title associated with it. It is a construct developed by the church in response to the biblical idea of people being ‘set apart’ for a certain job.

Noted.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 Overseers and Deacons: qualifications are listed here with mention of neither ordination nor pastor.

Eph.4, Rom 12, & 1 Cor. 12 list 18 spiritual gifts, as in free, from the Holy Spirit to the Church, one (1/18) of which is pastor. No hierarchy, no cost, no gender, with the gifts.

Leila,

Because when you capitulate on human sexuality, you’ve lost the gospel.

Gus,

I never said they weren’t capable. It’s not an issue of ability; it’s an issue of what the Scriptures have prescribed. When you read the qualifications for elder, it’s clear they apply to men only. This wasn’t controversial in any Christian denomination until very recently.

Lea,

If you are okay with professing churches denying that Christ is the only way to the Father when Christ himself says explicitly that he is the only way to the Father, I can’t help you.

Ricco,

I don’t agree with breaking over small issues, but the fact is that you will break with others over dogma. If someone said it was dogma that pederastry or wife-beating was divinely approved, you would break with them and rightly so.

Everyone draws a doctrinal line. Even those who prize themselves on not doing so.

Jack: But there’s a gravitas added when we start to state not that this is “our” interpretation but that this is the definitive word of God versus the culture of the people of that time.

Which Robert is clearly happy to do since he considers wide swaths of Christendom ‘nonchristians’ because they disagree with him on things.

Good thing he’s not the one who decides.

Robert has also tried to define comp down to simply roles in the church, but the attitude that comes from that, and the way it is wielded against women touches on every aspect of their lives, public and deeply personal. When can you ever be equal even if, as in the *mildest* comp view, men get some sort of tiebreaker vote? You can not.

Serving Kids In Japan: What about heterosexual relationships outside of marriage? Why must all of those be condemned wholesale? I’ve had my doubts on this subject for some time, and I’m grateful to see that some other believers here (like Muff Potter) have had the courage to voice similar thoughts.

+1

Robert,

This is a major red herring. There aren’t any major Christian denominations going around telling people to beat their wives anymore. We have thankfully grown and people like the Deebs are doing a good job of keeping the pressure on misogynistic groups.

Also, throwing in pederasty in a discussion that touches on the involvement of gays in the church seems too close to the slanders that gay men have too often had to put up with.

Should the church tell people not to abuse their wives? Yes. Should the church tell people not to molest children? Yes. If someone in a church is doing one of these things, the proper response is to call the cops, not get into a doctrinal dispute. I see these as matters of law enforcement, not dogma.

The absurd counter examples you are giving give off tons of heat, but no light. And I’m sure your counter will be “If you aren’t ok with pederasts, why are you letting the gays in?” To quote you back to you, if you can’t see the distinction there, then I can’t help you.

Ricco,

This is a major red herring. There aren’t any major Christian denominations going around telling people to beat their wives anymore. We have thankfully grown and people like the Deebs are doing a good job of keeping the pressure on misogynistic groups.

That is correct. But there have been people (actually, there still are—see the people who advocate wife spanking) who on a doctrinal basis support wife beating. You disagree with their doctrine and draw a line there.

Also, throwing in pederasty in a discussion that touches on the involvement of gays in the church seems too close to the slanders that gay men have too often had to put up with.

My point is that everyone draws doctrinal lines. There are fringe “Christian” groups that advocate pederastry. They aren’t very numerous, but they exist.

Should the church tell people not to abuse their wives? Yes. Should the church tell people not to molest children? Yes. If someone in a church is doing one of these things, the proper response is to call the cops, not get into a doctrinal dispute. I see these as matters of law enforcement, not dogma.

False dichotomy. Yes, the first response is to call the cops. But doctrine is involved as well. There are groups—fringe groups to be sure—that will seek a doctrinal basis of such things.

Let’s put it another way. I imagine that you would, or at least I hope you would, state that someone who impenitently molests children or beats his wife is not a Christian. Hello, you’ve just separated someone over doctrine.

The absurd counter examples you are giving give off tons of heat, but no light. And I’m sure your counter will be “If you aren’t ok with pederasts, why are you letting the gays in?” To quote you back to you, if you can’t see the distinction there, then I can’t help you.

The fact that you seem quick to defend homosexuality, if I’m reading you right, says a ton. That being said, yes I see the distinction in terms of psychological harm done to the abused. Theologically, both pederastry and homosexuality are violations of nature.

But the point is that you draw doctrinal lines no less than I do.

Serving Kids In Japan,

Well, yes, but my reasons for breaking with them would have nothing to do with doctrine. I would stay far away from such people because pedophilia and spousal abuse are illegal, and even if they weren’t, they’d still be heinous and vile.
No need to bring the Bible in on this one. Just plain, ol’ fashioned human decency.

Except, of course, that across human history, spousal abuse had been widely accepted, as has pederastry. Just see “civilized” ancient Greece. The age of consent is extremely low in some countries even today. Muhammad married a 9 year old.

Humans don’t agree on what decency is. They might agree that murder is wrong, but they don’t agree on what constitutes murder.

You actually do need divine revelation to draw the line on these matters.

Jack,

But there’s a gravitas added when we start to state not that this is “our” interpretation but that this is the definitive word of God versus the culture of the people of that time.

That is true.

When it comes to gender roles, that’s what’s happening in some churches to such an extreme that women have to be introduced and sit to present to men (if allowed to present at all), some preachers are stating that women can’t be soldiers or police officers, or pilots or doctors because they would be in position in authority over men. I get the sense that you’re not opposed to equality in secular society (as in all people are equal – at least in principle – to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

I know, and it’s regrettable, but that’s the fault of the interpreter and not the fault of the text. So, the complementarian position can be misused, but that’s true of any position.

But if God is just, and we all have the potential to teach and understand then why would he deny that to 52% of the population based on gender alone? Women and men both have the potential for critical thinking, so why can one not teach the other?

Well, I would disagree with complementarians who say it is wrong for men to teach women in every setting. I think even a cursory reading of Scripture would make that position impossible because we do have women teaching men. Priscilla teaches Apollos in the book of Acts, for example.

When it comes to the “deeper meanings” of the old testament or new testament, I’ll confess, if there is a purpose, it eludes me. I’m sure we can go back and forth a lot, many folks with greater intellects that I have done so.

I think the problem is in trying to find a “deeper meaning.” This is where some branches of complementarianism go wrong and it leads them to absurd things such as “women shouldn’t be police officers because it might put them in a situation where women are in authority over men.” They try to ground their view in some view of the Trinity or other such thing. They’re reaching hard because the Bible simply doesn’t do that.

The Bible talks about these things in very general ways. It seems clear from the NT that wives are to submit to their husbands and that the office of elder is limited to men. But how that works itself out—especially in the marital relationship—is not spelled out in detail, which suggests that there is room for differences in how this happens from couple to couple.

My ideal of equality is not new. I held it long before I ceased being a Christian, my parents both worked, both taught, we went to a church for which gender roles was never an issue (in fact our pastor’s wife was a pastor herself).

It’s new in the sense that it is a twentieth-twenty-first century phenomenon. Historically, people around the world—and in many non-Western cultures to this day—did not believe that equality between men and women necessitates that all offices in church and society be open to men and women. Maybe the new idea is right and the old idea was wrong, but I don’t see much critical reflection on it. We just tend to embrace whatever the culture in which we lives tells us. And I don’t think it’s leading us in very positive directions. Large numbers of people are taking drugs for depression and anxiety. The divorce rate is very high. Males are being left behind in education. Working women frequently report sadness at not having as many children as they wanted to. Isolation and loneliness are epidemic. This is all in the West. I don’t know if all of those are related to our views of equality and the result of liberal feminism, but I think it can be argued that many of them are.

But basing on the evidence I have seen, women and men possess equal capability in every arena I can think of from flying an airplane to fixing a car to knitting a sweater.

Generally speaking, yes.

It just doesn’t make sense that God would endow women with and equal set of skills (like critical thinking, debating, learning etc) and then exclude them from sharing that knowledge.
Does this mean that women cannot take part in the great commission?

I agree, which is why I don’t think hard-line complementarians that say women can never teach men are wrong. Its just not biblically justifiable.

Robert: Historically, people around the world—and in many non-Western cultures to this day—did not believe that equality between men and women necessitates that all offices in church and society be open to men and women.

Wrong. They simply did not believe in the equality of men and women. They thought men were superior. And many still do. And it shows in their theology.

Robert: It’s new in the sense that it is a twentieth-twenty-first century phenomenon. Historically, people around the world—and in many non-Western cultures to this day—did not believe that equality between men and women necessitates that all offices in church and society be open to men and women. Maybe the new idea is right and the old idea was wrong, but I don’t see much critical reflection on it. We just tend to embrace whatever the culture in which we lives tells us. And I don’t think it’s leading us in very positive directions. Large numbers of people are taking drugs for depression and anxiety. The divorce rate is very high. Males are being left behind in education. Working women frequently report sadness at not having as many children as they wanted to. Isolation and loneliness are epidemic. This is all in the West. I don’t know if all of those are related to our views of equality and the result of liberal feminism, but I think it can be argued that many of them are.

I agree that we are products of the culture in which we are raised. But just because that’s the way it was in the past does not mean we continue those practices into the future.

For example people did marry young. In the Roman Empire a man could manage his estates and join the army at 14. Girls married when they had their first period. This isn’t right but in a society where you were an old person at 40 – if you could get there, then it puts the attitude in context. Interestingly Jesus was considered and “elder” at the ripe old age of 33.

Our society (on the whole, not talking specifics as there is a lot of work to be done worldwide) we continually strive to make things better. In the North America and most other countries (at least in principle) slavery is considered repugnant. Minorities have rights under the constitution – so (again in principle) the majority cannot just ride roughshod even in a democracy. This has been proved time and again in the courts where though Christianity is the dominant faith – it cannot impose its will on all citizens. Think gay marriage – you may disagree with it but who you love is not dictated by any particular faith.

I’ll guess that you would agree that using today’s weapons to turn our enemies cities into glass paved parking lots or indiscriminately slaughtering them to the last man, woman, child and farm animal is a huge step up from bronze age attitudes toward how warfare is conducted.

Issues such as addiction, depression/anxiety, marital infidelity, abuse of all stripes are not unique to the 20th/21st century. It’s more open now to discuss and therefore gets a higher profile. Also women (and let’s be honest – they drew the short stick throughout most of history) have options beyond staying in terrible marriages to keep the kids fed and keep a roof over their heads. I often think that Jesus’ admonition of divorce is rooted in the culture where it was a death sentence for a woman and her children to be turned out.

So when we look at the bible where do we draw the line between God’s intentions and the culture?

We have conscience, we have the ability to discern right and wrong, the bible really doesn’t work as step-by-step how to manual. It’s a history/philosophy. It’s stories give lessons to reflect on.

In our area the first hospitals set up in the era before universal healthcare (not making a political statement – I live in Canada, universal does not equal free – we pay higher taxes) many hospitals were set up by Christians – the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army among others. This is Christians making things better, this is the foundation of the equality that we all enjoy – Christian and non-christian alike.

The good old days were not that great for the vast majority of people.

Robert: Or are you prepared to tell adulterers that they are okay in the eyes of God?

My dad cheated on my mom and ruined my family, so no, I do not think that is ok. Thanks for attempting to read my mind.

We are talking past each other because I am what you call a heretic. I believe Christ’s life and death accomplished something real for everyone “For God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins against them.” I believe that death is not a bar to God pursuing people, much like Athanasium, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Naziansus, Karl Barth, T.F. Torrance, C.S. Lewis, Richard Rohr, and Baxter Kruger. I’m not saying that you have to agree, because again, I am a heretic. I’m just saying that I have some company within Christianity.

Maybe I’m being illogical or unprincipled. I think that every person must come before Jesus in perfect honesty and give an account for their life. I want to be there like the servant who did the most with his talents. I’m just not prepared to say what Jesus is going to say to anyone else. I think adultery is horrible and it destroys families and I hate it. If a friend was committing it I would confront them. If I know someone is molesting kids or beating their wife, I call the cops.

If people want to share communion and pass the peace, I want them to be allowed to do that. Of course I don’t want violent criminals and sexual predators in my church. I want all people to exercise wisdom in who they choose to interact with. My point is, I don’t control anyone’s standing in the eyes of God. I can absolutely speak to the negative effects of someone’s behavior, but I cannot speak to how God sees any one person.

Just one heretic’s opinion.

Serving Kids In Japan,

I would say that Japan is an interesting case because it is an Eastern country that has effectively been Westernized in many ways. Mostly as a result of US involvement post WW2.

Serving Kids In Japan,

I am a Christian. Does that mean that no matter what my experiences, or those of my loved ones or countless others has been, I should listen only to the Bible and ignore everything else?

It’s not listen only to the Bible. It’s the Bible as final authority.

If consistent, sound exegesis of Scripture says X is bad but your experience says Y is bad, you reject your experience.

Experience plays a role, but its subordinated to Scriptural teaching.

Besides, whose experience is definitive? Lots of people would say that there experience tells them pederastry is loving and good, that women should be beaten into submission, and so forth. Are you going to listen to THEIR experience? No, you are going to be selective, and rightly so.

The question is how do you determine which experience is worthy to hear and follow and which isn’t. You need an objective standard for that. For Christians it is the Word of God that is the final court of appeal. Not the fact that you might know somebody who is really nice but who is engaged in what God’s Word forbids.

Lea,

Wrong. They simply did not believe in the equality of men and women. They thought men were superior. And many still do. And it shows in their theology.

You are again judging what equality means according to twenty-first-century post-sexual revolution Western definitions. The Apostles believed in the equality of men and women, but they did not define equality to mean that women must be able to serve as elders.

What’s your standard for what equality means and why should I or anyone else accept it?

Robert: You are again judging what equality means according to twenty-first-century post-sexual revolution Western definitions.

I suppose you would rather I judge by standards hundreds of years ago, when women could not own or perhaps inherit property, were property of their husbands, could not work in many jobs. Could not vote. Etc.

Forgive me if I think ACTUAL equality is working out a bit better. You would like your own definitions, but you yourself will never have to live with them.

Jack: The good old days were not that great for the vast majority of people.

They were if you were Highborn on top.
“The System Works Just Fine!”

Something I discovered in common with ALL fanboys/advocates of a return to such systems — guess which category they always figure they’ll be in, the one that Holds the Whip or the one that Feels the Whip?

Robert: It’s not listen only to the Bible. It’s the Bible as final authority.

I think Jesus is the final authority.

Robert: There’s no good evidence that they ever served in a leadership capacity as pastor or elder or capital a Apostle.

First I hope we can agree that the word pastor is more correctly translated “shepherd.” It’s interesting that though the modern church uses the word and ministry of “pastor” to justify it as one of the foundational gifts in Eph. 4:11, we conveniently discount the apostle and prophet and sometimes the evangelist. How many churches do you know, for example, that have an office with the name “Apostle So and So” on the door. Or “Prophet So and So?”

As far as women serving as elders in the same capacity as male elders, we should refer to 1 Tim. 5. This passage speaks of male elders (mature/senior) and female elders (mature/senior) as well as young males and young females. When Paul says “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine” “1Tim 5:17, he does not differentiate between the male or female elders.

Furthermore, in verse 14, he does specifically mention young women and encourages this: “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide (G3616) the house….”Tim 5:14

G3616

oikodespoteō

Thayer Definition:
1) to be master (or head) of a house
2) to rule a household, manage family affairs

Now when those young women age, they will be “elders” who are mentioned in the same chapter as having a type of rule the same as the male elders.

Victorious,

I had many of the same thoughts. Our standard in any case is jesus not the others, who made many errors.

Victorious,

Look to the Apostles’ teaching after the resurrection. Before then, they were dunces.

Bridget,

I think Jesus is the final authority.

Indeed. And every Word of Scripture is the word of Jesus. He’s God, and God inspired the Bible. Jesus’ words in read are no more authoritative than Paul’s or Peter’s or Moses’, for that matter.

Robert: Jesus’ words in read are no more authoritative than Paul’s or Peter’s or Moses’, for that matter.

How do you know this? The Bible does not teach this, and ancient Christians filtered all the other books of the Bible through the four gospels. They considered the gospels more authoritative than the epistles.

Robert: I would also ask, working out better for whom? Modern definitions of equality demand the slaughter of millions of unborn girls. They never get a shot at ACTUAL equality.

China and India have killed millions of girls because they do not consider them as important as boys. Maybe you should think about where inequality leads.

Ricco: Not so sure anyone should be ruling in the church.

I also don’t think the bible makes some sort of designation that elders should ‘rule’. I think they are meant to be giving advice, really. The greek literally means an elder person.

I don’t have an issue with Presbyterian governance if done well. Someone has to make decisions, and a group of people selected by the church is, imo, at least equal to congregational rule, or at least reasonable arguments can be made one way or the other (each have strengths and weaknesses). But those elders aren’t ‘ruling’ individuals. That is deeply weird in concept.

Jack: Jesus’ edicts of do unto others and love thy neighbour are far cry from an eye for eye.

and an eye for an eye originally comes from the code of Hammurabi. Speaking of culture…

Jack: Think of the parable of the coins. What did you do with the wealth I left you? Jesus gave us a coin but it’s up to us to grow the wealth (and I don’t mean literal wealth – I mean a better society for all – where none shall perish but all have eternal life)

I like this thought Jack.

Lea: I also don’t think the bible makes some sort of designation that elders should ‘rule’. I think they are meant to be giving advice, really. The greek literally means an elder person.

I totally agree, I just think there are tons of churches out there, including some I have attended, that don’t get this. Celebrity pastors don’t seem to get this either