Cheryl Schatz

Lin,
You asked:

Mark, this leads me to believe you think the issue of women teaching men as a salvic issue?

That is exactly the way his comments come across to me too. I hope that Mark takes the time to answer this question.

gengwall,

The assumption is that the women gifted to teach or preach are truely gifted. The bone of contention is the fact that some in the church try to discredit or diminish that true gift. Do you believe that no woman ever has or will receive the true gift of teaching or preaching?

Good questions!

Lin,

I disagree with your premise that ’someone’ should ‘lead’ or ‘run’ the Body of Christ. We tend to leave out the Holy Spirit. Godly Overseers are going to look like Matthew 5.

I fully agree with your comment to Mark. Godly Overseers will serve the body, not take their authority over the body.

But what is ignored the most by non egals is the fact that there is no law prohibiting women from teaching or leading men in the OT. But they want us to believe that the Word is more prohibitive toward women after the Cross when it comes to proclaiming the Word to anyone reqardless of sexual organs. (No offense, but that is how silly it really is. In Christ, there is no male or female)

This is something that I have not yet seen adequately answered. Why no “law” in the OT that held women back to a non-teaching “role” towards men?

Mabel,

Do you think that ” true gift ” = in a man, it is true, and
“false gift” = if in a woman, it is false?

Great question! I think that this is one of the bottom line issues. Are the gifts color coded so that some gifts are reserved for men? The fact is that Jesus decides whom He gifts and if He doesn’t want women gifted then He doesn’t gift them this way. If He gifts, then who are we to refuse His gifts? Don’t people realize that when we refuse His gifts coming from His women sons that we are in essence refusing Him?

The second thing is that Scripture never gives us any indication that there would be gifts for women only or for men only. If men can be gifted in all areas, then there cannot be women only or men only gifts. I believe that we need to accept and embrace God’s gifts and give Him the glory for those gifts. If we deny His work in female vessels then we are grieving His Holy Spirit.

Churches in Hong Kong and China are thriving, and women pastors is a non-issue.

Amen! When there is persecution, Christian more readily understand how much we need each other and they are more grateful then we are here in North America where we feel that we can pick and choose what we accept from God.

Mark,
You said:

Cheryl, you said that false teachers were not believers and i agree, however it is not always evident to tell the difference. For example we are having a discussion over the woman issue. Now one side of the camp is in error and teaching ‘false’ doctrine about this issue, so one must be wrong and repent of their sin.

Mark, there is a huge difference between believing something wrong about secondary issues of faith and believing and teaching error on the essentials of the faith. Teaching an error about a secondary doctrine does not make one a false teacher. False teachers are not our brothers and sisters in Christ. So the question has to be, do you see us as your sisters in Christ? If you don’t then you will need to explain how secondary issues of faith became essentials for the faith. If you do accept us as sisters in Christ, then we cannot be false teachers and issues where disagreement is allowed are not to be areas where we judge each other. If you sincerely believe that women are not to teach the Bible to men, then I can only ask God to convict your heart of the truth. I do not judge you as a sinner who needs to repent. I would remind you that your duty is to love your sisters in Christ and allow them to be servants of Christ under His Lordship.

Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

If the Scripture never says that a woman serving in her gifts is in sin, then who are we to judge that she is in sin? It is better to remain silent and follow your own conscience than to judge another’s servant in error.

Therefore to say that comps are restricting women is as good as saying they are teaching false doctrine in my view, which i think is fine. We need to be passionate about the word, but make sure we teach it right.

It is error for sure, but doesn’t fall under the Scriptural definition for “false” doctrine which is outside of orthodoxy.

I also agree that the prophetic word was judged on what came out of the mouth, not if it came true.

Actually a prophet was judged on two things. The first thing was on whether his/her prophecies were true. If they did not come true, then they were to be stoned. However even if their prophesies came true, they would still be considered false prophets if the encouraged people to follow other gods.

Deu 13:1 “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,
Deu 13:2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’
Deu 13:3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

I do not believe that the test of a prophet has changed from the OT to the NT. The “fruits” of a false prophet are false prophecies and/or encouraging the people to follow after gods and other ways to God.

Now if i am saying that women should not be elders/pastors and i am wrong i am teaching false doctrine.

It is “error” not “false” doctrine that is outside the faith.

Likewise if Cheryl continues to promote her view of equality and is wrong she is teaching false doctrine.These are very serious issues of which why i quoted our Lord Jesus above-

It is a very serious thing to judge a secondary issue of faith as a “false” doctrine because judging in this way is divisive. The scripture that you quoted is about unbelievers being thrown into hell. Do you honestly and truly believe that teaching correct Biblical doctrine to men will get one thrown into hell?

It seems to me that these people had ‘fruit’ in their ministry yet it was not God’s. Therefore i think it is vital to a discussion like this to distinguish between a true gift and a false one, and definaterly not by a book which determines the gift.

No, my friend, the distinguishing that you are doing is between a believer and a non-believer. A Christian cannot have demonic gifts just as a good tree cannot bear bad fruit.

I wonder if you have any Scriptures that you would like to share with us about divisive behavior in the body of Christ? That might be more appropriate than to accuse us women of being unbelievers.

Also i am a bit confused why egals think that because Jesus appeared to ‘women’ it is concrete proof that they should lead and run churches.

Mark, I think you have simplified this and left something out. It wasn’t just that Jesus appeared to women, but that he commanded them to preach the good news to his brothers. The point is that Jesus was the one who commanded women to preach the good news in the first place. Should Jesus’ disciples now silence God’s women?

Dave,

Ephesians 4:7-14 also suggests this (if I am reading it right) as Christ has given the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers to build the body of Christ – not so some lucky chump could say “Hey I got the teaching gift…yeah!”. The reason the gifts are given is not for the individual, but for the body.

This is also what I believe. This is why I don’t believe that the gifts were only for a time period (with an expiry date!). The church needs the gifts of all members of the body of Christ. I need the gifts given to me by those who care to grow me in the faith. We are in a difficult time when the church is under a lot of attack and the enemy would like to steal, kill and destroy. There has never been a better time for the edification of the church.

Mark Baker-Wright,
I too can respect a complementarian who seeks to uphold the Bible as a basis for their conscience, but I don’t think that it is godly to stop women from teaching. I wrote an article about what a godly complementarian can do to produce peace between the two “camps”. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/03/17/godly-complementarians-and-elvis-has-left-the-building/

Mara,
I don’t mind people addressing things that I choose not to address. There is a lot of freedom on this blog unless I put my foot down and I rarely do. I did once, I think, when I insisted that a person give the scriptural basis for their view or stop commenting. They stop commenting.

Mark,
A false teacher and a false prophet are unbelievers. If we are true believers then the issue of our gifts will never bring us to the point of being thrown out of the kingdom. When I talk about women’s teaching and where it is allowed, I always make a point to say that I am referring to godly women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. The issue of false teaching and false teachers is not applicable to the discussion since this is an issue of exposing the errors and bringing a person to faith in Christ, not an issue of gender.

mentanna,
Thanks for your comments and welcome to my blog! It is an amazing thing to me how men use the “spiritual gift” inventory to identify a gift and then turn around and start limiting the gift. They aren’t following scripture when they do this.

Hi John and welcome to my blog!

My view is that the “authority” that a member of the body has, is limited. We each have authority to use our gifts and we should use them for the glory of God. But we do not have authority to force anyone to listen or to take authority over any one. The heart beat of the church as an organism is body ministry and the flow of love that transfers our gifts for the benefit of others. The gifts are not for our benefit but for others. If anyone thinks that just because he/she is gifted that they can use that authority (the authority of giving the gift) to force or pressure or whip the body to benefit themselves, they are seriously in error.

Thanks for your thoughts and I hope you stick around!

Dave,
I for one didn’t see that your answer was negative or sarcastic. In fact I just saw you holding up a mirror for good reflection purposes. I thought that it was quite brilliant actually.

K Liebens,
Welcome to my blog. I welcome you to contribute at the current location of this discussion http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/11/12/mark-head-as-authority/

You said:

A patriarchal hierarchy is something intrinsic to our fundamental design. This was present before the fall of man, was modified following the fall and will be retained following resurrection. The intriguing property of this spiritual principle is that, the more one rejects or undermines it, the more mentally, physically and spiritually defiled one becomes. The more one affirms and amplifies this model, the more glorious the soul becomes; the more influential, wise and authoritative the man, the more beautiful, graceful and elegant the woman.

The current discussion that I linked for you shows that there is no such “patriarchal hierarchy” in the fall of man. One cannot state that it is there without a shred of proof. There is also no evidence that if one rejects the patriarchal model that one becomes spiritually defiled. This is a very unwise thing to claim. In fact the following claim of yours is a great cause for concern that your own position leads to a dismissal of the inspired text.

You said:
The examples of Deborah, Jael and one or two of the other prophetesses are also worthy of mention out of interest. These examples are prevalent in biblical prose representative of an era where there was an established distortion of gender roles within a society captivated by generalised disobedience and evil. The scripture here reads clearly as history, not as commentary. Therefore, it not only establishes positive character examples for us to follow, but it also sets negative examples for us to avoid, and in many situations, characters with a mix of both. The passage “praising” Jael is written by Deborah, interestingly enough.

It was God Himself who raised up the Judges including Deborah.

Judges 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.

God never gave Deborah as a negative example for Israel. In fact He blessed her and used her mightily. The words “praising” Jael were inspired by God and thus written by Him.

Hi lmb,

I will pass this question on to Stan and if he responds I will post it here. Thanks for asking!

Ted,
Welcome to my blog! When questions are deemed sinful and there is an attitude of blind conformity, there is a cult-like attitude going on. These are signs of real red flags to me to watch out.

Lin,
That is such a sad story and it is a shame to the church. Sometimes I really wonder why God allows these men such control in His church. I guess we just do not always see His wisdom and why He is being so long-suffering to those whom we would probably give a shoulder check to if we could. But God is Sovereign and He will call people to account one day. At the very least, many of those who are first today will be last in eternity.

Kay, worried?

Nah! I really love the people who visit my blog and I have learned a lot from them!

Oops, Kay it looks like you and I were posting the same ideas. Great minds think alike? 8)

The problem of having an eternal father/son hierarchy based on earthy fathers and sons is that on earth the sons grow up and have their own individual will not having to be under the will of their fathers for all of their lives. When does the eternal LORD of hosts get to grow up? Why is his eternal “sonship” always and forever have to be under the control and will of another? This would mean that the sons here on earth are in a better position that the eternal “Son” who never has his will or his authority used in the Trinity. That is so far off the mark regarding the original understanding of the Trinity as you can get. The fact is that the all three persons in the Trinity have no disagreements regarding their will or their authority as they are all One in Will and Authority even though as persons they each have a will. IF we separate them by putting one as authority over the others, we are trying to force a time related concept into the eternal. This is not wise nor is it accurate.

Kay said:

Dave wrote: “Mark it seems to me that your view of the Trinity only allows you to see the members seperate in certain situations and then as one in certain other situations. The truth is that they are one in all situations and three in all situations. You said yourself God is unchanging. If so you then need to apply this to His unity and His threeness!”
Well put, Dave!
Mark,
It’s that picking and choosing of situations that non-ESS egals see as a problem…it’s that picking and choosing the ‘who to’ and ‘when to’ apply your ‘men’s roles’ and ‘women’s roles.’

You can never completely separate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or you no longer have the Trinity. And if you cannot do that without spoiling the Godhead, how can you possibly pick and choose such sharply divided ‘roles’ and apply them to people?

Yes, excellent thoughts to both Dave and Kay!

Mark,

The question needs to be asked, does God use them himself to help us understand Him better. Of course he does- Ezekial 16 is a classic example.

God certainly does show his care for us in word pictures, but this is a far cry from any claims that there is a hierarchy within the eternal Godhead. Try finding anyplace in the OT where the LORD God ever commands the LORD of hosts. It isn’t there. The LORD God does not ever take his authority over the other persons in the Trinity. Authority is taken over creation but not over Himself. These are faulty human ways that are this side of the fall and taint our own view of human relations. How much more do these views taint our view of who God is?

If God has given us human analogies to help us, which he has, let’s use them to better understand Him and his word.

But we must not add to the Scriptures things that are not there. Adding a commanding authority removes God from a loving relationship amongst the three to a required obedience that is different than the other wills. There is never any obedience required if their wills are in perfect harmony. How anyone could even think that the LORD God has to command the LORD of hosts in the eternal nature of the Trinity is beyond me.

Frank,

Thanks again for your insightful thoughts. I’m not sure what you mean by all scholars apart from Grudem and Co, but i have found very few, non egalitarian scholars who think that ‘source’ is the common meaning. I think that ‘beginning’ or pre-eminance are probably more common than ‘source’.

Beginning, source and origin are synonyms.

Main Entry: beginning
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: start of an event or action
Synonyms:
alpha, basis, birth, blastoff, commencement, creation, dawn, dawning, day one, genesis, inauguration, inception, induction, infancy, initiation, installation, introduction, kickoff, onset, opener, opening, origin, origination, outset, point of departure, preface, prelude, presentation, rise, root, rudiment, source, spring, square one, starting point, takeoff, threshold, top

Mark,
You asked:

Have you had much to do with the Christadelphian cult? If so, what are some good resources for understanding/ challenging their teaching?

I will send you some information by email. I haven’t dealt with them for awhile as they are pretty scarce up here, but I know that we have information on them. Will have to dig up some information from our database and files. I will get back to you on that one within a couple of days, God willing.

A. Amos love,
Well done!

What is truth is not always popular.
What is popular is not always truth.

That is a great quote!

Thanks Sam for the comment. It is a good question regarding what gender differences (physical sexual differences) would have for their purpose in heaven.

By the way your comment was stuck in my spam box as there appeared to be a typo in your email address and the software assumed you were someone new.

Frank,
Very good point! Yes, you are right in that we are all called to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Christ and His body.

Bethany welcome to my blog!

As Christians I think that we can all express a strong disagreement without going to the place of hatred. I don’t think that anyone here is hating John Piper. Most don’t even know him. Piper is also not the only one who gives out this kind of advice. He may be just the tip of the ice burg. I don’t think that it is an issue of forgiveness, but a place where we can influence these men to change.

I am wondering how you would go about changing Piper’s advice to remain in a physically abusive situation?

Jay, welcome to my blog.

I think you mean 1 Cor. 14 and yes I do believe that Paul wrote Corinthians and 1 & 2 Timothy. You will find the answers to these verses here on my blog and also on my DVD set. We don’t believe in cherry-picking verses as context, context, context is key.

As far as women covering their heads, Paul gave them permission to cover because the strong cultural mandate to cover would have brought severe repercussions to some who may have had non-Christian husbands. However the normal and natural Christian position was no headcoverings which can be clearly seen in 1 Timothy 2:9 where the women’s hair were uncovered and their elaborate braids were seen. Paul did not tell them to cover their hair but to show off their godly character through their good works rather than through expensive jewelery, elaborate hair styles and costly garments. There is no doubt that the women in Ephesus did not wear head coverings.

Thanks, Thy Peace for the head’s up to Wade’s article!

Lin,
I believe that God changed the woman’s conception after the fall so who knows what the original plan really looked like. Another question that we can ask God when we get to Heaven.

int3grity,

Those that teach that there is a “different function” of the members of the Trinity explain it by defining the Father’s authority as the superior authority became to a lesser authority/will etc for the Son.

Because God’s “function” and his nature are so tied together, there cannot be superior function without touching the other person’s nature. i.e. If the Father alone has a superior authority, then the Son and the Holy Spirit have a less than superior authority which means that compared to the Father’s authority, the Son’s authority is less than or inferior. Since function (authority) is part of God’s nature, it is a serious matter to state that only one person alone has a superiority of this function.