Cheryl

Good topics to consider! Thanks, Kerryn.

🙂 Cheryl

“H” my friend, I had to chuckle with what you wrote. Yes, I have been told before by many that I am “special” but I never believed it because I am only “simple”. It was always amazing to me that others didn’t see the simplicity I saw until I pointed it out to them and then they got it (praise the Lord!) So while I was surprised that others didn’t naturally see all the simple things that I saw, I shrugged it off as one of life’s mysteries and perhaps that “common” sense must not always be as “common” as I supposed. So the chuckle I got, was that this “brilliant” woman had to look up the word obfuscation in dictionary.com. Ah, yes, I get your point! May I add that there are those who are “brilliant” in book knowledge but oh-so-muddled in their thinking ability to really understand beyond their traditional “security blanket” of male superiority (now called male “headship”). They seem to honestly be blinded regarding the transforming of the term “head” into “headship” (also known as taking authority over another human being to conform them to your own image) and how this takes away the ability for another human being to mature into the image of Christ that God has ordained for her to “grow up” into.

When I read Grudem’s books and I listen to CBMW’s tapes and DVDs on all the things that I am not allowed to do merely because I am a woman, it saps my strength and I see rules and regulations that keep women as “children”. I listen and read because I must see both sides in order to provide a proper defense, but I can only take so much at one time or I begin to feel like I am in prison, shackled and chained to the wall. There is nothing in their material that makes me see freedom in Christ for me to serve the body of Christ without forcing me to be prejudiced against men and that is so sad. I love my brothers in Christ and my gifts belong to them too.

“H”,

Your point is well taken. If we continue to lift scriptures from their context, then we are left with following a new “law” to the letter – are men lifting their hands in prayer as Paul “required” (1 Timothy 2:8)? Are women to be silenced completely in church not even saying “hello” or singing (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35)?

My point continues to be that God has given us his commandments multiple times and in multiple ways so that we understand what his laws are so that we do not sin against him. If men are required to lift “holy” hands when they pray, then are they sinning if they don’t lift those hands? This “command” is never repeated in scripture, just like the “command” for “a woman” to not teach “a man”. We make a mockery of God’s law by making universal rules that God has never sanctioned. We also imprison godly Christian women in a fear-induced set of man-made rules that force her to question whether doing her good works before God has become a sin merely by the presence of a man in the room.

When I think about all the men that I have personally helped set free from the mind control of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I wonder if my good works would have been rendered useless if I had been forced to stand at the door of my home and turn away the men? There was no one else doing the work in my city and if the men were turned away, they would have not been reached. Is that what God wanted me to do? Where does the Bible ever command women to refuse to teach men? Would that make women sexist? The Bible never tells me to stop my ministry if a man walks in the room, and such a practice would only help Satan’s kingdom not God’s.

I too believe that there are many brilliant women out there whom God is pleased to use in the church. I thank you for your kind words! I do not consider myself one of the brilliant ones. God has somehow gifted me with seeing the simple things that others have missed. I pray that God will continue to grant me tenacity to push forward no matter how I am treated.

The two or three witnesses requirement is stated in Deut 19:15

Deu 19:15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

Paul confirmed that this requirement of two or three witnesses is also to establish a matter:

Paul himself confirms a matter by the required two or three witnesses:

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES.
2Co 13:2 I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone,

Jesus also confirmed that one testimony is not considered true:

Joh 5:31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.
Joh 5:32 “There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.

The Pharisees questioned Jesus about the things that he was testifying about:

Joh 8:13 So the Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.”

Jesus answered that his testimony was not alone and therefore qualified by the “two or three witnesses” rule:

Joh 8:17 “Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true.
Joh 8:18 “I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.”

So the Father is the second witness about the Son. John was also one who testified about Jesus and Jesus’ works were also considered another testimony:

Joh 5:36 “But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish–the very works that I do–testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.
Joh 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

The scriptures are still another testimony of Jesus:

Joh 5:39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

Paul tells us the importance of this repetition. The repetition is for our safety in Philippians 3:1 –

Php 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

Lin,

I think I have the answer for you. Tonight I was watching a DVD that I had purchased from CBMW. It was a talk by Russell Moore and the DVD isn’t dated which year it was done. In the Q & A section Russell is asked about why Christian women don’t wear head coverings. He gave the answer that the covering of the head shows that one is in submission. However, he said that in our culture the headcovering no longer signifies that women are in submission to their husband so we have a new sign. Women are to have a visible sign that they are coming under the authority of their husband and that sign is the taking of his name.

The problem that Mr. Moore has in his answer is that there is nothing in historical sources that show that the head covering was a sign of submission. John Lightfoot in his commentary said that the head covering was a sign of modesty and a sign of shame but there is no evidence at all that it was a sign of submission. So Mr. Moore has his work cut out for him to try to prove that the head covering symbolized submission. I would like to see his evidence.

The second problem that he has is that CBMW says that this sign of authority (the head covering) is a sign from the creation of man and woman and if this is the case, then they have no legal reason for changing it merely because culture has changed. Do we change God’s ways merely because the world changes their ways? No, I don’t think so. Also Moore has a problem because the woman’s taking of the man’s name symbolizes that the two are now one not that the husband has authority over the woman. I guess this is the way they try to explain away the everlasting sign of the head covering, but I for one don’t buy it. Where in history do we find the head covering being explained that we can now do away with it because God has given us a new sign? How can we as humans change God’s everlasting sign? We really can’t no matter how Russell Moore tries to explain away God’s “sign”. It is only when we really understand what the head covering symbolized in the culture of the time of the New Testament (and it was never a sign of submission) can we truly understand why Christian women no longer wear the head covering. Paul’s words are very freeing for women and these words have been misunderstood for centuries.

Lawrence,

Apparently you didn’t read my article very carefully because you didn’t answer the fact that the meaning of a word is evident in its context. The context of 1 Cor. 11 is source or origin (beginning) and there is nothing in the context of “authority over someone else”. If you can find that in the context, then please show it to me.

You also do not mention that BDAG shows that “kephale” also can mean beginning. Source is a synonym of beginning and fits the context well.

I have read the early church father that was quoted by Dr. Kroeger and I do not see that she misinterpreted what he said. Can you please show the misinterpretation?

Dr. Joe E. Trull, editor of Christian Ethics Today, quotes Chrysostom:

“If you think ‘head’ means ‘chief’ or ‘boss’, you skew the godhead!”

Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria commenting on 1 Cor. 11:3 defines the head metaphor as source:

“Thus we say that the kephaleo of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephaleo of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise the kephaleo of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature.”

Liddell & Scott’s leixon (which is also a very good one) lists kephale as:

11. 1 of things, extremity
    a. In botany
    b. In anatomy
    c. Generally, top, brim of vessel … capital of a column
    d. In plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (but singular, mouth); generally, source, origin, orphic fragments 21a; starting point (examples: the head of time; the head of a month).

Liddell & Scott do not include the meaning of “kephale” as a final authority or superior rank at all.

In the Hebrew, the word “rosh” (head) is used about 180 times with the meaning of chief or leader, however when the Hebrew was translated into the Greek in the Septuagint, the Greek term “archon” was the one that was chosen to mean leader, chief or authority and “kephale” was rarely used in this way. The main Greek word used to mean authority or ruler was “archon” which has a clear meaning of leader, ruler or commander. Out of the 180 times the Hebrew word for head means ruler or authority, only 8 times is the Greek word “kephale” used as a translation of “rosh” although both mean head and “kephale” would have been the simplest translation. This also shows that the main meaning of “kephale” is not ruler or authority. Since the translators rarely used “kephale” to carry the meaning of authority, this shows that the Greek term for “head” did not carry with it the same meaning of “head” in the Hebrew.

The key to understand Paul, is for us to see what Paul meant in the context because that is the deciding factor. Where does Paul reference a man’s authority over the woman or God’s authority over Christ in 1 Cor. 11? It isn’t in the passage so we can’t get the context of ruler or authority over from the context. However what is indeed in the passage is that the man is the source or beginning of the woman and God is the source or beginning of everything (including Christ). Certainly the term “beginning” or “source” is appropriate as Paul’s meaning from the context and the meaning of “authority” and “ruler of” are not supported by the context.

Thank you Martin!
God bless,
Cheryl

Justa Berean,

You can hear the audio at my post below. Audio #6 is the quote where Moore says that egalitarians are shaking their fists in the face of authority and it is a spiritual warfare issue and lives are at stake (therefore we must repent) and the gospel is at stake (therefore we must believe the complementarian gospel).
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/03/24/should-cbmw-fight-egalitarians/

The “picture” you drew was painful but true. I for one will never confess my “sin” of teaching the bible to men unless Grudem and Moore can show me from the bible where God calls it sin. Otherwise I would be guilty of saying that the Holy Spirit’s work in my life is evil and THAT I cannot do with a clear conscience.

I really do pray for these men that God will open their eyes and they will stop “burning us at the stake” with their words. Surely this must cause Jesus a great deal of pain to see his own body attacked. But as these men from CBMW continue to intensify the attack against egalitarians, I believe with all my heart that God will open the eyes of many complementarians to see what this is doing to the body of Jesus and they will be given God’s grace see the “spirit” of this hard-core view as opposing God’s sovereignty and God’s design of the universal priesthood of believers.

Amen!

Yes, I do believe that we can seriously consider other interpretations. We can do this especially when the meaning is not apparent anywhere in the context.

The biggest example of this is 1 Cor. 14:34, 35. Here Paul refers to a “law” that isn’t found anywhere in scripture. Then in verse 36, Paul contradicts this “law”. Since Paul is contradicting the “law” we need to look outside Paul’s writings to find the “law” in effect in his time that restricted women’s speaking in the assembly. Having to go outside the passage for complete understanding has made this particular passage a very difficult passage for a few thousand years.

Don, I certainly didn’t want to say that your thoughts had no validity at all. I was just giving more validity to Paul’s reference to angels and authority in the letter. If this reference gives reason for women to have authority, then I tend to rest there and not look for further options.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Good thoughts, Don. I never considered before the thought that God never talks in metaphors about male genitals. Interesting.

I do think that he created gender to show aspects of who he is and I also think it was to have a way for us to have “oneness” with another person. There is that mystery about Christ and the church that is expressed in gender and oneness.

I think the easiest and most logical way to interpret Paul is to see what he had already said about the angels. When he said “because of the angels”, he gives us an indication that he is referring back to what he has already said about the angels. The connection with authority and “because of the angels”. What does the woman’s authority have to do with “because of the angels”? It would be natural for Paul to continue the thought that we need to learn to make judgments here in this life because in the next life we will be judges even over the angels. It also makes perfect sense. Since Paul has not mandated the head covering but he allowed it for women because of her husband’s conscience, it fits with the context that her right to decide for herself regarding what she will do with the head covering (to wear it so that her husband will not divorce her) and whether she cuts her hair or not is tied directly into the position that she will have a role of authority and judging in the next life. Someone who has this great responsibility in the next life certainly can make decisions over her own head and hair in this life.

If we make the reference to be a human messenger, how would we know that would be the interpreation in this context? There is no reference to a human messenger (called an angel) in the immediate context or the entire letter. I have heard a lot of interpretations of the phrase “because of the angels” and there is one thing all of these interpretations have in common. That one thing is that the different interpretations cannot be connected to anything Paul said in his letter. If there is no connection to what Paul has already said, then it would be impossible to really know what Paul meant. Everybody’s guess would be just as valid. I think it is a better practice to first check out what Paul himself says about angels in the letter and if it fits well with Paul’s second reference to angels. That way we are letting Paul define his own terms.

When I first wanted to understand what Paul meant, all I did was go back and back in the letter until I came to Paul’s own reference – the only other reference he makes to the angels. When I saw what Paul had said about the angels and the context that we are to be mature in making decisions in this life because we will be having a position of authority in the next life, Paul’s meaning of “because of the angels” made total sense to me.

I believe that the reason complementarians cannot make sense of the passage is because they refuse to give women any kind of authority. If one starts with this mindset that only men can have authority, then one will have to reject Paul’s only other reference to the angels and that leaves one with having to guess at what Paul means. One would also have to reject that women are also going to be judging angels since the mindset says that only men have authority. I have heard complementarians say that women will be ruled over by men in the next life too. That just doesn’t fit with Paul’s revelation about authority and women. When we just take the passage in its most simple form and take Paul’s own words, we must accept that God has given women authority to make decisions because he considers them equal with men and equal in authority in the next life too.

Does this make sense?

I agree. If we are going to insist that some male Greek terminology be translated to EXCLUDE women, then we would also have to EXCLUDE women regarding salvation. I wonder how many people know that the salvation passages are written this way? I wonder how many people think that only males can be saved? The Greek simply cannot be made to work this way and CBMW needs to own up to these facts.

Don,

I agree with your assessment of CBMW’s options. It is a very humbling experience to admit that you are wrong especially since CBMW’s purpose is to bring the complementarian view back into the church and into Christian marriages. If they were to admit that they are wrong, then their whole organization would be for nothing. The fact that they are getting more militant as the years go by is a sign that they see themselves fighting a losing battle. Their security blanket is being pulled away from them and their reaction is an attack against those whom they perceive are pulling the blanket. I think this is positive in one way – in that their attack on egalitarians has become so intense that even other hardened complementarians are admitting that they have gone too far. I have heard from former complementarians who are not yet fully in the egalitarian camp but who have become quite sickened by the rhetoric and militant attacks coming from those within CBMW. They are their own worst enemy.

In contrast, Jesus commanded us to love one another and to be kind and caring to our brothers and sisters in Christ. When CBMW goes so far as to equate their brothers and sisters in Christ as unregenerate sinners because they differ on the non-essentials, they show the fruit of their movement. When they respond in this way, we can see that their doctrine does not lift up Jesus and his commandment to us and many people’s eyes are being opened daily.

Don, I hope you enjoy the DVD’s. I am confident you will find them challenging. I would love to hear your feedback when you have viewed the material.

Your humble attitude about being open to finding out where you still might not be right is so refreshing! I wish everyone were like you.

Hi Don,

Yes, I do agree with you as well. A faithful leader needs to be faithful in his marriage by not being a womanizer (if they are a man) or not being flirtatious (if they are a woman). I tend to think that this would be included in Paul’s saying that they must be “above reproach” but it certainly could be inferred by “husband of one wife” too.

I wouldn’t think that “faithful spouse” would quite measure up since I am sure that a man who has four wives would consider himself a “faithful spouse”. As long as he is married to all four, and wasn’t having sex outside his marriages, he would have been thought to be “faithful”. The high priest wasn’t allowed to be faithful to four wives. He had to be the husband of one wife. Of course faithfulness in everything including your marriage is key, but not allowing faithful polygamists to serve as an example to the congregation would seem the thought here. “Faithful” and “polygamy” just don’t mix.

(Blush 🙂 Thank you Molly!

Lin,

You are exactly right in that “heir” is something beyond salvation. Complementarians have tried so hard to make Galatians 3:28 to be nothing but salvation. However the context right flows right into chapter 4 where the full inheritance is discussed. Paul says in verse 7: “Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.” If you are a son, i.e. if you are saved and belong to the family of God, then you are an heir of all that God has. Is this only salvation. No it can’t be. It can’t just be about women being saved, but about women being heirs. If, then, women are “sons”, then women are “heirs” of God who also inherit everything too. If women are also “heirs” then it is impossible that God holds back some of his gifts from this group. The only way one can not see the gifts in this passage is if one comes to Galatians 3:28 with a preconceived notion that women have only one thing in common with men and that is salvation. When one doesn’t have that tradition in mind, chapter 4 blows away the false tradition that women are equal to God (in salvation) but unequal to men (in God’s gifts). Praise God that he makes all of us “sons” of God so that there is no prejudice or special treat of any with God!

Under Much Grace,

I am very touched by your testimony. To be honest, the tears are rolling down my cheeks! These are the kinds of testimonies that touches my heart so much and is the reason why WIM was produced with a heart of love for both men and women. God’s grace and the glorious liberty we have in Christ to serve the body of Christ are so amazing, it makes me weep with joy!

Your sister in Christ,
Cheryl

“Under Much Grace”,

Yes, Amen! The fact that it was the sons who inherited in the Old Testament and Christ has made us all sons gives us the reason that we all are joint heirs with Christ. Those who say that there is a division between “sons” of God and “daughters” of God are not being biblical. We are all “sons” all “heirs” and the Holy Spirit has been given to all of us as a down payment of our full inheritance.

I am glad that you took the time to listen to Russel Moore’s full lecture too see how the other side (the complementarians) are living out their own “dividing wall” in not accepting women’s spiritual gifts for the edification of the entire body of Christ.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Thank you Pastor Bob for that encouraging word! Amen, amen, the Bible trumps Holy Tradition every time. Let God be found true though every man a liar. (Romans 3:4).

Pastor, thank you for your encouragement! I too have lived by the thoughts expressed in that old hymn. It is my passion to represent Christ in a thoughtful and loving way and not attack those brothers whose goal it is to shut down the ministry of women. It isn’t always easy but this is the way that I would long for people to talk to me if I were the one in error. What I have learned and am still learning is that the approval of humans isn’t important. If I am diligent to present the gospel and God’s word verse-by-verse in a respectful and honorable way, then God will be honored if I keep faithful no matter how many still trapped in tradition will disapprove of my message to the church. If the cost to myself is great, then I can rejoice because I have been counted worthy to suffer for Christ.

I find it sad though, that much of the suffering that we experience is through the words of those in the church, not outside the church. I trust that one day God will bind us together in unity so that we will fight side by side, united together against the enemy of our souls. I also believe that our dear brothers in Christ will see us as their “glory” not as a competition or a threat to their ministry. Oh Lord Jesus, bind us together with cords that cannot be broken!

I agree, Lin. Throughout the centuries we have seen many men defending very harsh restrictions on women including the restrictions on a woman’s right to vote. God predicted this in the 3rd chapter of Genesis that man’s tendency would be to rule over the woman. But God’s words said in prophecy to the serpent are amazing. God said that he would initiate an enmity between the woman and the serpent and between her seed and his seed. This is God’s initiative and God has kept his word. There are more women in church than men for a reason. It isn’t because the church has become feminized i.e. the walls and pews are pink and men don’t want to walk into a “pink” church; it is because God said that he would bring the woman into a battle against the serpent. God promised this battle and he fulfilled his words by empowering women especially since Pentecost. Through the Holy Spirit she comes to church and serves and still takes abuse by the men. They blame her for there not being more men in church and they blame her for giving a teaching in her testimony. They want to stop her and silence her. What these dear brothers don’t realize is that when they do this, they are in essence fighting her on the side of the serpent. When men are willing to fight the battle *with* the woman instead of against her, the tide will turn. The church indeed is meant to be triumphant and the battle is meant to be won.

There. I fixed the link. I am pleased to be at your service.

Cheryl

“H” my friend,
Thanks for the link. I am familiar with Giles work and I highly recommend it. There are some personal conclusions on other issues that I do not agree with Giles on, however on the subject of the Trinity, his research is outstanding.

I will also see if I can fix the link to make it work properly.
Blessings,
Cheryl

Under Much Grace,

A hearty welcome to this blog! I liked what you said about the patriarchal system in that we can’t pick and choose which portions we like and don’t like if we are going to follow it as God’s way. Very insightful, thanks.

Blessings!
Cheryl

It is good to have someone who thinks outside the box around this blog! Thanks for those thoughts. Yes, Paul was always thinking about how he was going to reach those who existed outside the Jewish world. He definitely was an outside-the-box thinker too!

Hey Sharon,

Welcome to my blog! I am glad that you found the DVD’s to be a blessing. I am honored.

Cheryl

Lin,

You are doing exactly what you need to do. Scripture is the key and it must be read in context and with the tools that will help you understand the original flavor of the words without the bias of any translators. I trust that the Holy Spirit will open your mind to understand and to be assured that you know that you know that you KNOW the truth! The truth will indeed set you free as you learn that God has not stifled his women “sons of God”. They are full heirs and important members of his body. What a wonderful journey you are on. I remember my journey as I sat with my bible and my Greek and Hebrew helps by my side. If is a precious thing when God’s word comes alive so that the verses are made clear in the complete context of the entire passage and the entire letter.

Blessings on your study!
Cheryl