“I think biblical teaching – we can obscure it, we can suppress it – but I think the biblical vision of manhood and womanhood in a redeemed heart finds an echo… Finds an echo, meaning there’s a rightness to it.”
Jeff Purswell, Dean of Sovereign Grace Churches “Pastor’s College” and Board Member of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
“I started reading the Book of Mormon. I was only a few verses into the book, in 1 Nephi, when I felt something different. I began to debate between my feelings and my intellect. So I decided to ask God in prayer.
This was the first time in my life that I had prayed on my knees. The experience that followed became one of the most sacred of my life. A feeling of such overwhelming happiness filled me that I knew in my heart that the Book of Mormon was more than just a book. It was a book of divine origin. It had to be the word of God. I later came to understand that the feeling was the Spirit testifying of its truthfulness.”
Source: “If You Really Want to Know, You Will Know” by By Elder Walter F. González
Bob Kauflin, a pastor at C.J. Mahaney’s church in Louisville, KY, and David Zimmer, whom I assume is a part of the music/worship team at Sovereign Grace Louisville, have a podcast titled “Sound Plus Doctrine.” I came across the short article above introducing a podcast titled “What is a Women’s Role in Leading Worship in Song?” and though I was certain I knew what Sovereign Grace Churches’ position on the question would be I wanted to listen to what they had to say.
Before I tuned in to the podcast I wanted to check out the Scripture verses listed above – 1 Corinthians 11:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Finding that 1 Corinthians 11 only has 34 verses in the chapter I figured Bob had listed the reference incorrectly. I assume Bob meant 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, a favorite of the Complementarian crowd. The passage says:
“For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”[fn]. NIV
The passage appears to be quite straightforward, doesn’t it? Women should remain silent in the churches. But how many of you read the footnotes after verses? I confess I don’t pay much attention to them. The footnote after verse 35 states, “In a few manuscripts these verses come after verse 40.” Why is this significant? More on that in a minute.
I am currently working my way through a book by Philip B. Payne titled, “The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood.”
“Payne has a Ph.D. from Cambridge, has taught at 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.”
The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood is written in a manner that you and I can grasp. Payne has another book covering much of the same material in much greater depth, written in a more scholarly form. The title of that book is “Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.”
What Payne wrote in chapter 6 of “The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood” blew my mind. Chapter 6 is titled “Did Paul Teach, “Women Must Be Silent in the Churches?” I Corinthians 14:33-35.
Payne’s answer is no. He bases this on a very strong case he makes that verses 33-35 were not in the original manuscripts. I can’t copy the whole chapter, but will include a few quotes and recommend you purchase the book and read it. (Today, Sept. 2, 2023, the Kindle version on Amazon was a mere $3.99.)
“Finally, as I will show you soon, many Greek manuscripts actually place verses 14:34–35 at the end of chapter 14, after verse 40. Scribes would not have done that if they thought that verses 36–38 refute verses 34–35. Nor would verses 36–38 refute text that begins after verse 40. Crucial evidence shows that the best explanation of the different locations of these verses is that they were not part of Paul’s original letter but were added later. Greek laws required women to be silent in public meetings. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that a typical reader who believed that women should be silent in public meetings would want to comment on Paul’s calling “all” to prophesy throughout this chapter. It would be natural for such a reader sometime before AD 200 to add in the margin the “conventional wisdom” expressed in 14:34–35. All Bible scholars know that various blocks of text have been added to New Testament manuscripts. You have probably seen notes in your Bible, such as the NIV at Matt. 18:11, “Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10” and at John 7:53, “The earliest manuscripts . . . do not have John 7:53–8:11.” As I will soon show you, the oldest Bible in Greek marks both of these passages and also 1 Cor. 14:34–35 as later additions. Greek Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart rejects 1 Cor. 14:34–35 as “almost certainly spurious.” BasisBibel notes that 14:34–35 contradicts 11:2–16 and is probably a later insertion. The famous Roman Catholic scholar, Joseph Fitzmyer, notes that “the majority of commentators today” conclude that 14:34–35 is a later addition. Textual scholar Kim Haines-Eitzen states this of “nearly all scholars now.” Gordon Fee, the most famous evangelical textual scholar, concluded that these verses were not in Paul’s letter but were added in the margin of a manuscript and inserted by later copyists either after verse 33 or verse 40.
If you’re concerned that I am playing fast and loose with Scripture, I don’t blame you. And I don’t take it lightly. But crucial evidence shows that verses 34–35 were added at a later date. Allow me to explain further. This section will delve into the art and science of determining the original text of the Bible, but I will try to keep it as simple as possible. The Bible as we know it does not come from a single manuscript that was preserved throughout history. Scholars determine its original text by comparing thousands of ancient manuscripts.
“Payne, Philip Barton. The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood (pp. 83-84). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Payne, of course, goes into much greater detail in his book, including photos of manuscripts that convincingly show the text was inserted after the original manuscripts were written.
In chapter 10 of “The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood,” Payne deals with the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage. Again, I will quote from this chapter, but encourage you to read the complete chapter in Payne’s book.
“Complementarians” widely regard 1 Tim. 2:8–15 as proof that women must not teach or exercise authority over a man. Some read into Eve’s deception that women are more easily deceived than men. Because such (mis)understandings of 1 Tim. 2:8–15 contradict Paul’s affirmations of women in leadership elsewhere, some Bible scholars conclude that Paul could not have written 1 Timothy. Even many self-identified “complementarians” believe that women can teach and exercise authority over men in some circumstances, particularly in the secular workplace or government, but also as Christian professors, theological authors, and spiritual counselors. So this passage at first glance seems to be difficult for everyone, whether they believe in male hierarchy or equal opportunity for women and men. Exactly what does this passage teach?
…Later on, when Paul left Corinth, Priscilla and Aquila went with him. Together, they went to Ephesus:
18 Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken. 19 They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. (Acts 18:18–19)
That’s right, Priscilla and Aquila are in Ephesus, the same city where Timothy faces a crisis of false teaching. They are teaching people in Ephesus about Jesus. 24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Acts 18:24–26. Note that the Greek text states simply, “they took him aside” (cf. BDAG 883). The NIV incorrectly translates this, “they invited him to their home.” Since “took him aside” is not the NIV text, it is not italicized.)
Since Priscilla’s name is mentioned first here, contrary to normal Greek convention and to their introduction in Acts 18:2, it is reasonable to infer that she did at least some of this biblical teaching, and probably most of it—to a man—a dynamic preacher with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures (Acts 18:24). Some people say she did not “teach” a man but only “explained to him the way of God more adequately” or “more accurately” (NASB), but if “explaining the way of God more accurately” is not teaching, what is? Others say that she could only do this because her husband was with her, but no Bible passage says a woman can teach only if her husband is with her. Still others say that because she was teaching just one man, this is different from what 1 Tim. 2:12 prohibits, but 1 Tim. 2:12 also specifies “to teach . . . a man” (singular). Apparently Priscilla had returned to Ephesus from Rome (Rom. 16:3) before Paul wrote 2 Timothy because Paul writes in 2 Tim. 4:19, “Greet Prisca and Aquila.” Paul gives her special respect by listing her name first and using the respectful form of her name, as Paul always does. Priscilla was probably Timothy’s best resource to correct deceived women in Ephesus. If she was in Ephesus when Paul wrote 1 Timothy, it is doubtful that Paul would silence his best resource. Keep this in mind as we dive deeper into 1 Timothy.
Payne, Philip Barton. The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood (pp. 140-141). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Finally, here is yet another reason for not utilizing the ESV Bible.
In 2010 I submitted to the committee chairmen of the NIV and ESV revision committees research documenting the use of this verb around the time of Paul to mean “to assume authority that one does not rightfully have.” It showed that the first clear instance of authentein meaning “to exercise authority” was from ca. AD 370 in Saint Basil. Doug Moo, the chairman of the NIV revision committee, provided my research to the committee for consideration and discussion. I still remember the day Dr. Moo phoned me to say, “The NIV revision committee has chosen to adopt your recommended translation, ‘to assume authority,’ which replaced the former NIV translation ‘to have authority.’” This is a refreshing example of a leading “complementarian” not only considering evidence provided by an egalitarian, but giving that evidence to the committee with the authority to change the NIV text. The fact that the committee, which included many other “complementarians,” adopted the change shows how powerful the evidence is for that change. In contrast, the ESV revision committee chairman did not even let his committee see my recommended changes.
Payne, Philip Barton. The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood (pp. 144-145). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Wayne Grudem and C.J. Mahaney
The comment below is a screenshot from SGM Survivors. This website has since closed down. (There’s a story behind that, but I will leave it for another day.)
Below is a screenshot of some endorsements for the ESV Bible.
This feels unfinished. The author never got back to the podcast episode that the post began with.
The problem is, of course, that the people who need to hear this sort of thing are not about to listen.
I would recommend Carroll’s Wolf in the Sheepfold, about the bible as a problem for Christianity. The main one of course being that it is a text which requires work to understand it and many readers aren’t prepared to do the work.
Even without doing the work the amount of selective reading that goes on is unforgivable. Nobody listening to most Christians would have no idea that the New Testament says that Christian values should not be imposed on outsiders and church leaders should actually be approved by outsiders.
Sigh.
My comment is maybe a little off our essential point (I get that you disagree with the stance of these folks), but it strikes me that the guy in the last video describes a particular, culturally conditioned form of ‘worship’ as if it were a given. In my church the musicians do not really do any of the things he sees as ‘leading’ when we sing, nor do the pastors. I imagine the same is true in many other churches and places around the world. If he is true to his reasoning, I don’t think he should have a problem with both women and men playing and singing in a Christian gathering, where the extra bits which he argues Scripture speaks to are not present. The question then might be whether those extra bits are really that useful in any case, or whether we can get away from the particular form to which ‘worship’ is too often limited in the minds of many these days.
It’s not the point of this article, but for the curious, podcast co-host David Zimmer is a professional drummer from L.A. His bio is at https://davidzimmerdrum.tumblr.com/Bio
David was the drummer for John MacArthur’s Resolved conference, which CJ Mahaney and Al Mohler spoke at, then Bob Kauflin brought him to Maryland to play drums on The Gathering live worship CD in 2011 (which I helped record) and teach breakout sessions at WorshipGod conferences. Bob and David have continued working together on worship music and teaching since then.
What is the purpose of including the quote about the book of Mormon near the beginning of the article today?
Thanks for the information, David. You are the “go to man” on Sovereign Grace history.
I notice the Wayne Grudem is listed as a member of the ESV translation oversight committee, while the article list Douglas Moo as part of the NIV team.
I had the privilege of taking classes from both these men while I was at Trinity. Both were kind and humble, and good teachers. Both taught in the New Testament department. But Dr. Moo was definitely more regarded as the expert on translation and exegesis. Dr. Grudem focused more on issues related to theology and the New Testament. I would certainly not expect him to be on a translation oversight committee. In fact, out of the ESV translation oversight committee, I only see Drs. Wenham and Mounce as someone I would buy a commentary from if I wanted exegesis.
To all the women reading this:
Would you rather be a woman or a Biblical Vision on Womahood?
This sounds like the Khmer Rouge’s abstract vision of “The People” which trumped what they did to actual people.
And as the next excerpt points out, what is the difference between “Finding an Echo in a Redeemed Heart” and the “Burning in the Bosom” of Mormon conversion experience testimonies?
He’s got an uphill fight against “GOD Said It, I Believe It, THAT SETTLES IT!”
Which degrees and studies alone are enough to knock him out of the fight.
“Vain Imagnings of MEN or WORD! OF! GAWD!”
According to the original Internet Monk, the ultimate compliment you could say of a preacher in his part of Kentucky was “He Has NO Book-Larnin, and HE! IS! LOUD!”
P.S. Apparently the ESV has become the new KJV or KJV1611, i.e. the ONLY Word-for-Word original direct from God’s lips. (i.e. Just like the Koran.)
Dave LIndsay,
I thought it was an interesting quote. Mormons often focus on this point. Did it occur to you that he sounds like he could be a member of a Sovereign Grace church?
Daniel Jepsen,
Thanks for the comment Daniel. BTW, I like your aeronautical charts! (JK)
Dave LIndsay,
To show that Purswell’s “the biblical vision of manhood and womanhood in a redeemed heart finds an echo” is eerily similar to the Mormon claim that Elder Gonzalez made – “A feeling of such overwhelming happiness filled me that I knew in my heart that the Book of Mormon was more than just a book.”
Mormon missionaries make claims similar to what Gonzalez is quoted as saying when going door to door and speaking with someone who has doubts about their claims. I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is more than just a book, nor do I believe the statement by Purswell. He needs a better defense of his position than he thinks “the biblical vision of manhood and womanhood in a redeemed heart finds an echo.”
BTW, did you notice the oohs and aws by Kauflin and Zimmer when reacting to Purswell’s statement? This is how you stay in the inner circle. Never question anything the higher ranking guy says. This is also why I could never survive in this culture. I would have questioned Purswell’s statement openly on the podcast. I would say, gee Jeff, that sounds exactly like what the Mormons say when speaking of the truth of their Book of Mormon. I guess that’s why John Folmar called me “edgy.”
Thanks for your comment, John. I will purchase the book. It sounds interesting.
Jesus didn’t survive the inner circle religious culture of his day. He was executed.
The inner circle religious leaders executed the Son of God. That’s how far from God they were – the inner circle religious leaders.
Walking and living close to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, apparently is a far cry from being in step with the inner circle of the church’s religious leadership.
Thanks for your comment, Mick. To be fair, Purswell actually did say words similar to your thoughts. He (and Sovereign Grace Churches) would not have a problem with a woman singing or playing the piano. As I understand it his problem is when the worship leader shares Scripture and comments on it, or does anything remotely close to “teaching.”
Based on “fair usage” I can’t reproduce the entire video, but I would encourage you to listen to the complete podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sywFr8KHGMQ
Thanks for your comment, Amy. You’re right, I could have done a better job on that.
Would you rather be a woman or a Biblical Vision on Womahood?
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Did really mean to ask would I rather be a woman or a figment of the imaginations of a bunch of misogynists with inferiority complexes?
If these guys really believe the Bible, somebody needs to tell these jokers that Hulda, Deborah, and Jael were not fictional characters. Their biblical visions of womanhood is nothing more than wishful thinking that they constantly work to force women to believe. It grieves me to know how many people buy into that.
According to the original Internet Monk, the ultimate compliment you could say of a preacher in his part of Kentucky was “He Has NO Book-Larnin, and HE! IS! LOUD!”
Native Kentuckian here. Most churches would rather have pastors with some education beyond a HS diploma, but yeah, I remember those days……… fire and brimstone, brother (and usually quite a bit of spit mixed in) ! Nobody fell asleep during the sermons, and not too many were brave enough to sit on the front pew!
There still a handful of those loud preachers left in the extreme fundy circles over around the Mammoth cave area. (These guys don’t let people bring Bibles into church, and they don’t let women through the doors without their heads covered. They keep spare scarves and kerchiefs at the ready.)
You should listen to Mike Winger’s series on women in ministry. He interacts heavily with Payne’s arguments in good faith and, quite frankly, destroys them.
Dave LIndsay,
Specifically, where the guy says the Biblical vision in the redeemed heart finds an echo—finds an echo meaning there’s a rightness to it.
It’s not just uppity wimmenfolk they don’t want leading worship — uppity menfolk also need not apply. You gots to have an authoritative pastor since it’s a “leader”. As the coloring book said “We are united under the visionary”
Bigger questions they don’t ask include
Does the worship leader need to be human?
Do we need any worship leaders at all?
I can attempt to answer these myself if anyone likes…. They came for the uppity wimmenfolk and I said nothing, because I was not an…
Haha, Jeppesen charts briefly went through my mind also.
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
It’s also striking how close to Islam these guys are.
I can’t be the only one who sees this.
I’m bettin’ that Both Grudem and Mahaney could manufacture quite the tap-dance around those vignettes with the effect of making them just Hebrew Bible curiosities if not also null and void for today’s Christian experience.
I think Mormons refer to this as “The Burning in the Bosom”.
Just finished reading Payne’s book—or actually listening to it on Audible. Some powerful arguments. The response, or non-response, from the ESV crowd is not surprising. No experience with Kentucky preachers, but Payne’s credentials and credibility are pretty impressive. I need to get the book or kindle version to follow all his footnotes and textual explanations more clearly, but his main point: women and men are equal in Christ, in the church, in marriage, is fresh air to me after far too many years in the stifling confines of “biblical “womanhood.
Like “WOW DADDY, WOW…” about the Pious Piper’s word salad?
Or the human bobblehead over at the Elijah’s List split-screen who keeps bobbling his head and repeating “Wow… Wow… Praise God… Wow..” like am MP3 loop no matter what the Prophet of Gawd on the other side of the split-screen says, no matter how Crazy?
YES !!! And how far from the Christ Who told Mary Magdalene to ‘go’ and ‘tell’ the boyz about the Resurrection!
Misogyny shows up in all religions, sadly, as a ‘result of the Fall’ . . . a sign of how wounded mankind has turned away from recognizing the dignity of ALL human persons because they are made in the image of God. Patriarchy is a rot on humanity, part of the ‘curse’. It certainly wasn’t ‘ordained’ by God, and no sign of it in the mission of Our Lord when He was here among us on Earth.
And Beth Allison Barr pokes holes in Mike Winger’s argument.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2022/12/the-next-generation-of-complementarianism-a-response-to-mike-winger/
Jeff T.,
There are always people who have different points of view within orthoox Christianity., I could post back and forth all day long.
On 1 Corinthians 14, the Botes in the NET Bible say this – “ tc Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5, ” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vg Ambst) have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no mss that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus)—because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34-5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213-20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the autographic text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35, ” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217-36.). There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.”
Mr P Barton Payne should have paid more attention to what his late father (John Barton Payne) wrote – “ Another corollary of the older testament is that of the social rights of women. For in the God of the testament there is not only “neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free,” but also “neither male or female” (Gal. 3:28). In the theocracy of Israel women had, in fact, a position of equality before God which was unique in the cultural patterns of the ancient Near East. Women held every office in Hebrew society: prophetess (II Kings 22:14; Neh, 6:14), judge (Judg. 4:4), and even queen (though a wicked usurper, IJ Kings 11:3). Only the priesthood had no feminine representative, perhaps because of the physical exertions required in the services (cf. “heave” offerings, Ex. 29:27!). Sex is right (Gen. 1:28; 2:18; cf. Prov. 12:4; 19:14; Gen. 38:9, 10). Marriage is thus the oldest and most important social relationship (Gen. 2:24), and children are one of God’s greatest gifts (4:1, 25; 25:21; cf. Ps. 127:3). Proverbs 31:10-31 cannot say enough in praise of the virtuous woman; indeed, it was through the seed of woman that the testamental deliverance of mankind was finally to come (Gen. 3:15). Women were equally responsible for obedience to the law (Deut. 31:12; Neh. 8:2). The one stressed exception is that a woman’s husband might cancel the wife’s vow (Num. 30:6-8). This, however, appears to have been enacted because the welfare of the family as a whole might be involved; cf. similar regulations relative to daughters prior to the time of their marriage. Only the males among the Hebrews were required to attend the three annual feasts (Ex. 23:17), but this specification seems to have been a humane concession due to childbirth and to the woman’s responsibility for the children (cf. I Sam. 1:22). She possessed full rights of participation when she could attend. Her restriction to a separate, lower “court of the women” was an intertestamental and un-Biblical innovation that developed out of corrupted Judaism. P229 The Theology of the Older Testament
Modern evangelicalism is based upon the affirmation of the reality of God’s special intervention in human history, that is, of the genuineness of the miraculous, climaxing in the supernatural life of Christ. Consistent, then, with the possibility of a supernaturalistic revelation, with the positive claims of Christ, and with the uniform assertion of Scripture, evangelicalism accepts the Bible as God-given and as true. The evangelical depends basically upon the mind of Christ, and not upon minor historical corroborations, for his belief in the truth of Scripture; but he naturally rejoices in historical confirmations of the facts of Scripture, as congruous with his overall faith, when such may appear. Whatever may have been said about “the uneasy conscience of modern fundamentalism” regarding social ethics, the evangelical has an easy conscience, based upon a well integrated approach of logical consistency, regarding Biblical historicity.”
TGC reviewed (by Thomas Schreiner another ofP Barton Payne’s book on the same subject way back in 2011 and essentially came to the same conclusion as Jeff T above (but were much more civil about it).
Botes = Notes
Blargh. Mike Winger doesn’t have the educational background of Payne, and it is part of the ideology of Calvary Chapel that women are not to be in positions of authority. Winger is not about to bite the hand that feeds him.
Also, I don’t know about you, but I don’t live in a world where every woman was the property of some man somewhere (the Graeco-Roman world) and a significant percentage of ALL people were held in chattel slavery. Maybe if we read the biblical texts within the context of their time, instead of trying to read them into our time, we might gain better understanding.
Maybe if people didn’t treat the Bible like it was the third person of the Trinity. Yeah.
Lowlandseer,
Um. That’s a wall of text that would do a verbose judge proud. It’d do better broken up into paragraphs. And if the guy wrote it that way…yikes.
Does that book, anywhere within it, talk about the position of women in society at the time? How our status was that of male property? I imagine not, because the way of male Evangelical Biblical scholars is to ignore women until it comes time to tell us to shut up. But you can’t read those texts without keeping in front of you the status of women.
I am not property. I am a human being, beloved of God.
I thought it was a skillful invitation to the reader to recognize that “subjective reaction is not a reliable measure of the truth of something”. Of course, to the subject it can feel utterly compelling.
We mustn’t allow our consciences to be bound by other people’s feelings (nor, it follows, should we expect others’ consciences to be bound by ours). Truth ought to be public; let it be argued there.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
Nowhere is it suggested that women are “property”, certainly not from Scripture or from the NET notes or from the quote from J Barton Payne whose books I’ve read and appreciate for their clarity.
P Barton Payne’s work, on the other hand, obfuscate as this other article shows.
– https://knowingscripture.com/articles/book-review-man-and-woman-one-in-christ-payne
He really does (need a better defense), because in a roundabout way, he’s also saying that if you (generic you) don’t agree with my ‘Biblical vision’, you probably don’t have a redeemed heart.
These guys are as obsessed with Paul as the Hassidim (ultra-orthodox Jews) are with Torah.
That’s a good question. My church doesn’t have “worship leaders” of the sort under discussion. We have a choir.
Cynthia W.,
I’d rush right over to a church with a cat choir.
“You obviously do not have a Rational Mind. If you had a Rational Mind, you would agree compeletely with Me.”
— Ayn Rand, (self-described as “The Only Rational Mind That Has Ever Existed”)
Or the Taliban (More Islamic than Mohammed) with Koran and Hadith.
It is also part of the Ideology of Calvary Chapel to distill down and concentrate all the things that can go wrong with Christians. And when Christianity goes sour, it curdles into something closely resembling Wahabi Islam in attitude.
It would certainly be worth hearing, once.
“We will protect our unity in supporting his (Pastor Steven’s) vision.”
The Visionary Pastor Steven may seem off topic, but aren’t he and Apostle CJ in the same denomination now?
That’s good!! I votes for botes – I mean bots…. The time is coming, and now is, when AI can do a better job than 98.6% of human worship leaders — and way more efficiently. Why not a bot?
Same here.
Where is Max??
Jeffrey J Chalmers,
I’ve been wondering about him, too……..
And besides, what’s a Worship Leader these days except a Wanna-be Rock Star?
And what’s Worship(TM) these days except a third-rate high-budget imitation of a Rave?
Paul wrote (or dictated) parenthetically and didn’t state analytical relations between the fragments he expressed. If we have been allowed genuine Holy Spirit gifts we’ll see sense. That’s a dwindling component of us old folks, already stolen from by the worst efforts of false “bible christians” since our young day.
The only worship of God is to not stunt the growth of our fellow adopted orphans and widows in Father’s firm (last 21 verses of Proverbs, and most parables). The only praise of God is to show we know He is the one to go shopping from (for all needs) without price.
Bad churches entrenched a totally unscriptural embodiment in place of worship by sermons intoned with eyes closed to the accompaniment of deafening instruments.
Proper churches have a simple instrument plus a decent singer solidifying the effect when the whole congregation happen to sing a hymn. The entire service time was described as “worship”.
(Another telltale: always keep your eyes open the whole time at church.)
The fundies / theodudes / new apostolics / dominionists adore it when you say it’s a matter of letting women in on men’s gigs (what they wanted you to say).
Perhaps most church professional paid entitled positions (in lieu of people GIFTED, nonsalaried, by the Holy Spirit) are actually wanabes in their little controlled environment cult industrial complex systems.
Influencers
Motivational speakers
Holyland and other “Bible” tours
Book tours
TED talkers
TV stars
Hollywood celebrities
Vegas casino wannabes in Branson and local churches
Talk show hosts a la PTL, 700 Club
Rockstars
God told Abraham to separate but not imitate.
But these folks in our time are “Let’s do money, fame, and fun God’s way!” as they plunge into the toxic soup of power, vice, and money. The victorious Christian life.
He took a break from the blogosphere.
“Worship Leaders”? Let’s face it. There would be no Sovereign Grace if it were not for Sovereign Grace Music. There would be no Hillsong if it were not for Hillsong Music. There would be no mega-church in America if it were not for skilled praise and worship teams attracting the masses. The preaching and teaching coming from such places ain’t all that … so the music must draw them in.
The New Testament model for doing church puts Jesus at the center, not worship leaders. Oh, they will tell you it’s all about Jesus … but the fans in the pew in their heart of hearts come for the songs, an attractive praise team gyrating to the melody, the beat of loud drums, the piercing whine of electric guitars, laser lights … yep, it’s all about big screens, fog machines, and skinny jeans … Jesus is seldom in the mix.
Max,
So glad you are back. I sent you an email. I’m sorry to disturb your break. Everyone likes you, and lots of people were worried. You are the best!
Max–glad you are back, and your response is spot on!
These productions taking place on Sunday mornings are shows, not worship.
Worship is free, can be done alone or with others, and is centered on Jesus. His are the only visions that count. He is the only leader we need, and is our Great High Priest.
Run from counterfeits.
dee,
🙂
“Oh, God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe say, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No”, Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe
But the next time you see me comin’, you better run”
Well, Abe said, “Where you want this killin’ done?”
God said, “Out on Highway 61”
Bob Dylan -1965-
Skilled? The EIC are the original inventors of skills shortage!
Headless Unicorn Guy,
HUG, I greatly value your succinct and penetrating portrayals of the situation around us.
“High budget” is an especially astute plunge and twist. What spiritual cost to the poor.
Hulda Who?
This will be your occasional reminder that some churches still have an old-timey choir, organist, pianist, hymns, and so on.
Michael in UK,
Oops. I left off the h…… Huldah, the prophetess in Chronicles 2.
Max!
Glad you’re back, we missed you!
Friend,
Love this.
Kinda wonder what? they are worshipping. Or, who?
Begs the question.
… where the Great God Entertainment sits on the throne
Max,
It’s good seeing you back Max!
Muff Potter,
Hey Muff! During my “sabbatical”, I made a new crappie rod … getting ready for fall fishing.
Max,
I hope you wrote a book during your sabbatical, so we can all buy 100 copies at list price! 😉
Friend,
Hmmm … perhaps I should compile all my TWW comments over the years and put them in a book! Wartburgers would have forgotten most of them by now. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbtkhB3cFGs
Max,
You mean the ones about skinny jeans and fog machines . . . I wonder how River church are getting on . . .
https://riverchurchipswich.org/
Nope, still got their deus ex machina golden buzzer “HTB Plant” machine going. Was it unkind of me to not tip them off?
I don’t think it’s me that’s taking the p***, it’s them.
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
So did I! Same difference to the point! 😉
Headless Unicorn Guy,
“fake a weird accent
(with the words on a screen so I don’t forget)”
That singer looked (as part of the light hearted trope) like he wasn’t having any better “fun” than we did on Sundays.
My old chief elder’s only quote on Wesley which he used to bring in at random moments was about “strangely warmed”.
Don’t forget “big screens” like the one on the church link you provided. They use those to project song lyrics for pewsitters who can’t remember songs with only 7 words, repeated over and over 11 times (known as 7-11 songs in contemporary worship).
I listen to worship songs on playlists, and sometimes the algorithm plays ones I find annoying and troubling musically— not just the lyrics. When I check who they’re by, it’s always by Hillsong, Sovereign Grace, Bethel, Elevation, Passion etc. It’s hard to wrap my ears around what bothers me so much. Part, I think is the very few chords held much longer instead of “progressing”. It may be just that they’re all imitating each other in a trend or fad. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s something sinister going on— maybe even end times sinister. I’m going next to the worship leaders research site and see if they have done anything along this line, or a contact form to ask them to…
While I haven’t personally researched it, I’ve read that some students of Scripture point to a passage in Ezekiel which seems to indicate that Satan was a worship leader in heaven before his fall.
Well, here’s the deal as I see it … Jesus didn’t say that His Church was to be a House of Entertainment, a House of Celebrities, a House of Pet Theology, or even a House of ‘Praise & Worship’ … Jesus said “My house shall be called a House of Prayer” (Matthew 21:13).
Trying to locate a church prayer meeting (a real one) in my area is like looking for a needle in a haystack, a rare & endangered species, a precious treasure buried in a field. The American church will never get back on track again until it prays … and Lord knows, we have a lot to pray about!
That wold be the most likely.
Christians are very prone to fads.
This could also be forming a cartel to freeze out any competition – in business, Monopolies have returned with a vengeance since the Reagan-era Deregulation. Why should these businesses be any different, other than they call themselves churches” and slather on the God-talk?