Dusman
Active 2007–2008
Tag Cloud
Cheryl,
Thanks for all your hard work on these forthcoming videos. I have been trying to closely follow the fiasco going on with some modern complimentarians denying the equality that Christ has with the Father within the Trinity. I can only hope that these DVDs will be widely distributed and powerfully used to forward the truth about our dear Lord Jesus. Thank you for your service to Christ and His kingdom!
One of the arguments that complementarians employ against women in ministry is the argument that God only used women as prophets and leaders in the Bible when there were no men available at the time. Is this really a valid argument?
No, it’s not, because it leads to a reductio ad absurdum (reduces this specific argument to absurdity). Here’s how:
Premise 1: If some complementarians teach that God only uses women as prophets and spiritual leaders when there are no spiritually qualified men available, then such would apply to the 1st Century NT era as well.
Premise 2: There were female prophets and bible teachers in the 1st Century, New Testament era (Acts 2:17; 18:26; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5; Titus 2:3-5).
Conclusion: Therefore, there were no spiritually qualified men in the 1st Century NT era.
Obviously, the above syllogism shows the absurdity of this argument. :-)>
I know you know this but it is no secret that reformed/ calvanists “the frozen chosen” lean towards arrogance. It is part of their church culture . They are very sure of themselves, and generally highly educated. They practically worship the church fathers though and they are not a charismatic people experientially. So they DO have blind spots.
I speak here as one who holds to the doctrines of grace yet abhor the arrogance you speak of. Our precious church decries the prideful arrogance displayed in all parts of the Christ’s church, not just those in the Reformed camp. A cold, dead orthodoxy is no one’s friend, and yes, it is sad that those often who are the most intellectual within Christ’s church often display a rude arrogance and pride. However, there are many evangelical scholars who hold to the doctrines of grace and/or are in the Reformed camp yet are humble, loving people. Many of these folks have also done much for the work of removing heirarchicalism in the churches by promoting the idea that people should function according to their giftedness versus their gender. Dr. Bob Wright, Dr. Doug and Rebecca Groothius, and Dr. Jon Zens would be a few names of mention. These are lovely people, and they exude humility yet maintain intellectual rigor. It is easy to broadbrush people who are of the same conviction in one area because of their convictions and subsequent negative behavior in another. That’s why we must remember to carefully avoid poisoning the well against the whole group just because one bad apple is located therein. Thanks and much love!
If it’s about Calvinism, I can guarantee it would get ugly. I’ve debated it many times, and even with the best of intentions it never ends well. And with Matt, I can guarantee you’d be charged at the very least with misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the teachings of Calvinism.
Even though theologically, I would be classified as a Calvinist, I agree with Teknomom. Most of these types of discussions are a real waste of time and generally end up creating more heat than light . . . especially given Matt’s history of being unkind and rude in his previous radio interactions with Cheryl. Matt strikes me as the kind of guy who comes off as “My interpretation of Scripture in the area of women in ministry is plain for any and all to see, and if you don’t agree with it, then by default, you’re a heretic.” I would imagine that sadly, he might take a similar tact in the area of the doctrines of grace. I truly hope I’m wrong.
In our church, we *joyfully* have members who are non-Calvinists and more importantly, our elders teach a two-parts series titled “How To Discuss Theology Like Incurable God-Lovers”. We encourage discussion in areas of disagreement for the purpose of sharpening and encouraging one another vs. killing the unity of the body of Christ through parading our pet doctrines, thereby creating disunity and factiousness (Titus 3:10-11). We love our fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord too much to separate from them and create disunity in the body because of our differing positions on secondary doctrinal issues.
If any of you are appalled at Matt’s behavior, rest assured, I am as well. I’d avoid him since he emits and air of factiousness. He will not be taught by Cheryl (or any other biblical egalitarian) and those who will not be taught, *cannot* be taught. So, for what it’s worth, I’d exhort you to avoid wasting your time arguing with someone who isn’t going to listen in the first place. Spend that time with your children, your church, and your family.
“The funny part is that the part of the message they deleted were my quotes from MATT!”
This is a great example of why I simply do not take the time to participate in such exchanges any longer. Many people who don’t want to listen to a different point of view are simply unable to be objective and considerate in the process of discussions like these.
“One, debate is ALWAYS about appearances and debate skill, and NEVER about substance and reasoned exegesis. The game is to sway the audience, not with superior arguments, but with superior crowd manipulation. So only those who are trained in formal debate should even think about participating.”
As one who has participated in two, formally-moderated public debates, I have to agree with Teknomom.
“Canadians were created first. You guys are second. (Tee Hee)”/i>
I guess that’s supposed to mean that we “led in the transgression” huh? 🙂
“Yes, Thanksgiving is this weekend here in Canada.”
I just knew there was something really weird about those Canadians . . .
“What is true Biblical authority? One who rightly interprets and teaches the Word has Biblical authority and once we hear/know the truth we are personally responsible for it.”
I have made the following statement many, many times to our church during teaching: “What I teach is only authoritative insofar as it correctly represents and applies the teachings found in the Scriptures.
“I am begining to feel like I am a member of a mutal admiration socieity, at least for our understandings. haha.”
You have a great gift of being able to summarize accurately without losing important information. This is a helpful strength, especially when it comes to trying to explain difficult doctrinal concepts to a postmodern culture that thinks in 30 sec. sound bytes.
Don said, “I see the hierarchy of the church as flat, everyone is under Jesus. We can choose to be under someone else ONLY as they are under Jesus and ONLY for a Biblical reason, for example, to learn from them, etc.”
That’s an excellent, nutshell summary of the biblical teaching on church leadership.
I’m glad to help and encourage this sister in any way possible. It’s the absolute least I can do given the blessing she’s been to me.
That’s a good summary Don.
Stephen said,
“I think your key reasoning is that scripture, when properly interpreted, cannot contradict other scripture.”
I addressed that in light of Cheryl’s brief exchange with Matt Slick here: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/09/debate-can-women-be-pastors-part-2.html
voiceofsanity said,
“It is hard to believe that you can’t see that you are clearly starting with your desired conclusion (i.e. that women should teach in church and be able to become pastors and elders) and twisting scripture to support your preconceived belief. Matt is right and you are wrong. The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs.”
My friend, it might be helpful if you actually refuted Cheryl’s *exegesis rather than make bare-naked assertions like “he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you . . .”.
The Reformed Movement of today desperately needs a renaissance of liberty and freedom. I believe that God’s bringing it in perfect time, and we are here for such a time as this. I’m just not sure how to persevere to the end.
God is “bringing it”, and He’s starting with one Christian at a time but IMHO, I don’t think it will occur primarily in the subscriptionist churches, at least not yet. Just like all doctrinal pendulum swings, they’ll have some groups that break off from them in the future once the authoritarianism and patriocentricity becomes too cult-like seeking “a more excellent way.”
The areas you are more than likely to see this in will be in splinter groups from the strongly complementarian Sovereign Grace Ministries movement (of which Wayne Grudem is a part) that desire the high view of Scripture, the high view of God’s Sovereignty, yet desire to have people operate in accordance with their gifts vs. their gender per the Scriptures. Moreover, this is already being seen in the New Covenant Theology movement, of which, I’m part of (see Jon Zen’s excellent article here: http://www.searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm).
Both of these movements are confessional in a sense, yet they have folks within them that strongly desire to test all things in light of the word. Those from the more authoritarian backgrounds (i.e., those that hold to Dabneyism) will call the rest heretics. And so the story goes . . . .
Sorry tekno . . . couldn’t resist.
I get so peeved when people can’t punctuate, and now they’ve got me doing it!
i hate it when people dont use punkchewashun, dont use apostrofees when they dont use commas and win they use the wrong wurds and spell the wrong way i also hate it when peeps dont put punkchewashun at the ends of there sintenses
🙂
Don said, The male hierarchicalists simply do not know what to do with us freedom teachers. This is uncannily similar to the slave owners not knowing what to do with the abolitionists in the 1850’s, except to say that if you do not believe what they teach, you do not believe the Bible.
I’ve read the arguments used by the early Southern Baptist Convention founders in support of New World slavery contra the abolitionists of their time, and I really can’t tell any difference in the form of their pro-slavery arguments when compared to the modern complementarian arguments, albeit the substance and texts under question are different.
“I think that Matt is “spooked” by Cheryl.”
Right-e-o Don. Not only does it appear as if Matt is not really interested in having Cheryl lay out her position carefully because he’s not really interested in hearing it first and then passing judgment; but moreover, the sense I get is that he just doesn’t know what to do with a bible-believing egalitarian that actually builds her position from Biblical passages in context instead of ignoring the Bible like the theological liberals are prone to do. It’s easy to dismiss a theological liberal in a 30 sec. soundbyte. It’s not easy to dismiss a born-again believer that makes her points from the infallible, sacred text.
Excellent advice Don. Matt’s show (like most radio shows, excepting Greg Kokul’s 2 hour weekly apologetics show) is designed for the post-modern ear that is trained for 30 sec. sound bytes. This means that deep reflection and exegesis of any given passage is simply out of the question.
Another important point: To quickly counter CBMW’s claim that a first-glance, “plain reading” of these controversial passages is the appropriate way to read them can easily be countered with this statement: “That might sound good, but since when do Christians have a first-glance theology?” Then you could go on to say, “‘First glance’ Scripture reading is the stuff that the cults are guilty of and if we do what they do we’ll cause the Scriptures to contradict themselves . . . such as what happens when the complementarian says that 1 Tim. 2:12 is saying that a woman cannot teach a man true doctrine under any circumstances yet in Acts 18:26 we have Priscilla teaching Apollos the way of God more accurately. I guess Priscilla was in sin huh?” That’s the kind of tact that needs to be taken in 1.5 minutes or less.
We appreciate you too sister Cheryl! Get some rest and spend some time with your hubby, it is well-deserved.
The CBMW book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has a section where they instruct women on how they should speak to men so that they are not “teaching” them. It goes to the bazaar point that if a woman is giving directions to a man she must be very careful not to offend his manly rights of leadership – or something to that effect.
And that is just as arbitrary and subjective also because what is “manly” and conducive to promoting “male leadership” is going to be different from culture to culture and man to man. Again, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument when my complementarian brothers and sisters try to use this verse (out of context, cf. 1 Tim. 2:15 “she . . . they”) to substantiate limiting a woman’s teaching.
Agent Starling said,
“The complete list of qualifications for elders depends upon the verb tense of the words “must be”. In Greek it is the word, “die”. It means “must”, or “ought”. That word tells us it is imperative that in order to be an elder, or teaching elder (pastor), one M U S T be the husband of one wife. An imperative is not negotiable. Seems clear to this female reader of the bible.”
A few questions are in order to show the inconsistency of holding this position regarding the Greek word dei (“must”) being used in connection with the phrase “husband of one wife”. If we force the text (1 Tim 3) to say that “husband of one wife” disqualifies women, then we must also consistently disqualify unmarried men. Do we also consistently say that unmarried men who are in the pulpit are sinning against God? What about married males who do not have children? If we consistently apply the text in a wooden way (instead of applying the spirit of the law, which means “faithful spouse”) we would also have to disqualify married men who do not have children since 1 Timothy 3:4 says that the overseer must be “keeping his children under control”. Do we also consistently consider married men in the pulpit who do not have children to be sinning against God? Ah what a tangled web we weave when we leave consistency aside for a prejudiced view of women.
The complementarian (or hierarchical or traditional) position on women in ministry is filled with contradiction because it is based on widely-varying, almost-arbitrary application of 1 verse: 1 Timothy 2:12.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12 ESV)
If women can’t teach men, what can’t they teach? Greek? Church history? Sunday school? And at what age do men become men? Can a woman teach 12 year olds? 18 year olds? 21 year olds? When does it become unbiblical? Some have said when boys start getting hair under their arms. At that point, no more women Bible teachers. Should we do armpit checks starting at age 11?
Others say it is ok for a woman to teach if her husband is on stage with her so that he is teaching “under his authority.” Others say it is O.k. as long as he is in the front row.
My favorite example is that of complementarian and well-known New Testament scholar Wayne Grudem entitled “But what should women do in the church?” (PDF document) It is hard to figure out how to apply 1 verse (1 Timothy 2:12) to everything women do in the church today but he sure tries. His attempt at application reveals to me how absurd the position is.
Cheryl,
You did a great job by (1) sticking to your game-plan and more importantly, you (2) demonstrated some real HS produced patience. I’ve done PalTalk type of debates and after all the preparation, I think that for the most part, they were a real waste of time. I say this because the proposed winner was not necessarily the one who had the truth, but the one who could speak the fastest and hurl out a litany of arguments in a short amount of time that could never be responded to by the opponent. In light of this, I’d personally encourage you to continue using your writing and teaching gifts to encourage those who *will* listen.
“And no, Matt, there was one elder in the Old Testament who was female, Deborah. Matt should have known better that the early church was modeled after the Old Testament governance (elders). And the elders (presbuteroi) is masculine-gendered plural word but that does not necessarily refer to just men.”
If this type of logic is used, then it is worth noting that the NT *never* mentions that a woman partook of the Lord’s Supper. Given brother Matt’s logic, we shouldn’t give the Supper to women, for that might be a sin. 🙂