Dusman

After listening to this, there are a few preliminary points that I think would be helpful to make in regards to this discussion. Matt kept asking Cheryl why this woman was not told to sigao (to be completely verbally silent – same word used in 1 Cor. 14:34) in 1 Tim. 2:12 if she was teaching false teaching to her husband.

The reason is because vv. 11 & 12 both go together (as Don J. has already emphasized over and over) and in verse 11, Paul *first* commands that this woman is to learn with a teachable, orderly disposition. He then goes on to say that in verse 12 she is to remain this way while she is being prevented from dominating her husband with false teaching (see use of hesuchia at end of v. 12). In other words, it is as if Paul is saying:

“11 This woman is to learn in a quiet and orderly way with all submissiveness. 12 For I am not now permitting [this] woman to teach or dominate her husband, but to be quiet/orderly.”

The “quiet and orderly” of verse 11 and the quiet/orderly” of verse 12 are the same Greek word hesuchia. If Paul would’ve used sigao, (1) the chiasmic structure (the literary parallel) would’ve been lost , (2) Paul would’ve actually been teaching that this woman had to sit and shut her mouth without uttering a peep, which further contradicts what he just commanded in verse 11, and (3) when people learn, they necessarily need to be able to ask clarifying questions, and the use of hesuchia prevents her from further dominating her husband with this teaching, but also allows her to ask clarifying questions while maintaining a teachable disposition as Paul commanded in verse 11.

After listening to this, there are a few preliminary points that I think would be helpful to make in regards to this discussion. Matt kept asking Cheryl why this woman was not told to sigao (to be completely verbally silent – same word used in 1 Cor. 14:34) in 1 Tim. 2:12 if she was teaching false teaching to her husband.

The reason is because vv. 11 & 12 both go together (as Don J. has already emphasized over and over) and in verse 11, Paul *first* commands that this woman is to learn with a teachable, orderly disposition. He then goes on to say that in verse 12 she is to remain this way while she is being prevented from dominating her husband with false teaching (see use of hesuchia at end of v. 12). In other words, it is as if Paul is saying:

“11 This woman is to learn in a quiet and orderly way with all submissiveness. 12 For I am not now permitting [this] woman to teach or dominate her husband, but to be quiet/orderly.”

The “quiet and orderly” of verse 11 and the quiet/orderly” of verse 12 are the same Greek word hesuchia. If Paul would’ve used sigao, (1) the chiasmic structure (the literary parallel) would’ve been lost , (2) Paul would’ve actually been teaching that this woman had to sit and shut her mouth without uttering a peep, which further contradicts what he just commanded in verse 11, and (3) when people learn, they necessarily need to be able to ask clarifying questions, and the use of hesuchia prevents her from further dominating her husband with this teaching, but also allows her to ask clarifying questions while maintaining a teachable disposition as Paul commanded in verse 11.

BTW, I’ve heard some excellent commentary in here re: exegetical issues. I’m learning some good info here and greatly appreciate it.

“Yes, Slick is a Calvinist. But I should also point out that not all (certainly most however) Calvinists are opposed to women in ministry.”

This fair and kind comment is a nice segue way into a brief and encouraging comment I’d like to offer. My dear brothers and sisters, I hold firmly to the doctrines of grace, am an elder in our church, and I’m also a biblical egalitarian. Dr. Douglas Groothuis (Christian apologist and philosopher), his wife Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (you know her through reading some of the best evangelical egalitarian literature), Dr. R.K. MacGregor Wright (apologist and theologian who wrote a book refuting the heresy of open theism titled “No Place for Sovereignty”), and Dr. Jon Zens (theologian and elder) are all Calvinists, egalitarians, and hold to the full inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture.

As you express your own personal distate for Calvinism I totally and completely respect that. But please remember that *this* Calvinistic brother in Christ loves his non-Calvinistic Christian brethren and cherishes them. I greatly appreciate much of what I’ve learned from those here who are openly non-Calvinistic and I thank God for you. I do not consider non-Calvinists heretics and never would (lest they begin deny essentials of the faith, such as the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, justification by faith apart from works, etc.).

The church I am an elder at is an openly Calvinistic church but we allow and encourage people who are non-Calvinistic to join as long as they assent to the essential truths of the Christian faith. We encourage our non-Calvinistic church members to respectfully and lovingly discuss their differences with us in this area so that we can sharpen one another in our study of Scripture and as a result, I’ve had to change my mind on several things in the past This is what I want, what I encourage, and why I cherish all my Christian brethren. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting outright what Calvin taught in the area of soteriology because you reject the horrible atrocity that he committed against Servetus in another (and yes, I agree that they were absolutely horrendous). This is an informal logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy (attacking the origin of a belief rather than the truthfulness of the belief itself). You wouldn’t reject the validity of alegebra because you found out later that your 8th grade algebra teacher was an axe murderer would you? You don’t reject biblical egalitarianism because the God-denying liberal theologian John Shelby Spong is also an egalitarian do you? Of course not. We all know better than that. I’m not asking that you agree with the doctrines of grace, but I am asking that you remember that this ole’ preacher loves, cares for, cherishes, and has learned so much from his precious non-Calvinistic brethren in the Lord. Thanks and much love to all of you in Jesus’ name!

ccanuck asked earlier,
My friend Steve Atkerson (who is a complementarian 🙂 wrote an excellent article titled “Concensus Governing” and it can be found here: http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=13

In a nutshell, Steve shows from a careful examination of the NT, that things were sorted out *publicly* in the early ekklesia when a great need arose, not behind closed doors with only leaders present. Early Christian churches were small enough to fit in houses and everybody knew everybody else and enjoyed intimate fellowship one with another. This type of structure allowed for elders to guide as necessary the entire congregation into a consensus when making decisions because the elders ensured that the entire congregation understood the situation and the issues involved. Thus, the early churches were elder “led” instead of “elder-ruled”.

It is clear by the testimony of all church historians that the church moved from simplicity to increasing complexity and so eventually, the ability for churches to function in this way was lost. The dynamics of the Spirit were all but lost as the ecclesiastical bureaucracy became fixed in concrete. Dependence on the Spirit in the early days of the ekklesia was replaced by inflexible, clergy-dominated traditions as time went on. The minority who were seeking to be led by the Spirit were generally treatly harshly by the hierarchy in place. Isn’t it safe to say that Spirit-led dynamics are all but shut down when NT perspectives are crowded out by human traditions and dominating clerics? When church came to be about control then it is no wonder that the vulnerability attendant with trusting the Spirit was lost and hence, a heirarchicalism developed.

ccanuck,

Thank you for disagreeing agreeably my friend. As an elder of a local church, I have to ditto what has been said earlier by Teknomom and Don. Namely, that being a pastor/elder/overseer is a gift and not an office. An office is something that cannot be found in the NT, was created by men, and is bestowed by men. But, having the desire and aspiration to oversee God’s flock is a gift that is sovereignly bestowed by our dear Lord upon whomsoever He wishes. In light of that fact, Jesus said that those who are the greatest amongst us should have the same “authority” as slaves and children,

Luke 22:24-26 “And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26 “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.”

Matthew 23:1-12 “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 “But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

That means that no hierarchy should exist in the body of Christ. We certainly will have those within the body that have identifiable gifts, but no hierarchy. This is probably the first crucial aspect to the entire complementarian/egalitarian issue, the second can probably be boiled down to this one question: “Is there any law in Scripture that prohibits a godly adult woman from teaching true doctrine to an adult male?” (cf. Acts 18:26)

Thanks for your willingness to post in a combox where your position on this issue is the minority report, but we trust that you will be a Berean, which means that we don’t ever adopt a “first-glance” theology; for this is the stuff cults are made of.

Another excellent scholarly survey of women’s roles in the early church: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem08.html

Below are a list of qualities that I think Cheryl displayed during the radio debate. These come from the last teaching that I gave to the folks at our church:

In light of the exhortation for each of us to be “quick to hear,” what are some vital attitudes that we must cultivate in our body relationships?

1. We must be open to learn from Christians in various traditions. We all tend to stick to a denominational party-line and turn our heads away from information outside of our comfort zone. A.N. Groves wrote in 1833 concerning his relationship with J.N. Darby, “I do not think we ought to propose to be modeled unlike every sect, but simply to be like Christ; let us neither seek nor fear a name. I wish rather to have from every sect what every sect may have from Christ.”[13] Are we willing to “listen” to multiple sources and discern from them what might help us discover the mind of Christ? Are we really open to be challenged by others to search the Scriptures and see what is indeed so? Thomas Dubay notes in this regard: “Since no one of us mortals, affected as we are with original sin, is perfectly pure in his desire for truth, no one of us is exempt from some degree of close-mindedness. It is only our God who is truth than can cure our reluctance to embrace all of his truth, however he speaks it.”[14]

2. “We need to be humble,” says Dubay, “small in our own estimation. Finding the solution to a mathematical problem is possible without humility, but finding God’s will is impossible without this virtue. James 4:6 tells us that God resists the proud but gives grace (and light) to the humble”.[15] Whenever a group of believers bathed in humility gather together, great things can be expected; but, as James 3:16 notes, where “jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.” The truly humble believer puts others ahead of themselves, and they can do this when they carefully listen and pay attention to what they hear from others.

3. We must always have a “willingness to be changed by what is going to be said.[16] One listens wholly only if he is willing to modify his present position if the evidence warrants it. People who are set in their thoughts and determined not to change their behavior do not listen to contrary evidences (Dubay, p. 11). If we admit that we don’t know anything like we should, then we will be open to new light from our fellow Christian. We must listen to possible new evidence that has escaped our attention. As I’ve said earlier, the church must always be open-ended toward God’s truth in Christ.

4. We must “grow in awareness that the person speaking is important, even a precious one of “God’s beloved” (Rom. 1:7). We pay attention to important people. To the proud person other people aren’t important and so he is not inclined to take them seriously nor listen to them. Even more, we value the opinions of those we love. If I do not really care what my brother thinks, I had better doubt that I love my brother” (Dubay, 11). I have seen so many cases in churches, on the internet, and in e-mails where those who articulate things with razor-sharp logic bulldoze over the little person, and pooh-pooh any concerns they have. You may think that a question or concern coming from another is immature, or ill-timed, or very low on your list of priorities, but if you really love that person you must give your ears and heart to that fellow-believer who is precious to Christ. We must highly esteem the input of every part of the body, or we run the risk of missing the voice of Jesus speaking through them in our midst. In Christ’s body we are instructed to heap more honor on those parts that seem to be weaker and less honorable (1 Cor. 12:22 -24).

Don said re: Cheryl’s disposition during the radio debate/discussion,

“Congratulations for giving us a great example of hesuchia. You display the attributes of a warrior of God.”

I gotta tell ya, Cheryl’s disposition is such a breath of fresh air in an age where whoever can talk the fastest, spin truth the quickest, and speak over the other the most is considered the possessor of truth.

“There is no such safeguard on women’s issues. Male supremacism crosses denominatonal lines, as well as inter-religious lines. Somewhere I read that a committee discussing how to word the part about Junia being “outstanding among the apostles” decided that their assertion of females being forbidden to be authoritative trumped what the Bible actually said in Greek! They started with their bias and bent the Word around it.

This kind of thing, to use a ‘Slick’ quote, is what the cults do.”

I remember reading how translators would deliberate over Rom. 16:7 to the point of suggesting translations that actually make the original language say the exact opposite. Indeed, this is no different than what the JWs have done with the NWT, especially as it relates to the passages concerning the deity of the Lord Jesus.

“If even the Word itself is not sacred to these men, what is?”

Well, it just goes to show that all if us, even with the best intentions, tend to mess things up quite nicely due to our sinful proclivities. I’ve done things like this (although not to quite this degree insofar as the Holy Scriptures are concerned) many, many times and had to repent for it. Nevertheless, tampering with text-critical information is nothing new, and it just means that we have to work harder to be accurate with the sacred text and avoid our *own* biases from creeping in and mutilating God’s precious word.

Again, teknomom, I appreciate the plug and am enjoying the historical footnotes to my new .pdf “The Source” NT by Nyland.

Teknomom,

I just ordered the .pdf version of “The Source NT” by Dr. Ann Nyland and the lexical/historical footnotes are absolutely excellent. Thanks for the link.

“One point, where you said: ‘Yeah but the word translated ‘overseer’ in 1 Tim. 3 (episkopes) is a *feminine singular noun* so I guess that means that Paul was also teaching that both males and females can be pastors and now you’ve got a defeater for your position!’

I hadn’t thought about this one and it is certainly a great point to pose to Matt. Thanks!”

Cheryl,

This would be useful *only* for the purposes of constructing a defeater for his position through taking the same *eisegetical* tact that he does to determine the meaning of 1 Tim. 3:1.

I am *not*, repeat, *not* advocating the false motion that proper exegesis is done through referring to the gender of specific words alone out of context.

What I am advocating per the above scenario is that you *can* effectively reduce his position to absurdity by drawing the exact *opposite* conclusion supporting your own position by using the selfsame eisegetical process that he did to draw his conclusions, thus showing that if “word-study” games are played, then we can prove anything! . . . and brother Matt knows this is *not* the proper way to do exegesis.

Here are a few other tidbits of information that I believe would be helpful in light of this radio discussion/debate.

Matt emphasized the masculine pronouns in the English translation of 1 Tim. 3:1 (i.e., NAU 1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any *man* aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work *he* desires to do.)

1. As Cheryl tried to carefully point out, the Greek word translated “any man” in the NASB is tis. Tis *is* a masculine, singular pronoun that is used throughout the NT to denote not only males, but also females and even both genders as a collective group. Cheryl ably demonstrated one example of this in her WIM DVD series with Luke 9:23 where Jesus said, “. . . “If *anyone* [Gk. tis] wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me”. It is obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying that *only* males could be saved or that to be saved *only* males had to “deny themselves” and take up “his cross.

Also, all of these verbs (“wishes”, “deny”, “take up”) are 3rd person singular verbs that can be correctly translated either “he/she/it wishes”, “he/she/it denies” and “he/she/it takes up”. This brings me to point # 2.

2. The “aspires” and “he desires” of 1 Tim. 3:1 are also 3rd person singular verbs (oregetai and epithumai respectively). Now, in NT Greek, non-participial verbs can be translated either “he”, “she”, or “it” depending on the context because those verbs in and of themselves do *not* carry any specific gender. This is Greek 101 folks! Why is this important? Well, lo and behold, this means that these verbs could also be correctly translated [without violating the context of 1 Tim. 3] “If anyone aspires [fem.] to be an overseer, it is a fine work *she* desires to do.”

3. Matt wanted to argue that having female elders/pastors/overseers is impossible because Paul made reference to the “husband of one wife”, etc. and that what follows from verse 2 onward shows that Paul was clearly teaching that only males can be elders. And so, he would necessarily argue that the verbs in 1 Tim. 3:1 should be correctly translated “any man aspires . . . he desires”. However, for strategic purposes, we could play that game too by saying, “Brother Matt, if you are going to argue that the verbs of 1 Tim. 3:1 should be translated in the masculine to say that only males can be pastors and that this is backed up by the masculine character qualities in 1 Tim. 3 (i.e., “husband of one wife”, “manages *his* own household well, keeping *his* children under control with all dignity . .”) then we could just as easily say, “Yeah but the word translated ‘overseer’ in 1 Tim. 3 (episkopes) is a *feminine singular noun* so I guess that means that Paul was also teaching that both males and females can be pastors and now you’ve got a defeater for your position!”

4. It seems to me that there are four “logically possible” interpretations of the phrase “of one wife [the] husband,” or “a one-woman man” in 1 Timothy 3. (1) The overseer (synonym for pastor/elder, etc.) must be married and cannot be childless (from v. 4). From this it follows (for some) that he cannot even marry again if his wife dies, because that would mark him as the husband of two wives and so he would be automatically disqualified. (2) The proscription is really about excluding polygamists. (3) It refers to faithfulness to the spouse you are married to. Even divorce would be forgiven if it happened before one’s conversion since the current marriage would be validated by the new birth (1 Cor 7:14, etc.) or, (4) It merely indicates that the overseer should be married, a common conservative interpretation.

The first (1) is logically impossible because it would exclude Paul (but not Peter) from the Apostleship, since Peter was an Apostle and an Elder (1 Peter 5:1). Paul elsewhere extols singleness as a good thing for those called to do it for the purpose of being more freed up to engage in the gospel ministry (1 Cor. 7:32-35). The principle here is that the Christian is NEVER at liberty to interpret a dubious text for which several possible meanings can be suggested, in a way that is in logical conflict with other perfectly plain texts elsewhere in Scripture. This is one of the main reasons that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 cannot possibly Paul’s own teaching, since it plainly contradicts other statements of Paul’s in the very same letter (1 Cor. 11:5).
It seems to me that (2) is at least possible, but polygamy was unusual in the 1st century Greco-Roman world, and not common among Jews, either, although it was not unknown. Men had concubines, hetairi, temporary morganatic marriages, mistresses, etc., but rarely polygamy, so this is pretty unlikely. (4) is excluded for the same reason as (1). This leaves (3), which I have come to agree with, leaving (2) as a derivative implication, but not the primary intent. As has been mentioned elsewhere on this blog, Lucian Deiss’ research supports this.

Hope *tis* helps. (pun intended!)

Cheryl,

I listened to the debate earlier today while driving and I was absolutely appalled at Matt’s behavior towards you. In spite of his adamant disagreement with your biblical egalitarianism, such prideful, disrespectful, and sadly, ungodly behavior can never be justified, no matter how strong the disagreement. This past Sunday I taught about “The Essence of the New Heart” (John 13:34-35) and I have two pertinent quotes from that teaching that are appropos here:

“Paul says that we are to “. . . admonish one another.” (Rom. 15:14), “comfort one another . . .” (1 Thess. 4:18) and “encourage one another and build up one another” and “always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people . . .” (1 Thess. 5:11-18). And so, we are to diligently seek the good of both believer and non-believer.

Because all believers are “ministers” (believer-priests) who have been spiritually gifted by God with the ability to lovingly build up their spiritual brothers and sisters and encourage them toward spiritual maturity, the ministry of elders and deacons must be viewed against the backdrop of the general priesthood of *all believers.* Elders and deacons serve an important part in the building up of the body, but they are not the only sources of edification in the body. A harmonious church that exhibits body-love by doing the “one-anothers” of Scripture will also will be a light to the world, attracting unbelievers to the light of salvation through trust in Jesus (John 12:32). This is how Jesus said that the unbelieving world will know that you are His people. Again, He said,

NAU John 13:34-35 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

I began this teaching with the following,

” . . .the New Testament never talks about two classes of Christians – “minister” and “laymen” — like we often hear in churches today. According to the Bible, the people (laos, “laity”) of God comprise all Christians, and all Christians by exercising their spiritual gifts should be doing good deeds for each other as a part of the “work of the ministry”. So, if we want to be biblical, we will have to say that all Christians are laymen (God’s people) and all are ministers of some sort who are performing good deeds that glorify God and benefit His people as well as showing love to those who don’t know Jesus. This is why the clergy-laity distinction is unbiblical and invalid. It developed with the ancient Christians of church history and actually marked a drift away from the biblical teaching of our need to do the “one-anothers” of Scripture. Because of this, it has almost rid the church of the much needed Christian intimacy, mutual ministry, and strong accountability and most importantly, body-love. This is what Jesus was emphasizing when He said that people will know you are His disciples by the love that you show for each other (John 13:34).”

Why reproduce this in this combox? Because brother Matt (and all of us, including me!) needs to remember what Jesus said in John 13:34-35 and what Paul said in Romans 15:7, 14 in light of the disrespectful and ungodly way he behaved.

Here are some mental notes that I made in regards to some of Matt’s arguments (I’ve taken 3 years of graduate-level NT Greek, so much of this information is readily available to me either through daily translation or via frequently used lexical resources):

(1) It is *NOT* true that the plural interrogative pronoun tines means that Paul “designating men” (i.e., males only) since Greek grammarians readily state that tines can refer to both male and female gender. Tinas is correctly rendered in 1 Tim. 1:6 as “certain persons” (ESV), and “some” (KJV, NET, NIV, NKJV). This is clearly taught in introductory Greek grammars.

Greek Grammarian Ray Summers lists the plural interrogative pronoun tines under both masculine and feminine gender headings on p. 119 of his introductory grammar titled Essentials of New Testament Greek, (Nashville, TENN: Broadman Press, 1950), 119.

(2) For the purposes of a reductio ad absurdum, if the semantic range of tines is confined to the male gender only, then the following types of absurdities occur:

a. Jesus could only have compassion on the male portion (“some”) of the crowd of Mark 8:3.
b. Jesus used tines of the “some women” in both Luke 8:2 and 24:22 which must mean that either (1) they really weren’t women, which would mean that (2) Jesus was wrong, or (3) tines is an interrogative pronoun that is used to designate “some” or “certain ones” of either male or female gender. I’ll go with option # 3!
c. If tines refers to males exclusively, then unbelieving Jewish women do not fall under the condemnation of Romans 3:3.
d. If tines refers to males exclusively, then only unbelieving Jewish males were broken off from the true root in Romans 11:17 and Jewish women are still grafted into the root even if they are unbelievers in Yeshua.
e. If tines refers to males exclusively, then repentant former lesbians, female drunkards, etc., still cannot be saved because they are female according to 1 Cor. 6:11.

There is more I could point to, but I think I’ve made the point exegetically. As Greek scholar Ray Summers points out, tines is a plural interrogative pronoun that can refer to either males or females.

Therefore, Paul’s use of the plural tines is *not* exegetically significant and Matt has been exegetically sloppy.

The idea of an “illegitimate totality transfer” of the various meanings possible for a Greek word only applies when either (1) the meaning suggested is *outside* of the semantic range of meanings for the particular word in question, (2) when the suggested meaning has neither internal or extrabiblical lexical support, and/or (3) when the meaning suggested for the word *is* in the semantic range of meanings, but clearly does *not* fit the greater context and causes insuperable difficulties that are otherwise avoided by way of another semantic meaning.

You broke none of the above rules in the discussion of the hapax legomena authentein, which, in extrabiblical contemporanoues Greek literature of Paul’s day carried the idea of “dominating so as to murder/slay”. See Linda Belville’s excellent scholarly treatment of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 in Discovering Biblical Equality.

Also, if brother Matt takes a traditionalist understanding of 1 Tim. 2:12, then Paul was preventing women from teaching men under *all circumstances* (lest he be inconsistent by having women teach as long as it’s not from a “pulpit”, something that is totally foreign to Scripture; especially in light of the fact that the early church focused on mutual, interactive participation in church meetings. Cf. 1 Cor. 14:26ff) and therefore, we have Prisca (Priscilla) sinfully teaching Apollos the way of God more accurately!

Remember what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:12 (lit. translation from Gk.), ” But I am not presently allowing a woman to teach nor to dominate/rule over a man.” This means that if a traditional, complementarian interpretation is taken, a woman not only is not to “dominate/rule over” in the role of a pastor/elder/overseer (which, according to Scripture, nobody should *ever* do in the first place.), but that she cannot teach men at all since Paul used the negation particles ouk and oude translated usually “neither . . . nor” respectively. Under a classic traditionalist understanding of 1 Tim. 2:12, she cannot instruct a man under *any circumstances,* whether as a pastor/elder, or off to the side in an informal conversation, bible study, or Sunday School class. Thus, Matt’s own interpretation refutes his own position where he said, “Women CAN teach men . . .” IMHO, this is where consistency gets the complementarian every time!

So the 64 million dollar question is this: Does God consider it a sin for a woman to teach true doctrine to a man under any circumstance? If I hold to a complementarian position on 1 Tim. 2:11-12, I’d be forced to say yes (!) . . . and that is so awkward, foreign, and inconsistent when compared to what I observe occurring in the rest of the NT (i.e., Acts 18:26; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5, and 1 Cor. 14:26ff.).

And one other thing, much of what I heard in this interaction demonstrates a problem that I think inevitably occurs when you have institutionalized, hierarchicalism that manifests itself in what I call the great “church office syndrome.” There is no warrant for the idea of inserting the concept of “church office” (with its authoritarian, dominating, dictatorship understanding) into the NT meaning of the *function* of elder/overseer/pastor or deacon. I realize that Matt would not hold to this either (at least not to this degree), but he would hold that there are specific “offices” in the church ( i.e., elder/deacon) that need to possess some kind of authority over the congregation. This is probably *the* root problem of complementarianism because when you realize that spiritual leaders in the NT churches are to have the “authority” of slaves (Matt. 20:25-27; 23:8-12; Mk. 10:42-44), then you realize that the entire idea of * anybody*, whether male or female, “usurping authority” is absolutely ridiculous in the first place!

Thanks for your efforts Cheryl. You did a great job of showing Christ-like love for this brother with a huge dose of sanctified patience while still effectively presenting God’s truth. God bless you my sister!

Cheryl,

Thanks for these great links.

I’ll be praying for you Cheryl.

Cheryl,

Since you are reading Alan Knox’s blog, you are going to find some real gems in his articles. You may not agree with everything he says, but you can rest assured that he is a faithful brother that tries to test all things and hold fast to that which is true.

By the way, this was a very thought-provoking article.

Don,

It’s sad to see that some Christians would launch an ad hominem your way by accusing you of falsely portraying a male . . or worse, knowing that you are a male, yet making fun of you instead and calling you a name instead of actually intelligently and courteously interacting with your position. Your testimony got me thinking. In my case as a pastor, some folks have been pretty surprised to learn my views re: women in the church because to them egalitarianism = liberal feminism &/or an effeminate disposition.

They get a little confused because they know that I like hard, sin-killing, convicting, preaching & teaching from the Scriptures, they know that I have a very high view of the sovereignty of God, they know that I believe in the absolute necessity of contending for the faith once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3), and they know that I dogmatically believe and defend the full, verbal, plenary, inspiration of the Scriptures and hold that the autographs were inerrant and that the copies we have today are sovereignly preserved copies that faithfully represent those autographs.

They also are aware that I am what could be called “a man’s man”. That means that I thoroughly enjoy shooting guns/target practicing for fun (like many Christian men), love hard workouts and the martial arts (like many Christian men), don’t mind having a fat beard and enjoying a good beer with my pizza (like many Christian men), and believe in the importance of hard work and mental or physical “sweat” for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31) over and against a soft, lazy, and sluggardly disposition (like many Christian men).

More importantly, they know that I believe in the absolute necessity of striving to love my wife like Jesus loved the church and gave Himself up for her. I strive to demonstrate this daily through being the head of my wife in our marriage relationship *through providing a consistent and faithful spiritual example* to her and exhorting her by my actions as well as my words as to what it means to be an incurable God-lover (Eph. 5:22ff). I also see the absolute necessity of a godly woman submitting to such a spiritual example.

To me, the view that the husband must provide spiritual headship in the marriage relationship is also conducive to promoting a correct understanding of women in church.

Nevertheless, most folks see these things as mutually exclusive to an egalitarian understanding of Scripture and I think that nothing could be further from the truth. They believe that “head” should = “authority over” and this is nothing but a blatant eisegesis of the text of Eph. 5 and a convenient ignoring of the husband/wife “authority” issues of 1 Cor. 7:4. Sadly, what most folks don’t understand is that I believe the way I do about women in the church *because* I believe in the verbal, plenary, inspiration of the infallible Scriptures and not in spite of it.

Yes, the truth of the Scriptures have been muddled and distorted by god-hating feminist, religious liberals. However, we need to be sure that we encourage those conservative complementarian brothers and sisters who unjustly call us names to be sure that when they reject our biblically faithful understanding of women in ministry, that to be consistent, if they are going to reject us because we are supposedly liberals, then they need to reject the other things that feminist liberals practice as well; things like Scripture reading in church, baptism, singing hymns, participating in communion, and pastors without wives and children. Isn’t consistency grand? 🙂

Cheryl,

I have been familiar with Matt Slick’s ministry for years. I share many of his views regarding the sovereignty of God, spiritual gifts, etc., but on this issue I have to demur. His condescending tone in the .mp3 link is sadly, a characteristic of his that rears its ugly head sometimes when challenged. When and if you call, stay focused, ignore the ad hominems, and stick to your understanding of the “tough passages” of Scripture. However, because of the fact that he is controlling the mike and volume thereof, he may be willing to “get loud” and shut you out. This is typical with reformed complementarians (I used to be one! :-)). With that being the case, I’d be glad to hear his carefully crafted response to your WIM DVD set . . . I’ll be listening diligently.

Cheryl,

I’m a little behind due to attending a pastor’s conference the last few days, but I finally got ’round to reading your post under Wade’s blog article. You presented a truly excellent challenge for consistency my sister!

You betcha this ole’ preacher will miss you. I love the blog and have been greatly encouraged by your ministry. Have a great time teaching and fellowshipping with the brethren!

This is one of the inconsistencies that drove me to change my position on this issue . . and being an apologist, Cheryl knows that one of the classic signs of a failed argument/position is *inconsistency*.

Dear Cheryl,

I have found the WIM DVDs truly a breath of fresh air. As a male elder in a small local church, I have long struggled with the ideological/philosophical issues that have been crammed into complementarian argumentation; ideologies that are based primarily upon two misinterpreted texts of Scripture (1 Cor. 14:33-35 & 1 Tim. 2:11-15).

I thank you for your truly Christ-like approach as you have presented this material in a clear, cogent, exegetical, and Christ-like manner. If only other apologists could present their information with the same love, patience, and diligence that you have. I have longed for a good DVD series that I could hand someone and say, “Here is my position on the issue of women in Christian ministry.” Now, not only do I have that information, but you have lovingly, respectfully, and passionately presented this material for all to see and benefit from.

The next few years may be difficult regarding my ministry since I teach verse-by-verse and will eventually come across these famed passages in an evangelical mileu that is normally very strongly complementarian. However, I have learned to live the famed hymn, “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also, the body they may kill, God’s truth abideth still . . .”. May God richly bless your women’s issues studies and your apologetics ministry as you seek to rescue the perishing from the cults!