"We are born helpless. As soon as we are fully conscious we discover loneliness…" CS Lewis –Transposition and Other addresses
Artist rendition of Kepler 11 if the Constellation Cygnus-NASA
“It was very therapeutic to write about this “ So began this gentleman’s email to TWW. Coincidentally or rather, providentially, this communication arrived just as we were beginning our series on the book, Spiritual Abuse Recovery. We immediately saw a correlation to the post on the importance of blogging in recovery. We decided to post the story at this juncture and will continue the review of the book tomorrow.
The word, “therapeutic,” jumped out at us. You see, this man went through a painful process at his church. The very act of writing it down helped him to process the events that occurred, analyze his reactions and thoughts and outline the steps he made towards removing himself from the situation. He is now sharing his journey with our blogging community with the hope that his insights might help others better understand how to react to, as well as avoid, struggles in church.
Although he did not use the word "abuse," we believe in the old adage, "if the shoe fits…." It shows how a pastor, intent on pursuing a selfish agenda, can deeply wound people and destroy a church.This story is told entirely in the author's own words. This is posted anonymously but TWW knows his identity. We are deeply grateful that he would share his experience in such a transparent manner. Thank you! You are a compelling writer!
Also, if you, dear reader, would like to share your story at TWW, just shoot us an email. We are always looking for real life stories, opinions, etc. God gave you unique experiences and insights that would be of help to your brothers and sisters. As you can see from this story, we are happy to keep your identity anonymous.
His Story
A few things before I begin. This article is not about Calvinism (in any of its names or aliases), the doctrine of Young Earth Creationism, Inerrancy of Scripture or any of the myriad of other theological beliefs we Christians like to get wrapped around the axel on. As Deb and Dee are fond of saying, these are “B” issues as opposed to “A” issues like Jesus was the Son of God, or By Him alone through Grace alone are we saved. As “B” issues they should be the subject of debate, and yes, even disagreement. This article is about what can happen in a church when communication breaks down and when belief and acceptance of “B” issues are held to be as important or even more important as the “A’s”.
It all started with the loss of a very well thought of (at least by me) Pastor in our Southern Baptist church. This Pastor had been at the church for many years and had taken over the job when his predecessor left a few years before. I even credit the guy with helping save my marriage, as he provided counseling to my wife and I when we entered a very rough patch. Simply put it was sinfulness on his part that led to his resignation. The particulars are not important, but he did do the right thing, he resigned. Whether he really had much of a choice is a matter for debate but the result was the same, the church was Pastor-less and wounded.
Following the church’s charter a pastor search committee was appointed and the church spent the next two years wandering in the wilderness. Many of those that hadn’t left in protest over the matter of the previous pastor started to leave due to the church being leaderless for such a long period of time. I confess that I wanted to be among them but at the urging of my wife (who was baptized there) we stuck it out. Misery loves company and we became very close to the remaining families.
Finally we had a ray of hope. Someone had expressed interest in the pastor position and was willing to accept the somewhat meager pay and compensation package the church could afford to pay. With so many people gone over the past few years, the church’s revenues were a fraction of what they were and ours was a high cost of living area. What was going on behind the scenes was that things were getting desperate. I truthfully think that at this point they would have considered just about anyone for the job. The desperation would prove disastrous.
The interview process went well from what we were told. This gentleman, while middle aged, was fresh from seminary graduation. He had a number of young children which was something our congregation needed. (Prior to his arrival my kids were about the only ones around and we had no youth program or any young people to speak of.) His seminary, while not Southern Baptist, was a respected Baptist one. He sent tapes of some sermons he had preached which illustrated his thorough preaching of the Word. There were no readily apparent red flags. We extended an invitation for him to come and preach en-lieu of a call.
His sermons didn’t set the world on fire for me but I could not detect anything wrong with them. They were biblically accurate and a bit dry. I chalked it up to him being new to the job. This was an excuse that I would use quite a bit over the following year. We had a question answer session with him and again no red flags were raised. Looking back they were mostly softball questions about things like what kind of music would be played on Sunday (a constant argument) or the future of the Sunday school program (a big deal to Southern Baptists).
I honestly did not think or even know to ask questions about the doctrines of Grace, Reformation theology, what Biblical Inerrancy really means or any of a multitude of subjects that would later become big issues. These topics were never brought up to the congregation. The big secret, I found out later, was that some of them had been discovered by the pastor search committee. I don’t think these folks were being deliberately deceptive. I think they just weren’t all that clear on what these issues meant and didn’t think they were very important. After all, he was a likeable guy and could put you at ease when talking to him. He was qualified and willing to take the job at what we could afford to pay. Like I said earlier, things were desperate.
And so it began and so did the griping. “He prays too long…..He preaches too long……We don’t sing enough hymns …..We don’t sing enough praise music…etc.” Truth was he did pray and preach for long periods of time but he’s new at this! We need to give him a chance; I would tell anyone who would listen.
He and his wife were about the only ones in the church close in age to my family. We were invited to dinner in short order. Our kids could play and we could talk. This is where my wife and I started to notice things. First, his wife waited on him and the kids hand and foot. I was beginning to wonder if I would have to leave her a tip. He also kept looking at my wife strangely whenever she would try to talk as if she were interrupting. Stuff like that. Well to each his own we thought. They seem happy together. Maybe we just imagined it.
An inordinate amount of time was spent during sermons talking negatively about other denominations and even other churches. Our kids were in Scouts together and he and I were teaching the kids about maps by looking at our town one evening. Pointing to a Presbyterian church on the map he states “Here kids. This is a place where they don’t follow God.” When I called him on the carpet about it he simply stated they have a woman pastor and that the church had once played host to an inter-faith service as if that explained everything. Now I personally prefer a man as a pastor and I’m not sure about the wisdom of having an Imam or a Rabbi speaking in my church but I don’t think we’re on the highway to hell if there’s a woman in the pulpit and we attempt to reach out to other faiths.
Several of the older folks complained to him about a myriad of issues. Personally I thought they were being very picky about things but they complained anyway. It’s every pastor’s job to deal with those types of things in a gracious and loving manner. Instead, they wound up being used as examples in a sermon. They left the church.
He quotes A LOT of Christian authors in his sermons. People I was not all that familiar with like R.C. Sproul. He also began preaching on topics like the Five "Solas." He started a blog and put a link to it on the church’s website. In his blog he would expound on things like Reformation theology and how he adhered to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 and the doctrines of Sovereign Grace. He would have some interesting FaceBook postings on subjects like congregationalism and church discipline. Now I’ve attended church pretty much my whole life but had never heard of many of these things and the ones I had heard of I’d never really taken the time to know what they meant. Thinking I was missing something I started doing research and shortly thereafter started getting concerned.
Just to make sure I wasn’t going off the deep end and seeing things that weren’t there I went to speak with one of our senior deacons. A man I highly respected who had helped hold the church together during our pastor-less days and who had served on the pastor search committee. I laid it all out. Things I had seen, heard and learned over the past months. “Oh we knew about the Calvinism thing and some of that other stuff…” he tells me explaining that he had even spoken with some of the faculty at the pastor’s seminary to confirm it. “It’s really not all that big a deal…” or words to that effect. I was astonished and said so. “Trust me. He (the pastor) won’t do or say anything unless it’s scriptural.” In other words your concerns are groundless and the pastor is doing the Lord’s work. Shut up and color. I suck at that. Ask my wife.
Now I’m on guard. Well, if you have differences with another Christian you’re supposed to talk it out. I go to the Pastor, repeatedly, and layout my concerns. Every time I walk away feeling like he heard me and understood. It took a few months to realize I was being played. I’ve got to hand it to him; he’s a silver tongued devil. He would tell me just what I needed to hear to mollify me. I’m not easily played but I confess I’ve meet my match.
Next comes the great Young Earth Creationism debate. Now this subject I was somewhat familiar with in that I have known Christians that believed in the whole six literal days and calculated the age of the Earth based on the genealogies of the Old Testament. I always found the debate amusing and not really of great importance having never had a real opinion either way. I was of the “I don’t really know how long ago it was or how exactly dinosaurs fit into it. I just know God made the whole thing” way of thinking. I suspected the world was a little older than 4000 years though. Science may be Godless sometimes but I don’t think it’s inherently evil. I think God gave us brains and curiosity to discover for ourselves how his universe works. Turns out these are dangerous thoughts to have around some Christians these days.
So the pastor announces that we (our church) will be hosting a Creation Science video conference from a great organization called Answers in Genesis. This will be a wonderful event and you are all encouraged to attend. Bear in mind that none of the other church leadership was even consulted about it. Back to the internet I go. Now for those of you not familiar with the folks from Answers in Genesis they are of course Young Earth in their belief but they take it a step or two beyond. They see disbelief in a young Earth as disbelief in the Bible. If you disbelieve in God’s words then there is something wrong with your faith. You may not even be a true Christian. This sentiment was echoed by the pastor to one of the deacons when he was questioned on it. FYI this particular deacon is an organic chemist by trade and took a rather dim view of this narrow interpretation of scripture. His faith was questioned by the pastor over the issue. He along with another long time deacon resigned over the affair.
A formal plea was made to the remaining deacons in an effort to stop the conference. Many members thought it to be tantamount to endorsement by our church of this belief to have the conference in our facility. The pastor assured me personally that the Answers in Genesis folks never disparage anyone for not believing in a young Earth. This was of course a boldfaced lie and yet another attempt to mollify me. Several folks told the pastor they were upset enough by this situation to leave the church. The conference went on anyway. This illustrated two things to me. One the pastor was willing to be deceitful to further his ends. Two he was willing to sacrifice any member of the church on the altar of his own agenda.
It was time to leave. My wife and I wrestled over that decision for months. Eventually it came down to our children. Seems the pastor had taken it upon himself to purge the church library of thousands of dollars of books and Sunday school materials that he deemed biblically inaccurate. These were to be replaced with “acceptable accurate material” as determined by him. He took a keen interest in the children’s material especially. Its bad enough we have to deprogram our kids from some of the things they learn in public school. Now we have to do it with the things they learn at church. That was the last straw. There was one last thing to do before we go.
Most Southern Baptist churches have a personnel committee which often holds the power to hire and fire church personnel. Several of us wrote letters. I can’t speak for the others but my letter did not specifically call for the pastor’s firing. My fondest wish was to see the situation corrected and for us all to move on in Faith. The committee of course showed concern and assured us they would take care of the situation. The pastor got a very stern talking to I’m told. Good thing they didn’t put him in a timeout. Sheesh!!! We left along with several long time members others.
The church today is a shadow of its former self. Attendance, which at one time numbered in the hundreds, is counted by the tens now. The financial pages have way more red ink than black. The church is very much like the Church at Laodicea in Revelation. Dead and dying. The pastor continues like he did before. Friends of mine who refused to leave the church hoping to outlast him say that he’s attempted to pack the deacons with “his” people without them being voted on by the congregation. This is in direct violation of the church charter. When someone calls him on it he claims he wasn’t aware of that rule. One would think that he would have read the governing document of the church he leads.
He constantly tries to do end runs around that charter document. If things don’t go his way in business meetings then he will call a “special” short notice business meeting. He counts on people not showing up and that these meetings and they are heavily attended by “his” people. They will then “reintroduce” the issue and have a vote. Magically things go his way this time. It’s kinda funny but the whole thing reminds me of our federal government sometimes.
He apparently likes to use those of us who left as sermon fodder. We supposedly left because we could not handle hearing the “truth” being preached and we needed to have our “ears tickled”. He’s very two faced though because every time we see him around our small town he’s all hugs and kisses, we miss you and wish you would come back. I generally give him the looks and tone I reserve for politicians and used car salesmen (no offense to used car salesmen). Every week or two we here more stories of people leaving the church and of things that have happened. Some of it may be true some might be embellished a bit. Who knows? There is always more than one side to a story. These days I just shake my head and feel sad. I also thank God that we’re not in the middle of it any more.
Time goes on and so do we. We certainly have not come through this unscathed but we have found a new church that we really like. The kids are very happy there and look forward to attending. More importantly this church’s leadership are Godly Christian people.
It’s funny how God works sometimes. Some things happened when we first started attending there that, had this been our old church would have been swept under the rug or ignored. This is just what I expected to happen and I figured this place would prove to be just another church. Instead it was dealt with in the proper Christian way and everyone involved has grown closer together because of it. Sometimes God hits you in the head with a bat.
I closing I would like to offer some cheap advice. If your church is in the process of hiring a pastor you must carefully and PRAYERFULLY vet the person BEFORE he or she is hired. One has only to read the Wartburg Watch and sites like it to see that guys like this are not at all rare. Seminaries are producing them at what I consider to be an alarming rate.
Once again it’s not the theology that the problem, it’s the attitude that adherence to those theologies is necessary to being a good Christian. These types of pastors see themselves as being on a mission from God to purify His church of 50 years of “liberal” teachings and to a certain extent they have a point. Modern evangelicals do tend to gloss over the thornier aspects of Christianity (the hard parts like dealing with sin and God’s judgment and wrath) so that everyone feels good and so we’re “inclusive”. Sometimes we do this to the point that we water down Christianity. In that aspect there is nothing wrong with getting back to the fundamentals of Gods kingdom BUT we don’t have to become Puritans to do it. Besides, I would look terrible in one of those hats! God Bless!
Lydia's Corner: Numbers 10:1-11:23 Mark 14:1-21 Psalm 51:1-19 Proverbs 10:31-32
Thank you for sharing this story. It is very sad when pastors must walk over others to promote a personal agenda of secondary issues over love.
“It’s kinda funny but the whole thing reminds me of our federal government sometimes.”
The only difference between the Government now and most Southern Baptist is;
The Government use a gun for power and control, the Baptist use God and the Bible!
I really enjoyed reading this testimony!
Another red flag is changing the By-Laws of the church. It seems to be a trend…
I just had to share this link and an excerpt that I received from a buddy this morning.
http://thin-edge.org/2007/09/30/what-does-a-shepherd-look-like/
And I think about the people we DO call “pastor” who have such a narrowly defined role that it makes me wonder if they truly qualify as God’s shepherds: their “ministry” primarily consists of preparing lengthy, detailed speeches to be delivered two or three times a week, like clockwork, to their “flock” (who, by the way, have to come to them to be fed). I’m thinking of a number of men in particular, though there are probably many more, who spend most, if not all, their time cloistered in a room filled with books, preparing sermons and writing books. They spend virtually no time with their flocks: they get others to do that sort of thing. They do not visit church members or visitors in their homes, workplaces, or hospital rooms. They do not offer pastoral counseling, marriage counseling, or perform weddings and funerals. If you telephone their office, they would probably treat it as an interruption of their time, and if you do manage to corner them after a Sunday morning meeting, they’re continually looking at their watches or staring across the room, as if they’re really quite uncomfortable and “out of their element” without a set of notes in front of them telling them what to say. They may be quite prominent as conference speakers and as published authors, and everyone introduces them as the “pastor” (meaning “shepherd”) of a local church.
And I’m thinking, “No, they’re not pastors!” A more apt mental picture (for me) would be more along the lines of someone who cooks your food at a hospital cafeteria; or a carvery chef at a buffet-style restaurant; or even a professional chef who gets paid serious money, like Jeff Smith (The Frugal Gourmet) or Wolfgang Puck or Gordon Ramsey (Hell’s Kitchen) or Emeril Lagasse. Whether it’s creating tasteless gruel or exquisite culinary delicacies, these chefs get paid to prepare food.
But you know what? Even if I spend a fortune as a weekly customer in one of Emeril’s restaurants and convince all my friends to do the same thing, it doesn’t mean he loves me or cares about me or rings me on my home phone if I miss a week. No, it’s all about creating unusual food combinations that rocket his celebrity status to the top of the charts. It’s not really about making friends and building life-long relationships, unless you happen to be his financial advisor. And he’s not going to visit me in the hospital or encourage me when life sucks: it’s just not his job.
But the pastor, that’s a different story isn’t it? Or is it? Is he really a shepherd, expected to spend lots of time with the sheep, or is it just his job to shovel food into the trough, expecting the scattered sheep to find their way to it? Does he know the sheep by name, like Jesus does? Does he care for them when they’re hurting or frightened or sick? Or is it someone else’s responsibility? Would he sacrifice himself to protect them from savage wolves, or is it their job to defend themselves based on a speech they vaguely remember hearing three years ago?
I recently saw something on another site re. a letter that a (now-former) Vineyard pastor received from another Vineyard pastor… there are eerie echoes of this story in the letter, as well as a very sarcastic reference to “sheep that bite back.”(We all know what a problem they are, right?)
I’m glad the writer and his family have moved on and are doing OK, but this sis such a painful story – the “pastor” literally laying waste to a church. (Meaning the people who used to be members; not the building.)
Is there no process of appeal within the SBC for abuses like the ones the writer tells of? (I’m a Lutheran – pardon my ignorance! ;))
Numo
There is a double standard in the SBC. All churches are supposedly independent.
However, the SBC threw a church out of the convention that had a female pastor. But, they appear to not give a hoot about abusive pastors or pedophiles.
Dear Whomever Wrote the Story Above,
I am so glad you and your family are out. Thirty years ago I wouldn’t have thought “normal” Christians would ever end up being abusive control freaks. But as you and I are finding, that’s a lot more common than I used to think. (Shouldn’t they have to wear a badge that says, “Warning: I am going to try to control they way you think”?)
Btw, you’re a good writer. Thanks for sharing your story.
Stunned
Deb said, “Another red flag is changing the By-Laws of the church. It seems to be a trend.”
Please be praying for my church. The three elders are in the process of making what I consider to be a significant change but they are not discussing it with the congregation, nor are they even going to tell anyone. It’s just going to be something they do and hope no one notices. It is breaking my heart. It is the first church that I was able to attend after a few years of going nowhere after my uber abusive SGM church. It took years for me to trust again but now this change is being made to the governing structure of the church and most people in the church are young (a lot younger than me) and I just don’t think they get the weight of it. And it is breaking my heart. And I am struggling with what to say and what not to say. And there is a small chance that maybe the elders will NOT end up changing things.
And one of the elders wrote to me and it’s time for me to discuss this with him. And it is very upsetting because I shake just writing what I am writing to you guys so I don’t trust myself to not go ape-crazy when I talk to them about it. I still lead my homegroup but I haven’t been able to go to a Sunday service since mid- December since I found out what they were planning on doing. (My best friend wrote me a note during the service that yes, they were probably going to go through with their change and I got up right there in the middle of the sermon and walked out. I felt like I couldn’t hold the tears back and that I was going to be sick.)
So whenever I read someone saying that changing by laws is a red flag, well, it just confirms this horrible fear I have for my church and the young people in it. I feel sick. Please pray. My best friend is meeting with one of the elders again tonight.
Thank you,
Stunned
Stunned,
I will be keeping you and your church in my prayers. Secrecy is also a red flag for me.
Dee,
You beat me in your response to numo. “Autonomous” is the operative word in the SBC.
Stunned:
I feel your pain. It’s twice as hard when they are both secrative and doing something that might be wrong and it effects a lot of people.
Please step back and assess, as reasonably as you can, the level of influence you have there. If you’re in an environment where they are not gathering or building consensus, then you may be in an environment where they don’t really care what you or someone else thinks. If that’s the case, the more involved you get, the more pain you and your family will experience. Please, be wise.
After we got too involved in our last church and found out what a liar the pastor was and manipulative he and the deacons were, we declared that we no longer have allegiance to a church. Our allegiance is to God, then to our family. We will be a part of the community of believers, but we will not be involved in the politics of the church, their realm of perceived authority. It’s brought great freedom to us. God can deal with them.
“Many of those that hadn’t left in protest over the matter of the previous pastor started to leave due to the church being leaderless for such a long period of time.”
This is the root of the problem. The leader of the body of Christ is Christ. but we continue to look to mere humans who are paid to ‘lead’ us. Why is it, we cannot fathom that mature believers, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, can meet and worship God, study together, etc without a paid professional leading them? Why do we think this way? Scripture does not teach this. Scritpure points out “mature believers” who oversee things. But even then, not all NT churches had elders. Some did not have them for many years and yet stayed together. We do not even know the name of one pastor in the NT.
We need to start with ourselves and why we believe what we do about church structure and polity. WE ARE the priesthood. I wish more folks would understand this and we could get rid of the authoritarian jerks who are in it for their own ego and to control people.
When will we realize that people do not grow and develop their spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit in these type of environments. No one will grow past the leader…because if they did, they would leave. They could not stand it and could not stand not seeing people mature in the faith and pastor others along. (Pastoring is a function. Not an office and there can be many pastors in the body. It is not man made tradition of pastor we think of today)
That guy deceived people….on purpose…to gain control. The only way this works is if people have been taught to follow man.
Michael,
Excellent advice you provided Stunned. Thanks!
Lydia,
I would quite agree with you that we (Christians) don’t need a pastor to enter into communion with Christ. I believe in the preisthood of believers as well which is one of the ways that Protestants differ from Catholics (thank you Martin Luther). I also agree we should be on guard for those that follow man and not Christ. I would however disagree with the idea that church leaders are not necessary. I’ve spent many years in the military and as you might imagine have endured lots of training and education on leadership. One of the things that I’ve learned over the years is that there are primarily two types of leaders in any group. Formal leaders (people officially in charge) and informal leaders (people that others in the group look to for guidance). Either way someone leads. Generally groups that lack both kinds of leaders tend to break up. That’s just the way us humans work. No matter what someone’s got to steer the boat. That, I believe is what happened in this church. People want and need structure and direction. When there isn’t any they will go somewhere else to find it.
Stunned
I was talking to my pastor about those of us who have been hurt be churches. he said it is like discovering someone in your immediate family has betrayed you. There are so many clueless pastors and supposed elders out there who have no grasp of this concept. Many are just interested in controlling things. I have often wondered if churches attract the controllers into leadership positions. The qualities that we admire in leaders can be quite destructive when brought into the church.
Think of ti this way. A CEO who rules Exxon with an iron hand cannot be that CEO at home. He must be a dad and husband. The same goes for pastors and elders. The church doesn’t need another Enron self-centered leader. It needs people who act like the Body and listen to the Holy Spirit.
The bylaws thing is a red flag and I would get prepared for more difficulties to come. We will be writing a short series on questions to ask about any church in which you are a member or are considering as a home church. BYlaws figure prominently.
Finally, always keep in mind that we are following Christ, not man. Men will always disappoint us. I am sorry this has to happen to you.
Anonymous
I understand manmade institutions and the concept of leadership. However, how do you perceive the role of the Holy Spirit within the fellowship. Does said Spirit exert any leadership? Does the Holy Spirit show vision only to a senior pastor or could He speak through the janitor? Could it be that our view of leadership is shaped by our culture as opposed to the Bible?
I agree with Lydia. which is the exhortation to mature as believers, not waiting on pastors, leaders, etc., relying on and being led by the Holy Spirit. I also agree with Anonymous, that institutions need leadership.
To clarify, people need the Holy Spirit to lead them, individually, and even corporally. However, when their are leaders and pastors involved as a part of an institutional church, they are not leading men and women as much as they are leading and administering the direction of the institution, ( I like to call it , “the box”). We believers, the true church, then, can make a decision if we want to be involved with “the box,” or not.
Dee,
I guess what I was trying to get across is that there is no such thing as a leaderless group. At least not a large one like a church or one that exists for very long. There will always be someone in a leadership role whether it be formal or informal. In this case the church spent a large amount of time without direction and people left due to the void in leadership. A better way to put that might be a lack of direction.
Anyone could have (and probably did) step in to provide direction and leadership. It should not matter if that person was an ordained pastor or the guy that swept the floors. Lydia is right in that often times we put our faith in men and they invariably disappoint.
All I was trying to say is that a totally leaderless church would not exist for very long because there would be no one to administer and provide direction (by direction I mean set the course, agenda, big picture type stuff. Not give orders. Michael said it very well.)
We all hope an pray to be part of a church where the leaders have been elevated to that position by the Holy Spirit as servant leaders who are attuned to the direction of the Spirit and the needs of the flock. Not their own agendas.
“I’ve spent many years in the military and as you might imagine have endured lots of training and education on leadership. One of the things that I’ve learned over the years is that there are primarily two types of leaders in any group. Formal leaders (people officially in charge) and informal leaders (people that others in the group look to for guidance). Either way someone leads. Generally groups that lack both kinds of leaders tend to break up. That’s just the way us humans work. No matter what someone’s got to steer the boat. That, I believe is what happened in this church. People want and need structure and direction. When there isn’t any they will go somewhere else to find it.”
I know where you are coming from because as a corporate trainer for many years, I did Leadership training all the time. In fact, some of the best trainers I hired came from the military.
The problem I have with your perspective is that as believers we are to be a peculiar people. Not like the world. Not like the “Gentiles who love to lord it over”. We DO have a leader…the BEST ONE…the Holy Spirit. But we have too many people teaching about human leaders who are actually taking over the function of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives.
We have “functions” in the Body and they are not static because we are to mature and grow in Holiness. We have actually adopted the world’s standards for the church…starting in 400 AD and the institutional church reflects the world in whatever century it has been in since.
This is NO such thing as a servant leader. The scripture teaches of servants only. An “overseer” will simply be a mature believer who is the biggest servant of all. They will look more like Matthew 5 than our concept of a “leader”. In fact, after YEARS of following Paul around Timothy had to be given instructions about elder qualifications…why didn’t he know? It was not as common as you think.
“All I was trying to say is that a totally leaderless church would not exist for very long because there would be no one to administer and provide direction (by direction I mean set the course, agenda, big picture type stuff. ”
Jesus Christ has already done that.
Lydia I think we’re argueing semantics here. Let me put it this way. Have you ever been in any kind of organized group that did not have a leader? You use a group of believers as an example. O.K. let’s suppose you have 50 or so believers that meet regularly to pray and preach. There is no pastor or preacher. No elders or deacons. Just a group of Christians that want to fellowship and worship together.
Whether they are officially sanctioned or not; within that group of 50, leaders will rise up. Someone will take it upon themselves to help organize the group. They will collect and organize contact info. Find a place to meet. Make sure everyone know what time the group will get together. Someone else will help come up with things for the group to discuss or study. Another will oversee the finances if there are any. Still another will volunteer to do music or to give a talk maybe even preach a sermon. Those people are leaders whether they were appointed or not. Not everyone will do those things. In fact the people that do these things will be the in minority and the majority will simply attend.
That miniority of people are leaders and servants at the same time. If you want to use the term “overseer” instead of “leader” that’s fine but it amounts to the same thing.
Romans 12:6-8: Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; HE WHO LEADS, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.
Thanks Michael. That’s all I was trying to say. That should settle it.
“That miniority of people are leaders and servants at the same time. If you want to use the term “overseer” instead of “leader” that’s fine but it amounts to the same thing.”
Not at all. We have a perception of leadership that does not match the “servant” teaching of the New Covenant. The ONLY power a servant has in the Body of Christ is from the Holy Spirit. They do not have authority over people. They model maturity because they ARE spiritually mature and HOPE that others surpass them.
Jesus said:
10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (Matt 23)
As to “leaders” rising up within the Body of believers to organize the group and collect info. Sounds like the definition of the typical secretary of the Sunday School class. I have met many who would not fall under the typical definition of “leader” as we understand it.
I would check the Greek on “leader” in Romans. It does not mean what you think it means. A better translation would be “one who provides for others” or “gives aid”.
Why didn’t Jesus describe below these persons as “leaders”?
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20: 20-28
He described them as “servants”.
Perhaps if we started calling it what it is, we would not have so much spiritual abuse.
The Matthew passage is dealing with attitude, not function. Someone can function as a leader and have the attitude of a servant. The perfect example of that would be Jesus. His attitude was that of a servant and He, and later Paul in Romans, tells us to have this same attitude. However, Jesus was a leader, no doubt, as some of us obviously are.
“I would check the Greek on “leader” in Romans. It does not mean what you think it means. A better translation would be “one who provides for others” or “gives aid”.
He who leads – Romans 12:8
Greek – proistemi
Vines – lit. “to stand before” hence “to lead, to direct, attend to, rule” to preside, to maintain.
Thayer’s Lexicon – 1. to set, place before; to set over. 2. a. to be over, to superintend, preside over, rule b. to be a protector, guardian; to give aid c. to care for, give attention to
So, I think Lydia chose the definition that suits her theology the closest, but the definition she uses is not the preferred one and not the literal meaning. It literally means “to stand before,” and the definitions are expounded from there, based on context. Vines refers to the Romans passage and says it means, “are over,” and Thayers, “protect, be guardian over, give aid, and rule.”
“To stand before,” does not mean to stand behind, to stand below, kneel below, or anything else.
“Perhaps if we started calling it what it is, we would not have so much spiritual abuse.”
Right, we should call leadership what it is; “leadership,” not servanthood. Call servanthood, “servanthood.” Abuse happens just as often when people try to interpret scripture to meet their theology, instead of making their theology conform to what the scripture actually means.
Finally, the fact that there are leaders in the world and in the church is intuitive and, frankly, indisputable. But, leadership, by definition, does not imply lording over or dominating, or controlling others. It does not imply abusive behavior. I think that most people understand what you’re referring to, Anonymous, when you say your church was without leadership for a time, although Lydia’s points are well-taken regarding the need for believers to mature and be lead by the Holy Spirit.
“Abuse happens just as often when people try to interpret scripture to meet their theology, instead of making their theology conform to what the scripture actually means”
Which brings me to your quoting Vines/Thayers. We have to look at “stand before” as to what it meant in Greek in the 1st Century. I do note that Archon or Exousia was not used…both clear Greek to denote authority or rule. “Stand before” denotes one who has “been there, done that”. An example…a model.
If these “servants” were leaders then why isn’t every single letter addressed to them since they are the “leaders” of the Body? We know that some of the churches did not even have elders for a long time such as Corinth.
“The Matthew passage is dealing with attitude, not function”
In the Body of Christ, there is a difference? No, Jesus Christ specifically called them SERVANTS. And He was speaking of Apostles!
Are you claiming that elders are “leaders” but the Apostles were “servants”?
“So, I think Lydia chose the definition that suits her theology the closest, but the definition she uses is not the preferred one and not the literal meaning.”
And I could claim the same for you since you believe in male supremacy and are not a mutualist.
Lydia:
“And I could claim the same for you since you believe in male supremacy and are not a mutualist.”
You’re incorrect that I believe in male supremacy, but then again, this isn’t the first time you’ve tried to label me incorrectly. Why do you feel the need to label someone something they’re not? Like I wrote earlier, abuse happens when people try to interpret scripture to meet their theology. And you went ahead and proved my point by calling me something I’m not. Thanks.
You are correct that “stand before” denotes a model, because they have been there and done that. You talked earlier about them being more mature. That’s why they lead, or stand before. But it says those who lead, not led; so, they lead, present tense.
“If these “servants” were leaders then why isn’t every single letter addressed to them since they are the “leaders” of the Body? We know that some of the churches did not even have elders for a long time such as Corinth.”
Well, we know that instructions were given to appoint elders, letting us know two obvious things. First, churches were operating without an elder until the elders were appointed. Second, they were instructed to appoint elders, so elders were desired and needed. So, if someone wrote a letter to a church without elders, it would make good sense to write to the whole church. If there was a leader, then it might make good sense to write to him. Bottom line, the author wrote to whomever he wanted to write to, the leader, the church, to suit his purposes, and that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Yes, there is an obvious difference between attitude and function. Leaders and servants are not mutually exclusive. You can be a leader who serves. And you can be a leader who is also a servant. The fact that Jesus called them servants did not prevent them from being other things like, Apostles, disciples, pastors, evangelists, leaders, elders, etc.
Thanks for your encouragement, guys. Off and on I have felt sick to my stomach over this all. Or rather, only sick when I think about it, but better when I don’t.
Michael’s post has given me lots of thought. I am asking God to please lead me in whether I should speak out and share with others (warning people in a way, cause, dang I love so many of the people in this church) or just walk away. Does God want me to speak to the younger people there? (I’m in my 40’s- most of my loved ones there are in their 20’s.) I’ll probably look like a big mouth fool but at least I can walk away knowing I did my best for them. Or do I just walk away quietly, thus still seeming OK, not feeling sick a lot of the time but risk feeling later on down the line that I could have done something to help, at least one of them. I’m normally “for the least of these my breathern” kind fo people but maybe it’s time God wants me to change and know when to walk away.
Anyway, thanks for the prayers and thoughts. I know it’s at least time to talk to the elders. (My best friend has been talking to them about it. They respect him a lot but it isn’t making a dent. I don’t think my opinion would matter at all to the elders at this point- of the three 2 are younger than I am and our pastor is now leaving.) But one wrote to me yesterday to ask what is up so it’s time to talk to them.
Thanks,
Stunned
Well, if the literal is to stand before, then I am a leader in my church. I stand before people and share with them my thoughts. I desire to protect and come to the aid of the lesser people in my church. I have ZERO desire to be called a leader in my church. (Probably because that distinction has come to be associated with such an oddious thing- arrogance. Yuck.)
So after reading what you guys have written above, I am still left with, do I speak to the others who I believe will not trust their own guts or do I trust the Holy Spirit to speak to them cause frankly, he has never needed my help and I feel if anything, I often get in the way.
Let me give you a quick example. Once I was doing something with a cup of oil. My precious five year old son wanted to help. So he ran, got his little cup, filled it with water and ran to bring it to me to add to the oil in order to help me out. (God bless his precious little soul.) He was as earnest as can be and there was nothing more that he wanted in that moment of time than to be a help to his mommy. Now you and I know that water and oil will never mix, no matter how hard we try and that if I had mixed the two, if would have only messed the oil up. We also know that in the bible, oil is often used as a picture of the holy spirit. At that moment when my precious little one was extending his hand up to me, offering me his water, God spoke to me. That I was just like my son. I wanted to come along and help the holy spirit. I was earnest and there was nothing in me at times that had a bad motivation at all. But even in my very best efforts, I was just getting in the way. I could only offer water, when the holy spirit was dealing in and distributing oil. God wasn’t condemning me at all, and if he feels anything for me to the fraction I feel for my boy, His heart is full of love and tenderness to me when I offer Him my best, but really, He doesn’t need it. And if I insist, I think I am just getting in His way.
OK, so maybe that is my answer for now. Maybe I just need to respond to the elder who wrote to me, be honest and open but make sure I am being loving and NOT trying to convict them on my own. Just bring the words and make sure they are full of love. (I guess that means I must remove any remarks about their testicles or lack thereof or removal thereof from the draft email I’ve written.) Send it to them and then walk away with love in my heart and leave it up to God to work it all out.
Stunned
who suspects in one hour she’ll be back to write that maybe, instead, God is calling me to broadcast the change in policy all across the churche’s e-bulletin board. Clearly my mind is not as made up as I wish it to be
Stunned:
One last thought, regarding your situation. Please, if you’re married, make sure you and your husband are in agreement with whatever you do. I acted on my own, without my wife completely on board, and it caused a great deal of trouble for me. Lesson learned.
That’s quite a post Dee. It’s almost as if the pastor you wrote about stepped out of a time tunnel from the late 1600’s Massachusettes and was a close associate of Cotton Mather. What next? Tituba, snotty teenaged girls & witchcraft accusations?
Muff
You probably read I grew up in Salem, Massachusetts. There has always been one theory batted around by historians is whether ergot, a drug produced by rye, placed in barrels. This cause it to ferment and produce ergot. this stuff causes hallucinations, weird behavior etc. Perhaps these pastors are impaired as those young girls. And the congregation is set up as the scapegoats not unlike Tituba who I believe was a victim of circumstance. Perhaps my fellow blog queen and I can play the snotty nosed teens? We do occasionally point fingers.
As for the Holy Spirit, I believe in praying for wisdom, but not letting the Holy Siprit “be the leader”. What happens in practice when people want the Holy Spirit to lead is that the most narcissistic, sociopathic person in the church claims to have some kind of “anointing” of the Spirit, and everyone else is too intimidated to challange this con artist, and the church descends a long hard road to purgatory, and this lower-than-pond-scum fool eventually decides the Spirit says it’s ok to sleep with the church secretary. No, no, no! If you’re going to bring the Holy Spirit in this, be very democratic about it and the safest assumption is that everyone in the church is being led by the Spirit equally, and coming to some kind of consensus is the best way to go.
Stan
You have said something profound. I recently had a disagreement on this site with a man whose wife runs another website. You may know that I am an Old Earth Creationist. He however is a Young Earth creationist because “the Holy Spirit” told him. I challenged him on this matter but he ran. he said there was no problem with my belief but, obviously, if the Holy Spirit told him what was right, it is obvious that the implication is that I am not listening to the Holy Spirit.
In other words, the Holy Spirit does not tell two people diametrically opposed beliefs. Look at the church today. We have more denominations that are absolutely convinced that the Holy Spirit has told them that they are right.
Baptism styles, eschatology, spiritual gifts, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, the age of the earth, birth control/no birth control, and on and on ad nauseum.
Much of this is human opinion generated by men, trying to get the upper hand. So they play the Holy Spirit card. I wonder if the Holy Spirit really cares about this stuff.By stuff, I mean these endless fights over secondary doctrine. I think the Holy Spirit is more concerned about the heart issues that underly the fight.
My guess is that the purpose of the Holy Spirit is to convict most of us in our day to day lives on issues such as greed, anger, selfishness, etc. But we don’t like that because it means there is something wrong with us that needs to be addressed. So, we jump on the eschatology bandwagon and theorize about how Jesus is going to Rapture us.
The fight sure gets the focus off of us, doesn’t it?
In fact, I am beginning to think there is a post in this discussion. Thank you so much for pointing this out.
“You’re incorrect that I believe in male supremacy, but then again, this isn’t the first time you’ve tried to label me incorrectly. Why do you feel the need to label someone something they’re not?”
Strange. It seems to be ok when you do it to other people…like me. You must have “special anointing”. :o)
” What happens in practice when people want the Holy Spirit to lead is that the most narcissistic, sociopathic person in the church claims to have some kind of “anointing” of the Spirit, and everyone else is too intimidated to challange this con artist,”
If the Holy Spirit REALLY IS leading then one would not be too intimidated to challenge a con artist.
” No, no, no! If you’re going to bring the Holy Spirit in this, be very democratic about it and the safest assumption is that everyone in the church is being led by the Spirit equally, and coming to some kind of consensus is the best way to go.”
Actually, Jesus prayed for “spiritual unity” for believers. I think consensus is fine on the color of the carpet for the vestibule but when it comes to truth, consensus is dangerous. We should be corporately seeking the Holy Spirit to teach us to be spiritually unified.
Even so, Paul and Barnabas seperated over a disagreement.
And remember, Paul commended the Bereans for checking everything he said.
“That’s why they lead, or stand before. But it says those who lead, not led; so, they lead, present tense.”
They serve. They are servants. The only power they possess is from the Holy Spirit which any believer can have. They have NO authority over anyone.
“Well, we know that instructions were given to appoint elders, letting us know two obvious things. First, churches were operating without an elder until the elders were appointed. Second, they were instructed to appoint elders, so elders were desired and needed. So, if someone wrote a letter to a church without elders, it would make good sense to write to the whole church. If there was a leader, then it might make good sense to write to him. Bottom line, the author wrote to whomever he wanted to write to, the leader, the church, to suit his purposes, and that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.”
Michael, this is the biggest NON ANSWER I have ever seen. You ignore the obvious. Not every church was told to appoint elders. And who the author wrote to has nothing to do with it? Are you serious? Taking 1 Corin as an example…Paul is giving counsel for how to deal with a big problem person in the Body but NOT giving the instructions to “The Leaders”? He gave it to the entire church.
You do not get to define the debate. Who the Epistles are addressed to has EVERYTHING to do with the matter at hand.
“Yes, there is an obvious difference between attitude and function. Leaders and servants are not mutually exclusive. You can be a leader who serves. And you can be a leader who is also a servant. The fact that Jesus called them servants did not prevent them from being other things like, Apostles, disciples, pastors, evangelists, leaders, elders, etc.”
Michael, this is just getting plain silly. We have already discussed the perception of “leader” in the world. The church has used that definition for the Body. Jesus Christ used “servant”…as in the greatest will be lowliest servant to all.
In fact, I am still waiting for someone to tell me why Timothy, who had been traveling with Paul for so long, had to be told qualifications for elders for the church in ‘
Ephesus which had been around for a while.
Seriously, if they were so important wouldn’t Timothy have witnessed this process of appointing elders many times with Paul in all their travels to different churches?
I mean how could a Body of Believers have survived without elders for so long? Nevermind, the term simply means mature believer…and a truly mature believer would know he/she is nothing but a lowly servant.
Well, if the literal is to stand before, then I am a leader in my church. I stand before people and share with them my thoughts. I desire to protect and come to the aid of the lesser people in my church. I have ZERO desire to be called a leader in my church. (Probably because that distinction has come to be associated with such an oddious thing- arrogance. Yuck.)”
This is exactly it! The true ‘elders’ are not the ones we usually see with the title. The real ones are the spiritually mature, humble, lowly believers who would be considered “losers” by the criteria of most churches and most people in churches. They would look more like Matt 5 than any defintion of “leader” as we understand it. Their influence is spiritual not worldly.
Lydia:
I didn’t label you. But, thanks for noticing my special anointing. How perceptive.
Just watching the back and forth here. Historically, the church has always had leaders. First there where the apostles, each city had people appointed as leaders, bishops etc. In the early church the elders were … elders. When Paul went into a new area and was winning new converts, everybody was basically at the same spiritual level. so the elders where people known to have maturity, wisdom, people able to manage their households, people who had shown they have the character and qualifications to help lead a fledling church body. As time went on they could also be people with a history as Christians, people qualified to help lead spiritually as well as phsically.
I am also reminded of my time spent visiting and attending some house churches. Now THERE are some folks that have problems with formal leadership. And they are more fragmented and divided than the traditional denominations. They also think they are the only ones that have got it right, and they are quite convinced that they all hear clearly from God on what to do (and incidentally that the guy next to them not ‘hearing’ the same thing is wrong).
You can’t avoid problems by taking the ‘everybody is a leader’ route. We need leaders. We just don’t need abusive leaders. Likewise, we need the plurality of leadership where each leader is truly submitted to each other, the Holy Spirit, and the needs of the Church itself, both as individuals and as a corporate entity (body of Christ). Human nature is such that someone or some sub group WILL lead. Anarchy is what happens otherwise.
The key then is for the leaders to be truly Spirit Filled believers with a real desire to serve AND lead the church in their charge. That is hard to find. But where it exists it’s really a wonderful thing. When a new church forms, or when an older church goes through a leadership transition, it is very important the de facto leaders guiding that transition be Spirit Filled individuals with very little immaturity,pride, or desire to fulfill personal goals through the leadership position. And of course that means you’ve got to START on the right foot. Once you’ve got the egomaniacs in leadership positions, or the insecure, or the selfish, or the immature, its going to be very hard to hit a RESET button.
Zeta
Zeta
The problem is that the system is broke in so many churches. The ones who are the true leaders are rarely the ones in leadership roles. I think the problem is rooted in an American perception of what constitutes leadership. We often mess up the difference between God’s economy and the American economy.
Just because the capitalistic system works in America’s form of government does not mean it should be the model for the church form of government. I have only become aware of the problem in the last decade because i was a member of some churches that usually got it right.
I have serious reservations about the elder selection process in most churches. They tend to be the successful businessmen, doctors, etc. I rarely see a blue collar worker in the mix. Yet Jesus selected blue collar in man instances.
I think the system is generally broke and am wrestling with how to change things. Could it be that the decline in church attendance and church income will cause some to rethink the issue? Who knows?
Lydia:
“They serve.”
Right, Lydia, no one is arguing that. However, as the passage states, they lead, and hopefully, with diligence.
You think I gave you a nonanswer? I gave you an appropriate answer to a question used to somehow prove that because NOT ALL letters were written to church leaders, this somehow proves there were no leaders. If that’s the case, then I guess since he wrote some letters to individuals, like in I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and II John and III John, that proves there ARE church leaders, using your, “logic,” right? And in other books he addresses individuals, and in some books he asks them to appoint elders.
“And who the author wrote to has nothing to do with it?”
Right, it doesn’t provide any proof regarding whether there were leaders or not. We don’t know why letters were written to whole churches and to believers throughout areas. And just because leaders are not specifically addressed in the letters does not prove that they did not have leaders. I would think that would be obvious to you. And the fact that he gave instructions to the whole church at Corinth just indicates to me that he wants the whole church to deal with the bad situation there, in addition to all else he wrote about. It doesn’t indicate to me that there were not church leaders, though. That is an assumption you are making without supporting evidence. So, I disagree with your conclusion that who the Epistles are addressed to has everything to do with the matter at hand. As I wrote earlier, it has nothing to do with it, using that faulty logic I just described.
“We have already discussed the perception of “leader” in the world. The church has used that definition for the Body. Jesus Christ used “servant”…as in the greatest will be lowliest servant to all.”
No, you put your opinion forth, and act like no one can be called anything in the Body of Christ except ,”servant.” I think most people, like me, see how narrow that is and consider the whole bible, instead of a few verses, when it comes to this question. I think most people understand that, although we are all to be servants, some serve in their roles as leaders, elders, teachers, pastors, prophets, etc. By the way, I don’t consider Paul’s writing to the Romans an example of taking the world’s definition of “leader” and applying it to the church.
“and a truly mature believer would know he/she is nothing but, a lowly servant.”
A mature believer would have discernment and not be so narrow-minded as to think that he or she was, “NOTHING BUT,” anything. A mature believer understands that we all serve and have different functions within the body, one of which is, “leading.”
Michael
As I wrote to Zeta above, I am concerned that the idea of leadership is warped in today’s churches. The system is broke in many churches and people are leaving churches in America. We seem to have hyperauthoritarian leaders by the droves and the seminaries appear to be perpetrating this concept. How do we change the system?
Zeta:
Well put.
Dee:
You’re right that people have misapplied things because of our American mindset. The correction, though, is to zone in on the right biblical definition and perspective on things. It is not to redefine biblical terminology and throw out the baby with the bath water. In other words, just because we have abusive leaders, we should not throw out the biblical term, “leader,” no longer acknowledging that some are leaders, and call everyone servants, instead, (although we all are servants). We should seek to more clearly define what was intended, biblically, when the term was used. I’m not in favor of rewriting the bible, just because a lot of people get it wrong.
Dee said, “I have serious reservations about the elder selection process in most churches. They tend to be the successful businessmen, doctors, etc. I rarely see a blue collar worker in the mix. Yet Jesus selected blue collar in man instances.”
Dee, I agree with that observation! I had a very close friend, who is a very successful businessman/lawyer come to me after he had been asked to be a deacon in his church. He asked me what I thought about him accepting. So the very first thing I said to him was, “Well, do you fit the qualifications laid out in the bible?”
He responded, “The bible has qualifications for it?”
I just about died laughing.
Here was this guy that the pastor and elders had hand chosen to become a leader in the church and he didn’t even know that there was anything in the bible about it. Yeah, the “leaders” of that church didn’t look on the “outside” to choose leaders, did they? Sheesh. (BTW, upside is that the guy was humble enough that he could handle me laughing hysterically at the obsurdity of him being considered a church leader when he knew so little of the bible.)
Michael, I am not married but I appreciate your willingness to share your experience with your wife. The bible says something like “they overcame with the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony.” I know it’s not easy to share your own testimony when it includes your screw ups, but I think that that is often when we help others the most.
Stunned:
I agree with you. It helps to have people share their mistakes and failures because it removes the mystery. So many people think they are the only ones going through something, when in truth, we all experience relatively the same things. It helps to feel like we’re not alone and there are those who have answers to what we’re going through.
Hey, I don’t even need someone to have answers. (In fact, I probably prefer when they don’t.) But man, what a comfort to know you’re not alone!
Stunned
Stunned:
It is a comfort. Hopefully, we can all learn to put it out there for the sake of others. Thanks for your encouragement.
Stunned:
Your story about your friend being chosen as a deacon hits close to home. No one would ever blame a young kid for accidentally shooting someone if a parent gave him a loaded weapon. They would blame the parent. Yet, that’s what these pastors and other deacons/elders who select unqualified deacons/elders do. They give leadership to those who do not have the knowledge, wisdom, or maturity to fill the position. Yet, these chosen often hold the lives of others in their hands. What a dereliction of duty by the ones choosing them.
“. It is not to redefine biblical terminology and throw out the baby with the bath water. In other words, just because we have abusive leaders, we should not throw out the biblical term, “leader,” no longer acknowledging that some are leaders, and call everyone servants, instead, (although we all are servants). We should seek to more clearly define what was intended, biblically, when the term was used. I’m not in favor of rewriting the bible, just because a lot of people get it wrong.”
The true definition IS “servant”. Jesus made that clear. I find it interesting how so many people hang on to the word “leader” with a death grip. As if they personally will lose something. We must lose our lives to follow Christ. We are all priests and all servants if truly saved.
Entire doctrines have been formed around the word “leader”. More and more churches are putting on “leadership” conferences. It has become the focus. How different would it be if they were “servant” conferences. Would anyone attend? Would they lose money?
“Leadership” appeals to ego. Servant does not. Jesus knew best!
@ Lydia: yes.
Jesus said that the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.
I won’t comment on what has been made of that re. doctrine.
(have been pretty much staying on the sidelines here while trying to work through an abusive situation I’ve stumbled into in a medical practice – am getting out of there while the getting’s good! So I’ve been a little too preoccupied to comment – but the problems that I’ve run into are so familiar, because I’ve had to deal with things like this under a church roof, so to speak…)
Lydia:
“To lead,” is biblical terminology, and that particular biblical term does NOT mean servant. We’ve already been through what it literally means and how it’s defined and expounded in the New Testament. I prefer to agree with biblical terminology.
I agree with you concerning the conferences and our egocentric focus on leadership. We should be focusing on serving, as you suggest. But, I can’t and won’t deny the biblical terminology, Paul could have used the word, “servant,” but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote, “those who lead.” I don’t have a problem with that. I’m sorry you do. But, I agree with you that to lead, at the core of the motivation to lead, is to serve out of love.
Michael, while I try to stay away from human metaphors because people tend to get caught up in technicalities, perhaps it is time to use one here. And there is also the problem of people taking even Biblical metaphors way too far such as “sheep/shepherd” when it comes to church polity.
Think of “stand before” like a military platoon on recon. A “point man” goes out and encounters danger and is able to warn the others and guide them to safety or strategy because of their experience. That point person is not usually the Lt or the Colonel but a lower rank..even a private. They “stand before” because of what they have experienced and what they know. They are more mature in this particular instance than the others. And because of this, they can guide others.
The ones who “stand before” in the Body are those who have gone through sanctification, been broken, perhaps suffered for the faith, etc. They are more spiritually mature.
Yet, everyone would agree that the “Lt” or “Col” are the “leaders” according to our definition.
Lydia, the literal translation is to stand before, though it has been accepted as to lead. If I had to follow a human, I’d much rather it be someone who has gone before me in three path God has chosen, whether or not if they had a title of leader.
Lydia:
I get that. I don’t see a problem with what you’re saying. You could also say that the “Lt’ or “Col” are in leadership because they have the wisdom not to put themselves in the position of the point man, the most dangerous position, because their experience is so needed, they don’t need to be in a postion to get picked off. They may have been the point men of yesteryear.
Either way, your example or mine, we both understand that while leading, they both serve. I guess you and I were really batting it back and forth regarding terminology. I have no problem calling them leaders, understanding all the while that they ultimately are servants.
” I have no problem calling them leaders, understanding all the while that they ultimately are servants.”
Then why not call them what Jesus called them: Servants since there is horrible worldly teaching on leadership in the institutions. One we have discussed here in detail, Ed Young, is big on “leadership” conferences and teaching. And it is the secular leadership…of the Gentile variety.
Michael, You forget that many of the Apostles came to serious persecution and ultimately death for what they taught. They continued to be “point men” all their lives. And do I need to remind you of Jesus and the cross?
Please name me one human who needs to be kept back in safety when it comes to spiritual things because their experience is so needed? It has been often said of history that the martyrs blood is the seed of the church. Who are these important people that must be kept in safety because of they are so needed?
“Lydia, the literal translation is to stand before, though it has been accepted as to lead. If I had to follow a human, I’d much rather it be someone who has gone before me in three path God has chosen, whether or not if they had a title of leader.”
I don’t disagree with this except the usual method for choosing “leaders” in the Body is NOT because they are known as lowly humble servants. True sanctfication can look like loserville to the worldly. Those are not the types who are chosen to “Lead” and it is because most understand leadership from a Gentile point of view. This is one of the problems with comp and ESS doctrine.
I wish I could link to McGregor Wrights, “Hierarchy: Chain of Being” article which outlines how we have historically used Greek and Roman understanding of leadership in the church. But it is not online.
“Then why not call them what Jesus called them:”
I do call them what Jesus called them, “servants.” I also call them what God, the Holy Spirit, called them through Paul, “those who lead.” I also call them other names that are biblical, like pastor, teacher, evangelist, apostle, prophet, elder, deacon, overseers, etc.
“Please name me one human who needs to be kept back in safety when it comes to spiritual things because their experience is so needed?”
It’s not that they need to be held back in safety, it’s just that they don’t have to do everything. Jesus was asked to just say the word only and the person would be healed, So, He just said the word. He also instructed His disciples to go get the colt and also to find the upper room for them to have the Passover supper. Why didn’t He do it Himself? He was a servant wasn’t He? He instructed many other things to be done for Him, so He was also served. Paul did the same, like when he asked for the parchments and his coat to be brought to him.
They were servants, but that’s not ALL they were. They were also served. They also oversaw and they also led.
Lydia, I am in complete agreement with you. I’d rather follow the person who had walked the path God has calledme to than worry about what some wanker”leader” thinks. Clearly I am rather cynical when it comes to church leadership.
Stunned:
First, I share your cynicism of church leadership, to a degree. However, it’s one thing to be in agreement with someone over how leaders have not led well or in the way that God expects them to, with a spirit of humility and servanthood. That addresses the WAY they lead. On the other hand, it’s plain ignorance, denying the very scriptures, to not recognize that some are called to lead.
Hebrews 13:7 says, “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.”
This scripture validates what you are saying, Stunned. We don’t just blindly follow leaders and do what they say. We are first to consider their conduct, remembering what they have done, and imitate their faith, if they have faith. I’m not going to follow someone’s advice or instructions about finances from a leader who has gone bankrupt. I’m not taking child-rearing advice from someone whose kids are messed-up druggies. But I will follow the example of those who have been successful in each of these areas. They have “stood before,” and been successful, providing something valuable for me to consider as I go down the same road they have already been down.
Dude, I didn’t say some are not called to lead.
Dudess, you said you were in complete agreement with Lydia, and she has been denying biblical leadership this whole thread. Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for clarifying that you disagree with her, as you should, in her belief that there are no leaders in the church.
“Dudess, you said you were in complete agreement with Lydia, and she has been denying biblical leadership this whole thread.”
I have been affirming what is a biblical servant. Those who stand before who have been sanctified and broken and the result is their spiritual maturity. When you use the word “leader” instead of servant, you bring in the concept of power, position, etc, that has nothing to do with believers, the Body, etc.
Many hold on with an iron grip to the word “leader” because it benefits them. You believe in male “leadership” in marriage and in the Body. A position and place that elevates one because they have male sexual parts.
You are trying to paint me as denying scripture. I am simply trying to explain something that is very important in biblical translation. Word meanings. “Leadership” has a Roman/Greek connotation for us. And that can never describe Christ and His followers. In fact, Christ warned us of this when He said we do not lord it over as the Gentiles do.
Keep in mind there was a very good reason the term “servant leadership” was coined. It is Orwellian in nature. It is a bait and switch to try to convice people that all leaders are servants when all we have to do is open our eyes to realize that is not true in the body in practice.
It is Orwellian just as is the term “complementarian”. A bait and switch to describe something that “isn’t” true.
Just to stir things up.
This whole thing about male leadership always puzzles me. The NT, in terms of teaching, if very ‘male leadership’ oriented. We have examples of female leaders in church history, and some are even mentioned directly, but the teaching of Paul is very much ‘the leader in the church and in the home is the man’. There is not much one can do to get around that fact.
Is this somewhat cultural – yes. Is this ALL cultural? That is where I ponder. I personally have no real problem with the capability of a woman to lead or teach. I sing a lot, and I’ve been in lots of places, both Christian and non-Christian where women lead and some of them do as good or better a job than their male counterparts. Capability is not an issue.
But if we argue just about what scripture teaches, directly, then a woman pastor or elder or bishop is hard to justify.
I think then IF we are going to argue about letting women lead, we need to figure out if we are going to adopt a position that allows us to modify or perhaps go beyond the more literal, direct teaching of the new testament. That would be far more honest than claiming the Bible doesn’t ‘teach’ male leadership – because it does. If we are going to allow stronger female roles, then we are doing so because we think the scriptures allow us to go beyond its direct teaching, not because its direct teaching allows for it.
Zeta
Just to add a bit more that will perhaps REALLY stir things up:
Why do we try to make the Bible say things it may not really say?
Because we hold to infallibility. And if the Bible says “only men lead” then, well, we are stuck. But if we can find a way to make it say, “men and women can lead”, well, then its ok.
But aren’t we just deceiving ourselves? It says what it says. And we either accept that some of that is cultural or accommodation, (which may well undermine the concept of infallibility and certainly opens the door to all sort of ‘reinterpretation’ on various issues), or we just have to buck up and do what it says, whether we like it or not.
I think any other option gets real close to a kind of self-deception.
Zeta
Zeta
To all folks reading this, I know who he is and he sat through more than one class in which I taught and is a dear friend.
Let’s bring this back to the absolute literal reading of Genesis. Is it seven days of creation or longer? Could it be that God accommodate the story for the intellect of the primitive folks who could not comprehend such things?
Wasn’t patriarchy the ruling sociocultural deal of the day? Could it have been an accommodation?
Then, we have Junia-counted among the apostles which throws a bit of wrench into things.
Finally, we have the SBC which just threw out another church which called a female as pastor but has not problems with the nonsense of pastors hiding pedophiles on staff or an Ed Young Jr type church. So the issue of women trumps these other things?
As You can tell, I’m trying real hard to get all the ladies on the site to love me ’cause it’s valentines day 😉
Zeta
Lydia:
You may be affirming what is a biblical servant, but the conversation wasn’t about being a servant until you made it about that. Everyone, including me, has already acknowledged, repeatedly, that we understand that we are to be servants.
However, as much as you try to deny it, terminology regarding leaders is also used in the bible. The fact that the word, “leader,” is perceived wrongly by some is irrelevant to me. I don’t think that we should change biblical terminology because people don’t understand it or abuse it. We should seek to enlighten them as to the context it was written in, including the Greek/Roman culture, which I think you’re trying to do. But, again, we shouldn’t change the terminology, as you’re trying to do, thereby denying what the bible says. As far as me trying to paint you as denying scripture, I don’t think any painting is needed; I think the coat of paint is already on and dried. I’m just recognizing it.
“Many hold on with an iron grip to the word “leader” because it benefits them.” I guess if you’re going to make that judgment, someone could make the same judgment about you, in your attempt to deny that there are leaders. There would be an obvious benefit to you, too, right?
What I think you are doing is rightly recognizing the out of balance or erroneous views regarding leading or leadership, and unintentionally overcorrecting to the point of even worse error.
Zeta:
Thank you for your comments. Very well put. I would add that God knew exactly when and in which culture things would be written for us.
Dee:
First, you make an big assumption that the primitive folks have an intellect less than ours. I don’t believe that for a second and it would be impossible to prove.
Second, although patriarchy was the deal of the day, Jesus and Paul made some good changes to that. But, we still live in a culture that is patriarchal. Maybe it’s that way because it’s meant to be that way.
Third, regarding Junia, you know as well as I do that Junia being a woman is just a possibility. The name is translated Junias, not Junia. And there is stronger evidence that Junias was a man. Regardless, that’s pretty shaky grounds for trying to build a doctrine on or to change current legitimate doctrine.
Fourth, what the SBC decides to do or not do doesn’t really play into our conversation about what is biblical or unbiblical about there being leaders in the bible. But, your point is well-taken that they seem to have their priorities screwed up.
In most cases, the first approach to the scriptures should be from a literal, historical, perspective. Then, there is room to consider other options.
Finally, back to the conversation, it’s obvious that there are leaders in the bible and that is the terminology used. I have no problem whether the leader is male or female, if the bible says it. Frankly, it’s ridiculous that it has gotten back around to gender roles, in my opinion. But let’s not act like the leader terminology isn’t there.
“We have examples of female leaders in church history, and some are even mentioned directly, but the teaching of Paul is very much ‘the leader in the church and in the home is the man’. There is not much one can do to get around that fact.”
You could not be more wrong. A literal reading is the Greek and how that Greek would have been understood by 1st Century believers.
Let me give you an example because you use the leader of the home is the man is the literal reading of scripture. You ignore the Greek in 1 Tim 5. If the Greek had been translated as it should have been, verse 14 would read that she is the “despot” of the home. Some translations use “guide” or “manage” but the Greek is “oikodespoteo” and where we get our word for “despot”.
The ONLY passage that uses Greek words for authority or rule when it comes to marriage is in 1 Corin 7 where it is used to refer to both the husband and wife.
Just like “leader”, the word “head” (Greek:Kephale) does not mean authority over, at all. The 1st century Christians would have understood it to mean a head body metaphor. It is a UNITY metaphor. If the Holy Spirit had been communicating authority in that passage where “head” is used there are plenty of clear Greek words that would have been inspired.
So much for “literal” translations! People need to study. Jesus Christ did not hang on a Cross so that only adult women had an earthly mediator or a human instead of the Holy Spirit to guide them. We must use wisdom when interpreting Scripture. We must also ask ourselves why women could “teach” men on Pentecost but not after. And why there is NO prohibition to women teaching men in the Old Covenant. We must use some common sense and understand scripture in light of ALL scripture.
Just like the word teshuqa in Genesis 3:16 is so horribly translated as “desire”. Up unti about 1300’s, it was translated as “turning”. A whole different perspective that has led many to treat the consequences of the fall as virtue. It isn’t. It has taught women for centuries to turn to man instead of Christ. What a horrible shame. And we will answer for it.
“However, as much as you try to deny it, terminology regarding leaders is also used in the bible. The fact that the word, “leader,” is perceived wrongly by some is irrelevant to me.”
Then I suppose no pastor should ever explain the Greek while preaching to give a deeper understanding? What you call “biblical terminology”, I call a translation choice.
I am still wondering who you think in Christendom is so important they must be kept back in safety instead of being a point man as you illustrated above in a comment. I felt that your comment was still a worldly understanding of leadership.
Wow. Were to start. First off thanks to Dee and Deb for printing my writing. It was very theraputic, just like I said, to write about my experience. I’ve followed the debate in the comments over the past week or so. It’s been a lively one and I’ve been surprised at the amount of conversation this subject has generated as well as the direction it’s taken. I think the take away is that there are ALOT of hurt feelings out there from folks that have been burned by so called “Christian Leaders”. The tendancy is to swear off ANY organized church group and all “leaders”. I spent a long period of my life very down on organized churches because of issues like the ones I wrote about and I know how difficult it is to trust any “leader” after you’ve been burned. I also think this is the wrong attitude to have and I’ll tell you why.
There are, I think, a few things to realize. One. There are no perfect churches because there are no perfect people. Churches are composed of broken, screwed up, imperfect folks who bring all of their broken, screwed up, imperfect problems into the running of the church. A church can be no better than the people in it and the BEST it can do is the same as the best people can do. Strive to be Christlike while knowing that on this side of heaven that can never be achieved. We will always be imperfect sinful creatures and our organizations will reflect that imperfection. Accept that and move on.
Two. I’ve been down this road before. (i.e. leaving a church) It caused me to be bitter and for a long time in my life I was very down on all churches. It was, spiritually, the most barren time I’ve ever had in my life. I was determined that this would not happen again. Here’s why. We need fellowship. We need the company of other Christians. We need to hear the Gospel preached and yes we even need to be around Christians more mature than we are. Especially older ones (dare I call them Elders). We need all of the roles called out for in scripture for an NT church (leaders, pastors, teachers, prophets, etc.). We need these things primarily because of number One above. We’re all messed up. But we can be better together than we can be when we’re apart. I suspect that’s why Scripture describes the Church as the body of Christ with lot’s of different parts. The body can function without some of those parts but it’s better when it’s all together. Christ is the head but there are roles that people play and some of those are leaders.
Finally, the comments have turned into a discussion of gender roles in the Church. My head tells me I should “run away….run away” from this subject but my heart (which is debatably dumber than my head) says I have a point of view so why not offer it. My humble opinion is that there is absolutly nothing wrong (in fact it’s even biblical) for women to be in leadership roles within a church. Should that role be as a pastor? I truthfully do not know. I have never read “thou shalt not have a woman pastor” anywhere in the Bible (though a few people say that 1 Chorinthians 14 does say that. I think, when read in context it instructs women to not interrupt a service. I don’t think it precludes them from leading one but it’s a good stick that one side likes to beat each other with.) BUT I do recognize that there are gender roles that each of us play that are in the Bible and they are pretty clearly stated. As a husband (care taker in my opinion) and father (co-leader in my opinion) I have certain duties as does my spouse in her roles as wife and mother. (Truthfully I have the better job. Her’s is way harder.) I suspect that these gender roles make their way into the church as well but I think that is a matter of preference. I prefer a man as a pastor. I also like strawberry ice cream. I don’t condem those that prefer chocolate though I do question those that like butterscotch.
“Third, regarding Junia, you know as well as I do that Junia being a woman is just a possibility. The name is translated Junias, not Junia. And there is stronger evidence that Junias was a man. Regardless, that’s pretty shaky grounds for trying to build a doctrine on or to change current legitimate doctrine.”
You cannot be serious! My goodness, both Grudem and Piper had to make a retraction on that one! They used Epiphanius as their source! In the same passage by Epiphanius claims that Priscia (Priscilla) was a man! ((Epiphanius, Adversus Collyridianos, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume 42, Column 740 f).
The computer search by Piper and Grudem is inconclusive regarding their statement that “Junia” was not a common name in ancient writings. Many scholars including Brooten, Lampe, Metzger, Moo, McDonnell and Osburn claim otherwise, and state that “Junia” was a common name. However, the real significance of Piper and Grudem’s search is the fact that they could not cite any example for a male named Junias. James Walters states: “Researchers have been unable to locate a single example of the male name Junias in ancient literature or inscriptions, either Latin or Greek.”
“Second, although patriarchy was the deal of the day, Jesus and Paul made some good changes to that. But, we still live in a culture that is patriarchal. Maybe it’s that way because it’s meant to be that way. ”
There is no patriarchy before the fall. Creation order does not denote hierarchy or cows are over women.What is taught as patriarchy before the fall is READ INTO the account by those who want preeminance over others. It is a huge sin trap.
Patriarchy is a result of sin. God worked through it, around it and within it for His own purposes. Just as He allowed polygamy, wiping out pagan cities including innocent babies and women…he allowed patriarchy.
(though a few people say that 1 Chorinthians 14 does say that. I think, when read in context it instructs women to not interrupt a service. I don’t think it precludes them from leading one but it’s a good stick that one side likes to beat each other with.)
The word in that passage does not mean interrupt. It means total complete silence. As in no singing, no greetings, etc. (It is a quote because almost word for word it comes from the Mishna. Paul answered the quote by using an exclamation in verse 36 that we would understand as in “are you kidding me!”
It also makes no sense because many women in the 1st Century church had no husband or had an unbelieving husband so asking them at home would have been a moot point.
And don’t forget, Chloe had “people”.
The guy who wrote the article said:
“I prefer a man as a pastor. I also like strawberry ice cream. I don’t condem those that prefer chocolate though I do question those that like butterscotch.”
I thought you would question those who like Rocky Road. Just kidding! Thanks for taking the time to share your testimony. I believe it will be a blessing to others in the body of Christ who are struggling with difficult situation.
Blessings!
Lydia it’s funny you should say that because I happened to reread that particular passage and thought the same thing. I thought that given the context that verse could have very well be read to be written in a sarcastic, are you kidding me, kind of tone. Especially when one considers the context of the part where he say’s “as the law says”. I don’t think Paul was really one for espousing the merits of Jewish law. It’s also interesting that in the preceeding verses he says brothers AND SISTERS and goes on to talk about the proper ways tounges and prophecies should be handled in a service. “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.” If Paul intended to say only men should speak then why the reference to brothers AND SISTERS and why say brothers and sisters and then say EACH of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction…..etc. One would think he would have only addressed the brothers had men only been his intent.
Tone is a hard thing to get across in the written word. Add to that the translations that have occured from the original language and I can very much see your point about how this verse’s original meaning has been lost in translation. Your way is a better way to take it than my previous statement so I hereby retract it!
I was merely trying to point out that those who espouse male only church leadership like to use that verse to prove their point. It’s a stick they use to beat people who think differently.
Deb I like Rocky Road too though depending on how you look at it I might need to condem myself for my indulgence.
A second on the lips, forever on the hips:)
Lydia:
No one can talk about anything concerning the bible without you making it into a major issue about men and women and gender roles. We start off having a light conversation about leadership and it ends up being and endless pit about men vs women.
It’s kind of like going for a nice swim and the next thing you know you’re being pulled under by someone who is drowning. I’m sorry that you have MAJOR issues concerning men. But I’m not going to be dragged into another drowning by you. Been there, done that.
I’m sorry you can’t deal with the fact that there are leaders in the bible.
well, lots of interesting points made, but I told you I’d stir things up 😉
Now, I want to ask the following: Why in all instructions about chosing leaders within a congregation, or all instructions that define the qualifications of a leader in a congregation, one thing that is always in the list is that the person should be a male person. I know of only one instruction for selecting leaders that includes women, and that is the office of deaconess (which biblically is not an elder, even though in Baptist churches deacons often fulfill the same role as elder).
BTW: As we go through this you ladies need to understand I am not hostile to women in various kinds of leadership roles, though I am not sure how far that goes scripturally. I do hope it is possible to discuss the issue and lay out differing opinions and ask perhaps difficult questions without folks getting all bent out of shape.
In discussions like this, I typically keep a metric in the back of my mind and it goes like this – the more agitated someone gets about a topic, the less objective they are about it. 🙂
NOTE ALSO: “not objective” does not necessarily equate to “not right”. But if one is having a discussion with a non objective person, one is more likely to only hear one side of the debate.
Zeta
NOTE: I broke the cardinal rule and used ‘always’. Please change that to “most” for the purpose of discussion at this point – I did not have time to research all verses pertaining to leadership rules to make sure the use of the term always was appropriate. I am thinking primarily about instruction concerning elders/bishops and deacons.
Zeta
Zeta,
Unless I am very wrong…I believe that some Presbyterian churches allow women to serve as both pastors and elderesses. Certain “flavors” of Baptist churches allow women as pastors as well. Not sure if any Baptists have elders. The SBC is not among them as Deb can tell you.
I’m with Michael though. I’m not sure how the conversation wound up here.
The guy who wrote the article said:
“Not sure if any Baptists have elders. The SBC is not among them as Deb can tell you.”
Actually, based on my knowledge there seems to be a shift in some Southern Baptist churches away from being congregationally led toward being elder led.
Anyone else care to chime in on this change in church polity?
Yes – that was actually my point. The problems is, we are talking about how the text, in general, describes how the church is to be run. This is much, much closer to ‘faith and morals’, sort of the minimum for inerrancy. If the Bible isn’t inerrant on ‘faith an morals’, it gets messy after that. For example, if men leading in church was cultural, why isn’t homosexuality cultural, especially in light of research that tends to show homosexual inclination have at least to some part a physical cause? As long as we can take the stance the Bible is inerrant on “Faith and Morals”, we can take the stand that homosexuality is wrong, because it is clearly condemned on moral grounds. But if “Faith and morals” can be seen to be ALSO and issue subject to accommodation, where does it stop?
Somewhat. There are two issues here. The first is that even in our culture, sometimes a man will take on a commonly female name. For example, most of the time ‘Sherrill’ is a girls name, but then there is Sherrill Milnes, one of the most Famous operatic Bass/Baritones of the 20th century. Likewise “Allison”, yet one of my best cycling buddies has that name. (explaining I’m going riding with ‘Allison’ was interesting the first couple of times).
So there is that possibility. But even assuming this was a woman, then you have the fact that there were exceptions, but that the rule still was in general to use, and prefer, male leadership. And that is seen in both the old and new testament. The fact there were exceptions leaves the door open … for exceptions. But I don’t think it leaves the door open for the norm. So we’d still have to fall back to accommodation on an issue that I think would be very hard to distinguish between those that look for Gay and Lesbian ministers and marriages to be sanctioned by the Church.
Yep – swatting at gnats and swallowing camels is always a problem.
Don’t get me wrong all you gals out there. I struggle with this issue. I have enjoyed immensely lessons given by women teachers. I’ve been sincerely blessed by women pastors and even a women rabbi (reform of course). In terms of capability, I see no issues.
It’s what do we make of scripture when it seems so strongly oriented toward male leadership in OUR culture that basically minimizes the social and physical differences between men and women, especially as regards mental and psychological capability. Sure, you can take lydia’s approach and see if there is an out by carefully scrutinizing every word, and who knows, at least in some cases she might be right. But the folks that want us to sanction homosexual behavior take almost the identical approach, and can make their case the very same waym and from what I’ve seen, with equal conviction and intellectual consistency.
Some people solve the problem (the YEC’s is one example) by just saying “it’s all literal, take it at face value, that’s it, no troubles”. But others end up with just about anything goes. And there is a virtually infinite number of arbitrary lines in between.
If we take this approach to what appears fairly clear, how do we objectively determine where the lines are?
It’s not a trivial issue.
Zeta
Zeta
Then shouldn’t we have slaves? It seems to me that slavery was normative throughout the Scripture. Even the NT tells slaves to obey their masters.
To all
In my church, they have a thing called leadership teams which are run by people who feel called to those ministries. They look it as a daisy with reports coming into central for coordination sake. So, things function independently with lots of leaders.In other words, everyone who wants to can play a significant role in the area that appeals to them. Anyone can join any of the teams if they so desire.
One thing I learned during my MBA that strong centralized power is not effective. Instead, you throw decision making down to the lowest possible level at the place where people are actually doing the work. They take the responsibility and share the risk and reward. The role of the CEO is cheerleader, working to remove barriers to allow for the success of those who are working it out.
One only need look at the old Soviet Union to see the terrible flaws in strong fisted centralized government. The reason they had food shortages is because they felt they could coordinate it from the top down. It doesn’t work.
If one truly believes in the work of the Holy Spirit, then one must believe that said Spirit will get the work done in a far more efficient manner by speaking to the many then speaking to one guy who is supposed to do it all.
Thoughts?
Dee:
Yes, the NT says for slaves to obey their masters. But, the NT doesn’t instruct Christians to go out and get a slave, does it? The fact that there are things in scripture that are normative does not mean they are promoted. Disobedience is normative in scripture but it is not promoted.
1. Just for fun, I looked up the name Leslie, (Lesley), which is a name used for males and females. However, it’s used for females around 91% compared to males 9% of the time. It has ranked in the top 1000 names only 48 of 127 years, meaning it has not been in the top 1000 names 79 years out of 127. The highest percentage of popularity for boys is .014% compared to .066% for girls. But there are decades where the name charted for boys but was not charting for girls. There were also decades where the use for boys was virtually non-existent.
The point is, Junias/Junia, although feminine in gender could possibly be used as a male’s name. Just because it was more prominent in other literature as a female name, or even if it was non-existent for decades in outside literature, as a name for males, it does not exclude it as a male’s name. They have seen it as a male’s name in literature, but it definitely is more prominent as a female name, at least during the time periods researched.
There is no way to tell from the early Greek transcripts whether the word should be translated Junias or Junia. So, they had to rely on outside literature. Outside literature used the female version more prominently, but not exclusively. Regardless, it does not conclusively determine Junias was a female. It just gives it good odds.
So, I may have exaggerated that there is more evidence for it being a male than a female. However, the conclusion is the same. The issue is still debatable as to the gender of Junias and it’s not as definitive as Dee and Lydia make it sound. If Junias was a female, that brings up other issues regarding her apostleship. Was she married to Andronicus? We don’t know that either. If she wasn’t, then she can stand on her own as an apostle who was a female. If she was, was her apostleship attributed to her because she was married to an apostle? We don’t know that either. So, the whole point is, we really don’t know much about Junias, conclusively, so anyone trying to rest some doctrine on the use of him/her as a female, or trying to change more obvious doctrine, is really skating on thin ice.
And what’s the point anyway? Are you trying to say that females are every bit as much not “leaders” as men are?
2. There is no foundation to say that there was no patriarchy before the fall or that it is a result of sin. That’s called conjecture. And there’s no sin trap there either. Where DOES one come up with all these far-fetched conclusions?
Dee,
Scripture never commands slavery. Nor does it directly condemn it. So its not really an issue of “Faith and Morals” in the direct sense. One could perhaps from our culture’s standpoint even go so far as to see the Bible as immoral on that count! And indeed, some actually do. But one can not violate Biblical morality directly over the issue of slavery because the Bible neither commands it nor prohibits it.
In that sense I guess slavery is almost an inverse condition to the male leadership question. In that we derive a morality which forbids slavery from other generalized principles of scripture, even though scriptures are basically neutral. Yet this issue is the inverse, many would like to derive a morality which allows female leadership on all levels from generalized scriptural principles even though scripture essentially speaks against it.
But are you catching the problem? I am not sure there is a way to allow, say, a female elder or pastor without taking an approach that would also allow a gay elder or pastor. Every list of qualifications I know of in the New testament for elder includes ‘male’ in one sense or another. If you dismiss it as cultural, then what of sexual mores? It gets messy very fast. And here is a reality check: There is a very strong correlation between the denominations which allow female pastors and elders and those that allow or are leaning towards allowing gay/lesbian pastors and elders – and I think for the very reason that the reasoning that allows the one is fairly easily extended to allow the other.
It is a lot like what the YEC’s are afraid of in terms of leaving behind the rigid literal reading of Genesis, only the shades of gray are much much closer together, and the ability to draw the lines between the arguments far less clear.
Zeta
“And here is a reality check: There is a very strong correlation between the denominations which allow female pastors and elders and those that allow or are leaning towards allowing gay/lesbian pastors and elders – and I think for the very reason that the reasoning that allows the one is fairly easily extended to allow the other.”
So true. Talk about a sin trap.
dee (and this is my last post tonight – got to get some sleep)
I agree that strong fisted overly centralized leadership is in general a bad thing. We see in the old testement God originally wanted to lead Israel Himself, but the people becames restless with this, they wanted a King like the other nations, and so God gave them one. Saul. That wasn’t so good. But then there was David, who was better. And so on.
I tend to think a plurality of leaders in the church is best, each with a commitment to seeking God and moving primarily where there is agreement. But nevertheless leaders.
But ALL forms of leadership are subject to corruption. Just look at our own government. Probably the best form ever established, lots of checks and balances, yet it’s still flawed and things happen that just are not right. No matter how hard we try, governance will fail – and that includes in the Church. All we can do is try to compensate for the obvious problems (with a single, very talented but narcisistic fellow telling everyone else what to do probably ranking as the MOST obvious problem) and then pray a lot.
🙂
Zeta
“And here is a reality check: There is a very strong correlation between the denominations which allow female pastors and elders and those that allow or are leaning towards allowing gay/lesbian pastors and elders – and I think for the very reason that the reasoning that allows the one is fairly easily extended to allow the other.”
Actually, homosexuality has been a hallmark of patriarchal cultures and still is. All the way back to Sodom to present day Afghanistan where aid workers were astonished at the homosexuality and pedophilia that was rampent there even under the Taliban!
It is about sin. Patriarchy helps to hide it because no one is allowed to question them because they are the authority. Fewer checks and balances.
Who was the male colleague of Dobson so very into gender roles who was found to prefer young men who traveled with him? I forgot his name.
In effect, mutuality as taught in scripture is the best check and balance.
“The point is, Junias/Junia, although feminine in gender could possibly be used as a male’s name. Just because it was more prominent in other literature as a female name, or even if it was non-existent for decades in outside literature, as a name for males, it does not exclude it as a male’s name. They have seen it as a male’s name in literature, but it definitely is more prominent as a female name, at least during the time periods researched. ”
Michael, give us an example of Junia as a male in Greek literature of the 1st Century. Grudem and Piper could not produce one single example.
What you may not realize is that translators changed the spelling of the name centuries ago to make it more masculine but even then there were no examples.
Lydia:
No, I realize they changed it and then changed it back. But, it was based, not on the Greek, but simply on the odds because it was more prominent in Literature. But like I said, it is in literature, but even if it wasn’t, that does not exclude it as a masculine name.
I have no problem, though, if Junias was female. In fact, Junias probably was. But, what does that prove about anything except that females are as much not leaders as men, right? Then, there are the other questions with regard to her apostleship I brought up. So, the exception to a rule, not that there is a rule, does not prove the rule. It’s merely an exception that not much can be derived from.
Michael
We have not written on all of Orlowski’s discoveries. One troubling observation is that the churches in which women’s roles are limited, one sees a higher level of spiritual abuse.So, by preventing women leadership, I could say you are promoting spiritual abuse. But I won’t because I think this is a logic problem.
I reject the gay acceptance/women link totally. Instead of looking at acceptance of gay pastors, one must look at doctrine.I say it is liberal doctrine that causes the issue. If one were to look at doctrinally sound churches that have women as elders and pastors, I bet you would see not see an acceptance of gay membership. I was a member of a church that has a female associate pastor. I think you would have no problem with the doctrine or practice in that church except for one pastor wearing skirts.
Good morning Zeta
You guys were up late! OK-how about this? The Bible condemns having more than one wife yet look at the Old Testament.
It also says the elder needs to be the husband of one wife. So, does that leave out single men?
Dee,
How about this one…
“Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)
“No, I realize they changed it and then changed it back. But, it was based, not on the Greek, but simply on the odds because it was more prominent in Literature.”
Michael, it had nothing to do with “odds”. There has not been given one example of it as masculine in Greek during several centuries! But it was quite common in Greek lit as a female name.
Also in one of his homilies on Romans 16:7, John Chrysostom (347-407) states:
“Greet Andronicus and Junia…who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles – just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.”
Chrysostom was not alone in confirming the gender of Junia as female. Earlier commentator Origen of Alexander (185-253) understood the name to be feminine. Others included Jerome (340-419) who wrote that Junia was a female. (Liver Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72,15.), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961, Theophylack (1050-1108), and Peter Abelar (1079-1142).
And Chrysostom was a patriarch in this thinking toward women! But the truth was not something to be afraid of back then when women were still considered property by the culture.
Other Greek scholars on Junia AMONG the Apostles: (some of these are comps or patriarchs!)
Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson states that the phrase en tois apostolois “naturally means that they are counted among the apostles in the general sense of Barnabas, James, the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense.” Moo also concludes that it is more natural to translate the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois as “esteemed among the apostles” and not “esteemed by the apostles.” He also states that earlier interpreters would argue against Paul meaning a woman because they had difficulty in “imagining that a woman could hold such authority in the early church. In this sense, such a translation would also represent the harder or more difficult one. J.B. Lightfoot agrees that the only natural way to translate episemoi en tois apostolois is “regarded as apostles.” Cranfield states it is “virtually certain” that the phrase means “outstanding among the apostles.” Walkers, commenting on Cranfield’s remarks said, “this is the way the phrase was understood by all of the patristic writers and by most all modern commentators. Bauer provides the normal meaning of episemoi en tois apostolois as “outstanding among the apostles.”
“I reject the gay acceptance/women link totally. Instead of looking at acceptance of gay pastors, one must look at doctrine.I say it is liberal doctrine that causes the issue. If one were to look at doctrinally sound churches that have women as elders and pastors, I bet you would see not see an acceptance of gay membership. I was a member of a church that has a female associate pastor. I think you would have no problem with the doctrine or practice in that church except for one pastor wearing skirts.”
This would be akin to me claiming that Micheal and Zeter were heading toward Islam or Mormonism beliefs with their view of roles and women. I would have to say that their doctrine points in that direction so we should be very concerned..
You guys are making my case … my conundrum is not what does the Bible say but what is the correct approach to what it says. It we point to contradictions within the text as an out, then we come close to abandoning inerrancy. For example, If we deal with it through the concept of divine cultural accommodation, then what is to stop up from applying the idea of cultural accommodation on potentially moral issues to things like homosexuality, or sex before marriage. I mean its one thing to say God was not trying to communicate the physical nature of the universe and allow for accomdation there, it’s quite another to say that how the church should be run is ALSO subject to major interpretive revision a la accommodation. It really is only a hop/skip and a jump from there over to basic morality. And if accommodation applies to EVERYTHING, how can we say the Bible is ‘right’?
I realize it probably looks like I’m pushing for male dominated churches. I’m not. I’m really trying to focus on how we interpret scripture in a situation like this, what is the correct way to deal with all this that doesn’t leave us with an impotent spiritual text.
It’s not easy, it’s very uncomfortable in fact. But – for me – IF to accept a women elder I must throw out virtually every moral command and judgment in scripture to be exegetically consistent, then something is very wrong with this picture. We are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. We agree women are equally capable as men. Where the trouble starts is in reading scripture and seeing that for the authority/leadership offices in the church women are for the most part excluded. How do we deal with that reality? Is there an out? Should we be looking for an out?
I mean the other approach is just to be inconsistent and say poof women elders is cultural and gay priests are not. Tough noogies gay folks. Or one can be absolutely consistent one way and say, nope – women get to knit socks. Tough noogies women. (I am being absurd on purpose to make the point). Or one can be absolutely consistent the other way and say, ‘Come one, come all, apply for eldership, doesn’t matter who or what you are’.
Or maybe not. What is that magical ‘just right’ porrage we are all looking for …
Anyway, I’m sure I’m making lots of folks frustrated. And that is not my intent. I can take my questions back underground if that makes it easier. I just figured since we were here and we’ve got folks with strong opinions around, folks not afraid to tackle tough issues, maybe we could flush out some of the issues and see what was lurking around that might shed some light on the topic.
Zeta
“You guys are making my case … my conundrum is not what does the Bible say but what is the correct approach to what it says. It we point to contradictions within the text as an out, then we come close to abandoning inerrancy. For example, If we deal with it through the concept of divine cultural accommodation, then what is to stop up from applying the idea of cultural accommodation on potentially moral issues to things like homosexuality, or sex before marriage. I mean its one thing to say God was not trying to communicate the physical nature of the universe and allow for accomdation there, it’s quite another to say that how the church should be run is ALSO subject to major interpretive revision a la accommodation. It really is only a hop/skip and a jump from there over to basic morality. And if accommodation applies to EVERYTHING, how can we say the Bible is ‘right’?”
Use that sort of biblical logic with slavery because the slavers did. Ever read Dabney?
I have made my arguments from the Greek and word meanings. People talk about a plain reading but what is plain about a woman is saved in “childbearing”? Can that be right? Obviously it can’t be right that only women have a work of salvation and barren women are out of luck. So much for “plain reading”. There is more to it.
Zeta, The problem you have is being a woman or a slave is NOT a sin. Being a homosexual is a sin.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Zeta/Michael
I enjoy the discussion so don’t worry.
There are a number of conservative, Bible believing pastors who are changing their mind about the role of women in the church. In fact, a book has been written about it. Here is a link to Wade Burleson’s website about the book.
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-women-in.html
If you look at the authors, you will fin that they take the Bible very, very seriously. To accuse them of going down the slippery slop would be most uncalled for.
I believe this issue is like the YE/OE debate. YE claims they know the Scripture and the other side is making accommodations and will go down the slippery slop and deny the authority of the Bible. I find that logic idiotic and offensive. It shows an utter lack of understanding of the other side of the issue.
I know that in many SBC churches in the south, YE is the only version that has ever been taught. Therefore, when another perspective comes onto the scene, people fear that they will lose the very Bible.That goes with other issues as well. For example, a glass of wine is considered an abomination in some circles.We laugh about this, but the same sort of reasoning is applied in many other instances.
On the contrary, OE helps define more carefully the essentials of the Bible and provides greater freedom within the faith to explore the world that God has given us. In fact, as i said to Karl recently, as we strip away the extraneous baggage, we come down to seeing a more profound, essential Jesus.
It is important to realize that there are deeply committed Christians theologians and pastors who look at the women issue quite differently, just like those who accept OE/TE.To allude that they are sacrificing Scriptural integrity would be most unjustified. You may not like what they say but they are thoughtful, dedicated people.
I think it would be wrong and casting aspersions on one’s brother if one takes the perspective that there is only one way to look at these passages in order to be a conservative Christian. My guess, Zeta, is you would love some of these folks that wrote this book. You would find that they have valid reasons that are theologically sound for their positions and that they are deeply committed Christians. You would also find quite a bit of freedom in their churches as well without sacrificing the essentials.
I guess I am blessed because i went to a church with an assistant female pastor and found that church to be far more liberating, joyous, Biblically challenging and intellectually stimulating that my immediately former church. The pastors were more approachable and engaged and were not caught up in some sort of self view as specially anointed.
So, I have a challenge for you, read the book and see why these folks have gone over to “the dark side.”
Lydia, I’m not comparing women, slavery, and homosexuality. I am looking at what exegetical approach is being used to allow women elders and its potential ramifications in other areas.
And the problem I’m having is that the exegetical approaches I know of that allow for women elders plow such a wide road they call into question the moral teaching of scripture. Right now I have folks close to me in seminary using the very same approaches I am seeing here on this issue to justify dismissing homosexuality as sin.
Intellectually the same arguments that allow us to dismiss the command for an elder to be the “husband of one wife” can be used to allow for homosexuality to NOT be sin. If the reason Paul’s command is not valid is cultural accommodation coupled with the fact we know from science women are equally capable as men, they why would we not see Paul’s labeling of homosexuality as sin ALSO cultural accomodation seeing as how for the most part we can show that at least the tendency towards same sex attraction has similar physical roots as heterosexual attraction. This is EXACTLY how the argument goes in the circles arguing for this.
But alas, as many times as I repeat what I’m trying to get at, people are not engaging the actual issue I’m raising.
Let’s try again:
If we use accommodation or as a mechanism to open the door the the norm for elder choice to exclude ‘male’, WHAT keeps us from continuing on the path that approach opens into areas of moral importance. Where does it draw a clear line that stops that progression. When we talk of phenomenal writing or accomodation to the ‘science of the day’, the clear line we have is “issues of Morals and Faith”. But church authority is an issue of “Morals and Faith”. We’ve crossed that line. How do we draw a new one? Should we? Can we? It is right to even cross that line???
Zeta
Hi Dee,
Thanks for the book recommendation! I’m sure there is a more nuanced position than what I’m portraying. But I know of some that are headed right into pretty much tossing sexual morals as part of dealing with the issue of women in authority – its scary. Hence me tossing out all this hoping to get thoughtful responses that might shed some light on the issue.
Zeta
The acquiescence of the Church to allow women in the pulpit, is nothing more than a reading into the scripture (or picking out from the scripture) those things which we already believe are correct based on our culture and upbringing, they bare little resemblance to anything the scripture might actually say, same for homosexuality, same for corporal punishment, same for virtually any other topic.
I am not saying that women in the pulpit is in any sense wrong but rather that I find it amusing to watch the gyrations each Christian camp goes through in an attempt to demonstrate that their cultural and ethical viewpoints are the ones espoused in the Bible, even to the point of saying that no one who came before truly understood what it was that God was trying to say.
Here are some notes I made from Wikipedia:
1. It is also of note that Junia possesses a Latin name…
2. Epp in his book Junia: The First Woman Apostle gives a textual critical evaluation of the history of Junia in the Greek text and also the search in non-Biblical Greek literature for “Junias”─the alleged masculine form of the name which has not been found in writings from New Testament times and only rarely thereafter.
Rarely – not never.
3. Only one record of the male name “Junias” has been discovered in extra-biblical Greek literature, which names him as the bishop of Apameia of Syria. Three clear occurrences of “Junia” have been found.
Wow! 3 vs 1. Such compelling evidence!
4. While earlier searches for “Junias” in Latin also yielded no evidence, it is reported that “Junias” has been found as a Latin nickname or diminutive for the name “Junianas”, which was not uncommon both in Greek and Latin.[14] While this is a possibility, historical studies on the name “Junia” as a contracted form of “Junianas” has shown there are over 250 citations of the name Junia in antiquity all of which have been found to refer to women, with not one single case proven to be the abbreviated form of Junianus to Junia.[17] Meanwhile the name Junia is attested multiple times on inscriptions, tombstones and records; most notably, General Brutus’ half sister, Junia.[18]
In other words, Junia shows up more, but never shows up as a contracted form of Junianas. However, Junias is not an uncommon nickname for Junianas in both Greek and Latin. It would be like our literature never calling a female, “Les,” to shorten her name from Leslie, but we all understand that “Les,” is used as an abbreviated form for the male, “Leslie.”
5. The Coptic Synaxarium reading for the twenty-third of Bashans identifies Junia the Apostle as being a man of the tribe of Judah.
The Twenty-Third Day of the Blessed Month of Bashans
Bashans 23
Departure of St.Junia, One of the Seventy Disciples
On this day, St. Junia, one of the seventy disciples, departed. He was born in Beth Gubrin (Jibrin) from the tribe of Judah. He was chosen by the Lord to be one of the seventy disciples, and received the Holy Spirit. He preached the Gospel with the disciples and suffered many hardships. He accompanied St. Andronicus in his preaching of the Gospel as it is mentioned on the 22nd. day of Bashans. St. Junia buried St. Andronicus, and he prayed that the Lord would take him also, and he departed in the following day. St. Paul mentioned him in Romans Chapter 16.
May his prayers be with us. Amen.
6. The experts have agreed that while there is more evidence that points to the person being female, they need more evidence for it to be conclusive.
So, back to my earlier point, it is not definitive enough for there to be doctrine built on this sketchy evidence. Speculation on this doesn’t provide anything for us to sink our teeth into doctrinally. And even if they decide, later on, that it is Junia, not Junias, what does it mean to us? You have to start asking questions, then, regarding if it changes anything in terms of church government and administration and how it stacks up against clear-cut instructions elsewhere.
Probably the best one could suggest would be that, as far as apostles go, a very small minority of them could turn out to be female. Are there any other implications? Probably not. So what’s the point in this big, long, debate? And if Lydia is going to continue to stick by her guns regarding everyone being “nothing but” servants, then great, we just have another female servant. Whoop-De-Do.
Finally, since someone as sharp as Lydia can’t seem to spell my name right, even after being corrected, even though it’s written correctly on every one of my posts, and she names Zeta, “Zeter,” who’s correct spelling is on all of his posts, who knows if the scribe got is right when he wrote down that name.
Dee:
The first name I read was Campolo’s, then Hybels. Conservative? Think again.
Although I agree with Lydia when she says that the Patriarchal culture has produced many homosexuals, I agree with you that the churches that open themselves up to female leadership also open themselves up more to homosexual leadership. As Dee says, it is the liberal doctrine that causes the issue. I agree. But, I think Zeta’s point is that to accept women in leadership roles in churches, not as an exception, but as a rule, you also have to have some liberal doctrine. And his topic is at the very core of determining what is considered liberal versus not liberal doctrine.
I agree that where women’s roles are limited, though, at least limited input, there would possibly be more spiritual abuse.
I sure understand Zeta’s frustration in not really getting thoughtful input, as opposed to one-liners that are ridiculous and are without logic, put in the form of a question. It would be nice to have some female here actually answer a question he poses, instead of answer his question with another one-liner question.
“If we use accommodation or as a mechanism to open the door the the norm for elder choice to exclude ‘male’, WHAT keeps us from continuing on the path that approach opens into areas of moral importance. Where does it draw a clear line that stops that progression. When we talk of phenomenal writing or accomodation to the ‘science of the day’, the clear line we have is “issues of Morals and Faith”. But church authority is an issue of “Morals and Faith”. We’ve crossed that line. How do we draw a new one? Should we? Can we? It is right to even cross that line???”
But we are not using accomodation. That passage uses “tis” which means ANYONE who desires…
Husband of one wife actually means faithful spouse and has been found on the tombstones of women in ancient Ephesus in archeological digs. Husband of one wife would exclude Paul from qualification.
The bottomline is that Jesus was not a culture warrior. He did not overturn the cultural norms by freeing slaves or making women equal. The BODY OF CHRIST WAS TO OPERATE DIFFERENTLY THAN THE WORLD.
You are the one making accomodations. The slavers used the same hermenuetic of “natural order” and “God’s design”. I have consistently used Greek here to argue my points.
Patriarchy is sin in the Body of Christ and marriage. To even argue that women cannot be pastors from the 1st Century church is just plain silly when you really think about it. We are thinking of our definition of pastor which is nothing like the 1st century understanding. They did not have pulpits and stages or non profit organizations or even buildings! Pastoring is a function that is not gender based. If Paul had wanted elders to be gender based, then he would not have used ’tis’ in that passage. And the Greek translation for “likewise wives” would be better translated as likewise women….
Junia was a litte a apostle. Joanna left her husband at home and traveled with Jesus (what about her specific role as a wife?) even supporting him financially. These were not cultural norms at the time. My goodness, telling a woman to submit to her husband in that culture was a step up in value since she was considered property.
I am NOT about male exclusion. I am about mutuality as scripture teaches with tons of “one anothers”. Your view automatically dismisses that women get a FULL inheritance, too. You want to pick and choose what functions the Holy Spirit inspires based up sexual organs. When IN CHRIST, there is no male or female.
If these functions are gender based and there are “roles” for us live out, then how am I to be Christlike since Christ came as a male? Who is my female model for Christlikness?
“I sure understand Zeta’s frustration in not really getting thoughtful input, as opposed to one-liners that are ridiculous and are without logic, put in the form of a question. It would be nice to have some female here actually answer a question he poses, instead of answer his question with another one-liner question.”
Micheal, you always find some way to insult yet when I make the same declaration about you, you come out swinging and get all upset. You always resort to this sort of response. Please point out my illogic instead of simply accusing me of one liners a illogic.
“Although I agree with Lydia when she says that the Patriarchal culture has produced many homosexuals, I agree with you that the churches that open themselves up to female leadership also open themselves up more to homosexual leadership. As Dee says, it is the liberal doctrine that causes the issue. I agree. ”
And it is legalism and male superiority that causes patriarchy and the ridiculous work based doctrine of CBMW. And lots of horrible abuse of wives hidden in our churches. (When I volunteered at a shelter for women, we started to see that pastors were women’s worst enemies. They laid the whole submission guilt trip on them to get them to come back the violent abuser)
If we are mutualists, focusing on the one anothers throughout scripture, it is harder to take advantage of a twisted doctrine to elevate ourselves.
Micheal, Wiki is whoever gets there first to propogate their view. Dig deeper. Pipe and Grudem want this entire issue to go away. They ended up with egg on their faces from even their fellow comp scholars.
Micheal, look at the dates for references to Junia being a female from these early church fathers:
Chrysostom was not alone in confirming the gender of Junia as female. Earlier commentator Origen of Alexander (185-253) understood the name to be feminine. Others included Jerome (340-419) who wrote that Junia was a female. (Liver Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72,15.), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961, Theophylack (1050-1108), and Peter Abelar (1079-1142).
“And if Lydia is going to continue to stick by her guns regarding everyone being “nothing but” servants, then great, we just have another female servant. Whoop-De-Do.”
I totally agree with this.
Lydia:
First, my name is spelled “ae” not “ea.”
Second, the difference between what I do and what you do is, I characterize the statement, sometimes with an insult, you characterize me, and falsely at that, with something usually to do with male supremacy. Big difference. Some of your statements and Dee’s are in response to questions posed, but you don’t have the … to answer the questions, so you ask dumb nonsensical questions. Sooo transparent. Point is, if you actually answered a question for a change, your whole logic about most things on the blog would go up in smoke. Fortunately, we can see through it.
“And it is legalism and male superiority that causes patriarchy…”
That’s not a one-liner, but is a good example of a ridiculous statement. By saying, “male superiority,” you lump the motives and beliefs of all men into one narrow category, assuming, ridiculously, that you know those motives and beliefs of all, and then actually use that non-knowledge to say that’s actually the cause of patriarchy. There’s no logic in that at all. Thanks for proving my point. Love it!
“it is harder to take advantage of a twisted doctrine to elevate ourselves.”
There’s another ridiculous statement. This is illogical for the same reasons as above. You don’t know the hearts of anyone and your big assumption is that you do, and that people are purposely trying to elevate themselves.
I did dig deeper and found similar information as well. However, the information I provided from Wiki was useful and authentic, but of course, you can’t even admit to yourself that there is a possibility that Junias was a man.
What the information tells us is, their best guess, that’s right, guess, is that Junia was female. There are other ideas that say it could have been Junias, a male. My conclusion is, it really doesn’t matter. It provides no application for us with any real value. So, if you agree with the Whoop-De-Do statement, why all the fuss?
Dig deeper?
1. With all your digging, why is it that you have not even shared one view that shows the possibility it could have been Junias, a male? You must have come across something, if you have dug so deeply. It took me just a few minutes to find and report BOTH views. I did dig a little deeper and found more views. The deeper I dig, the more I find information about both views. I’m sure you found them too, but you only report the view you’re trying to sell.
2. If you are trying to discredit Wiki as a source, I guess, then, the quote you quoted earlier, that was in the Wiki information should be discredited too?
3. The fact that you only show one side of the issue shows me that you have a dog in the fight. I don’t. So, it’s clear who has the bias, here. You’re trying to SELL us your view, like a used car salesman who just points out how shiny the car is, but doesn’t tell you what’s wrong with the car. It reminds me of my former pastor who told us we were $1500 in the black. He was technically correct. He just happened to have left off the pertinent information that we had $129,000 of short-term payables and only $50,000 in cash. In others words, we were in the hole $79,000. Who can trust someone who only tells HALF the story? They’re just selling something. Well, I’m not buying.
4. Digging deeper about this issue is like spending all my working hours looking for loose change in the street. I might find some, but I can make hundreds or thousands of dollars a day if I just do my job. This is next to a non-issue. But, if you want to spend your time digging deeper into this 4th or 5th level issue, be my guest.
Michael
Hybels is not considered a liberal. And the Briscoes sure aren’t. Somehow, I overlooked Campolo and I don’t agree with him. Wade Burleson also agrees with this book.
Michael and Zeta
I am on vacation in Arizona and am not as engaged as i would like with this discussion. I’ll be back on line on Thursday. However, here is my point.I know of three churches in which women are pastors. They are conservative churches with conservative doctrine and they do not accommodate the liberal sexual mores of the culture.These women are conservatives and brilliant and god-fearing.
The churches which have liberal doctrine all have liberal women in the pulpit. These churches do accommodate liberal sexual values.
I disagree that looking at the culture in order to understand the Scripture is accommodating in any way. For example, women who cut their hair short were usually prostitutes. Hence, according to the Bible, women were to keep their hair long. Now, my hair is short by NT standards. I must be an accommodationist and accept liberal values since I am not taking the literal interpretation.
Zeta sat through one too many of my Sunday school classes when I was teaching. Better yet, I was teaching doctrine. Even worse, I was teaching from Grudem’s text which, in some respects, was rather amusing since he wouldn’t have approved. I definitely was not keeping quiet. In fact, he was present for my notorious meltdown in which, during a class, I castigated a bunch of YE jerks who were a perfect example of why some people leave the faith.
Now, I should have shut up and be quiet in church if the Scripture is to be taken literally. Since I talk in church, way too much in some people’s opinions, I should be on the slippery slope to full blown accommodation, yet I am not. Am I stupid? Should I be out marching in the streets for abortion rights next?
Tim Keller, one of the Calvinistic conservatives also agrees that Junia was a female which is very difficult for him considering his theological stance.
Dee:
Thanks for checking in.
I go to a church where women have a significant role in ministry. There are several women on staff as pastors and head up ministries within the church. It is a conservative church, theologically, and charismatic, (I hate that term, but it serves to help people identify generally where we’re at). In fact, it’s a Four Square church, the denomination of which was started by a woman. However, while there are women ministers, none of the elders are female.
My dad was an Episcopal priest, but after I became a Christian, I started going to FBC , Dallas. I was baptized my senior year in high school by W.A. Criswell. So the foundational teachings in my life came early on from FBC, Dallas. I was right on line, basically, with women not being ministers within the church, holding the good old Baptist line.
In college, I went to a charismatic Southern Baptist Church. I was introduced to spiritual gifts and observed the good, bad, and ugly of the charismatic movement. It was mostly good, though. But where I was once closed to certain doctrine, (the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, in particular), when confronted about certain things by friends, (two girls I knew from high school), although I disagreed vehemently with doctrine being presented, I searched the scriptures and found that my friends were right and I was wrong about some things. I went to one of them later to have her pray with me concerning these things.
I share these things to say that my life has been a road OUT of the dogma taught by churches and blindly followed. My road has led me to search the scriptures for myself and know why I believe what I believe, without regard to what some pastor, or what some expert says about something. I get what you’re saying about the hair, slaves, being quiet in church, etc., and other things that are a result of a specific situation or culture. Those are valid points and need to wisely be considered when trying to understand scripture. I also understand Zeta’s points about the ability for us to use culture as an excuse to come up with almost anything doctrinally. It would be nice to have you and others affirm his valid points.
There are many things we just don’t know, and in those situations, it’s hard for me to be dogmatic about things. But this I know, it is much easier for me to accept the role of women in ministry when they stop talking about it and actually do it. They often don’t do it because of what the church has to say about it. But if I know of a woman who has ministered to a tribe in Africa, won them to the Lord, discipled them, etc., I have no problem saying that woman has done the work of an Evangelist or an Apostle. And if they have established that ministry because of God’s leading, then they have authority there that men don’t. So, it’s the shrugging off of established church norms, led by the Holy Spirit of God, and doing the work that earns the credibility, not the talking about it. Same goes for men. But honestly, how many women do you see establishing churches these days? Not many. They need to go that route because I don’t think that many men are going to invite them to the table.
Finally, any disagreement I may have with anyone as to authority, servanthood, leadership, Junias/Junia, etc., has nothing to do with any desire on my part to feel superior, or be elevated in any way over women. It never has. It’s purely motivated out of just getting it right; being in step with what God truly intends.
One last thought; I appreciate you and the forum you and Deb have created for discussion. It levels the playing field of ideas and who can share them. I respect you and I also respect Lydia. We need more people like Lydia in the body of Christ. I may not always agree with her, but I admire her tenacity and her knowledge. I appreciate the challenges presented which help us all grow in our understanding.
Dee:
By the way, concerning Hybels, I didn’t really think that he was liberal in theology. I read one of his books and appreciated much of what he wrote. But, when you look at the mega-church mentality and how ineffective it has been, by Hybels own admission, and his role in that movement, he loses some points for being so off in some areas, in my opinion. But again, from what I’ve read, I appreciate his heart and what he has accomplished.
Michael-
Your seriously going to quote the Coptic church as an authority on the Junia debate?
I hate it when Christian History is invoked to back up a point, when you would probably try and dispute every other major doctrine and practice of that Church’s history.
Almost all the early church fathers (including some who had very nasty things to say about women-like john chrysostom) call Junia a woman.
doubtful:
Yes, I’m seriously going to quote the Coptic church as one source on the Junia debate. I’m not a fan of using Christian History to back up a point either, but there is really no point here; it’s really just about history. Instead of discrediting the source, why don’t you give proof as to why they are wrong?
But, are you saying that secular literature does a better job of telling us whether it was Junia or Junias? I don’t think so. All it tells us is that Junia was more commonly a female name, in Latin, but Junias, as a nickname or a shortened form of Junianas was common in Latin and Greek.
The point of using the Coptic church is that there is still debate over this. It’s not settled. And lastly, again, there is no point to all this because it doesn’t effect our doctine one iota.
But one note of irony; you question my use of church history, then tell me you hate using church history to prove a point, but then you, yourself, use church history to try to prove your point by saying, “almost all the early church fathers…”
Michael-
Fair enough….let me try to re-state my point about using Church History. I find it ironic when people cherry pick “proof” from Church history from authors and traditions that they would most strongly disagree with. The Coptic church is considered sub-orthodox in their teaching of the Trinity (Adoptionistic), were known to be thugs (The robber synod), and have a current day liturgical practice that most Protestants would deeply question.
I could ask more specific questions, but I just don’t care about this debate, all that much.
Most church traditions about the saints (such as Junia) are highly contradictory. I find the fact the Junia is not called a man, but is called a woman for almost 4 centuries to be pretty good hint. Why would the people closest to the actual language it was written in be so wrong, for so long about the gender?
Anyway, I hope I’ve been a little clearer about my history comment, sorry for the confusion….
best regards-doubtful
doubtful:
I don’t really care about the debate all that much either, but I’ve allowed myself to be pulled in. Thanks for your clarification. I understand your point in that who can believe a bunch of thugs. I don’t think I was trying to cherry pick anything. I was trying to gather views on both sides. And you can still gather credible info from low characters. My point was NOT that Junias was definitely a man. It was just that the case is still out and unsolved and we should not definitively decide that the person referred to was female. And, because the jury is still out on it, that little passage should have absolutely no effect on any doctrine we might have.
I’m not saying people close to the language got it wrong at all, it has been inconclusive. You probably already know that the Greek word, when translated, did not mark the accents. If they had included accents, one way it would be Junia, the other way it would be Junias. So, to look at the Greek manuscripts, we just have no way of telling. I can see the points about how Junia was used in literature during that period. But, even during that time, it was used very little. Junia became to be more accepted, probably because most of the fathers were Latin, and that name was more common as a female’s name. However, it was not uncommon for Junias to be used as a nickname in Latin and Greek.
All that to say, the jury is still out and it’s not even close to being settled. So, my initial comment was to say, wait, it’s not definitive, so don’t write like it is and don’t use it to prove some point, because you can’t.
oh my… there are a lot of devout Copts out there. Real Christians.
The history of the early church is very complex and – to a certain degree – views of the “winners” predominated.
I’m *not* saying this because I want to get into a heated discussion on history or doctrine, but because I think it’s very biased (albeit unintentionally) and unkind to stamp whole denominations as “sub-orthodox” when, in fact, those denominations are not well understood by Western writers and are, for the most part, written off as asides.
It’s kind of like saying that China’s main contribution to the world is tea. (If you see what I mean.)
(over and out..)
Re. this: “Coptic church…were known to be thugs” –
but not throughout history, and even at the time you speak of, only some of the Copts acted in a thuggish way.
Please, let’s be careful of how we characterize others. I think your comment could easily be misunderstood as “Copts = thugs” (today and at other times).
I don’t want to make this bigger than it is, but I actually think it’s not as inconsequential as it might seem.
One reason I say that: because we in the US tend to think that we are the center of the Christian world. We’re not. There are ancient churches in N. Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus and India that have been around far longer than most of us realize, and that have done pretty well without any kind of European – let along America – intervention or support.
Perhaps we might learn some lessons from them.
Numo
Good comments.
I have been privileged to know some Coptic Christians in my journeys. They have overcome much discrimination, many coming to the US to find freedom. I do not have a deep knowledge of their history but I do know many of them, today, are committed to the faith. Some of them send their kids to Christian schools.
As for thugs, well, there was the Calvin/Servetus incident, Luther’s support of the aristocracy over the peasants, and the Inquisition and on and on….No one group has the corner of behaving Christianly.
Michael,
Appreciate your last comment. I’ll echo that in that I also enter this discussion simply out of a desire to ‘get it right’. I was just reading over the letter to III john and a little bit of Jude this morning with my son – and getting it right is important. We are so grace oriented we forget about Judgment I think. And though in Christ we are free, that freedom is not license to sin. And Paul reminds us in these passages that God did not think it wrong to destroy those the refused His commands.
So it’s no small thing to take a text that says “do this” and decide it says “don’t do this”. So we all need to be careful as we pursue these topics. We would not want to find out in the end that the real person we are fighting against is God Himself.
I say this because I am reminded, I am concerned about my own standing – not the rest of you 🙂 Not to preach to anyone but myself, and in the process simply say it out loud just in case anyone else may also be at a place such a statement would be a prudent reminder. I need to make sure that in dealing with apparent conflict between what ‘I think seems like it ought to be true’ and what ‘scripture seems to be saying’ that I do not err on the side of what ‘I think ought to be true’, but rather on what ‘scripture seems to be saying’ – with all humility – recognizing that sin (the sin nature in me) being what sin is will distort both towards whatever benefits me (my ‘flesh’) the most.
Zeta
“The history of the early church is very complex and – to a certain degree – views of the “winners” predominated.”
This is correct. The victors wrote the official history. And what is even more interesting is that much of the letters and documents published after the 1950’s concerning church history were a result of 2 world wars which brought the fall of monarchies and state church influence that opened up archives that had been under lock and key for centuries. Leonard Verduin is a great example of going to Europe after WW2 as a Calvin Foundation scholar who was able to read ‘never before open to the public’ private letters of some of Calvin’s pen pals.
it was also interesting to read how much of Anabaptist writings were destroyed by the Reformers and Catholics that are mentioned in such letters.
Some were able to reconstruct some of the Anabaptist positions as a result of the documents from their state church trials that only then became available to American scholars.
Zeta:
Thanks for your comment. I like what you said about looking at scripture from the perspective of, “I think what ought to be true,” versus “what ‘scripture seems to be saying.'”
Also, thank you for saying so eloquently, in a way I could not say it, your thoughts on the ramifications of how we interpret scripture.
numo and Dee:
Thank you for your comments on Coptic Christians. I admit, I don’t know much about them. There very well may some thugs among them. On the other hand, this blog deals at length with forms of thuggery by our own American Evangelical ministers. And whichever Coptic Christians are actually Christians, they are not thugs but brothers and sisters in Christ.
Regardless, there can be value gained by looking at resources outside the norm and we actually may be enlightened by those resources. The question is, what is the source of their information about Junias and how reliable is it?
numo-
Sorry…my comment was about the Coptic church of the 4th and 5th century, not the church of today. My apologies….
Michael/Zeta
I wanted to tell you both how I come by my theology. As I have repeated in the past, I had a bit of a crisis of faith over 15 years ago when I found out that the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the earliest manuscripts.I started to worry about what else might not be in the Bible. Coincidentally, this is the same verse that caused Bart Ehrman to lose his faith and become an agnostic.
Unlike Ehrman, however, I had the benefit of an MBA program which taught me to evaluate what was smart and good about a company before trashing it. It dawned on me that I probably wasn’t the first to have these questions. I also understood that there were far smarter theologians that had grappled with these question and had come out with coherent answers elsewise they wouldn’t still be believers.
So I went on a search for answers. I read many theologians and to keep it real also read the critics. I searched for reasonable answers to all the hard questions. And did I ever learn.
One of the most important lessons for me came out of understanding secondary issues, which I call A and B issues. The A issues are nonnegotiable-the Resurrection, Virgin Birth-you get the drift.
The revelation for me came with the B issues. I have come to the conclusion that, if there are good, thoughtful theologians who adhere to the A issues but differ on the secondary issues, that is because the Scripture is either not clear or not dogmatic. I also believe that those issues should not divide us and that we should be able to coexist together, sharing communion, under one roof. The problems occur when we try to shove it down each others throats and that is what I saw with the YE camp in my last church.
So here is the deal with women, I know thoughtful theologians and pastors who take what the Bible says very, very seriously. Yet, they believe that women can be teachers, pastors and elders. The only ones who think they are self-deluded are those who refuse to believe that honest conservative Christians could ever disagree with their supposed anointed insight. For example, the Calvinistas who cannot stomach that some disagree with all 5+ points.
Just as I encourage YE types to carefully read the opposition view, I would encourage everyone on any side of secondary issues to carefully read thoughtful exposition of the other side.
Then, when you still disagree with them, you can spend time figuring out how to get along in the fellowship with those who disagree with you.
But (a big but) one cannot stay in a fellowship in which adherence is demanded to secondary issues with which you disagree. And in those circumstances, it is those who insist on adherence to the secondary issue who are causing disunity and pain in the body. I am pointing my fingers at some folks at my previous church.
So, as for the women thing, I think there are well thought arguments on both sides and that freedom, not dogmaticism, therefore, should rule the day.
Dee:
I’m not really sure what motivated this last comment. I agree with what you said, though.
Yes, there are excellent theologians who believe women can be teachers, pastors, elders, and many excellent theologians who believe they should not. There are well thought out arguments on both sides. I am certainly not going to divide on these issues. I never have. I argue my point vigorously, and I kind of land somewhere in the middle, but there is no dividing of fellowship on these things. There is a lot of grey regarding this issue.
But, I’m curious why this post is to Zeta and me, but not to Lydia, as well. First, I think this debate over Junias is sort of a waste. Although it’s interesting and insightful, it does nothing to effect doctrine, in my opinion. My points showed views from both sides, conceding that it might be probable that it was a woman, Junia, although not conclusive. Lydia, on the other hand, conceded nothing, even though common sense, alone, leaves the door wide open for the possibility of for it being a male, Junias.
The point is, if your last comment was intended to correct, saying freedom, not dogmaticism, should rule the day, I believe the comment would be more appropriately addressed to Lydia, rather than to Zeta or me.
By the way, have you noticed that I’ve been able to spell Lydia’s name right? For some reason, she just can’t seem to manage to get mine right, even though I’ve posted on this blog for nine months and had many back and forths with her, with my name spelled correctly each time. It’s also the most common spelling for the name. Even after being corrected twice, she can’t get it. There’s no way she could be misspelling it on purpose, right?
Michael
Perhpas Lydia is like me. I have a block on spelling certain words correctly-like perhpas and seperate. Also, do you know how many times I have written that my son was born in 1991 when he was born in 1992? I should know, I was there, right?
The reason I am addressing you and Zeta (who is a good friend, btw) is that the viewpoint on a restricted role for women has been driven by men and is predominant in the evangelical church. Complimentarian is the prevailing viewpoint and women who think differently are often looked at as radical women with a view to destroying the family, church, Godhead, you name it.I think it is hard for some men to understand how some women, like myself, ca feel a little less valued than men in the church setting.
I know all the arguments- complimentarian mean equal but seperate but equal feels very differently when you are of the female gender. Lydia does a good job bringing forth a cogent argument for a different point of view, which I happen to agree with.
It is like an African American arguing for race relations. There is some personal pain involved that white people will never fully understand.
Dee:
Regarding Lydia misspelling my name; perhaps, perhaps not.
I understand why you might address the message to Zeta and me of trying to understand how women feel devalued regarding complimentarian doctrine. But, I thought the message of your preceding comment was about letting freedom rule on secondary issues and not dogmaticism. I view Lydia as much more dogmatic than myself.
That’s a good analogy, using race relations with African Americans. There were legitimate issues that they had to deal with and white people could never understand. I understand how women can feel devalued. That happens for a few reasons, in my opinion. One, is because some men actually do not value women as they should. Another reason is because there has been a lot of false doctrine and ignorant views regarding women’s roles in the church. Another reason is that some women do not have their own sense of value. Another reason is wrong beliefs, like negative interpretations of what people are saying, when they’re not really saying that. They are hearing devaluation when it’s not really being said.
On the other side of the race issue is reverse discrimination, which I’ve experienced, and some African Americans finding a racist behind every bush, projecting onto people racism, when they’re not. This is what I experience on this blog, oftentimes. We share a view related to almost anything, the subject gets oddly connected back to women and men issues, and I and others are pronounced male supremacists, etc., when we’re motivated out of just a sincere desire to get it biblically right. In other words, I think Lydia sees a male supremacist behind every bush. It’s like the African American who sees every white person as a racist. How annoying; and wrong.
I have appreciated your views and Lydia’s and have been positively influenced by them. I think both of you have a lot of good knowledge and are well-studied. On the other hand, in terms of making the case, sometimes the logic just doesn’t play out. There are often leaps of logic to unsubstantiated conclusions. But, admittedly, this topic has a whole lot of grey in it. But when valid points are not acknowledged, then one seems to lose credibility because they do not appear objective, but rather are just interested in blowing their bias horn. That’s how I see it. When valid points are acknowledged, then the one making the point feels like they are being listened to. And when everyone is listening to everyone, then we feel like we’re on the same team looking for truth objectively, instead of opposite teams, vainly trying to convince others of our points.
@ Michael: the “thug” bit refers to an early church synod where a faction from Alexandria, Egypt had a gang of armed monks (the “thugs”) with them for intimidation and to secure the council vote on some doctrinal items. (The particulars have flown out of my head will have to hit the books to doublecheck.)
I’m not gonna count something that happened over 1,700 years ago against anyone living today, y’know?
numo:
Me either. Thanks for the info.
Hey Zeta, total side note and this is just me being a history dork- but I believe Sherril and Allison (and other names like Ashley, etc) all actually started out as the names of males and they slowly became the names of women. Except for the song, “A Boy Named Sue” I am not aware of one name that ever started out as a woman’s name and was taken on by a man (or rather- put on a male by his parent’s).
I just happened to be interested in names and history of names in the past so that’s why I even brought it up. Like I said, total side note.
Dee said, “Also, do you know how many times I have written that my son was born in 1991 when he was born in 1992? I should know, I was there, right?”
Bwahaha ha ha ha!
“But (a big but) one cannot stay in a fellowship in which adherence is demanded to secondary issues with which you disagree. And in those circumstances, it is those who insist on adherence to the secondary issue who are causing disunity and pain in the body. I am pointing my fingers at some folks at my previous church.”
And there is the problem. Gender roles have been made A issues. they have even been made by some very well known leaders as even a “salvic” issue.
That is why seemingly small things like Junia are important to some of us. If ‘she” is thought well of among the apostles, that is a pretty big deal to those who have been told otherwise. Especially if one is a female.
I don’t expect it to be important to Michael because these ” gender doctrines”do not limit him in any capacity in the Body of Christ.
So, that makes fellowship impossible in some situations. If a female is convicted by the Holy Spirit to teach in a mixed group, that is considered sin by some. or, it is considered that women do not get full inheritance so the Holy Spirit would never convict her of such a thing. That makes fellowship impossible unless she is willing to be guided only by humans and not the Holy Spirit. And that would mean she is following man instead of Christ.
Michael, I do not spell your name wrong on purpose and do apologize. It is just carelessness of typing fast and not being careful.
Lydia:
Thanks, apology accepted.
I agree that there is a dilemma created if God’s will is for women to be able to teach in a mixed group, a woman is led to do it, but the church’s doctrinal stance disallows it. Then, a woman might have to find another place to teach.
I was not allowed to baptize my own daughter, alone, whom we led to the Lord, but had to have an ordained minister in the water with us. It is frustrating trying to navigate within an institution whose doctrine is based on man-made traditions and not the bible. I should have just taken her out to the lake, like I did for my son, and baptized her with a group of friends present.
But, any time you work within an institution called a church, instead of just operating as the church, you run into confinements of man’s traditions, biblical or unbiblical. So, if I was a woman who felt led to teach a mixed group, and my church disallowed it, I would just do it outside that church and do it at another location like the YMCA or my home.
I agree with you. We are not going to change the institutions. It is one reason so many are leaving. A quiet exodus that I think will be made known in a decade or so. It is the committed believers who are leaving for many reasons. Our discussion is just ONE reason. There are tons more that are even more important..
But it is a very good thing to question what the institutions, their celebrities, etc are doing and why.
As to not being allowed to Baptize your own daughter…that makes me very sad. We both know it is not who baptizes you but the act that symbolizes His death, burial and ressurection. What does it matter…. who, if another believer, is doing the baptizing? You are not more saved if someone with a man made ordination baptizes you, for crying out loud.
I prefer the lake, myself. When I was a teen, I saw many baptized in a lake at camp. I will never forget it because these were teens who were convicted and asked to be baptized so they just went down to the lake and baptized them.
You’re right, it is the committed believers who are leaving. Ironic. But, they want to walk in truth and it’s a shame they have to go outside the institution to do so.
About my daughter, I was able to baptize her WITH one of the “anointed.” If I had not been allowed to, we would have been out at the lake, like with my son.