If one has the answers to all the questions – that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Pope Francis link
CBMW is unable to clearly define differences of roles between men and women.
I often say that CBMW has an Achilles Heel. They are unable to tell someone like me, who is well versed in Scripture, what I can and cannot do if I were a complementarian woman. For purposes of this post, complementarianism will sometimes be written as comp. Brownie points will be given to anyone who can come up with a better word!
I have read the books. I have even privately contacted complementarian women leaders to help me understand. The one person who I admire the most could not give me any specifics. She said "I can tell you what it look like for me and my family but not what it looks like for you and yours."
Yet, CBMW claims their mission is to delineate these differences so that I can be obedient to Scripture and my family can be healthy. I think my family is just as healthy as any other Christian family yet I don't get it. I try to be obedient to Scripture and have my good days and bad days just like any other person. They say their mission is:
The mission of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women, created equally in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church.
They seem to claim that if I do not see *it* and apply *it* their way, things are going to go south.
- The authority of Scripture is at stake.
- The health of the home is at stake.
- The health of the church is at stake.
- Our worship is at stake.
- Bible translations are at stake.
- The advance of the gospel is at stake.
About the only thing I understand is that women cannot be pastors and elders. But churches even apply this in weird, difficult to understand ways. In my former church, which is a member of TGC and the pastor is on the council, women were unable to collect the offering. I asked why. I was told that there was no reason they couldn't but the deacons voted against it. They refused to reconsider. So, I sat in church and watched as young boys collect the offering but mature women were not permitted to do so. Why?
Tim Challies' church does not allow women to read Scripture from the pulpit.
We consider this a teaching ministry, which means that it is a ministry reserved for men link.
So, would he have allowed Mary to speak her own words in his church? That beautiful Magnificat that starts at Luke 1:46? Why is it considered teaching if it is merely reading the words? Better yet, would he allow a woman to sing her words. Why is it different when it is sung instead of read?
I now attend a church that allows women to help with communion, read the Scriptures of the day, collect the offering and light the candles. Men do these things as well. As I watch them in their service, I struggle to see why other churches would not allow them to do this. How do men like Challies and former pastor come up with these rules and then expect for me to figure out their reasons for doing so. Everyone seems to have differing opinions on what actions put the very Bible at stake. And really, will the gospel falter because one week a woman reads Scripture? Seriously?
CBMW cannot have it both ways. One cannot preach the limitation of functions for women and then have everyone else define the limitations in different ways. It makes little sense to those of us in the church and, for sure, those who are outside the church.
Even one of CBMW's council members, Mary Kassian, who considers herself one of the originators of comp theology had this to say.
I pointed out that though complementarians agree on the principle of complementarity, we often differ as to its application in the home and the church. I emphasized that even those involved in CBMW have a divergence of opinion as to the specifics of how to apply the principles of manhood and womanhood. – Mary Kassian
Divergence of opinions???? So, the gospel and the Bible are apparently at stake and everybody has different thoughts on the matter? Good night!
Is CBMW a church? If not, then why are there no women on the Board?
I am well versed in the NeoCalvinist view of the local church. I am sure each of those who serve on the Board would roundly deny that CBMW is a church. So, why are there no women on the Board of Directors. So, why are there no women on the Board of Directors? What is the Scriptural admonition that bars women from being present on such a board? This question needs ot be answered in some coherent fashion or it will continue to show the arbitrary gender rules and regulations of these comp men.
CBMW's stated beliefs center around the *biblical* roles of women and men in marriage and in the church. The definition is incomplete since the entire trajectory of their core beliefs page primarily centers around marriage and the church. What about single women?
The CBMW Council: Do you see a gender difference?
Why do the women mention their roles as homemakers and wives? Did any men mention their role as husbands? I wonder what would have happened if they did not mention homemaker or wife.
But CBMW's Mary Kassian and Dorothy Patterson claim that homemaking is not an essential comp role.
Perhaps the most outspoken individual on this council is Mary Kassian who is a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It is curious that she lists her role as homemaker since she had this to say a few years back.
Mary Kassian link
Homemaking as woman’s highest calling is our critical centerpiece? Hmmm. Maybe I didn’t get the memo. I found myself curious about which “proponent of the modern biblical womanhood movement” used “strong, unequivocal language” about homemaking being woman’s highest calling. And which complementarian in her right mind would even remotely assert that “the only sphere in which a woman can truly bring glory to God is in the home.” I am personally acquainted with virtually everyone at the core of the modern biblical womanhood movement. If anyone in my yard is saying this, I want to know about it. – Mary Kassian, Review of The Year of Biblical Womanhood
This statement startled The Deebs and we wrote a post about her remarks which were found in a review of Rachel Held Evans' The Year of Biblical Womanhood. We assert that her words demonstrate the inability of the comp movement to define biblical™ gender roles with any sort of consistency. I use the trademark symbol because I am convinced that there is a divergence of opinion in the comp ranks on when the Bible actually mandates.
In the following except from our above linked post, you can read Mary Kassian's attempt to prove that homemaking has nothing to do with comp. The most humorous part of her denial is when she seeks to quote Dr Dorothy Patterson, the head of the School of Homemaking at SBTS (I am not kidding.)
Begin excerpt here:
5. Mary Kassian surprisingly looks to Dorothy Patterson to help “prove” that homemaking has nothing to do with complementarianism.
A degree in homemaking?!!
It is at this point, I knew that something was amiss. She does not mention that Dr Dorothy Patterson (PhD University of South Africa) is the head of the homemaking degree at the College at Southwestern Link
“The classes are part of a homemaking concentration for a bachelor of arts in humanities degree through The College at Southwestern, the Texas seminary's undergraduate school. Three-credit-hour courses in the concentration are General Homemaking, Biblical Model for the Home and Family and The Value of a Child. Also required are seven credit hours in meal preparation and nutrition and seven hours in the design and sewing of clothing.”
Kassian quotes Rachel Held Evans who stated that Patterson, in 1990, said
“Keeping the home is God’s assignment to the wife—even down to changing the sheets, doing the laundry, and scrubbing the floors.” (p. 23) “We need mothers who are not only family-oriented but also family-obsessed.” (p. 178)
Kassian claims to be irritated that that Rachel Held Evans used 20 year old material written by Patterson but kind of forgets” to remind her audience that CBMW republished the article in 2006 in the Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Book! “Link
Kassian says
“Mrs. Patterson told me that she would nuance the first quote by clarifying that “though she may not do these chores herself, she senses the responsibility to see that her home is kept in order.” (Ed. note:No nuance needed back in 2006 but seems to be needed now).
Well, you betcha Patterson doesn’t scrub those floors at Pecan Manor. She has a boatload of help. So, are Kassian and Patterson implying that, if you have enough money and servants, you receive a “get out of scrubbing the floor” card? Instead Patterson can go and teach women getting their “homemaking degree” how to sew clothes while cooking meals.
Also, notice how she does not address the child-care issue at all. So, do women stay home to raise the children or can they hire that help as well? Or is this just a question to be avoided.
End excerpt here.
Patriarchy is really just another word for comp theology
In that same TWW post, Kassian goes on to *prove* that complementarianism and patriarchy are not in the same camp. Dee's mouth hung open at this statement because the President of CBMW's Board of Directors of CBMW, Owen Strachan, supports the term patriarchy on behalf of CBMW. He is also the son in law of Bruce Ware who is arguably the modern day inventor of the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine, which states that women shall be subordinate to men in eternity!
Begin excerpt:
6. Kassian denies that patriarchy has anything to do with complementarianism.
In my opinion, this is her most startling statement yet. In fact, she must either have her head in the sand or is deliberately spreading misinformation. I sure hope it is the former.
Kassian says
“The second woman Rachel quotes is Stacy McDonald, who wrote a book entitled, Passionate Housewives Desperate for God. McDonald is associated with the Vision Forum and the biblical patriarchy movement, so it’s clear that she isn’t representative of the core of modern evangelical complementarianism either.”
TWW reader has Facebook exchange with Kassian. Here is a link to the Facebook page.
Better yet, one of our readers sent Kassian an email challenging her statement that patriarchy and complementarianism are not the same. Kassian replied to her
“My complementarian colleagues do not embrace the term"patriarchy." And like you, I am gravely concerned about some of the abuses and oppression of women arising from that ideology.
Owen Strachan (son in law of Bruce Ware and President of CBMW) link
“For millennia, followers of God have practiced what used to be called patriarchy and is now called complementarianism.” Owen Strachan, writing for CBMW.
End excerpt
So, we end our look at CBMW as confused as when we started. It has everything to do with homemaking. It has nothing to with homemaking. It restricts women in leadership in churches. It restricts women in leadership outside of churches. Women can't read Scripture out loud in the pulpit. Women can read Scripture. From what I can tell, there is little cohesiveness to this movement. However, they claim the very gospel is at stake. Perhaps this next example will add to our general confusion.
PCA: Nothing less than 100% agreement or you are out!
The pastors of the PCA are very supportive of CBMW. There is apparently no room for any doubts.
At this years' General Assembly of the PCA, we learned that nothing less than 100% agreement is allowed on issue of complementarian theology. Not 89%, not 99% but 100%, now and always. Let me make something clear. I believe that all denominations have the right, and perhaps even the obligation, to clearly state their denominational distinctives. But is the PCA naive enough to believe that no one doubts on occasion?
From what I can tell, a pastor in the midst of his ordination exams stated that he was not 100% sure of the universal prohibition on women eldership. Make sure you understand this. He didn't say he would allow women to be elders. He didn't say "Here I stand, I can do no other!" He didn't say he didn't like John Piper, John Calvin or Tim Keller. He didn't deny the essentials.
It appears the Philadelphia Presbytery, understanding that all of us at one time or another have some questions, allowed this man to be ordained. So, the General Assembly, obviously horrified, *cited* the Philadelphia Presbytery for ordaining this man.
Complementarianism: The PCA continues to be a solidly complementarian denomination. The Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records (RPR) cited the Philadelphia Presbytery for sustaining the ordination exams of a candidate who was not “100% sure the New Testament itself teaches a universal prohibition on women eldership” (* I wrongly stated in the original post that this pastor is now moving to the RCA. He has not filed to do so and continues to be a member of the Philadelphia Presbytery. My apologies.). A minority report emerged from RPR recommending that the Assembly not cite Philadelphia with an exception of substance on this matter. The Assembly was overwhelming in its vote on this issue, rejecting the minority report by a vote of 258 in favor and 554 against.
Being the type of person who often questions things, I wondered how many people are truthful when they claim to believe something 100%? Do they never have a doubt? Is a momentary doubt enough to disqualify one from the pastorate? How many people are pastors who lied about their 100% belief? Even worse, how does one define comp theology to the pastors taking the test? It appears the CBMW council members can't do it, so why do they expect anyone else to understand it 100%.
It appears that I was not the only one who questioned this decision. However, most of those who disagreed did so by asserting that they believed women should be elders.
Although I do believe than women can be elders, that wasn't my chief concern in this situation. It was the insistence of *nary a doubt or you are out* position. Doubt is a part of faith. The greatest growth in my faith is when I was presented with some evidence that caused me to doubt the canon. However, I am proactive. I decided to find answers for my questions and my doubts. My faith grew by leaps and bounds. In fact, it is the very act of wrestling with doubt which has strengthened my faith. Even at the CBMW promoting The Gospel™Coalition, I put the word "doubt" into the search engine and came up with 491 entries!
So, I am left with this. I don't understand the practical application of comp theology and I don't think the CBMW crowd does either. If I don't understand it, I can assure CBMW that few people in the church or outside the church get it either. Yet, for some reason, the gospel is at stake. Go figure.
First!
Perhaps no one at CBMW wants to admit that even if God is 100% for what we think we know as comp doctrine, He left us with 3x more questions than answers in giving us the template.
Well, at least one thing is clear. The list of garbage can ministries (cleaning and babysitting) has just been expanded to include “homemaker”.
For purposes of this post, complementarianism will sometimes be written as comp. Brownie points will be given to anyone who can come up with a better word!
Here’s one that’s better because it annoys the heck out of hardcore comps. “Female subordinationist.” Start using it on discussion boards and blogs with them and watch them try and deny it.
Product labels (food, over-the-counter drugs, etc.) progressively list the ingredients by greatest amount to lesser amount. For example, a green bean can would say “green beans, water, salt.” The CBMW Council women would be ill-advised in a New Calvinist environment to list anything but “homemaker” as first on the list, even though they might actually spend more time as authors, professors, consultants, etc. To CBMW, a woman’s primary role needs to be hammered home as “homemaker” so New Calvinist children will know their place … boys first, girls second. There is no room for the gifts of God given to women otherwise … period! Women are green beans … no room for any water or salt that they might offer to the Body of Christ.
If you visit New Calvinist churches (I have), carefully look at the women in attendance. You can discern the bondage on their countenance. In previous churches before the reformers hit the scene, they may have been teachers or held leadership roles. Now they have to sit quietly as “homemakers.” New Calvinist leaders would not agree with my assessment, nor would women trapped in that culture speak forth for fear of shunning or banishment. However, as Dee has pointed out, the folks charged with proclaiming what complmentarians believe about “biblical womanhood” is that even these expert complementarians do not agree on what they believe about “biblical womanhood.” So, until they figure it out, women must be limited to the things that “green beans” should do in order to control the weaker sex.
P.S. Some of the best Bible teachers I’ve sat under have been women, including my wife. To keep complementarian harmony around the home, I often tell my dear wife of 45 years that she is one of the mostly godly men I know ;^)
Heaven weighs in on complementarianism:
“All of you who were baptised “into” Christ have put on the family likeness of Christ. Gone is the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female — you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28 Phillips).
“they claim the very gospel is at stake”
A good question is, what gospel are they talking about?
The gospel of salvation or the gospel of the kingdom? Neo Calvinists have in some sense combined them.
Max wrote:
Max,
The context of that verse is salvation, not roles in the church.
I’ve only read down to this part (I’ll read the read momentarily), but this jogged my memory of another post I saw:
(Dee and Deb quoting CBMW’s site):
“Bible translations are at stake.”
I think this is the post:
Rethinking Male-Centered Translations of the Bible
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/05/04/rethinking-androcentric-translations-of-the-bible/
I’m still working on reading the rest of the post, but before I forget, I wanted to say something about this part:
(Quoting the views of CBMW if gender comp is not heeded):
The advance of the gospel is at stake.
A guy, Dave L, left a very interesting comment at Patheos pertaining to this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/03/09/john-piper-and-women-preachers/#comment-1897007617
Here is the last half of his comment:
I thought Dave L. has some good points. For a group of people who believe that gender comp is necessary for the Gospel they are denying that the Gospel can fix the curses of Genesis, redeem people, and they prohibit about 50% of the Christian population (women) from spreading that same Gospel that they claim to care so much about.
Q, you are making a false distinction between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of salvation — a dichotomy the New Testament nowhere implies. Also, your statement to Max comes across rather dismissive and certainly is an oversimplification of the Galatians passage. The context is all believer’s absolute equality in Christ, OVER AGAINST false gospels that maintain the racism, classism and sexism that the true gospel repudiates. Paul’s point here, as in Ephesians, is that Christ has destroyed all barriers and enmity regarding race, class, and gender. There are no more barriers: Through faith in Christ we all have equal standing, equal access, including equal access to the gifts of the Spirit. One can argue for the continuity of Paul’s truly radical words here with Peter’s in Acts 2, quoting Joel: The Spirit has been poured out on ALL FLESH, both rich and poor, Jew and Gentile, sons and daughters will be saved and filled with the Spirit of God. For the earliest church, as exemplified in Acts and Galatians, the struggle was to appropriate the equality of the Gentiles. In the book of James, the struggle seems to be with breaking down the barriers between rich and poor. Later, as the church further uncritically appropriated Greek and Roman cultures, the issue of women’s equality came more to the foreground. Again, Paul’s words to the Galatians are as stunning now as they were then: In Christ, all racism, classism and sexism are abolished, and to suggest otherwise becomes, indeed, a “different gospel.”
” For a group of people who believe that gender comp is necessary for the Gospel they are denying that the Gospel can fix the curses of Genesis, redeem people, and they prohibit about 50% of the Christian population (women) from spreading that same Gospel that they claim to care so much about.”
Isn’t this based on a faulty assumption? Differences in roles predate the fall. Role differences are not a curse to undo
@ Carole Ryan:
Well stated. Thank you.
Q wrote:
Hmmm-I am not so sure about that. For example, he mentions slaves.To say that a slave was one with a rich Roman goes much deeper than simple salvation.
Q wrote:
Could you explain to me how you perceive the gospel of the kingdom and how it differs from the gospel of salvation?
bernie wrote:
Could you delineate the role differentiation that was apparent in Scripture prior to the Fall? I do understand that women give birth and men do not. I mean everything else.
Victorious: My pleasure. The longer I live as a Christian, the more I am convinced of the radical nature of the true gospel, over against all that wreaks havoc in the church and wider culture.
Carole Ryan wrote:
I liked your comment. I have been chewing over the problem of slavery and racism that has haunted our world from the beginning. It seems to me that the Spirit should have convicted the souls of believers from the beginning to abolish slavery and racial segregation. Yet, it took us until the 1960s to go after Jim Crow. Why is that?
Max wrote:
You sound like my husband!
Leila wrote:
I am going to try using that in and about social media. I shall report in. Thanks for the suggestion.
Leila wrote:
I’m with you. But I’d imagine they’d fall back to their standard “equal in being but not in role” shtick.
You’re supposed to be thrilled they regard you as human but won’t allow you to do certain things due to being born female.
dee wrote:
Sure
1) God commanded the man – not the woman
Ge 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Ge 3:9, 17 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”…Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
2) God made woman for man – not the other way around
Ge 2:18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him
Ge 2:23 And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Q wrote:
Balderdash! You’re wrong.
It’s obvious that Paul was addressing a lot of things, very much including the manner in which people treat one another in the church and their respective roles therein. Why make reference to all these different sociological conditions, such as slavery or gender roles in the context of salvation? Was there an issue as to whether slaves could share in salvation? Women? No, absolutely not.
bernie wrote:
Sounds to me like a good argument for female superiority. The man needed the help.
I really do want to know what the minimum requirements to be a comp are. It seems like it’s Russel Moore in a very good mood. From there, you can progress all the way to Doug Wilson in San Francisco at the high end of the spectrum.
Quoting Dee:
They don’t care about us single and childless women. Nor do they pay much attention to divorced or widowed or married- yet- infertile women.
Their gender theology is wrapped up primarily with marriage and motherhood. Women who aren’t married or who don’t have kids or who don’t want to have kids are chopped liver.
Law Prof wrote:
What are you, a Feminist?!?!
Law Prof wrote:
I know God said it wasn’t good for man to be alone. I certainly will not argue that I am better than women in general (or in particular) – I know from experience and Scripture that I am not.
However I know there are distinctions in roles – just like the distinctions of role among the 3 persons in the Trinity
Q wrote:
Really? So pro-CBMW churches won’t allow slaves or Jewish converts to Jesus to preach or lead or read from the Bible during services?
bernie wrote:
Careful making that Trinity – male/female role comparison. Treading on thin heretical ice there. Maybe blasphemous ice.
Corbin wrote:
Ha! 🙂 Homeschooling born again father of nine with a stay-at-home wife. No feminist, I. In my defense, the homeschooling/stay-at-home idea was initially hers, she unilaterally stepped down from a professional career ( has master’s and did doctoral studies in hard sciences) to become at-home mommy. But, what I am is someone who despises the cheap rhetorical tricks that the complementarian crowd plays with the Bible. They start well enough, quoting scripture like Bernie, then very quickly head off into blasphemy via ESS and other such bilge. Hopefully, Bernie’s not heading there.
Law Prof wrote:
You’ll have to clarify your concern. Economic or Ontological makes all the difference.
John 6:38, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
Q wrote:
Here is additional reading on that passage:
Galatians 3:28
http://juniaproject.com/logic-galatians-328/
Paul in context is speaking about justification by faith, not by works of the law.
We are all equally justified the same way but it didn’t change our sexes or our station in life.
The context has nothing to do with roles in the church or the home.
And gifting isn’t the issue, unless you think Jesus is less gifted than the father, he is not, just took the role of a servant.
It seems to me that satan is having a heyday by keeping people focused on issues that are not even secondary issues. The focus needs to return to God , the Father, Christ , the Son and the empowerment of The Holy Spirit. Thanks to TWW for trying to redirect the focus to where it should be. It is so easy to be distracted by the enemy. In God’s view of things who cares if women are teachers, elders or even pastors. What us important is doing what God says. Taking care of the widows and orphans , caring for the sick and visiting those in jail. Maybe I have a bad attitude, but I am tired of the YRR who don’t seem to be obeying the basics of the Gospel. Sorry for venting.
Daisy wrote:
Only by wrenching Gal 3:28 from its context and importing into it an ideology derived from somewhere else can this verse be turned into a manifesto for liberation theology. Moreover, the propriety of women leaders in the church must be decided through careful exegesis of those passages that touch on that issue. Galatians 3:28 cannot legitimately be used either as evidence or counterevidence in this debate. It is regrettable that recent discussions of this theme have obscured the amazing good news Paul set forth in this verse.
George, T. (1994). Galatians (Vol. 30, p. 291). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
@ bernie:
Genesis does not prove women are subordinate to men (creation order, etc), nor that women ought to be, or that they should not be preachers. Much have been written refuting all such points on egalitarian sites.
Men and women were equal prior to the fall.
Nothing about the role of preaching is even mentioned in the Creation narratives.
What did Paul mean by “man was not created for woman, but woman for man” in 1 Cor. 11:9?
http://equalitycentral.com/blog/?p=916
Q wrote:
Gal 3.28 is teaching that men and women are equals, so in that regard, it can be applied to “roles in church and home.”
Also, Jesus is not eternally subordinate to God the Father.
@ bernie:
As I was just saying to the other guy in this thread:
Gal 3.28 is teaching that men and women are equals, so in that regard, it can be applied to “roles in church and home.”
dee wrote:
Dee, I will try.
Paul said the gospel he preached was that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried and was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, the Neo Calvinists and others add building the kingdom of God as part of the gospel.
So I believe what they are saying is that not being complementarian affects the latter (kingdom building) not the former (personal salvation).
Sadly they are adding to the gospel and not being complementarian (under their control) hinders their goals or “gospel”.
bernie wrote:
Where does God assign “roles” to Adam and Eve pre-fall?
BTW – No one is denying differences between males and females.
Dee,
I’m also flummoxed at how most people I know in the conservative church remain completely unaware of the structural sins of racism, classism and sexism that have dominated human history, including the history of the U.S. (and in my 40+ years as a Christian, I’ve been in charismatic, reformed, reformed charismatic, and a couple of mainline churches — mainly because I’ve moved 20 times in my lifetime!)
One of the best conversations I’ve ever had was with a math professor at our local college, who told me he and his partner do not believe in gender distinctions. I lit up and told him about Paul’s statement in Galatians 3. He was astonished that anything like that was in the New Testament, especially given the way the conservative church tends to represent Christ and the New Testament. (BTW he gave me the best analogy to explain to my students the difference between dividing by 0 and 0 divided any other number.:)
Years ago, Harold O.J. Brown, an evangelical scholar, wrote a book called “Heresies,” in which he argued that most extremes in Christian thinking throughout the centuries are reactions to extreme thinking on the other side of the pendulum. Great book. It seems to me that extreme christian/cultural conservatives and those who reject any gender distinctions (not “roles,” but the basic categories) as completely arbitrary, play off each other, becoming more extreme. As a wise friend once remarked to me, “fundamentalists
on both extremes meet in the darkness and create havoc for the rest of us.”
I think the church has at all times become too easily captivated by the spirit of every age, that oppresses the poorest, most powerless and most marginalized, largely by exploiting whatever forms of racism, sexism and classism are currently in vogue. The shame to me is how much of the American church is completely blind to this history of oppression, both individually and institutionally, in the U.S.
On a lighter note, Jesus’ church has also shone the brightest through history when believers do the gospel, and I see many today who are shining brightly. I love your blog and learn so much from the community here.
Q, thank you for clarifying the context of your remarks on gospel of the kingdom vs. gospel of salvation. You are right on! I was reacting partly because I’ve seen that false distinction used in extreme charismatic/pentecostal circles, and it makes my blood boil. 🙂 I had no idea the neocals were using it — mainly because I just cannot believe what I’m reading, having once been in the moderate charismatic Reformed camp.
@ dee:
Oops! Didn’t see this when I asked the same. 🙂
bernie wrote:
You’re on my bad side just using the word “ontological”. Just as long as you don’t start quoting Wayne Grudem, I won’t go ballistic.
Q wrote:
Fair enough, I retract my “balderdash”
bernie wrote:
Where?
Daisy, I have really been enjoying your recent comments on this blog.
Bernie, I do not think you meant to say “liberation theology;” Did you mean feminism?
Dee, I just read a pertinent post over at Homeschoolers Anonymous, and Bernie, he even quotes one of the “granddaddies” of liberation theology — it’s an excellent post!
https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/07/24/why-i-am-a-radical-activist-for-all-things-evil-r-l-stollars-story/
Law Prof wrote:
ESS?
@ bernie:
Sorry, I did not read far enough since I read from the top down. You are merely quoting the talking points. These have all been refuted many times here, including by me, by pointing out the exegetical and logical flaws in the “arguments.” These are the ten points of male superiority.
bernie wrote:
Does God know? Where does he explain this?
Being created first or second isn’t a role. God commanding Adam about the trees to eat from isn’t a role.
bernie wrote:
Problem I have is when people in their lust to worship their male parts start grabbing at all manner of straws and go beyond even twisted scriptures to making essential doctrines up whole cloth. Example, the ESS heresy which at the end of the day is nothing more than a desperately foolhardy attempt to justify male superiority by setting up this greater/lesser dichotomy and making it out to be an essential paradigm of the universe and everything even beyond, reaching up to the very Godhead. So in their desire to dominate the little lady, they are willing even to misrepresent and blaspheme God. Scary stuff. You’re using just enough lingo and code words to make me wonder about you, whether you’re a danged fool or just a fellow believer. Hopefully you haven’t followed others who have gone before down the hellhole that is ESS.
Q wrote:
I think you are mistakenly reading that in an overly narrow sense. The actual language indicates that not only are the socially-ordained status markers of “slave” and “free” and the birth status marker of Jew and Gentile no longer operative in the Kingdom of Christ, but neither are the distinctions between male and female of any consequence. I believe that Paul is referencing not only Joel’s prophecy but also hearkening back to the way things were before the Fall, in Genesis 1:26-28, where God jointly commissioned the Man and the Woman and gave them both the Father’s blessing. There is no distinction in the Kingdom between his daughters and his sons. It applies to salvation, but it doesn’t make sense to limit it to salvation since no one thought that only males could be saved under the Old Covenant. Paul is not talking about salvation only but about status.
bernie wrote:
What do you think this means? What meaning does “for” carry in this verse?
To those asking where – read down further
Carole Ryan wrote:
That entire reply was a quote from this commentary – I think he meant “women’s lib” not Justo Gonzalez style
http://www.christianbook.com/galatians-new-american-commentary/timothy-george/9780805401301/pd/0130X
Law Prof wrote:
Sorry don’t know your codewords
Corbin wrote:
Whatever makes Piper and Grudem and Owen BHLH feel comfortable as men. If anything makes them feel insecure, you cannot do it.
bernie wrote:
Indeed it does. Please explain for me how the Eternal Son is “economically” eternally subordinate to the Father while being eternally ontologically equal in glory and power? I would like to hear your explanation for that. What does it mean for a Person of the Trinity to play a “role?”
bernie wrote:
Please enlighten us. Start with the magical verse where God ordained roles for the genders before the Fall. Then, explain why 1 Timothy 2:15 does not mean what it plainly says when I suppose that you would say that 2:11-12 *do* mean what they “plainly” say. That’s for starters.
bernie wrote:
Do you know what liberation theology is? Who at TWW has advocated for liberation theology?
@ Gram3:
I think you may proving my point.
You said “Paul is not talking about salvation only but about status.”
Status “station in life” has nothing to do with salvation by grace through faith, the context includes status but not roles.
Gram3 wrote:
But how does that apply to me, since I’m a male myself? How can my masculinity usurp theirs? This seems to go against the whole regime of compism.
Bridget wrote:
Read Genesis 2
*God formed a man
*there he put the man he had formed
*God took the man
*The man gave names
It is clear that God put the man in charge. That was his role.
He holds Adam responsible in Gen 3:17 based on what he told him earlier – “of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it”
From the TWW Marquee to this Article:
CBMW- They cannot define gender roles in any practical way. But, you better agree with them 100% or the PCA will *cite* you.
I thought Grudem had a kind of Talmud, or more precisely a Fatwa he had written up governing what women can and cannot do and still be ‘Biblical’?
Gram3 wrote:
Again – keep reading
bernie wrote:
Where?
Gram3 wrote:
Forgive me when I think you are trying to bait me – not have a conversation with me. Are you denying what standard orthodox theologies have to say about the Trinity or something else?
Corbin wrote:
If you break ranks and join the angry feminist band, you are a traitor, and that makes Piper and all the others uncomfortable. You must maintain solidarity.
What I think is interesting reading the comments so far is that no one with comp leanings is addressing the problems Dee brought up in the original post. Just rehashing the same comp talking points we’ve heard before is not going to change opinions here?
Just a thought, gents.
__
Dee,
Hey,
Q. How can a woman be an elder, and if married, the husband of one wife?
I haven’t figured that on out yet.
Have you?
—
@ bernie:
I am not baiting you any more than you are baiting me or any others. I’m asking you for a demonstration of some evidence for your assertions. Please explain to me how you see the Eternal Son of God being eternally “functionally/economically” subordinate while also being eternally equal in power and glory with the Father.
I understand the differences between the immanent and the economic Trinity. I’m asking you to explain what the Trinity has to do with male/female relationships. I’m asking you to do the exegetical work to prove your points rather than just repeat what Ware and Grudem and Piper have said about the Eternal Son of God. Your Savior.
Sopwith wrote:
I thought the Supreme Court settled that…
:*P
GovPappy wrote:
Let me rephrase: The main points of Dee’s post seem to remain largely ignored. Sure, we can nitpick perceived misinterpretations of verses all day, but that’s not necessarily what the post is addressing, is it.
@ GovPappy:
Here’s a prediction: They will not address the actual texts or the logical fallacies that are so obvious in RMBW or in its various recapitulations. So, Bernie lobs his bomblets and tells us to read further in Genesis 2, as if we haven’t all read Genesis 2 already.
Muff Potter wrote:
Lig Duncan, among others, was pushing Grudem’s list. But it was so embarrassing that it has been disappeared. I saw it once in a church when it was still live.
Gram3 wrote:
Do you believe the Nicene Creed?
Gram3 wrote:
Is it assumed that those who’ve taken the egal position either have never read “the whole counsel of God” or have just thrown the bible out almost entirely?
bernie wrote:
None of that proves that “God put the man in charge.”
Gram3 wrote:
Well, that’s an unspoken rule. I want the official legalese for my goal to be a comp.
bernie wrote:
Wasn’t the man the only one around in this version? Who else would give names? How is naming a role of being in charge?
Does God giving Adam instructions about the trees to eat from something other than God speaking to a particular person. Of course God would call Adam to task about eating the fruit because God gave Adam the instructions. If God gives me instructions, I’m the one accountabke for the instructions, right? It does not make me “in charge” of everything for now and evermore though.
Your points in the quote are not an argument for Adam’s role in any way as far as I can see.
GovPappy wrote:
Those are usually assumed by them, yes. That plus anyone who doesn’t agree with gender complementarianism has been influenced by secular feminists.
Never mind cases like mine – I was raised as a gender comp, used to believe it, have never agreed with most of secular feminists on anything, and realized that the comp position is not biblical from reading the Bible itself.
Mary Kassian and Dottie Patterson are beneficiaries of the System. Barriers to entry into their privileged world must be kept high to protect their status as Queen Bees. Not sure if that lingo is still used, but that’s what we used to call them. As long as they keep the other women in line, their position is assured within the System.
Kassian is backpedaling because her position is ridiculous, and I think she knows it. I wonder how many seminary students are being supported by their wives? They must provide some indulgences for the economic realities of a seminary education or no one will be able to afford to go to seminary. Then where would they be?
Gram3 wrote:
I need this list to show to the missus. If anybody knows where it can be found, or has it, please reply.
GovPappy wrote:
I’m no comp, that’s for sure, but I did ask about whether or not Grudem came out with a whole list of stuff women can and cannot do in order to give concrete clarification to their proper and ‘Biblical’ roles.
bernie wrote:
Yes. Do you? I’ve answered your questions. How about if you answer some of mine? Or are you above that?
I just saw the following on CT’s site.
The writer, who I think is a woman, and who says she is a complementarian, is never the less fine and peachy with women holding positions of power in politics:
Amen to Women in Politics
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2015/july/amen-to-female-politicians.html
So, some comps think women can and should be President of the USA but not read the Bible to a class of 12 year old boys in Sunday School.
The complementarian position makes no sense.
Daisy wrote:
Or mine, a grown-ass married man who was indoctrinated from day one yet has rejected the doctrine and led my wife astray as well.
@ Muff Potter:
Which is why I want to see it. I can’t even wrap my head around that Pharisee-ism.
“Dr Dorothy [Kelley] Patterson (PhD University of South Africa)”
DTheol (D.Th. or Th.D.), 1998, with a thesis (dissertation) on “Aspects of a Biblical Theology of Womanhood.” I can’t find the name of her promoter (advisor). Unisa is a distance education program (having spun off from the University of London system a century ago), so this doesn’t tell us how long she was in Pretoria. As a 1999 graduate (in philosophy) myself, I wonder at the unexpected synchronicity. I met some of the religious studies faculty, one of whom seved as my co-promoter.
Corbin wrote:
People who want absolute control write very vague statutes because then they retain the options, and you are always uncertain of the true boundaries. It’s because they want you to live in fear of violating the “God’s rules” lest you call down the wrath of God on you. Because their rules are God’s rules. And your fear keeps you in bondage to their system of indulgences. There is nothing new under the sun.
GovPappy wrote:
Remember Winston Smith in Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’? A lot of this stuff disappears into memory holes and Gulags for words that never existed.
GovPappy wrote:
Here.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/11/Which-Church-Roles-Should-Be-Open-To-Women.aspx?p=1
@ GovPappy:
In addition, we have capitulated to the culture. Or are pursuing Western ideas of autonomy (by which they mean autonomy from their rule.) Which are all, at best ad hominems and thought-stoppers.
Sorry, nothing much to say about complementaianism, except that it seems to be cousin to the (equally pathological and reactionary) Red Pill Movement.
@ Corbin:
Eureka!
Did the Early Christians Agree on Women Leaders?
http://www.shawnaatteberry.com/2012/06/07/did-the-early-christians-agree-on-women-leaders/
Bernie, orthodox, historical Trinitarian doctrine has nothing to do with the “eternal subordination of the Son” stuff going around. I had never even heard of ESS until I came across this blog and others on the hubris and heresies of the neocals.
Also, you were definitely not clear in your original post on liberation theology that you were quoting a commentary that was misusing the phrase. As to the commentary’s author, Timothy George, consider the source.
Gram3, your writing refreshes me and stimulates my thinking in this area — I had not had to think deeply about this stuff in recent years until I started reading online blogs. (Teaching and raising teenagers took up most of my time these past 10 years — plus I’ve been in “church abuse recovery”)
I completely agree that Peter and Paul are both hearkening back to the man and woman as together created in the image of God and commissioned to steward the earth. In fact, I also believe that the gift of tongues that occurred in Acts 2 and 10 were about reversing the confusing of the languages and scattering of humanity at the tower of Babel. God is all about reversing the curses on so many levels, and even more, he is all about his New Creation in Christ. No kingdoms of this world matter to him, and no “kingdom building” that men do for themselves will stand. Keep up the good fight!
Gram3 wrote:
+1. BTW, I have to know what BHLH with Owen means. I know I’m going to laugh.
@ Corbin:
Bless His Little Heart. And that is inflected with a pat on his little head and a pinch of his cute little cheek. I got bored with “not John.”
Carole Ryan wrote:
Yes, God is reversing the effects of sin, but some people are intent on keeping and promoting the sinful results of the Fall while calling them God-ordained. It must grieve God when his name is invoked to keep certain classes of people in their Proper Place in the Creation Order.
Gram3 wrote:
He is rather adorable!! With his perpetually fresh-cut hair, boyish grin and 5 o’clock shadow, he knows he looks good, theologically AND physically!
Let us not forget that Russell Moore says that “patriarchy” is indeed the correct and preferred descriptor of their system and that “the gospel” cannot be adequately expressed unless there is female subordination *and* subordination within the Trinity. So, I guess that Moore disagrees with Kassian, and Kassian is a woman, so “patriarchy” it is. That is why Doug Wilson, the Penetrator-Colonizer, is perfectly acceptable to Piper and the others while any number of *conservative* non-patriarchalists are unacceptable. Patriarchy is now a primary doctrine.
@ Corbin:
He’s a rapper, too. How cool is that?
Sopwith wrote:
When you get it clocked Sopy, let us know Okay?
I’m at a baffling Scripture impass myself Sopy. It sez in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 that if my daughter is found to not be a virgin on her wedding night, she’s to be stoned to death at my front door. I can’t figure out if I jus’ gotta supply the front door or if I gotta help out with the stoning… can you help me figure it out?
Gram3 wrote:
Here is the link to that, if you need it.
Russel Moore: “I hate the term ‘complementarian’…”
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2008/05/russel-moore-i-hate-term-complementarian
Snippet from that page:
Russell Moore: Gender identity and complementarianism… I hate ….the word ‘complementarian’, I prefer the word ‘patriarchy’…
Gram3, yes, and what I continue to be aghast about is that most in the conservative church do not understand how angry God gets at the oppression by the powerful of the powerless. What has just torqued my mind through reading this and other blogs is that they have created an entire heretical theological system to back their abuse of power, and so many believers have fallen for it. I’ve been reading this stuff for a year and am still stunned. All things considered, I’d rather hang out with my teenagers and their Brave New World where gender reassignment is the latest civil rights issue. I get that better than this stuff.
@ Daisy:
And there was Bruce Ware’s infamous quote about unsubmissive women causing their husbands to react either with abuse or passivity. How pathetically weak is that? Ware’s Ten Reasons have become dogma, and no one in the patriarchy world seems to much care how illogical they are. It’s almost to the point where the more ridiculous their statements, the more adamant their defenders get. Without explaining at all either the textual evidence or their system of logic.
Carole Ryan wrote:
I think there is an entire generation in the conservative church who have never heard anything besides the CMBW narrative about male and female and about the Trinity. Credit where it is due, they have been very effective with their false dichotomy propaganda: Either Complementarian or anti-God. Either Complementarian or Liberal. Either Complementarian or godless feminist. Thought-stopping appeals can be very effective.
For me as a conservative, it has been shocking how they misuse the actual text, misstate what the texts say, and apply an inconsistent and ad hoc hermeneutic. I will be very interested if Bernie can do better than Schreiner and Kostenberger with 1 Timothy 2:15. Because they say that women are saved by keeping to their role, for which “chilbearing” is a representation.
dee wrote:
Follow the money. You cannot love God and Mammon. I am sure the Spirit did convict but His voice was quenched by subtle arguments that lined up with the economic advantage of the majority.
“Clearly” men are in charge? For all time because of one incident? I can play that eisegetical game too!
The first person told to preach the gospel, that Jesus is risen, was a woman. “Clearly” women are to be in charge of preaching the gospel (for all time).
Sarah told Abraham that to get rid of Hagar. God told Abraham to obey Sarah. “Clearly” husbands are to obey their wives commands (for all time).
Wisdom in Proverbs is described as a woman. “Clearly” women are wiser than men, because wisdom would be a man if men were really wise.
I could go on. The argument stinks.
Sarah K wrote:
Apparently it smells really good to some people, as illogical as it is.
Leila wrote:
Male Supremacist.
Handmaid’s Tale as How-to Manual.
Bridget wrote:
Does it smell pretty good if you’re the one personally benefiting from it?
Gram3 wrote:
According to Jewish sources, that was the original meaning of “Taking God’s Name in Vain.” Invoking God’s Name to justify evil.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Probably. But I’m sure some believe it to be the truth with all sincerity.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I have heard that as well as the idea of using God to buttress one’s own word. As in “I swear to God.” We have no business using God for our own purposes, IMO. That is what pagans and animists do.
@ Gram3:
“It’s almost to the point where the more ridiculous their statements, the more adamant their defenders get.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
reminds me of nigel tufnel in spinal tap. “These go to eleven.”
——-
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and…
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it’s louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don’t know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don’t you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
Bridget wrote:
I know some who hold these beliefs with the utmost sincerity. They trust their teachers and are not willing to question or see the need to question anything their trusted leaders teach. In the conservative church, for the most part, there is only one “right” way to think. So, as a result, no thinking ever gets done because thinkers are very inconvenient and everyone knows that at one level or another.
@ elastigirl:
So, are we up to thirteen by now? Here’s my previous comment about Ware’s Top Ten Reasons for Male Headship on Todd’s post:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/16/further-evidence-of-dubais-connection-to-c-j-mahaney-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/comment-page-1/#comment-173871
I hope I did that right.
Daisy wrote:
Only breeders.
Spawning pits cranking out Uruk-Hai for The Culture War.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jamrudGfC4)
“Our wombs shall be our weapons!” — attr to Extreme Euro-Mullah preaching Islamic Quiverfull
Or switching from LOTR to Game of Thrones, here’s Patriarch Tywin Lannister and his dwarf son Tirion on the practical details of that 200-year plan for his Dynasty and descendants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSTRfEDyQzM
@ elastigirl:
Yer’ makin’ me think of Live at Leeds. Arguably the best live rock album ever recorded. (The Who ~ 14th Feb. 1970)
My, my, so many great comments, so little time… actually I’ve way more time than usual. My husband took my daughter and her friends to an anime conference and my son and I are hanging out, discussing feminism and the church and reading at our favorite internet sites. Life is good. Now, if only the pets would put themselves to bed without expecting me to go to bed with them…
Abi Miah (great name, what’s the etymology?) yes, follow the money, but also follow the political power — I think things really started to go south when the church became the primary political power — whether among the Romans, the Orthodox, or the Protestants.
Sarah K., loved your comment. I wish I thought more like that.
Gram3, I, too, am a theological conservative (maybe, more accurately, a moderate? There used to be more room for us in both the evangelical camp and the Republican party) with a high view of Scripture. I met my husband at Regent College in Vancouver, B.C. over 24 years ago, when all the weird comp stuff started coming out, mainly from Trinity Evangelical in Deerfield(?)
I remember a few male students who were, what I termed then, “hard a** Calvinists,” but they were completely ignored. Gordon Fee was my personal hero, and J.I. Packer, while he did not believe in ordaining women (I think he was one of the very few faculty or maybe the only one who did not), was such a kind, thoughtful, humble guy, we were not offended by him, but loved and respected him.
Regent was about the gospel, international community, and great evangelical scholarship, and when I graduated and married, I was working again in inner city ministries and having babies. (I DID NOT go up there to find a husband; I was extremely happy as a single woman in ministry, getting to fulfill my longtime dream of studying the Bible with great scholars. 🙂
When I came back to the U.S. after nearly 5 years there, I remember hearing people discuss things like the “King James only” and “the Rapture” and I remember being surprised, thinking “People still talk about these things?” Things like that never came up at places like Regent — or, if they did, they were gently and humorously corrected.
I remember reading one article by Piper in CT and thinking how incredibly arrogant he was. I never read him again, though my brother was (maybe still is) a fan. I still think Piper was deeply jealous of true scholars with real PhDs and that his arrogance was a cover for deep insecurity. When I heard he had marriage problems, I was not surprised.
So that’s literally all I knew about all this stuff until a year and a half ago when I quit tutoring high schoolers and started reading blogs. What an eye opener for me! You have been so incredibly helpful to me, as I’ve read and reflected. I do not even recognize most of the people you mention — except for Piper and Grudem.
I am just so glad you are here, even though I know you must get battle weary. I feel as though my beloved Evangelical tradition has been hijacked right out from under me, when I wasn’t paying attention. Thank you for being such an articulate spokesman for the Scripture and for women in the church. I could not have considered myself still an Evangelical, I think, if I had not been able to go to Regent and experience a Christianity outside of American fundamentalism.
dee wrote:
Yes. It is about full inheritance for ALL believers. That is a problem for comps so they insist it is about salvation which makes no sense as it is written TO believers within that context.
GovPappy wrote:
Carole Ryan wrote:
Good word! I agree. The left can be just as dogmatic, legalistic and fundy as the right in tactics.
@ lydia:
Gov pappy, how did you get in that box??? :o)
Remember this from 2008?
“LifeWay Christian Stores reportedly pulled a Christian magazine from its racks because five smiling women on its cover are pastors.”It is contrary to what we believe,” Chris Turner, a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention publishing house, which runs the nationwide chain, said in a story by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The newspaper said the September-October 2008 issue of Gospel Today, an “urban, faith-based” lifestyle magazine geared toward African-American Christians, could still be purchased in more than 100 LifeWay stores, but only from under the counter by request from a store clerk.”
– See more at: http://www.ethicsdaily.com/report-lifeway-pulls-magazine-featuring-women-preachers-cms-13215#sthash.Edc2C8S6.dpuf
Meanwhile dozens of books and study guides by Beth Moore line Lifeway’s shelves.
I give Keri Folmar, wife of John Folmar (the senior pastor at United Christian Church of Dubai) credit for being cleverly submissive. She has managed to publish two bible study books. She was able to gain the approval of the female subordinationist police (including her husband) by tacking on two word to the end of the titles – “for women.” The books are “Joy: A Bible Study on Philippians for Women” and “Faith: A Bible Study on James for Women.” No word yet on whether these books would be suitable for use in the Care Life Groups of UCCD.
As Dee said, this crowd is unable to clearly define differences of roles between men and women. What they end up with a jumbled mess. The board members of CBMW remind me of the Sadducees in Matthew 22.
Gram3 wrote:
Amazingly there is a work of salvation for some women. Too bad if barren, eh?
They often do not think through their teaching to its logical conclusion.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Well at first you could buy them behind the counter like porn mags but even that was too risky.
Darn! Dorothy Patterson updated her website and bio. Missing is the mention of her midnight buffet with Yassar Arafat in one of Saddams Palaces.
She really is the Hyacinth Bouquet of the SBC
Laying aside the biblical arguments either favoring or opposing the core beliefs held by the para-church organization CBMW; how does any organization intend to have a modicum of credibility when they have as their board members Ligon Duncan, Wayne Grudem and Jeff Purswell? All three men are strong supporters of C.J. Mahaney. Mahaney of course has conspired to protect sexual abusers in the corporation previously known as Sovereign Grace Ministries; now calling themselves Sovereign Grace Churches. Mahaney has also blackmailed Larry Tomzcak, former founding partner with Mahaney of the corporation previously known as People of Destiny International, then Sovereign Grace Ministries and now Sovereign Grace Churches.
Additionally CBMW has as council members Bruce Ware (spoke at Mahaney’s church endorsing the man); John Piper (also “snatched” the opportunity to speak at Mahaney’s church, strongly endorsing him); Al Mohler (issued a strong statement of support for Mahaney which even after the criminal prosecution of Nate Morales resulting in a guilty verdict he has never rescinded); Joshua Harris (the former senior pastor of CLC, handpicked and groomed by Mahaney who resigned shortly after it came to light in the Morales trial that he had lied to his church about their knowledge and coverup of sexual abuse in CLC); and lastly, the wolf himself – C.J. Mahaney!
@ bernie:
From the “Me Tarzan. You Jane.” Commentary on Genesis.
Nancy Leigh DeMoss is soon to be married. I wonder if she’s going to put “homemaker” on her bio. Waiting with baited breath on that one!
I guess I need to update my resume. Need to list my role of “lawn caretaker” at my home.
Gram3 wrote:
See that boggles the mind. They have the Fundy donut hole theory of theology – keep making secondary issues primary so that your enemies are all around you: that way you can shoot in any direction and hit an enemy and you get to feel like you’re standing up for the gospel.
lydia wrote:
Don’t you put me in a box, ma’am!
__
No Stones Required?
hmmm…
Muff Potter wrote:
***
Muff,
In da Old Testament, God Almighty made the rules, harsh as they sound, However in the New Testament, Jesus iniated a new covenant, made up of two basic rules, Love God first, with all, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus could (in fulfiling the O.T.) afford to be generous because of His eventual sacrifice for sins on the cross.
hope this helps!
Avail yourself of His (Jesus’) sacrafice today, you’ll be glad you did!
ATB
Sopy
—
__
“Chump Theology” ™ ?
hmmm…
Calvinist and their chump theology needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Aparrently their chump theoplgy has their god already condemning prior to birth, a whole pile of folks to the fires of Hell,
Whats a few more, put threw hell, gonna change?
(sadface)
ATB
Sopy
—
GovPappy wrote:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/03/wayne-grudem-83-biblical-rules-for-gospel-women/
Anyone swallowing the camel of Bruce Ware’s heresies and straining the gnat of a candidates’s admitted doubt in a minor detail is definitely on their way to becoming a fundamentalist cult.
As I’ve said elsewhere on this blog, fundamentalism is not a sign of faith but rather of a lack of faith. It’s an expression of fear – fear of the facts, fear of the truth, and – as in all fundamentalisms in any religion – fear of women, who have to be suppressed in order to keep those fearful men in power.
Jesus told us not to fear, and not act according to our fears.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
I so despise that ‘for women’ idiocy. I totally cannot respect that idea or approach. Do they have a special edition of Nelson’s Textbook of Pediatrics ‘for women’? Did I carry around something like Neuroanatomy ‘for women’ in med school? Did we have a ‘for women’ dissection area in gross anatomy lab? Does the manual that came with my new vehicle say ‘for women’? For that matter, when I got a new computer controlled washing machine (big mistake) did the the instructions say ‘for women’? Not one of my academic degrees or certificates or licenses ever included ‘for women’ as a variable. Yet somehow somebody thinks that I, theoretically a potential customer for some book, am so intellectually and culturally limited that I need some silly watered down version written ‘for women’ and I am guessing written at the sixth grade reading level in order to grow in understanding of something they call how-to-be-christian. What the…? When there is substantive stuff out there to be had and to be read? I take it as a personal insult, and there is very little that I take as personally insulting, but I do react that way to ‘for women’ books. It makes christianity look childish and silly. Dear goodness what are they thinking? And why would anybody respect men who act like that when there are a plethora of men, actual grown and intelligent and successful christian men, who do not think like that or treat women like that?
I wish I could feel pity for the perpetrators of this mess, but I am not at that point yet. I will try; I do believe that is the proper mature christian response to this. Pity. Lord, help me change my disgust to pity.
Daisy wrote:
why should it make sense now, all of a sudden? It’s never made the least sense before?
Gram3 wrote:
Stuff like that actually contradicts their views that men should be in charge (and usually they reason this is so because men are more suitable for leadership and women are flawed in some way), because in the end, they make women responsible for men’s behavior!
Women are actually in control of men in their scheme of things.
Closely related to that is that Complementarians teach that men are weak in regards to sexual sin, and that women hold power over men in this area, so that women are taught by complementarians to “dress modestly,” to keep men from “stumbling”.
Well, if men are so very weak and incapable of controlling themselves sexually (according to comps), why on earth should I, a woman, be expected to take orders or direction or lessons from such weak creatures who I ultimately have such power over?
If we’re going by comp logic, I don’t think such incredibly weak people, who can be so easily swayed by the female body, should be put in charge of anything.
I don’t think comps think through the consequences, implications, or ramifications of their worldview thoroughly.
Gus wrote:
That is very true. 🙂
Comps base their position on personal biases imposed on top of a handful of Bible verses.
They think quoting the same two or three passages by Paul or from Genesis proves their points…
All they are doing are allowing their anti-woman bias to color how they interpret those texts.
The text itself does not prohibit all women of all eras from leading or preaching, and it sure as heck does not teach that husbands are in authority over wives.
Gram3 wrote:
And infertile women or single celibate women are hosed in this theology.
Somehow, I don’t get the idea from the New Testament that Jesus was closing the door of salvation in the faces of women based on marital or parenting status.
Complementarians cater far too much to marriage and parenthood, which leaves divorced people, widows, singles, child free, and childless out in the cold.
Carole Ryan wrote:
Does “going around” mean that you think it is something new? Or is just the name new? I’ve never heard of the acronym ESS until I was “accused” of it. Is it like Dihydrogen Monoxide poisoning? Where the renaming is done to make something seem more sinister or is actually and provably heresy?
Sarah K wrote:
Good points.
Reminds me a little of this:
10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry.
http://eugenecho.com/2008/04/26/10-reasons-why-men-should-not-be-ordained-for-ministry/
Sarah K wrote:
So you maintain there is only one example of male leadership in Scripture or something else?
Bridget wrote:
Did God choose to create the man first?
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
I know I’ve shared this story before, but this goes along with your point.
A lady on another blog said she was finally awoken to the absurdity and arbitrary nature while attending a Christian college as a student.
Every week the students had to gather in a chapel to hear sermons and lectures. One week, they had a famous Christian lady author give a speech / sermon, whatever you want to call it, in the chapel.
She said she didn’t understand that, because technically, a woman should not have been allowed to speak at their school in the chapel at all.
But what the school did in the case of the lady guest speaker was move the big, heavy wooden podium out of the way, the one that was normally used when male speakers were on stage, and replaced it with some feminine, small, girly table with flowers painted on it or whatever.
Which does make you think that complementarians are not investing authority in the word of God (by the speaker on the stage quoting Scripture), but in the type of furniture the speaker stands behind, and in the gender of the one speaking.
So, are Baptist and Protestant gender comps really sola scriptura? You know they claim to be, but they act like authority resides in the male gender or in podiums, not in God’s word.
Daisy wrote:
– arbitrary nature of gender complementarianism, I should have written, but I forgot to put that phrase in there.
Daisy wrote:
Exactly. It is all about being married. Being a single female, you are hosed…and your post earlier about comp females in politics. We have a couple in the Texas Leg. I can’t for the life of me understand how they they don’t see the hypocrisy?
lydia wrote:
LOL, I didn’t see your post when I made mine saying much the same thing in another post a few minutes ago. 🙂
Yeah, I’m single and celibate so I guess having faith in Jesus would not save me when I die. I’m still heading for Hell. Thanks for that cheery message, gender complementarians!
And, as far as I stay alive, I’m considered of no value to them since I’m not married and don’t have children.
I really do think this is another reason why women are leaving churches and becoming nones, dones, dechurched, etc. The ones who don’t fit the very narrow definition of “womanhood” as put forward by gender complementarians are tired of being ignored or having their feelings stomped on or being treated like second class citizens.
(I’ve read a few books about why people leave churches, and there are interviews with handfuls of childless and single adults who said that is in fact the very reason they’ve dropped out of church and some want nothing to do with the Christian faith over this.)
lydia wrote:
LOL. Love that show. It’s not “Bucket,” it’s “Bouquet.”
Tom R wrote:
This reminds me.
Genesis mentions that men will have to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, and there other consequences of the fall are mentioned for women.
Others have pointed out that gender complementarian men of today want to stick the penalties to women, but let men off the hook for theirs.
So gender comps show up at comfy, 9 to 5 jobs, sitting in cushioned office chairs in air conditioned offices. They don’t expect one another to break a sweat to earn bread anymore, but oh boy, women are still expected to suffer the negative outcomes of the fall.
Handy how that works for them, they get all the perks but none of the negatives, while they stick all the negatives to women and none of the perks.
There is no amount of biblical proof texting by the Bernies and other gender comps of the world that will make the glaring hypocrisy and sexism of this stuff any more convincing or acceptable.
@ Victorious:
If you visit this page…
5 REASONS TO STOP USING 1 TIMOTHY 2:12 AGAINST WOMEN
http://juniaproject.com/5-reasons-stop-using-1-timothy-212-against-women/
Grudem’s Talmud for women (his list of 83 or 85 or however many things women can and cannot do) is linked to on that page and discussed a bit, under point 5.
Gus wrote:
I think in part you may be right about that.
Another thing too. I had someone tell me years ago that he surmises that a lot of fundamentalists are the “weaker brothers” of the faith mentioned in Romans 14.
They are not mature Christians. They don’t realize they have liberty in Christ.
You can read Romans 14 here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14
Here’s the post I got up late last night. I’m super grateful for Amy Smith for blasting it out online 🙂
This is about the Care Director, Eric Nickle at Fairfax Community Church. The other thing to consider is that there is evidence that suggests that people who leave Sovereign Grace Fairfax have come to Fairfax Community Church. So there are several issues including safety of children and families, as well as how this can further affect broken trust by those who attend from SG Fairfax. I had to research and write about SG Fairfax for this issue. It was a Google review and some offhand comments when I was at FCC that taught me this.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/why-does-fairfax-community-church-have-a-care-director-on-the-commonwealth-of-virginias-sex-offender-registry/
okrapod wrote:
You and me both, when it comes to stuff like this.
I’ve seen Bible versions “for women,” they are pink with lots of flowers on the cover.
OTOH, I don’t object to stuff tailored to women if it addresses actual differences.
For example, I’ve read about companies that re-design things such as fire arms or power tools for women, because women typically have smaller hands than men and find it harder to hold or grasp tools made for men.
I think I’ve read that women experience more physical pain than men or more often or stronger than men usually do, so that doctors should prescribe pain medications or higher dosages for women than they do men.
Stuff like that I understand because it’s addressing actual differences that impact a woman’s health and so on, but the “for women” flowery Bibles make me want to vomit.
Tom R wrote:
Indeed, a good part of my day today is going to be tending to my Lawn Care Ministry…
Daisy wrote:
And one of Hyacinth’s sisters was named Daisy 🙂
bernie wrote:
You may not use the term ESS, but apparently some of your views are similar enough to it that some think you subscribe to it. And maybe you do subscribe to it but you just don’t use the name.
Other complementarians do in fact seek to bolster the comp view by appealing to the doctrine of ESS.
Just because you may not intentionally promote or explicitly support ESS does not mean that other comps are not. Because they sure as heck are.
It’s addressed a little here:
Reflections of a New Defense of Complementarianism
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507
bernie wrote:
Creation order does not indicate God favors a male hierarchy.
Often God chose the lesser or younger in a family over the older or greater, which went against cultural norms God doesn’t put much stock in who came first.
As a matter of fact, the New Testament says the first shall be last. (Matthew 20:16)
And,
(Matthew 2:10-11)
Five Myths About Adam and Authority
http://juniaproject.com/5-myths-adam-authority-eden/
Daisy wrote:
Correction: that is from Matt 23, I believe, not Matt 2
roebuck wrote:
I had an aunt who was just like Hyacinth. She taught senior English At Pickton High School ( Texas) for 40 years. I thought it was just her, but later discovered every senior English teacher in small town Texas was just like her…
roebuck wrote:
You are right! I had forgotten about that.
She had two or three sisters, one was always flirting with the cute married preacher, and the other was married to the shlobby looking guy in the ball cap (I liked the shlobby husband, so that’s no knock on him). I forget which is which. I think one sister was named Rose? Everyone was named after a flower.
bernie wrote:
No, there are also examples of female leadership. And examples of horrible male “leadership.” So what?
At this point, Bernie, you are coming across as a condescending male who does not need to answer for his assertions because they are so self-evidently true. Why don’t you answer the substantive questions posed to you? Would it help if the questions did not come from females?
Q wrote:
Jesus’ offer of salvation to all did most certainly change our *station in life.* Suddenly slaves we’re on equal footing with their masters. The station in life concept has been used by those in authority to dominate others.
“Yes, boy, you are saved so serve me now as a good Christian slave.” I think we have to be a bit careful about using such terms.
Daisy wrote:
Whether Bernie knows it or not, the immanent/economic ship has sailed in this new book, and they are saying, straight out, that the Son is essentially subordinate to the Father. And all of the dutiful foot-soldiers are amening this as if George Knight II had not made it up to keep women out of the Presby pulpits. Lydia pointed to a thread at Voices about it. Have they lost their minds?
Gram3 wrote:
This goes back to how gender complementarians keep moving the goal posts to hold on to their position.
The old arguments and biases comps used for centuries to keep women out of positions of leadership and keep them inferior no longer work, so they kept coming up with new arguments to keep the old teachings intact.
All of which should be a give-away to the run- of- the- mill gender complementarians that something is horribly amiss with the comp position, that it’s not very biblical.
Like Holmes said on his blog page:
Source:
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507
Q wrote:
Think it is quite difficult to take the Trinity, a concept that most people struggle with and apply it to mere mortals. I am not so sure it is possible to strictly define “what the Son alone does” versus the Father and The Spirit.
That is why I do not believe that I have seen any marriage that role models the functioning Trinity.If it is meant to be some sort of gospel™ witness to the world, it is one that has supremely failed.
@ Daisy:
You might have to hold the power tools for Piper or Safe. :o)
Oops.. For safety.
__
“One More Calvinist Lie For Da Road?”
hmmm…
Calvinism needs to be suppressed in order to keep those faithful to Jesus’ true message of the gospel (John 3:16) safe.
John Calvin (among other of his murders) had a person drowned for getting re-baptized.
How sick puppy is that?
Time to put an end to “Augustine’s religious circus” (r), huh?
These calvinists are gonna take what they can get from gullible, unknowledgeable folk; they come in by stealth pimping TULIP until you are intolerably sick inside.
I kid you not!
They call Jesus a lier by their nefarious doctrine and get away with it.
The Lord of heaven said :
“God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that WHOSOEVER ‘believes’ in Jesus shall not perish, but receive eternal life”
Q. Are ya gonna believe a 16th century murder, and his fabricated lies or the Lord of Heaven?
You decide.
Scripture sayz : “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived…”
B careful out there, huh?
ATB
Sopy
🙂
—
Leslie wrote:
For many of the “its all about the doctrine crowd,” the widows and orphans thing is merely a tertiary issue. For them, it is primarily important to attempt to describe a hierarchy which appears to be more important to them than truly serving others.
Maybe I will give them props for one thing. The believe the Fall led to men wanting to become powerful. It seems like it is being lived out in our churches with a number of admirals in rowboats running around, trying to consolidate power in tiny groups of people.
I think Miss Julia states the position well:
“I tried my best to tune him out, tired of church politics that pitted one group of men against another group of men over women’s role in the church. I already knew Pastor Ledbetter’s position. He held that women’s duties consisted of covering their heads, their mouths, and their casserole dishes, and I’d done all three about as long as I wanted to.”
–Ann B. Ross, Miss Julia Speaks Her Mind
I’ve never liked the term “gender role.” A role is a part that’s played, implying artificiality. I don’t want to play a role, I just want to be myself. And I’ve never understood why I need a man to tell me how to be a Christian woman. I have the Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit and I believe those resources are sufficient.
bernie wrote:
Fascinating. I have a sense of amazement of this passage. i have since I became a Christian. Yet, I have a different view on the role of women then you do. Are you truly saying that only those who embrace and understand comp theology (although, as I have pointed out, even they can’t adequately define it) can see the Good News of that passage?
@ okrapod:
I hear you on this. It’s ridiculous. I think on this side of the pond, more so than yours the war changed so much as women easily took on men’s jobs & proved to be equal to them, blasting any doubt apart once & for all. My Great Great Aunt Charlotte Jones, who was a missionary in Shanghai at the start of the 20th century came out of retirement to run a munitions factory during the war.
If you approach the scriptures knowing women are just as capable as men it does change the way you see things, enormously. I see Bernie in this thread making huge claims for verses that just don’t contain the kind of role information he thinks they do, but he has no way of identifying the information he is assuming into them. If you came at those verses without prior gender assumptions there’s practically nothing that can be extrapolated out into complementarianism at all.
EMR wrote:
Exactly. It is fake piety masquerading as holiness and sanctification. You have to be behind the scenes as a woman to see the competitive submission game being played which determines the holiness rank of the women in these churches. The men have no idea what their wives are saying.
Q wrote:
So what you are saying is that they believe there is a second gospel which can be achieved here on earth and that is establishing the Kingdom of God?
Bless their hearts, they must go absolutely nuts. In every generation there is significant pushback on establishing a Christian kingdom. Even now, we see the decline of Christians even wanting to attend church.
I kind of like “My kingdom is not of this world” meme. I’ll share the love of Christ, try to care for others and leave the earthly kingdom stuff to Jesus. It sure cuts down on anxiety.
@ Beakerj:
Here is what I don’t understand. Perhaps you have a thoughts. here is an article written by Courtney Reissig- a major comp believer.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2015/july/amen-to-female-politicians.html?start=3
She is glad for women in politics and think they should be in such positions. However, she says that only men can lead in churches. So, in the end, you can have women leading in politics, businesses, etc but in these relatively tiny venues, only men can lead and this somehow points the world to the relationship between the Father and the Son?
Good night! If this is what they mean, we have failed since I don’t get it and I believe that 99.9999% of the world doesn’t see it either. However, interestingly, the symbol of the Cross is understandable to much of the world.
I am confused by their thinking.
Tom R wrote:
Good one! It was just so glaring!
bernie wrote:
Ask Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, John Piler, etal. It means eternal subordination of the Son.
bernie wrote:
If you don’t think role differences are a curse, put on a pair of control top pantyhose and walk a mile in my high-heels, right up the steps into a “comp” church. Then you sit down and shut up, because church business in NONE of YOUR business. Church is controlled by men, for men.
*********************************************************
Sarcasm alert:
Women are clearly just another animal species that God instructed man to take dominion over — actually woman was probably the first animal man was instructed to subdue. I’m not even sure women have souls. After all, the Bible says that God breathed the breath of life into man, and he became a living soul … doesn’t say anything about woman. Do women automatically have souls because God took one of Adam’s ribs and put it in a petri dish???
I can think of several other names for complementarianism, but those names would be difficult to explain to children.
Dorthy Patterson ….. I could have used her these past few weeks. I’ve been canning and freezing fruits and garden foods. I’ll have to send her an email and invite her over the next time we kill chickens. May she can teach me how they pluck feathers at the SWBT.
bernie wrote:
Actually, if we are being completely accurate (and creating a pecking order?), God created a host of living things before he created “man.” I guess they are in charge of Adam and Eve.
Carole Ryan wrote:
TEDS is where Grudem and Ware taught. When I first heard that Joshua Harris was leaving Covenant Life Church to go to Regent, I was pretty sure it must have been another Regent! He will at least get exposed to a wider range of scholarship which may open his eyes. You may not recognize some of the names because they are Southern Baptists who seem to be at the forefront of this movement even though George Knight invented it for the sake of pulpit purity in the conservative Presbyterian churches. I don’t get weary of the battle because there are women who are being taught that they are second-tier at the same time that these people are teaching that Jesus is second-tier. In my view it is scandalous and heretical, but it is the only politically correct view to hold in the SBC today where, once upon a time, you used to be able to actually discuss the Bible rather than sit through a lecture about it. While God gives me thoughts to think, I’m going to continue to uphold the *real* authority of the Bible against these usurpers of the Holy Spirit and of the Son.
Q wrote:
And, thus, the battle line between complementarian and egalitarian. When I view Galatians 3:28, I examine this verse within its immediate context, within the context of the epistle, and within the context of the New Testament (an exegetical process I use for all individual verses, rather than interpreting to support presuppositions). It is true that salvation in Christ is available to all and that Galatians 3:28 clearly speaks of this great promise, but I also see social implications within church and family. The whole of the NT speaks of salvation and equality of all believers, without distinction in which all who accept Christ are sons (and daughters) of God and heirs to the promise.
Debates have raged through the centuries on what Paul was implying here: unity or equality? The Calvinists in the South during the Civil War viewed this passage as granting African Americans spiritual freedom in Christ, but still enabling them to enslave them physically in the culture of that day. Sadly, Calvinist founders of the Southern Baptist Convention held that belief. Both Scripture and history proved them to be wrong. In much the same way, some hyper-complementarians (usually of the Calvinist faith) see Galatians 3:28 as a way to control and dominate the weaker sex. But, when the New Testament is taken as a whole, this passage renders social identity and subordinate roles of the sexes in a relatively more positive light. It offers promise for advancing mutual respect.
We also need to remember that when Paul penned Galatians, he was ministering with women in leadership roles in the churches! Pheobe was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea. Priscilla and her husband Aquila were pastors of a church in Ephesus. Euodia and Syntyche were women who were “true yokefellow” and who labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel. Paul sent encouragement to Junia and Andronicus, his “fellow-prisoners” who were of note among the apostles. Today, women are giving their lives for Christ on foreign fields preaching the Good News to the lost … something that most of the American church would not allow.
We are one in Christ! If husbands truly love their wives as Christ loves the church (and if the church truly loves its women members as Christ loves the church), genuine submission would come into balance … each to each other.
Max wrote:
As in “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” – Ephesians 5:21
@ EMR:
I love Miss Julia!
@ Tom R:
My husband shall be “he who changes the lightbulbs above 5 feet!”
dee wrote:
I think part of this is true and part is not. To the extent someone is a Reconstructionist, or leans that way, it would be true and your BTH fitting. But there is another way to look at the kingdom of God which is, I believe, integral to the gospel because it’s integral to the command to love as we’ve been loved. It results in kingdom outposts in the midst of the world–Christians bringing a cup of cold water in the name of Jesus, Christians laboring in dangerous refugee camps in the Middle East, Christians tutoring at risk children, Christians establishing hospitals and schools, Christians speaking out against injustice. It’s what I think I am praying for when I pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It’s the fruit of a saving faith. Of the Neo-Cals, Keller is the one I am aware of that has written the most about this. (Perhaps others are more Reconstructionist, but Keller doesn’t seem to be at all.) But if it is a Neo-Cal teaching, it’s not limited to them. Anabaptist Don Kraybill wrote a book years ago called the Upside Down Kingdom (Jesus “wins” by “losing”), and Catholic teaching also embraces the sense of the mission of building the kingdom if I’m not mistaken. (e.g. Mother Teresa, the many Catholic hospitals, etc.) So except for Reconstructionist and isolationists, it’s pretty widespread through the various branches of the Church. It’s a kingdom not “of” the world, but “in” the world. I think that is legitimately part of the gospel in the sense that it is an outcome of being united with Jesus and being His hands and feet reaching out into the pain of the world.
___
All this Comp stuff came from the gray matter of a self-confessed blackmailer, and a man who believes Amighty God uses bridges ta kill kind folk?
Fun huh?
What will they think of next?
(sadface)
Sopy
—
EMR wrote:
I agree with both.
I find it confounding that male gender complementarians keep writing books and blogs or going on conferences to tell me how they think I should be a woman.
About the gender role stuff. Sorry to beat a dead horse, I’ve mentioned this before, but some women (such as myself) do not fit neatly into the version of “biblical womanhood.”
They often define a biblical woman to be a passive, girlish, stay at home wife and mom who is into needle point, knitting, and baking cookies.
A lot of that stuff doesn’t apply to me, since I’ve been somewhat of a tom boy since I was a kid. I don’t fit their box.
Daisy wrote:
Sorry, to clarify, I meant I agreed with both of the points EMR was making.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
But they sold Mark Driscoll’s pornographic “Real Marriage” and other such books by the potty-mouth preacher until he became a potato too hot to handle!
bernie wrote:
Actually, I believe that it was the theologians who came up with that moniker. And yes, there are some who believe it is heresy. I, on the other hand, eschew the heresy word whenever I can and, instead, use the theological precise term “Say what?”
To be frank, I believe that resurrecting this thinking was vital in order to go for the full court press on gender roles. Since it seems that it is believed that gender will exist in in the new heavens and earth, it must be determined that men will still be the leaders -like forever.
Frankly, I find this absolutely fascinating. Since we will not marry in heaven, I assume this means we will not have children either. Therefore, what becomes of our our sexual characteristics? Will women still have breasts and a uterus?
Since we will not marry, the female function as keeper of the home should cease unless we are going to select males to just hang around our hearth for the heck of it.
Think about men-will they still need testosterone? They will certainly not need their various sexual organs. Does this mean they will still be physically bigger than women?
So, if sexual organs and hormones are unnecessary, what will differentiate men and women from each other?
I think that there is much we can’t even begin to comprehend. To extrapolate our functions in heaven/the new heavens and earth is to play a guessing game.
PS-I do not, in any way, believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.
bernie wrote:
I was made for ME, not for some man. I am NOT property simply by virtue of being female. It’s this kind of rhetoric that makes it clear to me that single, never-married, middle-aged women are not welcome in quite a few households of faith.
@ bernie:
Therefore, women can’t be elders?…..
Beakerj wrote:
This cannot be said enough. This a million times over.
The comps in this thread come to the biblical text already assuming women are inferior to men, or that God created these strict roles, so of course that is how they read those passages.
They filter everything through that mindset. It also ignores the many examples and passages that talk about gender being of no big import to God, women leaders (such as Deborah in the Old Testament, and Junia in the New), etc.
You really do have to ignore many other passages and ignore the character of God himself and some of the major, overall themes of the Bible to think God is fine with an entire group of people, based on some quality they get at birth, to be subordinate to an entire other group.
Jesus was very firm about his followers not wanting to lord authority over other people, but you see complementarians arguing that men in churches should be able to lord authority over women.
mirele wrote:
I started to giggle when I read this. Think about it. men could not exists without us so we were made to help them out. Women apparently did not need the men. Snort!
bernie wrote:
Off-topic but pertinent: I rather doubt the earliest Christians were having a discussion about Economic or Ontological Trinities. This was dreamed up centuries later by theologians to explain things they didn’t really understand. Yanking texts out of context as proof texts is useless.
@ bernie:
In Genesis the text says that Eve was Adams “help meet”. The same word in ancient Hebrew is used of God being David’s “help meet”. So we can see that Eve is to Adam and God is to David?!?
It is highly dangerous and likely to lead to heresy to take any English translation of the OT and try to extract theological truth from it, especially the KJV and those translations who try to align their translation with the theological implications of the KJV text.
Carole Ryan wrote:
Thank you Carole.
I’ve not read all the comments made since I was here last night, and I’m just now skipping around up and down the page which is why I just now saw this post of yours. Thank you. 🙂
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
First of all, they hid those magazine behind the counter at Lifeway like porn. But they featured religious porn by pushing Driscoll’s books. Talk about religious schizophrenia.
As for UCCD and the Folmars, they are experts at playing “If we say it, it is gospel.™ and acceptable because we are BFFs with Mark Dever just like his little buddy CJ Mahaney.”
@ Sopwith:
In the passage it says that women likewise, so perhaps wife is not the best term, but spouse is. Again we have limitations in human communication, and picking apart little passages written to a specific congregation regarding what is going on there is highly likely to result in misunderstanding of the import of the text.
Paul wrote about big issues and small problems in specific churches or to specific people. If we do not distinguish between the big issues and the small problems, we are led into dangerous territory in applying what we read to churches today.
Julie Anne wrote:
I guess “surrendering to singleness” got old! Life Action Ministries (Calvinist) used to beat their young team recruits over the head with that to control the flesh as the sexes traveled together. Elisabeth Elliot, a Life Action promoter, pushed this doctrine – even though she was married three times.
@ mirele:
Yeah-you are right. Things like the Romans destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem and the great diaspora limited the discussion to a very few privileged leaders.
@ Max:
You have a point. In the end it has everything to do with money. A magazine aimed at African American churches makes little money. Driscoll, on the other hand, moola! It is interesting how money drives out theological concerns.
__
“Post-Market Consumption?”
hmmm…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YQq4xHfpK5s
—
@ dee:
I think I posted the same link up thread. I don’t understand how comps are fine with women being leaders in politics but have a fit over women leading in churches. It’s an artificial, weird distinction.
Of course, it depends on which comps or patriarchs we are talking about. Some of them are consistent to a T and think women should be limited everywhere, not just in church and in marriage.
That guy who recently shot people at a movie theater in Louisiana believed not only that women should be limited in churches, but he had a burning hatred for feminism (not that I’m in complete agreement with all of secular feminism myself, but I don’t think they are a boogeyman), and did not think women should work outside the home.
Lafayette gunman who killed two women during ‘Trainwreck’ aired radical anti-feminist views on local TV
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/gunman-who-killed-two-women-during-trainwreck-aired-radical-anti-feminist-views-on-local-tv/
@ Max:
Never forget that Nancy has scads of money. She is welcomed by all the men because she is a walking checkbook. She has never been sidelined because she is “just a woman.” From what I read, the man she is marrying has helped her with her money in the past and she was long time friends with him and his wife who died. My guess is there will be precious little submitting necessary and “tending of the hearth” will be done by the servants. Their life will be quite different than the average Joe Christian.
@ Arce:
You know, the other thing that I do not get is the creation order. Man was created first therefore he is in charge forever? And nothing changes with Jesus?
Gram3 wrote:
It is sometimes used to distinguish the subject from a person who could be called “big-hearted”, as in someone who tries to live as Jesus taught in Matt 25, and is one who loves those in need. BHLH is a statement of a small-minded person who is in need of a change of heart!
@ Daisy:
It is interesting that many hard core religious groups put women in a subordinate position. It is really quite clever. By brushing them to the side, the autocrats get rid of 50+% of the possible opposition.
@ Q:
Q, I respectfully disagree.
Oh, goodness, somebody actually noted that there were animal species before humans, in scripture itself no less, and that makes the order of creation argument as some people understand it, problematic, but let’s not mention any of that because we have not only comp-ness to defend but also YEC in its pretend version of ‘nothing counts before the sixth day.’ Nothing of this raises any issues of interpretation? Nothing suggests to people that they may lack some understandings of scripture? This selective reading of scripture and dogmatic defense of interpretation is supposed to make sense???
And then we have the complete inability to read scripture in any sort of context, including the ‘context’ of all it itself has to say on any particular subject or pertaining to any particular idea. How can that not be nonsensical to even minimally objective scholarship???
And then we have a group of people who think that nothing of truth is to be had through the church councils and traditions after the death of the last apostle, because to think anything different might be a compromise with catholicism, until they decide to use their understanding of the Nicene creed to prove a point while omitting any other creeds or any of the church councils because that would be too catholic while the Nicene creed somehow is an exception. And doing this with no attempt to explain how this exception could be-what the reasoning or authority behind this exceptionality could be. This is supposed to make sense??? It is so inconsistent that I cannot even plot it into a coherent sentence.
I have to conclude that making sense is not a serious priority with some folks.
The 100% sureness they require is ridiculously unobtainable. 100% commitment perhaps, but even then only on the best of days. SO they make up for the lack of 100% sureness on substance by turning to legalism and rule-making. “If you agree to Wayne Grudem’s 83 rules for what women can and can’t do, then you’re 100% as far as we’re concerned.”
The problem is that Wayne Grudem’s logic actually proves women are are to be spiritual leaders. He just won’t admit it: Logic Proves Women Are Spiritual Leaders Over Men?
I think a lot of Christian gender complementarians allow cultural stereotypes about men and women to color their understanding of the Bible much more than they realize or care to admit. 🙂
4 Things Now Considered Manly (Were Created for Ladies Only)
http://dabwizard.com/news/4-things-now-considered-manly-were-created-for-ladies-only
5 Gender Stereotypes That Used To Be the Exact Opposite
http://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite.html
Dee says at the opening of her article: I often say that CBMW has an Achilles Heel. They are unable to tell someone like me, who is well versed in Scripture, what I can and cannot do if I were a complementarian woman. …
I have read the books. I have even privately contacted complementarian women leaders to help me understand. The one person who I admire the most could not give me any specifics. She said “I can tell you what it look like for me and my family but not what it looks like for you and yours.”
I’ve had similar kinds of interactions, mostly with “soft complementarians,” and find logic in their theological process to be squishy at best and self-deceptive at worst. For what it’s worthy, here’s my take on why their underlying logic fails:
* When this supposedly biblical mandate of complementarianism can only be described in general and not prescribed with full specifics, then at best all the proponents can say is that is a personally-determined “wisdom decision,” not the biblically-binding “moral mandate” they declare it to be.
* In other words, complementarianism is their personal preference for how they choose to embody what they understand to be the BEST application for their situation (and for them to fail to live up to it would be UNWISE/FOOLISH) — and it is not about a universal commandment for the RIGHT application for all situations (and therefore to fail to apply it is a SIN).
* So, when proponents of complementarianism attempt to tease out the supposed principles they find in between and underneath various passages, that is our clue that it is an abstract theological conclusion and not a concrete biblical command. They are using what can be a right approach to processing certain types of Scripture, but are applying it to the wrong kinds of Scriptures. Faulty process leads to false conclusions leads to flawed demands on themselves and others.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Male Supremacist Bigot.
Q wrote:
Q, I respectfully disagree.
okrapod wrote:
It’s not just Nicea. No one will frankly acknowledge the political context of any of the historic statements. Dort, Westminster, and the various “ecumenical” councils had political considerations behind them. We need to test all interpretations, IMO, except mine.
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t imagine he counted on you Gram3. A woman who can think rings around him with real polemic and not just special pleading and circular reasoning. Katharine Bushnell would have had him for lunch me thinks.
Bridget wrote:
From the list I linked to above about why men should not be allowed to hold clergy positions:
—–
7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
Muff Potter wrote:
She was really something! I owe a lot to courageous and forward-thinking women and the men who supported them when it would have been much easier to go with the flow.
I hope Bernie will come back, but that usually does not happen. My experience is that the “conversations” they claim to want to have are strictly one-way.
bernie wrote:
Bad argument. He created cows before man, so are cows supposed to be in charge? Woman was created last, so if man, being created after cows is to be in charge of cows, then woman, being created after man, should be in charge of men! One must needs be careful of applying creation events to current issues, because it tends to illuminate the limits of ones logical abilities.
Daisy wrote:
This.
Dee wrote “I often say that CBMW has an Achilles Heel.”
I’ve been saying for years that the way New Calvinists treat women may very well prove to be the Achilles Heel that brings a halt to this movement. Once women wake up to reformed bondage and abuse of their Christian liberty, they will declare “Wait a darn minute here!” and drag their sorry husbands/boy friends out of the mess.
So “the Bible clearly states” that creation order determines authority. I am so relieved! Since the animals were created first, we are in submission to them.
For 5 years, my wife and I have been in submission to our little dog, who seems to have an innate understanding that she is in charge, and we are basically her staff. Not too unlike a cat, which is why we call her a kitty-dog. And she has brought great order to our house. We are more fulfilled in our ordained roles.
To be serious… Would creation order also apply to the hierarchical Trinity? The Son is second because he was made? Does anyone know WHY the son is submissive in ESS? It would be appreciated if anyone knows the answer, so I don’t have to go wading I the murky waters of ESS.
Arce wrote:
I do tend to look up to cows. They’re a very peaceful species, unlike us. Maybe he has a point.
Besides … women are uniquely gifted to preach fire and brimstone messages once per month ;^)
mirele wrote:
Easy there! Don’t be bringing historical context and reason into this discussion!
In all seriousness, there is certainly merit to your statement. We have the luxury of sitting around in freedom straining out gnats and swallowing camels. Not saying theology don’t matter, but dang.
@ dee:
Paul was not qualified either as he was not the husband of one wife. :o)
Max wrote:
Maybe if we applied today’s neocal definition of elders (20-yr-olds) to the situation. ;-]
@ Arce:
Not to mention Adam means human.
Q wrote:
Paul is emphatic that there is no room in the body of Jesus Christ for racial distinctions, no room for class distinctions, no room for gender distinctions.
There is no passage in scripture given to men that commands them to have authority of any kind over their wives. Not one.
dee wrote:
And the other point to remember is that SBC’s publishing house LifeWay is now under Calvinist leadership (even though Rainer and Stetzer won’t own up to their theological persuasion, but if you walk like a duck …). Besides the profit motive, LifeWay is a big-time promoter of books by the neo-Calvinists. Even their Sunday School literature has subtle drops of reformed theology.
GSD wrote:
From my reading, those who support this thought state that “The Father sent the Son.” This means the Father gives out the job descriptions. The Son did as commanded which means the Son obeyed the father.
They go on to explain the Son hung in there because he was doing what he was told to do.
This appears to be quickly boiled down to men speak, women obey. However, I think it is far more complex than that. My guess is the the Trinity is in such sync that the Son, the Spirit and the Father as the entity known as God all arrive together at the decision.
It appears the God is giving us limited humans a truncated view of the Trinity to help us apprehend the concept. To boil this down to day to day functions in mortal land is a bit tricky.
My husband asked if I could pick up some fruit today at the store. I guess I could say I was sent by him. At the same time, I asked him if he could move a couple of plants. He will do so. Both of us agree to the other’s requests.So who commands who and under what circumstances?
Also, does anyone ever feel that the Holy Spirit somehow gets short shrift by the gospel crowd? Sometimes I wonder if that is because the existence of the Spirit brings up all sorts of messy stuff.
For example: Calvinists say that God must compel us to turn to Him since we are totally unable to do so. If we were able to resist the call of God, this would mean that God’s call is ineffective.
Now think about that one when it comes to the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is given to each believer, why are we able to resist the direction of the Spirit in our lives? Is the Holy Spirit ineffective?
@ Max:
The SBC is effectively controlled by the Calvinistas at this time. Even their church planting efforts are aimed in that direction. Most church plants are aimed at communities where there is good disposable income and lots of churches. They are bringing in churches not to introduce the Gospel to the populace. They are planting churches to introduce the neo-gospel to them.
There is a reason that there continues to be a decline in church members in the SBC over the last number of years while church planting has been all the rage. I do not believe they are looking for new converts to the faith. Instead, they are looking to make Neo-Reformed theology the dominate force.
Muff Potter wrote:
I would buy tickets to see them take on Bushnell.
GSD wrote:
The real reason is that ESS was concocted by George Knight III to keep women out of conservative Presbyterian pulpits back in the 70’s. As developed by further advocates, the narrative is that there is only one way to draw a distinction between the Father and the Son, and there must be a distinction or we would not have a Trinity. The Father sends the Son, and the Son obeys all that the Father says. Therefore, the Son is subordinate to the Father. Without the distinction of relative authority, there would be no way to distinguish between the Father and the Son, so they say.
The embedded assumptions in each of those are glaring. Not to mention the confusion between the “economic” function of the Son which occurred due to his incarnation, and the eternal existence of the Eternal Son within the immanent Trinity. Because Jesus did all that the Father commanded, the Eternal Son is eternally subordinate. Lots of logical stitches were dropped right there.
Without the obedience/submission/subordination of the Son, there would have been no atonement. Therefore, the idea that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father is essential to the Gospel. Further, the subordination of wives to husbands (some say women to men generally) is necessary to “picture” the Gospel accurately. Therefore, the subordination of women is necessary to a proper presentation of the Gospel.
An obvious implication of this gospel to women who are oppressed throughout history and throughout almost the entire non-Western world is that Jesus did not come to set you free in him. He came so that your oppressors would not be so oppressive. He did not come to restore the mutual love and unity between Male and Female; he came to restore the proper hierarchical authority relationship of Male and Female which was ordained by God at Creation.
Also, there is no way that people loving each other mutually and reciprocally and serving one another in reconciled relationships and unity can picture the Gospel. Or so they say.
“ess” is a sound that is extremely like the hiss of a snake. Perhaps it is the Eden serpent raising his ugly head to lead Christians astray, hissing his ESS over and over again to create an allegation of possible dissension in the Godhead so that humans will park fully one-half (perhaps more) of their human resources to spread the Gospel to the unsaved world, giving the serpent, aka Satan, more souls to harvest.
dee wrote:
Prior to the fall, there is no mention of a “home” that Eve needed to “keep”…she certainly has no clothes to wash, 🙂
So I’m not sure how the CBMW’s listing of “homemaker” in the bios as each woman’s defining distinctive and highest vocational achievement can be based on anything described prior to the Fall.
@ Arce:
What is particularly odious to me is what is, at least, an implication of what they are saying. The Son did not give up his glory due to his great love and mercy. He came because he was under orders. It is somewhat analogous to their conception of “irresistible grace” in that it is based on a model of coercion rather than loving initiation by God and a response born of love for God. They cannot conceive of a God who is not tyrannical or of a an orderly human relationship that is mutual and reciprocal and based on mutual love and respect.
GSD wrote:
I also should have said that the reason that George Knight III invented the notion of “roles” within the Trinity is because he needed something to explain how one person can be eternally functionally subordinate while at the same time being ontologically equal. This was necessary because, as Beaker pointed out, women had proved that they were not an inferior version of humanity, which was the prior assumption. Knight needed to be creative because the earth moved under their feet when first the defeat of slavery-thinking and then the necessity of women’s involvement in the WW2 effort demonstrated that the idea of an ontological order is not well grounded. So he decided a great place to ground human relationships is in the relationships among the Persons of the Trinity. Do not attempt to make this make sense.
muzjik wrote:
Your answer is why I love to blog. I often have these thoughts and I wonder if I am the only one who thinks this way. It helps me to see that I am not alone in some of my conclusions. Do we know what went on in that Garden prior to the Fall? Adam was naming animals. God walked in the Garden during that time. (I wonder -was that God the Father?) Eve didn’t have any specific function names except she was supposed to be helping Adam.
For this, we develop a theology of the restrictions of women’s roles?
As for God’s interaction with gender-Jesus chose to come through a woman and in this scenario, the earthly dad took a back seat. In fact, God sent an angel to kick him in the pants in order to get him to take care of Mary who seemed to take it all in stride.
@ Gram3:
Good comment!
dee wrote:
You’re not supposed to be asking those kinds of questions dee. You’re supposed to be a good little bobble-head and sign on to ‘the deep truths’ as told to you by your betters.
This is for the reader looking for a non-authoritarian church in Seattle: I am at the CBE International LA Conference right now and will soon be listening to Eugene Cho, pastor of Quest Church in Seattle. If I get a chance I will ask him about his views on authority in the church in general. Some egalitarians still believe in hierarchy but that women can have it as pastors, too. Otherwise I was going to mention my daughter’s church a little farther away on Queene Anne Hill, taking about 25 minutes from Kirkland. It’s smaller, called All Saints.
@ dee:
Dee, the Bible says that God the Son was there as well, as in without Him (the Son) nothing was made that was made, and through him was made everything that was made. So we must assume it was God the Son that was there, since he is the only one with flesh on him to walk in the garden and appear to Adam and Eve!
dee wrote:
I once heard a beautiful homily by a Jesuit who said that if more men would take on the heart of St. Joseph when they marry the mothers of boys sired by other fathers, we’d have far less of a breeding swamp for violence and cruelty in this world.
I’m trying to think of something clever but so far have come up empty. So much of the arguments have sounded like so much theo-illogical arm waving. For my own understanding I feel that if this was important it would have been clearly laid out and not be stitched together with so many odd inferences.
The Bible was written in a patriarchal society, it is not a given that this was the correct model. To me it appears much of the new testament sidesteps much of the supposed “important issues” of the day. Whether it be Roman occupation, slavery, or relationship between the sexes, Jesus had a different agenda. To try and take what Jesus and his followers said and try to force them into our agenda just seems, well, forced.
Carole Ryan wrote:
Carole – that is exactly how I feel. After 35+ years of faith, after 24+ years of home-educating 5 kids, I am at the point where I wonder if there is anyone with whom I am like-minded at our church. Surely, I can’t be the only one who feels this titanic shift? Or recognizes the irony of a woman who works outside the home and freely shares her interpretations of Scripture every Sunday in adult Sunday School parroting CBMW the talking points: “women should not be deacons or be in a position of leadership because of temptation. They should not teach men (as Kay Arthur and Beth Moore do…)”
Muff Potter wrote:
I’ve been in trouble with my betters since I was 4 years old.
Creation order and submission: Uhmmmm …. my Bible says water life and fowls of the air were created, then beasts of the field, aka cows. So, in creation order: woman submits to man who submits to cows who submits to robins who submits to sharks.
FYI Russell Moore is planning a big political rally. Below is a copy and paste.
***(RNS) Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, will interview Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush in Nashville, Tenn., next month in front of a sold-out crowd of 13,000 evangelical pastors and leaders.
Moore will also interview Sen. Marco Rubio, a Floridian like Bush and now a GOP rival, by video during the Aug. 4 rally at the Bridgestone Arena.
But the unusual event is being seen as both a major effort by Bush to reach out to Christian conservatives — a key constituency Bush has sometimes struggled to win over — and by evangelicals to reassert their political influence during a time of landmark social change.
“What has become clear in the last several years is that evangelicals are tired of sloganeering and are looking for a concrete strategy,” Moore said in a statement.
“They can no longer consider themselves part of some silent majority, where our First Amendment freedoms are assumed and guaranteed,” he continued. “Instead, evangelicals want to know which candidates offer a clear, coherent vision of religious liberty and have a plan to defend it when the very idea is contested in American politics.
“Evangelicals are looking for leaders who not only understand their convictions about human dignity and family stability but have plans to address them,” Moore said. ***
13,000 evangelical pastors … I wonder if any women will be allowed to attend/participate???? And, I wonder what the darling of patrio-centricity means by “concrete strategy”, “religious liberty”, and “family stability”. Yeah, so much for not following Richard Land and staying out of politics.
@ Arce:
Fascinating. Sometimes I think there is so much that I do not understand.
Y’all, I’m still waiting for someone to find the verse that says Eve changed sheets ‘Before the Fall.” ☺️
Bill M wrote:
I really like this comment. I, too, think that way. For example, we all understand the need for the Cross. However, we all seem to disagree over the hows of creation.
Muff Potter wrote:
Darn, that’s good!
I hope this comment does not come across as too judgmental or dismissive, but I am personally past the point of engaging the ideas of CBMW. Their positions and words and actions have so many problems that it is difficult for me to understand how a thinking person could take them seriously. One of the dead giveaways that their position is post hoc defense of a religiously held social convention is that they have never in any substantial way engaged the copious amounts of scholarly literature that disagrees with them. And of course, as the Deebs pointed out above, there is no kind of cohesion or logical consistency within the cabal itself. And here is the kicker: all of that just has to do with thinking clearly, being inquisitive – basic scholarship stuff (not that SBTS under Mohler has a track record of hiring or promoting scholars). From there, any concerned person could begin to address the myriad theological problems like the ESS heresy. Bottom line? It is so rotten and frankly stupid that it isn’t worth my time. They are not about to persuade anyone outside their camp.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
That is true, but IMO it is good to refute error and to preach freedom to those who are held in bondage to man-made laws and who blindly follow blind guides. And I also think that the discussions here at TWW encourage those who are willing to question the practice of these doctrines and possibly the poor theology that lies behind the practice. Those are the kinds of things that Jesus did, so I think we should do them as well. It is a waste of time with those who are invested in the System and want to clip their coupons or collect their achievement awards. But there are so many others to think about who are just trying to be as faithful as they can while working through these issues.
Coming at it from a different way, I’m an engineer and resolve issues in that manner. The scientific inquiry breaks things down into hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypothesis can be though of as a reasonable guess, if it becomes well accepted by repeated testing or proof it becomes a theory, and when it can be shown always true, never wrong, it becomes law.
The whole problem with comp gender rolls is they have taken a hypothesis, something we are debating, lots of contrary views, and lots of contrary evidence, it hasn’t made it into the realm of theory for me, yet some of these guys are making it law and something I have to live by.
They don’t even stop at making comp a law, they take it even further and start re-engineering who God is to fit their new “law”. Eternal subordination of Jesus? Who would have thought the unified theory of the universe Einstein was looking for is actually complementarianism.
I’m barely interested in debating the hypothesis of comp so I’ll let someone else engage with people who think it should be law.
On a completely different note we have had a huge dry spell out West, months without rain. I tore part of my roof off last week in a remodel, you can thank me for the helping break the drought.
Thanks Gram3 and Dee. I’m going to have to save those thoughtful and educated replys. The arrogance of adjusting your image of God to keep women in their place is staggering. And if the Son is eternally submissive, what IS up with the Spirit? Is the hierarchical Trinity the Authoritative Father, the Submissive Son, and the Holy Bible? And it’s interpreters, the Most Holy Leadership?
I’ve encountered Unitarians, who believe God is only One, not Three, that Jesus was a special man, the Son of God but not God the Son, and holy spirit is what we experience when God is moving. Classic heresy. I wonder, is this where ESS could lead? Maybe not, I hope not.
Gram3 wrote:
I have not run into people who failed to see politics at every turn in just about everything. I thought the whole idea of stopping at the death of the last apostle was to avoid politics. It certainly used to be preached that way. But I kind of think there is politics in the NT itself. Politics got Jesus killed. Paul was evidently engaged in sociopolitical ideas in the Jew vs gentile issues. If we toss out everything to rid ourselves of the politics we end up with problems just as we do if we are naive and gullible. I am thinking there have to be other criteria for determining the usefulness and applicability of everything, much less the idea of whether there is truth to be had or not in anything at all.
@ GSD:
It seems to me that the idea of ESS veers toward an understanding of God which is well on the way to what has been called Tritheism, three separate divine persons (gods actually) who together constitute the godhead. Trinitarian belief has been accused of actually being Tritheism by some non-trinitarian monotheists.
I am concerned that this argument when posed by muslims, for example, can be very convincing to some people. The question of whether christianity is actually monotheistic, IMO, will be argued more extensively in the near future, given the current world situation. And the more christians fragment the concept of deity the more the opposite position will appeal to people-partly because it is easy to understand.
@ okrapod:
And, yes, I think there is a conspiracy here. As much as the genesis story talked about enmity between the serpent and the woman, even so the power struggle demonstrated in the temptation of Jesus in the NT shows an even greater enmity. Looked at from that angle, and believing that the intertwined ideas of ESS and comp-ism are heretical in what the say about the Son, I think the real battle is on a spiritual level and the real target is Jesus himself.
bernie wrote:
I am saying that your argument is flawed. I used your logic for other points in scripture to “prove” the opposite point, that women are in charge. I believe men and women are co-labourers and these arguments about who is in charge is about power, not scriptural accuracy. Jesus warned against that type of grasping quite strongly, saying (paraphrase) that pagans are concerned about who rules over who but it must not be like that among those of us who follow Him. And He said nothing about female subordination to men.
@ okrapod:
I’m not saying toss them out but rather frankly acknowledge the political forces in play so that we can better understand what we need to understand. The idea is to retreat from idealizing any particular formulation as if it were formulated in some kind of untainted spiritual vacuum. I think God works through all kinds of human beings and institutions.
dee wrote:
This is absolutely correct. There will be no growth in the denomination. And in truth, the Neo-Cals do not care.
You want to figure out how to grow in converts? Figure out how to attract the Millinials, the over 50s, etc that see church as something to avoid. The last count I read, there were now right at 63 million Americans who were church folks, who no longer attend….( and I am part of that number, and I wouldn’t attend an evangelical church today if my life depended on it.)
On another note, Mary Kassian spoke at an annual women’s conference in town a few years back. I skipped the conference that year. A few weeks after the conference i bumped into the organizer and told her why, that i coukdn’t support the conference when they bring in a speaker that has been detrimental to women in the church and held women back. She responded that Mary Kassian was just responding to all the hatred against men because of the feminist movement. I was in shock. It later occurred to me that the whole cbmw thing is completely a reactionary movement, the scramble to stem a cultural tide they never saw coming. Instead of responding to said anger with love, compassion and hearing out these “angry women” (ie: be Christlike), they panicked and created an “us vs. them” movement that bece their God, faulty logic and heretical Scripture interpretation and all. It is indicative of the entire evangelical culture, a culture of react rather than respond. Create walls rather than build bridges. Condemn and disengage from culture rather than be in culture but not of it. Argue about power rather than lay down your life as a servant. No wonder so many are “done” with church culture. It’s a spoiled child throwing a tantrum all the time.
dee wrote:
You have articulated a few thoughts for me over the past months.
Gram3 wrote:
Kind of leaves the third person of the Trinity out of it, doesn’t it?
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, please keep it up. People are taught that “Bible-believing” people believe in complementarianism because “that is what the Bible clearly teaches” and if they are in a situation that is essentially an echo-chamber, they may not even know that other interpretations of those same texts exist. They’ve been taught people with differing views are “other” somehow: worldly, feminist, just wanting to keep up with their peers, politically correct, liberal, etc. And to apply Paul’s words in Romans a little differently: how can they hear unless someone proclaims it? If there are people seriously engaging on the egalitarian side of the argument, there may be people who are searching or who are at least open-minded who then have a chance to hear what they may have never heard.
lydia wrote:
Bwaaaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaaaa! I love Hyacinth Bucket.
“The Boo-kay residence, Lady of the House speaking!”
Sarah K wrote:
That response is absurd. Who would believe that? The CBMW perpetuated this mistreatment of scripture (and women) so women would treat men nicer and attempt to thwart men hating, hard core femenists? It is hard to believe Mary K. said or believes that, or that the conference organizer repeated it or believes it.
Daisy wrote:
Hear, hear!!
bernie wrote:
Oh, Puh-lease. God made animals before He made man. Should the animals rule over the humans?
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
“Ohhh, Richard…”
Onslow (Daisy’s husband) was my favorite.
bernie wrote:
Yes and?…..
@ roebuck:
I loved Daisy. There was something so sweet about her. I also loved their father who was suffering from dementia. he reminded me of my dad in his last months. My father thought he was back in the military and kept saluting all the nurses. He thought the head nurse was the colonel He kept whispering to me that she was really *sharp.”
Arce wrote:
Moo.
Links to the PCA info re: the vote and so on? I tried to do a search, but couldn’t find it.
You know, trust but verify. 🙂
@ Sallie Borrink:
Whoops Forgot link Here it is
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/06/17/pca-general-assembly-report-2015/
@ Elizabeth Lee:
And a candle light supper at Pecan Manor
Abi Miah wrote:
Well, I didn’t hear much about the Holy Spirit in discussions regarding Complementarianism. Nor was there much said about the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the life of *each* believer who is a priest of the New Covenant. So I don’t know how the Holy Spirit fits into their system. My thought is maybe he is the grandchild of the Father since the Spirit is sent by the Son.
I think that the indwelling Holy Spirit is a threat to their positions and power because they fancy themselves as the New High Priests of a new Temple System. If the Holy Spirit is powerful and people truly understand that, then people will not feel the need for affirmation and assurance from mere humans. And if that happens, then people will not support that system.
Abi Miah wrote:
The premise of the Danvers Statement is that “feminism” has created the chaos in society and we need to Do Something. People who object to their ad hoc hermeneutic are preemptively accused of employing novel hermeneutics. There is no there there, which is why they will *never* engage the issues using a consistent, conservative hermeneutic. When challenged or questioned, they will either run away or accuse people of rebelling against God’s order. Not one of the ones I have challenged with identifying the Magical Male Authority verses have done so. Not one of them has explained why 1 Timothy 2:15 does not mean “what it plainly says.” Or why Genesis 1:26-28 does not mean what it plainly says, and radically so in the culture of the Pentateuch. They are the real liberals who have abandoned the authority of the Bible in order to make God say what God never said. They are the ones who have dishonored the Son so that they can increase their own honor.
Sarah K wrote:
I am sympathetic with men who are wrongly accused of sexism just as I am with anyone who is accused wrongly. All men are not guilty of misogyny just as all women are not guilty of being usurpers. I am thankful for the good men in my life, and I have had both a good father and a good husband.
However, what the conference organizer threw at you was a red herring, because the “feminist” movement is an excuse for their sanctified misogyny. And Mary Kassian is every bit as dogmatic as the rest of them, and she has profited greatly just like the rest of them. If she were concerned primarily about building up men who have been unfairly targeted, then she could certainly do that–indeed she should do that–without putting her sisters into bondage which she does not have to endure in her place of privilege. She is very sweet at her blog until she is challenged for proof. Then she shuts down the conversation.
I would like to know from the conference organizer where the ideal state of women’s rights lies. Should we be allowed to vote? Hold real and personal property in our own names? Be employed in our chosen profession? Inherit on an equal footing with our brothers? Drive? Expose our hair? Which of those things which were gifts of “feminists” and the men who supported them should be forfeited so that we can all get back to the utopia that existed before “feminism?” They throw out all sorts of emotional appeals, but will not answer simple questions like that. And that is because they have simply never thought through Danvers and they cannot see beyond the emotional and spiritual blackmail in that document.
dee wrote:
No doubt about it, Dee. I have been monitoring SBC’s church planting initiative closely … it’s all about planting theology. SBC’s North American Mission Board has been planting churches predominantly staffed with young, restless and reformed “lead” pastors (most fresh out of seminary), with hand-picked “elder” teams of young buddies. The go about indoctrinating new members with reformed theology through their small groups (called LifeGroups in many places). The other approach is to takeover an established work, but it is a tougher challenge requiring stealth and deception … but it is happening across the SBC landscape resulting in church splits. New Calvinists are well on their way to Calvinizing the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America … and the pew ain’t got a clue.
Pingback: Bunker Junk: July 19-25 Intel Report | Pulpit & Pen
Bill M wrote:
Oh yes, Bill. In fact they cannot point to one single prohibition against women teaching men in the OT yet we are to believe there is a new prohibition in the New Testament.
Indeed, we are regaled with cultural proof texts to insist it is a law. A gospelly law.
@ Bridget:
That’s what the organizer told me that Mary K said. So, yeah, unbelievable, but there it is.
Gram3 wrote:
Totally.
Bill M wrote:
And I thought it was me. Arrived in LA on Wed –it was sprinkling. I hope your hard work not ruined!
Gram3 wrote:
Amen. My father was a man of character. My Uncles,- precious encouragers
Gram3 wrote:
Yep. Their gender theology makes no room for never-married women most of all. Sort of leaves out widows and the divorced, too.
If your gender role teachings are applicable only to married ladies, that should be a clue it’s off.
Gram 3 wrote:
I have seen the point raised before that the gender complementarianism pushed by groups such as CBMW is only workable for middle class white American married women.
Women in third world nations or poverty in the United States cannot pull off “biblical womanhood” roles, or don’t have the time or energy for it, since they are busy eeking out an existence or trying to avoid being killed or what not.
A little off topic-ish, but I found this amusing. I was looking up something about gender comp and found this blog page from 2009 where a Calvinist Baptist guy, Todd Burus, claims that Calvinists are the victims of Non-Calvinists in the SBC.
He seems to compare being a Calvinist Baptist to being a black person, like being a victim of racism. He also pulls the canard that anyone who is critical of Calvinism doesn’t really understand Calvinism accurately, because if they did, there would not be all this opposition of Calvinism going on.
Calvinism: The New Racism in the SBC? by Todd Burus
http://sbcvoices.com/calvinism-the-new-racism-in-the-sbc/
From what I’ve seen on all the spiritual abuse blogs, a lot of the new Calvinists are the abusers, but some of them figure themselves the victims of church or spiritual abuse or persecution.
muzjik wrote:
🙂 True. Baking cookies, and wearing pearls while vacuuming the carpet were not mentioned as duties for women in Genesis.
I came across two or three good blog posts lately tracing the evangelical / gender complementarian position to American cultural ideas having to do with the Industrial Revolution.
That is, gender comp ideas about women are derived from culture, not the Bible. Here’s one of the links I was thinking of:
Complementarianism and the Cult of Domesticity
http://jorymicah.com/2015/07/22/complementarianism-and-the-cult-of-domesticity/
Jinx wrote:
Eve was making raspberry ice desserts for Cain and Abel. Obviously. Please see:
On Being a Woman After God’s Own Heart
Biblical womanhood, or cultural womanhood?
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/being-woman-after-gods-own-heart
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I hear what you’re saying, but there are still a lot of churches and Christians that buy into this gender role stuff, and it still hurts and negatively impacts women such as myself.
@ Daisy:
Thank you Daisy. Yes it is mostly shallow platitudes. Great article!
Jinx wrote:
Do you think Adam took out the trash?
Dee wrote:
Thank you! I put up a quick response to this on my own site.
http://www.awomansfreedominchrist.com/pca-general-assembly-pca-churches-do-not-want-people-with-doubts/
dee wrote:
And changed the light bulbs over 5 feet high? Personally, I wonder if he mowed the lawn…
Daisy wrote:
Interesting. There was a piece posted on SBC Today this week entitled “Is Calvinism Spiritual Racism?” The article caused quite a stir; comments numbered nearly 500 prompted by statements in the piece like “Calvinism is nothing short of baptized racism, advocating the dogma that one group, the non-elect, is condemned by God to spiritual inferiority and another group, the elect, is destined to spiritual superiority.” Whew, the debate is getting nasty as New Calvinism moves deeper into SBC life. You can read all about it at: http://sbctoday.com/is-calvinism-spiritual-racism/
@ dee:
“Think about men-will they still need testosterone? They will certainly not need their various sexual organs.”
+++++++++++++++
I think I just heard a collective yelp (kind of a startled falsetto sound).
elastigirl wrote:
You man hating feminists are going to drive us red-blooded all-American he-men straight into Complementarianism. That’s how it works, you know 😉
But I wonder about the ‘various’ thing. Maybe I’ve lived a sheltered life 🙂
Sarah K wrote:
I used to be a gender complementarian, and am still right wing so I get what drives these guys and motivates them.
I’ve said before that I personally suspect that what drives a lot of these comp people is not a respect for the Bible, or being “pro- woman,” but that they are against what they perceive to be threats against culture, such as secular feminism, abortion, etc.
I am still pretty much a social conservative on many topics, but I no longer completely agree with the tactics used by socially conservative Christians (or Non Christians) on some of this stuff, or in the amount of attention they pay it.
Work and life interfered with much time to reply in the last day. I am dropping in and paste in a few of my notes from teaching I have recently done on the subject in the vague (but hopefully not vain) hope that it might temper a few of the comments made about motives
Examples of women in the NT…
– Praying & Prophesying
– Being taught
– Teaching
– women & children
– a man (with husband present)
…Being called…
– fellow workers / servants
– co-laborers in the gospel
Any understanding we come to on other texts cannot ignore the above NT example
Silent (1Co 14) is not used as absolute prohibition
…let him keep silent – 14:28
…let the first keep silent – 14:30
A better translation of 1Co 14 might be something like this –
(34) As in all the churches of God’s holy people, when congregations meet in public, the women should allow for silence. For there exists no permission for them to speak [in the way they do (?)]. Let them keep to their ordered place, as the law indicates. (35) If they want to learn anything, let them interrogate their own husbands at home. For a woman to speak thus in public worship brings disgrace. (36) Or was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or are you the only ones to whom it came? – Thiselton
On the 1Timothy passage
A woman must learn in quietness with all submission. But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness – 1 Timothy 2:11–12
“Here submission is, more broadly, the norm for the relationship of women to men in authority functions within the church.” – Knight
Regarding context – “That which is not permitted is first of all διδάσκειν, “to teach,” but not as an unqualified prohibition since the object “man” indicates a limitation, as does the immediate context, which has been dealing with religious instruction in the life of the church. To this can be compared Paul’s commendation of women teaching other women (Tit. 2:3–5) and teaching their children and sons (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14, 15; cf. Acts 16:1); he apparently also approved of the team effort of Priscilla and Aquila in explaining in private conversation (“they took him aside”) to Apollos “the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:25, 26). Just as v. 11 was not a demand for all learning to be done in silence, as an unqualified absolute, but was concerned with women’s learning in the midst of the assembled people of God, so also the prohibition of teaching here has the same setting and perspective in view.” – Knight
Daisy wrote:
I don’t even think many of them realize how much they are primarily driven by a desire to oppose the culture instead of teaching what the Bible says. I’ve interacted with so many complementarians who have never read anything substantial about the Biblical egalitarian view.
They see a mess in the culture and try to find proof texts that combat what they think is wrong.
If someone said to me, “I spent a six months studying biblical egalitarian writings and while I can see why they believe it, I just can’t embrace it” I would have no problem with their complementarianism. I have yet to find anyone who has done this.
@ Gram3:
“I also should have said that the reason that George Knight III invented the notion of “roles” within the Trinity is because he needed something to explain how one person can be eternally functionally subordinate while at the same time being ontologically equal…..” (and the rest)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m new to all this background info. Do you know enough about this George Knight III to surmise how he would respond to your explanation in this comment?
elastigirl wrote:
Perhaps we can call them the Neo-Castrati?
roebuck wrote:
It would have been totally unnecessary. Ken Ham would argue that all those tigers and lions used their claws and ferocious teeth to eat grass prior to the Fall. So, no mowing necessary. (Dee ducks!)
@ Sallie Borrink:
Thank you! The more that get out this word, the better.
Bernie wrote:
So, God really just wants women to hide behind closed doors to teach a man? Why? To say the same thing in an assembled crowd would be sinful?
This is precisely why there will continue to be people not buying the comp rules and regs. They make little sense.
A couple of months ago, Owen Strachan posted an article on Patheos in which he said that, “transgendeism is a logical – if remarkable – outcome of feminism”. The title of the article is, “Desperately Seeking Womanhood: Bruce Jenner & Masculine Inferiority”.
Has anyone else read that one, and laughed?
@ Nancy2:
Yes– BHLH!
So you see, because my mother worked outside the home and was an elder o the kirk, that’s why. I’ve now decided to turn into — Chas! Or should that be Chastity?
elastigirl wrote:
That may make a lot of men doubt whether heaven would be heavenly for them!!
dee wrote:
Well, it could have something to do with respect for Apollos.
@ Bernie:
In some first century cities, the only women seen or heard in public were prostitutes. In others, women were in business and commerce. So the prohibition may be specific to a particular community or group of communities and not to all of the churches nor to the church for all time. And I believe that Paul was divinely inspired to use the personal pronoun “I” as he was speaking for himself and not for God in that instance.
dee wrote:
How would you understand the text?
Max wrote:
I’ve just taken a quick glance.
Not that I disagree with the page, I only wonder why they stopped at racism and Hinduism when Calvinism reminds me at times of Islam?
I mean, they could draw parallels between Calvinism and Islam so far as I’m concerned, and that’d be pretty accurate.
Arce wrote:
What do you make of the appeal to creation? I don’t think that Paul speaking in the first person necessarily means he is giving us what amounts to personal opinion
@ Sallie Borrink:
I agree with you. A lot of comps refuse to seriously engage or ponder egalitarian writings.
A lot of them just assume any and all egal writings are warmed-over secular feminism, or that the writers or egal stuff have been so heavily influenced by secular feminism that their comments cannot be trusted.
They really do not see that the Bible can be read in a serious, respectful, conservative, and literal manner and arrive at a position that is not complementarian.
dee wrote:
And Paul appeals to that fact in 1Ti 2:13. What do you make of that?
Bernie wrote:
If it is wrong for a woman to teach a man, it’s wrong all the time. If Apollos needed instruction and it’s wrong for a woman to teach a man then Aquila should have done it without Pricilla don’t you think?
The gymnastics that complementarians will go through to explain away or justify things that clearly contradict what they normally teach are what caused me to take a long look at what was really being taught. This is the story that was referenced above.
Click on my name and go to the second page with the post about Elisabeth Elliot not using the pulpit. If I post the link, it will get sent to moderation.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
And again (and I may have missed a few others – What about 1Ti 2:13? What is the Holy Spirit saying through Paul in this text?
@ Sallie Borrink:
Post Script. Sorry I mean to include this in my last post to you but forgot.
I used to have a friend who was a gender complementarian. About this time, I was realizing that gender comp is a bunch of hooey. He wanted to keep fighting comp views with me, I wasn’t interested.
So, I did the next best thing and mailed him a book by Rebecca Groothius on the topic. Very easy to read, understand work.
This friend got back with me a few weeks later, still wanting to argue gender comp views. He was raising some of the very points to me in e-mails that the Groothius book had already covered. I began to suspect he had not even read the book.
A bit after that, in another e mail, he began yelling at me in particular over some point or particular biblical passage, wanting me to answer for it and claiming that Groothius had not touched this topic in her book at all.
I asked him again if he had read the book. He said yes, he had. I called him out on that and said “nonsense.”
I told him, “I can tell you have not read it, because Groothius spent ALL of chapter thus and so refuting the very thing you’re saying she did not address at all in her book.”
He then fessed up and said, “Okay, you’re right. I only read the back cover of her book. I think she’s just been swayed by secular feminists and that colors the whole book.”
Her book was no such thing. She is a Christian lady. She argued from the biblical text, scholarship, and common sense.
I’ve seen the same thing from other comps. If you recommend they visit some Christian egalitarian site or another, they will usually refuse to visit it because they are convinced beforehand that any and all Christians who reject comp are liberals, don’t take the Bible seriously, and/or are feminists.
test
I wrote this to Bertie and it was sent to the m place. Not sure why. Trying again.
If it is wrong for a woman to teach a man, it’s wrong all the time. If Apollos needed instruction and it’s wrong for a woman to teach a man then Aquila should have done it without Pricilla don’t you think?
The gymnastics that complementarians will go through to explain away or justify things that clearly contradict what they normally teach are what caused me to take a long look at what was really being taught. This is the story that was referenced above.
Click on my name and go to the second page with the post about Elisabeth Elliot not using the pulpit.
dee wrote:
“Cat realises he’s been neutered – and is NOT happy”
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Cat-realises-s-neutered-happy/story-27462632-detail/story.html
Sorry! Bernie, not Bertie!
Sarah K wrote:
I missed that necessary conclusion from what you wrote
As do I – just not with the *u* in laborer (and yes I am trying to make a joke)
Why did God hold Adam accountable in the Fall?
Are you talking about this text from Matthew 20? “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
In addition to the Calvinism clearly in view here (smile) Jesus is not denying His role as their master – He is just showing them that to be a godly leader you must be a servant.
With Jesus clearly counter-cultural view of women – why did He only appoint men as disciples?
@ Nancy2:
I may be mistaken, but I think this blog did a blog post about that a few months ago?
There is also a link in the comments on that Elisabeth Elliot posts that is interesting. It is an exchange I recorded that I had with Denny Burk on his blog. He would not answer my question about women proclaiming the Gospel to men about to die. He WOULD NOT say it was better for a woman to preach the gospel to men than have them die without hearing the Gospel. No joke.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Thank you for the name correction later – anyways – I am going to assume you meant to write – “If it is *EVER* wrong for a woman to teach a man, it’s wrong all the time.” And I’m not shouting – I am just making it clear that I added that for clarity.
Logically I’m not sure why we are compelled to come to that conclusion. Note (one example) – If it is EVER wrong for a man to have sex – it is wrong all the time. Clearly that is not a necessary conclusion
Why – she was probably the better theologian.
I don’t know that I neatly fit into the complementarian fold – I am not a Piper fan, nor do I own any (to my knowledge) of the requisite books or memberships.
There is probably a name for the phenomenon which you (I am assuming) attribute to me, I would kindly suggest that it is part of fallen human nature. Because all work from presuppositions, to acknowledge them and to take them out from time to time is a good thing. And to fail to recognize that they are there is part of the reason for the frustration that can come from discussions such as these.
Those who restrict women teaching base it on what they believe is a clear and forever binding “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority” passage. If that is their belief, they have to stick with it or they are contradicting themselves. But they don’t. So you get women who are clearly gifted saying things like “I’m speaking tonight under the authority of so and so big name preacher man” so this makes it okay. Where is that in Scripture? More gymnastics. If it’s wrong for a woman to teach or preach, it’s wrong. Doing it on a platform with big name preacher man up there to “cover” here doesn’t make it right.
Arce wrote:
I stopped in my scrolling through the numerous responses in this thread to reply to this.
I haven’t done the word study on this term, however I do know it is dangerous to insert any possible meaning of a term semantically and come to a conclusion on a text. Regardless if I am wrong on everything else – I would say to any and all who read this – take time to understand the difference between knowing what a term can mean in any context, and what it means in a particular context.
A quick search yields this http://www.ntgreekstudies.com/blog/common-exegetical-fallacies
This link goes to an excellent site with so much solid information. It addresses the question of why did Jesus appoint twelve men.
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/the-twelve-apostles-were-all-male/
Bernie wrote:
The same goes for a specific teaching, in a specific city, addressing a specific situation, at a specific time. Paul was responding to what was happening in specific cities.
Daisy wrote:
You’re right! I found it. Strachan ….. McKnight ….. Leeman. Umhmmmm …. They make it clear that God does not speak to females, period! Not even Balaam ass???
Law Prof wrote:
Bridget wrote:
Due to volume of replies – I did a search for ESS (sadly not case sensitive) and after turning highlighting on picked the first post I saw addressed to me after paging down.
As I said before being ‘accused of it’ – I had never heard of this acronym. I am not a professional theologian (all though I had a couple of years training in an MDiv program back in the late 80’s) and because I work a full time job as well as filling a teaching role at our church – well to put it mildly I don’t get to keep up on all the latest and greatest controversies.
Tonight I did a search and came across a link from Millard Erickson whose Systematic Theology was the text I was taught from way back when. I have respect for him so I spent a few minutes just now skimming the article (which is from 6 years ago). http://www.bpnews.net/30322
My understanding of the analogy between men and women roles and the submission of Jesus to the Father (of which Erickson says – ‘Yes, indeed there was a submission of the Son to the Father, but it was functional and temporary,”) – anyways my understanding of that submission is that is one example of how being fully equal in nature that there was submission. I hardly find that general idea controversial. The same is true of government and parents for that matter
When thinking of this analogy I was thinking of texts like Php 2
6Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!
I hadn’t thought about the idea if that submission (mentioned) was eternal (or even everlasting for that matter). However if Jesus could be said (even temporarily) to be submissive to the Father – it works for the analogy.
On the whole ESS “controversy” I am not sure that 5-10 minutes reading will make me an expert or an arbitrator in it, so I won’t pretend to be. If I have time, I will have to look into it further and read Erickson’s book – Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?”
Bridget wrote:
Correct – but “All Scripture is profitable…” The question is in understanding how.
Now I really need to go to sleep – hopefully tomorrow brings you all a blessed time of fellowship with other believers in Christ.
Bernie wrote:
Yes. That is where differences occur. We are not always given the exact way to understand. There is much interpretation open to freedom of conscience.
@ Sallie Borrink:
That was an informative article. There were some arguments I had not heard before. Thanks for sharing it.
@ elastigirl:
I found out about this by researching who in the world came up with something so ridiculous. What I found out is that he wrote his paper to provide a rationale for the PCA to not ordain women as the PCUSA was doing in the 1970’s. People were asking why this was not a good thing to do. At that time, there was still a significant portion of the PCUSA that was quite conservative and questions were raised. Not as conservative as the new PCA or the older OPC, but still conservative. The old exegetical storyline was coming under some new scrutiny and conservatives were re-examining presuppositions. I believe his work is archived at the PCA historical site. His JETS paper is online. The last I heard he was at Greenville Seminary in SC. CBMW itself was born out of a brouhaha at ETS where conservative evangelical scholars questioned what had been previously assumed.
I don’t know George Knight III, so I don’t know what he might think of what I said about why he wrote what he wrote and why he was part of the founding of CBMW. I think he is a creative theologian who invented the notion of eternal functional “roles” in the Trinity which are primarily a rank ordering of the Persons while they are supposedly ontologically equal. As I understand it, some at ETS question how this is consistent with equality of power. I agree.
@ Bernie:
I appreciate the effort to quote Knight, but could you explain in your own words what you are trying to convey? And would you at least consider giving straight answers to straight questions?
Source:
http://juniaproject.com/surprising-men-of-the-old-testament/
@ Bernie:
What do you make of 1 Timothy 2:15? Does it mean what it plainly says or not? Do you believe that Paul was saying that women are more easily deceived? What do you make of Paul referring to the entire church at Corinth, male and female, being susceptible to the same deception to which Eve fell?
Bernie wrote:
That is excellent advice. How do you see the word “ezer” being used of the Woman with respect to the Man and how do you see the difference, if any, in meaning with respect to the Holy Spirit? And why?
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
This explains cats
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
This explains cats
Sallie Borrink wrote:
I have concluded that they don’t care about being consistent or logical or any of the things that we might expect from conservative, Biblical scholars. That isn’t at all what I wanted to conclude, but they simply will not play by any generally recognized principles of conservative hermeneutics or logic. They are shameless about making things up. And if you call them on it, as you and I and so many others have learned, they will not be straightforward and play by their own rules. As a conservative, I do not understand how they can say that they take God’s word seriously when they misuse it so casually. The Bible means what it plainly says except when it is inconvenient to their case. Then it means something totally imported, as with Schreiner and Kostenberger. Historical context is important to sound exegesis, except when it undermines their narrative as it certainly does when the historical and cultural context of the cult of Ephesian Artemis is examined. Words mean what they plainly mean except when they don’t mean what they usually mean because that undermines the narrative as with Grudem’s strange obsession with authentein/authenteo. I am left with the idea that this is all about the narrative and not about the facts or what God has actually said.
lydia wrote:
I’m willing to share credit. Even though a good rain would be great for the region, we didn’t get enough to do damage, just got everything wet.
@ elastigirl:
I have been advised by a reader close to me that I left out part of that explanation. The idea that females are ontologically equal is now generally regarded as true. With the exception of people like “Father” Bill Mouser who think God is male so therefore males are superior. Five Aspects of Are You Kidding Me. But I digress.
I don’t know of a single Complementarian who would dare say out loud that women are not ontologically equal to men. Bruce Ware and his devoted son-in-law, Owen BHLH, come close with their idea of women being created in the derivative image of God. However, this ontological equality does not square with universally prohibiting women from authority over men, so some (plausible) explanation was necessary to account for irrevocable female subordination–essential subordination–while also attempting to uphold female ontological equality. On its face, that is a ridiculous position to try to maintain, but those are the cards they had to play if females were to be kept from the sacred places behind the pulpits lest those sacred places be defiled.
The best way to accomplish that logical leap of faith is to appeal to the Trinity and subordination within the Trinity. This, inconveniently, runs the risk of sounding a lot like Arianism, so that needed to be finessed as well. The answer which Knight produced is the notion of Eternal Roles within the Trinity which are declared to be strictly functional. Support for this hierarchical ordering of the immanent Trinity is mustered from what has been revealed to us about the economic Trinity. It is assumed that the Economic Trinity mirrors the unknowable relationships of the immanent Trinity which can only be known by the Persons of the Trinity. That assumption is an almost unimaginably great one. But an appeal to the mystery of the Trinity is the shell under which they hide the cookie. After all, who can complain about being functionally subordinate forever to males when Jesus, the Son, does not complain about being eternally subordinate to the Father?
@ Bill M:
We got several inches to the south of LA. Thunderstorms and everything. It was great for two days. Horrible humid for several days after though 🙂
Bernie wrote:
Don’t know what Dee makes of it, but Paul was writing to Timothy at Ephesus where the cult of Ephesian Artemis was quite clear that Artemis was born first and midwifed the birth of her brother. Ephesus was the City of Artemis where the rather impressive Temple to Artemis was located. Paul was correcting the false teaching of the Ephesian Artemis cult. Look into that cultural and historical context, set your presuppositions aside for a moment, and consider that Timothy faced a formidable challenge at Ephesus, and we know the extent of the influence of the Artemis cult from Luke’s account of Paul’s encounter there with the mob. Context, context, context.
Bernie wrote:
Bernie, you seem to be very thoughtful and although I disagree with what you have written and believe that your conclusions and interpretive methods are flawed, I respect the fact that you are dialoguing.
I will say this: I believe that looking to answer the question, “Who is in charge?” and then proceeding to use Scripture, logical argument, scientific studies or any other method to answer, “Men” or even “Women” is a flawed basis of inquiry. The question is wrong. Here’s why: the verse I paraphrased comes from Matthew 20:25-28. The sons of Zebedee and their mother wanted Jesus to grant them a position of power, to rule over others. The disciples were mad. The verses are: 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
“Not so with you” is a very powerful phrase. As believers, we are to not be of the world, and the world is obsessed with power and hierarchy and dominating others, other genders, other races, other nations, your neighbour, your co-worker, your employees etc. Jesus refused to engage with the paradigm of ruling over others as a valid option. To Him, it was not an option. The Kingdom of God, the Gospel, is about serving, loving, laying down your life. It is not a static system dependent upon powerful/powerless dynamics, it is a living breathing organism, where everyone has their part to play and we funtion together in love, like cells in a body keeping the body alive and healthy. It’s silly to ask: which cells are in charge? The blood cells? The lymphatic cells? The skin cells? Just so, it’s silly to ask, “Who is in charge?” in the church because we are a new creation in Christ and WE DON’T GO BY THE WORLD’S SYSTEM. To do so, just brings confusion, ala the point of this post.
So, I reject the assumption that we have to figure out who rules over who in the body of Christ. If Jesus rejected the paradigm, them I will too.
To answer your specific ?’s: if you missed my conclusion, I don’t think I can make it much clearer. I used your logical analysis to make an opposite point, to show that your logic is flawed.
As for the U in labourer, what can I say, we get frisky with our spelling in the colonies 🙂
God held both Adam and Eve accountable for their part in the fall.
Jesus never talked about being a “godly leader”, you’re injecting that into the text.
Your question about Jesus only appointing male disciples is wrong. He had many female disciples, but yes the 12 were all men. They were also all JEWS but I don’t see you asking about the glut of gentile pastors/leaders in the church.
I hope you can hear what I have to say in the spirit that it is offered. I have an advantage, since I was once a strong complementarian, and through much study, prayer and working through the cognitive dissonance of that position (and there is a lot), I am now an egalitarian and believe that to be the most Scripturally and relationally sound position. A lot less confusion and a lot more freedom!
PS: Here are a few wonderful articles that will help your quest for understanding.
https://godaslove.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/the-subordination-of-women-in-the-church-where-things-went-wrong-and-what-we-can-now-do-to-stand-for-love-and-equality/
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html
http://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/
I just want to close out my reading here for the night by mentioning that I made blueberry muffins for tomorrow’s breakfast and then, while I read the comments, my (claims-to-be-a-complementarian) husband loaded the dishwasher.
Dee I haven’t read the whole article yet I just got down to the list of what is at stake and I saw that you had one missing.
7. Men getting away with whatever they want because the Bible tells them they can.
Leila wrote:
Good one!
@ Bernie:
Paul is telling Tim to remind the Ephesian problem woman (grammar starts singular) that unlike the cult of Diana that taught eve was formed first, Adam was. This is significant as women often died in childbearing. Paul uses childbearing as a noun as in saved by THE childbearing of Messiah. There is more to it but that is a start. The temple cult in Ephesus was huge. See Acts for Diana chants.
I have the perfect word – hope I get some brownie points. It is ‘Pharisaism’.
Bernie wrote:
Can’t be for many reasons but one is the Greek for silent is total. As in no sound. No singing, etc. In chp 11 Paul is discussing them praying/prophesying aloud.
Another problem with your interpretation is mention of the law. What law? Can you find it for me in the OT? Is there a new law?
Verses 34-35 are indicative of the Talmud/mishna teaching for women n in the synagogue. Verse 36 is a repudiation. More like, what!? You cant be serious! The word came from YOU?
It is actually the opposite of your interpretation.
Dee my experience with the Presbyterian Church of Australia has shown me first hand what a complementarian denomination is all about. My battle continues however I have finally got my day ‘in their court’ coming up. This is going to be an interesting exercise – a female Baptist bringing a ‘Charge’ against a Presbyterian Minister, a male Elder, the Church Auditor, and three Board members. You would be well aware of the toll this has taken on me however ‘WHAT IS AT STAKE’ is the right to hold people accountable for their actions. It doesn’t matter what position someone holds, or how many letters they have after their name, or if they have ‘Right Reverend’ before their name, if they are ‘not above reproach’ then they should be brought to account.
Bernie wrote:
Oh I agree. Translators working with a state church mentality that was also political made some bad choices and additions in several places.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram. I’d never even heard of this Ware fella until I started reading this blog. What are these Ten Reasons? Can you post a link?
Gram3 wrote:
And if one takes that verse at face value, then single women, or women who are unable to bear children, are not saved.
bernie wrote:
Bernie you are correct – God commanded Adam – not Eve, it was the man who sinned which then meant ‘all sinned’.
Romans 5:12 says: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–
These arguments by women preaching to men, like Kassian and Patterson are, remind me of inconsistencies in complementarian orthopraxy. These women are on the board of CBWM. It should read after their name who they are under authority of their husbands since this is what they are preaching to everybody. So after Dorothy Patterson, it should state she is under the authority of Paige Patterson. How else could she preach to men? She shouldn’t have theological degrees. There should be the certification that her husband permitted her to work for these degrees, but they are really his degrees, because a women is to ask her husband, in silence theological issues. When she speaks in public she should clarify that these are Dr. Patterson’s views since as a woman she is to be silent on theological issues. I don’t understand why SWBTS would lesson its stature by having a class on homemaking. What does this have to do with theology which is only a manly domain, and with this kind of course offering, women are not remaining silent which is the Biblical mandate. Don’t get it. These women are preaching, so what are they preaching and under whose authority are they preaching? And with what they are preaching they are being held to the standard of what they preach. This all doesn’t appear to be consistent. If they were truly practicing what they preach, we wouldn’t even know they exist.
And by the way, I am not a believer in patriarchy or this experimental thing being discussed above, I am just a sarcastic individual trying to make sense of it all.
Hi. Dee, are you talking about the Presbyterian Church of America? It seems impossible. I was a Presbyterian at one time. They seemed so normal (Univ Pres, Seattle, First Pres, Springfield, I’ll.) Who knew?
Mark wrote:
The more you dig and the more you press the self-proclaimed leaders of the movement, the less sense it makes. This is supposedly an issue on which the Church and the Gospel itself depends and they can’t even agree what to call it or what it looks like lived out in everyday life.
@ Darlene:
Here’s a link to Grudem’s book with his list which is essentially Ware’s list:
https://books.google.com/books?id=1J07dOJmjh4C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=ten+reasons+for+male+headship&source=bl&ots=A1DRDQYoTA&sig=jHrqM0fqA7VSX-ql3LGdG7mBvKk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCWoVChMIqYjN7oP5xgIVwng-Ch1p-QyG
Here is a discussion of Ware:
https://johnploughman.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/bruce-ware-and-a-complementarian-vision-of-creationthe/
You can google “ten reasons for male headship” with Ware or Grudem and get lots more places. Also, I linked to a comment I made here at TWW about the list upthread to show Bernie that he was presenting well-known talking points that are easily refuted.
@ Darlene:
I just posted some links which should show up, or you can Google “ten reasons for male headhship” with either Grudem or Ware, and you will get lots of links. There is also a link upthread to a comment I made here at TWW regarding the ten points.
@ Gram3:
Oops. “ten reasons for male headship”
hanni wrote:
There is a difference between PCA and PCUSA. The University Presbyterian Church in Seattle is PCUSA. The PCA left the PCUSA due to *liberalism.*
__
Mark wrote:
Go 4 it!
🙂
—
@ Bill M:
bernie wrote: Did God choose to create the man first?
Elizabeth Lee wrote: Oh, Puh-lease. God made animals before He made man. Should the animals rule over the humans?
Bill M wrote: This explains cats
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
HA! great comedic timing there.
Bernie wrote:
I take it that you are a man? If you were a woman who was told to take a back seat due to your gender, I’d have a hunch you would find it very controversial – and offensive.
I can’t really change my gender. I was born with it. For that, I get told I have to permanently be subordinate to men. That is very offensive. I also don’t see the Bible teaching it.
It seems to me that Jesus was only temporarily subordinate while incarnate on earth, to fulfill his mission as Messiah.
Jesus was not, is not, permanently subordinate to the Father, but complementarians are insisting that all women, married or single (though the Bible only mentioned married women in this area)…
Some teach that women are to be subordinate to men in all spheres of life, and some teach women are to be subordinate even in the after life (even though the Bible teaches no such thing and says there is no marriage in the afterlife.
If you were a woman, you’d find this extremely controversial and objectionable.
The only Christian women who buy into complementarianism are brainwashed into believing it from childhood, (as I was at one time), and/or are not exposed to conservative Christian views that present a different, but equally valid, way of interpreting the text about women and marriage.
Bill M wrote:
Along those lines, t-shirts I’ve seen that expound on this say things like,
“Dogs have owners; cats have staff”
and
“Ancient Egyptians Worshipped Cats as Gods. Cats Have Never Forgotten This”
🙂
@ Bernie:
I think you would find Millard Erickson’s book very enlightening. There is no controversy whatsoever that Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man, submitted to the Father while he was on earth. The controversy is whether the very nature of the relationship between Father and Son is eternally one of hierarchy of authority. You may not subscribe to ESS, but the reason people here *assumed* you were promoting that is because you were making the same points that ESS proponents make.
Governments do have authority over people. However, ultimate authority resides either in the people themselves or in the king/tyrant. So that analogy fails because in the one instance, the “government” is a collective (at least in theory) and in the other there is no equality between the parties. In the case of parent/child the analogy fails because at some point the child matures and outgrows the need for his parents’ authority (again theoretically.) Same with the other usual analogy: executives and janitors. A janitor is not proscribed from ever being a CEO simply because he/she is a janitor whereas women are unavoidably subordinate to males simply and only because of their chromosomal composition. None of the analogies are on point, but they sound truthy at first glance.
@ Gram3:
“I don’t know George Knight III, so I don’t know what he might think of what I said about why he wrote what he wrote”
++++++++++++
thanks for all the detailed information. i’m just…. perplexed.
what you describe is so egregiously ‘eisegetical’ (from that fancy word I’ve been introduced to here). certainly this George III and all the other comp know-it-alls would righteously shake their heads and jowels at the notion of that word being applied to them.
certainly they have been accused of this already and have responded.
what argument do they have (George III & co.) that this is not the product of eisgesis (male-supremely-done)?
lydia wrote:
You’re right. They cannot point to one specific prohibition anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Cheryl Schatz has demonstrated this admirably in her work as did Katharine Bushnell long before her.
Grudem is said to have deconstructed all of the Hebrew Bible’s references to women teaching or taking any mantle of authority in his tome:
Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth
Dr. Grudem does it with circular reasoning, special pleading, and an appeal to the authority of Scripture that must always have ‘the plain reading’ as the final arbiter.
There was quite the Holy War (Jihad?) going on over at Denny Burk’s blog some years back when the late Suzanne McCarthy, a gifted Classical and Koine Greek scholar in her own right, pointed out Grudem’s historical and grammatical fallacies and the fast and loose derivations which can arise from them. Burk got his drawers in such a dither he banned her from his site.
Bernie wrote:
No, it does not make the analogy work because his subordinate status was not imposed on him but rather he chose to lay his privileges aside for a specific purpose, namely to become one of us. An equal can voluntarily choose to forego privileges and make himself/herself “unequal.” However, it does not follow from that voluntary act of self-subordination that the person doing the self-subordination is himself/herself subordinate *by nature* to the one receiving the submissive acts/attitudes. As I typically put it, an instruction to one party to have an attitude/action of submission to another party is *not* a grant of authority to the party toward whom the deference is given. The fact is that every believer–every child of God in God’s household–is instructed to have an attitude of deference toward every other one of God’s children. Because we are called to imitate Christ, regardless of our chromosomal configuration.
lydia wrote:
In doing that he was agreeing with the supposition that it matters who came first. He has not disagreed with that supposition. He and the Ephesian pagans were on the same page with that supposition that it matters. Paul was arguing about the details. If he was challenging the entire idea of the importance of who came first then he did a poor job of it.
Now, of course, some of us say that Paul himself was a person of his times, but that is a different approach to scripture. I am not preaching that (at this moment) but I am saying that merely refuting the Ephesians as to who came first is not offering an opposite argument to the underlying supposition.
And in a similar matter but only with different details, I note in my reading of Ehrman that he still thinks and agrues like a fundamentalist. This was really evident in an interview on YouTube about one of his books, how Jesus became God. Bart is no longer a fundamentalist believer but is a fundamentalist unbeliever. Similar thinking patterns and some same suppositions but only with some different conclusions.
There is a lot of this kind of stuff going around. Thinking: The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference. There are a passel of arguments going around about a lot of things that do not offer an opposite opinion/approach/conclusion.
The opposite of who came first, Artemis or Adam, is nobody came first. By the time humans evolved to be ‘modern humans’ male/female sexuality was long since established in the genetic line. Of course, that argument of off limits to a lot of folks, but that sort of thing is what attacks the suppositions.
elastigirl wrote:
AFAIK they do not address it at all. They sing to the choir, so they see no need to defend it except to say that those who disagree are “liberals” who have capitulated to cultural pressure. I think the most helpful thing for you to do to try to understand them is to read their own writings and analyze them for consistency in their hermeneutic and consistency in their application of logical principles. These are educated men, and I conclude from that that they know they are employing bad hermeneutics and bad logic. The open question is why they continue to do the things that they would decry others doing.
Muff Potter wrote:
Of course he did. Scholars explore and study and encourage debate. Ideologues spout or shout down or shut down. They do not refute with facts because facts are not the point.
okrapod wrote:
He was correcting the record regarding the historical sequence of events. I don’t see him addressing one way or the other any significance which attaches to that, if any, but that doesn’t mean that he thought that there was some importance to it. In 1 Corinthians 11 he does address the issue where he says that woman came from man at the first, man comes from woman since then, but nevertheless all come from God which is the only thing that is significant so stop arguing about who is first and who is most important. So if we read Paul in his entire authorial context (or at least the ones we have been given) then he *does* deny any significance attaching to birth order. Primogeniture is a human cultural invention, and I think that Paul knew that. Saul of Tarsus probably not so much before his conversion.
__
“Is The Wartburg Watch Up Da Innertary Cannel Without A Paddle Or Is It Time For TWW and da redolent reticent SBC (non-Calvnist) Affiliated Churches Ta Take To Da Life Boats?”
hmmm…
dee on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 12:34 PM said:
@ Max: ( i.e.”that SBC’s publishing house LifeWay is now under Calvinist leadership…”
Dee: “The SBC is effectively controlled by the Calvinistas at this time. Even their church planting efforts are aimed in that direction. Most church plants are aimed at communities where there is good disposable income and lots of churches. They are bringing in churches not to introduce the Gospel to the populace. They are planting churches to introduce the neo-gospel to them.
There is a reason that there continues to be a decline in church members in the SBC over the last number of years while church planting has been all the rage. I do not believe they are looking for new converts to the faith. Instead, they are looking to make Neo-Reformed theology the dominate force.”
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/24/council-of-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-if-you-cant-explain-it-to-me-youve-got-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-207628
***
Max on Sat Jul 25, 2015 at 05:59 PM said:
dee wrote:
Dee: “The SBC is effectively controlled by the Calvinistas at this time. Even their church planting efforts are aimed in that direction … They are planting churches to introduce the neo-gospel to them … I do not believe they are looking for new converts to the faith. Instead, they are looking to make Neo-Reformed theology the dominate force.”
Max wrote:
Max: “No doubt about it, Dee. I have been monitoring SBC’s church planting initiative closely … it’s all about planting theology. SBC’s North American Mission Board has been planting churches predominantly staffed with young, restless and reformed ‘lead’ pastors (most fresh out of seminary), with hand-picked ‘elder’ teams of young buddies. The go about indoctrinating new members with reformed theology through their small groups (called LifeGroups in many places). The other approach is to takeover an established work, but it is a tougher challenge requiring stealth and deception … but it is happening across the SBC landscape resulting in church splits. New Calvinists are well on their way to Calvinizing the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America … and the pew ain’t got a clue…”
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/24/council-of-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-if-you-cant-explain-it-to-me-youve-got-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-207680
***
“Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand…” -See: Ephesians 6:13-18
ATB
Sopy
—
Bridget wrote:
Mrs. Muff & me have lived at the North Eastern foot of the Santa Ana mountain range (Corona) for 34 yrs. now and it was the first time we’ve ever seen rain in July.
@ Gram3:
I do not see that he denies it. He does note that other things are also important (females give birth to males) but he does not deny that any of all that is important. He did not say, that yes in the beginning such and such was true but now that is not important any more and *instead* we now consider the biologic facts of reproduction (males are born from females) to be the important thing. I don’t see that he set the two in opposition to each other but rather noted both things.
I am thinking that the comp people have to maintain their thinking about order of creation in order to maintain their thinking about comp stuff, and until it can be proved that creation as told in Genesis is no longer important they will continue to have some basis for their arguments. Given the mentions of creation in the NT and the mentions of Father/Son in the NT then both order of creation and ESS seem to me to be essential to their arguments.
okrapod wrote:
They are essential to their argument. The Son must be eternally subordinate and the order of creation must be important. I can’t find any place where Paul or God himself place any importance at all on the order of creation nor where the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. God said male and female were co-regents and received the exact same blessing. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians before 1 Timothy, so what he said in 1 Corinthians was at least background information to what he said in 1 Timothy and, IMO, what he said in 1 Timothy should be read in light of what he had already written to the Corinthians where he also noted that Eve is a type of all people who are deceived and not merely that women are more easily deceived. Of course, that doesn’t stop people from assuming that Paul was saying women are more easily deceived in 1 Timothy 2:13. For some reason, people assume that Paul is always speaking as the author of a Book of Church Order rather than speaking pastorally and correction errors as they arose.
@ Gram3:
correcting errors as they arose.
__
“Calvinism’s God Condemns From Eternity Past?”
hmmm…
This is how I know Calvinism is false doctrine: the God of the bible, and His dear Son, do not ask ‘and who is my neighbor?’…
ATB
Sopy
—
okrapod wrote:
The entire book of 1st Tim is dealing with false teaching problems there. It is not at all about authority. We read that into it. The supposition was from the cult making order important. The female false teacher, who was “domineering”, was “deceived” and needed to learn. In Chp 1 Paul makes it clear there are those who decieve on purpose and those who are deceived out of ignorance.
Gram3 wrote:
That is a good point.
Daisy wrote:
Agreed – some parallels do exist. Islam’s ultimate goal (just not radical Islam) is for worldwide submission to Islam. ISIS is all about establishing a caliphate state that will open the way for this to happen beginning in the Middle East and beyond. They use jihad force to make this happen. John Calvin’s desire was for a Christian utopia in Geneva – all citizens were expected to submit to it and Calvin had the force of the magistrate behind him to enforce his brand of religion. Anyone who gets in the way of jihad, pays dearly – sometimes with their lives. Anyone who got in the way of Calvin, paid dearly – sometimes with their lives. Islam makes authoritative demands on its adherents; Calvinism does likewise. Islam treats women as second class citizens; and so does Calvinism. Islam indoctrinates its youth; Calvinism does likewise. Islam may recognize Jesus, but diminishes his divine role; Calvinism over-emphasizes “God” at the expense of Jesus. And the parallels could go on. Islam is an obvious cult. The debate still rages in Christianity whether Calvinism, particularly New Calvinism, is orthodox belief or false teaching.
@ Daisy:
Well said, Daisy.
@ Gram3:
There’s a lot I could say about your post (which was excellent), but one thing I did want to say for now.
All the complementarian talk of women being equal in being but not in role (due to gender) just reminds me so much of the Jim Crow type laws, where black people were essentially told they’re equal in being but not in role, either.
“You’re separate but equal. You cannot use the same water fountains as white people, but really, this is not unfair. We really don’t think you’re lesser, honest. We just have one set of rules for you and another for white people.”
That’s what the gender complementarians are saying about women, and they don’t see how this is objectionable or insulting? I’m supposed to assume this is God’s intent and be okay with it?
Gram3 wrote:
Excellent!
@ Muff Potter:
The thunderstorms were great! Being born a Midwesterner, I miss them. We are 40 minutes south of you on the freeway. I pass by your way occasionally as my son is at CPP.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh, certainly. I didn’t mean to imply that the conversation was illegitimate, only that I personally don’t engage them anymore.
Muff Potter wrote:
That is such a humble attitude to have toward one you differ from on certain theological points. 🙄
Nancy2 wrote:
Strachan is not (has never been) interested in learning or in a logic. I don’t suppose it occurred to him that feminism itself is not a root, but one expression of an underlying source.
@ Daisy:
Well, Jim Crow was an improvised “solution” to the “problem” that the notion of some class of people being ordained by God (the class being defined by “race” rather than gender) to rule over another class of people in the USA was no longer acceptable. So, when your entire premise that God had ordained one class to rule over another is defeated, what do you do if your overriding concern is to maintain your position of superior status?
That is, in a sense, the dilemma that Knight and the others faced in the 1970’s because the (unstated) premise that females are by nature inferior which undergirded their theology of gender was no longer considered valid. So they improvised, but their improvisation is logically ridiculous so they have to make an appeal to speculations about the inner relationships inside the Trinity. The fact is that we are not instructed to play roles which imitate the supposed “roles” within the Trinity. We are all called to imitate Christ, whether male or female. One wonders where they will go next.
Another parallel is that the abolitionists were also accused of being godless and accommodating the egalitarian spirit of the age which they said was warring against God’s ordering of the races of humanity. One would think this truth might chasten their thinking.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I imagine that being in seminary with this type of non-thinking must have been very frustrating. I once had a conversation with a person who described a process of de-toxing from the environment of rigid indoctrination rather than inquiry into the truth. I’m willing to talk to anyone who is willing to discuss the actual issues and the texts which they are convinced are “clear.”
Today at my SBC church in rural southern Kentucky:
<<>>
My translation: Ladies, we are just robots, made to be reprogrammed into whatever a man wants at any given time. Men serve God, women serve men. (Note to self: If my husband ever uses a boot to get control of me, he’s gonna need a whole lot more than just a new pair of boots. If he ever uses a boot on me, the church will probably have to “discipline” me, quite severely.)
I’m a “DONE”.
Okay, I’m going to try again. My ipad is going crazy. It has a mind of it’s own, kinda like a woman. Ya know????
Today at my SBC church in rural southern Kentucky:
<<< Today's Sunday school lesson:
I Kings chapter 20 —- Jezebel. Before he closed, our teacher has a few comments he felt compelled to make. He said that the husband is the head of his household, and it is the wife's Biblical duty to submit humbly to the husband and obey him. He said that all churches have "Jezebels". He told the men that if any of them has a wife who is a "Jezebel", he needs to do whatever he has to to get her in line and get her soul saved. He said that if a husband has to use a boot to get his wife to straighten up, so be it.
Today's sermon (Guest preacher from Nashville, TN):
The preacher made several comments on interpreting the Bible. He said that modern interpretations are sinful heresies and they are just done to justify personal opinions.
My translation: Ladies, we are just robots, made to be reprogrammed into whatever a man wants at any given time. Men serve God, women serve men. (Note to self: If my husband ever uses a boot to get control of me, he’s gonna need a whole lot more than just a new pair of boots. If he ever uses a boot on me, the church will probably have to “discipline” me, quite severely.) I drove like a maniac coming home. My husband and I still haven't spoken to one another. If this is what he calls a house of God, he can have it.
I’m a “DONE”.
@ Nancy2:
On the other hand at my anglo-catholic episcopal church in urban NC the pastor began a five week emphasis on John 6 and set the tone with something some philosopher in the field of philosophical anthropology said that humans are motivated more by loving than by thinking. The theory being that we do both, but love is the more effective motivator. If we have to choose between what we think and what we love, we choose what we love. He says that he will be getting into the importance of what we love, and since John 6 has a lot to say about communion that is where he is headed-do we or don’t we love Jesus. Does that love take us beyond what we understand or does what we fail to understand make us walk away from Jesus–all in John 6.
@ okrapod:
Hmmm. It a appears that my church only loves Stepford wives. I hope there is a church like yours somewhere around here.
I’m not done with Jesus. Jesus didn’t use a boot to get women saved or in line with church dogma. I’m just done with churches that weigh people in the balance, and find women lacking in external genitalia.
Bridget wrote:
I’m not a humble dude. I’m as full of myself as they come. The only thing that’s different from Burk is the coat of paint. The clay remains the same.
=== > (smiley face goes here)
@ okrapod:
P.S. I love fried okra!!! I can smell it every time I see your new name!
Nancy2 wrote:
Amen to that.
I very much enjoy reading this blog and I agree with the majorities view of the role of Christian women. I appreciate the give and take and that statements are challenged and supported in a civil, logical manner. I would like to hear views on the meaning of 1 Tim 2:15. I have never heard a credible explanation. I await eagerly to hear words of wisdom.
Muff Potter wrote:
Someone else(?) brought this up a while ago, so I paid a visit to look around at Denny’s blog. What I found was a long set of comments between McCarthy and someone named Alistair, who came from England and was almost certainly an Anglican. Now he was arguing for the same kind of complementarianism that I would, but he went to great pains to distance himself from American complementarianism, for example CBMW. This reinforced the impression I have had for some time that this doctrine is being taken to extremes in America that is not true elsewhere.
I have also long noticed what to me seem extreme reactions against complementarianism (‘no-one is going to subjugate me’, gender roles become strict gender roles.). Are these reactions against what the bible says, or what some men have done with it, who have gone beyond what is written?
Those I have heard teach it in the UK would not, I suspect, create such opposition except from those who would not be ‘subject’ to anything they didn’t like, which of course is not the issue. Indeed more than one claims a positive response from Christian women who are tired of their men failing to take responsibility.
Sarah K wrote:
And:
But the Twelve Apostles Were All Men
http://juniaproject.com/but-twelve-apostles-all-male/
Another one (other people have brought this up in other posts):
When Adam names the woman, he does not exert authority over her
http://www.postost.net/2015/02/when-adam-names-woman-he-does-not-exert-authority-over-her
@ Max:
And both are similar in that they teach that nothing happens that is not God’s will.
lydia wrote:
I think I already posted links to a few pages on this thread explaining how some Bible translators have intentionally taken underlying Greek words that refer to ALL persons (male and female) but, the translators at times chose to go with male-only translations at points in the text, which makes it seem like women are more excluded than they actually are.
Rethinking Male-Centered Translations of the Bible
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/05/04/rethinking-androcentric-translations-of-the-bible/
Darlene wrote:
Gram3 might be referring to this:
10 reasons for affirming male headship (discussed in the following thread):
http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=1152.0
Nancy2 wrote:
Agreed! But the Jezebel spirit can manifest itself through men; it does not actually have a gender. It is a spirit characterized by control, manipulation and intimidation … such as you encountered in Sunday School. Calvinist men in leadership roles are Jezebels when they attempt to make you look like you’re the Jezebel! Those under the influence of the Jezebel spirit will do anything to look like the one who is right; they are never wrong, particularly when it comes to their interpretation of Scripture. They get angry and mean-spirited when challenged. It’s a spiritual sickness which has found a new home in New Calvinism.
Darlene wrote:
Some of us were mentioning that earlier in the thread.
Another problem for the complementarian position is that they give little to no thought or consideration for never-married ladies, infertile married ones, widows, or divorced women.
There is also no consideration for women who do not fit so-called “biblical womanhood” as they understand it. I’ve always been a tom boy, but they put forward this “ideal” womanhood that boils down to a woman who is a 1950s June Cleaver house wife, is very emotional, passive, syrupy sweet, super feminine, wears pink dresses all day, who cooks casseroles and makes sandwiches for her husband.
None of those qualities or actions are bad in themselves, but that gender comps don’t give women who aren’t interested in that stuff any recourse or any other options.
I am not interested in wearing pink dresses all the time or being a subordinate maid-like figure to a spouse, and who is thought to be valued only for her lady parts and cooking/cleaning ability.
Ken wrote:
AFAIK I have never reacted against what the Bible actually says. In fact, in our conversations, I’ve often remarked that I am surprised that you have no problem at all with Grudem adding words to the text which change the meaning of the text into something entirely different. As in “symbol of” being added to “authority over her own head.” We are not reacting against what the Bible says. We are reacting against misuse of and even abuse of the words which God has actually given to us. What Grudem and the CBMW-types do does *not* evidence a high view of the authority of the Bible. It makes the Bible into a tool for furthering their own interests. Please try to understand this because it is what you are missing.
What would you consider an appropriate reaction for you to have if someone were to put you into bondage and if they did so by adding their own words to the Bible, twisting the meaning of the texts by using inconsistent and ad hoc interpretive methods? If they said you were to be subordinate to females because the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father? If they told you God created you for the use of another human? What is the line you would draw between an extreme response and an appropriate one?
Frieda wrote:
IMO, Paul is referring to the female false teachers at Ephesus who were spreading the false ideas of the Artemis cult. They would be saved the very same way that the first Woman was saved and the first Man was saved and the way every deceived sinner, like Paul himself would be saved: through The Childbearing (which is what the text literally says) which God promised in Genesis 3 in the immediate wake of the Fall when it appeared that all was irrevocably lost due to deception and consequent sin.
When interpreting the epistles, we need to look at the purpose for the author writing the epistle. Paul begins 1 Timothy by recounting his own deception and how nevertheless God was merciful to him. Similarly, the woman/women who were spreading the false salvation through Artemis and the female supremacy of the Artemis cult could be saved–they were not irretrievably lost just as Saul the persecutor was not irretrievably lost. It is not difficult to imagine Timothy’s despair if we consider the environment at Ephesus which Luke recounts in Acts. These were not genteel folks at Ephesus, and Timothy had violent men and women spreading false doctrines in his fledgling church.
This view makes sense of the various texts in 1 Timothy which are universally regarded as difficult. It accounts for the “appeal to creation and deception” as being a corrective of false teaching of the Artemis cult. It explains Paul’s silencing of that false teaching along with his instructions to the men to settle down. It explains the “saved by the childbearing” as being a rhetorical device which simultaneously teaches the truth of the Incarnation of our Savior and refutes the false teaching of women being saved through physical childbearing by Artemis. We must remember that bearing a child was hazardous and a constant threat to women. The Artemis cult taught that being a virgin is superior to being married and bearing children, so Paul instructed the women about that, too.
You can look up lots of information about the content of the Artemis cult. It was a huge deal there for centuries before Christianity arrived. There was a lot of cultural baggage that they needed to unlearn, just like the new believers everywhere, including Jerusalem and Rome who came from a Jewish background.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, that’s the list that they think is so conclusive. It really should be called the Ten Assertions. Each one has no substance and means nothing. They divide 10 by zero and think they get a very big number when actually they should multiply ten by zero. It is pure rhetoric that sounds truthy until you take a look at the verses and what they actually say.
Gram3 wrote:
Even people in the military can work their way up in rank.
I point this out only because some gender complementarians like to being up military analogies:
A husband is like an Admiral in the Navy, a wife like an Ensign; both are equal in their humanity and value, but the husband/ Admiral “out ranks” the wife/ Ensign in role or authority.
(I have seen gender complementarians use this type of comparison before on blogs or internet articles.)
Which is not a bright or swift analogy, because as I just brought up, you don’t have to stay at the lowest rank in the military, you can be promoted.
You can also attend officer training school (OCS/OTS) and skip over the lower ranks if you qualify.
@ Gram3:
Regarding the creation order. I’m still skimming my way down a thread on another forum about this topic, and someone reminded everyone that the creation account is described twice, and done so differently.
In the first telling, man and woman are apparently created simultaneously, not man first and woman second.
From Gen 1:
I thought that was an interesting. observation.
I also note from that portion that both the man and woman were to rule over creation – it does not say that falls to man only, or that man had authority over the woman.
Gram3 wrote:
The Middle Eastern cultures of the OT placed a lot of importance on first-born sons in choosing who would inherit what, or whatever. God over-rode that consideration several times to intentionally pick the youngest child in several scenarios.
I have a hard time believing that the God of the OT who frequently brushed off cultural norms and expectations in regards to rank, age, etc., would then place a lot of importance or emphasis on who was created first in the OT, but gender comps like to play that up. God does not, but they do.
You can look up lots of information about the content of the Artemis cult. It was a huge deal there for centuries before Christianity arrived. There was a lot of cultural baggage that they needed to unlearn, just like the new believers everywhere, including Jerusalem and Rome who came from a Jewish background.
Thanks for this information. I will need to do some studying to be able to explain this to others in a consise manner, but now I have a place to start. Carry on the good work!
@ Daisy:
I can’t affirm that the Man and the Woman were created simultaneously because I don’t think the account in Genesis 1 tells us that. If I’m going to complain about the Comps reading stuff into the text, then I need to try to avoid doing that as well. It merely says that God decided to create humanity in his image and he created one male and the other female and that he gave both of them an undifferentiated dominion over non-human creation, and he gave both of them an undifferentiated Father’s blessing, a detail which would have been quite significant in the patriarchal cultures of the Bible. IMO, the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are, dare I say, complementary, and each should be read in light of the other.
@ Nancy2:
😯 That was a very sexist sermon he gave. He just put it out there.
I wonder if I, a never married woman, who doesn’t buy into comp any longer, would be called a Jezebel by this guy, or does that name only go to married women, I wonder? Hmm.
Most evangelicals I hear, when they start talking about male headship in sermons, try to do this “aw shucks” intro to soften the blow.
They will say, “Now I know a lot of ladies don’t like this passage in the Bible, but…” They will smile and yuk it up and try to be folksy-chummy to sugar coat the obvious sexism they’re peddling as being God-ordained.
I’ve also seen some try to sneak up on the disputed passages by lecturing husbands first to “love their wives,” and golly, if you love your wife enough, she won’t mind submitting to you like a subservient toddler.
I’m not sure which type of sexism I prefer:
the 1. more honest “in your face” variety, like what you brought up, or 2. the preachers who try to “ham it up” by making female servitude into a stand-up routine that I’m supposed to find amusing and chuckle about.
@ frieda:
I’m glad that was a helpful start for your research. I think that what happens is that it is assumed that the topic of 1 Timothy is authority when that is not the topic Paul is primarily concerned to discuss. And that presupposition makes the “difficult” verses difficult because they don’t fit into that grid. If I make a mistake in one part of a crossword puzzle, the others are not going to work out smoothly unless I cheat somehow. The best way to really solve the puzzle is to go back and re-check to make sure I have filled in each blank correctly in the first place, not pretend that all is well and just ignore the difficulties or change the words or the clues to fit my wrong presupposition.
Frieda wrote:
If you google 1 Timothy 2:15 and go to Biblehub or biblegateway website they list a number of different translations some of which suggest a slightly different slant on it. One translation called the aramaic bible in plain english has an interesting take on it. Most translations just say childbearing but a couple or so say Child, referring to the promise in Genesis. I have a problem with the idea that this verse is referencing the original promise though that was what was taught in baptistville during my formative years there. What bothers me is that the verse goes on to say *if*. That women are saved (difficult part regarding childbearing or Child) if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (or very similar words.) I do not see in scripture that men are saved by the fulfillment of the original promise but that women are only saved by the fulfillment of the promise *if* anything. There are no additional requirements for women’s salvation as compared to men; no ifs.
If however one goes with the idea of safety during labor and delivery, that still leaves the faith and love and holiness and propriety and there is no medical evidence that such as that ensures a safe delivery. That brings up another whole issue but a real one for me at least. That would leave some people (me for instance) saying that was a residual of some older belief which we now hold to be incorrect. Whether we want to say that about scripture is problematic.
I am comfortable with my conclusion which is: “I don’t know.” But if this is an error in scripture I would rather it be an error about obstetrics than an error about salvation.
@ Mark:
And that’s just it. If that’s not what it looks like…. Then what does it look like? It kind of seems like they can do whatever they want as long as they’re not behind the pulpit in the man-made “preaching” scenario we’ve all come to expect out of the common understanding of “local church”, or they’re not breaking any number of unspoken and/or arbitrary rules at any given scenario.
The whole thing makes no sense to me anymore – the cognitive dissonance is strong with me these days.
Attended a comp church this morning where a woman read basically a full chapter of scripture to the congregation, and then gave a tiny couple-sentence address/blessing at the end of it.
How? If you’re going by the “plain old text of scripture”, that whole church is out of line.
Really, the hardcore patriarchy folks are more honest IMO these days. The plain text says women should be silent in church. Comp folks seem to want to have it both ways: pay lip-service to scripture by defining “silence in church” so narrowly (amongst other things), yet not completely offend and run off most women. Darn it, muzzle em all up, already – the Gospel™ depends on it!
My apologies, ladies.
okrapod wrote:
Here is a lengthy piece by Jon Zens.
http://searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm
Here is the main landing page. Have you read his book “What’s With Paul and Women?” It is also helpful.
http://www.searchingtogether.org/
okrapod wrote:
I don’t think Paul is imposing additional “ifs” on women. All believers will be saved through The Childbearing if we do not depart from faith in The Child but continue in that faith. The woman/women at Ephesus and probably the violent men were in danger of departing from the faith. It just happens that the primary error Paul was addressing was deception, and specifically the deception of the Artemis cult. This was essentially the admonition which he gave to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians when he used the example of Eve’s deception. Also the warning in Hebrews and Galatians.
Ken wrote:
The Bible doesn’t teach gender roles.
@ Gram3:
Well, that was not written well, so I’ll try again. Paul was not concerned with the consequences of physical childbirth, but the Artemis cult certainly was. He was not teaching about childbirth but rather warning about deception which leads to ruin, both individually and corporately. He was not concerned, IMO, with obstetrical details but rather with the ruinous consequences of false teaching, whatever the content of those false teachings were. At Ephesus it concerned women and the Artemis cult which had distinctives regarding childbirth and virginity and the supremacy of females. At Corinth it was self-promotion and greed and spiritual pride and boastfulness. At Galatia and Jerusalem it was circumcision. However, in all of those cases, the root problem was a failure to guard against false teaching creeping into the churches and destroying the faith of individuals. I believe Paul was also encouraging Timothy to hang in there at Ephesus in the face of such great error and messiness. It must have seemed futile to Timothy who may have felt like Moses did when he complained about the people God gave him.
Daisy wrote:
It is true that *if* God made such a law, he certainly violated it himself a lot. I don’t think that is consistent with God’s character, so I’m going to say that there is no such law from God. There are human customs, but God is quite clear that our ways are not his ways, and he is not bound by our ideas. The CBMW crew are making a desperate attempt to re-educate God along with the rest of us, and Grudem has made some helpful edits to the ESV toward that end. I’m sure God is grateful for their help.
Nancy2 wrote:
This is unbelievable and totally inappropriate! I’d have walked out upon hearing this. No one should have to listen to a pastor (or anyone) giving a man permission to be abusive to his wife even if she is a Jezebel, whatever that means. And husbands should have been appalled at this as well.
@ okrapod:
In the King James Thomas Nelson Study Bible, it says in I TIm. 2:15 that “the woman ‘shall be saved’ from having no role or significance in the local church. Her primary role is that of childbearing and raising children……..”
When I combine that with I Cor. 14:34-35, ” Let your women keep silence in the churches …….. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” …..
it give me an obvious opportunity to twist scripture and ask, “Is a woman even supposed to go to church?”
@ Victorious:
Our Sunday school teacher made the “Jezebel” remarks. I was appalled at all of the “amens” that accompanied his remarks!!!
Gram3 wrote:
You are hilarious 😀
Nancy2 wrote:
That is absolutely twisted, but if so much of this is taken to its logical conclusion, it ends up ok beating women. This is never OK, and anyone who teaches this is a false teacher, in my opinion.
@ Nancy2:
Find another church. You have a right not to be lied to in church about the meaning of scripture. And the amens mean that there are a lot of people in the class that need to go back to bible interpretation 001. Get out before you open your mouth and they put you in “discipline”.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram 3, do you have a source or sources for the accusation of the abolitionists going along with an egalitarian spirit of their age? I find that interesting.
Nancy2 wrote:
You know, I saw something interesting on the news last week that was appalling. Bystanders in N.Y. City watched as a man slugged a woman. Not one intervened. The psychologist on this news segment gave this type of neglect several names/terms. Herd mentality; group think; diffusion of responsibility and bystander “effect.” Personally I wonder if we haven’t become so desensitized to verbal abuse, insults, and/or physical violence that it’s no longer shocking.
Just an example of this type of desensitizing…. I love hockey. My sister and I go to nearly every game our local team plays in town. But the fights just send me over the edge. I just can’t understand two adult men punching one another in the face as part of a sport. But it happens in every level of hockey and is accepted as “part of the game.” Same goes for other sports that promote physical violence. My sister gets furious with me for my thinking about this as though I’m strange!!
Went off on a tangent…:) but the type of insult the Sunday School teacher was spewing toward women as though they were children who needed a good spanking now and then to keep her in line, has become much too acceptable in some churches. It must, imo, be challenged every time.
@ Nancy2:
I never heard that one. We need to make a list on possible explanations for this verse.
bernie wrote:
Bernie this is the same with 1st Timothy 2 & 3. This was wrenched from the pulpit of the Church at Ephesus and imported into ideology of patriachial denominations to silence women. Who is that wants more than 1/2 of all Christians to remain silent; God or Satan? The great commission was given to all, male and female, and that is to ‘Go into all the world and preach the Gospel…….’
Gram3 wrote:
Gram 3, do you have a source or sources for the accusation of the abolitionists going along with an egalitarian spirit of their age? I find that interesting. Frieda wrote:
Here is the verse as translated from The Amplified Bible: 15 Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls’ salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] [a]through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+tim+2%3A15&version=AMP
That is consistent with the way that Gram3 is explaining it. The Amplified Bible tries to amplify the meaning of the Greek rather than choose one English word or phrase to translate, so it’s not smooth reading, but it often gives non-Greek-readers an understanding of what the Greek is saying.
A Close Look at a Complementarian Argument
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-close-look-at-complementarian-argument.html
rhondajeannie wrote:
I believe this was an argument made a great evangelist of the past, Adironam Judson Gorden, founder of Gorden Conwell seminary.
__
“Puzzle Passage?
@ Frieda
huh?
What is the scriptural meaning of 1 Tim 2:15?
Scripture: “But women will be preserved [through] the bearing of children [if] they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
hmmm…
https://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-two-survey-interpretations-1-timothy-215
You decide.
ATB
Sopy
🙂
—
A fascinating comment thread. It’s increasingly clear that New Calvinist hype about complementarianism and all the mumbo-jumbo about Biblical manhood and womanhood is really designed to distract folks from what it really is … patriarchy. Men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. There is no room for women to use their spiritual gifts … “homemaker” is not on the list of spiritual gifts. It is a noble task to raise a family and keep a home; my dear wife has been a champion at it, while still using her spiritual gifts. We serve the King together and submit to each other. God has a design and purpose for all of His children, both male and female; both pulpit and pew are to be engaged in ministry. We are one in Christ, members of the same royal priesthood, with each believer’s soul competent before God to go and do as He calls us to Kingdom mission. Any theological system that would discourage any member of the Body of Christ from responding to that call is not of God.
__
@ Sopwith
Part Ii:
(food 4 thought)
http://www.directionjournal.org/issues/gen/art_1354_.html
ATB
Sopy
—
—
__
“Well Read?”
hmmm…
“___Calvinism is a comprehensive theological system attributed to the 16th century reformer John Calvin. It often is described around five primary points of belief, three of which most Southern Baptists easily adhere to but two of which are extremely controversial. The contested doctrines are that the atonement bought by Christ on the cross is limited in scope only to those God chose for salvation before the foundation of the world (implying that God predestined some people to damnation before they ever were born) and that the grace of God is so irresistible that all the elect eventually will be drawn to accept it.
___Having close friends who are five-point Calvinists, Patterson said, he respects their commitment to the Bible as the word of God and their belief in the reality of sin.
___Pressed by another listener as to whether those who hold to Calvinism are to be accepted as part of the convention, Patterson replied that the Baptist Faith & Message is the SBC’s agreed-upon, adopted statement of faith.
___”There’s plenty of room under the umbrella for anyone who is anything from a one- to five-point Calvinist,” Patterson said, stipulating that any Southern Baptist would have to agree upon the doctrine known as perseverance of the saints or “once saved, always saved.”
___”There’s room for a two- or three-pointer like me, provided he can explain what is meant by two and three,” Patterson said. “There’s room for four- and five-pointers whom I believe lack scriptural justification for that, but I’m certainly not in favor of running them out.”
___Patterson said his only caution to Baptist Calvinists lies in their expression of evangelism and missions. “Any person who holds to five-point Calvinism will never be in any danger in this convention as long as he does not allow it to lead him to unscriptural conclusions–such as we ought not to give invitations and things like that. When he gets to that point, either implicitly or explicitly, it has now become a hindrance to evangelism and missions.”
___Patterson added that he found no scriptural support for the doctrines of irresistible grace or limited atonement as espoused by Calvinists. “I’m easy to convince. I stand under the word (of God). Bring me the Bible and show me where it says grace is irresistible and if you’re the elect God’s going to pursue you like the hound of hell.”
___The Bible actually advocates “the exact opposite” of a belief in limited atonement, he asserted. “It says he died not only for our sins, but also the sins of the whole world. That is an unlimited atonement if I’ve ever read anything at all.” -Page Paterson on the influence of Calvinism within the SBC, c. 1999.
http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/1999/11_24/pages/calvinism.html
Q. Has Patterson changed his tune?
—
Nancy2 wrote:
Isn’t that what you find in PORN?
Women as sexbots who exist only to serv(ic)e men?
@ Abi Miah:
There is the Robert L. Dabney archive online where you can read what he wrote about slaves and women and their supporters. That’s a good start.
Daisy wrote:
Like this?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ghholt/4362417954/?ytcheck=1
Gram3 wrote:
Wasn’t Reverend Dabney considered a hardcore racist even by 19th Century Confederate standards?
Muff Potter wrote:
What they do is take “description” and make it a law. They insist the effects of sin is really virtue and call it God’s design. I don’t think it gets more sinister than that.
Max wrote:
Just like anyone who got in the way of Citizen Robespierre and his Republique of Perfect Virtue. Except then it wasn’t just “sometimes”.
lydia wrote:
Doesn’t the Bible say something about “those who call evil good”?
And use God’s Name to justify doing evil?
Sopwith wrote:
Yes. And so has Dr. Frank Page, President and Chief Executive Officer, Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Author of “Trouble With The Tulip: A Closer Examination of The Five Points of Calvinism,” Dr. Page was once a strong voice attempting to halt the proliferation of New Calvinism within SBC. SBC’s non-Calvinist leadership no longer sound the alarm; they have surrendered to the movement. They, instead, call for unity … but can two distinctly different theologies of God’s plan of salvation really co-exist in a single denomination? Within a few short years, the SBC will be largely Calvinized. Evangelism and mission of a once-great denomination will never be the same again.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know how he compares to others. It is difficult for me to assess what was motivating them to defend slavery. What was going on with Whitfield, for example? Was it purely economics? Was it a commitment to what he thought the Bible taught about order among the races? I really don’t know.
Whitefield.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yep, like that. And I’m not supposed to be insulted by that.
dee wrote:
Dee, I agree, I am just explaining their perspective on the “kingdom of God”, Dominionism has many forms. It comes from a misunderstanding of Genesis and what Jesus accomplished and the future.
Dee,
They believe their brand, neo-calvinism, has the answers to the world’s problems, pain , suffering, poverty, violence, wars…….. there is a huge diverse and manifold movement, neo-calvinists are part of it.
They are missing the purpose of the church according to the scriptures.
They see you as hindering their plans or “gospel” by not submitting (to them).
Cut and paste my comments together and look at them, what I am saying is simple but can be hard to understand or accept right way.
The answer is in what is the mission of the church according to the bible? And what is their mission?
From March 2014:
“Sunday, a pastor in Phoenix, Arizona implored his female congregants not to say “amen” in church.”*
-because, he says, the Bible says women are to be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:11).
That passage also tells women to ask their husbands their questions when they get home. I’ve never married. If I have questions, who do I ask? Or am I up poopy creek on that? 🙂
*Source:
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/03/anti-gay-pastor-who-prayed-for-obamas-death-demands-silence-from-women-in-church/
I just found this:
The Logical Fallacy of “Equal But Subordinate”
http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2014/03/21/the-logical-fallacy-of-equal-but-subordinate/
Daisy wrote:
That analogy bugs me, too. See here on how to become “Ruler of the Queen’s Navee’ according to Gilbert and Sullivan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpJ_IAUs8nI.
Even if I ‘stick close to my desk and never go to sea,’ my gender means, according to complementarian ideology, that I haven’t a snowball’s chance in the hot place of becoming ‘ruler of the Queen’s Navee.’
__
Because of the influx of Calvinism in the SBC over recent years, the actural potential opportunities for women to serve in vocational ministry(s) within the SBC are indeed dwindling fast?
hmmm…
Are they preparing the SBC churches for an eventual men’s only club?
—
@ Nancy2:
Yikes, Nancy2. That is awful. I hope you can find a better church.
The only place in the Bible that says men are the head of their household is in Esther where the king sends out a proclamation stating as much. He does it on the advice of his courtiers because they don’t want their wives to stand up to them like Queen Vashti did to the king when he wanted to humiliate her in front of his drunken guests.
I don’t think we have to take the law of a long dead pagan king, who was easily manipulated by his courtiers, as a rule for today.
__
“Roll Over Rover?”
hmmm…
Max,
hey,
So approximately 46,125 congregations, and approximately 15.74 million members are gonna just play dead?
(grin)
hahahahahaha
What?
hum, hum, hum…A Calvin we will go, a Calvin we will go, high ho?
Tromp, Tromp, Tromp…
Your left, your left, left, right, left…
Bump.
Sopy
__
Comic relief: Alan Parson’s 1977 Album : “I Robot”
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=3RrjhZY0Wag
;~)
—
Bernie wrote:
Bernie do you realise CBMW teach submission in the afterlife (Mormon teaching) – here is a link to an article posted on The Spiritual Sounding Board’s Forum March 2014.
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/03/14/council-for-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-removes-article-about-complementarian-roles-in-new-creation/
@ Sopwith:
Thanks for the link. I was not aware of that web site but they do seem to have some good stuff. I have been known to lift an eyebrow or two about DTS people, but this looks like a really good site, and this particular series you referenced is excellent. Lots of different ways to view the passage and lots of whys and why nots and, my favorite, lots of references.
Thanks again.
@ rhondajeannie:
I just read that article. Wow! Looks like King Solomon is going to be one busy man, with all those wives and concubines to manage in heaven, huh?
dee wrote:
The acronym for the female subordinationists’ doctrine could be “ESF”.
Gus wrote:
And very right you are!!
Nancy2 wrote:
It is just male wishful thinking.
Gram3 wrote:
As a ‘reactor’ I don’t have you in mind at all! You interact rather than react.
I’m not sure Grudem on his own could have had that much influence on the ESV of 1 Cor 11 : 10. I would agree a footnote stating that symbol of had been added to try to make a better English sentence should have been added, but this small addition has a long pedigree in the standard versions.
The RSV here and in this chapter in general is particularly bad, translating covering as veil – it is more an interpretation than a translation. The translators probably thought they were clarifying the text, but I would prefer a more literal renditioning and let the reader look into the correct understanding of the text themselves.
In any event the addition of this samll phrase does not make much difference – the authority here either means a sign of being under her husband’s authority, or, as I believe, a sign of her own authority to prophesy and pray. The former interpretation makes the covering a sign of submission, which is why I prefer the latter. If Paul had meant submission, he doesn’t seen to have been too shy to say so elsewhere!
Arce wrote:
Thank you for pointing out the flaw in the comps’ logic.
I am reminded of the way that we cat-loving folk sometimes joke that “we believe that cats were created on the eighth day…..” Because, you see, that means that cats are just as superior to their humans, as the cats themselves believe that they are.
Nancy2 wrote:
Do they come With Benefits(TM), like the 72 virgins in Jihadi Paradise?
Sopwith wrote:
Dead, asleep, whatever … it’s clear that the majority of Southern Baptists are uninformed, misinformed, or willingly ignorant regarding the trend toward Calvinism occurring within SBC entities. SBC’s footprint is large, but the actual number of members is probably more like 8 million if you remove folks still on the rolls who are dead, done, or otherwise missing. Out of the “real” membership, most go along with whatever the leaders think is best as long as they can still have chicken dinners once a month. Easy pickins’ for the New Calvinist movement.
The only voices representing grassroots Southern Baptists have been national leaders like Patterson and Page, who have grown strangely silent. The increasing number of reformed graduates exiting SBC seminaries are finding homes for their theology in SBC’s reformed church planting movement and at traditional churches where they come in the back door and progressively indoctrinate. Local church autonomy will keep some of them at bay, but the drift in theology and shift in ecclesiology is happening and will arrive at a “predestined” outcome in a few years. But God …
__
Max,
He’s dead Jim.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=MH7KYmGnj40
—
Ken wrote:
It makes a huge difference. In one instance women are required to produce an outward symbol that they are under their husband’s authority. In the other instance the woman is instructed to conduct herself in a way that is appropriate as a Christian woman who would not bring shame on her own head, her husband who was her social head and on Christ her ultimate head. That is precisely why “symbol of” was added. It is not acceptable to Grudem and it was not acceptable to prior translators to give any warrant to a woman having authority over her own self. It was unthinkable and therefore they added to God’s word what *they* thought God *should have* said.
I think you misunderstand the “role” that Grudem and Crossway play. Crossway’s bread and butter is subordination indoctrination. Grudem’s entire professional career is based on the subordination of the Eternal Son and women. They have every motive in the world to distort and change God’s word. That should be totally unacceptable to conservatives. They complain about “liberals” and “feminists” disregarding God’s word but they change it to suit themselves. Shame on conservatives for not holding them to account for their double standards.
Once again, an instruction for one person to submit to another is not a grant of authority to the one receiving the submission. And most certainly it is not a grant in perpetuity. This is a fundamental error in reasoning.
__
Max,
__
Mohler: “If I cast out Arminians by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of Calvin is come unto you…”
🙂
—
Sopwith wrote:
I have been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years. The majority would be considered Biblicists, not Calvinists or Arminians. That discussion has really never been on the radar … until the New Calvinists hit town. Southern Baptists have been called a “People of the Word” when they used to really read it and do it; the apathetic bunch in the pews these days need to blow the dust off that good book and get their ducks in a row because the Calvinists will out-debate them and win the day.
__
Today’s SBC member churches are falling for the false gospel of Calvinism with it’s questionable benefits?
hmmm…
Those claiming to be Sothern Baptist Christians in these last days, must return to giving the eternal gospel of salvation, through the full council of the Word of God to a hurting generation hungry for Jesus’ holy message of hope: For God so loved the world, that He have His only Son, that those who believe in Jesus, shall not perish, but receive eternal life.
Hope 4 a fallen world?
…bet your life!
ATB
Sopy
—
@ Q:
It is interesting that you bring this up. The pastor of my Sunday School group has discussed this at length in the past few months. I am going to look up his stuff on the subject and may try to share it here.
He believes that Neo Calvinist theology is dominionist in nature. It explains their incessant howling at various civil changes. It is seen by their devotion to the Puritans who tried to build a sort of City of God in the New World.
I believe such efforts will fail because it is based on the ability to get those who don’t buy the theology to buy the politics. Yet, even in the early stages of the Creation, men went their own way, resulting in the story of the Flood-there were only a few *righteous* people left. To imagine one could build a City of God today is unrealistic and could result in people spinning their wheels instead of presenting the Message.
@ Nancy2:
Good night! I cannot believe that you had to sit there and listen to such dangerous rhetoric. That talk was justifying domestic violence. In fact, my guess is that man has been involved in such activities.
If you ever want to write a post about that church and its “boot in the back” theology, let me know. This stiff need to be exposed.
JohnD wrote:
You know, this has play. I think it is worth mentioning in a post.
Law Prof wrote:
Preach it, LawProf!
I am so glad for all of the folks here who have been in churches for decades, some for 50, 60, and 70 years and have NEVER seen this COMP nonsense taught in churches before. The COMPS have gone off the rails and have a lot to answer for: they theology is wrong and they are contributing to the growing population of The Dones (believers who refuse to go to church), as well as turning young people away from the church, and they have nothing to offer unbelievers. It’s The Gospel + Comp Doctrine. Why would an unbeliever be shackled to such nonsense?
And what the Comps won’t tell you is that they also have contempt for other men, not just women. A man thinks for himself, disagrees with those in charge, and he finds himself excommunicated and shunned.
Sopwith wrote:
Amen Sopy! Timothy asked Paul what he should do if he found himself living in the last days. Paul essentially told him to drop everything else and do the work of an evangelist! Regardless of denominational affiliation, that would be good counsel for all 21st century Christians. The last season is upon us. Redeem the time. The days are short. Do the work of an evangelist!
Gram3 wrote:
I very much agree. I like agreeing more than disagreeing! Those arguing for an egalitarian viewpoint often do themselves no favours by their treatment of Gen 1 and 2, and I would suggest this is the origin of the accusations that this view can lead to the bible being ‘ditched’. The claim male and female were created simultaneously in Gen 1 but separately in Gen 2 is beloved of atheists; and this involves the denial that Paul was writing under inspiration in 1 Tim 2.
The generic nature of Gen 1 – God, mankind, male and female – it complemented by the specifics of Gen 2, where specific persons are named. Indeed God is now named as Yahweh (obscurred as LORD in the English versions), Adam becomes a specific persion and later a personal name, woman is named, also later as as Eve in Gen 3, and the animals are named in the beginning of language presumably. Generic creation followed by specific formation of a habitable place for actual people.
dee wrote:
In a nutshell, you have just described the New Calvinist movement! Calvinism is not the Gospel, just theological wheels spinning and slinging words … but not words of hope and life for a lost world.
I’m still having trouble reconciling how a comp church can let a woman stand on stage with the word of God, read a chapter, and then give a couple-sentence blessing on the congregation, yet still be in compliance with 9marks/neocal Bible interpretation.
Again, as per the OP, how can this be such a divisive gospel issue, yet have such wide interpretation? It does seem like the only thing universally regarded as wrong for a woman to do is stand and teach/preach to a mixed adult American audience.
If the Bible is as clear on this issue as they say it is, why does it appear to me that they’ve watered down classic patriarchy to cater to more modern sensibilities?
GovPappy wrote:
Rimshot. 🙂
@ Gram3:
Eh? I usually get that comment after an awful joke. What did I do now? ;-]
dee wrote:
Joseph Farrah on his web site today (wnd dot com) has posted an opinion piece in which he ties into Russell Moore and accuses him of having political reasons for some of what he has said, or omitted saying, recently. He quotes some stuff from RM that does sound like that may be the case. That would be politics disguised as not-exactly politics. I was wondering when I read it how many layers had to be peeled off to get at dominionism if Farrah is correct.
dee wrote:
At which point it becomes a matter of FORCING the Perfected City of God on the Lowborn Un-Elect. Like the Taliban and ISIS with their Perfect Islamic State and Citizen Robespierre with his secularized version, the Republique of Perfect Virtue.
A matter of Who Holds the Whip, that’s all.
(And I understand carrying a Whip is the badge of office of the Saudi religious police, i.e. “the Guardians of Virtue and Suppressors of Vice.” Kind of the niche of the Magistrates in Calvin’s Geneva.)
Gram3 wrote:
Why does this bring up a flashback of a Fifties-vintage National Geographic, where the women in this one (New Guinea?) tribe all had their upper front teeth literally knocked out as the outward symbol? If I remember right, that would have been pretty blatant symbolism.
@ Gram3:
Sorry Gram, I haven’t drunk deeply enough from the wells of Grudem to understand your objection.
As far as I’m concerned, for this reason a policman wears a uniform as his authority is little different from for this reason a policeman wears a uniform as a symbol of his authority.
The authority of 1 Cor 11 is not related to the wife or husband, but is the authorisation or right of the wife/woman to pray and prophesy given by the head of the church. That is what matters, not what symbolises it; just as the policeman’s uniform doesn’t convey authority in itself, it publically shows he has that authority from the government above him. The woman prophesying in Corinth was publically demonstrating her right to do this to the angels, not the other members of the congregation.
I’ve got something else I want to run past you, but it will have to wait. The brass band I belong to is going for our annual Italian ice café treat, so I will soon be enjoying something with loads of chocolate, cream, chocolate sauce, sprinkled chocolate bits, and calories – indeed utterly decadant. Delighting myself in fatness. The looooong bike ride follows tomorrow …
GovPappy wrote:
Our daughter was formerly in the praise team at a New Calvinist church plant. I say “formerly” because she left and shook the dust off her feet on the way out when the pastor started unpacking reformed theology; his intentions had been hidden up until then. She began to get wise to the scheme when the young pastor advised her that it would be OK to read a Scripture before a song (from an ESV Bible), but to never offer any commentary. She has B.S. and M.S. degrees from a Baptist college and knows the Word. “Sing, but don’t talk woman” was it for her!
“A Secnd Opinion, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
Max wrote:
@ Max:
The words of our God, Jesus Christ, are living, and active , and very powerful…
What can dze puny calvie critters do?
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
—
Sopwith wrote:
They can do a lot of harm to a lot of people.
Max wrote:
Only words of
Utterly Pure IdeologyPerfectly-Parsed Theology from the pen of CALVIN Himself!CALVIN who Had God All Figured Out in his Institutes!
Who needs the Words of Christ when we have the Word of CALVIN!
(With US as His Predestined Anointed Elect, of course!)
Ken wrote:
I guess I don’t get this attitude. What about those of us who have spent hours studying the Greek and researching the context. Two words added by translators is a huge deal when teaching our children. I could give example after example. How about changing authenteo to “authority over” from domineer? Totally different meaning.
Yes, a few words makes a world of difference to some.
Sopwith wrote:
They are distracting a generation of youth from taking the message of the Cross of Christ to a lost and dying world. Calvinism is not the Gospel. Whose plan would that be?
okrapod wrote:
ONLY if da ‘people’ let um.
Jesus will gather His wheat into His Father’s barns, all da same…
Father open up da Calvinist’s eyes!
Sopy
—
rhondajeannie wrote:
It’s nothing of the kind. And I should know, because I’m male, and I both think and wish.
Victorious wrote:
Being me, I would most likely have done as my grandmother once did (though not on this subject): She snorted, & then laughed out loud–so hard that her hat came off!
One day, when I was older & (presumably) wiser, I read for the 1st time, a book using the British-ism “does not suffer fools gladly”, and I immediately flashed back to that Sunday & 😉 my gran.
Max wrote:
(sadface)
The gatz of calvinism shall not prevail.
(grin)
ATB
Sopy
—
Velour wrote:
I agree. Their views about gender are very confining for men as well.
Most of the stuff I’ve seen by comps prescribes a Hollywood, action hero movie caricature of manhood, where stereotypical manly traits (such as being tough and stoic) are said to be biblical, while pursuits or traits considered feminine are discouraged if not out right ridiculed (such as being gentle, enjoying beauty in nature, boys playing with stuffed animals/dolls).
I would think that being the “head” of a wife, in the way complementarians teach, would be absolutely emotionally and physically draining. They are basically telling husbands to play the role of Savior on earth to the wife, and no human can fulfill that role.
I’d also like to point out the irony in that. When God said in Genesis that the wife will desire the husband, and he will rule over her, that was a warning by God.
God was telling women their impulse would be to rely on a husband to get their needs met, rather than turn to God Himself. And many men exploit that tendency in women to control and abuse them, even “Christian” men.
I’ve had platonic buddies over the years who I’ve comforted when they were undergoing trauma or hurt in their lives, and some of them leaned on me way too much, to the point I think they considered me a bit of a Savior figure, and it was overwhelming and exhausting for me to carry that load.
But comps instruct husbands to do this stuff every single day, as though it’s supposed to be the norm. Asking someone to carry another human being that much is asking a lot, and I think asking way more than God intended.
lGovPappy wrote:
Nope, I think that was a great observation, and the joke is on the Patriarchs!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yikes. But that is an example of the way that cultural misogyny is the norm throughout history. Actually, misogyny and abuse of women is just a subset of the relatively strong asserting their power over the relatively weak. There is a form of this in Complementarian/Patriarchal circles with the women saying how submissive they are to their husbands (especially when their husbands are doing something foolish.) It, IMO, is a passive-aggressive way for the women to elevate their relative status in a submission culture while also getting back at their husbands. It is very unhealthy and ungodly, but it happens, and the men have no idea that it does.
@ Max:
Satan is delighted when half the Body is shut down or limited. See, he set in a targeted hatred of women since God announced Messiah would come through her. There have been all sorts of ways that hatred has manifested itself for thousands of years. These neo cals actually believe silencing a sister is pleasing to God. That is how ignorant they are of whose game they are really playing. Some are deceived out of ignorance. Some are not.
lydia wrote:
Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Patriarchs/Comps if someone with a POV different from Grudem changed/added/deleted words from the text which changed its actual meaning to the opposite of what the text actually says? And if that change was entirely self-serving? Mohler would say it is nothing less than TEOTW. But if one of the Gospel Glitterati do so, well, then it is just dandier than candy.
Gram3 wrote:
Speaking of which.
Gender complementarians do not like it when publishers print, or plan on printing, gender inclusive Bible versions, even though said versions are NOT adding to or changing the underlying text.
For example, in portions of the New Testament where the Greek will use a word indicating male plus female, and the gender inclusive versions want to render such a word into English as “they,” “them,” or “people,” gender complementarians pitch a fit and still insist that those words should stay “man,” “mankind,” “he” or “him,” even though the Greek is not limiting the word to male-only!
I’ve read several articles about this through the years.
I think I provided links in page one of this thread to pages that discuss male centered Bible translations and how these issues keep cropping up.
@ Sopwith:
Yeah, but the comps give “their” people the choice of dumbing down the women so that we just say, “Yessah, massah”, “Nawsuh, massah”, and “Tank ye, massah”, or marriages are destroyed because we aren’t submissive enough.
Women aren’t even allowed to read aloud from the Bible at my church (make that my former church).
lydia wrote:
I think it is safe to say that the Gospel Glitterati know perfectly well that the Bible does not teach what they say it teaches. If they do not, then some universities and prominent seminaries misjudged the accomplishment of some men to whom they granted terminal degrees. Or alternatively there are some “educational” institutions which are not actually about providing and recognizing a good education. Or both, in some cases.
__
“Is Calvinism a False Gospel?”
huh?
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you into the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel, not that there is a different gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:6)
hmmm…
“Calvinism, or “Reformed doctrine,” is a false gospel because it preaches a different gospel than the true gospel delivered to the original Christians.
Calvinism preaches a different Jesus.
Of course, Calvinists are often found exclaiming they are the ones who believe the true gospel and everyone else believes a false gospel.
Such self reaffirmations do not, however, make it so.
Now this does not mean that every single doctrine of Calvinism is untrue. For example, they believe the Bible is inspired and Jesus died on the cross for their sins and several other things which are true. The problem is not with these things but with distinctive errors which form the basis of their belief system.
The core of Calvinism are the false doctrines of TULIP and all the teachings in Reformed Theology are designed to conform to and satisfy these five false doctrines, thereby significantly distorting the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and nullifying the word of God for the sake of their tradition.
All five points of Calvinism are false doctrines.
A man is not so totally depraved (T) that he is unable to respond to Jesus’ call to believe in Him, in John 3:16 for example.
Rather, upon hearing the Jesus’ good news preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, ‘WHOSOEVER’ is able to respond to the gospel in faith so that they can be born again by the power of God!
God did not predetermine which people would be saved for eternal life (U) and create others who have no possibility of being saved.
The Bible teaches us that God knit us in our mother’s womb.
He did not create people for the express purpose of sending them to hell.
Only Christ His Son was chosen before the foundation of the world.
His Chosen One is Christ, His only begotten Son, and those who are united to Christ in faith become sons of God and chosen ones of God by virtue of their union with the Chosen Son of God.
Christ did not die on the cross only for the sins of some people (L) but for the sins of all the people of the whole world.
He is the sacrifice for all people and any number of sins of any number of men.
God does not “drag” people irresistably to his Son (I) but invites people to have a relationship with him through his Son.
And the Bible does not teach there is no real prospect of total apostasy from grace (P); rather those who do not stand firm in the faith may indeed fall short of salvation on the last day.
All this we will decisively prove from the Holy Scriptures without fudging, straining Scriptures, or resorting to wild mental gymnastics and logical fallacies.
So how can YOU know for sure that it is Calvinism which preaches a false gospel?
How can YOU know for sure the Calvinists do not proclaim the true gospel but proclaim a false gospel?
Many articles and videos on the net expose the multitude of heinous falsehoods promoted in Calvinism.
Doing a little research, kind folk find out why each and every point of five point Calvinism (TULIP) is a false doctrine as well as false teachings which were contrived to conform to these false doctrines.
Many, many kind folk on the Internet respectfully and politely illustrate the numerous errors of the calvinistism belief system in a very clear and concise way that demonstrates for you just why Calvinism is most certainly and undoubtedly a false gospel.”
Take a lõõk some time.
(happy reading!)
ATB
Sopy
__
reference: (slightly adapted for presentation @ TWW)
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/raised-to-life/Articles/False.html
🙂
—
Mark wrote:
I always appreciate your comments! Sarcasm included.
I have also noticed that the people who subscribe to patriarchy/comp usually had poor relationships/non-existent relationships with their own fathers. They are grasping at straws about how to be men in the world, overly compensate, etc. The women who sign up for this likewise usually had poor/non-existent relationships with their own fathers.
__
“It’s All In The…”
hmmm…
Nancy2 wrote:
***
I have heard that there are males who grow breasts, take hormones, keep their dong and dress like women, I guess they don’t count, huh?
—
Ken wrote:
I think the reactions stem from both what the text says and most certainly the extreme direction in which some have followed it. If my memory is accurate, Dr. Grudem stated up front in his tome: Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, that it’s about “…obedience to the Bible…”
Well okay, yeah…, most Christians can get behind that, but what parts? All of em’? and if so, how should they be followed?
I don’t think there’s any human being who wants to subjugated to anyone or anything that violates their conscience or moral compass within, and I think that this is where Christianity is still reeling from the impact of The Enlightenment.
Muff Potter wrote:
You have to read the fine print. He doesn’t mean Bibles like the NIV or a Greek text, but only ones like the ESV where he had the Authority to make God say what Grudem thinks the Holy Spirit should have said but for some inscrutable reason did not say. I suppose Grudem had a word of knowledge or something.
@ Gram3:
I have an ESV, but the Bible I read and pore over the most is E.W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible which is King James. It contains extensive notes in the margins and a vast array of appendices in the form of factual data from which the reader can form his or her own conclusions. Bullinger’s work is not a commentary. I gravitate toward the AV (King James) because I love the beauty of the Elizabethan prose. In my opinion the King James English Bible is a sublime work of art for the ages.
Velour wrote:
On top of that, I’ve noticed how some gender complementarian churches seek to attract men and teen-aged boys by doing hyper-stereotypical masculine things, like holding monster truck rallies on church property, giving away shot guns as prizes, BBQ grills on father’s day, etc.
You have to wonder about teen boys and men who are more sensitive, quiet, introspective and-or artistic. They probably don’t feel very included or wanted in church cultures like that.
Daisy wrote:
It’s asking for Burnout.
Daisy wrote:
This is textbook Hypermasculinity (which term I first encountered in the 1943 OSS psych profile on a certain A.Hitler) — define “masculine” in terms of strength and aggression (“I CAN BEAT YOU UP!”) and sexual prowess, burn out everything else with a white-hot iron as “effeminate”/”pussified”/”Unmanly”/”faggy”, then firewall what’s left.
During my four years in a football-worshipping high school, kids like that were branded “Fags” and treated accordingly.
Daisy wrote:
In such cases, I’d go with the original Greek. I’ve always been a proponent of go with the original author’s intention.
Problem is, in classic English inclusive/indeterminate gender defaults to masculine. Though there have been attempts to add a gender-inclusive/indeterminate animate pronoun, none have ever made it to acceptance. (And the more serious ones have an awkward vibe like Marxspeak.)
Daisy wrote:
Men and boys like that are always suspect for being ‘fags’ & ‘queers’, in both secular and fundagelical tribal culture.
Daisy wrote:
No, no we do not.
Apropos the quaint notion of the husband being the Heid of the Household.
A while back, Lesley and I were discussing a commitment she’d made to someone that she realised she shouldn’t have made. At which point I had a brainwave. I pulled out the scrippie from Numbers 30 about a husband nullifying a vow his wife has made. Then I declared her commitment to be nullified.
(The back-story here is that the lassie who’d managed to rope Lesley into some project – I can’t even remember what it was now – is always going on about “scripture this” and “scripture that”, before quoting some half-baked non sequitorial gaggle of bible verses that the CEO of her congregation has taught.)
At any rate, the two of us ‘ad a good larf about that one.
Daisy wrote:
You’re right. We’re not made out to be saviors. Nobody is. We all build each other up. That is God’s good design.
Muff Potter wrote:
I agree! The KJO have ruined it for so many. Funny though when my kid was younger she was part of a summer Shakespeare camp and familiar enough with the language the instructors asked me why. :o)
Chuck Colson once commented that literature is so full of KJ references and metaphors we do education an injustice to ignore it.
On the other hand the language made for great fun at Sunday dinner as a kid: Behold the peas! Please passeth the gravy and such.
okrapod wrote:
okrapod, (if you’re still reading) I have found that a lot of things that seem difficult are cleared up if one goes back to the Greek. In koine, the word for “if” is the same as the word for “since”. So you are right – there are no additional requirements for women. It’s there in the language of the text, but that doesn’t always come through in translation. Unfortunately, I have never learned koine, but I do know a few things about it from people I trust who do know it, and I know a lot about language in general.
On another note, David Bentley Hart is working on a translation of the NT. I am anxiously awaiting it to be published. I think it will upset a few apple carts. Of course, the anti-intellectual bent of much of American Evangelicals will predispose them to neither know nor care about it.
Gender comps are defining gender roles.
The Bible does not really get into gender roles per se, or rules of how all women in every culture must act.
Gender comps can’t be content to just let people be individuals. They force all women into one box – by implying or insisting that ALL women should, or must, be sweet, passive, unassertive, be stay at home mothers, and like wearing pink frilly dresses and so on.
Women who fall outside of this man-made ideal of what a “biblical woman” supposedly is are marginalized constantly in the segments of Christian culture that put so much emphasis on this gender role malarky.
Men are also put into boxes, as I was describing above.
If you’re a man who enjoys pretty sun sets and writing poetry and-or you work from home while your wife works in an office all day, some gender comps will deem you a “man fail.” Never mind that the Bible does not say “real men work in an office all day and have a wife who stays at home and cooks”.
Comps take two thousand year old texts that were discussing problems in a particular culture and era and try to cram everyone into it.
So yes, comps do come up with gender roles, and usually are very strict and narrow in how they define those roles, in how they define “man” and “woman.”
There is not a lot of wiggle room for people who do not fit their ideas of what it means to be a man or woman.
Muff Potter wrote:
When I was a teen, I had a few male acquaintances in school who were like that, more quiet, sensitive, or just introverted.
They never struck me as homosexual or effeminate, just not a cartoon version of a manly man.
I prefer being around men who are secure enough as they are without resorting to acting like a manly caricature of crushing beer cans in one hand, and so on.
__
“Convenient god-ordained ‘Glorious’ Disposal?”
huh?
“All things being at God’s disposal, and the decision of salvation or death belonging to Him, He orders all things by His counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that His name may be glorified in their destruction” -John Calvin; (John Allen, ed., Institutes of the Christian Religion. Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, 1841, p. 169).
—
GovPappy wrote:
I’m sorry. 🙁
I’m a woman who doesn’t all the way fit the gender complementarian teachings of what it means to be a real woman or a biblical woman. So, if misery loves company, we can keep each other company. 🙂
@ dainca:
I don’t know if you checked out that link that Sopy gave us but it has an extensive list of ways that this particular verse has been and can be understood, replete with explanations and references. It is a great link for this particular issue. Personally it seems evident to me that several ways of understanding it can be sustained with reasonably good arguments. At which point, I am thinking, that people can and do just pick which they like and go with that. This is not the only thing in scripture that can be understood in more than one way, of course. A lot of people can make a pretty good living by making controversial issues their life’s work. I just personally have a low tolerance for some of it.
I don’t have any Greek either-one off-site semester not for credit. That is nothing. But I don’t personally mistrust biblical translations all that much, since there are so many of them and they can be compared with each other. And there is a major industry in commentary writing in various forms. All this is easy for me to say because I am not a literalist fundamentalist and that makes all the difference, so to speak.
Daisy initially wrote:
Whereupon GovPappy wrote:
I have written here and elsewhere regarding one reason Driskle and his ilk* became so popular. That is, certainly here in Blighty, so much of church culture is stuck in infantile “Jesus, be my boyfriend” gatherings in which we all express how our hearts ache to feel his touch and to bask in his gentle embrace. And yes, those are real song-lyrics, for any here who didn’t know that already. This point should be borne in mind, because here’s the thing: There really are people, both men and women, who actually find that appealing. Since being one of Mummy God’s babies doesn’t address any real-world problems very well, this culture is overwhelmingly middle-class: it can only really appeal to those who come to church with their basic structural and social needs met by a comfortable income and a stable home environment.
The problem is not so much “come to church and be a woman” as “come to church and be a baby”. Lesley hates those songs as much as I do, and I can assure you that she is a woman. In this context, the Young, Rebellious and Reformed culture holds out some very tempting bait in the shape of an antidote: Come to church and be a teenager. This appeals to young men, obviously. But perversely, it also attracts a big enough subset of women to be viable: namely, the sort of women who like being Mummy God’s babies. (The men who like being Mummy God’s babies are excluded.) And they fulfil a very important role in this culture: they prop up all the anatomically adult leaders who are revelling in being teenage boys.
The complication comes when you’re neither a baby crying out to Mummy God to protect, cherish and nourish you, nor a teenager looking to experiment with all the naughty stuff whilst simultaneously pretending you’re God’s answer to all the world’s ills.
* Remember: there’s no use crying over spilt ilk.
Can we please keep in mind that not every person who would lean Calvinist/Reformed is NeoCal or worships the original Calvin and wants to burn people at the stake?
There are Reformed denominations and churches that ordain women and embrace women in all levels of leadership while still holding to the authority of Scripture.
There are Reformed denominations and churches that would not recognize the things some of you are accusing them of.
Maybe it is because I live in the Reformed Mecca of West Michigan, but there are a lot of great Reformed folks around here who fit none of the angry stereotypes I see repeated over and over again in these comments.
Let’s not become here at TWW what we despise in others.
A better term than “Complementarian” is “Gender Hierarchy”. That’s what I always call it anyway.
I also don’t get the PCA sanctioning a person for having doubt. I also read about a case years ago in which they wouldn’t let a guy teach Sunday school because he personally believed in Theistic Evolution even though he agreed not to say anything about it.
That kind of stuff where the church gets to control your inward beliefs is very wrong. That is boundary violation, IMO.
And yes, I go to a PCA church, but no one in my local church has had those kind of attitudes with me.
Ouch, regarding Calvinism being a “false Gospel”, that’s pretty strong stuff.
The Gospel that Calvinists proclaim, like all other orthodox Christians do, is that we are fallen and need a savior found in Jesus Christ, and that if we repent and place our trust in Jesus we can be saved.
You may differ on the details of how this happens, but it’s the same Gospel all Christians believe.
Believing different doctrine, even if it is wrong doctrine, does not make it a “false Gospel”. That’s a very strong charge and hurtful to those of us who through our own study and research believe Calvinism to be an accurate representation of what the Bible teaches.
Honestly, I’m not a “strong” Calvinist. Maybe I’m not even one. I don’t know- I generally agree with TULIP as I understand it, but I don’t think it’s the end all and be all of Christianity. I don’t like being told that I believe in a “false Gospel” just because my understanding of scripture lines up with what Calvin taught on a few subjects.
__
“This Is Da Plaze?”
hmmm…
@ Sallie Borrink
http://www.swierenga.com/CenturyClubLecc_lec.html
🙂
—
@ Sallie Borrink:
I second the motion Sallie. I know a Calvinist who is a kind and good man. I don’t give a rat’s rip what he believes or disbelieves by way of theology, his deeds prove that he’s one of what the Jews would call the just.
__
Jeff S
hey,
I strongly recommend you read Calvin’s “Institutes”, and Augustine ‘”City Of God”, and compare those with Jesus’ words found in the four gospels of the New Testament.
You may find you’ve Ben sold a bill of goods.
(sadface)
ATB
Sopy
—
__
Jeff S
hey,
I strongly recommend you read Calvin’s “Institutes”, and Augustine ‘”City Of God”, and compare those with Jesus’ words found in the four gospels of the New Testament.
You may find you’ve Ben sold a bill of goods.
(sadface)
ATB
Sopy
—
Sallie Borrink wrote:
But the problem is, these days Calvin has some real crazy fanboys going after POWER.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Argh.
GovPappy wrote:
We’re all walking wounded holding each other up and carrying the more seriously wounded.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
To clarify: “Jesus, be my boyfriend” isn’t a real song-lyric as far as I know. But the others are.
Gram3 wrote:
So God the Holy Spirit is a sock puppet for WayneGrudemGoWayneGrudem?
I wonder what He has to say about that.
__
“This Online Community (TWW) Is Amazing!” -Jeannette Altes
“I’ll put this here (Sopy lifted this from discussion page) to avoid diverting the main threads.
My mother passed away on July 5th. Thank you to those who have/are donating to the fund to help pay for my mother’s cremation/memorial (Dee graciously put a link in the blog banner). My sister and I have no financial means to cover it and my mother was on SSI with no insurance.
This has been a rough couple of months. 7 weeks ago, I was bitten by a black widow and did not know it, so went through the symptoms, not knowing what was going on (and not missing work as cannot afford to). I discovered the culprit by accident (or providence?) 3 1/2 weeks after I was bitten. It was summarily dispatched with extreme prejudice.
And I have been informed this week that I no longer have a job at the end of the month.
Again, thank you to Dee for placing my need in the banner and thank you all for any assistance you might be able to give. This online community is amazing. -Jeannette Altes
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-7/#comment-205989
Praying 4U Jeannette!
ATB
Sopy
—
Sopwith wrote:
This.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
If people do not know what you are talking about, go to an evangelical church and sing “I will follow him”. I feel weird when those types of song are sung at church. I am not looking for that kind of experience. And, I am a male who is quiet, introspective, like long talks, etc. I do not like being forced into the Rainey “manly man” mode. Gov Pappy, I am with you on that one.
@ lydia:
But not in 1 Cor 11 : 10. Over the years I put notes in my RSV where words have been added to the text in brackets. Usually this doesn’t change the meaning much. I think this is also true of the ESV here, there appears to be a battle going on here that I am not party to. I don’t get it. If you replace the RSV’s veil with authority as given in the marginal note, you get a literal translation of the Greek. But I don’t see some vast difference in meaning with the ESV as successor version when it comes to this particular verse.
I’ve also put words back in that have been left untranslated, but again this rarely changes the meaning significantly. The NIV however does this rather too often for my liking.
I’ve used several versions over the years, the NASB is good for eliminating the liberal tendencies in some RSV renditionings, the GNB good for explaining biblical jargon in words those outside the church (and inside it) will more readily understand.
Will M wrote:
No ****.
@ Jeff S:
I can identify with a lot of what you say. I drifted in a reformed direction a long time ago because this seemed to retain the gospel in a way the churches around me did not, and I don’t just mean my hobby-horse of Willow Creek. I would also include a whole load of pseudo-evangelism practiced by many a UK church, iirc the Alpha Course being a candidate for this.
At a reformed charismatics conference there were many who were articulate and gracious, certainly not the stereotype calvinist.
At least in some instances, reformed theology is rejected because it describes a God who really is God, and who rules over those whom he has created in a way the creature doesn’t like. The opposite of the indulgent grandmother type of God.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I had to look that song up, btw. If it’s the same one as was covered by Little Peggy March inter alia, then that really is creepy.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I like the term “human”, “humans”, “humankind” to be used whereever it is not clear that a single gender is referred to. And for God, well “God” without gender reference, and preferably without number reference, thereby allowing for the trinity and the unity of God.
Will M wrote:
Makes me think of that Whoopie Goldberg movie where she hid in a convent among nuns and set oldies with new lyrics to make them churchy songs. Sister Act?
So as someone who is still on the fence between complementarianism and egalitarianism (albeit someone who is already somewhat convinced that women can be ordained and that “headship” simply means service and example, not authority), can someone explain to me how egalitarians make sense of the Christ-church analogy which Paul uses in Eph 5? I know that Paul is basically pushing for mutuality between husband and wife there, but still, that Christ-church analogy seems to be transcultural, not something that is specific for Greek culture. And if the Christ-church analogy is transcultural, then doesn’t that mean that husband and wife do have different roles to play in relation to each other since Christ and the church each have different roles in relation to each other which cannot be reversed (Christ as source of our salvation, church as recipient)?
Daisy wrote:
Ahh yes, then you can count me in too, with all rights and privileges thereupon conferred upon said membership.
refugee wrote:
That was a good movie.
zooey111 wrote:
I arrived at the same conclusion. It’s always these arrogant people – John Calvin, Mark Dever – who claim that they are oh so very *special*.
@ Sopwith:
I’d rather just read the Bible to be honest.
Again, I don’t particularly want to identify with Calvin, but as far as the five points, that’s what I see in scripture.
I’ve done a lot more reading of he Westminster Confession of Faith, and in general I agree with about 80% of what it says.
When you call that a “false Gospel”, you are casting a very wide net that catches any Presbyterian church (including the PCUSA), and many Baptist and non denominational ones. That’s a lot of people of faith to cast such judgement on.
And I guess you are OK with that, but comments like that made TWW just a little more unsafe for hurting people who earnestly disagree with you.
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff S I have only read a very small amount of the Westminster Confession of Faith because I believe what is written at the end of the first paragraph is wrong.
Chapter 1: Holy Scriptures:
(6) those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.
I don’t know about you but I certainly do not believe that we have the right to tell God how He reveals His will unto His people. This is limiting God to ‘man’s’ interpretation of Scripture. If God wants to do it the old way that is up to Him no document is going to stop Him.
If denominations and groups such as the CBMW believe that God is limited to what is written in Scripture, then if you disagree with their interpretation of it you are actually going against God’s will in your life. What hope do women have in these denominations of ever being seen as and treated as an equal. Funny how God doesn’t have a problem with the whole ‘equal’ issue because he created both male and female in His own image.
Ivan wrote:
Good question. It gets at the heart of what I am trying to say. Only Christ could be the perfect sacrifice. The church (or, at that point the jewish people) could not because they (and we would) are sinners.
However, what is it that men can do that women cannot do in any fashion, excluding conception? What i mean, can a woman teach, understand theology, make good judgments on behalf of a group of people, etc.
Ivan wrote:
It helps to know understand kephale in a 1st century context. Think of “head” as source. This makes sense in 1stC context. Surely you do not see the husband as a mini Christ or even some sort of mediator. And frankly there are clear Greek words to communicate authority or leadership of others that were not used in this particular context.
The entire context around that passage is ‘being filled with the Holy Spirit and mutual submission not only in the Body but in marriage.
@ Ivan:
I think a good place to start is to set aside for a moment the *assumption* that the relationship being described *in this portion of scripture* between Christ and the church is primarily about authority and power. That is not to deny in any way that Christ is in complete authority over his church. It is only to examine whether that is the topic being discussed.
Then re-read it with all of the other things that Christ does for his church in mind. Then consider that the idea that a man would give his life for his wife when she could be easily replaced was quite nearly absurd in that culture. A man did not marry in order to serve his wife or give his life for his wife. He agreed only to provide for her essentials. But Paul is calling those men who had been enculturated with those ideas to set them aside and adopt the new culture of the Kingdom which is that the King and the ones with power give up their power for the sake of those who are weaker. Unless one first *assumes* that Paul is describing gender roles, there is nothing about roles in Ephesians. There is a lot about how to live like someone who is “in Christ” and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
At the very least, that will help you gain a different perspective than the one that is really merely tradition.
The point is that there is not an identity between either the wife/church or the husband/Christ. There are points of comparison, but that is not the same thing as identity. Therefore, it is invalid to merely assert that because Christ is in authority over the church and the church is not in authority over Christ that an identical relationship is true of the husband and wife. That is an inference which needs to be supported, and the proponents of the “husband as Christ to his wife” POV need to support that with some evidence.
Ivan wrote:
I forgot this point. Yes, the Bible is definitely transcultural in what it teaches us about God and Jesus and how to live. The problem with interpretation is to first get at what the meaning to the original audience would have been so that we can derive the principle being taught. Only then can we make a transcultural application that appropriately applies the principle. In other words, the principles of the Kingdom are transcultural, but the applications of the principles may be quite culture-specific. I hope that makes some sense. 🙂
@ dee:
And I agree with you that women are able to do everything men can. I pretty much affirm the full participation of women within the life of the church and lean towards affirming women’s ordination (though I’m still not 100% sure on that). I also don’t hold to a rigid concept of gender roles within marriage. Even the concepts of “biblical” manhood and womenhood sound dubious to me since they look more like cultural constructs than things prescribed by the Bible.
But that being said, if we don’t maintain that some concept of headship within marriage still applies to our contemporary situation, then how could we still speak of marriage between husband and wife being like the relationship between Christ and the church (BTW, I think the concept of headship only applies to marriage, not church)? Who is analogous to Christ and who is analogous to the church within marriage then? Of course no one can ever be a perfect sacrifice like Christ, but aren’t we still called to imitate him in our daily lives? BTW, I’m not suggesting that the husband actually contributes to his wife’s salvation. That would simply be ridiculous. And I do realize that my concept of headship is extremely vague since I don’t affirm male authority over women, but some concept of headship is the only way for me to make sense of Eph 5 at least for now.
That being said, I am looking for a way to understand this passage in a fully egalitarian manner while still making adequate sense of the Christ-church analogy.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I shudder at that thought, but it seems to be what some believe for all practical purposes. Hence the silly video made to honor WGGWG.
@ Gram3:
I’m in full agreement there. One of my problems with the typical complementarian interpretation is that they don’t take seriously enough the fact that Paul is turning Aristotle’s household codes upside down, leading to an equalizing of relationships within the household (even if the outward form is still hierarchical). They also don’t take seriously enough Eph 5:21. I don’t even think Paul is thinking in terms of command and obedience when he is making his prescriptions for household relationships in Eph 5 and 6.
Jeff S wrote:
I think there are some Calvinists who would agree that certain types of “Calvinists” are preaching another gospel. Such as the Gospel Glitterati who make gender a Gospel issue. Or the Federal Visionists who make the church into the Savior, practically speaking, because of their odd corruption of Covenant Theology. Similarly, I think there were some Charismatics decades ago who preached another Gospel which required, for all practical purposes, evidence of being “baptized in the Spirit.” I also think that there are some Calvinists who are walking a thin line between classical Calvinism and real hyper-Calvinism. Certainly there are many, many people I have come across in the YRR version who think that they have the True Gospel. And that is very dangerous. I think any perspective is susceptible to preaching a Gospel that is corrupted by our own distinctives. My own family has experienced division, in prior generations, between Baptists of a more traditional bent and the notions of the Primitive Baptists who became hyper over the “missionary question.”
Ivan wrote:
To add to Gram3 excellent explanation, consider also that women were considered property. And there are no chapter breaks. So the passage containing the culture-shifting way a husband is supposed to view and treat his wife – love her and be willing to die for her as Christ did for the church – is followed by the culture-shifting instructions regarding a man’s other chattel: his children and his slaves.
Ivan wrote:
Well, we know Paul isn’t advocating a permanent subordination of slaves in “household relationships” (Eph. 6:5) because he appeals to Philemon to change his relationship with Onesimus from that of a slave to a brother.
….Phm 1:16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother
He’s rather encouraging slaves to render good service as unto the Lord and encouraging their masters to “…do the same things to them” (Eph. 6:9) So it’s mutual serving with mutual respect.
@ Ivan:
I don’t know how old you are and whether you predate this now-universal-in-the-conservative-church notion of “roles.” But if you can think about *relationships* rather than *roles* I think you may start to see things in a different light. Christ is re-ordering all of our relationships along Kingdom lines, but we are not called to overthrow things. We are to be transformed, and in so doing, our relationships will be transformed and our culture will be transformed. Like leaven and not like lightning. The Pharisees and the Sanhedrin and the other religious types were all about proper execution of “roles” but Jesus had a lot to say to them about role-playing. I think Jesus wants us to be real and authentic imitators of him and not mimics of other men. Or women. That is what I’ve seen way too much of. Men who mimic their mentors/heroes and parrot their talking points. It is scary when you see it up close.
Ivan wrote:
Paul advocates obedience to both parents. This is logical and reasonable since children are not mature enough to make decisions and choices but as they grow in age and wisdom, they venture out from under their parents care. So they are not permanently subject to them but should nevertheless always honor them.
@ Gram3:
Another thing I’m not understanding about all this.
Comps say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, which they think explains why or how women should be subordinate to men (or at least to their husbands, if they are married).
But the Bible puts Jesus forth as an example that all Christians are to follow, both men and women, not just women.
Also, Ephesians or some other NT book says that husbands are to emulate Jesus in their dealings with their wives (lay down your life for her, serve her or something), so if Jesus is an example of submission to the wives, wouldn’t that also mean husbands would have to emulate that same Jesusy submission back to their wives?
And then, contrary to their “Jesus is subordinate” stance, Matthew 28:18 says,
“Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
A few things aren’t adding up there in their analogies, at least to me.
There doesn’t seem to be this perfect one to one comparison or perfect correspondence between Jesus/husbands and Jesus/wives and Jesus/God/Christians, and whatever other variations and combinations they have going on. It seems very muddied to me.
@ Ivan:
Also they confuse “mutual” with “identical.” So, people can be in a relationship characterized by mutuality when the things they do for one another are quite different. And those things may change as circumstances change. The point is not to keep score but for each of us to see that we regard others as more important. That isn’t playing a role but is rather an attitude. We lower ourselves and Christ lifts us up. We lift one another up in the Kingdom. In the world, the more powerful exalts himself/herself and puts others beneath them. And everyone at all times is mindful of the pecking order. In the Kingdom there is only the King above everyone else who are brothers and sisters with equal status. We may do different things as we are gifted to serve one another, but we are all members of one body, just as God designed us to be from the beginning. Now, the question is, which looks more like the Kingdom? I don’t think that the Patriarchal/Complementarian system looks anything like the Kingdom. It looks like a pious version of the same old worldly sinful system.
Gram3 wrote:
And this part of your post reminded me of something else.
Someone else on another site pointed out that the Bible refers to Christ as the groom and the entire church as the bride – meaning that even men are brides in this respect.
So, if you are a married man (married to a woman), you’re still a bride (to or in Christ).
I don’t think that the gender role stuff is neatly cut and dried as the complementarians like to make it.
Ivan wrote:
Why does headship have to 1. denote authority over someone else, rather than 2. symbolizing supporting them and giving nourishment / sustaining a person?
I thought 2. was how the Bible was referring to the dude being the head, but comps want to interpret “head” as in “having authority over.”
@ Gram3:
I am only a few years out of college so I post-date the whole thing. My church and denomination (Christian and Missionary Alliance) is relatively egalitarian, we have women teaching Sunday school (without men co-teaching), leading mixed-gender Bible studies, serving on the governing board with elders, and even preaching at the pulpit at times. We even have a female minister for one of the congregations (we’re an immigrant church). Our denomination doesn’t ordain women, but it might as well since we still consecrate women which is like ordaining women but without the ordination. We do ordain women overseas however.
I actually came under the influence of complementarians when I was in college, but I’ve since then been exploring egalitarianism. I’m almost in agreement with egalitarians, Eph 5 is my only major hang-up and even there I’m almost in agreement with egalitarian interpretations. You bring up a very good point about being authentic imitators of Jesus and not of other men. That actually causes me to question even my own concept of headship, hence the reason why I’m looking for an alternative explanation of the Christ-church analogy.
My own concept of headship is that the husband is an exemplar of Christ-like love and humility who inspires the wife to also imitate Christ (with the husband providing a real-life model). No authority is involved in the relationship and the husband and wife do mutually submit to each other. Extremely vague I know, and I do realize that women could do the same thing.
@ Daisy:
I was commenting to Ivan when you wrote this. IMO, all Christians are called to imitate Christ whether they are male or female or married or single. Regardless of any human status. Because our new status “in Christ” is our new identity which shapes our human identity while we are still in the “not yet.” IMO, the idea of roles totally misses the point of who we are “in Christ” and what that means. I don’t think it means that only men lay down their lives, and I don’t think that it means that only women submit their desires to their husbands. I think it means that we give ourselves to one another in our various kinds of relationships. Anyone who does not think that a man who offers the fruit of his labor to his family is not submitting his desires to his family, at least in some sense, is delusional. Likewise, anyone who does not think a woman who carries and bears children for her husband is not laying down her life, at least in some sense, for her husband and children is delusional. Those are examples from the sphere of marriage. Those who are single also have ways of submitting and sacrificing for others, regardless of their gender. Submission and sacrifice, which are both exemplified by Christ himself, are not roles that are particular to one sex or the other.
Victorious wrote:
Paul was actually addressing adult children in that passage. In ancient Greek culture, you were under your parent’s authority until they died.
Ivan wrote:
There’s a lot of information about this on egalitarian sites.
Here’s part 1 from a part 5 series
Headship Madness: An Introduction to “Headship”
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/headship-madness-introduction-headship
There is a link at the bottom of that page to part 2.
__
@Jeff S,
hey,
“That’s a lot of people of faith to cast such judgement on.” -Jeff S
What?!?
It is the calvinist doctrine silly, not da kind folk, who may subscribe to it!
Please try to keep that in mind.
John Calvin, like Augustne before him called Jesus a lier.
huh?
Jesus said that those whosoever, that believed in Him, would not perish, but receive eternal life.
However, John Calvnism said that man was incapable of doing what Jesus asked in John’s gospel. “which was to believe in Him (Jesus).
Bump.
It takes awhile ta take this stuff in. Please be patient with yourself.
ATB
Sopy
—
Daisy wrote:
I’m good with that. Give me a book, a cup of good coffee, and a porch swing on a cool day and I’m set. The boys can have their toys.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
It’s always a good idea to live in or react to extremes. -.-
Ivan wrote:
That would be contrary to the design of marriage in Genesis for the man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife wouldn’t it? That implies a beginning of a different priority.
@ Ivan:
“head” in the NT means “source” not “boss”. As in the way food gets into the body. So Christ is the source of the church, feeding it, etc., and, in the culture or the day, the husband is the source of all sustenance for the wife, as she is totally financially dependent upon him to bring home the bacon, so to speak. There are words for boss and authority, but kephale, head is not one of them!
Daisy wrote:
I reject the notion of interpreting head as having authority over since Paul himself tells the husband to love the wife instead of commanding her. I try to think of headship within a framework of mutual submission and self-sacrificial love between husband and wife. I’m just trying to get my head around how one can be egalitarian while still maintaining that the Christ-church analogy is still applicable today.
Arce wrote:
Yes, indeed. The only way that the body could receive air, water, and food was through the head. It is anachronistic to read our understanding of the central nervous system into the first century. As you said, the facts on the ground were that the husband or father or nearest male relative was the means of support for a woman. He was her only access to the outside world. She was either a source of honor or a source of shame to him. When we understand that, a lot of seemingly difficult passages make a lot more sense.
Ivan wrote:
Some of us prefer the term “mutualist” because it better captures the main idea. We are equal in status but not identical, and our relationships are not static or formulaic, as someone *might* infer from the term “egalitarian.”
Ivan wrote:
The new idea that the men had to learn was that their orientation toward their wives was to be one of service and self-sacrifice rather than taking from her or using her for his own purposes. That is the only model that those men would have had. Instead, they are to be to their wives as Christ is to the Church. There was simply no need for Paul to instruct the men to be in authority over their wives. They already had absolute authority and had no reason to expect that they would not always rule over their wives and their entire households. But now, we are all members of *God’s* household, and Christ is the master.
Victorious wrote:
The values of Greek culture were different from the values of Christianity. You have to remember that Paul isn’t just giving abstract teachings, these are teachings in response to specific situations.
Gram3 wrote:
I already knew that, and I agree with that interpretation of Paul. Paul is not reaffirming the patriarchal structure of the Greek household. He is instead realigning those structures along Christocentric lines where mutuality and not hierarchy would be the principal. I think I need to make clear that I’m already familiar with egalitarian exegesis of Eph 5. But I think I’m not starting to see how you interpret the Christ-church analogy. What you’re saying is that Paul is using it to reorient the husbands relation to his wife so that it would no longer be a dominating relationship. It does not mean though that the husband is in any way analogous to Christ in the relationship, right? If it were a matriarchal society, he probably would have used the analogy with the wife instead of the husband, right?
I just don’t know how we would preach the Christ-church analogy for our situation today. While we’re still male-dominated we are much more egalitarian now and any husband who acted like an ancient Greek household head towards his wife would probably be looked down upon. The feminist movement has also had a deep impact on our culture (I’m not making any judgement on the feminist movement here). So the question is how do we keep the Christ-church analogy relevant for marriages today?