Lin,
These verses gives me great comfort:

Mat 5:10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Mat 5:12 “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

1 Peter 2:19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.
1 Peter 2:20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
1 Peter 2:21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

It has taken me quite awhile to come to peace with the suffering that I have endured especially over the issue of women in ministry. However I have come face to face with the issue of suffering as a joyful thing because there are great rewards from God for patiently enduring, not fighting back but keeping focused on the goal and never, ever turning back.

James 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,
James 1:3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.

I know that not everyone will have come through the trials as I have but as one who has been called every name in the book I can truly say that after having gone through the trial and having endured I am a stronger person than I ever was. Now instead of looking inward when I am reviled and feeling sorry for myself that my passion for God has been spoken of as an evil thing, I can look outside myself and see Jesus. He traveled this road first. He faced everything I am facing and he never gave up and he didn’t let it get him down. He kept his eyes focused on the goal and he never looked back. He is my example and since I am told in James to “count it all joy” during the persecution, I can look outward and upward and consider it all joy.

I don’t know if that helps or not, but I am joyful today that God has considered me worthy to suffer for His name.

Dave,
How appropriate the singular form of woman in this conversation! Thanks for letting us know that.

I would also request that those who are able to follow Pastor Dave’s blog conference let him know what you think and whether you believe it is helpful and a positive way to work towards unity.

Ken,
I appreciate the gracious way that you are interacting with me.

If I understand you right you are focusing on “marriage” rather than “homosexual”. I think I now understand what you are trying to present, but I would add that “dressing up” the sin of homosexuality with “marriage” does not change the sin. Homosexuality cannot be taken out of the sin category by equating it with fornication. This is because an unlawful sexual act of fornication between a man and a woman becomes lawful when they join themselves in marriage. This is because heterosexual acts are only sinful outside of marriage. However homosexuality is different in that homosexuality is never outside of sin whether one performs a marriage ceremony or not. Homosexuality is still homosexuality and God is the one who condemned it as sinful.

Now look at women’s preaching. Did God condemn godly preaching? No. He did not say that women can preach on the lawn behind the school but they can’t preach in a school gym. He also did not say that women can preach in their home but not in a church auditorium. God made no decree that would make preaching a sin.

The term “weak conscience” is always used in the context of activities that are not condemned as sinful by Christians. Because of the difference between God-condemned sinful activities and activities that are a matter of conscience, I have placed women’s preaching in the latter category because it clearly does not fit in the former category. It is not okay to say that something is sinful unless the Bible says that it is sin or if it is universally forbidden.

As far as the issue of 1 Timothy 2:12 we need to be careful not to go beyond what the passage says in context (verses 11-15). The passage is not about usurping an authority that has been given to men. How do I know that? Because the word used “authenteo” is never even once given to men to “authenteo” other men, women or children. If it is not given to men, then women cannot “usurp” something that men don’t have.

I think the key issue here is the consideration of our sisters in Christ. We ought not to treat them as sinful and condemn them for their God-given gifts. The gifts are the evidence of the calling.

Ken,
I didn’t see your response to Lin while I was writing my response to you. You said:

Homosexual marriage & women teaching/in leadership and authority over men ARE related (although, perhaps not in severity) in the fact that they are both clear examples of people’s unwillingness to follow the clearly stated directives given in God’s Word.

This is simply not true. God’s laws of sin are clearly stated, they are repeated and they are set up to warn us of sin because God loves us so much that He wants to keep us clean before Him. There is no issue with the sin of homosexuality. But where is godly preaching ever listed as a sin? Please show me the “clearly stated directives” that list preaching as a sin? If you cannot do so, then why would you link godly preaching to a sin that is so abhorrent to God that those who practice these things will not inherit eternal life? If we were to link men teaching the bible to children as equal to the sin of adultery, would that offend you? It would certainly offend me. It would be far better to connect this to the differences between those who regard one day above another.

Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

The Bible says about these kinds of issues that “each person” must be fully convinced in his own mind. These are not issues of sin but of personal conscience and freedom in Christ to serve the body.

Ken,
Thanks for your comments and trying to correct me. I do not believe that the Scriptures say anything other than I am saying, but I always am open to correction should I be wrong. I differ with you about what the Scriptures say because it is a serious issue to state that someone is sin without a Biblical backing. I completely agree with you that homosexuality is sinful. The Bible is clear on that. But can we find in the Scripture that it is wrong for a woman to preach the truth of God’s word? No. Preaching is not listed as a sin.

I also wrote that a man has a weak conscience if he believes that it is sinful to listen to a woman preach. Not only is there no list of sin that would make preaching a sinful act for a woman, but there is nothing in the Scripture that would list a man listening to the truthful preaching of God’s word as a sin either. So if these men felt that listening to a woman preach was sinful they should have left because it is their weak conscience and not a Scriptural injunction. At least we both agree that what they did was rude and inappropriate. I am very glad for your agreement.

You also appear to agree with me that it is not sinful for a man to listen to a woman preach the truth of God’s word. You said that if you were there you would not have left depending on what she said. By your words it is apparent that you believe she was preaching the truth of God’s word and you would have left only if the words she was saying were in appropriate words of error. So it isn’t the fact that she is a woman preaching that is inappropriate, but only if she is teaching error. I can heartily agree with this.

Here is the issue that I have with the men who were at the service where Anne preached. Since preaching the truth of God’s word is never in any list of sin, then it must have been the audience that she was preaching to that caused them to react. Since she is allowed to preach, the men who constituted the illegal audience should have graciously removed themselves to allow her to continue her godly preaching. Those ones who would leave because of their conscience have a weak conscience since the Scripture does not list a man listening to a woman as being in sin. Does it make sense now why I said they had a weak conscience?

The issue then is if a woman is allowed to exercise her gift with the authority of the Giver of that gift?

1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1 Peter 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

I believe that the authority of the Giver of the gifts overrides the weak conscience of those who have not yet been enlightened to the work of the Holy Spirit through women. If I am wrong, then show me from the Scriptures where men are instructed to walk out of a Bible study where a woman is sharing her God-given gifts.

I do share Lin’s concern that the gifts of the Holy Spirit would be likened to the sinful act of homosexuality. This is something that is very common with complementarians but it is offensive to those of us who desire to serve God fully by the authority of 1 Peter 4:10, 11.

I hope that I have answered clearly and respectfully so that you understand my concerns.

Waneta Dawn,
Welcome to my blog! You have brought up some very good points.

What wife has hard time submitting to a husband who is laying down his life for her–sacrificing himself for her best interests?

This is exactly right. The real “cure” for an unsubmissive wife is to encourage the sacrificial love of her husband. What woman can resist a man who gives up himself for her?

I too believe that Piper calling verbal abuse as verbal “unkindness” is renaming a sin to make it less of a sin. And the fact that he encourages women to submit to sin (being smacked for a day) makes it clear (to me at least) that some sin is to be condoned and submitted to while other sin is to be rejected (while the wife is sweetly asking to be “led”). I think that John Piper is out of touch with reality.

My son met him in person within this last year and he said that there was a line up of people who were fawning over Piper telling him how great he was and how they so admired him. I think that Piper has so many people who surround him that think he is godlike and has the answers to everything that he now believes it himself. But his “wonderful” new answer to how a woman can submit through abuse is not good or godly in my opinion. I believe it falls in line with devaluing a woman and her ability to be mature without begging an abusive man to lead her.

Hi Ken,
Thanks for stopping by my blog. I hope you feel very welcome here.

This is how I see it. If a man’s conscience is weak and he believes that it is a sin for him to listen to a woman preach, then he shouldn’t go to a place where a woman is preaching. That would be the respectful way that a man with a weak conscience should act towards his sister in Christ.

There is no doubt that Anne Graham Lotz sees her calling as being from God and nowhere does it say in the scriptures that a woman is not allowed to preach. In my opinion it would be wrong for men to judge the Lord’s servant on her calling. She will stand by the will and the strength of the Lord her Master.

Romans 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.

Hi anoni,
Yes, verbal “unkindness” is the same as verbal “abuse” to John Piper. It is his way of trying to speak in a nice way towards men so that women should seek to submit to them even when they are subjected to verbal abuse (a.k.a. unkindness).

I do wonder if John Piper ever had anyone take a strip off him and he referred to the abuse that was laid on him as verbal “unkindness”. Somehow I don’t think so.

Oh, and welcome to my blog!

Minister Jacky,

Welcome to my blog. I know that you had problems getting your post through because the anti-spam word didn’t work for you. It should be fixed now and I am so glad that you dropped by. This is a very important issue and thanks for your comments.

I deleted your original post that you referred to and the other two that showed up in my spam box I have released from blog purgatory! 😉

Lin,
You are asking lots of hard questions. There just can’t be a definitive answer to your questions without a rule book. That is, a rule book outside the Bible. This is what should raise the red flag that they have a wrong view of these passages. If you can’t figure out the parameters of sin from the Bible, who or what will be our authority to decree what is sin and what isn’t? And do we have a say too or does the charge of sin come from select men alone with biblical precedent?

It is certainly understandable that someone who works with Piper might be upset at criticism. However I noticed that there was no communication about the content of what Piper said. One is just supposed to learn more about Piper. Will that make what he said different? Does he need to make another video to explain that he is misunderstood? I am not sure. The commenter on your blog didn’t explain enough for us to understand if John Piper meant something other than he said. If we are to understand that he is a nice man, I am sure he is nice. But is he wrong in the area of abuse? I think that is the issue not how nice the man is.

Savannah,
I want to thank you for stopping in on my blog today! Your comment is important to note. It seems like those who integrate the male domination theology into their own theology make it so much the focus that it is hard to chew the meat and spit out the bones because everything is built on those bones.

Hannah, welcome!

Those were my thoughts too. Ick!

Pan, I am glad that you came to visit and I hope you feel welcome here.

God has allowed evil in the world but instead of stopping evil (and he would have to get rid of all of us because evil and sin exists in all of us at one time or another) He has chosen to pay the price for our sin so that we can receive freedom from the cycle of sin and death. Freedom is a precious thing and I for one am glad that God didn’t just wipe me off the face of the earth when I failed Him and sinned against Him.

I understand your question about assault and I too don’t understand how some can look the other way because it is the man who has committed evil within his own family. This is unjust to be sure. God’s justice is different in that He has promised that He will bring all to account on a day that He has appointed where He will judge the world through Jesus. Everything will be settled at that time and those who think they are getting away with evil now will be called to account.

Frank,
Good job! There are so many good comments lately. I am hardly needed here anymore 😉

I am on my last week and a half of editing to produce the finished product and so I will try to pop in and comment as I can. But sometimes I think that just letting you good folks go at it has been a bonus because the comments have been outstanding.

Nadine,
I agree that these men would do well to leave the counseling on marital abuse to those who are trained in such things. Piper just doesn’t get it. For him to state that group sex is sin that should be rejected but fail to identify abuse as sinful in the same way, is regrettable.

sm,
The big issue is whether “seems” and “likely” are good enough to warrant a charge of sin. This is a very serious issue and sin is not something to be taken likely. Can you imagine God saying that adultery “seems” like it is a sin or Paul saying that it is “likely” that God doesn’t allow adultery as a “general pattern”? How absurd! Then should we allow patriarchists to speculate about women’s sin? It is my firm opinion that we need to stand up and draw a line in the sand. Sin is not something that “fits” into any kind of “seems to” or “likely” category. God is gracious in his wisdom to make sin clear to us. There is no unclear sound of the trumpet for a battle call against sin. Sin is sin and unclear sin is never ever a part of God’s way of doing business with the human race. God makes sin clear, understandable with punishable. The “sin” of women teaching the bible to men is so far off that standard that it makes me scratch my head to try to understand how we have accepted it as sin for so long.

I just got word from Pastor Dave that my day for my article to appear is September 8th. That means that it will show up on the 7th for us as Australia is a day ahead of us.

This is Monica Dennington a young woman that still seems steeped in the traditions that have been passed on to her. I tried emailing her months ago but she didn’t respond. I don’t think she is interested in any other view other than her own. I am not saying that she is always wrong on what she teaches, but on this subject she would do well to expand her views and listen to others.

I had hoped to get to all the comments on this post, but I have run out of time. There was so much to catch up on after coming back from vacation. For tonight I will just comment on Karen’s comment…I too am grateful for the men that God has sent my way. To see a man fighting for his sister’s in Christ just fills my heart with joy. For those men who have been brave enough to comment here, let me once again express my heartfelt gratitude for your support and your great comments. In the days to come I will be commenting on the posts as I catch up with all that I have missed.

44 CLC,

You said:

2. Second, my NIV translation makes it seem like only women fell into sin: “14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” We all know that Adam also became a sinner. Paul himself has said so many times. It makes me question my Bible’s translation.

The Greek grammar for “became” a sinner or in the transgression is in the perfect tense.

perfect — The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present “state of affairs” resulting from the past action.

This means that “the woman” that is being described by Paul in verse 14 is still at that very moment, in her transgression. It is an ongoing problem and this is the “she” that Paul is stopping from teaching her error. It cannot be Eve as Eve is dead and gone and cannot be continuing in her error and deception.

Paul’s words about Adam and Eve are a reference to the first couple who had a deceived/not deceived dilemma. Adam did nothing about Eve’s deception and the husband of this woman is also not deceived and also not doing anything about her deception. Unless someone steps in to help out with the problem, the same scenario will happen to the problem couple in Ephesus.

4. What do they mean that women will be saved through childbearing? That makes no sense. We are saved by grace alone, period.

This is where the patriarchists run into problems because Paul never said that “women” will be saved….Paul said that “she” would be saved. It was a specific situation involving false teaching, a deceived teacher and a remedy to deception. In my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVD #3 goes through this passage point by point to show what verse 15 can and cannot mean within this context.

You said:

11 A woman should learn with quiet grace and great humbleness. 12 I don’t want a woman to be lecturing men with false authority; she must be humble. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived (i.e. had more knowledge by being born before her); it was the woman who was deceived (did not have knowledge) and became a sinner because of her lack of knowledge. But she will be saved through childbearing (as in reference to “the woman’s seed striking the head of the snake”?) — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

It’s what I’ve been thinking of…; but yours is interesting…. What do you think? (Sorry if I’m not totally clear…..)

It is important to note that verses 11 & 12 are singular for both “woman” and “man”. It isn’t until verse 15 that Paul suddenly switches back to the plural in the middle of a sentence. In verse 12 the Greek word “authenteo” is much more sinister than just “false authority”. It is a term that is never, ever used in the New Testament for anyone to use towards another person. The mere presence of this Greek word makes this passages extremely out of the ordinary. It is such a unique term that it is rarely found in the literature of that day. When it is found it is never found in a positive usage.

You said:

Where is that in the second chapter? No mention of it. Why? Probably because he created a second set of animals to dwell with Adam and Eve in the garden. (This would, however, negate your theory that God created the female counter parts in the second chapter, as there are definitely female fish and reptiles and insects etc.)

There is no doubt that God created female fish and reptiles and insects. However it appears that these creatures were not brought to Adam to name in the garden. The question we need to ask is if God created the exact same animals again after Adam or if he created the female counterparts for the animals that God brought for Adam to name. Since Adam was looking for a counterpart, it seems reasonable that the animals that were “formed” from the dirt after Adam were the females. He found no female animal that was a counterpart to himself. Apparently there must have been females created of the fish of the sea and of the birds because God told them to multiply. We do know though that animals were created after Adam because of the inspired Hebrew words. And we do know that whatever Adam saw God do before Eve was created was enough to immunize Adam from being deceived by the serpent.

I’ve heard that Jews consider any part of the day to still be that day.

It isn’t the day problem that is the real problem. It is finding three “nights” since Jesus said he would be three days and three “nights” in the heart of the earth. The bottom line is that we are to believe the bible as the truth whether we completely understand how it can be true. Our own understanding is not the measuring stick.

You are also right in that we do not know exactly how old the earth is to the day and year. ….but we do know that animals were created after Adam and that creates a whole set of problems for those who believe that animals lived and died for millions of years before Adam. Ah, but then that is another subject for another blog 🙂

Hi CLC,
No I do not think that Mike is saying that he believes that women are allowed to teach men. He is just saying that 1 Cor. 14 isn’t a good passage to use to disallow women to teach men. He would pick 1 Timothy 2:12 instead. Mike very much believes that for men to listen to women teach is a sin and for women to teach men is a sin. Mike does believe that evaluating prophecy is a “role” assigned to men alone as he has accepted the teaching that this is what is forbidden for women to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34, 35).

You asked a good question about what if it is a woman prophesying? He has said that women may judge other women, but he has not made it clear how they can do this without usurping this “authority” that belongs to the male alone. Then apparently it isn’t just a man’s “role” after all. It does come across as confusing and with twists and turns that really do make a Christian Talmud necessary to get all the answers to these questions if one wants to be a good complementarian. After all if the scripture is silent about these “role” rules, then how will we know what to forbid women to do?

I also believe that the overseer maintained order in the church. I also believe that overseers were like watchmen on the wall. They saw the wolves coming and they sounded the warning. Their work is to protect when harm is seen in the distance. Their job is not to lord it over the congregation nor is it their job to create another list of sins that isn’t in the bible. The Holy Spirit is capable of directing each of us without another list of sins.

CLC,
You said:

You shouldn’t have to look to man, though, to figure out what is or is not sin. And their codified prescriptions are dangerously running into Pharisee territory where you can’t carry your bed on the Sabbath or else you are doing work.

Very well said! This is the danger that we need to speak out against. Adding to God’s word regarding sin is a very dangerous thing to do. It puts us above God Himself as if God’s word isn’t enough.

Sean Isaacs,
Welcome to my blog! Thanks for popping in.

Regarding Piper’s laughter, if someone is turned off by my comment that I found his laughter odd when it was such a serious subject, then perhaps they are too sensitive. Now if I called him a name for laughing, then that would be different. I try hard to speak about other Christians who differ with me, with respect. That of course should include John Piper although we are all allowed to question his doctrine and his advice. I think that he would agree that this is allowed.

Sean you said:

I believe this is the wrong spirit and approach to have. I am referring to “…(apparently… should really produce …”.

I am sure men and woman contact you with questions daily because they see you as an authority on Women in Ministry. It would be wrong for me or anyone else to condemn or judge your ministry by saying “…apparently these are the modern interpreters of the law…”

If I am wrong in how I am intepreting your words, let me know.

CLC answered this quite well by saying there is a big difference between answering questions and offering advice from the scriptures than trying to decipher what is sin and what is not. I choose to allow the scripture to define what sin is because God does a wonderful job of informing us what He considers as sin. This is the real problem with all the unwritten rules regarding women’s “roles”. Because godly Christians cannot find the answers in the scriptures regarding these restrictions on women, those who insist that it is a sin for women to usher, to sing in church, to pray in public, etc have to go outside of the scriptures regarding sin. That is a problem and I think that we should be very concerned when a group of men can add to the list of sins that God has not defined.

You also said:

It is the lack of demonstrating respect for the views of others that continues to keep our Lord’s body divided and hinders those who may have TRUTH from persuading or convincing their “opponents”. Ofcourse this is my opinion.

Amen! This is what I have been saying for years. For those who have viewed my DVDs they should be able to readily agree that I am grieved with the division in the body of Christ and work hard to be a peacemaker. This view is evident just from the introduction found on line here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e9TL5TWdac

Now if we could only get the other side to stop saying that those who believe differently in this area are in sin, we could have a giant step towards reconciling both sides.

I do appreciate that you have given me the opportunity to explain my view of respectful disagreement. Anything that isn’t clear in that area can be challenged.

I was able to catch a few minutes on the internet while I am at church camp. Not sure how long the connection will last. I am sitting on the front steps with my sweater pulled over my head so that I can even see the computer screen. TL if you still need my help, by Saturday when I am home, I will see what I can do to find all the comments.

Kay & TL good comments! I would also like to add that if we need a scripture to tell us that we may do something good then women will be very restricted indeed. For instance is there even one scripture that says that a woman is allowed to teach women the scriptures? I know of not a single verse that gives women permission to teach the bible to other women. They can teach women to keep house and to love their husbands but where does it directly say she has permission to teach the bible to adult women? If it doesn’t say so, should we be restricting women? Or should we see women as full members of the body of Christ who are allowed to use their gifts for the common good?

What do you think?

I am going off line again as the heat under this little tent is stifling. I should be back on line for sure Friday night or Saturday.

Ylenia,
Welcome to my blog! Wish I knew Italian, but hopefully our site is still valuable to you.

Vasily,
Welcome to my blog! Thanks for your comments and recommendation.

Sorry that I have been slow to approve new comments. I am on vacation this week and internet access has been almost impossible.

gengwall,
While one may wonder if God allowed the tornado to hit the church because of what was being voted on that day, one should never speak for God that presumptuously. John Piper has gone out on a limb a few times when he should not have presumed to speak for God.

A. Amos Love,
As is your usual self you are poetic with the truth.

Frank,
Thank you so much for commenting even in your own pain. I am sure that your answer will help many.

Mara,
Thanks for linking to the comment on Piper’s Stepford Wife response, it cracked me up. Had to laugh out loud!

My spam word for this one is “helper”. 🙂

sm,
Excellent point that you make on the “other kind” of situation. It is clear that Piper believes that abuse does not exempt a woman from being required to endure. You are so right in that abuse is a sin just as the other “kind of situation” that involves sexual sin.

It is indeed difficult to know what to say about this kind of teaching. I feel for women who because of their circumstances have no other support then pastors who give this kind of advice.