Wade Burleson Would Allow Beth Moore to Preach From the ‘Pulpit’ With No Restrictions at Emmanuel Enid (SBC)

https://science.nasa.gov/cats-eye-nebula-optical-and-x-ray

Cat’s Eye Nebula-NASA

“I do not think that women ministers and theologians are the first to have discerned the realities of grief and amazement in our lives, but they have helped us see them as important dimensions of prophetic reality. In many ways these sisters have permitted me to see what I otherwise might have missed.”-Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination.


I need a day or two at the beach without worrying about what to write. So, I’m presenting Wade Burleson’s recent post in which he says:

I would love for Beth Moore to teach (preach) at Emmanuel Enid in all three of our Sunday morning services. No restrictions at all.

Waiting for the SBC explosion…

Please read the following post with an open mind. Do not stop and attempt to go after Beth Moore and her theology. I have a number of differences with her. However, it is her presence on the stage of faith that must challenge folks to think deeply about their perspectives on the role of woman in the church; especially the role of women teaching men in the church. Wade holds to a different point of view than most Reformed Baptist pastors in the SBC, a fact that I’ve known  for many years.

I find it interesting that the SBC does not go after him since he doesn’t hold to the traditional SBC teaching on  complementarianism.

I am grateful that Wade has given me carte blanche to post his articles. H always challenges me to love better as I walk through this world.


Wade Burleson:  Beth Moore, the Growing Controversy of a Woman Teaching in SBC Churches. and a Question for You

There’s growing controversy on social media among those who belong to the Southern Baptist Convention over fellow SBC’er Beth Moore teaching men and women “from the pulpit” on Sunday mornings at various SBC churches.

This is such a silly controversy.

The idea of a “pulpit” in a Christian church is foreign to the New Testament. The “synagogues” of the Jews had a “pulpit” (wooden elevated stand) upon which teachers (rabbis) unrolled the scrolls and taught from them.

The New Testament ekklesia (the “church”) is always defined as gifted and called out people (men and women) and never a building with a pulpit. Ekklesia, or the church, means “called out ones.”

So Spirit-gifted, “called-out” teachers in the ekklesia should teach. That’s the purpose for why the Holy Spirit gifted them.

Beth Moore has the gift of teaching. She’s Southern Baptist. She’s a biblical conservative and a great communicator. There are a few theological points of doctrine that Beth Moore would see differently than I, but those are minor. It’s also a given that Beth Moore would not agree with me on some theological points that I teach.

What matters is Beth Moore is a gifted teacher. I would love for Beth Moore to teach (preach) at Emmanuel Enid in all three of our Sunday morning services. No restrictions at all.

The current controversy seems to be over the fact that Beth Moore presumes to teach men the truth of Scripture. Comprehendo? Beth Moore dares to teach men biblical truth on a Sunday morning. Those men upset with it must have intentionally forgotten all those times they’ve ever asked a woman something.

What makes you men think spiritual or biblical information that helps someone live better should be categorized as different than any other information that helps someone live better (eg., asking for directions; getting financial counsel, etc.).

Let’s be biblically consistent.

The New Testament teaches us that the Spirit gifts His people as He pleases, and the Spirit’s gift-giving is never gender-guarded.Both men and women have the gift of teaching, and the sooner we learn that men can learn spiritual truths from women, the better off we are.

One year ago, at the 2018 Southern Baptist Convention, I stepped to microphone six and asked Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, a question.

Al really never answered my question. He laughed it off.

He can’t answer it because he knows his illogical, unbiblical, and detrimental view of “women keeping silent” when it comes to teaching men spiritual truths will be exposed with any answer he gives.

So now I’m asking you the same question. Give me your thoughts.

I originally wrote the following blogpost on  June 14, 2018, just a few days after Dr. Mohler and I engaged in a very cordial and public conversation.

During the 2018 Southern Baptist Convention, I stepped to Microphone 6 to ask Dr. Mohler and the other Southern Baptist seminary Presidents a question.

Before I tell you what I asked, let me give you some background.

I, like most Southern Baptists, believe the Bible is God’s infallible and inerrant Word. What I’ve discovered over the last dozen years is that men in control of the Southern Baptist Convention desire to tell you what the Bible means and don’t like people disagreeing.

There’s nothing wrong with giving others an interpretation of God’s Word. Pastors do it all the time. It’s called exegesis or “a critical explanation or interpretation of a text of Scripture.”

But the Southern Baptist Convention will always be in trouble when there is a demand for conformity on tertiary matters of theology instead of a decision for cooperation around the primary message of the Gospel.

There is a huge difference between believing the Bible is God’s Word and interpreting the Bible as God’s Word.

None of us is God.

God doesn’t stutter when He speaks, but we’re often at a loss when we listen. “He that has ears to hear let him hear,” Jesus said. The problem is us, not God.

If I don’t think I can make a mistake in interpreting God’s Word, then I have a problem with pride. I’ve placed myself in the position of God, telling you that you better believe what I say. God doesn’t like pride, and pride will always lead to a personal fall.

That’s why we all better be humble about telling others what God is saying. We may actually be misunderstanding God’s Word. To believe God’s Word is infallible is a confession of faith in God and God’s Word. But to believe my interpretation of God’s Word is infallible is a confession of faith in myself and my abilities.

So Christians have a simple job as fallible people who follow Jesus Christ.
We are to always make sure we don’t confuse our interpretation with God’s inspiration.
That’s why I like to ask seminary Presidents questions.

They are some of our most educated,  intellectually astute, and theologically-minded people in the Southern Baptist Convention. But if they’re not careful, seminary Presidents – like pastors –  can get in the bad habit of thinking their interpretation of God’s Word is infallible.

Al Mohler does not believe that a woman can teach pastors the Bible. In Southern Seminary’s School of Theology, there are  35 professors – 34 white men and 1 black man  – who are teaching and training Southern Baptist preachers and teachers, pastors and theologians, for the purpose of building the kingdom of God to the glory of Jesus Christ.

There are no women.

Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, and a host of other current and former leaders of the Conservative Resurgence interpret God’s Word as saying, “No woman shall ever teach a man or have a position of authority over a man (e.g. especially holy men like pastors).”

I believe their belief is built on an erroneous interpretation of God’s Word.  God commissions His people to serve His Kingdom based on their giftings and not their gender.

Male pastors taking “spiritual authority” over people is a fraudulent authority in Christ’s Kingdom. It’s not supposed to be that way. It’s contrary to the teachings of Jesus. The idea that male pastors have some kind of “special authority” is the result of a misinterpretation of just one or two passages from the New Testament. 

Yet SBC Presidents pontificate on pastoral power as if this pagan principle is actually a Papal bull.

That’s all background for why I went to Microphone 6 and asked my question of Dr. Mohler and the other Southern Baptist Seminary Presidents.

The Question
“Dr. Mohler, I want to thank you and the other seminary Presidents for your leadership and your reports. I’ve sat through many years of annual meetings, and the reports from our seminary Presidents this year constitute the best I’ve heard. Thank you all for your transparency, theological acumen, and love for Christ’s Kingdom.

In light of several Southern Baptist women writing to me and telling me that Southern Baptist male divinity students are encouraged by seminary professors to walk out when female students fulfilling M.Div. requirements exegete the Scriptures out loud, and personally knowing that there have been unjust terminations of Hebrew and Old Testament professors in our Southern Baptist seminaries because they are females, and observing the lack of competent, gifted women in leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, I have a specific question that I’d like to ask you and the other seminary Presidents.

In 1863,  Joanna P. Moore (1832-1916) was appointed the first female Baptist missionary to the Home Mission Field by the American Baptist Convention, an original member of the Triennial Convention (1814), the forerunner of the Southern Baptist Convention (1845).

According to the Home Mission Monthly Magazine, Joanna Moore arrived for her first mission assignment on Island #10 in the Mississippi River. She ministered among former African American slaves who were now being protected by the Union Army. These former slaves had their own male pastors, mostly illiterate men who faithfully shepherded their fellow Christians in the plantations of the south.

These African American plantation preachers had never heard or thought it was wrong to get drunk occasionally until Joanna P. Moore arrived. She faithfully taught these pastors the Scriptures, especially expounding I Timothy 3:3 and the biblical prohibition against drunkenness. The pastors reformed their conduct, ceasing their occasional habit of getting drunk, and were better pastors due to the influence of Joanna P. Moore.
So here’s my question:

Was it sinful for Joanna P. Moore to teach those male pastors the Word of God, and should she have remained silent and let those pastors continue in their drunkenness?”

After some laughter from the crowd, Dr. Mohler gave his response which demonstrated a great deal of inconsistency (I’ll write on his response at another time).

My goal with this post is to encourage all fellow Christians who love Christ and His Word to consider and contemplate the illogical, fallible, and impractical interpretation that prevents a woman from teaching men or pastors the Holy Scriptures.

Never give in to demands for conformity on a specific interpretation of Scripture when your Master is Jesus Christ, and only His Word is infallible, not the words of a man.

Search the Scriptures for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

I’ve drawn mine.

For more information on Baptist evangelist Joanna P. Moore, watch this short video.


Comments

Wade Burleson Would Allow Beth Moore to Preach From the ‘Pulpit’ With No Restrictions at Emmanuel Enid (SBC) — 347 Comments

  1. I’m sorry, this is a digression from this post. (Go Beth Moore and Pastor Wade!)

    Has anyone here been part of or know of a Matthew 18 type situation that actually led to repentance on the part of church leadership?

    My husband and I just left a church where the senior pastor is a Master’s Seminary (John MacArthur) graduate who went on to do a Harvest Bible Fellowship (James MacDonald) church plant. I’ve only been following this blog for a year, but am sure you know what’s coming…

    We left because an elder (also our small group leader) and an associate pastor invited themselves to our house under the guise of us starting a small group, then proceeded to single me out as having a “pattern” of “yellow flags” that I would have trouble “submitting to leadership and training.” It went downhill from there, particularly when they realized that my husband has the same concerns about how a building purchase and relocation is being handled by leadership (among other things). (Side note, my husband has expressed several of these concerns in person to this same elder. Yet he was not the one being called to the carpet, so to speak, for holding to these views. I was.) Several days later, we sent a lengthy email to this elder and associate pastor, stating exactly what our concerns were (including how the “yellow flag” meeting was handled) and that we were leaving.

    We have already returned to the church we attended when we were first married. But the elder of the church we left is accusing us of not following through on a Matthew 18 process. At this point, the easiest thing to do would be simply not engage. But I am having trouble letting go, knowing that this elder is free to continue this kind of behavior with others.

    Advice?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  2. “there are 35 professors – 34 white men and 1 black man – who are teaching and training Southern Baptist preachers and teachers, pastors and theologians…

    So my first question is: What does the above statement have to do with the subject matter?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  3. Let women keep silent in the church is a NT teaching well illustrated by the musical group Confederate Railroad in their song “The Big One” (lyrics below)

    It was a hot Sunday mornin’ Middle of July
    The choir was a singin’ ‘Bout the sweet by and by
    Everybody was a swayin’ And sweatin’ in the heat
    We all bowed our heads down As the preacher took his seat

    My sister and my brother stood next to my mother
    In the quiet at the close of the verse
    That’s when daddy cut the big one
    At the Horn Lake Mississippi Missionary Baptist Church

    My sister rolled her eyes back My brother bit his lip
    My cousin just behind us Whispered, “Hey, who let it rip?”
    I stuck my face in my shirtsleeve Stared down at my shoes
    Lord, you could hear a pin drop As we stood there in the pew
    Heads were turnin’, eyes were burnin’ Momma stuck her nose in her purse
    After daddy cut the big one At the Horn Lake Mississippi Missionary Baptist Church

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  4. Wild Honey: Advice?

    “Remember Lot’s wife.”
    -Jesus

    Run. Run and don’t look back!

    Their interpretation of Matthew 18 is jaded and skewed. They have no honest desire to ‘restore’ you, they only want control over you and your husband! If you try to reason with them, they will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Instead, send them a certified “cease and desist” type of letter, and tell them in no uncertain terms that you wish to be left alone…and keep copies of all correspondence with them!

    Your ordeal is truly heart-breaking, but becoming all too common in this day and age.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  5. “Ekklesia, or the church, means “called out ones.”

    Can we stop the lexical fallacies? The Greek word just means “community.” Does the word “butterfly” mean a stick of margarine with wings? -No. I’m not sure why this way of using Greek sticks and is so commonly used. It makes Christians look foolish to those who aren’t Christians.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  6. Wild Honey,

    I have never heard of such a resolution, but perhaps others have.

    May I suggest Matthew 18 does not appear to pertain in any way. You do not seem to be claiming a trespass was committed against you, just a loss in confidence in leadership’s capacity.

    There are instructions to attempt to live at peace with all men. Additionally, there is instruction to withdraw from an unruly brother.

    I would not worry about remaining congregants, and hope your new Church is a more pleasant experiance.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  7. Historically ignorant twittering from Owen Strachan on this:

    Strachan: “A conversation recently sparked among Southern Baptists over whether women should instruct the church body. This practice is foreign to Southern Baptist history.”

    Strachan: “women do not preach on Sunday to the church”

    But here is Amy Lee Stockton preaching in 1933 at the church now pastored by Mark Dever. The church has been “Always doctrinally conservative” according to the ‘Our History’ page of its website. Pastor John Compton Ball invited Stockton back to preach there repeatedly in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s!

    https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1933-05-20/ed-1/seq-9/

    “MISS AMY L. STOCKTON At the Metropolitan Baptist Church tomorrow Dr. J. Clyde Turner, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Greensboro, N. C., will preach on “Things That Cannot Be Shaken.” The choir will be assisted by Prof. I. E. Reynolds, director of music of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Tex., and also song leader of the Southern Baptist Convention.
    At the evening service. Dr. John Compton Ball, pastor, will be assisted by the well known California evangelists Misses Amy Lee Stockton and Rita Gould. Miss Stockton will deliver the sermon in the evening. Special music will be rendered by the choir under the leadership of Chorister Gilbert A. Clark, with the assistance of Miss Rita Gould, soloist. At the beginning of the service the ordinance of baptism will be administered by the pastor. Dr. Ball.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  8. I have a hard time explaining away 1 Tim 2:12-14. Paul seems to clearly state the reason for not allowing women to teach or exercise authority over a man in church goes back to the Garden and Eve’s sin. I trust my holding to this strict interpretation does not make me sexist or a misogynist, and I hope those who disagree with me will not label me as such. I don’t proudly look down my nose at those who disagree with me.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  9. Wild Honey,

    “A pattern of yellow flags”? Seriously?
    Yeah, their yellow flags raise one huge red one for me! Obviously their concern with the Matt 18 process is all about submission. I agree with the cease and desist letter idea, and IIRC there have been a lot of posts here on how to deal with this. There is a perma-link in the upper right corner of the side bar you can check out.

    Tell them to “go pound sand and move on, we have.”

    As for the those left behind, all you can do is share your experience and pray for the best for them. Those that are paying attention will listen. Those that aren’t won’t, no matter what you say. Some people have probably already drank the cool-aid.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  10. Wild Honey: But the elder of the church we left is accusing us of not following through on a Matthew 18 process. At this point, the easiest thing to do would be simply not engage. But I am having trouble letting go, knowing that this elder is free to continue this kind of behavior with others.
    Advice?

    OK: so I’m about to offer more or less no help at all here.

    If our experience (and that of others I know personally) is anything to go by, then the reason you’re finding it difficult to let go is that it is genuinely difficult to let this sort of thing go. The many conflicting rights and wrongs are intertwined like spaghetti.

    I’m increasingly coming to understand that when Jesus said to be as innocent as doves and as shrewd as snakes, he was issuing a hard teaching. VERY few people are both of those things together. So – and this is probably going to come out wrong – I’m glad to hear you’re having trouble. It means you care, and are taking the problem seriously. Like I said… no help at all.

    There is, however, one thing that my wife and I specifically regret not doing when we left a congregation under analogous circumstances to your own. That is, we wish we had written (or similar) to our friends in that congregation, stating clearly why we were leaving, putting our side of a story that was bound to be spun against us by leadership, and defending ourselves against accusations that would undoubtedly result in our friends being ordered to shun us. We should, in retrospect, have told them that we’d understand if they felt in too difficult a position to associate with us; that we were requiring no-one to shun or break fellowship with anyone, even the offending elders, and that they were welcome in our lives at any future time.

    I hope this is some help…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  11. Proffy: I trust my holding to this strict interpretation does not make me sexist or a misogynist, and I hope those who disagree with me will not label me as such.

    I think you could say this in a way that might be more helpful. I am a woman. That means I cannot teach men or participate in any sort of spiritual leadership[ in the church. Fort you, it is merely a belief. For women it means a restriction on what they can do in churches. And in many churches all sorts of rules are put in place to prevent women from *infecting* the church.

    So, if you are going to take your position, you must also own how women have been treated by the church. Even these days we have men like John Piper limiting a woman’s ability to serve in law enforcement or any profession in which she has authority over men.

    So, perhaps you should consider how to word it better. We do know that Adam’s sin was equal to Eve’s sin and it seems like that is not the best explanation for you stand on this issue.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  12. Proffy: 1 Tim 2:12-14. Paul seems to clearly state the reason for not allowing women to teach or exercise authority over a man in church goes back to the Garden

    It doesn’t say “in the church” you added that. It’s not “a man” either, it’s her husband (“nor to rule a husband” – Young’s Literal translation) hence the Adam and Eve reference.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  13. Dee,
    I honestly tried my best to word it so very carefully, but I clearly struck a chord with you (and that was not my intention). Of course, I agree that Adam and Eve BOTH sinned. However, Paul does write that Eve was deceived, while Adam was not. So there is some kind of difference in their sins. Why does that explain why women should not teach or exercise authority over men in church??? I do not pretend to know. But Paul wrote these verses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I don’t pretend to like these verses. In my flesh, I wish Paul had not written them.

    I strongly reject Piper’s views that women should not hold leadership positions in business, government, and society. I have worked under very effective Chairs, Directors, Deans, Provosts and Presidents who were strong women leaders. 1 Timothy is a pastoral letter, and I believe the context of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is “in the church.” What other context makes sense? Piper and others are out of bounds when they extend their views beyond that. Please don’t lump me in with them. Nothing I wrote even hints that I am in their camp. Nothing. (Not that it matters, but I am not in the reformed camp either.)

    I think it is regrettable that some churches have put rules in place that prevent women from *infecting* the church. I would never be part of such a church. Because others have acted sinfully in how women have been treated in church, it does not mean (as you write) that I have to “own it.”

    Please weigh in your heart and mind whether your *interpretation* of what I wrote is affected by the hurtful, sinful actions and words of others on this subject. I tried to write thoughtfully and respectfully. If you feel it is best for your blog, I can bow out of the conversation.

    Proffy

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  14. Proffy: I have a hard time explaining away 1 Tim 2:12-14. Paul seems to clearly state the reason for not allowing women to teach or exercise authority over a man in church goes back to the Garden and Eve’s sin. I trust my holding to this strict interpretation does not make me sexist or a misogynist, and I hope those who disagree with me will not label me as such. I don’t proudly look down my nose at those who disagree with me.

    I also see that Paul is bringing in the creation account. But that is what clears up the seeming paradox that Paul in practice acknowledged female leaders, but did not allow them. I cannot find anywhere from the beginning of the whole Timothy letter that there is a separation of women and men leaders that Paul is addressing. So that is why, to me, Paul ends the whole discourse in verse 15 saying that both male and female will be saved in the same way. Translators have assumed that the “they” will be saved means the females because of the childbirth comment of Paul’s. Paul was talking about the misnomer the Ephesians held that Eve was created first. Just as Paul did in other passages about male and female relationships, he was countering inequality, not creating inequality as that already existed in pagan culture. He was addressing heresy, not authority. And he was addressing the castration of males for worship, which went along with all of the Bible, saying that our God will not be worshipped like the pagans worship their gods, as men did to themselves. There is no excuse anymore with the tools we have to look up the original meanings and the historical biases that affect our translations. And yet, as bad as some of them are, they are not too distorted to clearly see alternative interpretations when verses are not taken out of their contexts. The appeal to Genesis as a reason to keep women subjugated is wrong because Genesis does not put the women in a servant’s role. The rule of men over women was the completely logical conclusion to the woman placing her trust in the first man rather than going straight to God herself. Us women still keep making that same mistake today and wonder why nothing changes. There is a lot of great scholarly work done to help you explain the passage in question. But I just wanted to argue with the same “seemingly clear” logic straight from the English translation reading as you just did without any further digging into the earliest manuscripts and historical evidence for either of our opinions.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  15. I don’t care if anyone disregards my babble in my last comment. I know it was bad form. I am in a hurry and went all over the place I know. But I was lazy, realizing that any man who believes a woman cannot teach him is not going to take me seriously anyway.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  16. dee,

    I think what John might have meant is we can’t always trust Lexicons. I know we can’t when we check out authenteo. Some Scholars have gone to secular Greek documents to understand it better. Often Lexicographers have been lazy and copied traditional usage or perhaps had no access to ancient secular materials. Suzanne at Suzanne’s Bookshelf, who started reading Greek as a teen, did a yeomans work on that word. Sadly, she passed away a few years ago and I don’t know if her research blog still remains. She cited every source meticulously.and even cites the Lexicons that get it wrong.

    There are some other words with the same problem. Thankfully, Katherine Bushnell did some serious research on several. My study on the word Ekklesia found it used in secular situations often. “Called out ones” is stretching it but sounds much more Christianese. It’s often worth another search if one finds that sort of thing interesting,

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  17. “But the Southern Baptist Convention will always be in trouble when there is a demand for conformity on tertiary matters of theology instead of a decision for cooperation around the primary message of the Gospel.”

    But do they even agree to cooperate on that anymore? I mean, they can’t even agree on what “the Gospel” is!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  18. Lydia: I think what John might have meant is we can’t always trust Lexicons. I know we can’t when we check out authenteo. Some Scholars have gone to secular Greek documents to understand it better.

    I agree. Some things are much simpler, but there are a lot of things we just don’t understand well enough.

    But that’s a very good argument for why there shouldn’t be anyone who claims “…BECAUSE BIBLE!” Admittedly, many of those people haven’t even bothered to actually study those passages hardly at all.

    Those who claim to study the Bible the most should be the most humble about their interpretations. Those who claim to know absolutely are probably lying to you.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  19. Patti: The rule of men over women was the completely logical conclusion to the woman placing her trust in the first man rather than going straight to God herself.

    Exactly! The passage in Genesis 3 was God’s prophetic words to Adam and Eve as they will encounter upon leaving the garden. His words to Eve was a warning about what would follow if she “turned to/reached out toward” Adam. If we read that as a command and a forever one at that, we must also relegate the words to Adam as commands and likewise forever. All men, then, must labor in the field of agriculture, must sweat, and must allow thorns and thistles to grow.

    It’s easy to see the absurdity of the words to Adam as commands, but for some reason, many think it perfectly reasonable when applied to words to Eve.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  20. What matters is Beth Moore is a gifted teacher. I would love for Beth Moore to teach (preach) at Emmanuel Enid in all three of our Sunday morning services. No restrictions at all.

    I wonder if Wade has extended an invitation to her.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  21. Proffy: I have a hard time explaining away 1 Tim 2:12-14. Paul seems to clearly state the reason for not allowing women to teach or exercise authority over a man in church goes back to the Garden and Eve’s sin. I trust my holding to this strict interpretation does not make me sexist or a misogynist, and I hope those who disagree with me will not label me as such. I don’t proudly look down my nose at those who disagree with me.

    1 Timothy, especially 2:8-15a “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing”

    When reading and studying the Bible, context is key. Some of Paul’s writings are “high context” – little previous knowledge is required. Romans is an example of this – Paul was writing to a group of people he had never met, so he writes in careful, overwhelming detail. Amusingly, we then say “too complicated” and go to a seemingly straightforward book like 1 Timothy. HOWEVER, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are the LOWEST context books in the entire New Testament. Timothy and Titus, the people, were Paul’s fellow workers. Timothy, by the time this book was written, had been joined at the hip with Paul for at least 15 years. According to Acts, at least in Ephesus, Paul taught every day for a number of hours. Think about this – Timothy knew Paul’s teaching inside out and backward. He could probably have told Paul’s jokes. Paul knew this, so he would only tell Timothy the scraps he needed and trust that Timothy would filter them through his deep understanding. This is the equivalent of reading a master tradesperson writing a letter to another master. They are not going over the basics and there is a huge amount that “goes without saying” between them. IMO, no one should even be allowed to read these until they are thoroughly familiar with Paul’s higher context works.

    So, what was the purpose of 1 Timothy? Read ch 1:1-4. The entire purpose of the book is rebuking of false teaching and trying to recover a dying church. This is a disaster manual. So, we know from the first chapter and the beginning of the second that there was false teaching in the church. Paul names, shames and drives out two male teachers at the end of chapter 1. Then ch 2 starts. It is obvious that there is strife in the church – Paul reprimands the men, telling them collectively to pray without fighting. He tells the women to quit showing off and work for the church. These are all plural commands (even in the Greek). Then we see an abrupt shift to a singular female address from ch 2:11-15a. Paul is famous for parenthetical rants!

    So, we see a specific command to Timothy “Let the woman learn”. Then he qualifies it “in silence with all subjection.” In other words, learn like a rabbinical student, who listens to the teacher and learns, not like a Greek Socratic student, who debates the teacher.

    Then “but I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be silent.” A couple of points here: teach nor usurp authority is a single concept, not two. “Drink and drive” is an example. Drinking is fine. So is driving. Together, not so much! Also, “nor” here indicates that both activities are negative.

    So, we have a negative teaching. “Usurp authority” has, in the newer translations, been translated simply “authority”. Bad! This word athentein is only used this once in all of Paul’s extent writings. “Authority” found elsewhere in the NT is translating the word exousia. To make this even more confusing, there are only three examples of authentein in any Greek writing from the time of Paul. Given these problems, the best translation we have is actually the KJV “usurp” – or take illegitimate authority on your own, usually with overt or covert violence.

    The major issue with using these verses for anything major (much less cutting off one half of the world’s population from full participation in the church – pretty major!) is this word. Think about it – we have a single use of an uncommon word from 2000 years ago. It is a basic principle that no theology should be built on a hapax legomenon (only word) like this.

    So, we have a passage speaking to female singular, in which the command is “learn” and there is a warning against female singular performing negative teaching and taking illegitimate authority over at least one male. Since the whole book is about cultic teaching, chances are high that you’ve got it here. Then, we see an immediate echo back to the “learn” in the “she should be silent”.

    Then Paul illustrates or illuminates the point and we see “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing “. So, first of all, men totally should not want this passage to say anything about teaching or authority as its focuses. Why? Think about it – Adam WAS NOT deceived, which would mean that he sinned in cold blood, purposely rebelling. Eve was merely deceived. If this passage truly is about who should teach and be in authority, then it would indicate that the well-trained cold blooded rebellious sinner male should be chosen over a deceived but trainable female. Highly unlikely!

    What is Paul getting at? If, as the command indicates, the passage is about learning, then a quick read of Genesis 2 will show that Adam received the “do not eat” command before Eve existed, so she had to learn something from him, and obviously she didn’t learn well enough to stay out of trouble! What about the childbearing thing? Well, if you read Genesis 3 carefully, you’ll see something interesting. Adam didn’t answer his questions right – Eve actually told the absolute truth to God, answering her question fully and honestly. God rewards her with a seed, the greatest reward of the OT patriarchs, for her repentance. So, this female teacher, or teachers, is being told to learn well, don’t teach negatively (bad or cultic doctrine) or scramble after authority violently – remember that Eve had to learn, but also received the promise, even after she screwed up.

    One last thing to keep in mind – despite its surface clarity, this passage has so many ambiguities that it has at least 12 distinct interpretations. This is the one that makes the most sense to me of all the evidence.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  22. ishy:
    “But the Southern Baptist Convention will always be in trouble when there is a demand for conformity on tertiary matters of theology instead of a decision for cooperation around the primary message of the Gospel.”

    But do they even agree to cooperate on that anymore? I mean, they can’t even agree on what “the Gospel” is!

    Russell Moore has said that Complementarianism is “crucial to the gospel”.
    He even believes it is a sin for males to watch DVDs with female speakers, because, in a way, the speaker is assuming the role of pastor.

    Yeah. If they are really serious about renaming the Southern Baptist Convention, they should tell the “gospel” truth and call it the Sanctified Boys Club.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  23. Proffy,

    “I have a hard time explaining away 1 Tim 2:12-14. Paul seems to clearly state the reason for not allowing women to teach or exercise authority over a man in church goes back to the Garden and Eve’s sin. I trust my holding to this strict interpretation does not make me sexist or a misogynist, and I hope those who disagree with me will not label me as such.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    if sexism is “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex”, please explain why you are not sexist.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  24. A disgusting anniversary today: Executed in the Netherlands 400 years ago on 13 May 1619 as the Synod of Dort closed, a champion of the Arminians Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. He had been imprisoned for the duration of the Synod of Dort, and was beheaded for ‘subversion of the country’s religion’ shortly after the Gomarists’ form of Calvinism was adopted by the Synod.

    Even Ligonier Ministries admits persecuting him “was a shameful act against a Dutch patriot and one of the low points for Dutch Calvinists”:

    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/arminius-and-remonstrants/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  25. Victorious: . If we read that as a command and a forever one at that, we must also relegate the words to Adam as commands and likewise forever. All men, then, must labor in the field of agriculture, must sweat, and must allow thorns and thistles to grow.

    Indeed. Ever hear a conservative pastor telling men they shouldn’t use weed killer on their suburban lawns? Or they must forgo central air in their workplaces because God said men must sweat when they work? Of course not.

    Back when doctors first used ether (if you can believe it) and forceps to aid in childbirth some Christian circles protested because they said pain in child bearing was God’s design for women. Today no pastor tells his dude bros to deny their wives epidurals and C-sections.

    If lightening the workload and lessening birth pains can be overcome through human ingenuity why hang on to women’s subjection to husbands as some badge of biblical truth?

    Must have to do with control.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  26. <a href="mailto:n.roe.hall@gmail.com">n.roe.hall@gmail.com</a>: Russell Moore has said that Complementarianism is “crucial to the gospel”.
    He even believes it is a sin for males to watch DVDs with female speakers, because, in a way, the speaker is assuming the role of pastor.

    What they don’t tell many men, until church discipline is enacted, is that the men are expected to “submit” to their authority as well. Bait the men with the idea that they can be little gods in their homes, and make them believe they can do no wrong… until they start questioning the hierarchy for themselves.

    Their “Gospel” is nothing more than cult propaganda.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  27. I haven’t made my way through the whole post yet.
    I got to this part:

    — start—
    The New Testament ekklesia (the “church”) is always defined as gifted and called out people (men and women) and never a building with a pulpit. Ekklesia, or the church, means “called out ones.”
    —end—

    And was reminded of this:

    The Hole in Our Complementarianism
    http://hopefullyknown.com/2013/11/06/the-hole-in-our-complementarianism/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  28. Fisher: If lightening the workload and lessening birth pains can be overcome through human ingenuity why hang on to women’s subjection to husbands as some badge of biblical truth?

    Must have to do with control.

    Yes, control for one thing, but lack of proper, logical, reasonable, contextual interpretation as well. I think it’s a perfect example of “selective literalism” which is used by those who wish to choose the “plain” reading to those scriptures that further their agenda. That method often ignores the context.

    I’ve always found it interesting that immediately after God states it is not good for Adam to be alone, He begins the process of forming animals and allowing Adam to name them. Now surely since God is all-knowing, He knew that animals were not the answer to Adam’s being alone. In fact, scripture says that God “and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.” I’m of the opinion that the purpose of that order was confirmation that the names Adam chose reflected the change that had taken place in Adam and the reason for the warning to Eve that he would rule over her.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  29. dee,

    Eh, it might have meant “called out ones” more literally when the word was first coined, but by the time the New Testament was written it just referred to an assembly. Sort of like how a car’s glove box originally was the box that held gloves, but now it’s just a compartment in the dashboard. The mob in Ephesus is also called an ἐκκλησίᾳ (Acts 19), but they are definitely not a Godly group. I don’t think there is any special theological significance in the word, but I also don’t think there is any harm in using it the way Wade does. This same sort of problem happens when people make a big deal about the different words for love in the Bible.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  30. Victorious,

    I’m going to disagree with y’all. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the woman’s desire for the man. That same phrase is used in Song of Songs 7 but there the man’s desire is for the woman and there’s mutual ownership between the two. I think the curse/consequence in Genesis 3:16 is the last line – he will rule over you (woman). Community is fractured in all of creation, between humanity and God, humanity and the animal world, humanity and the earth itself, and within humanity itself. In this instance, Patriarchy is a consequence of sin.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  31. Daisy,

    Thank you for giving Proffy a listen and an opportunity to educate himself, Daisy. He may actually be looking to discuss this, rather than be beat up for attempting to hold himself to the Scriptures.

    All of us need patience when we are learning to understand and interpret the Scriptures.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  32. Lady Preacher: I think the curse/consequence in Genesis 3:16 is the last line – he will rule over you (woman).

    Genesis states the only things that were cursed is the serpent and the ground. (Gen. 3:14; 17)

    If you see 3:16 as a command rather than prophetic consequence (for all time/women), then the same must be applied to the command to Adam/all men for all time. Men must engage forever in the field of agriculture, must sweat, and must grow thorns and thistles.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  33. John:
    “Ekklesia, or the church, means “called out ones.”

    Can we stop the lexical fallacies? The Greek word just means “community.” Does the word “butterfly” mean a stick of margarine with wings? -No. I’m not sure why this way of using Greek sticks and is so commonly used. It makes Christians look foolish to those who aren’t Christians.

    Don’t have a citation, but I read years ago that “ekklesia” was commonly used in secular Greek writing of the time to refer to “public assemblies” and that the “ek kaleo” (out called) reference was to the participants in the assembly being called out of their homes (private spaces) into the public space of the assembly. So it would be a natural term to use for public gatherings of believers in any particular city. “Assembly” might be the best translation into present-day usage. The “Assemblies of God” chose their name well.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  34. One thing I had to come to terms with about females teaching males, or teaching from the pulpit was the simple fact that it just looked “odd” to me because it wasn’t something I had witnessed during my previous 50 years. Not right, not wrong, just different. That sent me on a journey to find out what other things that I saw as odd just because I was unfamiliar with them were not wrong at all.
    I’ll just say I have learned much and grown a bit just by thinking about things differently.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  35. Hey GBTC,
    I need your help. For whatever reason, my last comment posted my email addy instead of Nancy2(aka Kevlar). My email also shows up in ishy’s response. Could you correct it, please. I don’t mind the TWW regulars seeing the addy, but ya never know who else might see it …….. ya know?

    I don’t know what happened — might have been my mistake. I thought I typed everything in correctly, but I have an ugly, vision-blurring migraine+sinus+tension headache today.
    Sorry for the trouble, and thank you in advance.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  36. GreekEpigraph: So, first of all, men totally should not want this passage to say anything about teaching or authority as its focuses. Why? Think about it – Adam WAS NOT deceived, which would mean that he sinned in cold blood, purposely rebelling. Eve was merely deceived.

    Excellent comment, GreekEpigraph! Thank you 🙂

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  37. Victorious,

    Right, that’s why I wrote “curse/consequence.” People often say curse when they refer to that whole section. And no, Adam isn’t commanded to rule over the woman, that is just the new reality, just like death is the new reality. It’s demonstrated in vs 20 when Adam names her Eve as soon as God stops talking. Naming is a way of exerting authority, and he exercises it here. Woman is not a name, it’s a description.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  38. Wild Honey: Has anyone here been part of or know of a Matthew 18 type situation that actually led to repentance on the part of church leadership?

    My experience is that they have prepared for any objections you could possibly bring up long ago and have no intention of being open to your concerns. I would personally advise against such a meeting, you have nothing to gain and much to lose. Listen to your gut, as they say. You know something is wrong. Don’t let yourselves be pressured and manipulated. Definitelyddo not agree to meet alone without a witness! There are lots os horror stories on this blog. Move on to a healthier church.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  39. Getting up and turning your back on a speaker or leaving the room is just intensely ugly and rude. I have zero respect for anyone who would do such a thing.

    Do these men who are fixated on their authority and position ever consider that if the last truly shall be first… Where will that put them? And the meek shall inherit the earth, not the vain glorious authority seekers. Or maybe they don’t actually believe in a coming judgment or an afterlife at all. Maybe they just want to be as kings in the here and now.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  40. Lady Preacher,

    Katherine Bushnell did tons of research on that badly translated Hebrew idiom. It was translated as referencing “turning” until about the 1300’s. The sense was that Eve was “turning” to Adam instead of God. Translating it as desire, gave it a more sexual flavor. Who could argue with that? Lol. But it’s overly simplistic.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  41. GreekEpigraph,

    I don’t think we can discount The cult of Artemis in the backdrop of 1st Timothy. the Temple of Artemis was a wonder of the world back then and the focal point of Ephesus. I think that’s where authento comes in. It fits because Paul writes about Eve being formed first. That was a cult teaching because of women’s fear of dying in childbirth which was quite common. That’s Paul’s play on words with “saved by the childbearing” as in the birth of Messiah Authenteo has a compelling aspect to it. Almost threat like. “Don’t allow this to be taught” sort of warning.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  42. Lydia,

    Whether it is turning or desire, I don’t think that verb is the woman’s problem. Sort of like eating plants of the field isn’t Adam’s problem. But I haven’t heard of Katherine Bushnell and I’ll have to look her up

    Did you see what the new ESV did with verse? They translated it “your desire shall be contrary to your husband.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  43. I should note that New Calvinists avoid all exegesis of the original languages. They exclusively exegete the ESV 2016. They also tend to use a modern interpretation hermeneutic, where what the English words mean now is what they mean. And usually what the words mean now exclusively to them, as they redefine words like “gospel”. Their leadership has insight to these exclusive truths.

    This makes it really hard to talk to them about anything theology issue when they make a proclamation of something being from the Bible. They claim “we just don’t understand” when there is disagreement of their theology, because outsiders cannot know their special truth.

    BTW, both leadership having insight to “exclusive truths” and outsiders being unable to obtain or understand those truths are both signs of a cult.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  44. Lady Preacher: Did you see what the new ESV did with verse? They translated it “your desire shall be contrary to your husband.”

    And then there’s that about the ESV 2016. They had to knowingly translate it wrong to translate it that way, or they didn’t actually translate it at all and interpreted it from English translations.

    As my Greek professor once told me when I started asking him about this biased translations on women (at SEBTS, I might add): “There’s a lot of politics in Bible translation.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  45. Proffy,

    Proffy: “I have a hard time explaining away 1 Tim 2:12-14. Paul seems to clearly state the reason for not allowing women to teach or exercise authority over a man in church goes back to the Garden and Eve’s sin. I trust my holding to this strict interpretation does not make me sexist or a misogynist, and I hope those who disagree with me will not label me as such.”
    ———

    if sexism is “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex”, please explain why you are not sexist.
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    look at it this way: baptized sexism is still sexism.

    sexist is as sexist does.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  46. Lady Preacher: But I haven’t heard of Katherine Bushnell and I’ll have to look her up

    Bushnell was a scholar of both Hebrew and Greek and fluent in about 6/8 languages. Her book is entitled, “God’s Word to Women” and if I remember correctly, was first published in 1923.

    Here is a link to the book online. It is a study book and therefore divided into paragraphs as opposed to pages as in a narrative style. It is also available in hard copy should you so desire.

    https://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/100-lessons/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  47. ishy,

    I just looked up contrary in modern english. So, which is it complementarians? Is her desire for her husband sexual as they used to say it meant, and I thought husbands liked that? Or, as the dictionary says, her desire for her husband is “annoying, vexing, opposite, clashing?” Wow, the translators just love to figure out new ways to keep women’s self esteem in the toilet. And Christian women accept it because they have been taught that self-esteem is prideful sin, to even contemplate what true equality with their counterpart might even look like. And yet the men are not held to the same standard, as they are taught that women are supposed to respect and obey them, worthy or not, or their self esteem suffers for it, causing them to treat women even more poorly. But how can women even hope to be different, if God, in Genesis, commanded that the woman would be cantankerous.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  48. Oh, and that verse somewhere in Proverbs that I’ve heard preached to women about it being better for a man to live on the roof than in a house with a contentious woman? I’ve always thought that was for men, telling them to stop making things up for your women to be contentious about!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  49. Patti: I just looked up contrary in modern english. So, which is it complementarians? Is her desire for her husband sexual as they used to say it meant, and I thought husbands liked that? Or, as the dictionary says, her desire for her husband is “annoying, vexing, opposite, clashing?”

    The second, in other words, but they interpret it as the woman wanting to lead over men.

    They also imply that part is not a curse, but has been true since the beginning. I’ve heard different interpretations of that from them, from ignoring a connection between the two to saying that women always need the guidance of men, to implying that women can only be saved by their husband’s dedication to the “Gospel”.

    They basically had to intentionally translate a verse wrong to support these terrible interpretations and ignore any sort of scholarship of the original languages. They aren’t true scholars like they claim who are interested in what the Bible really says. They are a bunch of men with power complexes who interpret the Bible how they want.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  50. The reason they hammer so hard on gender roles is that they want to believe God made women to be submissive and meet the every need of man. So any woman who acts like a human is rebelling both against God and her own nature. And men are made to lead and be in charge and have people to order around. John Piper says that a woman giving a man any sort of direction (even vehicle directions) is an insult to his masculinity.

    Of course, most of us here know that men and women really aren’t that much different. This idea that women are some sort of subservient subspecies to men is really utterly ridiculous. The desire to lead and have authority over others is nothing but the sins of pride and greed.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  51. “What makes you men think spiritual or biblical information that helps someone live better should be categorized as different than any other information that helps someone live better (eg., asking for directions; getting financial counsel, etc.).

    Am I seriously supposed to believe that there is no difference between asking for directions from someone and God’s Word? If that is all you view that the sermon is for, then yeah, there would be no difference. If it’s just information or data for you to use to make your life better, then who cares who delivers it. But if your talking about handling the Word of God, and really consider the scriptures to be “holy”, then yeah, there is a difference. It is not just data or information.

    I don’t remember what it’s called, but that paragraph is an example of reduction to the absurd, imo. And I think this post reveals more about how the author views Scripture than it does about the issue it addresses.

    Then this: “My goal with this post is to encourage all fellow Christians who love Christ and His Word to consider and contemplate the illogical, fallible, and impractical interpretation that prevents a woman from teaching men or pastors the Holy Scriptures. And… “Search the Scriptures for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

    I don’t find this post encouraging at all. I find it virtue signalling & primarily law preaching. Are there Christians who do not love Christ and His Word? If there is no difference between that and generic data, then how would they learn to do that (love Christ and His Word) regardless of who delivers it?

    So the message is “draw your own conclusions, as long as you don’t agree with the “illogical, fallible, and impractical interpretation” of the SBC dudes.” Overall I think it is a poor post, kind of disconnected, and makes some poor arguments.

    And I too am curious to see if Wade has invited Beth Moore yet to preach at his church, and if not, what is stopping him from doing so?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  52. K.D.:
    The SBC preachers and deacons in this part of Texas (Deep East) would proclaim they would be ” in danger of hellfire ” by allowing women to preach. ( Not kidding)

    You can only threaten someone with Hellfire (i.e. GOD Holds The Biggest Whip) for so long before they SNAP. One way or another.

    You know what kind of Love, Praise, and Adoration is given by those who Feel the Whip towards He Who Holds the Whip. And in this Great Chain of Being, God Just Holds the BIGGEST Whip. Boots stamping on faces, all the way down.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  53. dee: And in many churches all sorts of rules are put in place to prevent women from *infecting* the church.

    Note “infecting”.
    Because women are a disease which destroys a Godly Man’s Precious Bodily Fluids(TM).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  54. ishy: What they don’t tell many men, until church discipline is enacted, is that the men are expected to “submit” to their authority as well.

    Because laymen are mere WOMEN compared to God’s Anointed(TM).

    “Making a Woman out of him” is also prison argot for same-sex rape;
    Penetrator = Male, Penetrated (/Colonized/Conquered/Planted) = Female.
    Just this adds “GOD SAITH!” as justification.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  55. So the problem is not the message but the medium, i.e., the woman. Beth Moore could show up and deliver, word for word, a sermon written by a man. She could come to the 11:00 service and repeat the exact same sermon, written for that day and that church, that the local pastor delivered at the 9:00 service. It’s still all wrong because she’s a woman.

    Meanwhile, preachers apparently reuse sermons all the time and buy them online, with no Certificate of Manly Authenticity.

    Any TWW women want to start selling sermons online with male pen names? Don’t worry about quality, depth, suitability, or theological coherence. I’m thinking of calling myself Calvin Cline. Send me proof texts!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  56. Friend,

    But if everyone should study the scriptures and draw their own conclusions, then why don’t people who believe opposite the SBC on this issue just leave and start their own churches that match their view of Scripture?

    Isn’t forcing change on an established denomination the same thing as stealth Calvinists coming in and forcing change on the established denomination? If not, how not, if everyone is to draw their own conclusions?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  57. Proffy: However, Paul does write that Eve was deceived, while Adam was not. So there is some kind of difference in their sins. Why does that explain why women should not teach or exercise authority over men in church??? I do not pretend to know. But Paul wrote these verses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I don’t pretend to like these verses. In my flesh, I wish Paul had not written them.

    I was not offended by what you said. I was merely commenting, perhaps a bit too quickly, given my *beach brain.* I do not contest what Paul wrote.

    There is a problem with applying Paul’s understanding to the entire gender for everything in the church and home until the Lord returns and see even apply it for eternity (I’m not saying that is you) and let me tell you why.

    The assumption arises that women are somehow more prone to being deceived than men, especially in the home and the church. In fact, why only in the home and church? if they are easy deceived then it must be bhraodly applied. Given what I have been doing in the last 10 years, I see ABSOLUTELY no difference between the deception levels of men and women.

    Take a look at JD Greear, Al Mohler, and many, many others. They all supported Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney in spite of the plethora of evidence against them. I was yelping about them 10 years ago. So, who was the one deceived? I can list many, many more examples of leaders who, due to their ability to be deceived have caused all sorts of problems for the church.

    Could it be that “there isacdifferent way to perceive this? Could it be that Paul was slapping men upside the head by saying: Eve was deceived but you knew exactly what you were doing, Adam.”

    Let’s go a bit deeper. What about the Holy Spirit this regard. If the Holy Spirit is given to both men and women in equal degrees, does the Holy Spirit somehow refuse to help a woman to “not be deceived” and only give men the ability to not be deceived? If so, why does the evidence indicate otherwise?

    I believe we must engage with the text and ask the hard questions. never forget that the Bible (using proof texts) has been used to justify slavery as well as the separation of races. Also, it has been used to deny science. Just ask Galileo. It has been used to blame women for the actions of men in cases of rape.

    As one who loves the Bible, I don’t say this to be a contrarian. I say it because it isn’t spat and easy as we would wish. Consider this. If you wish Paul hadn’t said this, examine why you feel this way. Maybe there is a reason.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  58. Headless Unicorn Guy,

    I challenged a guy who was quoting Mary Kassian on why he was listening to her preach if he is against women preachers. He said it was different because he watched a video where Kassian was preaching to a woman only crowd. I told him that was hypocritical since he is still learning from a woman didn’t matter how. I also pointed out why okay for a comp woman to preach with authority while an egalitarian woman cannot simply because the comp woman supports comp doctrine. Very hypocritical.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  59. Noevangelical: Isn’t forcing change on an established denomination the same thing as stealth Calvinists coming in and forcing change on the established denomination? If not, how not, if everyone is to draw their own conclusions?

    I don’t think that part is about theology. I think it’s about money and power. They took over one of the richest denominations in the country, with it’s own publishing and sales arms. Their leaders are getting masive salaries. Established churches can pay pastors more.

    They created an empire, not a denomination.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  60. dee,

    Dee: Maybe you were not offended, but you were clearly bothered by my initial post (enough to put me in moderation such that my almost immediate reply to you did not get posted until later that evening, and I was not on moderation before my initial post). But as I wrote in my email to you last night, it’s obviously your blog and I submit to that. Wait!!! Did I just say I submit to Dee? Yikes! 🙂

    I certainly do not take what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:14-16 and apply it to everything in the church and home, so thank you for acknowledging that. I also agree with you that men and women have equal opportunity for being deceived, i.e., they can reach the same “levels of deception.” Both men and women have sinful natures and we are so easily deceived. As I wrote in my initial post, I do not pretend to understand why Paul used the “Eve was deceived; Adam was not” argument. But he did and we both agree it’s Scripture.

    Interestingly, it was your yelping about CJ Mahaney that led me to this blog. I attended Covenant Life Church (CLC) for nearly 10 years. We left in 1996 because we did not agree with their shift to Calvinism. Thank you for helping me sort things out there at CLC regarding the serious sexual abuse issues. Of course, we both know that there were both men and women appropriately yelping about Mahaney, Driscoll and others, and there were both men and women who were equally deceived by them. Again, equal-opportunity deception and enlightening. But I don’t think it changes how we interpret 1 Timothy.

    GreekEpigraph and Lydia: Thank you for taking time to write your insights on 1 Timothy. It is much appreciated. After writing my initial post, I was hoping that someone would take the time to explain why they disagree with what I call the literal interpretation of the verses. Thank you for writing what you did so kindly without being snarky or assuming evil intentions on my part. I will re-read it, think about it, and pray.

    Beth74: Thank you for writing what you did around 10:35 last evening. You were “spot on” about why I posted.

    Elastigirl: Thank you for helping me realize that I’m swimming in the wrong blog-pond here. I’m sorry if I annoyed and/or provoked you; it was not my intention. I will swim elsewhere and not post here again. Dee does not need people like me stirring up mud from the bottom of the pond. I’m not a troll, but perhaps some thought i was. Sorry if that was the case.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  61. Beth Moore is not at liberty to shed any real light on church abuse matters. She states this in her post ‘A Letter to My Brothers” https://blog.lproof.org/2018/05/a-letter-to-my-brothers.html She states in the beginning that she will be on her death bed when she says what she really believes about the treatment of women in the SBC. So, I don’t think that we should be holding our breath for any big revelations from Beth on this matter.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  62. mot: I think this is a great idea by Wade. Has he reached out to Beth Moore to invite her to preach at his church?

    I don’t know what Wade has or hasn’t done, but I doubt Beth Moore would accept the offer if given. Preaching from a pulpit would probably end her career with the comps! In other words, end her income stream. 😉

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  63. Beth Moore is not at liberty to shed any real light on church abuse matters. She states this in her post ‘A Letter to My Brothers” https://blog.lproof.org/2018/05/a-letter-to-my-brothers.html She states in the beginning that she will be on her death bed when she says what she really believes about the treatment of women in the SBC. So, I don’t think that we should be holding our breath for any big revelations from Beth on this matter. “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded” (Luke 12:48).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  64. Proffy,

    Or how about 2 Cor 11 I hope you will bear with a little of my foolishness, but you are already doing that. 2I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. For I promised you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

    3I am afraid, however, that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may be led astray from your simple and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the One you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. He uses the example of Eve to address the vulnerability of a whole church body. Men and women included.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  65. Proffy: I believe the context of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is “in the church.”

    Why do you keep adding “In the church”? It’s not in those verses, or the entire chapter. Read the chapter, he’s addressing believers’ comportment everywhere, not just “in the church.” We are all to lead a quiet and peaceable life (v. 2). Are to be known for our godliness and honesty (just “in the church”? no, everywhere) Then examples given, of the men being pray-ers not fighters (just in the church? no, “everywhere” v. 8). The women as well are to behave modestly v. 9. Everywhere, not just “in the church.” For those not leading the quiet and peaceable life that we all should, he tells to step back from lecturing and browbeating their husband. Husband and wife are supposed to be one flesh, act so. Then reminds of the first couple in the Garden, how they went off the rails becoming estranged. Ends the chapter harkening back to verse 2 (lead a quiet and peaceable live in all godliness and honesty) with “continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  66. Noevangelical: But if everyone should study the scriptures and draw their own conclusions, then why don’t people who believe opposite the SBC on this issue just leave and start their own churches that match their view of Scripture?

    Isn’t forcing change on an established denomination the same thing as stealth Calvinists coming in and forcing change on the established denomination? If not, how not, if everyone is to draw their own conclusions?

    I love these questions but don’t know exactly where you’re coming from. Please forgive me if my reply doesn’t match up.

    What is stealthy about inviting a woman to preach? If she dressed as a guy and put on a fake bass voice, that would be stealthy. This is a public challenge, a piffling one in the grand scheme.

    Churchgoers can try to change things from within. They can also leave. They can start something new. Remember the big scandals about letting ordinary humdrum idiots like me read the Bible for themselves, in their native languages? Reform happens.

    I appreciate female clergy for the variety of voices and the greater ease when I want to talk about certain things. It seems foolish for a church to exclude half of its talent pool. I am almost comfortable with churches saying it’s not their tradition to ordain women… except that they usually add why women are unworthy. (BTW, I know families who have joined traditions with both male and female clergy, so that their daughters might have both as role models.)

    Peace to you and all on TWW. I appreciate the conversation.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  67. Ishy,

    My own denomination went through an attempted change back in the 1970’s, and in the end a new denomination was formed after the attempt to reform the old denomination failed. The fruit of that effort led to the ELCA, and their fruit is on display at the present.

    As I understand the SBC was once not even close theologically to what it is now, and the Calvinistas have largely succeeded in their takeover. On the role of women issue, it sounds like the SBC was not as strict in the past. Is that true? Sounds like they moved in a questionable (to many) biblical direction with it.

    It looks like this was not a reformation, but a theological hijacking, or whatever you want to call it, and certain factions do not want this. So if the “reformation” does not go your way, why don’t people just leave and start their own churches? It’s been done before. Why not just pour the energy into reaching the lost for Christ and building the church according to their own vision? Take away the money and the power, since these are supposed to be autonomous congregations anyway.

    The same could be said to those who want to come in and change existing structures. If their way is so great, it should not have any problem attracting people and serving their version of God. Go do that and God bless you.

    I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that there is more to be gained by perpetuating the conflict than there is by separating.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  68. Friend,
    “What is stealthy about inviting a woman to preach?”

    Yeah, there is not a direct comparison because as far as I have read no one is doing that (yet). But Wade wants to invite BM and BM can’t because it would end her career?

    If his church just left the SBC they could invite whomever they wanted. Maybe they would start a movement. But why can’t they invite whomever they want if they are autonomous? It’s an association, right? Don’t they (SBC) claim that they have no power over individual congregations?

    Does anyone know if Women preaching is going on already, but not well known or done under the radar? Curious.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  69. Noevangelical: it seems to me that there is more to be gained by perpetuating the conflict than there is by separating.

    Those are not the only two choices. People can also seek reconciliation, one of the best Christian ideas.

    I’ve lived through a congregational schism and a denominational split. Although I recommend neither, churches do eventually heal.

    Women’s ordination overall in the US is growing, not shrinking. It does not inevitably lead to disaster.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  70. Noevangelical: So if the “reformation” does not go your way, why don’t people just leave and start their own churches? It’s been done before. Why not just pour the energy into reaching the lost for Christ and building the church according to their own vision?

    They did have a split in 2000. The more moderate/liberal churches split of and made the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. That denomination does allow female pastors.

    But many Baptists are wholly unaware they’ve been taken over at the top levels and all the seminaries. Especially when leaders like All Mohler are publicly saying everyone should get along while teaching baby pastors how to secretly take over churches. They don’t want that money to go elsewhere, so they lie and deceive. And many check members have been in these churches their whole lives and truly don’t believe a pastor they hire would do such a thing. Even now after all the press.

    I was in a SBC church that was taken over. There was no indication during the pastoral search process that he was going to “reform” the church.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  71. Friend,

    Have you ever seen reconciliation work on a national level? I too have lived through the schism and split. The penultimate attempt at the last church was to tell the Calvinists to start their own church, which they did. Their church plant failed, the “pastor” sadly invited them back again, and they succeeded on their second attempt.

    I can’t think of any group that didn’t eventually divide on an important doctrinal issue like this. Can you?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  72. Ishy,

    “Cooperative Baptist Fellowship” Ok, so why wouldn’t Wade convince his church to join the CBF then, since they already hold the same position?

    I know that these moves aren’t that easy. But if the CBF was growing and the SBC was shrinking, maybe more people would wake up to his position. And, with the takeover of the SBC seemingly moving to a conclusion, then just live and let live. The people who want what the SBC offers will stay anyway. It’s sad, but people want what they want.

    I wonder if this is a hill he would die on, and if so, why, and if not why not?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  73. I keep waiting for a Southern Baptist pastor to get brave enough to turn his pulpit over to Anne Graham Lotz! IMO, she is one of the best preachers in America! She is so good, in fact, that she was invited to preach at a pastor’s conference several years ago, on an invitation to address 800 pastors. Well the preacher-boys didn’t think much about that – most of them turned their backs to her when she took the podium … they will answer to God for that.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  74. Noevangelical: Ok, so why wouldn’t Wade convince his church to join the CBF then, since they already hold the same position?

    I can’t answer that for them. I get the impression they want to change things from the inside. But if they are following the traditional SBC polity model, everyone has to decide that by a congregational vote. That’s one of the first things a New Cal pastor changes, because who wants pesky peons having any sense of control.

    Remember, most members are unaware, sometimes quite willingly, of the takeover, or they think it can’t happen to them until it does.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  75. Let me ask Max… When you were pastoring, would any of your members believe the SBC was taken over and could take away all their congregational voting rights, even if you spent time trying to tell/show them?

    My old church was “revitalized” so early in the game that there was no warning like there is now.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  76. Proffy: Maybe you were not offended, but you were clearly bothered by my initial post (enough to put me in moderation such that my almost immediate reply to you did not get posted until later that evening, and I was not on moderation before my initial post).

    We do not discuss the parameters of moderation on this blog, usually. In this case, I want you to know that I did NOT place you into moderation. Most of the time that I do that, I say so in a comment on the post. You were thrown into moderation because you tripped a spam word filter. No, I will not say what would that was because others who are bad hombres will then use it to bypass that word(s).

    Now, to make you feel even worse, I want you to know that this comment by me will go into moderation and I will have to release it.

    No, I was not bothered by your comment in the least. I found it interesting and wanted to discuss it. I am very busy these days and am currently on my annual beach vacay and the fact that I commented on your comment means it caught my eye and I thought it would be interesting to discuss.

    Please do not assume either my motives or the moderation. In both cases, in this instance, you are wrong.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  77. Noevangelical: Have you ever seen reconciliation work on a national level?

    Many churches have come to accept divorce and allow remarriage. White churches have come to embrace non-white clergy. A point not often discussed is encouraging couples who are cohabiting to marry in the church–to invite them into the fold instead of alienating them.

    It’s worth noting how upset people can get when they are presented with a revised hymnal or changes in the worship service. These struggles, too, usually die down.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  78. Bridget: I don’t know what Wade has or hasn’t done, but I doubt Beth Moore would accept the offer if given. Preaching from a pulpit would probably end her career with the comps! In other words, end her income stream

    Bridget:

    If this is true and I do not doubt it this further confuses me as to why Wade made his statement about hid willingness to invite Beth Moore to preach at his church with no restrictions.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  79. Max: I keep waiting for a Southern Baptist pastor to get brave enough to turn his pulpit over to Anne Graham Lotz! IMO, she is one of the best preachers in America!

    Anne is still undergoing treatment for breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers!

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/april/anne-graham-lotz-praises-god-for-his-strength-during-cancer-treatment.

    How in the world those men who turned their back on her can possibly think that humiliating a sister in Christ is the right thing to do is beyond me….:(

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  80. Noevangelical:
    a hill he would die on

    Speaking of that: when a congregation leaves its denomination, everyone in the churchyard undergoes posthumous “conversion.” If the congregation changes completely (e.g., building is sold), these churchyards are often abandoned. I love churchyards enough to think this is a strong reason for churches to reconcile.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  81. Ishy: Let me ask Max… When you were pastoring, would any of your members believe the SBC was taken over and could take away all their congregational voting rights, even if you spent time trying to tell/show them?

    Well, Max has never been a pastor. As a layman in SBC ranks, I filled the pulpit as a preacher several times and was a long-time Bible teacher … but I never pastored a church.

    However, to answer your question … the generation of Southern Baptists I worshiped with for 70 years knew only congregational governance. Many would not surrender their voting rights to elder-rule polity without much weeping and gnashing of teeth. The New Calvinist takeover of traditional churches are anything but a “revitalization” effort … the young reformers are running roughshod over churches and splitting them.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  82. I was watching, on TV, John Hagee Jr. preach a mother’s day sermon this last Sunday. He mentioned his grandmother. She preached from the pulpit in the 1920’s or 1930’s and taught in a seminary.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  83. Ishy: believe the SBC was taken over

    To date, millions of mainline (non-Calvinist) Southern Baptists do not know that the SBC has been taken over by a handful of New Calvinist elites (Mohler et al.) and that a young reformed army is progressively Calvinizing the denomination. In fact, they continue to support this rebellion by sending money to national SBC funds … even though the entities they finance are now controlled by New Calvinists (seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house). It’s the darnedest thing I’ve ever seen! I blame this on non-Calvinist pastors at 40,000+ SBC churches who should have been having “family meetings” about this along the way … but for whatever reason, have opted to not get involved.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  84. Friend,

    Funny you should mention that. On my daily commute I pass through a town where all that remains of the church is the cemetery. The church was torn down in a consolidation effort with two other congregations, and none of it was received very well. They tore down some very beautiful stone churches and replaced them with a space ship looking church about 5 miles away in the middle of nowhere. Sigh…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  85. mot,

    “Bridget: If this is true and I do not doubt it this further confuses me as to why Wade made his statement about hid willingness to invite Beth Moore to preach at his church with no restrictions.”

    I wondered about this too. Why Beth Moore? Why not another woman?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  86. The Church of Christ where I attend is having a study on gender roles which is challenging many of our “traditional” teachings of male-only leadership.

    For me, here’s my struggle:

    I can’t get past I Timothy 2:12, which says “I don’t permit a woman to teach or hold authority over a man.”
    I can’t get past I Corinthians 15, which says that “women should remain silent in the church.”
    I can’t get past the fact that I practically need a degree in Biblical Studies to figure out what those passages “really” mean; and that I can’t just simply pick up an English language Bible, read it, and do what it says.
    I also can’t get past the fact that my preacher and his daughter could preach the exact same sermon, word for word, and my preacher be lauded and his daughter condemned solely because she’s a woman.
    I don’t want to say no where God has said yes.
    I don’t want to say yes where God has said no.
    Either women CAN or CANNOT preach, and BOTH SIDES use the Bible to “prove” their point. I cannot figure out who’s right, and I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  87. Ishy: Owen Strachan’s post

    It seems to me that there are some missing pieces in the Twitterverse. I recall reading, along about last Friday, some very strongly worded statements from Strachan about the sinfulness of women speaking in the pulpit on Sunday mornings and cannot find them anymore. It seemed to me that it was these comments that Beth was responding to on his Twitter feed. Does anyone else recall the comments about it being “sinful” and have links?
    Contextually, it seems there were others that saw the same thing as they were calling him out, i.e. https://twitter.com/joelrainey/status/1126661996903055363

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  88. Friend,

    Skin color of the congregations should no longer be an issue. The Human Genome Project proved that skin color was based on pigmentation alone. There is nothing “racial” about it.

    Dakes 32 points for segregation based on his twisting of Bible verses are baloney.

    GetReligion, as part of a larger article, reported it still exist with some people who claim to be Christian.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  89. Tina: I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it.

    Tina, Be at peace. I believe that while we function under different understandings of what scripture does and does not allow that God respects our searching out the truth. The ones that should be concerned about judgement are those that misapply their positions for the sake of furthering an agenda. Besides, based on your avatar, Snoopy’s got your back:).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  90. I think too much is being read into Wade’s statement that he’d be willing to invite Beth Moore to preach. ISTM that he was only saying: in principle, I’d certainly invite Beth Moore to preach, whether or not that would actually work in practice. There are probably many people whom Wade would, in principle, be more than willing to invite; but you can’t do everything.

    All of us would do many things in principle that we’ll never do in practice because we’ll be doing other things instead.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  91. Tina,

    “I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it”

    Tina, I hear your fear, but there is no need to fear condemnation from God from getting something like this wrong. Well meaning Christians often have differing views on a whole host of issues, verses, etc. We are all wrong on a lot of things.

    Jesus Christ has forgiven you and me of our sins of getting it wrong. We all get it wrong much, and get stuff wrong daily. So when you are in a study group like this, just look at it as if you are collecting data. There is no need to make a decision about how you believe on this issue either one way or another. Having questions and being undecided is ok.

    So relax. Questions are ok. Mystery is ok. Just be certain that God loves you and that Jesus died for you. Take comfort in the fact that there are probably a whole lot of people who are confused about this issue, and who struggle with it. Just keep the main thing the main thing, which is Jesus for you. Hope this helps.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  92. Lydia: I don’t think we can discount The cult of Artemis in the backdrop of 1st Timothy. the Temple of Artemis was a wonder of the world back then and the focal point of Ephesus. I think that’s where authento comes in. It fits because Paul writes about Eve being formed first. That was a cult teaching because of women’s fear of dying in childbirth which was quite common. That’s Paul’s play on words with “saved by the childbearing” as in the birth of Messiah Authenteo has a compelling aspect to it. Almost threat like. “Don’t allow this to be taught” sort of warning.

    Entirely possible. Dr John Stackhouse, in his book Partners In Christ, recounts trying to finally settle this passage in his own mind. So he collected twelve different interpretations, then sat down and studied through them. At the end, he states that he felt at least three were extremely plausible and well-supported . . THREE?! Dr Gretchen Gabelein Hull, in the book Equal To Serve, goes into the details of the exegetical problems (literally, the unanswerable questions) of this passage.

    There are a number of schools of thought. Yours, Artemis, is one. Another is Gnosticism, and another is Judaism and the Judaizers – all as the polemic foil Paul is against in 1 & 2 Timothy. They all have strengths and weaknesses. In the layout I favor (as noted above), Paul is going up against his regular foes, the Judaizers. Paul is NOT upset with this false female teacher or against all female teachers, which would indicate a 180 degree shift from his ministry pattern to this point. Instead, unlike the two male teachers who are named, shamed and driven out of the church at the end of 1 Timothy 1 (Hymenaeus and Alexander), this female teacher is carefully described but not named (similar to the way that Paul described the incestuous Christian man in 1 Corinthians, whom he determined to be salvageable – described but not named, so as not to shame him permanently). I find it interesting that, when viewed from “Paul loved, worked with, understood women teachers and fellow-workers”, that this can be a very uplifting passage. This poor woman who has been badly taught and has been using that teaching in the church IS a problem. So Paul says – NO! LEARN! DON’T do what you’ve been doing! But then says, but hey, Adam knew what he was doing (Hymenaus and Alexander), Eve didn’t and was deceived BUT she pulled it out and received the promise. You’ll be OK too.

    Paul follows up with the overseers passage, which, when read in the Greek is quite conspicuously gender neutral, even using “anyone” wanting to be an overseer, and using a generic tomb inscription “one-woman man” that has been found on both male and female tombs to indicate “faithful spouse”. Then goes into the qualifications of male and female deacons. Then discusses, in a couple of chapters, an order of ministering widows.

    For anyone who is first getting into this, it is mind-boggling. Maybe Paul DIDN’T really hate women? Maybe Romans 16, where he mentions almost as many female ministers and male ministers, commends way more of the women ministers, and even calls one of those women (Phoebe) his own PATRON – someone who used her resources to further his work in return for a pledge of loyalty from him – is more indicative of his thoughts than we’ve ever been allowed to consider? I was hard patriarchy when I started this investigation. It took six months, 20-30 hours a week, reading everything I could access. I started with Beyond Sex Roles (Bilizekian), read the entire archive of The Priscilla Papers theological journal (30+ years worth), read through the Non Sermoni Res “On Women’s Ordination” series by a theological prof.

    Anyway, yes, Artemis cult is one of the interpretations that is out there and has good evidence. The Gnostic interpretation also has good evidence. For a number of reasons, I prefer the take that Paul is again after the Judaizers and hence is using a Jewish midrash of the creation story that would have been very familiar to Timothy to both correct and encourage this poor female teacher who probably wants to hide her head in shame and never come out her front door again after getting slammed in public like this.

    All of this uncertainty, even to the language in the passage, makes me, along with Dr John Stackhouse, quite unwilling to give this passage the weight of destroying the usefulness and gifting of the 60% of the church that is female.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  93. FW Rez,

    Owen was scandalized by this lighthearted thread from Beth:

    https://twitter.com/BethMooreLPM/status/1122123091298197504

    “What are 5 things you’d do if you could still do what you do but had the margin to pursue other stuff just for fun? My 5:
    1. Get my pilot’s license.
    2. Turn my novel into a Netflix series.
    3. Have a talk show.
    4. Work a harvest at a Tuscan vineyard.
    5. Hike hike hike hike hike.

    PS. My original #5 was Teaching a men’s Sunday School class at a church full of Calvinists just to get everybody going…”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  94. Owen took to his ‘Thought Life’ blog to vent:

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2019/05/divine-order-in-a-chaotic-age-on-women-preaching/

    OWEN STRACHAN: “For a woman to teach and preach to adult men is to defy God’s Word and God’s design. Elders must not allow such a sinful practice; to do so is to bring the church body into disobedience against God. Southern Baptists have no such historic practice; John Piper has encouraged no such practice, nor has any leading complementarian affiliated with the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood”

    And twittered:

    https://twitter.com/ostrachan/status/1126235933349765120

    OWEN STRACHAN: “women do not preach on Sunday to the church. Doing so is functional egalitarianism. We will not capitulate here.”

    Beth Moore responded “Owen, I am going to say this with as much respect & as much self restraint as I can possibly muster. I would be terrified to be a woman you’d approve of.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  95. Noevangelical:
    mot,

    “Bridget: If this is true and I do not doubt it this further confuses me as to why Wade made his statement about hid willingness to invite Beth Moore to preach at his church with no restrictions.”

    I wondered about this too. Why Beth Moore? Why not another woman?

    Why name anyone until she has been invited and accepted?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  96. Tina,

    Tina, you’re in a whirlwind that will only get worse until it settles out. I know, because I was there. Raised patriarchy, Gothard, quiverful, fundamentalist. It’s a special kind of freak out when this particular area gets challenged, because it’s been taught to us so very forcefully and so very certainly and over and over again by different people. After all, if my teachers missed it on this one, what ELSE did they miss it on? I think it must have been very similar to those who were raised with preachers defending race-based slavery – there were Bible verses, there were hermeneutical structures, there were very forceful and certain preachers saying the same thing over and over. It would have been completely devastating to their certainty when the abolitionists came to town.

    One of the best studies to do, that no, doesn’t require a Bible school degree, is simply this – going through the Bible carefully to figure out what all God called women to and approved of women doing. And going by the BIBLE, not what we’ve been TAUGHT ABOUT the Bible. For example, Deborah. I was taught that she was only Judge because God was upset with all the men. But you know what? Judges the book DOESN’T SAY THAT. In fact, it specifically says that EVERY judge was raised up by God. Not only that, but Deborah is the only major political and religious figure in the Bible, other than Daniel, of which NOTHING bad is recorded.

    Then there’s Huldah, who judged the Word of God for King Josiah – chosen by his advisors over prophets like Jeremiah, who were also active at that time. Then there is the list of Romans 16 – almost as many women as men, more women than men commended and praised, no difference in the list of offices it appears they filled . . at least in the Greek. Sadly, this “gender thing” is this generation’s political freak-out, so it will show in translation politics, as also noted above.

    O’course, I have to give a shout-out to Wayne Grudem, the godfather of complementarianism, who finally and completely convinced me that comp was a bankrupt theology. When I realized that he, as one of the primary theologians pushing it, had had to espouse Eternal Subordination of the Son (ie. change a primary theology of the church) in order to shore up the theological failings of complementarianism – I was done. If a theologian like Grudem, or Ware, or Knight can’t defend their female subordination theology on its own merits, but had to mess with the Nicene Creed understanding of God Godself, they flat out told me that they were wrong and they knew it very well.

    Again, my take, my research and my condolences – I understand that this is a hard area to re-examine, after it has been “settled” by whoever the last pastor or youth leader of your growing up years left it. It sure was for me.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  97. Root 66: Wild Honey: Advice?

    “Remember Lot’s wife.”
    -Jesus

    Run. Run and don’t look back!

    Thank you!

    Timothy: Buffalo, NY?

    You, too? No, California.

    Nathan Priddis: May I suggest Matthew 18 does not appear to pertain in any way. You do not seem to be claiming a trespass was committed against you, just a loss in confidence in leadership’s capacity.

    There are instructions to attempt to live at peace with all men. Additionally, there is instruction to withdraw from an unruly brother.

    Thank you, this articulation is helpful.

    Noevangelical: Yeah, their yellow flags raise one huge red one for me!

    I told my husband the same thing!

    Nick Bulbeck: I’m glad to hear you’re having trouble. It means you care, and are taking the problem seriously. Like I said… no help at all.

    There is, however, one thing that my wife and I specifically regret not doing when we left a congregation under analogous circumstances to your own…

    Reading your comment has actually given me a measure of peace about the situation, thank you.

    elastigirl: name names, first.

    At this point, still hoping it doesn’t come to that.

    SiteSeer: Definitelyddo not agree to meet alone without a witness!

    That is already off the table, as far as we are concerned.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  98. Brian: Dakes 32 points for segregation based on his twisting of Bible verses are baloney.

    Background:
    The not-a-cult that messed me up in the Seventies had a thing for the Dakes Annotated Bible. Not official, just encouraged by groupthink. What a trip; I don’t think anyone read the KJV in the two center columns, just Dake’s psychotically-dense commentary in the two outer columns. (Looking back with 40 years real-world experience, Dake’s commentary had the style of a heavy-duty kook rant.)

    Well, I distinctly remember Dake spending a page or two on “God’s Law of SEGREGATION” in great detail.
    Even back then, my first thought was that Dake had to be white and from the Jim Crow Deep South.
    He sounded way too much like George C Wallace’s “SEGREGATION NOW! SEGREGATION FOREVER!”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  99. Jerome: Strachan: “women do not preach on Sunday to the church”

    This is a lot of detail he had to put in their…

    Because women DO preach…

    IS it on sunday? Is it to ‘the church’?

    Well, maybe not if people like Strachan are in charge, but it’s clear they can’t find an intellectually honest argument to save their lives when they start acknowledging how much preaching and teaching women have been doing from literally the first moments of Christianity. They are the ones out of historical line here.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  100. Tina:
    For me, here’s my struggle:
    I don’t want to say no where God has said yes.
    I don’t want to say yes where God has said no.
    Either women CAN or CANNOT preach, and BOTH SIDES use the Bible to “prove” their point.I cannot figure out who’s right, and I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it.

    That dilemma only exists because evangelicals have long insisted that there is Only One Right interpretation of the Bible, and that it will be plain and clear to any Real True Christian. The fact that devoted Christians on either side of so many “plain and clear” issues should put that theory to rest… should. :-/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  101. Lady Preacher,

    Headship And Abuse
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/04/headship-and-abuse/

    Excerpts:

    Bushnell’s activism repeatedly introduced her to Christian men guilty of treating women with appalling cruelty, and then of condemning those women to lives of shame.

    Ultimately, she concluded that Christian theology must be to blame.

    ….Bushnell explicitly linked the doctrine of male headship to the abuse of women.

    In fact, she went so far as to claim that “subordination was abuse”:
    “Man would feel abused if enslaved to a fellow man,” she insisted, and the same was true of women, even if theologians liked to consider women’s subjugation “the happiest state in which a woman can exist.”
    (She noted, too, that it was “the male theologian and not the female victim who pronounces the state a happy one.”)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  102. elastigirl,

    The view with some complementarians must be that sexism is Okay and Acceptable so long as God ordained it.
    Complementarianism is Christian-endorsed sexism.

    Some comps might be opposed to the secular world being sexist against women, but they’re A-OK with sexism in certain contexts, such as with marriages or within the church.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  103. Noevangelical: But if your talking about handling the Word of God, and really consider the scriptures to be “holy”, then yeah, there is a difference. It is not just data or information.

    I disagree.

    I think too many Christians have turned the Bible into an Idol, and they use the Bible for purposes it was never intended to be used for.

    The Bible is not a history book, science book, marriage manual, or a cook book but most Christians use it like it is any one of those things.

    (Yes, I have seen (conservative) Christians use the Bible as one or more of those things over the course of my life.)

    Also, there are some complementarian churches that will not allow any woman to even read verbatim from the Bible – word for word from it – aloud.

    How does a woman reading the Bible aloud “taint” it?

    Is God and God’s Word somehow nullified if a person of the female biological sex reads it

    -if that is so, it means God is a loser, failure weakling, as is his written word, if all it takes to abolish it is to have a woman read it aloud.

    Complementarianism makes no sense. It’s inconsistent on so many points.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  104. Headless Unicorn Guy: dee: And in many churches all sorts of rules are put in place to prevent women from *infecting* the church.
    Note “infecting”.
    Because women are a disease which destroys a Godly Man’s Precious Bodily Fluids(TM).

    One thing that kills me about comp are the male comps who complain about churches being “too feminine,” like they don’t find all the mauve colored carpeting in the church masculine enough, but it’s these idiots who run the church in the first place!

    If you are a group of men running a church and you don’t permit women any authority, then why do you idiots allow the women to pick the carpet color? Why don’t you “man up” and over-ride the women’s carpet color choice and order blue instead?

    Men run the churches, won’t allow women any in-put, but then they hypocritically complain about the hymns played, or carpet color chosen, etc.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  105. Noevangelical: But if everyone should study the scriptures and draw their own conclusions

    They already do. This is across all of Christianity, not just the SBC.

    Unpublished: Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant
    http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2015/01/unpublished-being-biblical-means-being.html

    I think the ultra conservatives kicked out or neutered the moderates in the SBC a few decades ago.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  106. Proffy: GreekEpigraph and Lydia: Thank you for taking time to write your insights on 1 Timothy. It is much appreciated. After writing my initial post, I was hoping that someone would take the time to explain why they disagree with what I call the literal interpretation of the verses. Thank you for writing what you did so kindly without being snarky or assuming evil intentions on my part. I will re-read it, think about it, and pray.

    I gave you links above to all this.

    There is already a plethora of rebuttals to that one particular conservative interpretation of those verses.

    Have you never been to sites by Christian gender egalitarians / mutualists? Or read any of their books?

    I never understand why people who still cling to the complementarian interpretation come on to sites like this one asking the Non-Comps to explain those verses, when such responses are already out there.

    I usually do a lot of research on my own on a topic, including the “pro” and “con” sides, the “for” and “against,”
    before I go on to other people’s sites asking them to defend or explain one side or the other.

    You can find explanations for those Bible verses you were asking about on sites such as, but not limited to, this one:

    CATEGORY: 1 TIMOTHY 2:12
    https://margmowczko.com/category/equality-and-gender-issues/1-timothy-212/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  107. R Mcpherson: He uses the example of Eve to address the vulnerability of a whole church body. Men and women included.

    Each woman is an individual.
    I am a woman, but I am not Eve.

    The Bible says all humans die to to the first man Adam. I guess I can just distort that to say that all men are sinners (not women), and men are all evil reprobates.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  108. Noevangelical: The same could be said to those who want to come in and change existing structures. If their way is so great, it should not have any problem attracting people and serving their version of God. Go do that and God bless you.

    Disrupting Christian Patriarchy: Isn’t It About Time? – “The Southern Baptist Convention… once supported women in ministry” by Beth Allison Barr
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2019/02/disrupting-christian-patriarchy-isnt-it-about-time/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  109. Lea: Because women DO preach…

    IS it on sunday? Is it to ‘the church’?

    If a recent study about women clergy by Eileen Campbell-Reed is any guide, the SBC is a major outlier:

    In 1960 women were 2.3% of U.S. clergy. In 2016 women are 20.7% of U.S. clergy.

    Since 2015 Roman Catholic lay ministers outnumber priests in the U.S., and 80% of them are women.

    In 2017 women remain fewer than 25% of seminary faculty and deans, and just 11% of the presidents.

    In most Mainline denominations, the percentage of clergywomen has doubled or tripled since 1994.

    Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ clergywomen have reached numerical equity with clergymen.

    More women of color and fewer white women are going to seminary to earn MDivs since 2008.

    https://eileencampbellreed.org/blog/state-of-clergy/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  110. Jerome,

    If we grant Mr. Strachan’s position that no females may publicly speak on Sunday, that does leave open other interesting positions.

    -CEO
    -COO
    -CFO
    -HR Admin.
    -Facilities Admin.
    -Board of Directors.
    -All Tech.
    -All….meaning all functions of the Church relating to women and children. Specifically women, since this entire section of the Church is to be overseen by older women, not males. As a perc to the males, they would no longer need to budget time for female issues such as counseling of women and discipling.

    I don’t know that any prohibition exist on a 100% percent female administered Church. If it was simply non-negotiable issue for conservative Christian men, the a female Board could hire a token Sunday speaker. (Male of course)

    That leaves the issue of being silent in the Church. However that is not an insumountable issue either. Unless one is attending a Charismatic church, all present are are silent for the typical 20-40 minute weekly sermon. Both males and females.

    What’s the fear of talking? I’ve never seen a mid-sermon call for a dreaded female sidebar. Maybe I never visited the right Churches for that.
    Has Mr. Strachan witnessed the dreaded women talkers? I think they may be mythical. Something only spoken of by Complimentarians in whispered tones.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  111. Noevangelical: I can’t think of any group that didn’t eventually divide on an important doctrinal issue like this. Can you?

    — start quote —
    Disagreement over gender roles was one reason that in the 1990s thousands of moderates left the SBC to form the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

    In 1984 the SBC passed a resolution opposing women’s ordination, in part to “preserve a submission God requires because the man was first in creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall.”
    — end quote–

    Quote Source:
    https://baptistnews.com/article/debate-over-women-in-southern-baptist-pulpits-flares-on-social-media/#.XNs4l9QrLGh

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  112. Noevangelical,

    Noevangelical: I can’t think of any group that didn’t eventually divide on an important doctrinal issue like this. Can you?

    Women used to be allowed to preach in Baptist churches.

    It’s only been in the last few decades that the ultra consevatives have said No to that.

    An Ordinary Preaching Woman in a Texas Baptist Church, c. 1930
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2017/09/an-ordinary-preaching-woman-in-a-texas-baptist-church/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  113. FW Rez,

    I read down a lot of the Tweets in that Twitter thread you linked to,
    and it makes me glad that I’ve had one foot out of the Christian faith the last several years.

    I do think that Complementarianism is sexism, and to see Christian men fighting in favor of sexism is depressing…

    But look at how they all argue and nit-pick back and forth forever and ever over that subject.
    Such a waste of time.

    Life gets to be easier and more enjoyable to live once you stop caring what others think about you, your choices.

    Life gets easier and enjoyable once you stop thinking you have to run all life choices or opinions through the Bible, a book which Christians cannot even agree on.

    -See:
    Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant
    http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2015/01/unpublished-being-biblical-means-being.html

    I cannot imagine any longer spending hours to days bickering back and forth with “Pastor Humpty Scratch” and his particular understanding of some Greek koine word in the New Testament,
    or with “Pastor Doofus,” who thinks such and such a verse should be understood only in this or that way.

    There’s something very liberating about not getting bogged down in tedious theological arguments for hours,
    or not worrying if Owen Strachan, Mark Driscoll, JD Greear, or John Piper, would be okay with me going on bike rides, or whatever I choose to do in life.

    I just live my life as I want to, without going to any of those men for approval or permission.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  114. Nathan Priddis: Has Mr. Strachan witnessed the dreaded women talkers? I think they may be mythical. Something only spoken of by Complimentarians in whispered tones.

    Well, I think that’s where Moore comes in. She has a much bigger following than Strachan, and it probably drives him crazy. I don’t think she’s invested in being “famous”, and she tends to respond fairly genuinely and humbly, but I get a very different impression of Mr. Strachan.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  115. owen

    mot: Why name anyone until she has been invited and accepted?

    Beth Moore is one of only a handful of female Bible teachers who have been approved by New Calvinists to send their women to. She and LifeWay are making a small fortune off the new reformers in book sales and simulcasts. No doubt that she is a gifted teacher, but her grace-grace-grace message tilts to the reformed side of things.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  116. I wonder sometimes if the reason that Strachan, Moore and Piper are so tough on women is that they were little short nerdy guys in high school and didn’t get any dates. They are striking back now that they are in control! I can’t believe that thousands of women in New Calvinist ranks are putting up with the “beauty of complementarity.”

    Matt Chandler likes to call female members of his church “our girls” … well, someday multiple thousands of those girls might shout “Enough is enough” and start dragging their sorry husbands/boyfriends out of New Calvinism!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  117. Daisy,

    I’m simply saying that the comparison of God’s Word to our words (asking for directions), data, or generic information is not a good comparison. Its not accurate because in general one is inspired and one in not. I make no comment about who is speaking, other than that we have women handling Scripture in our church all of the time.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  118. Tina: I cannot figure out who’s right, and I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it.

    That’s been me for a long time, but I think I am finally starting to escape from that trap. Much of my progress has been through starting to color outside the lines, and I’ve found great examples of that among the commenters on TWW.

    There are a couple of Marys in the NT that provide a counterexample to the complementarian viewpoint. Do a Google search on “Mary apostle to the apostles.” You will find that she is considered equal to the other apostles as the first to proclaim the resurrection. The other Mary told the Apostles to do what Jesus told them to do see John 2). In both cases we see women instructing men and Jesus not getting bent out of shape over it. In fact, he seemed to set up the events to make it that way.

    In case you did not see my earlier reference in this thread to the Paul Young discussion, I recommend you watch it. I think it will help quite a lot.

    Finally, I recommend reading Paul Young’s book “Eve.” It is heavily influenced by Katharine Bushnell. That was an eye opening book for me (as was Katharine Bushnell’s).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  119. Proffy: As I wrote in my initial post, I do not pretend to understand why Paul used the “Eve was deceived; Adam was not” argument

    I think you will find the following article by Wade Burleson really helpful in answering this question: https://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html

    In a nutshell, unless we understand the cult of Artemis worship in Ehphesus we can’t possibly understand what Paul was saying to Timothy. You can read the whole article yourself but here are a few good quotes to pique your interest:

    “The Greek men (and later the Romans) prayed to Artemis (the Romans called her Diana), not Apollo in time of battle. In Greek mythology, Zeus fathered the twins Artemis and Apollo through the Titaness Leto. The Artemus cult taught that Artemis was superior to Apollo because she came (was born) born first.”

    “When men and women entered the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, the women would wear fancy hair braids, bedeck themselves with jewelry and ornate clothes as they prayed to Artemis. Heliodorus said, “Their locks of hairs carry their prayers.” There were no sacrifices in this Temple. The women worshipped Artemis with their clothing, jewelry, and their words. Artemis, in turn, gave them their sexual prowess over men and their deliverance during childbirth.”

    About childbearing, Wade believes Paul was really saying, “Timothy, tell this woman that she will be okay during childbirth, even if she totally and fully renounces her trust in Artemis. Yes, she lives in a culture that teaches Artemis alone saves a woman from death during childbirth, but the truth is Christ holds the keys of life and death. When women continue in faith, hope and love–avoiding the sexual immodesty and looseness on display in the Temple of Artemis and the worship of the goddess of fertility and war–it will be the one true God who delivers them from death during childbirth, not Artemis.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  120. Tina,

    Noevangelical,

    Tina: “I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it”

    Noevangelical: “Tina, I hear your fear, but there is no need to fear condemnation from God from getting something like this wrong. Well meaning Christians often have differing views on a whole host of issues, verses, etc. We are all wrong on a lot of things.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I like this thought.

    Yes, there is enormous variance amongst Christians on tons of issues. it is beyond reasonable to think that heaven is only for those who get everything right. (heaven will indeed be the loneliest place in the universe or outside the universe.)

    it is beyond reason to think that anyone is even capable of getting everything right.

    i think that is part of the point of this verse:

    And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [o]foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22

    the way i look at it, we do our best in life, don’t fret about ‘disputable’ things, treat people the way we want to be treated, maintain a respect for God, find ways to be productive…

    and find ways to celebrate being alive.

    one of which is to shake off disputable restrictions on one’s personhood.

    what is the risk? will one’s name be scratched out of the book of life?

    for real…. what is the risk?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  121. Tina: I can’t get past I Corinthians 15, which says that “women should remain silent in the church.”

    Hey Tina, let me share a story which may shed some light on this subject for you.

    Years ago when I was a young whippersnapper and newly serving overseas I went with friends to a village church service. Didn’t know the language so sat in the back with my friend who was quietly translating for me. We needn’t have bothered. The place was so noisy I could barely hear because multiple WOMEN talked the whole service. I wanted to stand up and yell, “Would you ladies be quiet in the church please!”

    Later I asked my friends, “Why do they talk all the time?”
    My friends told me, “Because they come from animist backgrounds. In their worldview religion means letting the spirit doctor do all the ‘stuff’ while they merely sit in the same room.”

    Is this what might also have been going on in Corinth too?

    It’s hard for Westerners to grasp this. We’ve been taught to sit still when someone is speaking and be quiet when someone is teaching, especially a school teacher or church leader. But in that village church I attended people didn’t know better- they saw religion as a ceremony to sit through which would confer holiness and spiritual protection upon them. And the women were particularly noisy in that culture.

    The letter from Paul was to the people in Corinth. Not Ephesus. Not Rome. Not Dallas or Los Angeles. If you can understand this it will make some of Paul’s specific commands easier to understand- and easier to let go of.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  122. __

    “The Gospel Of Jesus Christ Is For Living Women, Too?”

    hmmm…

    Wade, No disrespect intended please but, if certain of the SBC leadership had their way, they would have Beth Moore, founder of Living Proof Ministries, a religious 501c3, which she has established with the SOLE purpose of teaching women how to love and live on God’s Word, —back serving flavored popcorn and cold fountain sodas. This womans ministry is her joy, this is her living. Respectfully, Please don’t rock her boat; Women are hearing an ‘unencumbered’ gospel that Jesus loves them, that they are special, that Jesus died that they might live!

    ***

    ♪♩♪♩hum, hum, hum…
    “Can you hear Him running,
    Can you hear Him calling,
    Can you hear Jesus calling you?”

    ATB

    IHS

    Sòpy

    Intermission:
    Mike + The Mechanics – “The Living Years…”
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dzU7j8cQ7h0

    Notes:
    https://www.lproof.org
    Living Proof Ministries     *1.888.700.1999   281.257.3344     
    http://www.lproof.org/store_list_collection.asp?collectionID=5&offset=30
    https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCNuLcY9jqjwagmhtoV9X5qw

    ;~)§

    – –

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  123. Tina: I cannot figure out who’s right, and I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it.

    This is the worst manifestation of ‘faith’. I reached a point where I no longer care what the bible says anymore.
    God’s ‘message’ is so mangled that I have no idea what it really is anymore.
    Like the ‘put to death’ missives in Leviticus & Deuteronomy or the slaughter of whole cities for his glory in the old testament. K
    God ordered it or he didn’t.
    Either way, bronze age morality has no place in my worldview.
    Men & women are equal. In all ways.
    And I say without fear because if I’m honest, even when I was Christian, God never spoke to me to tell me otherwise.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  124. Proffy,

    “Elastigirl: Thank you for helping me realize that I’m swimming in the wrong blog-pond here. I’m sorry if I annoyed and/or provoked you; it was not my intention. I will swim elsewhere and not post here again. Dee does not need people like me stirring up mud from the bottom of the pond. I’m not a troll, but perhaps some thought i was. Sorry if that was the case.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    you’re not swimming in the wrong pond. you are wanted here. you are polite, sincere, thoughtful…

    you are most welcome. you will be challenged — in a frank way, but not an unkind way (i hope).

    you didn’t annoy or provoke. i disagree with your conclusions. but my point in saying,

    “if sexism is “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex”, please explain why you are not sexist.

    look at it this way: baptized sexism is still sexism.

    sexist is as sexist does.”

    ….my point is that even though one holds to views that discriminate against women because they are women because they believe it is biblical, and even though they have the best of intentions,

    it is still discrimination.

    and it still is devastating.

    adhering to something because it is deemed ‘biblical’ mitigateth not the consequences.

    you are kind and sincere and have good intentions. if you hold to views that discriminate against women, you are sexist as well.

    sexism is as sexism does.

    and giving silent ascent to the ‘biblical’ discrimination of women is “doing”.

    i already like you, virtually. i’m sure i’d like you very much in person.

    and your views would be no less hurtful and devastating.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  125. ishy: They basically had to intentionally translate a verse wrong to support these terrible interpretations and ignore any sort of scholarship of the original languages. They aren’t true scholars like they claim who are interested in what the Bible really says. They are a bunch of men with power complexes who interpret the Bible how they want.

    Exactly. And my question is, has this been done in the past? How many times in the history of Bible translation has male superiority tweaked the meaning of a verse here or there?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  126. Max: I keep waiting for a Southern Baptist pastor to get brave enough to turn his pulpit over to Anne Graham Lotz! IMO, she is one of the best preachers in America! She is so good, in fact, that she was invited to preach at a pastor’s conference several years ago, on an invitation to address 800 pastors. Well the preacher-boys didn’t think much about that – most of them turned their backs to her when she took the podium … they will answer to God for that.

    Did Christ ever do such a thing to any woman? I can’t imagine it. I can’t imagine any group thinking this is okay behavior.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  127. Noevangelical: I’m simply saying that the comparison of God’s Word to our words (asking for directions), data, or generic information is not a good comparison. Its not accurate because in general one is inspired and one in not. I make no comment about who is speaking, other than that we have women handling Scripture in our church all of the time.

    I am confused. Are you saying women are intelligent enough, faithful enough, talented enough to handle any level of jobs in the working world but that they go brain dead when handling the word of God? Or am I misunderstanding you?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  128. SiteSeer,

    ishy: “They basically had to intentionally translate a verse wrong to support these terrible interpretations and ignore any sort of scholarship of the original languages. …”

    Siteseer: “Exactly. And my question is, has this been done in the past? How many times in the history of Bible translation has male superiority tweaked the meaning of a verse here or there?”
    ++++++++++++++

    the bible — while there is (i believe) at the very least a grain/kernel of truth to all of it, somethings ring truer than others. are more wholly formed ideas. something are just plain weird, revolting, & impossible to really know and understand beyond speculation.

    and i am not putting any of my faith in speculation, let alone my time and energy.

    the way i see it, it is not imprudent to hold what’s in the bible loosely.

    how can anyone go wrong with focusing on treating others the way they want to be treated? and not get hung up on the rest?

    patience, kindness, faithfulness, honesty, being humble, generous, helpful… all these things would be a focus.

    one can have a thriving relationship with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, living life as a branch that derives strength and wisdom from the vine, without getting hung up on on the minutiae in the bible.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  129. elastigirl,

    as if God is a pedant with a clipboard….

    as if…! i mean, like,…’tchaw

    (okay, i’m sure i didn’t bore through the language gap with this one)

    maybe seeing wayne’s world is a prerequisite.

    you know, like, and monkeys f

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  130. SiteSeer: Exactly. And my question is, has this been done in the past? How many times in the history of Bible translation has male superiority tweaked the meaning of a verse here or there?

    It’s true of many of the verses about women in the NT. I started noticing this in seminary while studying Greek. There was much more variation from the English translation when I hit a verse on women than other verses. The bias on women was quite clear to me. I’m not going to declare myself any sort of authority, but you can look at the passage for yourself.

    Example:
    The clobber passage in Ephesians 5

    The sentence starts in verse 18 and goes all the way to verse 25. That there is a heading between verses 21 and 22 like verse 22 starts a new section breaks the sentence and is wholly (and I believe intentionally) deceptive.

    Here’s the kicker: There’s no word for “submit” (hupatasso) in either verse 22 or verse 24 referring to wives, only to “everyone” and “the church”. You can argue that it’s borrowed from the places it is found, but that implies verse 21 is the key to the following passages and they are dependent on it. Verse 18, which starts the sentence, talks about being filled with the Spirit, and the rest are supporting that. A heading in the middle of verse 18 makes way more sense than a heading before verse 22.

    I believe that hammering on marriage roles is an entirely wrong interpretation in this passage, and there’s some really heavy editing in English translations to give the impression that marriage roles are absolute. I know some scholars also say that Paul was quoting (and maybe misquoting) Greek household codes here, and actually subverting them.

    https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ephesians/5.htm

    Another example:

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  131. SiteSeer,

    Yes, you are misunderstanding me. My point is about God’s Word vs generic info. They are not the same thing, regardless of the gender of the speaker. Take gender out of it. Generic info is not living and powerful, etc.

    All speakers / readers mangle God’s Word in some way every day. I believe the gender to be irrelevant. For the uber-Reformed gender matters here. I disagree.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  132. elastigirl,

    You wrote: “and your views would be no less hurtful and devastating.” It is not “my views” that matter, nor whether my views are “hurtful and devastating.” I think we would agree that it is what Scripture teaches and how we interpret it that matters. If my interpretation makes me sexist in your eyes, then I will have to accept that. I will try to find solace in that it is a “baptized sexist.” Sounds so much better. I don’t think those who know me well would describe me as sexist in everyday life.

    Also, and most importantly, thank you for taking time to explain where you were coming from in your previous posts. Please know that I do try to empathize with others, and I really do try to understand how my interpretation of the verses in 1 Timothy makes you and others feel. Because of that, I am mostly sorry that I chimed in at all yesterday. On the other hand, my academic spirit loves a thoughtful discussion or debate that challenges and informs, and I have benefited from better understanding why many interpret 1 Timothy differently than do I and also how my views may affect them.

    I do regret my choice of words in my first post when I talked about not being able to “explain away” 1 Timothy 2. I should have chosen my words more carefully so as to not cast aspersion on those of you who interpret the verses differently. I was careless.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  133. SiteSeer: Did Christ ever do such a thing to any woman?

    Christ set women free, rather than put them in bondage. Misinterpretation of Scripture about the role of female believers puts them under the law, rather than free in Christ. Paul put it this way: “In Christ’s family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal” (Galatians 3:28). “Sit down, shut up, don’t exercise your spiritual gifts” were never words that Christ used for any believer.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  134. SiteSeer: Did Christ ever do such a thing to any woman? I can’t imagine it. I can’t imagine any group thinking this is okay behavior.

    “I have experienced this discrimination firsthand. I am a woman. And I am a preacher. That combination has cost me privileges and position in the man’s world in which I have moved. I have stood up to speak and had men turn their backs on me. I have been offered a seminary professorship, only to have the offer revoked when I refused to sign a statement that said women were to submit to men. I have had invitations withdrawn because of the threatened furor my presence on the platform would create. Multiple times, I have been directed to speak from a microphone positioned on the sanctuary floor of a church because I was not allowed into the pulpit.” (Anne Graham Lotz)

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/09/24/anne-graham-lotz-women-badly-treated-by-a-gender-driven-gospel/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  135. Daisy: I never understand why people who still cling to the complementarian interpretation come on to sites like this one asking the Non-Comps to explain those verses, when such responses are already out there.

    I did not come to this site asking “non-comps to explain their views.” Others took the time to write explanations of their views and I thanked them yesterday because I appreciated it. I hope some others benefited as well. I also wrote in my post yesterday that “I was hoping that someone would take the time to explain why they disagree with what I call the literal interpretation of the verses.” That was written after the explanations were offered by others and it was not a request for others to do my homework. I made no such request. Never even thought about asking others to explain their views when I first posted.

    You also wrote yesterday: “I left you some links up thread about 1 Timothy.
    Did you see them and/or visit those web pages?” No, but thank you for taking time to provide them. Maybe I would feel guilty reading those articles now since you chided me for coming to “other people’s sites” and asking questions when I should have done my research about the pros and cons beforehand. I don’t usually respond very well to questions that I perceived as having a condescending attitude. Your question and comments seemed snarky to me; like you are trying to “school” me. So I tuned you out. Not attacking you, just telling you how I felt after your multiple posts to me.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  136. Proffy: elastigirl,

    You wrote: “and your views would be no less hurtful and devastating.” It is not “my views” that matter, nor whether my views are “hurtful and devastating.” I think we would agree that it is what Scripture teaches and how we interpret it that matters. If my interpretation makes me sexist in your eyes, then I will have to accept that. I will try to find solace in that it is a “baptized sexist.” Sounds so much better. I don’t think those who know me well would describe me as sexist in everyday life.

    Yes, I for one agree that how we interpret scripture is what matters. I also appreciate your respect in your last comment for another’s sincere interpretation. If your interpretation is correct though, then God is sexist. If my interpretation is correct then God is egalitarian. I rejected God when all I had been taught was that he is sexist. And when I began a relationship with God, I tried very hard to overcome my feelings about his sexist ways. But the more I dug into Him about my problem with it, begging him for peace about it, the more I believe He helped me to interpret the scriptures in the same way that egalitarians do, and that was before I knew any egalitarians even existed in the church. So, to me, if God is sexist, then God Himself is wrong and makes less sense-because as Elastigirl said, sexist is as sexist does. And, sexist is as sexist thinks, whether or not a relationship acts more egalitarian. Have you ever looked at the same scripture with brand new thoughts about it after really reading listening to both interpretations and why they are interpreted differently? If you are open to learning why egalitarians believe what we believe, I highly recommend Bob and Helga Edwards, some of the best compilation of historical and biblical work. http://www.awakedeborah.com/books

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  137. thank you, proffy.

    as i see it, it comes down to principle over people.

    one may have nothing but esteem and respect for women. that is very good.

    but there are reasons why one would choose a principle that dehumanizes them. silences their voice. puts shackles on them (even though they may look like sweet & cute shackles). is personally crushing to them. that stops their contribution which everyone would benefit from.

    –a desire to be keep oneself sin-free (but i would ask what’s the value of that level of self-interest when others are harmed by it?)

    –a desire to please God (again, i would ask what’s the value of that when others are harmed by it, and what does that make God out to be?)

    –peer pressure

    –pressure from influential others

    –fear of rocking the boat, thus jeopardizing comfortable harmony (dehumanized women don’t find it comfortable), and one’s social place in the community

    –because it’s the paradigm one is most used to (thus there is comfort in it)

    proffy, the fact that this issue is so contentious means it is disputable. it is not unambiguous.

    since that is the case, if one chooses the position that is hurtful to others (& i could make a case that it destroys the personhood of others by degrees), one is required to soberly analyze why they have made that choice.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  138. elastigirl: …my cat hit enter…

    ok, a game: who can finish “and monkeys f….”

    …ound out there was a mama bear named Mink whose favorite human died, depriving her of her daily meal of maple donuts. She became a beloved “nuisance bear,” so wildlife officials moved her all the way to the Canadian border! Mink has spent the past year trying to get back to her home town, and she’s almost there. Monkeys know this because Mink wears a tracking collar, and there’s even a map of her journey.

    To relate to the topic: If I had a pulpit, I would invite Mink to preach. No restrictions at all. She could… bear witness.

    https://www.nhpr.org/post/mink-famous-hanover-bear-has-returned-upper-valley#stream/0

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  139. Jerome: Why do you keep adding “In the church”? It’s not in those verses, or the entire chapter. Read the chapter, he’s addressing believers’ comportment everywhere, not just “in the church.”

    Good question. Knowing of course that Paul did not write in chapters and verses, I do not stop at the end of chapter 2. In chapter 3 Paul writes:

    1 Timothy 3:14-15 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    I assume that the above verses refer back to what he wrote in Chapter 2 as well as what immediately precedes it in chapter 3. And, if you accept 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 as a valid cross-reference to 1 Timothy 2:14-16, the context there is clearly “in the church.” To be clear, I am not 100% certain it is a valid cross-reference. But as I wrote earlier in a post on this thread, 1 Timothy is a pastoral letter and I believe the context for much or most of it is “in the church.”

    For what it’s worth, that is how I see it. Thank you for asking.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  140. Tina: I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it.

    That is because the complementarians have made this secondary issue a primary one. It is they are causing you fear, not the Lord. An excellent workbook to start from is Freedom in Christ from the Oppression of Patriarchy. The authors explain the roots of patriarchy.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  141. Friend,

    “and monkeys f….”

    “…ound out there was a mama bear named Mink… maple donuts… tracking collar…”
    ++++++++++++++

    interesting…. 🙂

    anyone else?

    i’m still accepting submissions.

    (there is a right answer)

    (but i will be giving awards for best incorrect answers)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  142. Proffy,

    “It is not “my views” that matter, nor whether my views are “hurtful and devastating.” I think we would agree that it is what Scripture teaches and how we interpret it that matters.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    hello, proffy.

    i imagine this is the reason you have chosen your position (you are convinced it’s what scripture teaches).

    so, a few things come to mind:

    –was scripture intended to be law? have people turned scripture into law?

    –do we like having a christian talmud? (who benefits from it? clearly they are the ones who like it)

    –is scripture so binding that even God is bound by it?

    –is it reasonable that laws that have absolute & ultimate power are ambiguous?

    –is it reasonable that God is bound by laws that destroy people? due to accident of birth, no less?

    –what god is this?

    it could be a good exercise to examine if there are other factors that go into the choice of your position.

    (i value unvarnished communication. i’ve been swindled by sugar sweet gospel christian manipulation too many times — whether they realized they were doing so or not)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  143. elastigirl: adhering to something because it is deemed ‘biblical’ mitigateth not the consequences.

    “Men of Sin” will always cite an quote some Cosmic-level Authority to get Cosmic-level Justification for what they wanna do anyway.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  144. Fisher: Later I asked my friends, “Why do they talk all the time?”

    My friends told me, “Because they come from animist backgrounds. In their worldview religion means letting the spirit doctor do all the ‘stuff’ while they merely sit in the same room.”

    Is this what might also have been going on in Corinth too?

    Makes more sense than a lot of the Theological Exegesis on those passages.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  145. Max: I wonder sometimes if the reason that Strachan, Moore and Piper are so tough on women is that they were little short nerdy guys in high school and didn’t get any dates. They are striking back now that they are in control!

    i.e. Toxic InCel attitude (all genuflect to Saint Elliot the Shooter) with a Christian Coat of paint?

    THAT has been my evaluation of Womb Tomb Swanson for a long time.
    His appearance and voice both scream “High School Omega Geek who found a way to be Alpha Male by Divine Right and throws his weight around HARD.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  146. Tina: I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God

    Remember “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7). When you are exposed to a certain teaching that confuses you and messes with your mind, you can rest assured that it originated in the heart of a man not the mind of God. We talk a lot on TWW about the ails of New Calvinism … we often refer to their know-it-all arrogance, their aberrant belief and practice, and their lack of love … the power of God doesn’t rest on such behavior.

    Regarding being condemned by God, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:1). It’s interesting that some versions of the Bible does not include the text “… who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”, although that is clearly indicated in the context of Romans 8. If we walk in humility, pray, repent and seek God’s face (i.e., walk after the Spirit) rather than trying to work our faith out in the flesh (rules and regulations), we will never feel condemned. When we question a certain religious teaching, the Holy Spirit is convicting us to pause and consider that in view of the whole of Scripture. Men are good at twisting Scripture to make it fit their theology.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  147. Patti: If your interpretation is correct though, then God is sexist.

    To me, it’s more than that. Comp/pat beliefs mean that Jesus died on the cross only for males. Females still need priests (their husbands/fathers) to stand between females and God.
    The he veil may have been rent in twain, but only males are allowed to walk through.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  148. Max: When you are exposed to a certain teaching that confuses you and messes with your mind, you can rest assured that it originated in the heart of a man not the mind of God.

    But one of the biggest problems with these comp passages is that men see benefits to themselves, while women deal with all the consequences.

    Whenever I see a man hammering on what’s “biblical”, but the effect is a benefit to him only because it takes away something from someone else, I suspect (and usually am right after a few questions) that he has never tried to understand any other interpretation of that passage.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  149. Ishy: Whenever I see a man hammering on what’s “biblical”, but the effect is a benefit to him only because it takes away something from someone else, I suspect (and usually am right after a few questions) that he has never tried to understand any other interpretation of that passage.

    Church history is cluttered with a man here and there who twisted Scripture to benefit his line of thinking. Indeed, I suspect that a good number of the 30,000 Christian denominations and para-church organizations on earth today all originated by a man here and there launching out on his own with a private interpretation to form a new thing. A little mis-truth here, a little half-truth there, sprinkled with enough charisma to pull it off … Bingo! You, too, can have your very own religion.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  150. Jerome: A disgusting anniversary [Monday]: Executed in the Netherlands 400 years ago on 13 May 1619 as the Synod of Dort closed, a champion of the Arminians Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. He had been imprisoned for the duration of the Synod of Dort, and was beheaded for ‘subversion of the country’s religion’ shortly after the Gomarists’ form of Calvinism was adopted by the Synod.

    They next turned their fury on the long-dead body of an associate of Oldenbarnevelt:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Oldenbarnevelt,_Grotius_and_Hogerbeets#The_punishments

    “The next sentence was pronounced on 15 May 1619 over Gilles van Ledenberg, who had been dead since the end of the previous September. Obviously, he could not be executed, but the judges declared in the verdict that he was ‘worthy of death’ and would so have been sentenced if he had been alive. His “exemplary sentence” was that his embalmed body would be hung from a gibbet in its coffin.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  151. and if that wasn’t enough…

    “It was left hanging for 21 days, and after it was taken down, it was buried in the churchyard of the church at Voorburg. However, the same night a mob disinterred the corpse and threw it in a ditch. This caused sufficient revulsion to cause the Hof van Holland (the main Dutch court) to issue an injunction against further depredations. The body was later secretly reburied”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_van_Ledenberg

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  152. Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

    “Comp/pat beliefs mean that Jesus died on the cross only for males. Females still need priests (their husbands/fathers) to stand between females and God.
    The he veil may have been rent in twain, but only males are allowed to walk through.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    the significance of comp/pat is unmistakable.

    the stock answer is “it’s a matter of roles”.

    so then we pretend that functionally Jesus died on cross only for men, and women are denied access to God without husband’s/father’s supervision.

    yeaaaahh,…..

    the next stock answer is ‘it’s beautiful’.

    …and it’s the world’s biggest “GOOD GRIEF” from me.

    14k gold shackles studded with rubies and diamonds are still shackles.

    i’m just…. gobsmacked… at the short-circuited reasoning.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  153. Max,

    “Church history is cluttered with a man here and there who twisted Scripture to benefit his line of thinking. Indeed, I suspect that a good number of the 30,000 Christian denominations and para-church organizations on earth today all originated by a man here and there launching out on his own with a private interpretation to form a new thing. A little mis-truth here, a little half-truth there, sprinkled with enough charisma to pull it off … Bingo! You, too, can have your very own religion.”

    Could you explain how this would not also apply to those in favor of women’s ordination or women as pastors / elders?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  154. Noevangelical: Could you explain how this would not also apply to those in favor of women’s ordination or women as pastors / elders?

    Well, embedded in those 30,000 Christian denominations/organizations are those who have no problem with women pastors/elders. I obviously fall within that line of thinking, feeling that all believers have equal stance before God in spiritual gifting. I feel the Bible supports this, but understand that there are those who read Scripture differently – some of which use select passages to control female believers, while I feel Christ has set them free to use their gifts to advance the Great Commission (including preaching/teaching).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  155. Max,

    I’m interested in the question of why people who “agitate” (a word used in an article I read on the subject) for theological change within a church or denomination just don’t call like minded people out of the existing structure and start their own church. There are those on the opposing side who make the argument that this issue is the starting point toward full apostasy in the church. And they have ample evidence to point to.

    I probably won’t live long enough to see it, but I suspect that eventually the SBC will break into factions based more on social issues, and each faction will be using the Bible to justify their actions. But since there is no denomination, I’m kind of surprised this isn’t happening at an accelerated pace right now. What’s holding them back?

    Thanks for the dialog

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  156. Noevangelical: I’m interested in the question of why people who “agitate” (a word used in an article I read on the subject) for theological change within a church or denomination just don’t call like minded people out of the existing structure and start their own church

    In the case of the SBC (which I spent 70 years in), the New Calvinists want the stuff! Instead of starting their own thing – their own seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house, etc. – it’s easier just to take these resources away from unsuspecting SBC masses. Since church folks trust their leaders, they wouldn’t consider thinking badly of them … they will realize too late that you just can’t do that any longer in SBC! Al Mohler and his gang of new reformers wouldn’t dream of starting their own thing – it’s a tougher row to hoe than plundering the vast denominational holdings financed by non-Calvinists for the last 150 years. He’s darn near pulled it off already … and most of the SBC pew still ain’t got a clue! He’s a brilliant strategist! It’s hard to witness what is happening in this once-great evangelistic denomination.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  157. Max: Instead of starting their own thing – their own seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house, etc. – it’s easier just to take these resources away from unsuspecting SBC masses.

    Raid-and-Pillage economy.
    Why work when you can take it for free?

    “You have stockpiled food, I have stockpiled guns and ammunition. I pull a trigger and I have the gun and food.”
    — Eighties Survivalist, when “Survivalists” got into the news big-time

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  158. Daisy: (Yes, I have seen (conservative) Christians use the Bible as one or more of those things over the course of my life.)
    Also, there are some complementarian churches that will not allow any woman to even read verbatim from the Bible – word for word from it – aloud.

    I’ve seen bread for sale in a local grocery store that was said to have been made from a recipe in the Book of Ezekiel.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  159. Tina: I cannot figure out who’s right, and I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it.

    Let me guess…
    You got called on (and punished/ridiculed for) so many “wrong” decisions you can’t take the risk any more? And everything you did got nitpicked under an electron microscope and Proven WRONG? No matter which way you chose, it turned out to be the WRONG way?

    That sort of Zero-Defect forced perfectionism doesn’t teach, it Kills.
    Only thing it teaches is Avoid (or put off) Punishment At All Costs.
    Eventually you get to the point of
    “If I never attempt anything, I Can’t Catch Hell for Doing It Wrong, Can I?”

    How do I know this? Experience. To this day, it’s difficult to motivate myself for anything.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  160. Noevangelical: I’m interested in the question of why people who “agitate” (a word used in an article I read on the subject) for theological change within a church or denomination just don’t call like minded people out of the existing structure and start their own church.

    You have to get enough like-minded people in one place to start a church. Most people do not like change at all, even if they are very unhappy with their situation.

    It’s not easy to start a church, especially if you want to do it honestly. Humans like the gimmicks and the fake charisma.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  161. Pingback: Special Out of Character Announcement |

  162. Noevangelical: Max,

    “Church history is cluttered with a man here and there who twisted Scripture to benefit his line of thinking. Indeed, I suspect that a good number of the 30,000 Christian denominations and para-church organizations on earth today all originated by a man here and there launching out on his own with a private interpretation to form a new thing. A little mis-truth here, a little half-truth there, sprinkled with enough charisma to pull it off … Bingo! You, too, can have your very own religion.”

    Could you explain how this would not also apply to those in favor of women’s ordination or women as pastors / elders?

    Are the followers Bereans, who are looking for truth? Or are they people looking for a charismatic leader to follow?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  163. Tina: I cannot figure out who’s right, and I’m scared to death of getting it wrong and being condemned by God for it.

    Can the God who fashioned the entire universe really be that petty? Would he really form lists of rules that could result in eternal condemnation but be so secretive about them that those who are trying their hardest to understand what they are and would follow them if they knew can’t figure them out?

    The 10 commandments do not demand that men exercise authority over women and women subject themselves to it. Why would the new testament, in which Christ brings liberty and freedom from the law, suddenly be more restrictive than the law?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  164. Jerome: “The next sentence was pronounced on 15 May 1619 over Gilles van Ledenberg, who had been dead since the end of the previous September. Obviously, he could not be executed, but the judges declared in the verdict that he was ‘worthy of death’ and would so have been sentenced if he had been alive. His “exemplary sentence” was that his embalmed body would be hung from a gibbet in its coffin.”

    Things like this are not done in seeking to know and please God. They are done for political power and control.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  165. elastigirl: since that is the case, if one chooses the position that is hurtful to others (& i could make a case that it destroys the personhood of others by degrees), one is required to soberly analyze why they have made that choice.

    There have been many good resources posted in the above thread that go into all of these issues in depth.

    I think that we all fail to realize just how narrow of a filter we tend to read scripture through. When you’ve heard all your life that men are to be in authority and women in subjection, you tend to read past the passages that show a different picture without even noticing it, and you tend to read the ones that seem to be saying that without reading in very much depth or questioning if you are really getting the point of what they are saying. So that, never do you stop and ask why the scriptures seem to be presenting two such different pictures.

    I know that I was kind of shocked at the number of things I had ignored and failed to notice in scripture that were laid out in this video. I sat there and cried at the end of it. I don’t think men have any idea what a dehumanizing attitude we women live with continually at church. I didn’t really face just how deeply it hurt, myself, until it was lifted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXcAyP33rM

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  166. Noevangelical: Yes, you are misunderstanding me. My point is about God’s Word vs generic info. They are not the same thing, regardless of the gender of the speaker. Take gender out of it. Generic info is not living and powerful, etc.

    All speakers / readers mangle God’s Word in some way every day. I believe the gender to be irrelevant. For the uber-Reformed gender matters here. I disagree.

    Thank you for explaining, I do agree with you.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  167. ishy: SiteSeer: Exactly. And my question is, has this been done in the past? How many times in the history of Bible translation has male superiority tweaked the meaning of a verse here or there?

    It’s true of many of the verses about women in the NT. I started noticing this in seminary while studying Greek. There was much more variation from the English translation when I hit a verse on women than other verses. The bias on women was quite clear to me. I’m not going to declare myself any sort of authority, but you can look at the passage for yourself.

    Example:
    The clobber passage in Ephesians 5

    The sentence starts in verse 18 and goes all the way to verse 25. That there is a heading between verses 21 and 22 like verse 22 starts a new section breaks the sentence and is wholly (and I believe intentionally) deceptive.

    Here’s the kicker: There’s no word for “submit” (hupatasso) in either verse 22 or verse 24 referring to wives, only to “everyone” and “the church”. You can argue that it’s borrowed from the places it is found, but that implies verse 21 is the key to the following passages and they are dependent on it. Verse 18, which starts the sentence, talks about being filled with the Spirit, and the rest are supporting that. A heading in the middle of verse 18 makes way more sense than a heading before verse 22.

    I believe that hammering on marriage roles is an entirely wrong interpretation in this passage, and there’s some really heavy editing in English translations to give the impression that marriage roles are absolute. I know some scholars also say that Paul was quoting (and maybe misquoting) Greek household codes here, and actually subverting them.

    https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ephesians/5.htm

    Another example:

    Thank you, Ishy, this is exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about.

    It strikes me that Adam ate of the fruit without being deceived, with a clear head and a clear motive. In the same way, those who use subterfuge to bias the scriptures are doing so with a clear head and a clear motive. How does God see this? Are these men serving him? Or are they like Uzzah, who tried to help God by steadying the Ark, when he thought God was not able to manage by himself? “Isn’t God lucky I came along to help him?” Are they so sure they know what God wants that they try to say it a little more clearly for him? Are they just trying to please the authorities that be? Or are they coldly calculating, seeking to keep the position that benefits themselves?

    And then, one wonders, if this is not the way God intended, what has the church (and society that took its cues from the church) lost in doing so?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  168. Nathan Priddis: However that is not an insumountable issue either. Unless one is attending a Charismatic church, all present are are silent for the typical 20-40 minute weekly sermon. Both males and females.

    What’s the fear of talking? I’ve never seen a mid-sermon call for a dreaded female sidebar. Maybe I never visited the right Churches for that.
    Has Mr. Strachan witnessed the dreaded women talkers? I think they may be mythical. Something only spoken of by Complimentarians in whispered tones.

    This suggests something many have commented on before, that the structure of the assembling of the saints in earlier times was not a ‘pastor’ standing up and doing all of the talking. Individuals were instructed to speak one at a time, respectful of other’s desire to be heard. There was input from many – not limited to some anointed, seminary-trained ‘authority’ – and probably questions, challenges and responses. So, yes, women would have had the opportunity to speak, along with everyone else. The male church leadership is as afraid to lose control of the mike as they are to be upstaged by women.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  169. SiteSeer: Exactly. And my question is, has this been done in the past? How many times in the history of Bible translation has male superiority tweaked the meaning of a verse here or there?

    Which is why the inerrancy movement is so dangerous. Most christians would agree that the original manuscripts were inspired and without error. But what does that even mean, and what on earth good does it do, as we do not have possession of said manuscripts.

    The bait and switch was to get everyone to agree on biblical inerrancy, then demand that their particular interpretations of their particular English language translation was to be viewed as inerrant. Nice trick.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  170. Max: A little mis-truth here, a little half-truth there, sprinkled with enough charisma to pull it off … Bingo! You, too, can have your very own religion.

    I’ve considered it, but I don’t want to compete with Nickism.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  171. SiteSeer: The 10 commandments do not demand that men exercise authority over women and women subject themselves to it. Why would the new testament, in which Christ brings liberty and freedom from the law, suddenly be more restrictive than the law?

    Excellent point. Same goes for the claim that Jesus was further restricting divorce laws.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  172. SiteSeer: Can the God who fashioned the entire universe really be that petty? Would he really form lists of rules that could result in eternal condemnation but be so secretive about them that those who are trying their hardest to understand what they are and would follow them if they knew can’t figure them out?

    This might belong on the previous thread, but this is another good reason to question Calvinism, from whence Patriarchy is getting its retread. Would God really curse people, whom he claims to love and not see perish, so that they are utterly unable to see and understand what they need to see and understand to please him and live? Utterly reprehensible thinking.

    No, I utterly reject the premise that God is petty, cruel, secretive and deliberately blinding men – and women – from finding salvation and redemption. Refused to give them understanding and life. Then he turns around and says, ‘All day long I have held my arms out to you . . .’ I cannot even imagine anyone that cruel.I do not believe the many Calvinists in the pew have thought through things, but merely adopted a system.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  173. SiteSeer: Are the followers Bereans, who are looking for truth? Or are they people looking for a charismatic leader to follow?

    I think they’re afraid to come out and go with their own independent thought.
    It takes courage to think for one’s self and then own what you (generic you) believe in or don’t believe in.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  174. TS00: I cannot even imagine anyone that cruel.I do not believe the many Calvinists in the pew have thought through things, but merely adopted a system.

    Their god has way more in common with the gods of Egypt and the gods of the Canaanites.
    The God of Abraham isn’t anything like their deity.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  175. TS00: I’ve considered [founding my own religion], but I don’t want to compete with Nickism.

    That’s the beauty of Nickism. While it is self-evidently the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Nickism doesn’t arrogantly claim a monopoly on truth. It’s just a label for the truth, so you could found TS00ism and we could then have an interfaith dialogue.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  176. TS00: Which is why the inerrancy movement is so dangerous. Most christians would agree that the original manuscripts were inspired and without error. But what does that even mean, and what on earth good does it do, as we do not have possession of said manuscripts.
    The bait and switch was to get everyone to agree on biblical inerrancy…

    This bait-and-switch underlines what I find most disturbing about a similar dogma, namely the sufficiency of scripture. It’s not so much what sufficiency makes sufficientists (I admit that’s a loose term, because no label actually groups together people who are all the same) believe. It’s what it makes them believe about others: namely, that we have rejected God.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  177. TS00: This might belong on the previous thread, but this is another good reason to question Calvinism, from whence Patriarchy is getting its retread. Would God really curse people, whom he claims to love and not see perish, so that they are utterly unable to see and understand what they need to see and understand to please him and live? Utterly reprehensible thinking.

    I think you might be refering to this, so I will repost it here:

    This article pretty much captures this Calvinist way of thinking: https://www.tms.edu/blog/necessity-divine-sovereignty/

    If God did not display all of His attributes, His glory would be subsequently diminished.

    The only way God’s glory could be diminished is if his attributes are limited, because something that is infinite/unlimited cannot be diminished. By definition, something that is infinite/unlimited can never be made less (or more) by any finite subtraction (or addition).

    I believe a fatal flaw of Calvinism is it silently assumes a god whose attributes are limited and therefore must be conserved so as not to waste them. No Calvinist would ever admit this, but it’s the only way they can conclude that his sovereignty or glory can be diminished.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  178. TS00: No, I utterly reject the premise that God is petty, cruel, secretive and deliberately blinding men – and women – from finding salvation and redemption. Refused to give them understanding and life. Then he turns around and says, ‘All day long I have held my arms out to you . . .’ I cannot even imagine anyone that cruel.I do not believe the many Calvinists in the pew have thought through things, but merely adopted a system.

    They are big in saying women are supposed to be “designed” the way they want, and if they are not acting submissive and catering to all their needs, they are rebelling against God. And they say that no one can do good, especially when they themselves sin.

    At the same, wasn’t the tree they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? I wish I had studied Hebrew harder, but there is that verse about making one “wise”. I think that passage implies knowledge of both, which would be troublesome to the doctrine of total depravity. I know it’s satan saying “good and evil”, but he mixes truth with lies, and we can’t be sure that’s not a true part (and it makes sense it would be because the other parts of that verse are him minimizing the consequences. Anyway, I think total depravity doesn’t have a lot of foundation anyway in other verses and is sort of assumed. Just because someone doesn’t do good doesn’t mean they don’t know what good is.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  179. Estelle,

    “… and monkeys finished off my gran’s onion patch by pulling the onions up one by one, taking a bite, tossing it away and pulling up the next onion. True story!”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    wow! and i thought squirrels taking one bite out of every peach on the tree was bad…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  180. elastigirl: hello, proffy.

    i imagine this is the reason you have chosen your position (you are convinced it’s what scripture teaches).

    so, a few things come to mind:

    –was scripture intended to be law? have people turned scripture into law?

    –do we like having a christian talmud? (who benefits from it? clearly they are the ones who like it)

    –is scripture so binding that even God is bound by it?

    –is it reasonable that laws that have absolute & ultimate power are ambiguous?

    –is it reasonable that God is bound by laws that destroy people? due to accident of birth, no less?

    –what god is this?

    I would not say I am “convinced” of my belief on this. Honestly, it is not something that I have studied much at all and I don’t think about it too often either. I just go with a literal interpretation of what I construe Paul to be saying in 1 Tim 2:14-16. I will read some of the links that some here have provided (except the links from Daisy ) and re-assess my views. My views on some biblical doctrines have changed over my 40+ years as a believer, and I try, try, try to not hold too many of my beliefs so tightly that they cannot be adjusted when or if I am enlightened.

    In response to your questions, I offer some responses.

    Was Scripture intended to be law? Except for the obvious “giving of the law” to Moses on Mount Sinai, no, I don’t think so. And that law, the Mosaic covenant, has been fulfilled by Christ and we are released from it and dead to it; it has been abolished. Yay!

    Have people turned Scripture into Law? I suspect many have done so and continue to do so. But I think we need to be careful and not confuse the words “commands” and “law.” Christ and NT writers clearly teach us certain commands which we should all endeavor to obey. We endeavor to obey Christ’s commands because we love Him and His word, and we want to be pleasing in His sight. We no longer strive under law (or commands) trying to gain God’s approval. God’s approval was given to us when we believed in Christ and his finished work on the cross.

    Do we like having a Christian Talmud? If we are true worshippers of God IN THE SPIRIT (Philippians chapter 3) as we should be, then no. Those who try to please God in the flesh would indeed probably like a Talmud of their own creation, so they can seek to establish their own righteousness and measure others according to their pharisaic standards (law).

    Is Scripture so binding that even God is bound by it? Cute question. God cannot renege on His Word. The author of Hebrews (ch. 6) writes about “… the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie…” If God is not bound by His Word, are any of us assured of salvation by grace through faith based on the sacrifice of Christ and His atonement for our sins? (Yes, I realize that I changed your question a little bit.)

    Is it reasonable that laws that have absolute & ultimate power are ambiguous? Again, I will replace “laws” with “commands” and hope you have no problem with that. But which laws (commands) have absolute and ultimate power? Hopefully, for our benefit, none would be ambiguous.

    Is it reasonable that God is bound by laws that destroy people? due to accident of birth, no less? What God is this? It is the God who died for us even when we were His enemies. How fair was it for Christ to have to bear our sins? To suffer reproach because we despised Him? In my opinion, you have crafted a clever cascade of questions that are designed to philosophically justify your belief (egalitarian roles in the church). Be careful that It is not just a man-made (woman-made?) construct of worldly wisdom. You know that you need to study God’s Word and find your answers there. If you believe you have strong biblical evidence that justifies your views about the roles of men and women in the church, then stand firm in your belief. I can respect that, even if I believe otherwise. (Not that it matters who or what I respect, I totally get that.)

    Lastly, I hope that you and others do not feel destroyed by a literal interpretation of 1 Tim 2:14-16. And I hope you are not beholden to a set of beliefs to avoid feeling destroyed. That concerns me. When you are tempted to feel that way (perhaps in fear or concerns that a literal interpretation is correct), then just try to rest in God’s gracious saving work on the cross that none of us deserve. I hope I don’t sound too much like a neo-Calvinist there, because I am not. Having said that, I am going to drop back 10 and punt.

    I have greatly enjoyed our dialog. Anyways, I think most others have moved on to the newer post.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  181. Proffy,

    “I have greatly enjoyed our dialog. Anyways, I think most others have moved on to the newer post.”
    +++++++++++++++

    without playing my game of “who can finish ‘and monkeys f…'”???

    i can’t be the only one here who saw Wayne’s World (and laughed out loud).

    strong>elastigirl,

    i will respond to your comment, which you put thought and time into. busy day up ahead… wish me power and might as i launch into it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  182. TS00:
    Jerome,

    Such lovely Calvinists. And they dare wag their heads at Catholics.

    And the Predestined Elect that get covered on this blog haven’t changed in 400 years.

    “I THANK THEE, LOOOOOOOOOOORD, THAT *I* AM NOTHING LIKE THOSE FILTHY ROMISH PAPISTS OVER THERE…”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  183. Nick Bulbeck: It’s what it makes them believe about others: namely, that we have rejected God.

    This makes me cringe in self disgust, as I think of how many years I allowed myself to be instructed to think that, essentially, anyone who disagrees with me rejects God. Ouch, and I am so sorry to all who ever knew me.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  184. “after the Gomarists’ form of Calvinism was adopted by the Synod of Dort…[a] sentence was pronounced on 15 May 1619 over Gilles van Ledenberg, who had been dead since the end of the previous September…His ‘exemplary sentence’ was that his embalmed body would be hung from a gibbet…It was left hanging for 21 days”

    They gibbeted his corpse as an exemplar? I had to look that one up:

    “gibbeting refers to the use of a gallows-type structure from which the dead or dying bodies of criminals were hung on public display…to discourage others from committing similar offences”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  185. elastigirl,

    I look forward to reading your reply. I do hope you have a great “busy” day today. It is interesting that I will be leading the discussion at our home group tonight on Galations 3:19-29. The last few verses (28-29) read: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

    How appropriate, and what a marvelous passage!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  186. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    well….. which carries greater weight? has greater significance?

    the Galatians verses, or “I (Paul) permit not a woman to teach…” — and all the conjecture that stems from it which negates the Galatians verse)?

    and if one is going to risk erring on one or the other, why choose the one that is cruel and applies Jesus’ sacrifice/atonement selectively favoring only men?

    remember, it’s not comp/pat’s stock answers to these questions, but the significance of what they mean. and how they land at ground zero on live human beings.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  187. Proffy,

    “How appropriate, and what a marvelous passage!”
    +++++++++++++

    indeed.

    what could possibly be marvelous about “I permitteth not a women to teach or have authority over a man”?

    (careful there, on your answer.)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  188. Proffy,

    In both Romans and 1 Thess., Paul instructs Christians to greet out brethren with a holy kiss. Do you do that, or do you consider it to be a cultural thing?
    Just askin —- something to think about and compare to other passages.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  189. Proffy, thank you for being willing to think through what you’ve been taught. You noted above that you hope people aren’t hurt by an uncontexted flat literal reading of the translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15a. I am telling you straight up – I am one who has been absolutely devastated by having this passage thrown in my face. You see, I didn’t want to “become egalitarian” – I wanted to leave the Christian faith. Why? Because obviously God hated me and it was better all round if I were just gone.

    How do I get “God hates me” from 1 Timothy? It doesn’t take much. You see, my gifting is teaching. Not just Christians or theology – anything I’m interested in. But, according to the comp reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-15a, I cannot ever “teach” a man anything. An insecure man can, of course, decide that any word that comes out of my mouth is somehow “authority” or “teaching”, even if said word is “ouch, you’re hurting me!”

    You see, a woman like me is really quite useless in the comp church. Yes, I married young to a wonderful man. But, I’m a teacher by avocation. Most women in comp churches won’t even listen to women teachers anymore – I mean, obviously there’s something wrong with women teachers if God won’t let them teach men is the thought. So, the gift I have (adult teaching) is useless in the church. That is a deep and terrible hurt, to have to bury one of the gifts of God to be acceptable in the church. I’ve thought on the Parable of the Talents. I hope that all the comp women who have been explicitly or implicitly told that God will reward them for burying those gifts are treated gently at the judgement – they’ve done exactly what they were taught to do.

    Discernment? Forget it! Trying to tell any comp man that you think they might be a bit off base will immediately get you slammed with “you’re trying to take authority over me” and “you’re trying to teach me”. So, what’s left? Well, you can be “saved by having babies” as the CEV translates it. Yeah, that one didn’t work either.

    So, not-a-mother, with gifts that women can’t use but have been given by God – it becomes pretty obvious that God just hates women like me when He makes me something that is useless and dangerous. Oh, add in professional in finances and risk management. And completely unable to tell the truckers and laborers “elders” that they’re breaking the law, or financially ruining the entity or putting themselves in huge risks or . . anything else they don’t want to hear and it’s “teaching woman!” or “woman taking authority – destroy!”

    So, I just wanted out – out of this church and religion that has a God who is so sadistic as to make me what I am . . and make that completely useless and even sinful in some eyes.

    My story, transitioning from Christian patriarchy to mutuality is long and it hurt a lot. I’d rather have left the faith than changed. But God decided mutuality theology and me needed a deep heart-to-heart and now I walk in the light of faith as a redeemed son of the Most High, with all the rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES of a son (yes, God has female sons).

    That’s hard to take, for a comp that never really thought about it. But don’t worry – mutuality theology is not new. It rose with the Protestant Reformation in the Quakers, Levellers, Moravians in the 1600s. It’s comp teaching that’s the new kid on the block – only been around since the 50s. Before that, it was patriarchy and women with less protection than your horse. All that to say – the current interpretation and use of 1 Timothy 2:11-15a in the comp church is a lot like using battery acid on human flesh. The steady drip does damage, scars, eats away and occasionally someone female (or the male who loves her and seeks a place for her to minister) gets a full beaker thrown in their face “in the name of God”.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  190. Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

    Yep…and how many “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach…?”

    Or do they literally have a foot-washing ceremony from time to time.

    Or can they not wear gold or their wives braid their hair?

    Or have any cut off a hand that was causing them to stumble?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  191. GreekEpigraph,

    Surely Paul could have saved a lot of time and confusion, had he really just said, ‘A penis is the only requirement for teaching.’ Which is, pardon my crudeness, is exactly what Comp/Patriarchal says in a nutshell.

    It isn’t personal gifting, being filled with the Spirit, wisdom, maturity, empathy and experience that benefit the assembly of believers; no sirree, as long as one has the right anatomy, all’s good.

    Yes, scripture was written in a Patriarchal era, in which it was taken for granted that women, who were not granted the benefit of education (many may not even have been able to read) were obviously not suited to be in positions for which they had not been properly equipped. With time, such disparities have been eliminated, along with many other cultural norms.

    Few of us greet one another with holy kisses, wash each other’s feet or consider headcoverings essential to femininity. Few keep a strict sabbath, would know how to gird a loincloth or set our slaves free ever Jubilee year.

    It is long time to give up the pretense that scripture can be easily interpreted in a literal sense that presents one and only one meaning obvious to all. This has NEVER been true, and is not so today.

    I long ran in fundamenalist, patriarchal circles, but for the sake of my children – boys and girls alike – I was eventually led to see such narrow, legalistic thinking as limiting and harmful to all. For the very real assistance that men and women can give to one another rests in the full and legitimate exercise of their individual talents, gifts and strengths for the benefit of all.

    The man who lacks discernment needs the benefit of his wife’s gift of discernment even more than she needs to use it. The woman who was raised in a cold, harsh environment needs the nurturing skills that her compassionate, tender husband can provide. We do indeed need one another, and the greater body of Christ needs each and every eye, ear and foot in order to function optimally.

    I know men who cannot change a light bulb, and women who are better equipped to do the finances than the laundry. I have been in bible studies where the most discerning thoughts and questions have been contributed by a woman; wisdom that would have been lost had her voice been forever silenced as so many desire.

    Some of Paul’s teachings are, as Peter suggested, difficult to understand. From our limited perspective, we do not know what questions or particular issues Paul may have been addressing in his personal letters to the churches. These missing pieces might give us a far different picture than what we often arrive at today.

    I don’t have all the answers. But my love for my daughters and my sons compels me to not shackle any of them with damaging preconceptions that might limit or destroy their chance to live meaningful, productive lives as servants of God.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  192. Proffy: I think we need to be careful and not confuse the words “commands” and “law.” Christ and NT writers clearly teach us certain commands which we should all endeavor to obey. We endeavor to obey Christ’s commands because we love Him and His word, and we want to be pleasing in His sight.

    This is true-
    “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”
    “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.”

    So, what are his commandments?

    “This is My commandment, that you *love* one another, just as I have loved you.”

    “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘You shall *love* the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall *love* your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

    “For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall *love* your neighbor as yourself.” *Love* does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore *love* is the fulfillment of the law.”

    Do women count as “neighbors”? How do you “love your neighbor as yourself” while considering her a lesser being than yourself?

    I spent most of my life obeying what I thought was God’s command to remain silent and leave all leadership to men; I wanted to please God, and that meant obeying God even though the rule made no sense to me and I could not explain to anyone else why there should be such a rule. I spent years in church feeling invisible, stifling all of the things I learned and saw. In the course of those years, I saw that men could have poor understanding of truth, be corrupt and abusive and still considered worthy teachers and leaders, whereas women, regardless of their intelligence or abilities, were consigned to babysitting or food preparation.

    I no longer believe God requires this, I believe I was mistaken that the scriptures taught this was necessary, because of the way the Bible has been translated and taught.

    God cannot renege on His Word. The author of Hebrews (ch. 6) writes about “… the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie…” If God is not bound by His Word, are any of us assured of salvation by grace through faith based on the sacrifice of Christ and His atonement for our sins? (Yes, I realize that I changed your question a little bit.)

    This is true. But is God bounded by Wayne Grudem’s words? Or any of those in the past who have used their position as Bible interpreters to tweak the chapters and wording to imply that women must be subservient? Once they get their words into print, are we all consigned to obey them as God’s words?

    Is it reasonable that God is bound by laws that destroy people? due to accident of birth, no less? What God is this? It is the God who died for us even when we were His enemies. How fair was it for Christ to have to bear our sins? To suffer reproach because we despised Him?

    Christ has, indeed, done so. But the problem I have with using this reasoning is that it could be used to justify any unfairness or oppression- who are we to complain, given what Christ has suffered? Yet Paul said, “if you are able also to become free, rather do that.” And my question is, is it in Christ’s nature to inflict pain on half of the population of the church for something beyond their control? I don’t see that in him when I read the gospels.

    I don’t know; I can’t say what God thinks or feels, but I, personally, am no longer convinced that the Bible teaches this. I think that at best it is ambiguous and people should not be dogmatic about it. And yet it has become the most important teaching of the Bible to a large part of Christianity.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  193. The Baptist Blogger scorches Owen Strachan for his poor priorities and misogyny:

    Excerpt: “Rather, at a time when Southern Baptists are facing the ugliest, nastiest, most disturbing revelations about the careless handling of sex abuse, the hasty ordination of sexual perverts, and a systemic failure to protect innocence, Dr. Strachan has climbed onto his little platform to denounce with all Boanergian thunder Beth Moore, of all people.”

    https://baptist-blogger.com/2019/05/16/the-bee-in-owens-bonnet/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  194. elastigirl: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    well….. which carries greater weight? has greater significance?

    the Galatians verses, or “I (Paul) permit not a woman to teach…” — and all the conjecture that stems from it which negates the Galatians verse)?

    and if one is going to risk erring on one or the other, why choose the one that is cruel and applies Jesus’ sacrifice/atonement selectively favoring only men?

    I do not see a contradiction in these verses. The verses in Galatians refer to our standing before God as new creations in Christ Jesus; the verses in 1 Timothy refer to behavior in the house of God (1 Tim 3:15). That is how I see it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  195. TS00: The man who lacks discernment needs the benefit of his wife’s gift of discernment

    Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Sorry i truncated your sentence there, but my wife has graciously covered the top of my head with the frying pan of discernment many times. I rarely liked it, but often needed it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  196. TS00:
    GreekEpigraph,

    Surely Paul could have saved a lot of time and confusion, had he really just said, ‘A penis is the only requirement for teaching.’ Which is, pardon my crudeness, is exactly what Comp/Patriarchal says in a nutshell.

    Question for TS, not being snarky at all, and I am holding my opinion on what Paul said and implied.
    But to your penis analogy, couldn’t Paul just have sad yada yada yada, to be more clear, hasn’t what you said been more or less exactly what has been our understanding of what that passsage meant since it was written circa ad 55?

    You said it to be provocative, but actually you may have condemned your own position,
    I’m not saying, just saying….

    Or at least until the lasy20-25 years

    It isn’t personal gifting, being filled with the Spirit, wisdom, maturity, empathy and experience that benefit the assembly of believers; no sirree, as long as one has the right anatomy, all’s good.

    Yes, scripture was written in a Patriarchal era, in which it was taken for granted that women, who were not granted the benefit of education (many may not even have been able to read) were obviously not suited to be in positions for which they had not been properly equipped. With time, such disparities have been eliminated, along with many other cultural norms.

    Few of us greet one another with holy kisses, wash each other’s feet or consider headcoverings essential to femininity. Few keep a strict sabbath, would know how to gird a loincloth or set our slaves free ever Jubilee year.

    It is long time to give up the pretense that scripture can be easily interpreted in a literal sense that presents one and only one meaning obvious to all. This has NEVER been true, and is not so today.

    I long ran in fundamenalist, patriarchal circles, but for the sake of my children – boys and girls alike – I was eventually led to see such narrow, legalistic thinking as limiting and harmful to all. For the very real assistance that men and women can give to one another rests in the full and legitimate exercise of their individual talents, gifts and strengths for the benefit of all.

    The man who lacks discernment needs the benefit of his wife’s gift of discernment even more than she needs to use it. The woman who was raised in a cold, harsh environment needs the nurturing skills that her compassionate, tender husband can provide. We do indeed need one another, and the greater body of Christ needs each and every eye, ear and foot in order to function optimally.

    I know men who cannot change a light bulb, and women who are better equipped to do the finances than the laundry. I have been in bible studies where the most discerning thoughts and questions have been contributed by a woman; wisdom that would have been lost had her voice been forever silenced as so many desire.

    Some of Paul’s teachings are, as Peter suggested, difficult to understand. From our limited perspective, we do not know what questions or particular issues Paul may have been addressing in his personal letters to the churches. These missing pieces might give us a far different picture than what we often arrive at today.

    I don’t have all the answers. But my love for my daughters and my sons compels me to not shackle any of them with damaging preconceptions that might limit or destroy their chance to live meaningful, productive lives as servants of God.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  197. raswhiting: Dr. Strachan has climbed onto his little platform to denounce with all Boanergian thunder Beth Moore, of all people (Baptist Blogger)

    Well, at 5’5″, little Owen has to stand on something to preach! But even from a higher altitude, he continues to get the “beauty of complementarity” wrong. Must he continue to hammer on the subordination of female believers until their gender is totally annihilated from SBC ranks?! Who turned this guy loose on Southern Baptists?! Does the average SB in the pew know that their Cooperative Program giving is supporting such characters? Good Lord! When will this New Calvinist madness end?!!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  198. Max,

    Max, I agree with a lot of your views, so I am curious about your view.

    I am still pondering, researching, praying, studying the comp. vs. egalitarian debate

    Where do you stand on SSM, in the light of N.T. Scriptures?

    Jesus and Paul held marriage between a man and a woman…….

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  199. Max,

    “When will this New Calvinist madness end?!!”

    I suspect it will end when there is a major split with in the association / fellowship and churches who do not want NCM (New Calvinist Madness) leave to form their own new SBC. Then at least those people can create the church body of their dreams.

    But it sounded like you think that millions of SBC people are still unaware that the takeover is happening, and that people who should be sounding the alarm are sitting on the sidelines.

    Maybe this is one of the flaws with a “fellowship” of churches. Although many denominations worldwide have dealt with splits over this and previously discussed issues also. Some are a shell of their former selves. Maybe the NCM will turn the SBC into the same.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  200. Noevangelical: I suspect it will end when there is a major split with in the association / fellowship and churches who do not want NCM (New Calvinist Madness) leave to form their own new SBC. Then at least those people can create the church body of their dreams.

    Actually, it should be the other way around … the NCM (New Calvinist Madmen) should leave to start the denomination of their dreams. But, that’s doubtful – the new reformers want to plunder all the stuff that non-Calvinists financed for the past 150 years. Before the New Calvinist takeover, Southern Baptists were distinctly non-Calvinist in belief and practice since the Civil War. I spent 70 years in the SBC – Calvinism was not even a blip on the radar … oh, it was there, but the minority of classical Calvinists within SBC ranks were much more civilized and not demanding their own way like these young rebels breaking all the china in the shop.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  201. Max: Actually, it should be the other way around

    True, it should be. But what about the people? Wouldn’t it be better to let go of the stuff? If the SBC were a denomination there might be more tools available to fight the takeover. I wonder if people won’t go to court over this? Maybe that has happened.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  202. Noevangelical: But what about the people?

    “the people” who know what is going on are leaving the SBC … someone in a blog comment a while back estimated as many as 200,000 per year … most are joining the Done ranks (done with the SBC, but not done with Jesus). It’s clear that SBC’s denominational gifting in evangelism, which once characterized Southern Baptists, has been forfeited due to wrangling over this and that … with New Calvinism being the latest tussle.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  203. Benn: hasn’t what you said been more or less exactly what has been our understanding of what that passsage meant since it was written circa ad 55?

    You said it to be provocative, but actually you may have condemned your own position,
    I’m not saying, just saying….

    Or at least until the lasy20-25 years

    Yes, I do believe his has been the understanding pushed upon us for . . . a very long time. Not sure how that condemns my position that it is a faulty understanding, but perhaps I am missing something?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  204. TS00,

    Because of how you worded your comment ( which was a good comment by the way, I had a good chuckle)
    By your turn of the phrase, if only Paul had been more direct, and clear, when today you can get fired for calling someone with a ( what you said) a man…Can’t you see the irony of your comment?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  205. Benn,

    I’m a little slow to see how politically incorrect I still oft am. 😉 I am also admittedly a little behind in my emancipation from gender boundaries. I’m afraid I still tend to define gender as per my high school biology teacher, i.e., a male produces seed (hence the previously mentioned anatomy) and a female can bear young. I thought we were supposed to bow to official science? Or did they officially renounce the classic definitions when I wasn’t paying attention?

    I’m too old to have to toe the corporate politically correct line, but aware enough of my limited understanding to try and view those who are genuinely confused or suffering with compassion and grace. I live near a very progressive urban city, and simply try to treat each person I come into contact with as a valuable person of worth, whatever issues they, like I, may have to work through.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  206. Jerome,

    Actually, ανδροσ is translated as man, human being, and husband so you have to look at the other context of the passage.Paul is talking about women here not wives so the translation of man works, however because Adam and Eve are also being discussed I think a person could very well infer husband/ wife dynamic. I don’t think either should be dismissed. So then we should look to the rest of Scripture to settle on the correct usage/ translation.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  207. GreekEpigraph: For anyone who is first getting into this, it is mind-boggling. Maybe Paul DIDN’T really hate women?

    I honestly think he didn’t and he has been WILDLY misinterpreted over the years by men with their own agendas. I definitely found a better appreciation from paul after learning more on this topic.

    Context is a thing, as is looking at the totality of the way women are treated by Paul. Many women were in church leadership. Clearly. Women taught. It takes more work to discount this than it does to accept it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  208. elastigirl: you didn’t annoy or provoke. i disagree with your conclusions.

    Sexism is not accepting when a woman disagrees with you or challenges you without blaming ’emotion’.

    It’s not grappling with the real results of your belief system, when someone calls you on it. I think this fellow should take a step back and think about that. How much of it flows from the world we all live in and how much of it flows from his religious interpretations?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  209. Proffy: I don’t usually respond very well to questions that I perceived as having a condescending attitude.

    Says the man who said this:

    “Please weigh in your heart and mind whether your *interpretation* of what I wrote is affected by the hurtful, sinful actions and words of others on this subject.”

    In response to a reasonable comment.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  210. Benn: But to your anatomical analogy, couldn’t Paul just have sad yada yada yada, to be more clear, hasn’t what you said been more or less exactly what has been our understanding of what that passsage meant since it was written circa ad 55?

    Yes, Benn, it has been taken that way. The passages on slavery have also been taken to mean that God has no problem with slavery. I can find you many sermons from the Civil War that use the Bible and “this is what the Bible says” to justify race-based slavery in the name of God. There’s even a Slave Bible, in which all the passages that speak of freedom, finding freedom, freeing slaves (like, oh, the entire book of Philemon) were just deleted from that “approved version”. Google it – it’s a rather horrifying thing.

    The passages on kings and rulers have been taken to mean that it is sinful to rebel against a duly constituted king or ruler, no matter how nasty and horrible, or unjust and oppressive, he is to those he rules. The average male, now, benefits greatly from the egalitarian political system – he is no longer a “serf” to the “god-ordained” noble and king. There’s a huge amount of scripture though that would suggest that that is quite bad. And there’s a bunch that would say it’s quite good.

    There are just over 31,000 verses in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:11-15a comprises 4 1/2 of those verses. If you add the other clobber text (they’re called that because women get “clobbered” by them – like getting a 35lb dead salmon to the side of the head kinda thing) of 1 Cor 14:24-35, that’s another 2. So, 6 1/2 verses. Now, let’s stack up, oh, all the women of Romans 16, many of which are given the title “fellow-workers”, the most common title that Paul gives to anyone who ministers with him – Barnabas, Timothy and Titus, for example. Or Priscilla, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, Syntyche . . Then there’s Phoebe (poor old Phoebe), who Paul himself writes as “diaconos” of the church of Chenchrae – but because she’s a poor old she, it gets translated as “servant” instead of “deacon”, like it would if “she” were “he”.

    So, which is it? Does Paul love and work with women, see them as mothers (to be honored as fathers are) and sisters, as he seems to in Romans 16 and in many of his other writings? He even calls Phoebe his “prostatis”, benefactor or patron! This means that she is almost the equivalent of his liege-lord, or godmother of a mafia family he’s a “made man” of. Does he consider them “diaconos” (as he wrote), “prostatis” (as he wrote), “apostolos” (as he wrote of Andronicus and Junia<-female)? Or are they (as the culture he lived in and wrote against) just baby-makers, "saved by having babies" as the CEV translates 1 Timothy 2:15a?

    See, the question is not "what do we (or even the church since Timothy) read this to say?" It's "what did Paul mean it to say to Timothy?" I really, truly think that 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus should not be read by anyone who hasn't read and understood Paul's theology in Romans, Galatians, etc, where he is being much clearer. It just DOESN'T MAKE SENSE in terms of Paul's theology, where he removes the physical entirely as a sign of being "chosen", "better", "God's people" (circumcision and genetic descent as a Jew) and replaces that with circumcision of the heart, that he then turns around and makes something entirely physical (sex) into the new "chosen" people – no reference to character, standing before God, maturity, spiritual gifting, none of the things he hammers on in, oh, the other 1000 plus verses he wrote, just physicality. No nuance – not "Mother Teresa can teach the degenerate (male) felon on death row", not "Priscilla can form the first seminary and teach Apollos good theology", just (as it is now interpreted), "no (physical attribute only is important) female can teach or usurp authority over (physical attribute only is important) male."

    This doesn't even start to touch on "what exactly WAS Paul saying a woman shouldn't do to a man?" because there's a part of speech in this particular passage that is a hapax legomenon, an "only use" in all of Paul's writing. The Greek scholars without a bone to pick (secular) consider this to be discussing a violent taking of authority or teaching of a form of violence against men. 'teny rate, no, I don't consider it to be reasonable that the Paul who does NOT think that physicality wins you favor with God (circumcision/Jew) would then say that physicality alone wins you favor with God (male versus female) and an unassailable place in the hierarchy of the ekklesia.

    Now Proffy brought up something – does Galations 3:28 only apply to your spiritual acceptance, but have no "real", boots-on-the-ground meaning in the family of God? No real application to the ministry of the Body, no place for you in the ekklesia gathering? So 1 Timothy applies to the gathering (physicality is primary) but Galatians applies to salvation only? Again, this is rather an odd take on Paul. This is the Paul that "opposed Peter to his face" (eek! This is a shame-honor culture!) because he wouldn't eat with the Gentiles – Peter was following the physical law of the Jews. Now, if Galatians is only about spirituality, then Peter was just fine. The Gentiles can be "spiritual" equals, brothers and the slaves can be "spiritual" equals, brothers – but still be second class, sit-outside-and-eat-separately-at-the-Lord's-table, slaves-obey-your-masters, "real world" subordinates.

    So, which is it? Does salvation have real, real-world impacts? Or is it just a "get-out-of-Hell-free" card, and God doesn't give a rat's patootie about the real-world, gathering-of-the-saints, bring-the-gifts-to-the-church, feet-on-the-ground outworking of Galatians 3:28? Dr Ron Pierce of Biola University posted one of his lectures on the subject here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJELmf6uuvc&t=3s

    I would HOPE that anyone who takes Paul's theology seriously would wrestle like crazy with how he all of a sudden seems to make physicality the main (indeed, the ONLY) thing here in 1 Timothy 2. In Romans, Paul is all about "sin coming through one man (Adam)". In Timothy, suddenly (in modern understanding), Adam's the good guy and all teaching and authority automatically flow to Adam's sons because Adam "was not deceived"? Although I'm conservative in Biblical understanding, I can see why these would suggest to some that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul – the theological understandings (at least as mostly taught now) are diametrically opposed to his other thought, in Romans at least. OR – maybe we, the church of the last how-many-years, are not getting what Paul was saying to his master-theologian, know-all-Paul's-theology-and-can-preach-his-sermons fellow-worker Timothy.

    Since many people with way more knowledge than me have spent long, long hours on this and written their findings down, I suggest the following resources if anyone's (still) interested!

    What Paul Really Said About Women by John Temple Bristow
    Beyond Sex Roles by Dr Gilbert Bilzekian
    Good News for Women by Dr Rebecca Groothius

    If you're a seminarian level person:

    Paul and Gender by Dr Cynthia Westfall
    Man and Woman, One in Christ by Dr Phillip Payne
    Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy (eds. Fee/Pierce/Groothius)

    Dr Ron Pierce has a free Theology of Gender course, as taught at Biola University in 4th year, on YouTube (one of the episodes is linked above).

    For a theology level blog on the issue (it's about the length of the above seminary resources – 400 pages if all sections are read) http://willgwitt.org/a-guide-to-my-essays-about-womens-ordination/

    I'm glad folk are talking on this subject, but I should quit posting long comments and taking up people's time, so I'll sign off for this round.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  211. TS00,

    I am in the same boat with you, most likely on a lot of things.

    Let me see if I can clear up what I was joking about.

    You said if Paul had been more direct in saying who could be a pastor, elder etc; by just saying that the pastor/elder had to have a certain part of anatomy, it would have been better/easier for us to know who was qualified for elder / pastor office that Paul was describing.
    What gave me pause was, people today are born with identifying anatomy, but no longer identify with that gender,
    So yes we are still seeing through the glass darkly…

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  212. GreekEpigraph: I’m glad folk are talking on this subject, but I should quit posting long comments and taking up people’s time, so I’ll sign off for this round.

    Actually, this was a very informative and useful comment. Thanks for taking the time and effort to post it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  213. GreekEpigraph,

    Really enjoyed your responses, I am really trying to come to a personal decision on comp.vs. Egalitarianism

    What I replied toTS OO was said in jest, to one of his comments.

    But I would like your opinion on the exegesis vs. eisegesis dynamics of comp. vs egalitarianism,

    I have been taught in the past,and have held to the opinion in studying scripture that there are two

    Fundamentals to interpreting text, #1- the text can never mean something different to us, ( on whom the ends of the world have come),than it meant to who it was originally written to.

    #2- The text can also never mean something different the author/writer originally intended.

    What is your opinion on both of these, and by do you hold to either?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  214. Benn: But I would like your opinion on the exegesis vs. eisegesis dynamics of comp. vs egalitarianism,

    I have been taught in the past,and have held to the opinion in studying scripture that there are two

    Fundamentals to interpreting text, #1- the text can never mean something different to us, ( on whom the ends of the world have come),than it meant to who it was originally written to.

    #2- The text can also never mean something different the author/writer originally intended.

    What is your opinion on both of these, and by do you hold to either?

    A very good question Benn. There are a number of “methods” of biblical interpretation. I am quite conservative, so I favor the historical/grammatical method, with historical understood to include literary form of the original. In short, yes to both of your above notes with reservations on #1. Exegesis, as I understand it, IS determining “what it meant to them then”. Now, this is NOT flat literalistic reading (hence, “historical”) of an English translation, as it is understood by an English speaker from whatever (usually Western) culture they inhabit – it CAN’T be. Just to give a quick example – there is no country on earth in the present day that doesn’t have a reasonably strong understanding of cell phones, jet planes, a round earth and a 24 hour clock. Paul had NONE of those (save possibly a round earth, depending on which Greek philosophers he was familiar with). To the cultures of the Mediterranean basin at the time of Paul, decision making took place in the heart and the liver was the seat of strong emotion and the head was where semen was made (and women were defective men, because they didn’t make semen in their heads). So, even those small tidbits give a whole different understanding to “if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Christ was raised from the dead, you will be saved”. That’s all of a sudden NOT an airy-faerie emotional “valentine cupid heart” thing, but a hard-nosed decision point. Why? Due to an understanding that the heart was the organ of decision-making to them, not (as we understand it) the brain. This is the “anchor” of exegesis – what did it mean to them then. It also has to be “anchored” to reality, the Book of God’s Works (the world and culture God made and upholds), or you can end up with alien cults and things like Heaven’s Gate and the mass suicides of Jonestown.

    Now, this is a lifelong process. It requires humility, willingness to learn, willingness to study, willingness to be wrong AND not falling off the wagon of “I want it to say, or it makes me most comfortable when it says, or I’ve always been told it says”.

    The next step is somewhat your first point – hermeneutics, or “given that it meant X to them then, what does it mean to us now?” Hermeneutics MUST be anchored by good exegesis or it can mean anything the person teaching wants it to. An example – “there is no God”. The Bible says it – Ps 14:1. Of course, the WHOLE verse says “The fool has said in his heart ‘there is no God'” so taking the second part only is a wicked proof text – but some people do it in other areas with no blush of shame! Context is huge. It is (a) the culture, the “that which goes without being said” (like heart/head) (b) the language being spoken, the legal system, the land, the religions, the “whole world” understanding, cosmology, the shared mythos, the shared moral and immoral understandings “around” that book and time (c) the type of literature (some of which doesn’t exist anymore as a type – like apocalyptic type – or is wildly different, like Hebrew rhetorical prophetic ring structures – which underlie most of 1 Corinthians (d) the book and its purpose (e) the teaching unit. Then you have to take into account translation differences and basically study from ALL available translations if you don’t read the original languages, keeping in mind that there ARE legitimately unclear and ambiguous readings in the originals that will have to be investigated and can never be completely cleared up.

    Then we have to figure out which PARTS apply to us, how our different cultural milieu works with the message, etc. So, CAN it mean EXACTLY the same to us now as it meant to them then? Not a prayer. For example, we do not live under the Household Codes of the Roman Empire, which stated as a matter of civil law the duties of a wife, adult children, slaves, etc. of a Roman household to the paterfamilias (male or female) with concomitant penalties. So our legal structure is different and (as an example) Ephesians 5 (wives, children, slaves passage) is therefore based on a different legal structure and has to be understood in that context. A wife of a Roman paterfamilias had to kill her female child if so demanded. A wife of a modern man who follows his demand to kill her female child may face the death penalty alongside her husband. The paterfamilias faced no penalty for demanding the death of the child. (The real kicker of Ephesians 5 is responsibilities for the paterfamilias – the Civil Code gave the paterfamilias absolute power and control to do anything (literally) to anyone in the household. Paul gives a passing nod to the “wife, children, slave” and then HAMMERS on the paterfamilias – it would have been a kick in the teeth and knock them down the throat to the original audience.) So, can we apply Ephesians 5, in which the wife is a teenager married to a mid-30s householder and she’s basically a child-bearer and household manager by law, considered one of her husband’s children by law (unless she was married sine manu so her father could keep control of her property – then she was still her father’s property) – can you apply it directly to a modern marriage in which both parties are, by law, equal and under an entirely different legal structure? Well, you can try, but it won’t work well, because the LAW, the CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING, etc. are all different now. You’d be trying to apply something written for Roman Empire civil law to now. Can SOME of it apply? Maybe. That’s the humility required of hermeneutics – it requires a very strong understanding of both the “then” AND the “now” to do well.

    Now, exegesis and eisegesis as it applies to the egalitarian/complementarian debate – I’m going to try to say this carefully but it’s going to sound harsh. I do not think that complementarian scholars are bringing their best work, the good exegesis and hermeneutics that they apply to “other” passages, to the passages dealing with male/female standing and relationships in the family and church. I was shocked, saddened and heartened by the strong exegesis and hermeneutics – far beyond anything I’d ever seen or been taught in the patriarchy/complementarian circles I was trained in – in the egalitarian scholars I researched in my attempt to leave the church. Shocked and saddened that the scholars I’d grown up and trained under (comp/pat) seemed to suddenly lose all the techniques, research and tools that were “critical” when it came to passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-15a and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and begin to use surface, uncontexted, even PROOF TEXTED readings. I was heartened by the careful, culturally sensitive, literarily detailed exegesis and hermeneutics of the egalitarian scholars – it was good to have, because my disillusionment with the scholars of my youth was very distressing. They couldn’t do GOOD work when it was in a political area? My depth of exegetical knowledge and sensitive hermeneutics has grown by a magnitude in studying the writings of egalitarian scholars, on this topic and many others.

    Am I less conservative? Not noticeably.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  215. GreekEpigraph,

    Thank you for offering a serious study on this subject and related verses which have challenging interpretations.

    Glad you pointed out at least one important factor: The weight distribution of the scripture on a certain truth or concept. The body of the scripture should bear more weight over one or two obscure sentences that are hard to understand.

    You are a diligent student of the WORD, and its application in faith living.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  216. Lea: Says the man who said this:

    “Please weigh in your heart and mind whether your *interpretation* of what I wrote is affected by the hurtful, sinful actions and words of others on this subject.”

    Well, Dee wrote the following reply to me in this thread a while back:

    “….If you wish Paul hadn’t said this, examine why you feel this way. Maybe there is a reason.”

    Now would it be fair for me to take her comment out of context and do to it what you just did to me? Was she being condescending to me? Only she can answer that, but I think not. My comment that you quote was written with a sincere tone, but you are misrepresenting it to try to make me sound like a hypocrite. I think a discerning reader here, reading it in context, would see my sincerity.

    Some of you who post here seem to enjoy trying to score points by insulting those with whom you disagree. Sometimes it reminds me of children watching a playground find who are shouting out mindless things in support of their friend in that fight with the aim of pleasing their fellow crowd-friends. That’s what I meant when I wrote that I am swimming in the wrong blog-pond. I know full well that I am far from perfect, and far from being as sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those who post here as I should be, but I have tried to not write respectfully and not in a condescending manner. Maybe I wasn’t that way with Daisy, but I thought she was intentionally speaking down to me and just trying to score points. I should have just ignored her. Sorry.

    Okay, some of you (not all of you) may have already picked up some new smooth, round stones while you have read this. Fire away! But I’m not your Goliath.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  217. GreekEpigraph,

    A big hearty thank you for the detail and passion with which you replied, good on you.

    Here is what troubles me in the culture in which we live today, you mentioned in an earlier post about honor culture,
    I have been researching this as of late, we have gone from a honor culture, and through a dignity culture,and now reside, with both feet firmly planted in a victim culture ( which truly gives me pause), I read recently that in the UK, upwards of 70% of the population qualifies in some classification of victim status, that is hard to get my head around.

    To me, I have no real issues with people’s attempts to do hermeneutics, by nature there has to be challenges to real solid hermeneutics, I get that. But due to the victim status culture of today, people are throwing away solid exegesis, with the bath water, and that scares me.

    If you don’t mind can I ask your view on soteriology, with your vast knowledge, I am just curious?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  218. Says:

    Proffy: “After writing my initial post, I was hoping that someone would take the time to explain why they disagree with what I call the literal interpretation of the verses”
    Proffy: “I just go with a literal interpretation of what I construe Paul to be saying in 1 Tim 2:14-16.”
    Proffy: “I hope that you and others do not feel destroyed by a literal interpretation of 1 Tim 2:14-16. And I hope you are not beholden to a set of beliefs to avoid feeling destroyed. That concerns me. When you are tempted to feel that way (perhaps in fear or concerns that a literal interpretation is correct)…”

    But says:

    Proffy: “I certainly do not take what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:14-16 and apply it to everything in the church and home”
    _____

    You characterize yours as “the literal interpretation” (not really); so what exactly do you apply it to?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  219. Jerome: You characterize yours as “the literal interpretation” (not really); so what exactly do you apply it to?

    Fair enough that you ask me to be specific. To me, the literal translation is that women should not hold the office of pastor, and should not preach or teach in a church service where men are present. (I can feel some of you getting very angry.) I do not believe a literal translation requires women to be absolutely silent in church per 1 Cor. 14. Instead, I think 1 Tim clarifies and expands upon what Paul wrote to the Corinthians (they should not teach or be in authority over men). I don’t apply it to home situations; that would be foolish because my wife is so much more intelligent in so many areas. While my wife is highly educated, she does not have a gift of formal teaching and has no desire to lead bible studies in or out of church regardless of whether men are present or not. So we don’t have to wrestle with the issue in practice. The church we attend does not have women serving in the office of pastor. Both men and women will do Scripture readings during the service before the pastor gives the sermon. We have a Wednesday evening bible study that is co-led by a man and a woman. I have not attended, but only because I am usually exhausted on Wednesdays after having a 15-hour day at the university on Tuesdays. I’m probably a hypocrite for being okay with her co-leading the study if I believe a literal translation of 1 Tim 2, but I’m being honest in my answer.

    Jerome, you are respectful and ask fair questions. Thank you. Proffy.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  220. Jerome: You characterize yours as “the literal interpretation” (not really); so what exactly do you apply it to?

    Let me add: what I mean by “literal translation” is what someone would probably take away if they read it fairly quickly without taking into account the Artemis and some of the explanations that some of you provide and believe. That is all I meant. Perhaps it is a “literal translation” to be because, as I admitted before, this is not a topic of Scripture that I have studied intently (yet).

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  221. birdoftheair: Glad you pointed out at least one important factor: The weight distribution of the scripture on a certain truth or concept. The body of the scripture should bear more weight over one or two obscure sentences that are hard to understand.

    This closely parallels my own views on Holy Writ.

    Over the years and on my journey out of fundamentalism (Calvary Chapel), I’ve come to regard Scripture as a vast array of granite blocks and grains of salt so to speak.

    Weight distribution is a good way to put it.
    Granite blocks versus grains of salt.

    I now use my own conscience and moral compass to decide for myself which is which.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  222. Proffy: To me, the literal translation is that women should not hold the office of pastor, and should not preach or teach in a church service where men are present. (I can feel some of you getting very angry.)

    Not angry, but very puzzled that one could read those verses and think that is what they actually say.

    Young’s Literal Translation:
    I Timothy 2:12-15
    and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness, for Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

    Proffy: what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:14-16

    Verse 16 must be where you’re seeing these notions of “no women pastors” and “in a church service” in your literal translation of the passage?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  223. GreekEpigraph,

    “Now, exegesis and eisegesis as it applies to the egalitarian/complementarian debate – I’m going to try to say this carefully but it’s going to sound harsh.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    really, really appreciate the time you took to share all that information. thank you.

    your thoughts on the egalitarian/complementarian debate are not harsh at all. they are merely very frank and plainly stated.

    more and more christians are seeing bull$h|t for what it is, and are no longer willing to accept it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  224. Jerome: Proffy: To me, the literal translation is that women should not hold the office of pastor, and should not preach or teach in a church service where men are present.

    Jerome,
    I think 1 Timothy 3 makes clear that the qualifications for an overseer (pastor) is to be the “husband of one wife” and Paul uses the gender “he” throughout that chapter when describing pastoral office qualifications. As someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, YLT translates the Greek word as husband while most others translate it as man. According to Strong’s, the Greek word can be used for either, but I have no problem with YLT here especially as Paul goes on to talk about childbearing; the context would seem to allow for it. But chapter 3 is describing the qualifications of overseers, and the discussion centers on men for that role. This my reading of it, for what it’s worth.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  225. Proffy: I think 1 Timothy 3 makes clear that the qualifications for an overseer (pastor) is to be the “husband of one wife”

    Based on this passage, would you agree that only married men can be pastors?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  226. b. silly,

    “and monkeys f”

    …urnish further formulae for neo-Cals to foment fissiparousness in formerly friendly churches and frankly frame whistleblowers as Lucifer’s faithful fiends. Fie!
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    well, naturally.

    (and thank you for your submission!)

    –but it’s not the right answer.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  227. Benn: Alexandrian——— Byzantine——- Majority——- and have you explored CBGM yet ?

    CBGM bears strong resemblance to the textual transmission work of Dean Burgon, a strong proponent of the Majority text and of the KJV-Only translation. He did good work. There is no way of spending much time on transmission, translation and lower textual criticism in a blog stream – it’s too complex and requires too much detail to do a good job of. This is an area of study I probably spend far too much time on – it is fascinating! I am also quite interested in the (mostly as yet unpublished) texts of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri discoveries – it increased the documentary background of Koine Greek in the Roman Greek period exponentially. It is my belief that much of the re-thinking of New Testament understanding at the scholarly level in the last century or so comes from the greater source cultural understandings that are arising from the Oxyrhynchus documents – not so much from direct biblical reference as from a greater understanding of the general writings of the time, the cultural, legal, contractual, familial, poetic, polemic, rhetorical understandings. Much of the OT work is based on the dramatic increase in ancient Semitic family writings now available. For example, The Journal of Semitic Studies has (2016 Vol 2) recently done a detailed look at “teshuqua”, the “desire” (so translated) of the woman in Genesis 3:16. It suggests, for example, that the Syriac Peshita and the Septuagint (for that matter, all pre-4th century translations had “turning”) were correct in translated teshuqua as “turning” rather than “desire”.

    I do like to stay at least somewhat on topic for the blog, since this is Dee’s “home”, not mine. For that reason, I won’t delve deeply into soteriology right now (sorry!), since this post is more about the ministry of women and whether women should and can stand as the “strong-help-as-of-God-or-a-foreign-army-matching-counterpart-standing-face-to-face-to-the-man” of Genesis 2 (that’s a “literal” translation of the KJV “help meet-for-him” or ezer kenegedo). When one of the other posts starts to talk soteriology, I’ll try to give some input to answer your question.

    For the record, I hold to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Calcedonian Confession as systematic theology I agree with. My background is Plymouth Brethren, Lutheran and conservative Evangelical Free. I started memorizing (KJV only at the time) before I could read and started researching into lower textual criticism and transmission/translation before I was 10. I think I’ve been at this WAY too long! I left the comp/pat interpretation of scripture when it became clear, in a deep dive into the teaching, that the proponents were basing their teaching on the doctrine of Eternal Subordination of the Son, which I consider to be non-Nicene. Hence, I am no longer complementarian. (Many of the pastors and teachers who were taught complementarianism from the early 90s, when it was codified and entered the seminary teaching stream, to now, will still base their teaching of comp on the idea of a hierarchical ontology of the Trinity.)

    Since I don’t believe I’ve clarified terms, let me do that, so that people are maybe a little clearer on the various “streams” of gender theology in the evangelical church, since there are three – mutuality (called egalitarianism as well), patriarchy and complementarianism. The oldest codified gender theology is patriarchy, which has been the default of the church from at least the end of the first century to now in much of the world and was primarily “theologized” by Augustine in the 4th century. Patriarchy has, as its logical syllogism (base argument) “women are lesser beings than men, therefore, they have lesser roles”. This is logical – reasonably easily challenged biblically based on Genesis 1, much of the Law of Moses, the prophecy of Joel repeated by Peter in Acts, etc – but nonetheless, logical and coherent, if abhorrent. It has coherent application – lesser beings, lesser functions (roles).

    The second general gender theology that arose was mutuality or egalitarianism. It rose in the 1600s with the Quakers, Levellers, Moravians, was at the root of the First and Second Great Awakenings and also based much of the 18th century missions movement and abolition of slavery. Mutuality states as its logical syllogism “women bear the image of God in full (are equal beings with men), therefore they are limited in function only as men are limited – by character, training, capability, experience, gifting”. This is also logical and coherent – equal being, equal function. Note that it does not say men and women are “the same” – it simply looks at the individual rather than the “class”. An less competent male will not be chosen for “A” over a more competent female in this view. So, it is an outgrowth of the “serf/King” divide – a serf is now not considered a lesser being, to be stepped on by a King. Instead the serf and king are considered, under the rule of law, as equal. Does this mean that you can’t have a private and a general? No, not at all PROVIDED that the private is not a private (and can never be a general) because of an inborn trait (like skin color) or the general is not a general (and can never be a private) because of an inborn trait (like family or class). A fancy way of saying it – you can have “functional” hierarchy (based on experience or training, for example) in a mutual or equal group of people but never an “ontological” hierarchy (based on being).

    The last gender theology to arise, the new kid on the block, is complementarianism. It has as its logical syllogism “women are equal to men (bear the image of God in full) but have different roles (functionally, permanently subordinate roles) due only to their being (that is, woman)”. This is, unfortunately, an incoherent statement. To say “equal in being but subordinate due to being” is an A is non-A fallacy. Since the base understanding is incoherent, so is the outworking. A complementarian church can be anywhere from “no female voice may be heard in the church, except in congregational singing, even to hush a child is wrong”, all the way to “women can do anything in the service and church except be lead pastor or elder – preaching from the pulpit is fine”. There is a wild variation between those and, depending on changing male leadership, the boundaries can swing wildly in a heartbeat – the woman who could (as Proffy noted in his church) read scripture in the service and has loved ministering to her community that way might lose even the ability to make an announcement under the following pastor. The female translator who has been translating the sermon to the non-English speaking congregation might lose her ministry overnight if the pastor gets upset that there are men listening to her translation. (And yes, these are real examples.)

    So, how did the theologians of complementarianism deal with the logical incoherence of “equal in being, permanently subordinate in role”? Simple – they developed Eternal Subordination of the Son theology. After all, if the TRINITY is incoherent in this way, surely it was OK to map human men to God and human women to Jesus and state they in the same relationship. (I’m not going to go into the whole “trinity” part, but I am NOT interested in marital threesomes, sorry!) This originated with George Knight III in the book The Role Subordination of Jesus Christ, written after World War II. It was picked up by Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem and taught and written into their defenses of complementarianism as its justification. It has been soundly denounced by Trinitarian scholars as heterodox, but it took forty years (from the early 90s to the 2016 ETS meeting) and has therefore been taught as orthodoxy to a generation of teachers and pastors now. It is one of the greatest sorrows of my life – to see the tradition I come from (evangelicalism) fall by the wayside of this ESS teaching.

    The other oddball thing about complementarianism’s syllogism, in my view, is its focus on “roles”. The word “role” is from the French – it entered English about a century ago and means “part played by an actor on stage in a theatre”. To teach Christians, who should be learning and leaning into what they specifically are, learning to be conformed to the image of Christ, redeeming who they were made to be (in reality, not on a “stage”), with the guidance of the Holy Spirit – to teach that they should instead “play a part” on the “stage of a religious theatre” seems to me to come perilously close to MAKING Christians into one of the most disliked persons of our Lord Jesus Christ – namely a “hypocrite”, since that word simply MEANS “actor on stage of a theatre”. It has baffled me since I started this particular research line. I mean, I understand that we as fallen humans LIKE boxes, LIKE putting other people in boxes and LIKE knowing what our “part to play” (maybe moreso what OTHER people’s part to play) is, so that we don’t have to step out in faith, following God like Abraham and Sarah to become conformed to the image of Christ, but it seems really strange that (what has become a major) teaching of evangelical Christianity would decide to support a fallen cultural desire. It just seems odd.

    Now – cultures. There are three major culture types – purity/pollution (like the ancient Israelites), honor/shame (like Greece/Rome and many around the world today) and guilt/innocence (also called fear/power) which is the basic form of ours. They are, broadly, based on access to resources and what entities control the resources. Those are very “broad” strokes and they can have “subcategories”, which sounds like what you’re suggesting Benn. Significant reading in international business as it has to do with crossing cultures and in missions that is culturally sensitive gives a great grounding in the theory of cultures. Then going and embarrassing yourself totally will make sure you NEVER forget it! I agree, Benn, that good exegesis is important to “ground” hermeneutics. That being said, each “subculture” may well have a good hermeneutical application of good exegesis that may not look exactly the same from subculture to subculture. I think that’s why we need ministers from different cultures and subcultures – to be able to speak to that subculture in their own language and mores. After all, that’s why Wycliffe Bible Translators insists on getting the Bible into the heart languages of people – it has more impact and does better work in conforming us to the image of Christ.

    Proffy, thanks for staying involved and reading. It’s nice to see. I expect that the dismissiveness you feel from some comments comes from history – many egalitarian/mutualist Christians have been “clobbered” many times over and rarely seem to run across someone genuinely asking from interest and care, rather than from gathering of ammunition and contempt (sealioning, to use the interwebz description). I hope that my thread replies have not conveyed contempt – I was far more conservative than your stated stance for much of my life and I’d be biting my own historical tail!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  228. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    This is a very important point. Every single word of scripture means exactly and literally what the english version states. Thence, human beings divide into two categories:

    Those who faithfully take God at His Word through a plain reading of the Word Of God through Scripture;
     Those who (like me) arrogantly assert their own human wisdom in place of the eternal Scriptures

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  229. Hmm, yes, Proffy, you’re correct that the English translation of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 in most older translations uses the “neuter male” construction of the English language. In English (I’m sure you know this, but some younger folk don’t), the use of “he/him/himself/man/mankind/brother” has traditionally been used to indicate all of humanity (male and female) unless there was an indicator that is WAS specifically male-exclusive referent. I suspect that there are few traditional readers of the Bible who would, for example, state that Ps 1:1 “Blessed is the man who walketh not . . ” means “males only – females aren’t included”. There is an issue with translation though, into a “moving target” language like English. And, well, it’s that it’s a moving target! Readers under about 50 now, reading something that uses “man/men/he/him” will assume, as you have, that is is exclusive-male, not inclusive-human. This particular issue is starting to really cause problems, as many of the youth (and not so youth) when they read the Bible, are “internalizing” Christianity as a male-only religion because so much translation has used the (becoming archaic) neuter-male construct.

    Ishy is a good one to discuss this with, as it was learning to read the New Testament in Greek that she notes changed much of her views of how Paul viewed male and female, but let me give you the same passage in a translation that is being careful to try to use gender-accurate (what a Greek reader of Paul would have understood Paul to be meaning) language, so that a modern English reader would get his message (which is, after all, the point of translation).

    “This saying is reliable: if anyone (tis) has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing. So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching. They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead, they should be gentle, peaceable and not greedy. They should manage their own household well – they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church? They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell. They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap.”

    Paul was careful to use ’tis’ in Greek in verse 1, which means “anyone”. He could have easily said ‘aner’ and made it male specific. But he didn’t, in the language he wrote in (Greek). Even Douglas Moo, who is, to my knowledge, the only recognized first class scholar that is complementarian, has stated that the idiom ‘one-woman man’, often translated “husband of one wife” is not a good argument for a male-only overseership, as that phrase has been found chiseled on the tombs of females from the time of Paul and appears to be a epigraph meaning “faithful spouse” (similar to our “rest in peace”). (It’s in BDAG, one of the major Greek lexicons.)

    As a funny, my blog callsign “GreekEpigraph” is in reference to this particular little tidbit.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  230. GreekEpigraph: This particular issue is starting to really cause problems, as many of the youth (and not so youth) when they read the Bible, are “internalizing” Christianity as a male-only religion because so much translation has used the (becoming archaic) neuter-male construct.

    Here in the UK, we have – in a sense – the opposite problem. I’m conflicted over this, because to the best of my knowledge it’s an unintended consequence of a good intention. But it goes like this.

    You’ll be aware that followers of Jesus are frequently referred in the NT to “sons” (techna, plural of technon) of God. In order to be gender-inclusive, this has been translated as “children” of God. So far so good; after all, parents over a certain age can have grown-up children, after all. But it’s morphed into an endless procession of songs celebrating the fact that each one of us is a “child of God”. At least in UK english, you can’t really have a “grown-up child” – the term is always diminutive (and corresponds to technion). The unintended consequence whereof I spake: whilst we’ve moved away from christianity only being for males, now it’s only for babies.

    Like phalliarchy, it’s a case of life imitating art.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  231. Ken F (aka Tweed): Based on this passage, would you agree that only married men can be pastors?

    No, I actually do not agree. What I don’t know is whether he is excluding men who have been divorced and re-married or whether he is excluding polygamists. I honestly don’t know or have an opinion that should matter to anyone.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  232. Proffy: No, I actually do not agree.

    It seems to me that if one is going to take the literal approach, one needs to take it all the way. That verse, in English, does not just say that a pastor has to be a man, but that he also has to be married, have children (plural), and live in a house (to manage the “house”-hold). If we say that those other things are not required, then by what rationale can we say that being a male is? It seems like random picking-and-choosing. I am not trying to be snarky. It’s a real question. I used to argue exactly like you do, but now I am much less certain that I can argue in that way. Also, as others have mentioned earlier, Paul left out quite a lot things that “everyone knows” from his letters. With so little context, I don’t think one can be dogmatic about exactly what that verse is supposed to mean.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  233. Proffy: What I don’t know is whether he is excluding men who have been divorced and re-married or whether he is excluding polygamists. I honestly don’t know or have an opinion that should matter to anyone.

    If I may suggest what I consider to be a very valuable resource on many “women scriptures.” Dr. Katherine Bushnell was prolific in both Hebrew and Greek and in 6 other languages as well. Her book entitled, “God’s Word to Women” is on-line now and while I’ve had it in hard copy format, I use the on-line book for convenience.

    Paul’s words to Timothy are covered in lessons 40-41 and I think you’ll find some understanding of many of the difficult passages in her book. For example, she reminds us that Paul is often refuting the Judaizers who wanted new converts to conform to the OT laws. One example of this effort on the part of Judaizers is 1 Cor. 14:34 where it appears Paul is forbidding women speaking in the churches as ” as also saith the law.” In reality, no such law can be found in scripture, but was likely one imposed by the Jews themselves in an effort to keep women from teaching and even from learning.

    Here is the link to Dr. Bushnell’s book. I hope you will gain be as blessed in her studies as I was.

    https://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/100-lessons/

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  234. GreekEpigraph: the use of “he/him/himself/man/mankind/brother” has traditionally been used to indicate all of humanity (male and female) unless there was an indicator that is WAS specifically male-exclusive referent.

    Predictable response. But what about the use of the word “wives” in vs. 11 in talking about the qualifications of deacons? This would seem inconsistent with your argument.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  235. Proffy: Predictable response. But what about the use of the word “wives” in vs. 11…

    Wait, isn’t that the same word you need to mean “woman” in chapter two, so you can interpret 2:12 as interaction with men “in the church” (phrase not there btw) rather than with a husband?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  236. Ken F (aka Tweed): It seems to me that if one is going to take the literal approach, one needs to take it all the way. That verse, in English, does not just say that a pastor has to be a man, but that he also has to be married, have children (plural), and live in a house (to manage the “house”-hold).

    I think we just have to agree to disagree on this. I think most men who were old enough to be qualified to be pastors were probably married, so I think he assumed this when he wrote it.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  237. Proffy: Predictable response. But what about the use of the word “wives” in vs. 11 in talking about the qualifications of deacons? This would seem inconsistent with your argument.

    As Jerome noted, the word “gune” means either wives or women. As this passage is speaking of those with office in the church “overseers”, “deacons”, the mutualist/egalitarian view (along with quite a number of Bible translators, some of which are NOT egalitarian – like the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation) is that the referent is not to “wives of deacons” but “women who are deacons”. In accessing a group of Bible translations all at once (like biblehub or esword), you can often find areas of translation variation. Biblehub’s group, for example, has about 1/2 and 1/2 on the wives or women – some are wives, some are women and one says “deaconesses”. This is a very good study method for someone who does not read the original languages. In a case like this, where there is obviously variation in translation, a significant amount of research must be done by the careful reader to determine why. What is the underlying language variant or underlying amibiguity? Why have some translators chosen “wives” and others “women”? Given that the RSV and the Douay-Rheims, both extremely conservative translations, both chose “women”, it would seem that this isn’t a “liberal/conservative” divide, or even a Catholic/Protestant divide, or a new/old divide (the KJV is “wives”, the RSV “women” – the RSV is over a century old in its first iteration, the Douay-Rheims older than that).

    Also, Proffy, since you’re very concerned about tone as people address you, may I suggest that “Predictable response” to a thought-out comment discussing translation issues in a passage that shows translation variation in the English and offering a differing view sounds very flip and dismissive?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  238. Proffy: I think we just have to agree to disagree on this.

    Disagreement is fine. I think you and I are probably in agreement that passages like these have some ambiguity, as shown by your caveat of “I think…” in your 2nd sentence. I used to think these passages were very clear until I read some very sound arguments from the other side. That book by Katharine Bushnell is especially good. She believed in biblical inerrency – her complaint was not with the texts, but rather with the way they have been interpreted. I have also been influenced by NT Wright on this topic. He is no lightweight when it comes to both the NT and to the historical context in which it was written.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  239. GreekEpigraph: Also, Proffy, since you’re very concerned about tone as people address you, may I suggest that “Predictable response” to a thought-out comment discussing translation issues in a passage that shows translation variation in the English and offering a differing view sounds very flip and dismissive?

    No intent to be flip or dismissive. I realized it might read that way after I re-read it after posting it. I was in a hurry to finish the post and get to a graduation party. I should not have written that as a two-word sentence. Sorry!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  240. Ken F (aka Tweed),

    Proffy,

    Proffy: “I think we just have to agree to disagree on this.”

    KenF: “Disagreement is fine. I think you and I are probably in agreement that passages like these have some ambiguity, as shown by your caveat of “I think…” in your 2nd sentence.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Proffy — can i ask if you agree there is some ambiguity with these passages of scripture? that some speculation is involved?

    if so, why put faith in speculation, to the point of codifying it into God’s law?

    if you uphold a rule that women are forbidden to teach/preach/instruct men or have a position of authority over men (whether exclusively in church or in any context), you are affirming that it is a law.

    why go to this extreme and put handcuffs on people and duct tape over their mouth over something that is not completely settled?

    how is speculation worthy of exercising your faith on?

    is that you feel compelled to make a decision one way or another where the bible is concerned?

    does it come down to inerrancy and infallibility? for example, if one is uncertain about something in the bible (even just a smidge), does that mean one does not believe the bible is inerrant and infallible? thus one is branded “liberal” (in their own mind and in the minds of their peers)?

    is it too frightening a prospect to have doubt about what something means in the bible, because it leave room for it to be infallible? thus you feel compelled to make a decision?

    if you feel compelled to make a decision, why choose the one that is cruel?

    i’m making a number of points here, and i’ll rephrase one of them again:

    speculation is not worthy of your faith. especially when it denigrates other human beings.

    you are not compromised as a believer to leave this issue in the realm of i don’t know for sure.

    if you are even .1% unsettled and uncertain, what could possibly be the risk of siding with freedom for women to exercise all of their gifts and potential for the benefit of all?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  241. Ken F (aka Tweed): It seems to me that if one is going to take the literal approach, one needs to take it all the way. That verse, in English, does not just say that a pastor has to be a man, but that he also has to be married, have children (plural), and live in a house (to manage the “house”-hold). If we say that those other things are not required, then by what rationale can we say that being a male is? It seems like random picking-and-choosing. I am not trying to be snarky. It’s a real question. I used to argue exactly like you do, but now I am much less certain that I can argue in that way. Also, as others have mentioned earlier, Paul left out quite a lot things that “everyone knows” from his letters. With so little context, I don’t think one can be dogmatic about exactly what that verse is supposed to mean.

    Well, now! Did the Apostle Paul meet all of those requirements? Seems like he disqualified himself!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  242. Proffy,

    elastigirl,

    i said: “is it too frightening a prospect to have doubt about what something means in the bible, because it leave room for it to be infallible? thus you feel compelled to make a decision?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    (got going to fast)

    i kind of messed up there. i meant to say fallible. but that doesn’t quite say it right, either. Let me try again:

    is it too uncomfortable a prospect to have uncertainty about what something means in the bible, because everything in the bible of necessity must mean something of huge consequence? thus you feel compelled to make a decision one way or the other?

    i hope that made sense. (continuing to rephrase my comment above:)

    these are the next corresponding thoughts:

    1) if you feel compelled to make a decision on the meaning of all disputable propositions in the bible, and if you have even .1% uncertainty, why choose the one that discriminates by accident of birth (which clearly is painfully devastating to others)?

    2) that an ancient text is divinely inspired doesn’t necessarily mean all of it is directly applicable to all people in all places at all times. people with power who believe all of it must be applicable end up deciding for everyone else how it is applicable, with rules that give rise to more and more rules. it seems all these rules tend to apply to others, not the people in power making the decisions.

    3) why must we make decisions on disputable matters in the bible? what’s wrong with being uncertain? why can’t we be comfortable with uncertainty?

    4) in our uncertainty, why not choose to leave human freedom alone? in this case, freedom for women to have a voice, exercise all their gifts and talents, and rise to their full potential as they see fit?

    5) why is it that the religious mind finds human freedom intolerable, and seems to look under every rock for ways to curtail it, to limit it, to restrict it? usually in regards to others, as opposed to oneself? what is so frightening about human freedom?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  243. elastigirl: …that an ancient text is divinely inspired doesn’t necessarily mean all of it is directly applicable to all people in all places at all times….

    I think there’s a herd of elephants grazing around this notion; thus: If an ancient text is divinely inspired, then Who or What inspired it, and more importantly, what is He/She/It doing now?

    The most important verse in the whole canon of scripture is the opening to Hebrews:

    God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, then briefly spoke through his Son, in these last days has spoken to us in the Scriptures, which He appointed heir of all things, through which also He made the world. And Scripture is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of its power.

    I’ll continue this point later; Lesley urgently needs the Mac.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  244. Brian: Which hard copy study Bibles or commentaries would anyone of you suggest?

    I’ll let others suggest some for you; I prefer these days to read the Bible and pray that the Holy Spirit would lead me to Truth. There’s so much noise in the church today, I just don’t trust commentaries – particularly, newer ones. As you consider the choices, I would encourage you to avoid the “ESV Study Bible” … it is the gold standard within New Calvinism.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  245. Max,

    I too would avoid a study bible, which only supplies one particular viewpoint. When I do investigate a word, verse or passage I use the tools available at Biblehub.com, which features topical, Greek and Hebrew study tools, concordances, commentaries, dictionaries, etc. Obviously, this is not hard copy.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  246. Bridget: Exactly. Don’t those who claim the letter of the law see these conundrums?

    Actually they don’t. Left-brained, letter of the law type people do not tend to see the whole picture or try to reason anything out on their own. They view everything as black and white line items. Question A has Answer A, Question B has Answer B. Memorize and regurgitate. There is no meditating on whether or not the two make sense together or blatantly contradict one another. This is the kind of non-thinking follower authoritarians would like us all to be.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  247. Brian:
    Which hard copy study Bibles or commentaries would anyone of you suggest?

    Non Neo Calvinist.

    I love the New Living Translation ( NLT)
    NIV (2011 version)
    NRSV
    NASB is also a solid version, most likely the most literal translation we have ( IMHO )

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  248. Brian:
    Which hard copy study Bibles or commentaries would anyone of you suggest?

    Non Neo Calvinist.

    I love the New Living Translation ( NLT)
    NIV (2011 version)
    NRSV
    NASB is also a solid version, most likely the most literal translation we have ( IMHO )
    TS00,

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  249. Proffy: GreekEpigraph: Even Douglas Moo, who is, to my knowledge, the only recognized first class scholar that is complementarian,

    Regarding your comment about Douglas Moo: Did you intend to write: that is NOT complementarian? I assume so, but want to make sure.

    No, not at all! I specifically used a very well known and well regarded COMPLEMENTARIAN scholar on this point. Unless Douglas Moo has completely changed his view in the last six months (since I last had a conflab with my friends who are in the professional Christian academic scene), he is complementarian. Were you asking about the “first-class”? I do not have the professional standing in that particular profession to make that call – each profession has its “inside” knowledge of who is considered to be “good” and who is considered to be “first-class”, whether it’s mechanic or Christian academic. There’s always the “mechanic of the mechanics”, the one that all the mechanics will say “yeah, THAT guy is amazing”. It happens in every profession. That is the call of academic professional friends that have worked in the Christian seminary/universities of North America for their careers – both that he is first-class, and that he is, in their opinion as professionals in that field, the only first-class scholar that is complementarian in Western Christian academia. (They are Calvinist.) As far as “scholars of scholars” that are egalitarian, here’s a small list:

    https://margmowczko.com/prominent-biblical-scholars-on-women-in-ministry/

    Since I, personally, left the complementarian camp due to the embrace of Eternal Subordination of the Son theology, I suppose I should give some of the background on that – and since it can be done in the words of the (both sides complementarian) debaters themselves, here it is:

    http://www.alliancenet.org/trinity-debate

    I really appreciate Aimee Byrd’s last summary. This was before the ETS November 2016 meetings, where the Trinity was the focus of the plenary and many of the breakout sessions. Anyway, if you’re interested in the theological part of it, there have been reams written about the fallout of the ETS 2016 plenary – Dr Kevin Giles “The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity” discusses this in detail.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  250. The most important Woman in Christianity once told some men, “Do whatever He tells you.”

    Should she have remained silent? Should the men have refused to heed her because she was a woman?

    The first witnesses to the Resurrection were women. An angel actually *told* them to announce the Resurrection to the male disciples. Should they have responded, “Oh no, we can’t do that! We’re women!”

    Just wondering.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  251. birdoftheair:
    GreekEpigraph,

    Thank you for offering a serious study on this subject and related verses which have challenging interpretations.

    Glad you pointed out at least one important factor: The weight distribution of the scripture on a certain truth or concept. The body of the scripture should bear more weight over one or two obscure sentences that are hard to understand.

    You are a diligent student of the WORD, and its application in faith living.

    Yes re “the body of Scripture.” What you said!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  252. Jerome: Wait, isn’t that the same word you need to mean “woman” in chapter two, so you can interpret 2:12 as interaction with men “in the church” (phrase not there btw) rather than with a husband?

    Again, as I responded a few days ago, 1 Tim 3:14-15 sets a clear context for what Paul wrote in chapter 2:

    “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself IN THE HOUSE OF GOD, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

    Also, if you accept 1 Cor 14:33 as a valid cross-reference, Paul specifically writes that women should keep silent “in the church.”

    Paul clearly used a word (gune) that can be translated as women or wife. The context should govern each time. Given that the vast majority of men and women were married, I don’t make a huge distinction over whether Paul is referring to man vs. husband or woman vs. wife. But I do believe Paul is writing about the role of men and women “in the church.”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  253. GreekEpigraph: No, not at all! I specifically used a very well known and well regarded COMPLEMENTARIAN scholar on this point. Unless Douglas Moo has completely changed his view in the last six months (since I last had a conflab with my friends who are in the professional Christian academic scene), he is complementarian. Were you asking about the “first-class”? I do not have the professional standing in that particular profession to make that call – each profession has its “inside” knowledge of who is considered to be “good” and who is considered to be “first-class”, whether it’s mechanic or Christian academic.

    Okay, I just had to ask because you had written that Moo was “the only recognized first class scholar that is complementarian…” You seem to quickly back-track off of that comment in your reply here where you admit that you do not have the “professional standing in that particular profession to make that call…” Thank you for clarifying; wise move I think. Let me also admit that I do not have the professional standing to make that call either (that should be obvious to everyone here), but I do highly suspect that his peer academicians would dispute your initial claim of him being the “only” first-class scholar who is complementarian. Thence (new word for me from Jerome, I like it), my question to you asking for clarification.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  254. GreekEpigraph: Even Douglas Moo, who is, to my knowledge, the only recognized first class scholar that is complementarian

    GreekEpigraph,
    I completely misread your comment about Moo, my bad. Now that I read it correctly, I cannot even reconstruct in my mind what I initially thought you were saying. I think my mind must have drifted into summer-lazy mode. What you wrote is clear.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  255. Proffy: as I responded a few days ago, 1 Tim 3:14-15 sets a clear context for what Paul wrote in chapter 2:

    “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself IN THE HOUSE OF GOD, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

    Also, if you accept 1 Cor 14:33 as a valid cross-reference, Paul specifically writes that women should keep silent “in the church.”

    Proffy, I don’t think anyone at all in this thread has been dialoguing about whether or not Timothy was to help the church behave better! The preamble to the entire book, 1 Timothy 1:3-4 is specific that Timothy was to “command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.” This would, by definition, have to include church re-building. I have no issue with 1 Timothy 2 & 3 (for that matter, the entire BOOK of 1 Timothy) to be about proper behaviour in the house of God.

    The base, very base, bottom-line question is CONSISTENCY in hermeneutic, as a number of people have tried to bring forward. You don’t have to agree with everything here – I’m using it as an example. Let’s say that “reading a favorite English translation, interpreting it and applying it exactly as written, as I (Western English speaker of the 21st century) read it” is the correct interpretive method, no further study needed. And, any piece of the text can be read in as small a chunk as desired, no reference to the text around it needed. My favorite version is the King James Version, so I will be using that one.

    Now, the text we’ve been going round and round on is 1 Timothy 2:12 “I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man; she is to be silent.” Let’s interpret this one as written. “no teaching” – OK. No “usurping authority” (taking authority that is not yours by right, with violence” – OK. “over the man” – OK (“man” would have to be defined – lots of guys would say that guys who beat their wives or can’t keep a job, for example, aren’t “real men”) “be silent” – OK, no speaking or singing to or around men. Going all the way out to 1 Timothy 3:14-15 to add context (though that’s not needed in our stated hermeneutic and we’re ignoring the verse right before it as context) “in the house of God”. Without contexting, of course, this verse applies to every situation, in all times and places, as John Piper would apply it (yes, even in the work world or walking down the street).

    Since the hermeneutic is “exactly as written in English”, let’s now apply it to other verses IN THE SAME BOOK, WITHIN 15 verses of this one (very close in spatial alignment).

    1 Timothy 2:8 “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” Men pray everywhere – OK, all places (the car, the mall, the auto shop, the church – everywhere they go). Lifting up holy hands – every place that men pray (the car, the mall, the auto shop, the church) their hands must be in the air. Without wrath – so men can never be angry anywhere, since they have to pray everywhere and can never be angry when praying. Or doubting – men can never doubt (anything? in the harshest, most literal interpretation, yes) because they have to pray everywhere and can’t doubt while praying.

    1 Timothy 3:2 “the husband of one wife” – must be a husband (currently married, not single, not widower – those are different words). Must have one wife (not another husband, not polygamous). If he is no longer “husband of one wife” (wife dies), he loses the position.

    1 Timothy 3:4,5 “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” The overseer must be a ruler of his own house (“his OWN house” – must be an owner of a house, not an apartment or condo, must not be homeless or itinerant). He must be a ruler in other people’s eyes (lording it over as the lords of the Gentiles?). “Having his children” – multiple children, not childless or having only one child. “In subjection with all gravity” – no child not following the faith, all children must be old enough to know if they are “in subjection”. “with all gravity” – must have something to do with weight, maybe they’re all overweight? (This requirement is so important to Paul that he even justifies it – just like he justified “I suffer not a woman” by reference to creation, so this one HAS to be absolutely followed to the letter.)

    Proffy, the question with interpretation and application “around” 1 Timothy 2:12 that irks so many is inconsistency. You yourself, up thread, have said that you’re perfectly fine with “exactly as written” application of the verse that applies to women “I suffer not” although you sound like a reasonable person, so you would probably be horrified at some of the harshest interpretations that I hinted at above. You yourself, when Jerome brought up some of the “exactly as written” applications of the verses applying to men (in the version you prefer) said “I don’t agree with that”. One of the major themes running through the entire Bible is that God “has no respect of persons”, really dislikes treating people differently based on “outward appearance” – even in the Law of Moses, he disliked differing weights and measures. If we’re going to use the “read it exactly as written and apply based on favored translation as English speakers”, then let’s be as literalistic and harsh and exclusive for men as we are for women. Or, if we’re not comfortable with that (as you said “I don’t agree with that” as it applied to translated-as-male-specific verses), then let’s give the women verses as much cultural contexting and other “openness” and “latitude” as the men give to “their” verses.

    Now, it’s going to be far too much to get into 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in detail here, but suffice it to say that if you’re going to take this a “written by Paul as instruction”, you’ve played right into the hands of those who say Paul was inconsistent and therefore the Bible is not inerrant. If PAUL wrote these verses (instead of them being a quote from the Corinthians letter to him, telling him what the “new teachers” were saying), then his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:5, which gives a dress code for women “praying and prophesying” are absolute bunk, since women should not be saying ANYTHING, much less “praying and prophesying”. Somehow he managed to put a meeting dress-code into his book less than 1/2 an hour before subsequently writing that the tasks for which that dress-code applied shouldn’t happen at all? Paul was also a rabbi “trained at the feet of Gamaliel” – he should know that there is NO place in Torah (the law) that states women should be silent or even “under obedience” as the KJV says. For him to say this is to simply be incorrect. For him to agree with the ORAL law of the Jews (which would be the only place you find the silence/obedience thing) and put it onto the Gentile church is to say that he’s going back on all the times he told them not to follow the law of the Jews. Like I said, this verse is favorite of those who wish to attack the entire validity of all of the writings of Paul, if it is stated as “this is what PAUL taught”.

    Now, I think I’ve said enough and far more than enough, so you can have whatever last word you wish Proffy. I DO NOT think that you will be convinced, no matter how much of the reading and study noted above that you do – you’ve stated that you go to a church that practices complementarianism and are quite comfortable there, that you yourself are not impacted directly by limited women, that your wife fits well into the correct box for acceptance by the church. Why on earth would you take on a theology that would put you at odds with the church you’re comfortable in, when you have no personal need to and it would just result in upheaval in your life? Believe me, this is NOT a theology that is tolerated by much of the evangelical church in this century, no matter how many of these same denominations were built by and loved their women preachers in bygone days. This is only compounded when theologians and pastors look at the issue – they can lose their JOBS as well if they, like John Wesley or DL Moody or William Booth (Salvation Army) or Wade Burleson, support the service of women in all areas of the house and work of God.

    Might see you around on some other thread – keep the faith.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  256. Catholic Gate-Crasher: Should they have responded, “Oh no, we can’t do that! We’re women!”

    “And it will be in the last days,” says God, “that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy; your youth will see visions and your seniors will dream dreams. Even on both my male servants and on my female servants, in those days, I will pour out my Spirit and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2:17-18)

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  257. GreekEpigraph: The base, very base, bottom-line question is CONSISTENCY in hermeneutic,

    Your whole comment was very well stated. I personally call this the Sesame Street Standard – “One of these things is not like the other.” It’s amazing haw useful this standard is for cutting through BS in so many aspects of work and life.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  258. Max: “And it will be in the last days,” says God, “that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy; your youth will see visions and your seniors will dream dreams. Even on both my male servants and on my female servants, in those days, I will pour out my Spirit and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2:17-18)

    I had forgotten all about those verses. Thank you, Max!

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  259. I find it harder and harder not to be cynical about professing christian use of the bible. I’ll put it this way: when I hear something along the lines of I’m a Christian and I believe in the authority of the Bible, I understand this to mean I like the label “Christian” and am following entirely my own artificial religion, designed precisely to suit myself; but I don’t quite have the courage to admit this to myself”.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  260. Nick Bulbeck: I’m a Christian and I believe in the authority of the Bible, I understand this to mean I like the label “Christian” and am following entirely my own artificial religion, designed precisely to suit myself; but I don’t quite have the courage to admit this to myself”.

    Wow. Pretty much sums it up. Except I don’t think most really get it. They have been so brainwashed that they truly believe: We are Christian. We believe in the bible, which we take literally. We are the good guys.

    It never enters their minds to consider that people genuinely have various interpretations of said bible. Or that it wasn’t written in English, so clinging tightly to the meaning of a particular word or phrase is rather silly. Or that if they literally took it literally they would have to believe some pretty strange things. Everyone who thinks differently than ‘us’ are obviously lunatics and/or liberal heretics who hate God and don’t want to obey his word.

    It is so tidy and comforting to have all the answers; or a pastor you can go to to get them. And yes, I admit, to my shame, that this was once me.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  261. Regarding this s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g all the way to the end of the next chapter in an attempt to spin 2:12 to say what one wants it to:

    Jerome: …so you can interpret 2:12 as interaction with men “in the church” (phrase not there btw)

    Proffy: Again, as I responded a few days ago, 1 Tim 3:14-15 sets a clear context for what Paul wrote in chapter 2:

    “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself IN THE HOUSE OF GOD, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

    My Bible says: “These things write I unto THEE, hoping to come unto THEE shortly: But if I tarry long, that THOU mayest know how thou oughtest to behave THYSELF in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

    Isn’t thee/thou/thyself the singular you? Isn’t Paul addressing Timothy in particular in this remote verse?

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  262. elastigirl,

    “ok, a game: who can finish “and monkeys f….””
    +++++++++++++++++

    and now for the big reveal:

    “and monkeys flew out of my butt!”

    a new and improved way of saying “inconceivable!”. with or without the lisp.

    the award for most creative answer goes to Friend,
    the award for most inconceivably true story goes to estelle
    and the award for alluring alliteration goes to b silly

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  263. Jerome: My Bible says: “These things write I unto THEE, hoping to come unto THEE shortly: But if I tarry long, that THOU mayest know how thou oughtest to behave THYSELF in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

    Isn’t thee/thou/thyself the singular you? Isn’t Paul addressing Timothy in particular in this remote verse?

    I am not trying to s-t-r-e-t-c-h all the way to the end of chapter 3 in order to make 2:12 say what I want it to say. And please don’t make the assumption that there is a certain outcome for interpreting these verses that I am trying to concoct. I think (or at least hope) that I am just trying to interpret these verses in context, in the manner intended by Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You accuse me of trying to twist God’s word to the benefit of my carnal mind; you don’t know my heart brother.

    I am a strong believer in context, context, and context. Paul often maintains a context through multiple man-made chapter breaks. I think we have debated this enough, so much so that I was the one accused (just above by GreekEpigraph) of belaboring this point. I don’t think I have, but you keep bringing it up and I keep responding. Let’s move on. I guess I could ask if you spin (by ignoring) the “in the church” phrase in the 1 Cor 14 cross reference, but I won’t. Or maybe I just did. But let’s move on; at this point, I do not think our back-and-forth on this is edifying anyone.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  264. GreekEpigraph: Now, I think I’ve said enough and far more than enough, so you can have whatever last word you wish Proffy. I DO NOT think that you will be convinced, no matter how much of the reading and study noted above that you do –

    Actually, I think what I have learned from the dialog here has caused a little Acts 26:28 type of moment for me. At the very least, I have lightened my grip on what I believed since my first post here. Thank you GreekEpigraph (and a few others) for sharing your thoughts and especially some of the resources on this matter. I will devote some time to study this summer.

    As I think I wrote somewhere above, my doctrines and beliefs have changed dramatically over the past 40 years. I could go into specifics, but it would be tedious. Based on the dramatic evolution of my beliefs over the past 4 decades, I would be foolish to think my current belief-system is NOW the correct one, probably because I think I felt that it was nearly every step of the way over 40+ years. Obviously, I have not been very smart. Thank God for his mercy.

    Peace,
    Proffy

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  265. Proffy: “I believe the context of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is ‘in the church'” not “in business, government, and society.”

    Proffy: I don’t apply it to home situations

    The context…

    2:8 that men pray… in the church? No, “in every place”

    2:9 women in modest apparel …just at church?

    2:10 “godliness” and “good works” …are just an ‘at church’ thing?

    2:11 be a quiet and submissive learner …just at church?

    the passage is even bookended with the theme:

    v. 2 “live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness”
    v. 15 “continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety”

    Even in the following chapter:

    A bishop must be blameless…just at church?
    and hospitable…just at church?
    not given to wine…at church?
    not a brawler…in the church?

    rule well one’s house (it’s not about ‘home situations’, eh?)

    and one’s children…just while at church?

    must have a good report of them which are without (exactly)

    [Some things to consider as you study this this summer]

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  266. Proffy,

    “I am not trying to s-t-r-e-t-c-h all the way to the end of chapter 3 in order to make 2:12 say what I want it to say. And please don’t make the assumption that there is a certain outcome for interpreting these verses that I am trying to concoct. I think (or at least hope) that I am just trying to interpret these verses in context, in the manner intended by Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You accuse me of trying to twist God’s word to the benefit of my carnal mind; you don’t know my heart brother.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    hello proffy.

    I don’t see that Jerome ascribed any motive to you whatsoever, or accused you of engineering God’s word to benefit your carnal mind. Jerome simply stated his/her view that the only possible way to come up with the interpretation you espouse requires some stretching and spinning.

    It brought to mind a comment you made to me:

    “In my opinion, you have crafted a clever cascade of questions that are designed to philosophically justify your belief (egalitarian roles in the church).”

    To clear that one up, there was no clever design to any of it. Nothing crafted. No effort to reverse engineer the bible.

    my questions are simply the product of my logical thought stream that happened in the moment as i was responding to you. they seem to me to be the obvious questions, the obvious logic problems that would occur to most people.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  267. While the New Calvinists are beating up on Beth Moore, one of their darlings (James MacDonald) has been accused of attempting to hire someone to kill his son-in-law! Yet, they aren’t saying a word about it! Easier to knock a woman around, than take on a macho-man I suppose.

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

  268. TS00: It is so tidy and comforting to have all the answers; or a pastor you can go to to get them. And yes, I admit, to my shame, that this was once me.

    It was once me too in the Calvary Chapel cult:

    Ain’t it strange the way we’re ignorant
    How we seek out bad advice
    How we jigger it and figure it
    Mistaking value for the price

    — PAUL SIMON “So beautiful or So What?”

      (Quote selected text)  (Reply)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *