Kay

It simply defies logic that a person could prophesy/be a prophet without teaching something.

Frank, thanks for the info on Jude.

The whole issue I see with submission is that it must be from the heart – like every other aspect of the Christian life. Paul wouldn’t even need to mention it, if God was making us do this automatically in some way. No, it’s something we are told to do – it’s our choice – it’s not forced. O.K., well, maybe some Calvinists would see it that way. But, why bother to leave any Scriptures for us, if God makes us do everything by His Will anyway???

“As far as I am concerned, the modern doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son is nothing but an ancient heresy put into new packaging. But is heresy, nonetheless.”

I’ll second that!

Dave,

Are you an Aussie? I lived in Sale back in the early 70’s.

Cheryl, please pardon this off-topic remark.

“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” Phil.1:15-18

To me these verses also fully demonstrate that Paul was not nearly so concerned about >who< was preaching, so long as it was Christ that was being preached. He even rejoiced about it!

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly be rewarded.” Mark 9:38-41, TNIV

I certainly think these verses may also apply. Someone correct me if I’m cherry picking here.

Frank,

*”Dawes argues that the context shows that the exhortation, beginning with Eph. 5:19, where we find a series of five participles (speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks, and submitting to one another), are all dependent on the command to “be filled with the Spirit” (v.18) and give no reason to believe that any of the five participles are directed to only some Christians and not to others. Furthermore, verse 21, with its call to mutual submission (and from which verse 22 gets its verb), cannot be limited to the relationship between husband and wife, but it must be taken as a general Christian ethic addressed to every believer.”*

Excellent find!! I’m very glad you shared this. Do you recall where this article was published? I am interested to see what else Gregory Dawes may have that’s edifying.

At the beginning of the debate, I really didn’t think Mike was someone who would go for the homosexual/slippery slope association lines, but, Oh well….

I’m beginning to think you are right – logic is not what is of greatest importance, it’s maintaining their hierarchy. Why else would they want to make something as temporary as sexual gender so important?
I posted this verse on another blog today:
“Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” Matt. 22:29-30
it seems to fit here, too.

It’s been my experience that the two biggest hurdles people have to get over in order to understand what Scripture teaches on this issue are the meanings of kephale and “a woman.” Because with that resolved, the “cherry picking” of verses out of context (helicoptering) totally breaks down.

I would also like to know what litmus test Christians give to determine the exact moment a boy turns into a man?? – I mean heaven forbid it should happen half way through some boy’s Sunday School class being taught by a woman or his mother.

Frank,

I have been thinking along the same lines and have posted comments on Mike’s blog accordingly –
*Mike wrote: “You do not have a passage that says, “Women should teach and exercise authority over a man,” but 1 Timothy 2:12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man….” This is huge difference in our arguments.”

Yes, and there is also a huge difference between “women” plural, in your sentence and “a woman” in the verse 1 Tim. 2:12. Why the change from singular to plural? 1 Tim 2:12 which says a woman should not ‘authenteo’ a man. The matter is, a man should not authenteo another man, either. This is only time authenteo is used in the New Testament. This whole concept is, once again, man centered, as we can see by your position. Jesus taught that we are not to lord it over others.
Mike wrote: “Though I do not associate homosexuals and the gravity of that sin (Romans 1) with “woman teaching men”
Why not? If it is sin then it is sin. If it is wrong then it is wrong.*

I wish you would post your remarks and questions regarding Col. 3:15-17. It has been on mind to ask him if he believes women are allowed to sing in mixed gender worship services, given the fact that ministering in song is basically the same as singing a sermon or Bible lesson as you expressed

Cheryl,

Thanks for braving the elements in order to check in!

You’re oh, so right, – not a single verse gives women permission to teach the Bible to other women. So, I suppose they overlook that fact the same way they overlook “a woman” in 1 Tim. 2:12 by turning it into “women.”

Mike wrote: “You do not have a passage that says, “Women should teach and exercise authority over a man,” but 1 Timothy 2:12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man….” This is huge difference in our arguments.”

Yes, and there is also a huge difference between “women” plural, in Mike’s sentence and “a woman” in the verse 1 Tim. 2:12. How convenient to change from singular to plural to bolster one’s position.

It appears that he does not understand 1 Tim 2:12 which says a woman should not ‘authenteo’ a man. The matter is, a man should not authenteo another man, either.

This whole concept is, once again, man centered, as we can see by his position. Jesus taught that we are not to want to lord it over others.

Pardon the goofs in that last comment…I am more tired than I thought….

“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free,
there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.Galatians 3:28 NRSV
Does this verse say male and female are equal?
Or does this verse say that male and female
have put down their “titles” and “identity”
with this world system. ”

A. Amos,

I really liked these thoughts. Also very much apprecitated lines your wrote a while back saying something like
Can we lay down our lust for titles?
Don’t titles divide? Don’t titles cause seperation?
Don’t titles say, I am, you’re not?
Don’t titles say, we are, they’re not?

Cheryl,

Are you and I the only ones troubled by this? I can hardly believe there are no other comments. I see the ramifications of these statements as huge, considering his following. But as my grandmother use to say, “I’d hate to be him on Judgment Day!”

“then she seeks help from the church” “Then?” what if she doesn’t survive until “then”???? He doesn’t appear to know the first thing about domestic violence! Has he never watched the evening news?

This is so outrageous!! I can’t decide if he’s got a cynical cruel side or he’s just that naive and has been cloistered away in his office full of manhood books too long! He is out of touch with reality.

O.K. Mr. Piper, let’s test out your advice. YOU pretend to be the wife submitting to the smacking and verbal abuse and I’LL pretend to be the husband. We’ll just see how long ONE night can be!!! Come sunrise – if you’re still able to speak – we’ll have you answer that question again!

sm,

Doesn’t it seem like complimentarians divide EVERYTHING about life into either male/masculinity or female/femininity? I don’t know how they manage to “see” it everywhere – you are right, it must be exhausting trying to make sure every move you make isn’t stepping over some gender line!

Right now I’m trying to imagine myself helping out a drowning “male” by influencing (shouting, ever so politely, of course) “Sir, you might want to try grabbing the rope right behind you.” In reality, at a moment like that, I don’t think either one of us would be worried about genders. And I would be shouting (with command), “Turn around and grab the rope behind you!”

*I posted this on Mike’s blog*
You wrote: “I don’t think this is a worldly philosophy that comes outside of Scripture. Authority is good, it is biblical, it is helpful if those in authority are humble and those under authority are submissive. God designed it that way, so we can celebrate it!”

Mike,

After reading the last few lines of your rejoinder, I’m feeling baffled also. How can we both read 1 Peter 5 and “see” it so differently? I don’t see the word “authority” in any of those verses.

I see in verse 2 the word translated as “oversight” has the meanings of “to care for, to look after” but no mention of “authority” in the definition. I do see the shepherds being told “And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock” a) Don’t try to be lords to those you care for. b) Do be examples. It is a warning for elders in the faith to be responsible. What could be more plain?

Not one time is being in authority mentioned.

But “all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Not one time is being in authority mentioned here either.

So, I am left to wonder – where are the verses setting up an “authority” structure?

Why would Jesus say “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many,” if having authorities set up is so “good” and “it is biblical” as you state?

What could be more plain than “Not so with you?”

Frank,

As far as I can tell, complementarians see the Bible as being full of exceptional cases and special circumstances. People like you and I see all of scripture as the whole counsel of God.

Frank,

Try posting it again – I had to post everything twice – the second time it should go through to his moderation. Nice post – don’t give up.

Thanks Cheryl! If anyone could tell, it would be you – who always projects such kindness and a respectful attitude on your CD’s.

I was as die-hard a romantic as anyone when I went into marriage 30 years ago. We were young, healthy and so in love. Alas, of the three only love remains. LOL! Love and a large dose of real life lived side by side.

Truthfully, I am one of those people who once wished “formula” living really worked. At times, I’ve wished that God would just write me a list of the things I should do each day and leave it on my bedside table each morning. But He has better ways.

What follows is a comment I made on Mike’s blog entry for April titled “Figure Skating Toward Biblical Roles.” Please let me know if this sounds unkind in any way – I may need to quit reading through his blog. I do not want to sound super-critical.

“Like you, I once loved a romantic, fairytale, happily-ever-after story the way you appear to, but then real life began to happen. Brother, even THE most Christian of marriages between God loving spouses can and do encounter circumstances and tragedies beyond their control that render the husband unable to lead anyone. My perspective regarding husbands having the protector/provider leader role is not the same because of situations I’ve encountered in the lives of Christian friends and family members with disabilities, illness and aging who cannot fulfill that even if they wanted to.

If a “biblical role” can have even one small exception, then how can it possibly be a command for every marriage?

How could this possibly apply to the life of my friend whose Christian husband suffered a head injury in an auto accident that has left him in a near vegetative state? She has no loving choice, but the one God has given her – to lead, protect and provide for her husband. My grandmother also walked a very similar road for the last 15 years of my grandfather’s life as his mind and then body were overtaken by Alzheimer’s. My brother-in-law developed bipolar disorder many years ago and so his wife has never had the luxury of depending upon her husband. On the contrary though, she has developed a wonderful dependence upon her Lord and Savior. Or what of my cousin whose husband was killed in Viet Nam and she raised two children on her own? I could go on, but I think you can see my point – marriage simply isn’t always like a perfectly executed skating performance. And the longer I live the more clearly I see that.

I believe this is why the Lord didn’t leave us with a book called “Formulas for the Perfect Christian life” or Bible chapters called “The Only Role of Men” and “The Only Role of Women.” But He did tell us to love one another as He loves us and to walk in the Spirit.

And speaking of the Spirit – I do hope you can read this in loving spirit it was intended. “

Purely conjecture on my part – but it appears to me their “church” is usually made of brick, metel, or wood and on the inside is a “sacred place” for males only, called a pulpit or stage and no female is allowed to desecrate it with her presence.

The Body of Christ to which I belong, says that all members are cleaned equally by the blood of Jesus, and all parts are of equal importance so that every part benefits every other part.

“Or maybe “the presence of men” makes the situation ungodly, because only with their presence we have “church”?”

“They do not receive all the gifts that women do and if they are forbidden to receive part of God’s gifts, then is there something wrong with them?”

Well, what else would we expect if we begin separating parts of the The Body of Christ from one another? Uhh errr umm…doesn’t 1 Cor. 12 warn of the consequences of this very thing?
“The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!”
The Body is the Church.

Thanks Anca!

It’s playtime for me too, pinklight – but I always seem to be several steps behind you guys. ):-

It’s been great to find a group of polite believers!

Cheryl, pinklight, or Anca,
Would one of you let me borrow your brain for…oh, even just 5 minutes – I would luv to know what it’s like to observe and reason the way you do!

Cheryl,

No apology needed – I understand that you have a life beyond this blog.

Here is another “thank you” – I was reading some of your older blogs and in one of them you mentioned coming to the place that you are able to glean good teaching even from those who don’t agree with you on the women’s issues. Having recently moved to a small town in OK where old “standards” die hard, that was much needed encouragement for me at this particular time in my life!

I left a comment on Mike’s Role Calling, but he has apparently decided not to post it.

Cheryl,

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I thank God for you and your willingness to use the gifts He has given you in the face of much opposition. Your ministry and that of Carolyn James have given me such good tools to use in spreading truth about this issue. Hopefully, you won’t consider this “thank you” too far off topic.

For several months I’ve been lurking in amazement here at the ability to so simplify this subject. Your use of Galatians 3:28-4:7 coupled of with Ephesians 2:13-16 is so simple, yet so profound! It makes a wonderful place to begin removal of the blinders. No need to have 3 commentaries and 6 Bible versions open to muddy up the subject – I love it.