Greg Anderson

Justa Berean, Look at the bright side. At least they don’t have the coercive power of the State to tell us how we can and cannot worship God. Their forbears (Winthrop, Mather, et. al.) must be turning over in their graves by now.

Charis, I’ve heard figures like that too, about the failure rate in evangelical Christian marriages. And you’re right, a lot of it has to do with the power of the tongue whether for good or bad. And yes our sister Cheryl is very good at simplifying stuff that can be very difficult to get a grasp on otherwise. She does much by way of analogy that is done with advanced math expressions, ya gotta simplify before ya can do much with em’.

Justa Berean, I’ve seen the same pattern here in Southern Cal. and with many older (chronological age) believers. In particular, those who are members of the mega-fellowships of Calvary Chapel. Although I have the utmost respect and admiration for Chuck Smith the founder of Calvary Chapel, I do not agree with his complementarian (no women in the leadership) stance. Recently while on the freeway here, I heard a CC-sponsored radio show in which the wife of a certain Calvary Chapel pastor said with all certainty that God has ordained a gender-based hierarchy from the beginning of creation. So here’s the thing. Many believers have no interest in doing there own homework so to speak, that is; investigating God’s word for themselves. They are content to sit at the feet of their leadership and have them do their thinking for them. What’s more, Calvary Chapel pastors will only use the King James translation or grudgingly the New King James when the Elizabethan idioms draw a blank slate from congregants. Bottom line here is that it takes work to become a Berean and most are just not up to it. One last word here, regardless of what English translation is used, gender-based hierarchy is simply not supported when God’s word in its entirety is used as a body of data. Our dear sister Cheryl has demonstrated that admirably.

Hey Sis Cheryl, Gonna be in the kitchen all weekend huh? So does this mean you’re gonna revert to your “proper role” in the Body of Christ? HA!

Justa Berean, “Hutchinson was brought to trial in 1637 for the heresy of antinomianism, or asserting that inner grace was sufficient to achieve salvation and that church rules and ministers were unnecessary for that goal. She stood for three days before Winthrop and an array of other powerful men, explaining that her meetings were merely open discussions and that her beliefs accorded with Calvinism and Scripture. But she was found guilty of eighty-two offenses against the church and government, especially her claim to have a direct relationship with God. Banished, she and her children followed Roger Williams into Rhode Island. She later moved to Pelham Bay, New York, where she was killed in an Indian attack.”
(from p-67 of: The American Experiment A History of the United States by Steven M. Gillon and Cathy D. Matson)

Don, Well put. These are the very ideas Anne Hutchinson was put on trial by John Winthrop and declared heretic for. As Solomon observed so aptly, there’s nothing new under the sun. Fortunately, we live in a nation where religious persuasion is a matter of individual conscience and not subject to the dictates of a theocratic state.

Amen Don ! Here in Southern Cal. we have several radio Bible teachers who are quite fond of spouting the maxim: “God says what He means and means what He says…” Well yeah, and what Christian is going to disagree with that statement? But what they’re really saying is that God is saying what they’re saying. I also get very nervous when I hear guys tell me what the “the plain truth of scripture” is. Aside from the essentials contained in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, the Bible in many cases does not have a plain meaning.

Terri, Katharine Bushnell wrote an excellent resource in which she uses the King James (AV) almost exclusively. She argues cogently and with the impassioned reason that William Wilberforce used when he fought for the abolition of the slave-trade in early 19th century England.
Here’s the link:
http://godswordtowomen.org/studies/resources/onlinebooks/gwtw.htm

Agent Starling, Have you learned nothing about logic and exegesis from Dr. Lecter? To say that simply because the enumerated qualifications for bishop (3 Tim.) allude to the male gender and thus excludes the fairer sex from the office is not good reasoning. It would be akin to saying that the liberties and protections enumerated in the U.S. Constitution apply only to white males of substance and property.

Hey y’all, Oops! sorry if I started down a rabbit trail here with the Calvinism thing. It was meant solely as an historical reference to what happens when Christendom strays from what’s essential and what’s not. Sorry if it sounded like a personal attack on Matt Slick, it was never intended to be so. I could just as well have cited Luther’s known advocacy of brutality toward the peasantry when they rebelled against their feudal lords. The point is that I have sworn hostility toward any form of tyranny over the mind of man (anthropos), it makes my hackles bristle!

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, the Holy Spirit lays no other “requirements” on us other than those enumerated in Acts 15:28&29. Anne Hutchinson was brought to trial in 1637 (Puritan New England)for heresy. She dared to teach (as a woman to boot!) that inner grace was sufficient for salvation and that church rules and ministers were unnecessary for that goal. If memory serves me correctly, didn’t Matt Slick declare himself a Calvinist? These are the same guys who forced Hutchinson to flee to Rhode Island and ultimately hanged her pupil Mary Dyer for her views. Let’s all of us here in this blog community be in prayer for our precious sister and teacher Cheryl.

Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t it say in Acts 15:19&20 (spoken by James) and then again in verses 28&29 in the form of a letter sent to Antioch by the council of Jerusalem and accompanied by Paul as verbal witness that there are only four “essentials” that we as believers are charged with observing? If so, how come there are so many today who say it’s heresy for Godly women to teach sound Christian doctrine to men? If Acts 15 removed a yoke that as Peter said “neither we nor our fathers were able to bear”, does it make sense that Paul would turn around and slap a new yoke on the church restricting the “roles” of women? No it doesn’t. Now I can understand how E.W. Bullinger (hardly a militant feminist) could write in his introductory notes in 1 Tim.: “To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical kind.” These directions afford no warrant whatever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today.” (from: The Companion Bible p-1799 first published in 1922) Regardless of what Bullinger and Alford say, scripture interprets scripture and from the vantage point of Acts 15, we have the freedom and liberty in Christ Jesus to allow Godly women to exercise their gifts as they are called by the Holy Spirit.

For Joe Montana: I must respectfully submit sir that Cheryl has done admirably with the time honored grammatico-historical method of biblical hermeneutics. If anything, it is the hierarchalists who have imported a foreign ideology into the pre-fall Genesis account as a mandate. Nowhere in the accounts of Genesis 1 & 2 is male headship established. It must be read into the account. So until you can show me otherwise, Cheryl’s objection is sustained, yours is overuled.

Good thoughts Don! I too get very nervous when people try to “carpet bomb” you with what they assure you is “the plain truth of scripture”. It’s a common bullying tactic and I’ve seen it time and time again. What we have is infallible truth in God’s word as revealed in the original autographs and languages. What we don’t have is inerrant and unbiased exposition from translators and preachers. And Cheryl, YOU GO GIRL !!! you have all of us here in this blog community pullin’ and prayin’ for ya!

Cheryl and Don, It’s fallen human nature that craves power. The early church of the apostles got hi-jacked by an hierarchical establishment that was interested only in consolidating that power. In the centuries that followed, the organized church caused untold misery and human suffering. The Renaissance offered a brief flurry of human freedom but was soon overshadowed by the bad elements of the Age of Reason. So what’s the point of the history lesson you ask? Simply this. Even the protestant reformation preserved an enforced male hierarchy. Both Luther and Calvin took a dim view of women and were unabashed in writing so. Nowadays, organizations such as the CBMW have toned down the language a bit with assertions that women are “equal in personhood” but separate in “role and function”. I too have listened to their audio materials. You can hear the audiences giggle, nod their heads in total rapt agreement and not once dare to disagree with their leadership or think for themselves. To do so risks censure and accusations of heresy. I think a great deal of it is fear driven, fear of going against the Bible and the apparent strictures of St. Paul with regards to women in the church. The fear feeds on itself just like a hurricane over warm gulf waters. Fear of sinning and that to continue to do so will result in one’s ultimate consignment to hell.

Cheryl, Notice also the 2nd witness God provides to Rev. 2:20. We read in Acts 15:28-29 that so long as we abstain from food offered to idols, blood, strangled livestock, and illicit sex, we are doing well in our Christian walks. But that’s not all. We are assured in verse 28 that the Holy Spirit lays no other burden (Greek word is epanagkes, meaning “essentials”) on us other than these. What exhilarating emancipation and liberty! No wonder the eminent scholar E.W. Bullinger could in all good conscience write in his introductory notes on 1 Tim.: “To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical kind”. These directions afford no warrant whatever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today.” (From: The Companion Bible p-1799).
Regardless of what Bullinger and Alford say, scripture interprets scripture and as you’ve pointed out, even the locally surrounding context (data) does not support the prohibition of Godly women teaching Orthodox Biblical Doctrine to men.

Cheryl, Good observation! What separates you from the complementarian dogmatists is that you are unafraid to go where the data leads. That is, you are willing to abandon your hypothesis if it is not supported by the data. Scripture and scripture alone is our body of data. Special pleading and appeals to ecclesiastical tradition ain’t gonna cut it. So what is the import of 1 Cor. with regards to the women passages? If no “law” can be found in the O.T. which silences women, then as you’ve shown in your DVD’s the only other plausible exegesis is that St. Paul was soundly refuting the judaizers which had crept into the Corinthian congregation. I’ve heard one complemetarian scholar tap dance around this too, the only thing that stumps me however is I can’t figure out if he’s tappin’ to “Swanee river”, “Oh Susannah”,
or “My old Kentucky home”…

Cheryl, One thing I noticed at the Worthy Boards is that those who are the most vehement about disallowing women to teach the Bible to men are the same ones who can never present factual data other than proof texting or special pleading to bolster their case. When you pressed one participant to show you the goods concerning the elusive “law” St. Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 14:34, that person could not produce one scripture that silences women anywhere in the old testament. That same individual went on to say that God does not have to provide any scriptural “witness” for any new testament stricture and that St. Paul’s apparent “commands” concerning women are legally binding for all believers and for all time.
I’ve seen this tap-dance before, even with complementarian scholars who should know better.