Lin

Count me in on that, too. I was thrilled to see him address it for discussion.

Jeremy, Just to introduce myself: I am also an egal who was a comp for 20 years and even worked marketing comp materials, conferences, etc until I started studying the Word with the Holy Spirit instead of only listening to human teachers for understanding.

Now, I feel free to witness to and teach anyone regardless of gender. Freedom in Christ. No Jew No Greek. You see, I learned that the only authority in the Body is Jesus Christ, the Word and the Holy Spirit…God. We are just instruments He gifts and uses for HIS Glory. And we all have different gifts.

Welcome and Blessings.

“This whole idea of logic versus emotions (Apollo vs. Dionysus) is WAY too much Greek thinking, as if we had a choice.”

Exactly. I used to cover this quite a bit in interpersonal communications as trainer. The coldest, most arrogant, stoic person in the world is operating on ’emotion’. Most just do not recognize that as ’emotional’.   We have a definition of emotional in our heads that does not convey the gamut of how they are played out in real life.  Even the concept of ‘not showing emotion’ is an ’emotion. :o)

But looking at this from another view…he is simply working from a wrong cultural concept. Women cry more because it is cultural and expected. That is how most were taught.  We know it cannot be a hard and fast rule because we have some Joan Crawfords out there that are as cool as ice. BUT, even they are operating on emotion just as the stoic, cool male is operating on emotion.

A loving, long suffering, patient, kind, joyful person may be seen as emotional, a sucker, a patsy, etc. even though the fruits of the spirit are at work :o)

I am just amazed that this was brought up again on the radio after all you all have been through.  Why won’t they let it go?

You would be disobeying God to follow after a man made rule of the Talmud which Jesus abhorred. Did this man ever show you where this ‘law’ is in scripture. No, because he cannot. He is following the Talmud instead of Christ. I can understand why he would do that as it is to his advantage to have earthly authority over others but it is a sinful and fleshly desire to have such.

Very good point, Cheryl, about millieu control. I am going to be a bit sarcastic here but my friend Christa Brown cannot get the SBC to take the problem of sexual predators in the pulpit and in leadership seriously but they see women preachers as a threat?

http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

“If Anna was a prophetess that went to live in the Temple after she was widowed (the one who prophesied over the infant Jesus), why was she in the temple if she could not speak there?  What did she do there?  Why go and live there — someone identified as “one who speaks” — and then not be able to speak?”

Cindy, it is quite relevant. It only goes to show there was NOT a prohibition of prophesying in the OC for women to men (Huldah,etc,). Yet, we are expected to believe it is a new law for the NC!

“So the question is whether Paul in this passage is giving a law or a command, and no, they are not identical. If a law, then there had to have been a witnessed agreement between the parties involved, stipulating penalties for violation. If a command, then it cannot be claimed to have universal application as the comps insist.”

For example, Paul gave a command for Timothy to drink wine. No one would mistake that for a universally binding law. In the same way, Paul gave a command about a woman teaching falsehood. It is no more a binding law for other women than his command to Timothy is binding on other men.”

I agree with you and immediately thought of the Jerusalem Council. Are those laws or commands?

Brava! I cannot wait to get a copy.

Funny how the links work. I saw this link from Charis/gem on another forum. I am so glad to see more and more of this sort of teaching out there. People are in bondage to all the rules and roles and we need to say: Christ is in charge! Come out of bondage and Abide deeply in Him!

We know it cannot mean  ‘authority’ because that would mean that a ‘wife’ would be serving two masters and we all know that in doing that we serve one and hate the other.

This concerns me greatly as I see so many women spending all their time seeking comp literature to know how to fulfill their ‘role’ as wife and mother. That sounds so godly but it isn’t. They should be seeking the Kingdom with all their heart and these other ‘things will be given to them’.

“So there can be carnal Christians; the question is, where does carnal leave off and lost begin? We simply can’t always know. But anyone who seems to have a firm conviction that Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose again, and trusts Him completely for salvation, yet “has no works” (Rom. 4:5), will have to be considered saved. It’s the confession of faith that we have to go on.”

Carnal means flesh and 1 John would seem to teach that one cannot continue to walk in the flesh unrepentant  and consider themselves to be saved.  (I am not judging here, this stuff saved me!)

James 2

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by myworks. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?v

What about this passage in 1 John 5:
14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.
16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

Notice he calls this person a ‘brother’. What is a sin that leads to death?

But what about Matthew 18 process of confronting a brother who sins against you. The ‘brother’ is a professing believer and refuses to repent or even admit wrong doing.  But then this person is NOT disciplined by the church. (this is happening all over the place). What then?

These are hard questions. But for the most part, common sense tells us that those who have been professing Christ for many years will tend to  live more ‘Christian’ than not.

“T”he interlinear tells me that it is The Faith that these men were ruining, not individual people’s faith. They were turning people away. And I don’t believe Paul would turn unbelievers over to be taught a lesson. So these are believers who are turning others away from The Faith.”

I have a lot of questions about this because of my experiences. The worst abuse I have ever experienced in many forms was from professing Christians. Pastors, elders and leaders in Christendom. People that very few would ever question. And so important and isolated that only a few would ever see the moral emptiness, unethical and abusive behavior. Most who do see it, rationalize it as they are great men with ‘human failings’ or they ignore it for the sake of a large paycheck.

I no longer believe that people can walk in darkness and be saved. I no longer believe in ‘carnal Christians’ and think that passage is misunderstood. I do not believe in sinless perfection but I do believe a true follower of Christ is in continual repentance and growing in Holiness even if it is two steps forward and 3 steps back. It is obvious over a short time they are seeking to please God.

So, when I witness such things and am a victim of such people I am in a quandry. Their walk in darkness is ‘hidden’ from the public (lots of celebrity christians these days who are very isolated and image conscious) and covered up by loyal followers who gain from their association.

I really do not think they are truly saved or they could not live with themselves and continue as unrepentant. They would have some godly sorrow and public repentance or step down from their position or SOMETHING.  Eternity is riding on this.

So in the above quote, when it says ‘Blaspheme’ what does it mean? Behavior toward other Christians or false teaching? Many of the abusers I knew in Christendom were not public false teachers they were private spiritual abusers.

I really do believe that most of Christendom today has dumbed down what it truly means to follow Christ. Most do not have a clue as I did not have a clue for many years. They have made up their own religion (as I did, too) and think their man made titles and ministries give them a free pass to the line for heaven.

“This person had not one good thing to say about me and as far as whether I was a sister in Christ, they said they couldn’t read my heart.  If reading someone’s heart was necessary then we couldn’t know that anyone was a Christian. This person had not one good thing to say about me and as far as whether I was a sister in Christ, they said they couldn’t read my heart.  If reading someone’s heart was necessary then we couldn’t know that anyone was a Christian. ”

I am tired of all this ‘I can’t see your heart’ business. What a subtle misuse of scripture that is everywhere!  People are buying into this nonsense everywhere.

What comes out of the heart is fruit. And we are told that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit. Fruit trees have seasons and season after season a good tree will produce good fruit.

This was just a way for this person to not have to admit you have good fruit and that good fruit was in attempting to reconcile in love and faith.

If a professing Christian is angry, hateful, viscious on a consistent basis (even secretly hiding behind others) and willfully sinning knowing the truth then that is bad fruit. Where does that come from? The heart.

NOt a bad idea, Don. As a matter of fact, I am impressed with their approach to the whole issue. I hope they continue to study.

“The more they respond with paper after paper, the more they self-repudiate their claim of supposed clarity.”

yes, Don, very good point. Years ago these many ‘papers’ were not needed. No one questioned the teaching except a few unknown scholars who had no big platform. But now with so many resources to study and instant communication it is hard for those like CBMW to control people anymore. That is why they use shame,  insults and many papers with big words to promote their position. They also use insults calling people liberals, radical feminists, etc.

They have been somewhat successful in using an old advertising trick of connecting unrelated thoughts into people’s minds to create a belief. They have connected two completely unrelated positions of women teaching men to homosexuality being accepted by the church. It is amazing how many people actually believe this and do even question the premise! They even have a fancy term for it: Trajectory hermeneutics.

So the thought is implanted: If a woman teaches a man we WILL have homosexual preachers. This successful tactic would make Goebbels proud.

Now some questions for discussion:
1. Why do you think that Eve was not kicked out of the garden?

She did not need to be kicked out.  Adam was a traitor who did not do his duty as a watchman and he was NOT deceived. He sinned blatently and proudly then blaming God and Eve for his own sin. Eve was deceived and admitted it.

2.  Why did Eve leave the garden if she wasn’t kicked out?

Scripture answers this for us in Genesis 3;16. God predicted as a consequence of her transgression that Eve would turn from Him and toward her husband who would rule her. Eve lived out that prediction and followed Adam.
3.  Why has the church been so focused on trying to prove that Adam alone was a unique ruler over mankind?

Federal Head? Yeah, this stuff is scary. It is Adam worship. The simple answer is: Pride. Wanting to lord it over others and using Adam to do it.
4. Was it Adam’s position as ruler that brought sin into the world or was it his treason and open defiance that brought sin into the world?

Well, Genesis 1 tells us that both were given dominion so there is no scripture that says Adam has a position as ‘ruler’ over Eve. He was given a specific job that he did not do. But that job has nothing to do with being a ruler over Eve. Scripture is very clear that Eve was an ezer to Adam just as God is an ezer to us. She was ‘comparable’ to Adam. Not under him in a chain of command structure.

It was his treason that brought sin into the world. As a matter of fact, I am unclear how this mysterious position as sole ruler brought sin into the world. God never once says that Adam is in charge of Eve or her ruler. That is a made up position for Adam through misinterpretation of the text. It has to read INTO the text.

There have also been mentions of this being a ‘virus’ and allowing Satan into the church. It really is incredible. It is as if Satan has found the perfect secondary doctrine to keep half of all Christians from proclaiming Christ and teaching scripture to anyone regardless of gender. And this misinterpretation of scripture is causing so many men and women to sin with pride and wanting to lord it over others.

I know nothing about IBC or even if they preach the primary gospel correctly or not. But, I am amazed they studied this for so long and did not see that women could be elders, too. Perhaps one step at a time?

Reading around the blogosphere, I am amazed at how many arguments that say scrpture teaches that women cannot teach men is based more on the ‘institutionalizing’ of the church. I have only started really seeing this for what it is. And the entire premise is wrong.

We see the word ‘office’ used a lot in these arguments and is not even in the Greek!. We see the words like ‘local church’, which could mean Lydia’s house in scripture, used to describe the institution/building we go to every Sunday with full time ‘clergy’  and a pulpit. Or they argue that what Priscilla did with Aquila is ok because they were not at ‘church’. This is the type of interpretation that makes Phoebe a mail woman instead of a minister (diakonos) and Junia a man! And that fact that women cannot be pastors when pastor is only mentioned once in scripture as a spiritual gift! Or that women cannot be elders but single men can!~

They are determined to live out and teach the consequence of sin from Genesis 3 as biblical. It is shattering to the Body and a diversion from proclaiming the Good News to everyone regardless of gender.

“The implication then is that God experiences both good and evil.  But does he?  The word for ‘knows’ and ‘knowing’ is the Hebrew ‘yada’ and its primary meaning means to know relationally and experientially.  What the serpent is saying is that God experientially knows’ evil as well as good.”
Now here is something I have never understood. God must ‘know’ about evil, right. You are saying He does not experience evil? And that is the difference?

““Behold the man was like one of us…” ”

Wow, ‘has become like one of Us’…..is not a good translation is it? Wonder why it is used?

So, Satan did tell a complete lie.

Yes, this is great stuff and thanks for unpacking it for us. I do have to ask…Who is’us’ in this passage. ;o)

“What does it mean when it says that there is ‘no truth in him’? Does this mean that Satan is incapable of telling the truth? If Satan is incapable of telling the truth is Genesis 3:5 a lie?”

Isn’t it true that most false teaching has some truth mixed in or most would see it as false right away? (A little leaven)
‘No truth in him’ may refer to his intentions which are to deceive us. He is also referred to as an angel of light, right?
This is very interesting. I am looking forward to your teaching on this.

“Who would then decide which is the “orthodox” position on each non-essential?  Seems to me that this would make everyone a “heretic” in someone’s eyes. Who would then decide which is the “orthodox” position on each non-essential?  Seems to me that this would make everyone a “heretic” in someone’s eyes. ”

Well, this is exactly what we have seen in history even from the Reformed church that decided Ana Baptists were heretics for re-baptizing and refusing to allow their babies to be baptized. This thinking on non essentials is dangerous. Even the Reformed church burned these ‘baptizing heretics’ at the stake.

I am very glad you can put this behind you. It would be interesting to hear where you think you are in the Matthew 18 process in this particular situation. But, I understand if you would rather not speak of it. :o)

This is off topic a bit but what you wrote, Don, reminded me of things I witnessed many times in mega church and para church organizations. The Matthew 18 process was always emphasized to deal with conflict among staff but rarely carried out. People saw how it was dealt with and were just taught not to go there. One reason Matthew 18 does not work in many situations is because of the teaching of hierarchy. People are busy looking at the caste system and if the brother was sinned against by another with a higher title or position within the church then they could not advance the process because they were not to ‘question’ or impune the character of the ‘leader’ by such accusations.

I have been watching with interest this new found interest in church discipline from the reformed movement. At one conference, the Matthew 18 process was taught. Everything was fine except they ADDED a step to the process. The extra step was to take it to the elders before it went to the whole church. Sounds ok. Sounds logical, even pragmatic. But it is NOT in scripture. And scripture does not specify who the witnesses need to be except other believers.

The extra step is fine if the elders are godly men chosen according to biblical precepts. But my experience is that many are chosen for more pragmatic reasons and this renders the extra step, added by the reformed group, null.

I wrote a satire on one incident I really did  witness. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. :o)

http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2007/09/adventures-of-matthew-18-in-mega.html

Oh Cheryl, I am so sorry about this. The things ‘spiritual’ people do thinking they are alright in the eyes of God is shocking. It is also a reminder to me to not to repsond in kind. But we are finding that any response of truth or plea to be fair and just is mocked.

I only read through a portion of the mocking site and could see there was quite a bit of ‘editing’ going on. This is really the same hatred and arrogance we saw coming from the Touchstone site in how they responded to Don.

You know, if they had truth on their side, they would not feel the need to resort to such tactics. All we can do is pray that their eyes will be opened to the fact that the Lord would not have his children respond to one another like this who disagree on a secondary doctrine.

My prayers go with you. Only the Holy Spirit can change the hearts that are so bound up with such hatred for a sister in Christ.

“Do you have any recollections about how the Baptist Church recovered itself after losing the slavery war.”

More focus on foreign missions. The Women’s Missionary Union was formed in 1888 but they had been very active before that.

Lottie Moon went to China after the Civil War.

Cindy, What I am seeing was never taught in the SBC when I was a kid. My mom taught men all the time in an inner city church and no one thought a thing about it.  So did my grandmother back in the early 1900’s.  She was college educated  (Latin, Greek) where many in her rural home (men included) were not so she taught many bible studies at church and in her home.

It was a given they were not pastors but they did teach men and it was no big deal.

I think women had more opportunities to share their spiritual gifts back when society and the church thought they were ‘unequal’.

“I felt better having read all the comments because Don was not eviscerated in any sense.  They didn’t have the goods to do it, so it degenerated into name calling.  Don didn’t seem upset at all, even in pointing out the name calling. felt better having read all the comments because Don was not eviscerated in any sense.  They didn’t have the goods to do it, so it degenerated into name calling.  Don didn’t seem upset at all, even in pointing out the name calling.”

There is another aspect to this that really concerns me. I know blog comments are not the best place to do Matthew 18 but when Don was called names and cussed at, he used the Matthew 18 process and he was right in doing so. Anyone else notice the reaction? They did not think the commenters who did such things were at fault. And these are folks who are presenting themselves as biblically educated.

This concerns me because of the big push for church discipline right now in the reformed movement. Is that what it will look like? Because for those who considered themselves theologically correct, they sure did not recognize basic sin.

Well, I just read the comments. My heart is bleeding.

Don, Thank you for your constancy and not responding in kind to the name calling and attacks. You did not even get angry and leave! Your demeanor in the midst of all that was a blessing to me. (Even if I did not understand all the Jewish sects stuff :o)

It was vicious. The arrogance and hatred coming from, not only the author, but the commenters there makes me fear for what is coming for the church and those who believe in mutual submission for all believers and those of us who want to be able to proclaim the Word of God to anyone regardless of gender.

All I can see anymore, coming from this position, are people who want power and authority over others. What a long way we are from Jesus washing the feet of His disciples.

Don, I cannot find the comments from the link at Burke’s blog. Do you have a link for them?

“I had an email from someone who said that it was egalitarians who were responsible for dividing the church and being divisive”

This is what they are being taught. There is a lot of repeating what has been taught instead of really thinking it through. The idea is that even studying this issue with an open mind is divisive and will divide the church. In practice, most egals who attend comp churches just work where they can. If they cannot, they leave. How is that divisive?

It is divisive to say that Christian egal teaching is allowing Satan into the church. This was said at the same conference where Bruce Ware taught about unsubmissive wives triggering abuse from husbands.

There is also a lot of reptitition of the teaching that this issue leads to homosexuality being accepted into the church and in ministry positions. This is simply illogical. Being a woman who wants to use the gifts the Holy Spirit gives for the edification of the church is not a sin. Homosexuality is a sin and is clearly taught as a sin in scripture. The other reason it is illogical is because homosexuality has been rampant in Patriarchal cultures throughout history and still is.  A friend of mine, a missionary in Afghanistan, was astonished at how prevalent homosexuality was there, even under the Taliban! It is just hidden better.

We must be prepared for lots of false accusations because they do not want to engage actual content of scripture. And they do not want their followers to see this as a secondary doctrine and that we should have charity toward others who disagree.

Don, You are a perfect example of someone who can disagree without implying that they may not be saved because of their teaching. I pray they will do the same some day.