People are leaving the church in droves and these are more worried about a woman’s place in the church than anything else including sex abuse. They must really think people are stupid not to see the inconsistency of that

Another reminder why I’m outside the charmed circle of the ecclesia. I don’t need this kind of browbeating in my life. It’s so different from my day to day. I mean, I’ve had to tell execs (not very often, but yeah), “why no, we’re not doing this without a change request” or “this is something that has to be done after the critical online window (business hours)”. The thing is, I’m *respected* for stepping up in situations like this.

As for what role women should play in church, I remember that Mary Magdalene was the first person to proclaim the Good News of Jesus’ Resurrection. The Wayne Grudems of the world would have her to shut up and have that glory/responsibility be for men. That’s not what happened, is it?

When I was a pastor, on more than one occasion a woman came to me to discuss their “call from God into ministry.” I affirmed each one, even in a pastorate or two that did not agree.

Why?

Who am I to question God’s call and claim upon another person; male or female?

Boy, Grudem better not come to my church. Periodically we do have women read Scripture from the pulpit. His change of heart regarding divorce is a little late…he has taught hundreds of seminarians that divorce is unacceptable except for adultery, and he tried to get folks to stay married under every circumstance, including physical abuse.

Then he messes with translation: https://www.salon.com/2021/07/10/when-evangelical-snowflakes-censor-the-bible-the-english-standard-version-goes-pc/ See also: https://blogs.bible.org/on-the-esvs-new-rendering-of-genesis-316-contrary-wives/

Playing fast and loose with translations when you have the linguistic chops to know better is completely disgusting.

christiane: Wasn’t Grudem the one who came up with that heresy called the ‘eternal submission of the Son’???

Well, yes; that too.

Grudem makes me think of Dr. Zaius in Planet of the Apes.
I swear they’re both cut from the same cloth.

“When you look at this list, do the words ‘grace,’ ‘love’ or ‘freedom’ immediately jump to mind? Or do you feel weighed down, discouraged or weary?”

“A Pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself.” AW Tozer

When I look at the quote that starts the post, I feel immediate opposition. If Mr. Tozer were here in my kitchen, I would ask him why he wants me to be miserable, guilt-ridden, and plagued with scrupulosity. The Great Commandment says to love your neighbor as yourself, not to love your neighbor and be rotten to yourself.

I don’t remember much from taking Greek classes over twenty years ago, but I do remember the first verb used as a paradigm: luo. I was amazed then that it had two meanings: to set free or to destroy. Now it makes sense to me.

Dale Rudiger: The “binding of women” (placing universal restrictions on what they can and cannot do in God’s kingdom) is a symptom of this improper exegesis.

Aaaand, some folks believe and preach the world is flat.

In the case of a former church of mine, I notice that the boundaries of these rules were largely followed, but differently in public vs. private. Publicly, the boundary was pushed to sound and appear more permissive of women’s roles in the church. Privately, discussions were held around ways the congregation needed to be “corrected.”

I think the root of this difference is in the fact that most of the women in the congregation were very career-successful, and it could easily be demonstrated that the church’s budget depended on them. If you alienate the women, you lose the money. If you push the boundaries too far, you get kicked out of the denomination.

One example of privately pushing the boundaries – I was once told that there would be a sermon series on gender roles, mainly spurred on by the fact that a lot of women in the church had been reading and discussing “The Making of Biblical Womanhood” and “Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”, and that the ideas being circulated from than needed correction. I was not present for the sermon series, but was told that neither of those books were explicitly mentioned (don’t directly antagonize the women, just explain why they’re wrong).

Of course, many private things eventually become public…

To go along with the series, they organized a local “conference” on gender and invited one speaker – a male friend of the pastor. During his speech, he confidently stated that he understands what it’s like to be a woman because he once held an associate pastor role and people kept asking him to do things that he didn’t feel should be his responsibility. They quietly scrubbed the recording from the internet, but that clued a lot of folks into what was actually going on.

We’re always amazed at what these clowns espouse.

We have to realize in the old testament there were few human rights and practically none for women. Abraham’s wife gave him a slave girl to impregnate with God’s blessing. Solomon, the great and godly king had 900 concubines. Lot offered his daughters to the crowd to prevent the angels from being despoiled.

This is Wayne Grudems Christianity. Free from all that Hellenism that influenced Jesus and Paul – whether Paul’s mission to turn female pastors into Telly Savalas impersonators is real, I can’t say.

Free from the enlightenment ideas that influenced modern democracy.

So let’s get those women preachers shaved, and party like it’s 1999….BC.

Jack,

Funny Jack!
And satirically true too.

In an online discussion about women’s roles in the church, I was told that it was “God’s created order” that men lead and women follow.
Tina,

……. And women follow wearing leashes and cute little vests that say “SERVICE ANIMAL” ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People are leaving the church in droves and these are more worried about a woman’s place in the church than anything else including sex abuse.
Chuckp,

If women would just obey the “gospel” …….. remain silent and not “gossip”, no one would know about the abuse and everything would be just hunky dory.

Yeah, I’m being sarcastic. But I’ll betcha that’s what a lot of these guys are thinking.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): If women would just obey the “gospel” …….. remain silent and not “gossip”, no one would know about the abuse and everything would be just hunky dory.

It is perhaps impolitic of me to note that this principle that “what you don’t measure, and consequently don’t know about, can be regarded — for public purposes — to not exist at all” is not confined to the churches. It appears to me that it is operative within our current public health establishment.

I’ve probably stepped on some toes and will go silent now. In any event, the weeds need to be pulled.

There is a branch of Buddhism that has a university in my town. I don’t know about other branches, but this one teaches that a woman must be reborn as a man before she can reach Nirvana. I don’t see any difference between this Buddhist teaching and what Grudem and his ilk profess. No need to be a Christian.

Some great comments above, too.

D.

Jack: Free from the enlightenment ideas that influenced modern democracy.

Those guys DO NOT WANT a democracy.
Up front and simple.
They made that clear on 6 January 2021.

This is the seventh time I’ve tried to write this comment and am just going to say it. Bin this comment if it’s not suitable.
He reminds me of a manager I had on an eating disorders ward who decided to implement the drug administration policy to the letter (in a very bullying way) in response to a spike in drug errors. All she achieved was a bigger spike in errors, only one nurse (me) who was still allowed to administer on my own, risk management on her back, staff in tears, complaints from doctors about me, and the rest of the hospital moaning at her because she wouldn’t let any of her nurses administer drugs without another nurse who had to come from another ward.
I’m very proud that as soon as she announced this I started a programme of malicious compliance and the complaints from doctors were because I kept asking them to rewrite prescriptions in some very petty ways.
But anyway, that’s what this is like.
How do I apply to be a daughter of Stan?

Samuel Conner: It is perhaps impolitic of me to note that this principle that “what you don’t measure, and consequently don’t know about, can be regarded — for public purposes — to not exist at all” is not confined to the churches. It appears to me that it is operative within our current public health establishment.

Oh, yeah. Let the “experts'” measures be the ONLY measures considered, and only The “experts” inline with the desired narrative of those in power that keeps the revenue flowing. Heaven (well maybe Heaven doesn’t) forbid if someone, unauthorized someone, asks how a measure is formulated and it basically. can’t. be. justified or explained, even by The “experts,” but they keep on using/selling it. Yes, this does seem the same as deceptive takeover churches and their ilk.

Samuel Conner: Disregarding the outliers is IMO unwise — the exceptions test one’s hypotheses about what the rules may be.

For sure.

Samuel Conner: if one is going to disregard the outliers and affirm that anyway, what is one to do …, gulp, … with the OT cultural norm of polygyny?)

Exactly, although, I’ll bet that would never be stated publicly as acceptable except in really weird spaces. I wouldn’t want to live there.

Samuel Conner: OTOH, it may be that there will be a Darwinian process that will resolve the issue. Any culture that sidelines half its talent is not going to compete well with its peers that don’t do that.

LOL. A short-lived culture…..not a general long-lived pattern.

Dan: why didn’t Paul provide more details?

Good point. Nothing about gender regarding any of these gifts from the Holy Spirit to the church.

There ARE details regarding 1. Each Christian receiving a gift; both men and women; 2. All gifts are of equal value; of both men and women; 3. These are GIFTS from the Holy Spirit to the church; no money involved. As church members, we DO NOT pay for these gifts. No gift is given to earn a living or build a dynasty or make a name for someone or make someone famous or give them a platform.

Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4.

Ellauhfu

Oh of course there’s an explanation why those women don’t count. To paraphrase Rachel Held Evans, it’s less about what the Scripture says than what the reader is looking for. If you read the Bible looking for justifications to keep people down, you’ll find them. And if you read the Bible looking for reasons to lift people up, you’ll find those too.

But good grief, a “general pattern” heuristic? Forget polygyny and whatnot. If the early church had handled scripture this way, Christianity would have remained a weird Jewish sect. After all, that was the general pattern of the only scripture they had. But again, I’m sure there’s a convenient explanation for why this heuristic only applies to the status of women, and not to things like, say, circumcision and dietary laws.

To give you an idea of how Wayne Grudem approaches the meaning of a word/text/passage I’ve quoted some of his remarks on 1 Peter 3:1. After deciding the best meaning of the word “likewise” (do as the slave does in a modified manner), he advances his argument for “submission”(hypotasso) namely –
“Be submissive to your husbands means willingly to submit to your husband’s authority or leadership in the marriage. The idea of willing obedience is involved in this submission, as is clear from verses 5 to 6. There Peter illustrates ‘being subject to their own husbands’ with the example, ‘as Sarah obeyed Abraham’, thus showing that obeying (hypakouō) is the means by which Sarah was being submissive (hypotassō, the same word as is used in v. 1).
Sometimes the word hypotassō (‘be submissive’) has been understood to mean ‘be thoughtful and considerate; act in love’ (toward another). But this is not a legitimate meaning for the term, which always implies a relationship of submission to an authority”

Contrast this with the following discussion from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. –

“Paul and Acts. (a) In Gal 3:28 Paul asserts, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female [ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ], for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Some scholars believe this statement alludes to an early baptismal formula (cf. 1 Cor 12:12–13; Col 3:9–11). R. Scroggs (in IDBSup, 966) comments: “To enter the Christian community thus meant to join a society in which male-female roles and valuations based on such roles had been discarded. The community was powerless to alter role valuations in the outside culture, but within the church, behavior patterns and interrelationships were to be based on this affirmation of equality.” Similarly, Jewett (Man as Male and Female, 142–44), who regards this text as the “Magna Carta of Humanity,” explains it as follows: “Salvation does not alter the ordinance of creation; rather it redeems it.… In Christ the man and the woman are redeemed from false stereotypes, stereotypes which inhibit their true relationship. Thus redeemed, they are enabled to become what God intended them to be when he created Man in his image—a fellowship of male and female. The restoration of this true fellowship of the sexes is one of the ways we ‘put off the old man and put on the new man who is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of Christ’ (Col. 3:10).”

The question arises whether there is a tension between this strand of Paul’s teaching and the hierarchical view of woman’s subordination to man suggested in 1 Cor 11:2–16; 14:34–35; 1 Tim 2:11–15; Titus 2:4–5. On any reading, these passages bristle with exegetical difficulties, and thus it is not surprising that they continue to produce much controversy. In the first passage, e.g., it is debated whether “head” (1 Cor 11:3) should be taken to mean “superior authority, ruler,” as traditionally done, or “source,” as some recent scholars have suggested on the grounds that 1 Cor 11:12 (ἡ γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός) alludes to Gen 2, where man is said to be the source of woman (see fuller discussion s.v. κεφαλή G3051). In the case of 1 Tim 2:12, do the words “I do not permit a woman …” reflect only a personal position—and one conditioned by the specific circumstances in Ephesus—or do they express a universally normative principle? These and various other disagreements are not likely to disappear any time soon. It is important to note, however, that even those scholars who hold to a traditional (so-called hierarchical) view affirm the dignity that the NT confers equally on men and women as persons, partic. with regard to their standing before God.

Likewise, when Eph 5:22 instructs wives to submit to their husbands (cf. Col 3:18), one cannot ignore the broader context, which instructs husbands to love their wives (i) as they love themselves and (ii) as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25–33). In other words, the headship and lordship of Christ, reflected in marriage, does not consist in authoritarianism. For Paul, Christ’s lordship was exercised in taking the form of a servant (cf. Mark 10:45; Phil 2:7), and thus the husband’s headship is to be expressed precisely in self-giving. Entirely in line with this position is the remarkable statement in 1 Cor 7:4, “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife” (note that this is the same epistle that emphasizes the headship of the man in ch. 11). The idea of the wife exercising authority over the husband appears to be unparalleled in previous Jewish thinking, and it contradicts Paul’s alleged misogyny. The thrust of Paul’s teaching is therefore caught in the dynamic paradoxes of mutual subjection and the thought that the headship of the husband is to be realized in utter self-sacrifice for the loved one, in a way that applies to marriage the self-sacrifice of Christ.

Some of the passages already alluded to have touched on the ministry of women in the early church. Even before Pentecost women were among those who “devoted themselves to prayer” with the disciples (Acts 1:14; cf. 12:12). The first convert at Philippi was Lydia, who was baptized with her household (16:14–15). At Thessalonica and Berea women of high standing were among the first converts (17:4, 12). Among the women who were fellow workers with the apostles were Priscilla, the wife of Aquila (18:2, 26; Rom 16:3–4; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19), and Phoebe, a διάκονος G1356 (see διακονέω G1354) of the church in Cenchrea (Rom 16:1). The latter ref. raises the question whether there was a separate order of women deacons or whether they were included in the same order as male deacons (it is likewise uncertain whether 1 Tim 3:11 refers to the wives of deacons or to female deacons). A separate order of widows seems to be indicated elsewhere (1 Tim 5:9; cf. Titus 2:3–5 and see χήρα G5939).

None of the interpretative approaches to 1 Cor 14:33b–36 is free of difficulty. It is evident, however, that absolute or sweeping prohibitions to women’s ministry fly in the face of the teaching of Scripture as a whole, for significant instances of female leadership, teaching, or ministry are presented to us without the slightest hint of divine disapproval (e.g., Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, the daughters of Philip [Acts 21:9], Euodia and Syntyche [Phil 4:2–3, “contended at my side”]). By the same token, it seems disingenuous to ignore or quickly dismiss the overarching biblical emphasis on male leadership (e.g., OT elders, Jesus’ disciples) and the few passages that apparently place some kind of qualification on women’s involvement in the church. The effort must be made to reach a position that fully acknowledges both strands of bib. teaching”

Apologies if this is too long for consideration.

Lowlandseer: By the same token, it seems disingenuous to ignore or quickly dismiss the overarching biblical emphasis on male leadership (e.g., OT elders, Jesus’ disciples) and the few passages that apparently place some kind of qualification on women’s involvement in the church.

Thanks for these helpful additions.

Found myself agreeing with the contrast up to this point. Not sure why the author/s added this toward the end. This reminds me of JP’s “masculine feel” scripture. It seems to me that I have experienced, read more about “disingenuous” behavior in the camp that emphasizes the submission of women to men. Why add this line? And “quick dismissal?” Or is the problem more a “quick/fairly recent authoritarian emphasis” of gender roles?

Lowlandseer: The effort must be made to reach a position that fully acknowledges both strands of bib. teaching”

I’m not sure I can wrap my mind around this either. “Both strands of bib. teaching?” I thought there was only one “red string” strand of bib. teaching/interpretation, Jesus.

Two experiences:
1. The church takeover was disingenuous. Many similar similar stories here. This disingenuous behavior is coming from the TGC camp. The manipulated results were passed off as an “effort to fully acknowledge both strands of bib. interpretation,” leaving the church stamped with an emphasis on gender roles and hierarchy.
2. Para-church ministry changes over brief (<15 years timeframe). Began with transparency with the names (both men and women) of the authors of the associated commentary. Began without a "recommendation" of what Bible translation to use. Began with a quote: " Unity in essentials. To absolutize non-essentials is idolatry."
Now, recommends using the ESV and all scripture verses written in the studies are taken from the ESV. No names of the authors of the commentaries are given, no nice quote of unity and avoiding idolatry. The names of commentators not available. I asked. Is this a lack of transparency, or just too time consuming to list them all? I was told there were many and from "various places." I wonder if they are from "both strands." I'm suspicious, since the ESV stands as the recommended translation.
It seems to me like the ESV/TGC strand does not want to acknowledge strands different from theirs and they do not want to allow strands different from theirs a seat, or voice, at the teaching table. But, of course, they don't want to lose women's service.

Tina: Everyone believes they are right and they can prove they are right by Scripture. But when two positions are diametrically opposed to each other, they can’t both be right. Which one is? It seems next to impossible for me to figure it out unless I have a degree in Biblical Studies and have fluency in Biblical Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

Hi Tina,
I strongly recommend you read “The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood” by Philip B. Payne. He is brilliant and yet makes things easy to understand for people like you and me.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=payne+the+bible+vs.+biblical+womanhood&crid=3MX8ESFCMAFIE&sprefix=the+bible+vs.+%2Caps%2C263&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_3_14

Chapter 6, “Did Paul Teach “Women Must Be Silent in the Churches”? 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, is worth the price of the book alone. He makes a strong case that verses 34-35 were not in the earliest manuscripts and provides textual proof.

Short bio on Payne: “Philip Barton Payne (Ph.D., Cambridge) served with his wife Nancy for the Evangelical Free Church Mission in Japan for seven years. He has taught New Testament Studies at Cambridge, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Gordon-Conwell, Bethel, and Fuller, and is known for his studies on textual criticism, the parables of Jesus, and Paul’s teachings on women.”

Muff Potter: Those guys DO NOT WANT a democracy.
Up front and simple.
They made that clear on 6 January 2021.

Democracy has never been part of God’s plan. It’s a kingdom with only one king.

He doesn’t say much, so his “priests” speak for him. Usually it involves giving 10% of your earnings but sometimes involves subjugation when the yen hits them. Usually subjugation of some group that threatens the status quo that keeps them on top. Gotta that 52% of the population in their place….and bald…

CMT,

Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

Reading at RHE’s blog was refreshing. She was creative, generous and positive with her writing.

CMT: But good grief, a “general pattern” heuristic? Forget polygyny and whatnot. If the early church had handled scripture this way, Christianity would have remained a weird Jewish sect.

Exactly. And good point about the inconsistencies in applying their gold standard of “general patterns.”

Lowlandseer: Von Harnack makes some good points on this in the article I quoted from earlier.

There are good points in the article and it is interesting to consider church history that I would not come by without references from others. I appreciate your comments.

Lowlandseer: As for “disingenuous” I agree with you.

Thanks, for this, and sharing some of your experience with the New Calvinists’ behaviors/planned strategies . For the Bible study mentioned, I’m glad to hear you found the sources that you wanted, others joined in the pursuit for transparency and that the Bible study resulted in a better/proper environment.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Tina,

“Everyone believes they are right and they can prove they are right by Scripture. But when two positions are diametrically opposed to each other, they can’t both be right. Which one is? It seems next to impossible for me to figure it out unless I have a degree in Biblical Studies and have fluency in Biblical Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++

i totally understand.

even amongst scholars in those fields there is disagreement.

call me Frustrated-Anne Disillusionette.

we all have our thoughts on what it all means. They can’t all be right; they can’t all be wrong.

what is always right and never wrong is treating people the way we want to be treated. loving our neighbor as ourselves.

that is my doctrine and theology. if anything conflicts with that, i let it go.

as i see it, what’s the point of having faith in something that is cruel, manipulative, destructive, & otherwise unethical?

what is the point of abiding by faith tenets I can’t respect? that are beneath my own personal integrity?

John Berry: How do I apply to be a daughter of Stan?

I don’t think you apply – if I understand these matters aright, you just know in your heart you’re a daughter of Stan.

elastigirl,

He is first in kingdom will be last and last first.. humm.. I guess this guy does not know his scriptures very well..

or, as Paul states,
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus….Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross

FreshGrace,

I’m waiting too.

Or Jesus. The parable of the talents is not gender specific, either. But Grudem’s list is consigning many women to the role of the servant who buries his (or her) talents.
Sarah (aka Wild Honey),

Yep!
I had one foot out the church door, with all my weight on that foot, when our pastor did a series of sermons on gifts and how to use our God given abilities. For three Sundays in a row, I listened intently with paper and pen, ready to take notes.
Not one single thing he preached on was of any use for women. We are not allowed to use the gifts and do the work he preached on …… not even sure we are allowed to have those gifts and abilities.
That finished me.

(Note: This really has nothing to do with this pastor. I do not have any issues with him. He’s a great guy. I know him personally …. his family…… love them all dearly. But, our church that he was pastoring is very strict on “women’s roles”, more strict than WG, before this pastor took the job.)

Jeffrey J Chalmers,

Upon further thought, according these teachers, I guess you must first consider the “gender” before you have the mind of Christ…. You only need to become servants within your own gender?

Muff Potter: I’d like to see some real numbers as to how widespread Grudem’s ideology is applied in Protestant Churches.

I’d ask the chicken-and-egg question too. How much bad church behavior starts out as plain old sexism and then gets dressed up with labels, author names, and theological justification?

GAFS!

Point 2 of 2: a “biblical pattern”

The whole point of biblical counter-examples to “biblical patterns”, surely, is to show that said “patterns” are not quite so biblical after all.

Luke 2
36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.[e] She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.
_____________
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

— Luke 1:41–45

15th century depiction of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, with Elizabeth on the left
Matthew Henry comments, “Mary knew that Elizabeth was with child, but it does not appear that Elizabeth had been told anything of her relative Mary’s being designed for the mother of the Messiah; and therefore what knowledge she appears to have had of it must have come by a revelation, which would be a great encouragement to Mary.”[2] After Mary heard Elizabeth’s blessing, she spoke the words now known as the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55).

Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home.
When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth to a son. Her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown her great mercy, and they shared her joy.
On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him after his father Zechariah, but his mother spoke up and said, “No! He is to be called John.”
They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who has that name.”
Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like to name the child. He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.” Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue set free, and he began to speak, praising God.
___________

Where would the world be without great and Godly women? – spiritually impoverished.

And to refresh our memories, here is part of an account of the ETS meeting in November 2016 that debunked Messrs Grudem and Ware’s (heretical) views on the Trinity and its relation to complementarianism.

“ A meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in mid-November took the Trinity as its theme, and saw Grudem and Ware square off against two orthodox theologians, Kevin Giles and Millard Erickson. Giles – a renowned expositor of the doctrine of the Trinity and a thoroughgoing expert in the field – laid into Grudem and Ware in a style that was polite but devastating. His lecture, with a fascinating postscript, was posted on the Patheos website by Scot McKnight.
He acknowledges that “very large numbers of evangelicals” now believe the Grudem/Ware version of the Trinity. However, he says, it “contradicts what the Nicene creed, the Reformation and post-Reformation Protestant confessions and the ETS doctrinal statement teach”. Furthermore, he says, “I want to state clearly and unambiguously that I think the doctrine of the Trinity has absolutely nothing to say about the relationship of the sexes.” And, he adds: “My consistent argument for nearly twenty years has been that that if we evangelicals want to get right our doctrine of the Trinity, the primary and foundational doctrine of the Christian faith, we must sharply and completely separate out doctrine of the Trinity and our doctrine of the sexes. They are in no way connected and when they are connected both doctrines are corrupted.”
(https://www.christiantoday.com/article/wayne-grudem-has-changed-his-mind-on-the-trinity-just-not-enough-say-critics/102617.htm)

What gender is my spirit (or soul, if you prefer)? When I die and leave this body on the earth and my spirit (hopefully) ascends to heaven, what gender will I be in heaven? If I pray from my spirit (1 Cor 14), which is neither male nor female, who is some man to stop me and say I can’t pray in public? If Paul says to “regard no one according to the flesh,” (2 Cor 5:16) then why do these men continue to evaluate humans based on appearances and have 2 sets of standards?

It says in James 2:1-4 not to play favorites based on outward appearances; James calls those who do play favorites “…judges with evil thoughts.” It was in reference to socio-economics, but can easily be applied to gender.

I will pray whenever and wherever I choose. Wayne Grudem, come stop me.

“Treating her like a servant, making all the big decisions, acting like the “master of the castle”, being the one to define men’s and women’s roles” From the “Power and Control” wheel.

Seems to me that arriving at “respected” (having self-respect) will never be truly achieved standing on someone else’s back. Although, some may think it’s a useful image management tool. Reminds me of Proverbs 26:26-28 Their malice may be concealed by deception…whoever digs a pit will fall into it.;….a lying tongue hates those it hurts..”

One time, I saw a secular leader, in the midst of an obvious fiasco, find a platform to stand in the crowd and…..apologize for the mess. Of course, it was pretty glaringly obvious.

Nick Bulbeck: Failing to spot that the lassies didn’t want to be babies either was, I admit, somewhat selfish of the laddies.

I can’t speak for your group, but it’s more gratifying for some men to think of women as somewhat older children. Babies need constant care, and ordering them around is not very fruitful.

You can certainly tell a baby, “You’re not going anywhere dressed like that,” but the baby will at most wonder what you’re talking about.

Ariel:
I will pray whenever and wherever I choose. Wayne Grudem, come stop me.

Brava !!!

The clearest statement by Albert Mohler that I can quickly find about leaving a local church is his 2009 article for Ligonier’s Tabletalk magazine, here:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go

There’s nothing in that article about needing permission, but he does claim that many common reasons for changing churches are invalid.

I also looked for a statement from Mark Dever of 9Marks, who I would have expected to take a harder line on the issue than Mohler since that’s his brand, but I found only this rather mild set of guidelines:

https://www.9marks.org/article/if-youre-thinking-about-leaving-a-church/

There might be more restrictive statements by these men somewhere, but it was interesting to see what they’ve written on the topic that shows up first in a Google search.