Thanks, Lydia, for your insightful comment. These are the important matters that must be discussed openly within Christendom, and I’m glad the internet is allowing us to do just that!

Dan, you are welcome to like Piper. I liked him for a long time and thought he was genuine. I would only caution you to be careful. My questioning of him started a few years back when some family members moved to Minn after Wheaton to not only work for him but study under him. I was a bit stunned at their change when they came home to visit. At that point, I started paying more attention to not only his preaching but his actions. And I kept seeing many inconsistencies. If you take away his “passionate” presentations, what do you have? His theology,which has elevated comp doctrine to salvic position. Piper is a huge proponet of comp doctrine. Have you read his stuff? His views go from “be careful when giving men driving directions so you do not appear to be leading them’ to “take abuse for a season from your husband’. Oh, and if women who work have direct reports who are men, they MUST be careful not to give them commands. They ARE allowed to give them suggestions. See, it is not right for a woman to be in leadership over a man even in the secular world. It is not natural.

In effect, Piper is very extreme. You should have heard his talk at the TW conference.Check out some of his stuff on CBMW. You might be surprised at the Piper you did not know. There is so much more but I will stop now.

But don’t even get me started on the Rick Warren thing with Piper. Piper is having to ignore a lot to say that Warren presents the FULL Gospel. I think Piper got snowed by Warren which happens a lot to many. (Thank God Bob Dewaay did not fall for it)

Warren is one of the nicest guys around in public. But he is also a chameleon when it comes to Theology. And there is that pesky truth that members of Saddleback sign a “covenant” that says they will not critisize the leadership or the church.

Mark Twain (creator of that drunken old sot Muff Potter) had much to say about religion in general; most of it directed at Calvinism, none of it charitable. He had this to say:

“Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes, and wishes he was certain.”
from: –Notebook, 1879–

I think all humans want certainty to one degree or another. It drives all of us to want a good outcome. Whether it’s for our stock portfolios to recover, or assurance of a better place beyond the grave, we all want certainty. I am glad that Piper is calling for a fulcrum point between intellectual and emotional certainty.

I like very much what Piper had to say in this article. I also like the addendum by Dee, and the comments thus far.

I know the problems with some of Piper’s teachings, and I know that there are other problems in Reformed circles that Piper doesn’t address that can’t be brushed aside and need to be addressed. But in this specific matter, the danger of placing a love of theology above a love of God Himself, Piper is right on target.

But the problems Piper describing, and those mentioned by Dee and others, are by no means unique to the Reformed camp. I’ve known very intellectual lovers of systematic theology who were Arminian who could just as easily put their love of theology before their love for God. Likewise, there are hyper-authoritarians amongst both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. In Southern Baptist circles, the authoritarian mindset prevails among much of the leadership, and the new Reformed types are still a minority in SB life (though a growing one). Same is true of those who elevate secondary and tertiary doctrines to primary level.

There was definitely something of a “good sin” mindset in what Piper had to say. His response of “Calvinists can be too intellectual”, is a lot like answering a job interview question of “What are your greatest weaknesses?” with “I’m too dedicated to my job, too loyal to my employers, and spend too much time in the office.” Also, Piper’s statements seem to imply or assume that non-Calvinists are non- or anti-intellectual. I suspect that scholars like Roger Olson and Gordon Fee would disagree with that assumption.

What I’d like to see is Piper and other New Reformed leaders address problems that may be unique to their movement, rather than something that could be said of many non-Calvinists today as well. But maybe there aren’t many problems that are unique to the New Reformed movement – maybe the problems we see in so many churches today are more the result of sinful human actions than a particular doctrinal perspective.

Dee & Deb,

Have you ever heard of Tony Crisp? He is another fake Dr. Just wanting to know if you know anything about him.

What I find hard to accept in hyper-Calvinism: (aside from the complementarianism thing — I have been an egalitarian on race since about age 10, on gender since about age 15, and on sexual identity since about age 35)

They worship the sovereignty of God, making it more powerful that God himself. It is as if God is not sovereign over his own sovereignty. But he is, and he choses to not exercise his sovereignty over us, allowing us to choose to love him and to obey him out of that love. Thus free will does NOT contradict the sovereignty of God.

As a parent, I wanted my children to love me and obey me. I could have commanded them to do so. I could have made all of their choices for them. But then they would not have learned how to choose and their love would not be love by choice, and it probably would be closer to fear and respect than to love.

BTW, we made our children explain what choices they had made that resulted unhappy adults because of their behavior, beginning about age 3. We would talk with them about consequences, and soon made them talk about how behavior sometimes had a natural consequence and sometimes an adult imposed consequence (never spanking in our house, but a lot of lost privileges and time out). Before age four, our son said “Daddy, don’t make me talk about choices and consequences, just spank me like Bobby’s daddy spanks him.” Now both of our children are competent adults who know how to make good decisions and to weight outcomes and consequences.

All of that required that we withhold some of our sovereignty over our children so that we did not determine their behavior, only some of the consequences of that behavior.

I believe that God is a better parent than I ever could be, and more generous and loving, enough to come and die to remove the consequence of my disobedient choices. To say he is trapped by his sovereignty is to make him a god I could not worship, which is why I cannot be a Calvinist.

Piper’s article is excellent. The reformed movement needs to hear this very much.

The addendum are excellent thoughts, too.

I have never read a Piper book or heard him speak. I have read some of his articles.

I believe one of the things that will keep pastors and other Christians from the error that Piper identifies is practical ministry. Many of the super reformed people I know are big on theology discussions and short on real ministry.

When you spend time with struggling and hurting people (and has been noted here – empathize with them because you, yourself have the same problems), your interest in theological systems is tempered at bit.

Great post.

Doug Pirkle,

I have never heard of Tony Crisp. Is he someone we should investigate?

Good to hear from you.

Arce:

Great post regarding your views on the sovereignty of God and man’s free will. I agree with you that God allowing free will, while maintaining His sovereignty, is a more accurate characterization of God’s enormity and just makes a lot of good sense. Your example was excellent.

I also believe in the equality of men and women, regardless of race or sexual behaviour they choose to identify with. However, it seems pretty clear to me that, while being equal, men and women do have clearly defined roles that are different and do complement each other. The bible also differentiates those roles in relation to marraige and in relation to church ministry.

Also, while a person chooses to engage in sexual behaviour of their liking, that also doesn’t make them unequal with those who might have a problem with their choices. However, it is clear that they are choices, and there is no reasonable scientific evidence whatsoever that could prove that someone is born a homosexual. The bible is definitive in pointing out that homosexuality is sin. But, it is not more of a sin than fornication or adultery.

Finally, it is funny how Calvinists and Free-willers go at it, when the whole argument is a bogus one, taken from out-of-context scriptures.

If you think about what the promise was to Abraham and Isaac, that, “All Nations,” not just the Jews, would be blessed through them, (meaning through their seed, who was Christ, as it points out in Galatians), you understand that the predestination that Paul was talking about in Ephesians and Romans, was that the Gentiles were every bit as chosen to be in Christ as the Jews were. Read Ephesians 2. In Romans, Paul points out to Jews that he who is a Jew is one inwardly, not of the flesh, and they have to be saved through faith in Jesus Christ to be saved. He is talking to those who had a superiority complex and was leveling the playing field with the Gentiles.

Then, in Ephesians, he is talking to Gentiles, who have an inferiority complex, pointing out that they had been predestined, or chosen, just like the Jews had been to receive salvation through Jesus Christ, as well, who came through the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, through the circumcision, etc.

That is the big revelation that Paul had regarding the Gentiles, that they, too, had been chosen before time to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. THAT is the predestination that Paul refers to; not some ridiculous, you’re in, you’re out, hand-picking of who will be saved. That’s nuts.

Lydia:

First, regarding the word, “role,” yes, actors used scrolls to learn their parts, but before they used these scrolls, it just meant what it was, “a roll,” as of parchment. And although actors used the scroll, it came to have a more general meaning relating to parts one played off stage, such as one’s function, job, duty.

I am not going to leave out biology because biology was created on purpose by God, in order for each gender to function as he or she should regarding many things. One of my jobs tonight as we prepare to leave for vacation is to put the storage compartment on top of the car. It’s my job because I’m stronger and taller than my wife. That doesn’t make her less equal than me. So, biology does dictate some of the jobs we have, again making neither less equal.

Ephesians says that the husband is the head of the wife. The wife is not the head. He is using that figuratively to paint a picture of Christ and the church, but also to lay out how a man and woman should relate to one another. They are not both heads, nor are they both bodies. So, it’s clear that a man and woman are different, but he makes no remark here that one is better or higher than the other. The body and the head cannot exist without each other, so they are to be mutually submissive, loving, and respectful to each other. Ultimately, does one have authority in the relationship? I think so. But authority serves, it doesn’t lord over. In fact, it lowers itself willingly below the other. That is authority’s true function, Jesus being the example of humbling Himself below those whom He serves, bearing the penalty for our sin. With authority also comes greater responsibility.

In relation to the Body of Christ, there are places where women serve and minister and there are places they don’t. There are places where men minister and places they don’t. There are certainly references in Joel and Acts to women prophesying. There indicates in Timothy that women can serve as deacons. There is no indication that I’ve seen where they were elders, except that the older women were to teach younger women. Teaching the younger women would be one of those jobs that a woman can do that a man has no instruction to do. So, in relation to that function, you could say that a woman has both the responsibility and authority in that area.

Whether biological, family relations, or relations in the Body of Christ, there may be different functions and layers of authority, but authority is not a synonym for superiority; it would be more synonymous with being a servant. And whether in authority or under authority, there remains equality, because of our intrinsic value as God’s creations.

Michael, I am 5’1l and it would be more likely that I would put the case on the car for say…Piper… who is very tiny. I could probably pick Russell Moore (who wants more patriarchy because comps are wimps) up and carry him out of a burning building because he is so tiny. But he could not save all 5’11 of me. And don’t forget all those pioneer women who had babies in the back of the wagon and worked the fields with the men. Sometimes our view of “roles” comes right out of Ozzie and Harriet. But some conveniently forget the cruel necessity of centuries.

Kephale does not mean authority. There are quite a few clear authority words the Holy Spirit could have Inspired for authority but He did not. There are enough head/body metaphors in the scripture to understand what it means what those in the 1st Century would have understood.

You are not your wife’s Savior, nor her earthly mediator, the metaphor does not relate to authority. But to love.

So, I guess it also means NO single men as elders.

That is just for starters because what you are describing is not “equal” in the Body at all when it comes to how to Body functions.

I always miss an opportunity! So, I will see if Micheal will outline for us exactly what his “authority” means in his marriage. What does it look like on a day to day basis.

Head in that context means source, as in the head of a river or stream. It does not mean boss.

Dee,

Thank you for your thoughtful questions. Wow, I hit some hot button, because this all began when I made some vague comment to Arce about different roles, but affirming equality among men and women.

But, I’ll try to address your questions and others’.

1. As you know, whether Junias was a woman or not is up for debate. Weren’t you the one the other day who asked me if I was going to base my theology on one verse? If Junias was a woman that would put an interesting twist on things for some. So, to your question, “Was there a woman in that group?” I don’t know. Do you know there was a woman in that group? The fact is, some believe but no one knows. So I’m not going to speculate that there was. However, those who speculate that Junias was a woman also speculate that she was married to Adronicus. So, if she was serving as an Apostle, she was serving jointly with her husband.
2. To answer your second question, I don’t believe men have a corner on knowledge and I’ve learned so much from women throughout my life; from my mother, from Kay Brady, who taught me Sunday School at FBC, Dallas, when I was in high school, various other great women teachers in college, and my wife, whom I’ve learned so much from, not necessarily theology, though.
3. Concerning your female doctor friend, as long as her and her husband are in agreement, I don’t see what the problem is, theologically. I know that Titus 2:5 says that women are to be workers at home, but that might be in contrast to being idle or an idle gossiper at home, as is instructed somewhere else. The verse also says to be subject to their husbands. The word subject means to arrange under, to subordinate, to put under…So, you said her husband elected to stay at home with the children, so for her to work outside the home in this case seems appropriate. I do have questions about why he would choose to stay at home, though.
4. I don’t have a problem with men learning theology from women. I think many of these questions are digging at the scripture where Paul tells Timothy that he doesn’t allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. I think the emphasis here is not so much the teaching, but the exercise of authority over a man with regard to teaching. However, I really don’t know how a woman would do that. So, this verse has always been a question mark in my mind, hoping I will understand it more clearly later.
5. I agree that pedophilia and spousal abuse have not been addressed adequately, and far too many men wrongfully mistreat their wives. I would add that far too many wives mistreat and do not show respect to their husbands. And I agree that women offer a different and unique perspective that men don’t have. And I wish that elders would seek their wives’ counsel. If they don’t they’re stupid. And if they don’t ask for it, then the women should give it anyway. That is their God-given duty. Elders who are single would do well to seek the counsel of women as well. But, you’re going to have to convince me, biblically, for me to pull the trigger on appointing women as elders.

If I am reading you correctly, I share the same concerns that cultural mandates are being passed off as Biblical mandates. I believe part of the reason is that there is still a push back on long-held beliefs that seem to push women down, instead of lift them up. Maybe when men learn how to love their wives properly and pastors and elders stop lording over, then we will gain more trust in these areas.

Lydia:

If you had come over to my house tonight and wanted to help me put my storage unit on top of my car, I would have welcomed the help. Are you one who thinks women can compete at the same level athletically, as well? I’m referring to the rule, not the exception.

Regardless, I don’t think I could have helped my wife breastfeed our children. And guess what? I didn’t feel like I was not her equal because I was not allowed by God to function the way she functions. The point is, men and women ARE different biologically, psychologically, behaviorally, etc., as much as you seem not to want to admit it, and those differences don’t make one…or the other less than the other.

Kephale means head. However, the way it is used in Ephesians, metaphorically, it DOES mean authority, according to the Greek Lexicon and Vines Greek dictionary. Thayer’s Lexicon says, “Metaph. Anything supreme, chief, prominent; of persons, master, lord:…of a husband in relation to his wife.” Vines says,
“metaphorically, of authority or direction of God in relation to Christ, of Christ in relation to believing men, of husband in relation to the wife.”

Furthermore, if you’ll read this whole passage in context, before that verse it says, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” The word, “subject,” does not mean submit, but pertaining to one’ s self, which in the sentence probably means, belong to your husband. (Thayer’s Lexicon says part of the definition is, “belonging to another.”).

And following the verse about the husbands being the head of the wife, it says, “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” “Subject,” in this verse means to arrange under, to subordinate, obey, to submit to one’s control. So, the context strengthens the meaning that the head is about authority.

But, having said that, it is not referring to the lord it over type of authority that is not of God, it is referring to the type of authority that you are referring to, the authority and responsibility to love and to lay down his life for his wife. If you’ll read my posts, I’ve consistently said that. Now, if you have a problem with a husband laying down his life for his wife as Christ did for the church, well, there’s nothing more I’ll be able to say and you’ll just have to live with that problem.

I don’t believe I said single men could not be elders. That must be your conjecture. And finally, I think the bible does make it clear that in Christ there is neither male or female, speaking of equality. I believe that men and women are equal in the body of Christ, even though they do not function the same, and I believe they are equal in marriage, even though they function differently.

Frankly, Lydia, you’ve offered up very little, if any, biblical support for your opinion and you sound more like someone who has a chip on her shoulder. Am I right?

Lydia, as one wise lady once told me: there is a difference between thinking BIBLE-VERSELY about a subject, and thinking BIBLICALLY.

Notice how many in the complementarian community make idols of their interpretations of passages such as 1 Timothy, Titus 2, et al. but fail to, with the same fervor, break down the meanings and implications of passages such as The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 25 (about visiting prisoners and inviting in strangers), or Acts 2.

Take for example this rather startling verse:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” ~

*Gasp* YES this is straight from Acts 4:32-35, not the Communist Manifesto…(actually it might be in that too I don’t know LoL.)

At the end of the day, does GOD care more about whether an elder is married, or whether we are living out the virtues of Acts? Does GOD care about head coverings or whether the church is preaching Christ, caring for the widows and orphans, seeking out the leprous, and washing the feet of the lost?!

** Which brings me to my next thought:

I was thinking the other day about a missionary friend who told me about how her late husband air-dropped Spanish translations of the Gospel of John in rural Mexico.

And I thought to myself, “Is the Gospel of John sufficient?” Uh oh…nowhere in it does Jesus say women cannot be pastors. Oh no!
What if a woman ends up with a copy, falls in love with Jesus, gets carried away, and decides to start preaching the Gospel in public! What if she starts to run her own services by the market? What if she starts baptizing people? Oh the horrors of having only the Gospel of John in one’s possession!

And then I thought, wow: even PAUL warned against elevating him over Jesus! We are not to ultimately hinge Christianity on Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?”~ 1 Corinthians 1:13

I am NOT suggesting that “ALL” Scripture is not profitable…but it is definitely safe to say John 3:16 (and the entire book of John for that matter) is far MORE “profitable” than 1 Timothy 3.

Let me ask you: does our eternity hinge on 1 Timothy 3?

I wanted to point out how self-serving and agenda-driven the picking and choosing of which passages to prioritize over others really is. It’s so Pharisiacal.

“They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.” ~ Matthew 23:4

‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ ~ Matthew 25:45

And finally:

“Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love.” ~ Revelations 2:4

Radiance, what you have described above is taking the whole scope of scripture for undertstanding AND realizing that several proof texts are used for some to have preeminance over others in the Body and marriage. You have hit the nail on the head.

One must ignore quite a few “one anothers”, not lording it over,the first shall be last, etc., in order to come to their men always on top conclusions.

Michael would not know this but I was a comp for many years. We really did try hard with the rules, roles and formula’s. I worked in that world in mega church marketing and was around quite a few of the comp celebrities/authors/seminar people for years. It is a HUGE industry on it’s own. But I got to see it for what it really is. That started the questioning. I was around some famous comp couples for a long time and the wife was either Patton back stage directing the “performance” or a doormat who thought it was a sin to have an opinion different than her husbands.

Then a deep study of the Word really showed me what an empty shell of doctrine it is. Entire doctrines built around the word “authenteo” which is used only once in the NT and is a rare word even in Koine Greek. You canot even trust the Lexicon on that word. How is it used in Greek Antiquity? It certainly does not mean ‘authority over’ as it was translated. From what I can tell it has connotations of rule by force as in murder.

I think the biggest AHA moment and a point of falling on my knees for the sin of comp thinking came when I found through study the horrible translation of Gen 3:16. A monk named Pagnini changed “turn” to “desire”in his 1300 translation of the Bible. Think about that. The whole meaning changes. God was saying that EVE would turn toward Adam ( away from God) and he would rule over her. And that is EXACTLY what happened! But many want us to believe that Eve’s turning to Adam is a virtue! It is so drilled into heads that many reading that will think it is a good thing. No. God is first. Women are to turn to God first and be a ONE FLESH UNION with their husband. The consequence of sin God spoke about in Gen 3:16 was the resulting Patriarchy that ensued. And we all know that God regulated everything eventually through the Law.

An even bigger problem comps have is that there is NOT ONE SINGLE prohibition about women teaching men in the Old Covenant. Yet, they want us to believe that all of a sudden, in the New Covenant, it is a sin. One way they get around this is to map the Levite Priest to the elder/pastor function in the Body. It does NOT map.

there are tons of examples of horrible translations when it come to this particular issue. Ironically, in 1 Tim 5, the word for “manage” the home is the same Greek word we get “despot” from! The wife is the despot of the home. Husband and wife are co-rulers as a ONE FLESH UNION. Seems the translators could not stomach such a thought.

And the translation and understanding of 1 Corin 11 is so sad it makes me weep. A passage on the cultural problem of headcoverings in the NT Body is used for everything from teaching Patriarchy to a foundational verse used for ESS! ESS is heresy!! And it is everywhere from Mohler to Grudem to Piper, etc!

But I think the most damaging part of comp theology is what they do to the Trinity through ESS and with Ezer.

Because of their insistence that Ezer kenegdo means JrAssistant (in a one flesh union?), they actually dimish God who is referred to as an Ezer throughout the OT. Some males are even named after that word. Grudem goes as far to say that God “submits” to us when He helps us. Think about that one for a while.

Comp theology has entered the realms of apostasy in these cases in their attempts to defend their doctrine of preeminance. I pray that many will run away from this stuff. Rules, roles and formulas are easy to follow. Abiding in Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit is where we need to be as believers, whether male or female.

Jesus left NO earthly layer or mediator for women. The temple veil was torn in two for them, also. Women believers are NOT perpetual children who need a male leader. It says more about the men who insist on this.

An even bigger problem comps have is that there is NOT ONE SINGLE prohibition about women teaching men in the Old Covenant. Yet, they want us to believe that all of a sudden, in the New Covenant, it is a sin. One way they get around this is to map the Levite Priest to the elder/pastor function in the Body. It does NOT map.

True, it does not map. The priesthood and sacrificial system of the OT is completely fulfilled in Christ. Other than Christ as our High priest, the only priesthood we have in the church is that of all believers. I think is a mistaken notion to seek correspondence between OT and NT functions (why put new wine in old wine skins?), but if one must do so, then the OT concept of prophet is closer to the NT concept of elder/pastor (or at least to the concept of pastor as we see it practiced today, where someone preaches each week to the congregation). A prophet is simply one who tells others what God has said. And we know that there were female prophets in both OT and NT times.

What settled the issue for me, leading me to believe that women and men do not have distinctly defined “roles” in marriage or in the church, was a threefold recognition:
(1) The concept of male dominance over women is a result of the Fall and curse, and has thus been part of human society from the beginning, even to today in the church, but it was never God’s intent in Eden before the Fall (and thus it should not be part of God’s redeemed and renewed kingdom after the coming of Christ)
(2) A hierarchical viewpoint does not fit with the clear teachings throughout the whole NT on the nature of the kingdom of God, including Mark 9:35 (“If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all”), Gal 3:28 (“there is … not make and female”), and the many “one another” passages
(3) The concepts of “pastoral authority” and “husband authority” are based on a few disputable passages and words that can easily (and perhaps more naturally) be interpreted differently than they have been commonly interpreted by men with a vested interest in perpetuating male dominance over females.

The details are way more involved, but that’s the big picture.

Please forgive the lenght of this post. It speaks to Junia, which was mentioned earlier. I have no link. this was copied from a now defunct blog where Dennis Swift, PhD, responded to the claim that Junia might be a man. This is not the full article but just part of it:

Chrysostom goes on to mention that Junia was a teacher of teachers. Origin of Alexandria (c 185-253 A.D.), who is considered one of the greatest of all Christian scholars, wrote about and accepted Junia as a female apostle. Jerome (347-419 A.D.), translator of the Latin Vulgate, identifies Junia as a female apostle and worthy of honor. Hatto of Vercelli (924-961 A.D.) was the Bishop of Vercelli. He wrote Capitulae, a series of instructions for the clergy and was a Greek scholar. He is in agreement with the other church Fathers that Junia was a female apostle. Theophylact (1050-1108 A.D.) had the highest reputation as a scholar. His commentary on the Pauline epistles is esteemed for “appositeness, sobriety, accuracy, and judiciousness”. He cites Junia as a female apostle. Peter Abelard (1079-1142 A.D.) was renowned as a French philosopher and theologian. He is considered the founder of the University of Paris and wrote extensively on Paul’s words naming Junia as a female apostle.

A few of the other patristic exegetes (experts in critical interpretation of the bible) who were adamant that the second person mentioned in Romans 16:7 to be a woman included: Ambroiaster (339-397 A.D.), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-458 A.D.), Primasius (Sixth Century), John Damascene (675-749 A.D.), Hayamo (d. 1244 A.D.), Oecumenius (Sixth Century), Lanfranc of Bec (1005-1089 A.D.), Bruno the Carthusian (1032-1101 A.D.), and Peter Lombard (1100-1160 A.D.).

How did Junia get lost? How did her story disappear? Who changed Junia’s name in scripture? As mystery writers say, “Who dunnit?” In an astonishing litany of sexism, misogyny, and blatant tampering with the texts, she was expunged from scripture in an act of male chauvinism.

In the thirteenth century, Giles the Archbishop who was known as Giles of Rome, changed the text to a male’s name in his Agegidas Romanus13. Giles was deeply prejudiced against women. Part of the influence was Pope Boniface VIII, a famously corrupt Pope. Pope Boniface so opposed female leadership in the church that he ordered all nuns be confined to their convents. Giles’ “Politically correct” mistranslation of Junia appeared to flow from the papal prejudice that women were to be kept in their place. Giles along with Pope Boniface, started a trend to restrict the role of women in church, and Giles was one of the most influential thinkers of his time.

The great universities of Europe sprung up during this era. The new universities became the learning centers of western civilization: Paris (1150), Bolgna (1088), Oxford (1107), Cambridge (1207), Sorbonne (1257), Seville (1254), Prague (1348), Florence (1349), Heidelberg (1385), and Cologne (1388).

Women were not allowed in the universities, and the university teaching system in the Middle Ages meant that men became the sole purveyors of higher learning. Men wrote the philosophy texts and enshrined the ideas of male philosophies and constructed a male world view. They wrote the theology and that meant that the history of women in the churches was often deliberately left out.

Theodora Episcopa was an early case of a woman bishop. Her name was changed to Theodor, leaving the “a” off, and in St. Zenos Chapel where her portrait is on a mosaic, the “a” on Theodora was defaced. Men could not stand the thought of a woman bishop. Many women were eliminated from church history, and the result was a textual invisibility for women. The “no girls club” was shaped by Giles’ view of faith, and it spread to the Western world, and in modern times has relegated women to a seat in the back of the gospel bus as second class citizens.

Giles cleverly added an “s” to Junia thinking that he had changed it to a male name, Junias. However, your sins will find you out because the proper male ending would have been “ius” not “ias”.14
According to Daniel B. Wallace, no instances of the name Junias have surfaced in Greek literature (absolutely not one). We have numerous examples in Greek literature and on ancient grave inscriptions of the name, Junia, and it is always in the feminine form.15

Brooten comments “What can a modern philogist say about Junias? Just this, it is unattested. To date, not a single reference has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias hypothesis. My own search for an attestation has proved fruitless. This means we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name Junias ever existed.16 It never existed, we know, because Giles invented it with the stroke of a pen adding the “s” on the end of Junia.

In fact, philogists say that the name is not to be found in New Testament Greek manuscripts or in any ancient manuscripts or inscriptions: Greek or Latin, secular or sacred!

There are three strikes against this being a masculine name. One, the early church interpreted it as feminine. Two, it is a Latin name and would not have been changed into Junias in the Greek. Three, Junia is found only as a female name in antiquity.

The King James Version accurately translates Romans 16:7 as “ . . .Junia of note among the apostles.” The New American Standard Bible translates Romans 16:7 as “ . . .Junia . . .prominent among the apostles.” However, many modern translations and paraphrases fall prey to male bias and misogyny and render the text as a male name. The New International Version says “Greet Junias . . .outstanding among the apostles.” The Living Bible murders the text of Romans 16:7 with “ . . .Junia . . .respected by the apostles.”

Other modern translations engage in mental gymnastics and add several of their own words. In the phrase, “They . . . (said to be) outstanding among the apostles”, they substitute the word “by” the apostles, changing the word “among” and adding the other four words, “said to be by” that are not in the Greek text. We are not to add words to scripture that are not there! For the meaning “by”, Paul would have used one of two totally different Greek words: para or pros, rather then using an en that implies selection from within the group.

I studied Koine and Classical Greek under Dr. Frank Carver and knew Dr. Ralph Earle, both of whom were on the translation committee for the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible. In the class on textual criticism, it was pointed out that translation committees were not evenly balanced or free of denominational bias. The fundamentalists and conservative Baptist Greek scholars would not concede in the face of overwhelming historical and textual evidence that the Junia was a female apostle, and their vote outnumbered other committee members. So they left Junias at Romans 16:7. Equally, a committee loaded with neo-orthodox theologians insisted that Isaiah 7:14 should not be rendered “ . . .the Lord himself will give a sign. The Virgin will be with child”, but that “ . . .a young woman will be with child” (New English Bible). I never could comprehend how the Lord’s sign of the Messiah would be a young woman with a child. Young women have children all the time.

Dr. Bruce Metzger was undoubtedly the greatest Greek textual authority of modern times. Dr. Metzger confessed that in the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (second edition, p. 421), that the UBS Committee made the ruling to make Romans 16:7 read Junias based on the gender assumption imposed on the text by members of the committee who were of Baptist and Calvinistic persuasion, who dumped their pejorative denominational baggage on the text.. Why, why, why-because to be faithful to the text would have meant the loss of your job or standing in the denomination. Shame, shame. Committees and individuals engage in subtle scripture twisting to accommodate their cultural biases or male chauvinism.

That Junia was a woman apostle and a prominent one is just too much for their fragile male egos. That Junia was a woman apostle is not some kind of liberal feminist revision of scripture. It is only a proper hermeneutical principle to interpret Paul’s reference to her as an apostle, and that was the unanimous consensus until the 13th Century. All the Greek texts, manuscripts, and early documents of Christianity say she was a female apostle.

Who says women can’t teach? Not Jesus, not Paul. It has always been a strange doctrine that will allow women to go to foreign mission fields to teach heathen men but will not allow the heathen men at home to be taught by the same woman. It makes absolutely no sense to think that a female who is learned in the scriptures cannot teach a man who is unlearned. Additionally, churches that proclaim that women are not to teach say it is acceptable for women to teach Sunday School to children or teens and for mothers to teach their sons. Where do you draw the line and say to the women that they can no longer teach a male once they reach a certain age. Is it because men do not want to be bothered with teaching the Bible to children? Is it not a convenient theology that insists Paul said women are not to teach in the church and then add to that your own exception clause, except for children and teenagers.

Did not Paul address the men to teach their children (Ephesians 6:4), “Fathers do not exasperate your children but instead bring them up in the training and the instruction of the Lord.”
Some pastors proudly pronounce that women are to be silent in the church. What about the rest of Paul’s teaching that women are to cover their heads. I have never seen a single woman’s head covered in a Calvinistic, fundamentalistic, Baptist, or Church of Christ Church, etc. etc. Is that not a cafeteria style theology where you “buffet style” pick and choose what you want to believe? I choose not to add hypocrisy to my list of sins.

I challenge anyone to argue on historical, theological, textual, philological, or on the basis of Greek grammar that Junia was not a female apostle. Your argument will die inch by inch the death of a thousand qualifications. Scholars, pastors, and theologians respond with a deafening silence. They choose to teach the traditions of men and leave their women buried in the tombs of tradition.

This day the Lord says, “Woman, thou art loosed!”

Yes, my friend, there is no denying the role of women in the New Testament church. Indeed, there was a woman apostle by the name of Junia, and she was a prominent leading apostle. Apostles performed miracles, signs, wonders, preached, taught, cast out demons, planted churches, presided over the Eucharist, and instructed men and women. There is no wiggle room. Macho men have to die to self and allow what Jesus and Paul allowed, for women to minister. Let me send all the men t-shirts that say, “Get Over It!” The male bastion of bigotry towards women is crumbling. It is only a poisoned pot of pharisaical legalism that enslaves women and shackles them to male dominance. Weak men cannot handle strong women.

The preponderance of evidence declares that in the New Testament church, women served as apostles, teachers, evangelists, missionaries, and prophetesses. Men, don’t give me your opinion, give me your scholarship that says otherwise.

In Roman culture, the woman was in charge of the house. Is it no wonder that house churches in the New Testament were often led by women?17 Colossians 4:15 says, “. . . .and to Nymphia and the church in her house.” Once again, we know from the early church Fathers that Nymphia was a woman leading a house church teaching and preaching to males and females. It is a sad sordid story that male exegetes deceitfully changed her name to Nymphas. Thankfully, the feminine norm has been restored in many new translations.18

What about Prisca? She is mentioned six times in scripture and helped to start three house churches, presiding over them. Just imagine starting three churches at one time when you could be flogged, stoned, expelled, or imprisoned for doing so.

What about Mary Magdalene. She is called in early church writings “an apostle to the apostles.” Hippolytes, a conservative priest of the Third Century in Rome, also designated Mary as the first apostle in his commentary on “Song of Songs”. Mary Magdalene had a prominent role in the early church and spread the gospel through preaching and teaching.19 Case closed.

What are men afraid of? The truth? On what basis do men say women should not preach or teach? When you boil it all down, it is their tradition, cultural erroneous teaching absorbed from Western Society or sometimes raw carnal male ego. Some men have tried to make their case by saying, in essence, that the early church Fathers and patristic writers were simply mistaken in their belief that Junia was a woman. They assert that Giles got it right and adding the “s” restored the real meaning to the text that Junias was a man. That ignores the evidence from Greek literature that Junia was a woman’s name, and that in Latin writing, Junia is a fairly common female name whereas Junias is nonexistent. Since Paul was writing to the church in Rome that spoke Latin, it is safe to assume that Junia was a woman. The evidence is lopsided in favor of a female apostle.

That doesn’t stop some theologians who surmise that Junias is a nickname, a shortening of a Latin name such as Junianus. However, Grenz rightly asserts that Latin nicknames are longer than their counterparts, not shorter.20 Others have fumbled around searching for textual variants to build a case for a man, Junias. The important papyrus, P. 46, along with a few later minor manuscripts from the old Latin versions, 4th and 5th Centuries A.D., all read “Ioulian”. “Ioulian” is a feminine name equivalent to our Julia. The textual variants all support the interpretation of Junia as a female apostle.

The scholars who stick to Junias refuse to admit the historical fact that Giles added the “s” in the 13th Century. In the face of the facts, they hold to a position that they are better suited than the early church Fathers to decide that Junia was a man. They are so bold to conclude that they see nothing in Romans 16:7 or church history that challenges the complementarian position for all-male leadership within the church.21 Church history and Romans 16:7 does not challenge all-male leadership, it renders it obsolete. Women were pastors, prophetesses, apostles, teachers, and missionaries in the New Testament church, and it continued until the 13th Century. Period!

God told Moses to tell Pharaoh, “Let my people go!” God says today, “Let my women go! Let them go serve, let them go preach, let them go teach. Let them go prophesy, let them go to be who I created them to be!”

Addendum
The corruption of Romans 16:7 has some curious twists and turns. How did the King James translation get it right that Junia was a woman apostle?

In the late 4th Century, Pope Damascus I commissioned Jerome to produce an authorized text. By 400 C.E., Jerome had produced a standard text in Latin, the Latin Vulgate. Latin was the common or vulgar language of the people, hence, the title Latin Vulgate. Jerome, using a variety of Greek texts, correctly identified the apostle in Romans 16:7 as a female although he used the variant name “Julian” (Julia).22

Erasmus deserves a good share of the credit for bringing Junia’s name to light. Erasmus produced a landmark Greek version of the New Testament in 1516. Erasmus was at the forefront of a movement to study the original languages. Their slogan was, Ad fontes! (To the sources!).23 He used the Textus Receptus to identify the apostle of Romans 16:7 as Junia, prominent female apostle. Erasmus used Greek sources rather than corrupt Latin texts. He notes that “Julian” in the Latin Vulgate should read “Junia”. He noted that Paul gave the woman “Julia” her own place later in Romans 16. Erasmus also adds a postscript to the 1527 translation that a very old codex provided by the Church of Constance that agreed with the Greek manuscripts that he had consulted in Romans 16:7. For the next 250 years, variations of the Textus Receptus were the standard Greek sources of the Bible.

Martin Luther, the Reformer, was a contemporary of Erasmus and said that women had wide hips. God created them that way because they belonged at home. Luther ignored Erasmus’s Greek translation and chose the male name, “den Juniam”. Later, Luther embellished this view in his letters to the Romans by claiming that Romans 16:7 said, “Greet Andronicus and Junias of the Junian Family, men of note among the apostles.24

The effect of Luther’s mistaken reading of Junia’s name multiplied over time. John Thorley, British scholar, says that subsequent translations of Romans leaned on the masculine interpretation of Junia’s name because of Luther’s influence, which is why the male name cropped up again in English translations in the 1800’s.25

Here is what apparently caused Junia’s disappearance during modern times. Publishers of standardized Greek texts that were used by ministers and scholars included the female name from 1898 to 1920. In 1927, the International Nestle Translation committee arbitrarily changed it to a man’s name, Junias, with no notes of explanation. The men suffered from textual deafness. They could not believe that a woman could have been an apostle.

The text of 1 Timothy 2:12 is often used to bar women from public ministry because they are supposedly more easily deceived than men and susceptible to false teaching. Yet, in Romans 5, Paul says that it was Adam. He blames Adam for the fall in the Garden and says that sin entered the world through one man. He goes on to explain that Adam gets the blame even though Eve sinned first because Eve was deceived but Adam was not deceived. He had been forewarned and still chose to do wrong.

How could Paul be disbarring women from ministry in 1 Timothy when he openly commends Lois and Eunice for teaching Timothy? Men of quality are not threatened by women of equality.

Flawed women are loved by a flawless God who puts them up front. Flawed men are loved by a flawless God and He puts them up front. Men have been guilty of prooftexting and using the scripture to “Bible Belt”, “Jesus Jam”, and as a “Paper Pope” to pound women into the pavement.

I have noticed that some men refuse to face the truth and become Harry Houdinis of the mind, mental escape artists and are constructing a sui generis interpretation of Romans 16:7 that fits their preconceived bias against women and violates all known rules of Greek grammar. It seems that Giles is still with us.

This was in a comment on that blog…because Piper and Grudem were teaching that Junia was male and using Epiphanius as their source which was totally refuted by scholarship:

“Grudem and Piper are squirming like a worm in hot ashes for they have no answer to the Greek of Romans 16:7 or to the historical facts that Junia was a female apostle. They cannot refute or dispute Eldon Jay Epp, and they themselves have disowned the Epiphanius reference slouching away in defeat. However, they continue to teach all male leadership so they prefer the tradition of men rather than the inspired timeless truth of God’s Word.”

1 John Piper and Wayne Grudem. “An Overview of Central Concerns” in Recovering Biblical Manhood. (Crossway: Wheaton, Ill., 1991), pp. 79-80 and 479.

The “q” at the end of Junkster stands for “cute”. 🙂

Perhaps the Quasimodo one applies. Definitely quirky. It would be nice to have the powers of Q (though I’d be even more dangerous than he was). I’ll let you decide on quixotic. 🙂

on one’s own initiative (as when a judge issues an order without having a motion before the court asking for one).

The ONLY place “authority” is clearly described in marriage is in 1 Corin 7 and unfortuantly for the comps, it is mutual authority.

Considering your excellent comment, I thought it was the start of Q.E.D. :o)

Thanks, Junster for what you wrote earlier. You are right, though. There are few places comfortable for conservative, orthodox, believers in inerrancy that are egal leaning. We do not fit the either/or mold. Which is plastic fish categories, anyway.

Like dee and deb, I do not like the word, egal at all. But use it for convenience. A believer is to have the indwelling Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ as their authority. (and the civil authorities) but no mere human is her authority in marriage or the Body.

I have a ton of comp friends. Many of them acknowledge some of the points but still think it is a big sin to believe in mutual submission as Eph 5 teaches. It is amazing how well brainwashing works that verse 21 is so ignored.

Recently, a dear comp friend of mine repented for even using the word “complimentarian” to describe herself because of all the errant doctrine (like ESS) and bad behavior associated with it. Read her repentance blog post:

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2010/07/as-christian-women-unite-for-freedom.html

She will be at the Seneca Falls 2 Conference and has written the Afterward to “Quivering Daughters” by Hillary McFarland.

Michael wrote: “I know that Titus 2:5 says that women are to be workers at home, but that might be in contrast to being idle or an idle gossiper at home, as is instructed somewhere else”

“Perhaps we have idolized a lifestyle that is NOT commanded in the New Covenant?”

Lydia, that is PRECISELY it!

What complementarian extremists do is read into a select few texts THEIR OWN culturally contrived, American, middle-class, suburbanite preconceived notions! They automatically associate “workers at home” to mean June Cleaver! They read into Titus 2 an entire set of rules, regulations, and schedules which simply are not there!

The most annoying thing is when they automatically associate any Biblical challenge to their position to mean one is anti-homemaker, anti-mothering, or even anti-submission, which is NOT the case at all.

What’s worse, is when this type of judgmentalism leads to finger pointing and gossip about women or couples who don’t exactly fit their idealized “mold” — the very breed of gossip Titus 2 warns against!

If the argument for Junia being a woman is as strong as argued here, does anyone have a suggestion as to why so many still believe that women are not to serve as bishop, pastor or elder. If Dr. Metzger (sp?), for example, believed that Junia was a woman, did he also believe that women were to be bishops or elders, or was there some other passage that he looked to in deciding that question.

I would be interested in hearing anyone’s thoughts.

Thanks for the correction.

“2) Junia was noted as an apostle, but I believe it is fair to suggest that there clearly is a distinction between women holding certain roles of prominence, and women actually being “ordained” pastors…”

Is our concept of “ordination” a tradition or biblical teaching? Is there a model of ordaining “pastors” in the NT? Honest questions. Because we have systemized most of the NT model which is really an informal organism that is Holy Spirit led.

We have org charts with titles. They had functions.

Radiance,
I can’t speak for evangelicalism as a whole, but what I see around me in general is that most conservative believers would say that only men are supposed to be pastors/elders, but they don’t feel there are any significant restrictions on women in ministry other than that. And they believe that husbands are the head of the household, but in practical terms husbands and wives live as partners and make major decisions together.

I think that full-blown complementarianism is only practiced by a minority, mostly people who are in some sort of “ministry” setting (pastors, staff members, seminary profs, etc.). I also think that, while most of the people in the pews would not affirm full-blown egalitarianism (since it is contrary to what they’ve always been taught), they lives their lives more like egals than comps, both in church functions (though not “offices”) and in family “roles”.

Over time I think the egal viewpoint will be considered more mainstream in evangelicalism, and become seen as more of a secondary or tertiary issue. Except in SB circles, since they have now codified the comp position as part of the BFM and are more committed to it in their seminaries than ever.

But I’m not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, and I can only speak to what I see in my immediate surroundings (family, friends, local churches, and the few blogs I follow).

How would you answer your own question?

Dee,

Well-stated! When I stand before Almighty God and give an account for my life, I want to tell Him that I did my best to use the gifts He gave me to glorify Him. I will NOT be intimidated by the comps and patriarchs who want me to ignore the prompting of the Holy Spirit in my life.

Radiance, the true problem is the inordinate amount of time that is spent on this subject in our churches and para church organizations. Many people are therefore focused more on their spouses and the rules. roles and formulas of comp life than they are on Christ. Many have elevated this to a salvic dcotrine.

This of the Talmudic teachings that must arise from this doctrine: At what age are boys, men and women should not teach them? Why are women missionaries allowed to teach illiterate men on the mission field and that is not unbiblical? (Elisabeth Eliott did this and is a big comp promoter. How can she justify this?) The Talmudic rules are endless due to this errant doctrine.

CBMW is nothing but Talmudic teaching. Even to the point they speculated in an article I read a while back that females will be
submitting to males in heaven! I kid you not. (This is an outgrowth of the ESS errancy. And CBMW reads more Mormon than Christian these days.)

They literally think that focus on their spouse and the comp rules of women teaching men is a virtue of Christianity. Many have made an idol of family and this doctrine. Before you blow a gasket, do not go the other way and think I am saying that family is not important. It is,but Christ is MORE important. Jesus told us this. The old covenant was be fruitful and multiply but the NC is ‘go and make disciples’.

What should I be teaching my daughter? The one anothers that apply to us all and mutual submission of believers? Or submit to her husband only? Should I teach her to love and follow Jesus Christ above all or focus on her husband as her spiritual leader?

I’ll stick with Jesus instead of a human. He left us with the BEST TEACHER yet we keep looking to man. I think that mocks the Holy Spirit.

I totally agree with you Lydia and I find my views far more in line with the “Christians for Biblical Equality” overall–even though I am not exactly calling for women to be pastors and whatnot. I subscribe to their newsletter and even look forward to buying/reading the literature they promote.

I do not approve of the tone the CBMW has set and I do not appreciate the idolatry of “roles” they promote, which seems far more culturally grounded than Biblical. I also not like the fear-mongering they promote about believers expressing even the SLIGHTEST dissent–as if all of us are “militant feminists” simply for challenging a few points of their thinking.

I just wanted to analyze how much influence the CBMW actually has beyond the internet.

I guess at the moment then, my greatest problem with the Reformed community is the lack of prominent, public female leaders, speakers, and thinkers. They don’t have to be “pastors,” but why do only MEN get to speak at conferences such as “Together 4 the Gospel?” Why is it that only MEN are allowed to attend annual “General Assembly” meet-ups, where key decisions are made with regard to the direction of their prospective denominations? Why is it only MEN who are writing on subjects such as Reformed theology, church history, and culture?

Why is that the women’s voices are only relegated to the subject of Titus 2 revivals and feminism bashing? It seems these days the only way for women to have a voice is only if they have “expertise” on the subject of “Biblical Womanhood.”

Why is that we aren’t considered valuable assets and contributors to the OVERALL theological, intellectual, and scholarly discourse?

One more thing, it’s not that there’s a problem with brothers-in-Christ fellowshipping at all…but why can’t they make fraternities of “male-geared” events and conferences on “male-specific” subjects such as Fatherhood, and Marriage from a Husband’s perspective?

Yet the “women-geared” conferences are only on such things!

I don’t appreciate that only MEN are considered the torch-bearers and passers of the “general” subjects like theology and the very GOSPEL itself!

Junkster:

Thanks for your comments. I choose not to use terms like comp..and egal..Those seems very boxy and confining, kind of locking people into one or the other camp. I’m in neither. I’ll continue studying, as I always have, and will remain open to biblical ideas. I confessed that I still have questions regarding some of these passages. But, rest assured, if there are burdens being placed on shoulders, I’m not one who is doing that. I appreciate women’s influence in the church greatly.

Radiance:

Interesting that you mentioned the PCA. Didn’t the PCA essentially put Walker Springs Presbyterian Church in Knoxville, TN on trial for having a woman speaker on a Sunday morning service? I seem to recall that. Do you remember or know anything about that at all. I think they are EPC now.

Also, Tim Keller in NYC at Redeemer (I think) has been very successful in Manhattan reaching that culture. I think that he is PCA. Do they hold to the egal or comp position? Do you know.

Finally, I only saw one attempted answer to my earlier question about Dr. Metzger (sp?) and whether he still held to the view that bishops or elders should be been but that Junia was a female. Only one person responded and that was a guess.

Does anyone know what Dr. Metzger or others like him (hold that Junia was a female apostle, but still see that only men should be bishops or elders) base their thinking on? Dr. Metzger was cited above in an article that was interesting on the question of Junia. I did not know Dr. Metzger, but believe I have read some of his work over the years. The author of that article seemed to give his opinion great weight. Does anyone know the answer to this question?

Thanks.

I concur with Junkster’s assessment. Based on my research and experience, he is correct.

Loui…err anonymous, why don’t you google Metzger and see for yourself? I have no idea and am not sure why whether he is egal or not has any bearing on his scholarship about Junia. There is tons of cognitive dissonance out there.

As a matter of fact, I know one prof at an SBC seminary who knows the comp position is pure hogwash but would never in a million years go public with that thought. There would be no job. Remember Paul Debusman? He had been there for 30+ years, dared to disagree with Mohler and lost his retirement over it!

anonymous:

I briefly heard about some fuss being made over a woman speaker, but didn’t get all the details. It must have been Walker Springs! That’s horrible…I am just thankful that the leading members of *MY* congregation do not reflect the worst elements of “the establishment.”

I believe Keller is like myself, a non-fundamentalist, complementarian-leaner who believes in expanding roles for women in the church and in ministry. If I’m not mistaken, he is at the forefront for pushing for female deaconesses at the PCA General Assembly meetings.

I believe people such as Keller essentially reflect Dr. Metzger’s understanding of the issue as well.

In response to anonymous’s second post:

Thank you for breaking down the essential “state” of the discussion going on in various conservative denominations.

While I am all for loosening up restrictions on women, I don’t believe there needs to be some sort of affirmative-action flavored mentality that we need to have things like “females at the pulpit” just for the sake of having females at the pulpit. Then we risk promoting a reverse sense of awkwardness and artificiality where everyone becomes overly self-conscious about “whether there is a woman at the helm” or “whether there are enough women in the mix” — when really we should just encourage an environment where both men and women *NATURALLY* participate together and where individuals considered for leadership positions should be measured on the basis of their qualifications and gifts, not their sex.

All I am hoping for is just a general, loosened-up mentality with regard to gender period. I suppose one of the reasons why I personally am not “fiercely” egalitarian is because I have been blessed with having pastors who are very respectful of women, who do not promote an “all boys club” mentality and who aren’t obsessing over things like “oh no, a woman’s teaching men theology!” I have also benefitted from mixed Bible studies, and have even experienced “women’s” Bible studies that were challenging and stimulating, rather than centered on a shallow and narrow Titus 2-based focus.

What I do not appreciate, is that these are the exceptions and not the rule, and that the “public” face of the Reformed movement does not reflect the realities of many much smaller congregations. I worry that if enough of the “big-name” personalities expand their influence, dominate intra-denominational discussion, and have their way, more and more of the congregations will feel *pressured* to follow suit — and in the wrong direction.

I am pleased that open-minded, forward-thinking figures such as Tim Keller, at the very least, have a good amount of influence in the PCA. Keller seems to strike that balance of offering his voice without seeking to become “celebrified.” God has really blessed his ministry, which has reached a lot of “unlikely” converts in the thick of New York City!

“I couldn’t agree more. It really irks me that women have only women’s based conferences and never in depth theological lectures.” ~ dee

Well stated. I don’t know why this already isn’t so? It’s unBiblical when you consider the subjects Moses, the prophets, Jesus and Paul spent THE VAST MAJORITY of their time covering when addressing both men AND women!

Zoning in on subjects such as “Waiting for ‘Mr. Right’ from a ‘godly’ perspective” or “How to glorify God in my singleness” or “Homemaking 101” or “Evil Feminists” can end up seeming rather indulgent. Narrowing the focus of our faith through such lenses promotes such a hopelessly parochial and provincial view of life and the world, which does little to distinguish us from our Mormon or unbelieving counterparts. (The latter who often approach the questions of this life with far more depth!)

Not only that, but it ultimately promotes an air of self-righteousness and a sense of petty victimhood. The focus ultimately ends up being about achieving “self-validation” in our “mean and cruel” culture of “godless feminists,” who get “all the praise.”

Even the aesthetics of some of these “women’s ministry” websites bother me: the stereotypically “feminine” background designs of heart shapes, flowers, and frills, the perky photography, etc…There’s nothing wrong about all of this. I am sure GOD blesses and honors these types of ministries, which probably edify a great deal of many women…

But to me, they promote a false picture of the kind of Christianity Jesus and his followers demonstrated. Rick Frueh, put it in his critique of American Evangelicalism:

“Instead of a redemptive slaughterhouse, we have become a museum for the approval of the righteous…We spend much energy to project an image of wholeness and perfection, believing that is what attracts sinners. But most times that is exactly what drives sinners away…”

We have hung drapes of morality that keeps the light of redemption from shining through and opening the hearts of the lost. Many people feel the necessity to get cleaned up before they can even consider becoming a believing follower of Jesus Christ, and we have encouraged that perception by the clean and pristine image projected by our spiritual communities. Sinners, demonstrative and open sinners, were drawn to Christ in His incarnation, and yet we continue to be aloof and insulated in our micro-communities of conservatism, moral causes, and our assembly lines to church membership.

But the process of redemption has always been messy. Think on the cross and see the gruesome visage and scarlet body, hanging and writhing in agony over the soiled landscape beneath this figure draped in horror. There is nothing antiseptic here, nothing that presents a neat, little package waiting to be opened beneath Rockwell’s Christmas tree.”

___________________

What some Evangelicals have done, is merely “Christianized” the OPRAH phenomenon.

I believe by emphasizing things like serious study of the Word, investigating theology, and boldly engaging the culture while navigating through all the beautiful yet often painful complexities of our fallen world–> then so many women won’t feel dependent on the next conference or the latest Christian Oprah to help them feel better about their lives!

Our minds and hearts would be so invested and focused on BIGGER and BETTER things and realities. Changing our focus would help make us stronger CHRISTIANS and therefore better wives, better mothers, better neighbors, better humanitarians, better evangelists, better scholars, better professionals, BETTER WOMEN.

Radiance, you would benefit from Carolyn Custis James,another “comp” who is also a theologian. Her books, When Life and Beliefs Collide and her “Gospel of Ruth” are excellent.

Years ago, I interacted with Frueh on Slice and found he was very patriarchal. To the point that he chided some women for daring to “teach” on blogs. I still agree with his quote.

Just wanted to share this link which shows that Redeemer Presbyterian Church (Tim Keller) has both deacons and deaconesses.

http://www.redeemer.com/care/diaconate/

Dee,

Thank you for such a great compliment. Sometimes I feel like I come across harsh, so to say I’m not threatening is very much appreciated. I guess I mirror the attitude of those to whom I’m responding, and I detect in you an attitude of humility and openness.

I am open to deepening my study of this topic. I’ve never really done an exhaustive study on this, so I can’t speak with authority on it.

Radiance,

Good comments and it’s great to be brought back to what is really important. I agree with you. While John is in the Bible, so is Timothy and Titus and should not be diminished because something else is more important. Sharing the gospel and living out the character of Christ is not mutually exclusive with topics or the administration and order of the church.

Lastly, regarding everyone selling all their possessions and sharing everything, this passage is certainly historical, but not necessarily instructional. It doesn’t tell us that we should do that. The result was that they lost power and were greatly persecuted and poor after that. If they had kept their possessions and shared, they might have helped more people.

Junkster, Lydia, others,

I’k like to read your thoughts regarding where you think authority does exist. Does the Father have authority regarding Jesus? Does Jesus have authority over man? over Satan? Does a boss have authority over an employee? Does a parent have authority over children? Do believers have authority over the sprit world, demons and angels? I look forward to your response.

“I Tim 3 (I think) is probably the cleanest way to go for comps”

But it does not say that women cannot be elders. Just a man with more than one wife. Your interpretation would mean that single men would be questionable, too. And we have that pesky problem with Junia being a female apostle (small a). And we know for a fact that women can be deacons because Pheobe was described as such and also a “protastis”.

It really is not clean. Especially with the “likewise” in there.

Thanks for a lot of great information regarding one side of the debate. Just with one reading, I think I could poke about ten holes in the conclusions reached. I just don’t have the time or energy now, I’m on vacation. Maybe I will over time, when I have the time. But I do appreciate reading this view, so, don’t get me wrong, because I would be equally sceptical of the other side of the debate, understanding politics of the church the way I do. I’d look forward to poking holes in that side of the debate as well.

I understand the politics behind translating. That’s why NIV is such a crappy translation, because of so much doctrinal bias.It’s so obvious.

And one could easily say the same thing about the author of this long post. It would be interesting to know his biases. I’ve heard and read way too many people who slanted information in favor of their own bias beliefs, leaving out objective information that they knew, but conveniently left out.

Just for objectivity sake, would you also post someone who strongly disagrees with this last point of view, who is credible. There must be someone, since he admits the committee was split on the issue. Junias may have won out because of more votes, but I have to believe that someone on that committee had valid reasons, not political ones, for voting the way he did.

Thanks, again, for the good information.

Lydia,

Thank you for continuing to post, because the logic of your arguments are falling apart at the seams.

My wife, who does work at home, went on a mission trip to Romania and last year to Mexico, traveling to various cities, laying hands on the sick, casting out demons, sharing the gospel, etc. Does that mean she DOESN’T work at home when she’s not on a mission trip. By your logic, that would be the case. You don’t have exhaustive information about Jonanna to know whether she did or did not work at home. Talk about a problem with proof texting.

A couple of obvious places are when the translators chose the term, “sin nature,” as opposed to the, “flesh”. This sounds like FBC from anywhere doctrine, which wrongly teaches that we have two natures, the sin nature and the new nature. The next poor translation is in Romans 6:1 where NIV asks, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” Compare that to NASB which asks, “Are we to continue IN SIN that grace so that grace may increase?” There’s a huge difference between asking the question if we are to continue to sin rather than continue in the state of being, “in sin,” which is what the context provides surrounding this verse. Then it says, may it never be, how shall who died to sin still live IN IT. We are in Christ, the second Adam. Don’t get me started, Dee, I could fill up this page on why this difference is so important.

Let me just say this, You can’t tell believers that they’re sinners, then tell them to not sin. They would be acting against their natures. You have to let them know that they are slaves of righteousness, with new natures, and then tell them to go act righteously, in accordance with that nature.

Having said that, maybe I was a little too emphatic of my criticism of the NIV.

Dee,

I agree with you that we have challenges in interpreting the scriptures in light of cultural differences, etc. But I simply asked a few questions what people thought in light of scripture. I mean we all come down on these issues somewhere, even though they’re hard.

I could have given the same answer when asked by you and Lydia my thoughts on authority in the home and in the Body. Reading your answer to me, am I to believe that since it’s hard to interpret, the questions you all posed me are indeterminable? If not, I’d like to read your thoughts to the questions I’ve asked. Thanks.

I’m responding to my own post because my first sentence was just rude. I’m sorry, Lydia.

Michael,
I agree that “sinful nature” is a poor translation of “flesh”. I understand why the NIV translators chose it — they wanted to avoid people erroneously concluding that it is our physical flesh that is the source of sin. So they went with a term intended to convey something about the inner proclivity of humans towards sin. But their translation lends itself to incorrect conclusions about what “nature” means.

Our nature simply refers to what we are in essence, to what comes “naturally” for us. So, yes, it is a mistake to refer to Christians as having a “sin nature”, but it is also a mistake to refer to them as only having a “new nature”. Our nature encompasses all of what we are, and believers are neither all old nor all new at this point.

That is, while Christians do have a change in essence due to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, they also still have the inclination and proclivity toward sin that they possessed prior to their salvation. So both sin and righteousness are part of our nature; both come naturally to us.

Only through the power of the Spirit are the deeds of the flesh mortified, and only through the power of the Spirit are acts of righteousness performed.