Dave

Mark,

Why is it natural to assume that Adam would inform Eve about the fruit and not God? Do you think God would not want to talk to his daughter, but just his Son?

How do you deal Mark with there being two different 10 commandments recorded in the OT? Off topic? Don’t think so 😉

“If you continue to think that 1 Cor could essentially be applied to you and me when we catch up for coffee thats fine, but i totally disagree.”

Well, for starters we would need to drink coffee in Jesus’ name 🙂

So, Mark, it is ok when we meet for this coffee for you to speak in tongues without me interpreting? After all, it is not formal church, and according to you these passages only provide rules for formal church.

Mark, I understand fully where you are coming from. When I was at the PTC I was told there was a list of ingredients for church to be church. I am not new to this thinking, I just do not agree. Sometimes we will do some of these things, other times we will not, but if you attempt to make a definite list of what must be done each time then you end up in a mess. After all, some things in the list require the Holy Spirit to move. The problem this leaves you with is what are your rules for when a woman can and cannot teach a man?

Something I did not learn at Bible College was the way the Body works in the little things. I believe that in our church it is very much what happens in the smaller meetings and during the less formal atmosphere that the real work of the Spirit and the body takes place. When I listen to someone over a cup of coffee how they are struggling with addiction, and remind them of the love and forgiveness and freedom found in Jesus – this is Church! It mightr involve prayer, looking at specific Bible verses, investigating what they say…

Sue, my sincere apologies for what Sydney, Australia sent your way. What you say about Sydney is true.

“How can these things be strengthening for the church if only a few people are there? It is ridiculous to see this any other way.”

So the whole church has to be there for it to be formal? You might need to wait for Jesus to return for this to happen. We were a bit down on numbers today 😉

Mark, every time believers meet in the name of Jesus they should be an encouragement to one another (I know you know Hebrews 10:25). At different times the Body involves itself in different activities, usually depending on the gifts that people have when they meet – essentially as the Spirit leads.

I posted before without realising you had…sorry…hope I have not done it again now…

“Just wondering when you have your ‘small church’ do you sing hymns, talk in toungues and prophecy? Do these things happen in your kids clubs, youth groups, even in your office. My i would be impressed if everytime your assistant pastor walks in you start singing hymns and prophecying together. The reality is 1 Corinthians 14 is addressing the ‘formal’ gathering of believers.”

Mark, are you suggesting that if you do not do ALL these things then it is not a ‘formal’ gathering? If this is the case then I am not sure if any church in the PCA ‘formally’ gathered today, because I do not imagine there was speaking in tongues in any of them.

You would be surprised at what I would do if my assistant pastor walked in…I don’t have one, so if one walked in I might well go into ecstatic utterances!!

Mark! You said

“Both 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 ARE in the context of a formal type church gathering. Dave i said earlier how i see this in 1 Cor so please look there. Chapter 2 of Tim is a focus on public worship. Chapter 3 then goes on to give the qualifications for the church leaders. It is all about the ‘formal’ church. Perhaps try and read the text!”

To just clarify, I have just attempted to read through all your comments and yes, you certainly do tell us how you see these texts, but you have never shown or indicated what in the passage causes you to draw the conclusions you draw. I have read the texts (thanks for your encouragement for me to read my Bible 😉 ) but I do not reach the same conclusions you do.

Now I have suggested at least twice that the burden of proof is on you to show that scripture differentiates between different types of church settings. The burden is not on me to prove what is not there…just ask Athiests!

What I can try and explain though is the Biblical concept that church is NOT dictated by what we do or by where we meet, but rather who it is that meets and for what purpose. Now, as you said, Jesus’ Spirit is with us all the time. That is correct. His Spirit is with you when you are alone, and when you are with others. The question is, when is Jesus with you in Spirit AND Body i.e. fully with you? Answer – when you are with at least one other Christian in Jesus’ name! It is then that Jesus is with you. Otherwise, what was the point of what Jesus said about when two or three gather together in his name? The church is his body.

Mark, you have suggested that I have ignored the context of passages. I am always open to learning the truth, so please tell me what context I have ignored, I would like to know. Something I am confused by is how strongly you have spoken about people like me ignoring context and not reading the passage, and yet you have failed to bring forth one specific statement or an explanation of a context that allows you to let a woman teach a man everywhere but in a ‘formal’ church. To put it simply, I think you are trying to make a distinction that is not there!

I think we need to realise the full context of 1 Peter. IMHO Peter is suggesting Christians submit to the authorities (emperor and governors), slaves to masters and wives to husbands. This is so that unbelievers might become believers and so Christians will not be accused of doing the wrong thing.

The one thing in common with all three relationships is that they WERE legal. Slavery was legal, husbands essentially ‘owning’ wives (and being able to beat them) was legal, and of course submitting to the authorities was legal!

Today, however, slavery AND wife beating are both illegal! In fact according to the authorities husbands who beat their wives MUST be reported to the relevant authorities.

Peter encourages the believers to not be seen as stirring up trouble, but rather undermine relationships such as slavery and husband hierarchy through choosing to submit. After all, you cannot take from someone what they have freely given.

When the Church lives out hierarchy in a away that even society has rejected, then we have failed to do what Peter is encouraging the Church to do in his letter. We will not win people over in society today by suggesting that wives should put up with any amount of physical abuse.

My anti-spam word is “wife”.

Other than that I have nothing else to say 🙂

I like gengwall’s question, and for me it is where we probably need Mark to focus for a second (or two!). It seems that the idea that his wife can teach him, but not teach “in church” is a big idea that Mark is yet to prove.

Mark has suggested that we need to show how 1 Cor 14, etc as NOT about formal church gathering, yet my understanding of discussions like this is that the burden of proof should be on Mark. So I would like to ask Mark if he can find any scriptural difference between “the Church at Corinth” and Priscilla teaching Aquila, or Phil baptising the Eunuch.

It so happens that I have scriptural evidence that there is no difference. Jesus said that when two or three gather in his name he will be there. He can only be there if he is represented as head AND body.

I must go and watch my son play cricket!

I turn my back for a minute and the comments go nuts! How am I supposed to read all this?!?!

Mark, I am unable to watch the videos for technical reasons, and so I was wanting to hear more of Cheryl’s explanation regarding her view of priesthood. All that I have read that Cheryl has said, I agree with. I might add that I do not see it conflicting with covenant theology, the way I understand it.

1 Peter gives us a great picture of priesthood and sacrifice, very similar to Romans 12. I believe that through the holy Spirit my life is a fragrant offering to God in a very real way.

To be very plain and simple, there is only one “type” of church in the NT. I believe when the Etheopian Eunuch asked to be baptised that him and Phil were doing church. It only takes 2-3 for Christ (head and body) to be there!

Mark, I do not think you would need to go to Cheryl’s church to meet people who believe prophecy is preaching. At the recent Flourish Conference Craig Tucker (Pressie Minister) said this, I have read Gordon Chang (Anglican Minister) say the same on his blog, and I know there are a number of lecturers at the PTC who hold the same/similar view.

The Bible is clear that the husband is the head of the wife, and that CHrist is the head of the church. Nowhere does it say that men in general or pastors/elders are the head of women in general. This CANNOT be assumed from scripture! This is also a timely reminder that we await your own evidence that “kephale” is linked to “authority”. 😉

I think we first need to work out what each other is talking about, but at Ryde Pressie I am not sure if we have what you call a “formal”church meeting. It is one of the times during the average week that we meet together as a church. It is no more formal than what we call our “Small Church” meetings during the week, or what we call our “Kid’s Church”. Nor is it more formal than things we do where we have not attached the word “formal” – like our dvd night, our kid’s club and teens, or even my “open office” time each week where someone comes for a chat. All of these things are church, and they are all a part of Ryde Pressie church and the Body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:2- To the “Formal” Church of God in Corinth?
2 Corinthians 1:1- To the “Formal” Church of God in Corinth?
Hebrews 10:25- Let us not give up “formally” meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing?

I thought there just had to be two or three gathering together in the name of Jesus. I know they told me at college that there had to be the regular practicing of the sacraments and a number of other ingredients, but even “formal” church gatherings do not do all these things everytime they meet.

What exactly makes the gathering in homes in the NT “formal”?

With regards to your last couple of questions I will hold off commenting for now, but I did have one more thing to say…

“Pastor is both in my opinion. You do not want someone as a pastor who is not gifted to be there. Also it is an office.”

I am not sure what you mean by office, as the word does not appear in my Bible, but being a pastor is specifically mentioned in scripture as a gift (Eph 4). If a person is gifted by the Holy Spirit (given to the church by Jesus), what else is there that they need to be? Please don’t say male!! 😉

The church by definition is the body of Christ.
Christ is with us when two or three of us gather together.

“There is most definately a ‘formal’ church in Pauls writing and this is precisely the context of what i am saying about men teaching. IF you think this is not the context of 1 Tim and 1 Cor please show me why?”

Perhaps, Mark, if you have some evidence for a “formal” church (whatever that is) you might share it with us. It is harder to prove something is not there than prove something is there!

Hi pinklight!

I like your thinking with regards to submission and subordination (especially in regards to one being permanent and the other temporary).

What I was trying to say earlier was that it is not just a matter of subordinate being permanent and submission temporary, but that if you are subordinate you had no say in it. If you are inferior, then that is where God put you – you cannot change that. Submission, though, is something you choose to do. If someone forces you physically to submit you have not submitted at all, but they have enforced subordination through physical superiority.

Now Paul told us all to be like Christ, and he also told us all to submit. Jesus told us there was to be no hierarchy between us, but to love and serve each other.

To say Jesus died on the cross because he was inferior (subordinate), and not because he was submitting, goes against scripture (Phil 2) and what he has told us to do (to submit).

So I agree with you, the comps use the word “subordinate” because it is accurate for their purpose and their theology…but I choose to use the word “submit”! I would love to know Mark’s take on the use of the two words…

Thanks for the encouragement Cheryl! I love visiting your blog…I learn so much!

Continuing my rant…

If Jesus is Subordinate to the Father, for any amount of time, then he is essentially less than the Father. If Jesus has submitted to the will of the Father, then there is no comment as to who is “above” or “below” in either essence or role.

What happened in the Garden of Gethsemane was submission to the Father. If it was subordination then there would not even have been a conversation. If Jesus was subordinate to the Father, then what happened in the Garden was way out of line. How dare Jesus even bring up his will – he is subordinate – he is an underling there to do the will of his superior! But of course he was not subordinate, but he was the fullness of God in human form who chose to submit to his heavenly Father.

…rant officially ended.

HI again Mark…long time no chat! If i can reiterate what has been said by Cheryl and say we love you…you know…in a blokey type of…you know…way…ahem…(arkwardly shuffling my feet)…

You said, “If Jesus still has his humanity now and according to egalitarians, that is the ONLY thing that makes him subordinate, how is he not then eternally in that position?”

I guess this is a good point, and perhaps I am a bit confused but wanted to suggest the following.

Could we ALL stop using the word “subordinate” if indeed “submit” is what is meant? I do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, even during his earthly ministry. To be so would mean he would have changed in essence (c.f. Phil 2:6). But nowhere does scripture say Jesus was subordinate to the Father or the Godhead, to the best of my knowledge. It says he has been raised up…but he had submitted – placed himself below (as well as dying and being raised to life).

Finally, as I have mentioned before, I really am not interested in church history to the extent that some might be. The issue at hand now is if the Son can be subordinate in function but not in essence. The issue in my mind is not whether or not we can prove if the debate 2000 years ago was about this or not…but rather whether or not it is the truth.

It is the comps who claim it to be possible, so it should not be hard for them to prove! At the same time, what Cheryl said needs an answer – “If the Son would have less power and less authority to use His will and power, then He is no longer omnipotent.”

I checked out Mrs Patterson’s website.
Is this what happens when a country does not have a royal family?

“But once we were free to see that there was nothing wrong with my wife leading our families prayer life since she was the more gifted at it, prayer came busting out all over from all of us.”

When we are under law we are slaves to sin, but when we are under grace we are slaves to righteousness. The comp teaching places men under law (as well as women, obviously!). The law increases sin! I am so glad we are free from this (false) law, as it has helped me contribute more to our marriage than when I was told I had to!

Sorry, Kay…did you say something?… 😉

Nice post Cheryl (and gengwall)!

Of course it all begs to ask the question who is covering all the young (or old single) women of the world. I have noticed both in Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler (both Resurgence blokes) the idea that the father covers the daughter until they marry. There is no age limit, it just continues. It is also important to note that this includes approving (or not approving) possible want to be husbands. Matt Chandler mentioned when he was out here that when the Father is not around he sees his role as the Pastor to approve possible husbands. Mars Hill has been accuesed of similar things.

I guess all this is a part of the complementarian extra biblical rule book that is required to live out these “fantasy” beliefs.

Gengwall, I love how you point out that being freed from the complementarian model meant that you were BOTH free to lead according to your gifts. When my wife and I tried to live the comp life we both struggled, but probably I found it the hardest…I was being asked to do things I did not feel equipped to do.

I have had the injection so I guess it is safe for me to continue blogging with a possibly infected person…I hope all is well gengwall.

Pardon my ignorance of the local dialect, but, “H1N1?ed” means you were sick gengwall?

“God is the source or origin of Christ as the Christ had a beginning. As the eternal Word of God He had no beginning so 1 Cor. 11:3 could not say that God is the “head” of the Word of God. It is accurately stated that God (the Trinity) is the “head” of the Messiah (the man). God is His source and He is connected to God in an intimate way through his birth as a man but nevertheless His ultimate source is from God.”

I like that Cheryl!

Just some quick observations some of which I have made before that help me process some of these things…

By definition “subordination” amd “submission” are not the same.
For Jesus to be subordinate to the Father then he is “below” the Father in some “order”, be it essence…blah blah blah…!

Jesus, however, can submit to the will of the Father if He chooses without being “lower” than the Father in some type of hierarchy.

The head of Jesus is God – I believe meaning the Trinity. Get your head around that (no pun intended). Jesus (having the very fullness of God in him) comes from the Trinity…from the Father, the Spirit and wait for it…the Son! Jesus comes from Jesus (and the Father & the Spirit). Jesus is sent by the Father in some texts, but is sent by God in others. Jesus sends Jesus (as well as the Father & the Spirit).

I guess it would be safe to say that Jesus does the will of the Father, but that this will is not in conflict to the will of the Spirit or the will of the Son.

So, is there hierarchy in the Godhead? Not relevant, because the godhead is united in will and purpose, even though they are three distinct persons in will and purpose.

I believe that we are made in God’s image in a number of possible ways, but one is that Adam and Eve – two persons united as one flesh – looked a lot like the Trinity. The picture of the early church in Acts in believer united in will and purpose. When people are united in will and purpose there is no hierarchy nor any need for it!

That was my rant! I love thinking about the Trinity, we have an amazing God who models perfect relationships!

Perhaps I am too busy pastoring a church, but I have never been one to get too caught up trying to determine what historical figures have said. I was told at Bible College that we stand on the shoulders of giants, but I was always concerned that I was standing on the shoulders of idiots! Therefore I learnt what I could from historical figures but I was primarily concerned about what I believed.

Mark, I appreciate the fact that you do not like the use of the word “subordination” in the ESS doctrine, but what would you prefer? Can you in a sentence or two outline your understanding of the doctrine as you believe it please?

I posted something written by John Starke from CBMW here http://www.achurchinryde.com/blog/?p=349#comment-681
Well, John has responded to my post! He has said he might not be able to interract a lot, but if you would like to talk to John feel free!

Please though, stay here and talk to Mark too! Wow, perhaps the Comps have been drinking too much coffee, they don’t usually want to talk!

I hope it was ok to do that Cheryl. 🙂

Mark said, “Do you think this issue is likely to split the Pressie Church? I sure hope it doesn’t and that people can attempt to work out these issues while still loving each other within the denomination. What is your opinion?”

I guess Cheryl has shared something of her own experience. When I decided our church should look at the issue and preached on the topic of women in ministry and the home we had a family leave. Our church was particularly small when I started as the pastor and this was the first family that had come to our church since I had arrived (before which there were no families 🙁 I had become very good friends with the husband, and they made the decision to leave suddenly half way through the sermon series. There was no room for discussion. I might add that they had recently returned from a conference at Mark Driscoll’s church in Seattle where they were told very strongly, by a very influential person (big church = influential) that complementarianism was the only way to go. CBMW and the Resurgence both appear to hold the gender issue as a non-negotiable.

So yes, I believe that the issue has caused and will continue to cause fracture at the local level. Will it split the Presbyterian Church of Australia? Not yet! I pray that it doesn’t. We really should have that coffee!

Welcome back – you were missed Cheryl!

Cheryl, would you be happy to post Marks paper on your blog? We are nearly ready to start again as we are on 135 comments and counting! If not, then if Mark wants to email me his paper I will put it up at our blog for discussion. I think we would all love to learn more about Mark’s view.

Mark, I reallly do think we need to get together for a coffee – we are not oceans apart! I could meet you one day in at the PTC. Email me at our blog/website and we can have a chat. I would love to know what you are doing at college/ministry etc. Perhaps we could even talk about kephale while we are at it, though that would require two coffees at least!

Great to have you back Mark…I assume assignments at PTC are not helping your time shortage!

I do not see any created order in these verses. What I see is information regarding image and glory of God and purpose of creation, as well as origin of creation (funny that…v. 8!) but nothing about “order”.
Regarding point 6, I was not saying there was created order…I actually referred to origin, but was asking a question about whether this is related to your understanding of created order. Sorry that was not clear!

Regarding: “Dave I don’t dismiss what verse 11 and 12 bring. I didn’t think I did that, maybe I wasn’t clear. This is consistent with what we saw in Gen, namely its not good to be alone, we need each other, God created us for each other. But this doesn’t negate the creation order of 7-10, it supports it. How do you reconcile the creation order with your view?”

But verse 12 is describing what happens NOW…and how it is fundamentally different to the Genesis account (not created order – but origin). Paul is introducing new info, is he not? “…for as woman was made from man, so man is NOW born of woman.”

How do I reconcile the created order with my view? Not sure what I need to reconcile…perhaps I am missing something obvious, or perhaps what I have explained answers this?

With regards to how I translate kephale…I think we agree…I translate it depending on the context I find it, however I recognise that it has been used metaphorically in the sence of source/origin/pre-eminate/mouth. I believe that these are very closely related and often interchangeable.

I agree with gangwell with regards to the NT usage of kephale in regards to authority. I believe that Col 1:18 shows an example of kephale to NOT mean authority…I believe it is very clear. Perhaps you could give us an example of where it is clear that it means authority?

“Kephale does not actually mean “authority” or “origin” but has been interpreted as metaphorically representing one or the other.”

Interesting! It is also interesting that with Grudem’s research he is the one who decides what Kephale should be interpreted as metaphorically representing. He then tells us that this is what it “means”, and people accept what he says without looking into it themselves. One bloke I was reading said this about Grudem, “Grudem lays waste the egalitarian word games that seek to muddy the waters concerning the meaning of kephale, hypotasso, authenteo.” http://www.pressiechurch.org/Issues.html

Can I call him a “Rude, Crude, Grude Machine”, if I don’t question his motives? 🙂

It was the coffee that made me ask…

Kay, you said, “And I can’t fathom how the church could be 100% sure who has this ‘authority’ unless we started medically and genetically testing every member.”

I know this is childish, but do you really want to test every “member”? 😉
Sorry…

Thats ok gengwall…let it out buddy…

Seriously, thanks for that it is very helpful to have that all together like that.

In regards to circular reasoning, these arguments are of course often combined…
Comp: “Husbands are in authority!”
Egal: “How do you know that?”
Comp: “Because husbands are ‘head’.”
Egal: “So what?”
Comp: “Well ‘head’ means authority.”
Egal: “How do you know THAT?”
Comp: “Because husbands, who are the head, are in authority because God created them first – therefore, ‘head’ means authority.”
Egal: “What has created order got to do with it?”
Comp: “Well first in order has authority.”
Egal: “How do you know THAT?”
Comp: “Because Adam, who was created first, was in authority over Eve and was the head – therefore, first in order means authority – that is head!”