Cheryl

Don,

Yes I am “inhistime”. My goal is a paradigm shift but I am not expecting this on the board. The biggest paradigm shift may be with me learning how to understand how complementarians think and learning their objections so that I may be prepared to give an answer to anyone. You see, I am nothing less than a truth lover. If I take my views and make them public and then get raked over the coals for my arguments, then can be used by God for good. If my teaching is truth it WILL stand the test and it will be better because I will learn to see all the arguments against my position and be prepared to use these very arguments to witness of Jesus and his desire for the women in his church. What won’t kill me will make me stronger. Yet at the same time, if I am wrong in anyway, I can be corrected so that my position again because stronger.

I am believing that some day God will bring someone high up in the hierarchical movement to me who would be willing to dialog even if the reason is only to try to correct me. I want to be ready to answer respectfully and give reason for my faith in a gentle and effective way so that God can use me to reach someone who inside loves truth as I do, but who has been caught up in wrong teaching for so long that it would be hard for them to leave the “comfortable” teachings of hierarchy. If God does give me the desire of my heart to reach with love even one person like this who could then greatly impact the complementarian part of the church by their leaving, I would be so grateful to God.

The biggest problem I have is that complementarians will not talk to me. The friend that I had who caused me to research the bible to find out God’s view of women in ministry would not allow his complementarian view to be challenged and he left my friendship. I have asked CBMW to provide someone for me to dialog with and they too have refused. I have sought out complementarians in the past on the internet and tried to start a dialog with them and all I got was verbally attacked and judged as a sinner. Although I have very little time to put into boards like Worthy Boards, it is my way of trying to dialog and to hear the complementarian reaction to the understanding of scripture on the women’s issue that God has given me. I believe that if one has the truth on any given subject, and one is strong enough to be challenged, then one is better grounded if their faith is challenged. In the end truth is provable and will win. Error will need to attack the other person personally because error has no solid foundation in scripture. Test everything. Hold fast to that which is good.

Teknomom,

I posted on Worthy Boards because I was asked to explain the importance of a second witness with regards to the women’s issue. For me it is a challenge in learning more about how to witness to my fellow Christians in a Christ-like way and to understand where they are coming from. Understanding the arguments against my position is very important to me so that I can be prepared to deal with those who will listen in the future to the egalitarian position but who first want all their hard questions answered. I also know that my work on the board is most likely fruitless with those who are “hard-core” complementarians but maybe there are lurkers who will read and be touched by a “breath of fresh air” on the subject. I will email you privately to get your take on why you left.

Under Much Grace,

I too would like to have the answers to your questions. It seems like John MacArthur has taken the concepts that hierarchists teach and he has gone even more to the extreme view than many others have run with the “rules”. For example most seminaries will teach women. A woman can learn at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In fact their web site says that there are 23% women enrolled at the seminary. However at John MacArthur’s Seminary women are forbidden from attending. Although John MacArthur holds to 1 Timothy 2:11 where he says that Paul commands women to learn, he refuses to allow them to learn in HIS seminary. I guess he is enforcing the first clip you can hear in my blog article above. He is saying that women are to learn from their husbands. If their husbands aren’t interested in teaching them, then I guess they don’t learn. Is this really scriptural? No, not at all.

Don,

That is a good point – that hierarchists say the verses about women are clear, yet they disagree amongst each other about what the verses mean and the extent of the restriction. If it is so clear, then why do some say women are not allowed to pray and prophesy in church (MacArthur) while others allow women to pray and prophesy but limit them in the ability to judge prophecy? The fact is that the hard passages about women are indeed hard. They can be understood, but one must work hard to understand them in context and without contradiction with the rest of scripture. You have made such a good point that saying these passages are “clear” to the average reader and then coming up with a different meaning and a different extent of restriction for women, just proves that their “clear” proof text verses are indeed not so clear to them.

Justa Berean,

You are welcome! I have seen the importance of hearing the words of these leaders for myself. Their tone and the words that come from their own mouth are really important.

Now again, I want to point out that everyone has their blind spots. There are several areas that I seriously disagree with John MacArthur but there are other areas (such as when he is fighting against the cults) that he is a strong defender of the gospel. In these areas I would welcome him as a brother in Christ fighting with me side by side in the trenches. It is so unfortunate that he probably would not consider me a fellow fighter because of my gender. I know that one day JM and all of these other brothers will know the truth. I pray that their eyes will be opened to the gifts of the Holy Spirit through their sisters in Christ before too many more people reject the church because of the prejudices against women. Until then I will continue to lovingly expose the error and call these men to account for their teaching. I believe that is the biblical way.

Kerryn,

Your thoughts are right on! The complementarian position is one of constructing an argument from innuendo and silence. Once one accepts the little bit of “evidence” for a foundation, an entire building is built on the premise. It seems to me that many have not thought these arguments completely through to their logical end. The “hook” has been a very long “tradition” that substitutes for real solid evidence. It is these traditions that keep men and women bound. The one thing that gives me great hope is that God promised to release women with the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is the time for God to bring full reconciliation so that the body of Christ will be whole, healthy and actively fighting the enemy together.

Don,

I am so glad that I was allowed to teach you and I wish that I had an opportunity to present my exegesis to those who are militantly against women in ministry. Unfortunately I have learned that most of them wouldn’t learn because one must submit to learn. It is impossible to teach someone who is unwilling to learn.

Don,

Yes, I agree with you. I think that we need to be open to be corrected by anyone who has the truth of scripture. I appreciate Pastor’s who are humble enough to learn from anyone. I wish the entire body of Christ was humble like some of the Pastors that I have met.

Hi Martin,
The reason that CBMW gave was that they had already refuted any reasoning an egalitarian could give and I should just read their books. I told them that their books did not refute my teaching and I had already read them. They said that they thought that the DVDs were poor quality. They also said that there were better arguments given by others (others of course that they felt they could refute) and they didn’t see any reason to try to refute my exegesis. They said they just wanted to agree to disagree. I asked if one can agree to disagree over sin. If this is a sin issue, then they should be able to find someone to correct me. They declined to give me over to anyone in their organization to correct me. They had previously said that a man’s group was not allowed to watch a DVD produced by a woman. They said that if it was truth, then a resource could be found that was taught by a man. If the teaching was not found taught by a man, then the woman’s teaching was suspect since God’s truth comes through men. I don’t know for sure why they have refused to correct me or refute me but I do know that CBMW believes it a sin to listen to a woman teach the bible, so that may also come into the mix. Yet they also told me that a single man could watch the DVDs. It just wasn’t allowed to have the DVDs teach a group of men because a woman isn’t allowed to teach men in person or through the media.

Well, I do want to go on the record to say that I mean no disrespect to brother MacArthur. However I strongly believe that one must be called to account for what they are teaching. All teaching whether it comes from a man, or a woman, whether it comes from the pulpit or from the pew needs to be checked out against God’s word. If we are truly a truth lover then we will hold to truth rather than a personality.

Don,
Thanks for the note on the DVD resource. I looked it up on the CBE site but it appears right now that they are out of stock. That may be because of the conference.

Lin,

In my next post you will see clearly how women’s gifts are downgraded by complementarians. The Titus 2 passage is not applicable to the spiritual gifts that we are talking about since the “teaching” that is being encouraged in Titus 2 is not the teaching of the word of God but the instruction in domestic skills. If we take this as the only gifts of a woman, then she can’t teach the bible at all.

Don,

I concur. When Jesus said “It is written” we can know for sure that this is God’s law. But when we read “You have heard it said” or “The law says” we can identify a distinct difference in that it is tradition that is being referred to. Of course not all tradition is bad, but any tradition that contradicts scripture is not to be held on to or trusted.

Lin,

The issue of Adam “naming” Eve as “woman” has been so misrepresented by the opposition. I would love to hear other’s comments too but I would also like to do a post on this one. I will mark it in my post ideas.

Justa Berean,

The issue of authority in the Trinity has also been greatly misrepresented by complementarians and it really does break my heart. Their view of the Trinity has more in common with Jehovah’s Witnesses than it does historic Christianity. We have a DVD planned that will deal with the issue of the Trinity and one section will deal with the complementarian view of God.

Pastor Paul, Pastor “Dusman” and Justa Berean,

Thanks for your kind words of confidence! I am back and we had a refreshing time away with Christians of like mind. More posts to come as I have been meditating on the gifts of the Spirit and how they relate to the women’s issue.

I just love having you folks visit on this blog and your comments are very precious to me!

TNJaguar:

Thanks for your comments. I heartily agree! I have yet to have anyone point out for me where any majority of women are trying to “rule” men. This interpretation just makes God out to be a false prophet so I wonder how so many have been fed this interpretation have swallowed it hook line and sinker.

historyloveralways:

We can see from scripture that Christ is “head” of the entire church (both men and women) so although in 1 Cor. 11:3 Paul is emphasizing a relationship of Christ with men, we know for certain that he is not saying that Christ is head only of males since Christ is head of the entire church not just men. So just as Paul isn’t denying that women are the glory of God, he is not denying that Christ is also head of women in the body of Christ. We need to see these verses as Paul’s honing in on a specific relationship for a specific reason. Does that help to explain what I mean?

Thanks Lin!

Hebrews 13:17 actually says that we are to “be persuaded” by the leaders – those who keep watch over us. It doesn’t say that these leaders are taking authority over us, but rather that we are to allow them to persuade us of what is right. Also it doesn’t say that they will give an account for us. Instead they will give an account to God for how they have done their work in the flock. If this verse was about leaders taking authority over the flock, then God should have used that terminology. There is nothing about taking authority. The responsibility is for the sheep to submit to the gifts of the leaders. The leaders have been gifted by God to protect from doctrinal error. When the sheep refuse to listen, then those who are trying to protect cannot do their job. They have no authority to protect unless we allow them to convince us of the truth and protect us by teaching us true doctrine. The onus is on us to be convinced, not on the leaders to take an authority over the sheep.

Kerryn,

Very good thoughts! Thank you! The one correction that I would make is that Ephesians 5 does not say that the husband is head over the wife but head of the wife. “Head of” refers to a body relationship. There is no authority over implied here and the head is not spoken of as being “over” the wife as if he were authority and she were an underling. The basic concept is unity and oneness as one body. Keep those thoughts coming and as we go into the topic of the gifts next, I am sure you will have some more good thoughts!

I think I would add to point #1 that we do not want to see men usurp authority over women either.

I have asked the same question of those who believe that certain men in the church have an authority over other believers. I ask them the same question – what is that authority and where is it found? One fellow said that the authority is God’s authority to tell people that the interpretation of the Bible that the Pastor gives to the church must be accepted as God’s truth. If that is God’s “authority” given to a man, then the church has no right to question the Pastor’s interpretation. But Paul has told us that we need to test all things. He was glad that the Bereans tested his own teaching by scripture. Anyone who says that their interpretation is not to be tested and must be accepted as truth without checking it against scripture is not following scripture. I have yet to hear any other “authority” that God has given to those in leadership that would give them permission to take authority over those in the church.

However those who are complementarian somehow think that those who believe in biblical equality are trying to put women into a position of authority over men i.e. taking an authority that belongs to men alone. Where is this “authority” in scripture? Jesus said that the one who wanted to be the greatest was to be the servant of all. He also said that the disciples were not to lord it over the church as the worldly leaders exercise lordship. The only “authority” I see is the authority that everyone has to test teachers by the word of God and the “authority” to use their God-given gifts for the good of the entire church.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me where in scripture any leader in the church is ever told to take authority over another believer. Servanthood, yes; “authority over”, no.

Kerryn,

I did notice that the head piece was laid separately but I wasn’t sure why that detail was in scripture other than that it refutes the shroud of Turin which is a one piece sheet over the face and the entire body. Interesting thoughts! I will have to meditate on this and ponder the significance regarding Christ’s glory and the veil. Thank you my dear!

Lori,

Excellent thoughts! Once we are finished 1 Cor. 11 on the final part of the hair issue, we will go to the gifts of the Spirit. It seems to be a common issue that needs to be addressed.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Thank you Pastor Paul for your comments and your encouragement! You are a very humble man and praise coming from you means a great deal to me.

Those who say that the hard passages of scripture are “clear” and have a “plain reading” are at a loss for words when you ask them to exegete that “plain reading” from the context. I have given a standing challenge to complementarians to exegete 1 Timothy 1 & 2 to show how Paul from the context was stopping godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. The passage is clearly about stopping false teachers who are ignorant about biblical doctrine (chpt 1) and about deception (chpt 2 the deception of Eve). How one can get the stopping of correct biblical doctrine from chapter 2 is beyond me and so far not even one complementarian has attempted to explain their view in the complete context of chapters 1 & 2.

No, these passages are tough passages to understand. Any “plain” reading of 1 Timothy 2:12 that stops godly women from using their God-given gift of teaching correct doctrine would contradict other clear passages that say that the gifts of the spirit are to be used for the common good.

Oh and about shaving one’s head – I felt like doing that yesterday. We just moved to this small city of less than 10,000 people and finding a hairdresser is a challenge when you don’t know anyone and there are a lot of weird people on the street with weird hair cuts. So I saw a salon advertised and I made an appointment. Oh, my, I got the worst hair cut in my entire life! My thick hair is now greatly thinned with chunks of hair missing in places and clumps of thick hair in other places. I had a mind to shaving it all off yesterday to get rid of the mess. Now if only we can bring back the head covering then no one will notice! Praise God that hair grows fairly fast and I will be walking my fingers through the yellow pages to find another hair dresser.

Dunsman,

You are exactly right. The failure of the complementarian position is that eventually it must show inconsistency. To keep it completely consistent one must create an entire “rule” book of rules. i.e. is a woman allowed to give a man directions when he is lost or would that be “teaching” him and “taking authority” over him? There is so many inconsistencies and gray areas that must come because of the complementarian position that it makes my head spin. I have read that a woman is allowed to give a “testimony” as long as she doesn’t use more than two scriptures in her testimony. If she uses more than two then she has stepped into the forbidden area of “teaching”. Honestly it reminds me of the Talmud and the multitude of human laws that restricted and hedged people in, in a way that God never intended.

Don,

I hear what you are saying. That is the reason why I try hard to keep my comments respectful. I understand that many have not yet gone past mere tradition and understood the full freedom of women in using their gifts for the entire body of Christ. It, of course, is not a message to be restricted because not everyone is on the same page yet. But in consideration of our brothers in Christ who have a tender conscience and who have not yet realized that it is tradition that they are following instead of God’s word, we do try to keep the message surrounded by a loving attitude. It is in this environment that some will be open to learn. Others will never be open and these people I will never be able to reach. They are in God’s hands and perhaps somewhere else they will hear what they need to hear to allow the body of Christ to function in exactly the way God intended.

Lin,

Thanks for that interesting tid-bit. I did a google search and found John Piper’s conference with the speakers listed here:

http://www.desiringgod.org/Events/NationalConferences/Archives/2007/Speakers/

I don’t know how John Piper will justify having a woman speak to the men. It appears that she won’t be just giving a “testimony” but actually giving a call to ministry, in essence “preaching”. I wonder if he will send her off to preach to only the women. If he doesn’t it sure seems like he is relaxing his “rules” about women teaching/preaching to men.

Don,

I accept your word of admonition as a word of wisdom for me today. Thank you so much! What I will do is keep this blog solely for the issue of women in ministry. When I am ready to start posts on the issue of authority in marriage, I will create a separate blog dealing with that issue and I will let everyone know the link to that blog. I have come to understand that the issue of authority (headship) in marriage is very much connected to the issue of women in ministry but it is also separate enough that it can have a “space” of its own. Any other topics that I want to move on to will get their own “space” too so that “women in ministry” (and me!) will not get over overwhelmed by getting distracted and fragmented. What a wonderful suggestion to not diffuse this message! These are the kinds of suggestions that are very helpful to me and I submit to that word of wisdom.

“H”,

Your “tap dancing” picture is very accurate. My thoughts are that CBMW makes head coverings to be an important injunction by God from the time of creation, yet we can arbitrarily change it now to something else? Either it is mandated by God from creation or it is not. You just can’t have it both ways. I happen to think that for complementarians to be consistent, they should have all of their women’s heads covered. If it is culture, it can be changed. If it is a mandate by God, unless scripture tells us to change, where do complementarians get the right to get rid of their “sign”? I just haven’t figured that out yet, but a “tap dance” does come to mind.

Thank you Teknomom!