Lin

Elisabeth Elliot has always confused me on this issue.
She taught men on the mission field. Just not educated western men.
She also does not use her current husband’s last name. I have NO problem with this but many comps have a huge problem with women who do this, as I well know. She has a good reason not to use his name but it really does sort of negate a big part of her teachings on the comp lifestyle for women. I always get the feeling there are rules for rest of us that aren’t for them. I could give you a ton of examples of this.

“and the impression I get is that they’ve confused Christianity with cultural conservatism. ”

Janice, you hit the nail on the head.

But it is changing. More and more are seeing the rotten fruit that came from putting Republicanism and a conservative lifestyle on the Throne instead of Jesus Christ. This ‘lifestyle’ includes the wife’s role and lots of hierarchy within the Body.

Oh, thank you for this! I was more than willing to be quiet about gender differences until two things became glaringly obvious:

1. They indirectly plant the poisonous idea that we are not part of the real Body of Christ.
2. They are now promoting the eternal subordination of the Trinity and lessening Jesus Christ and His Sovereignty.

Now, in my studies and intereactions, I have found that Christian egals spend more time studying scripture deeply than all the comps I was with in a very hard comp mega church for 16 years. Especially  women! I have never seen anything like it. They are not waiting to see what some famous pastor says, they are digging in and studying the Greek, etc. And they are wonderful about directing people to study on their own.

This does not really go here but it is about Eve and the teaching out there about her. A friend sent me this today. It is a quote from Mark Driscoll about Eve.(CBMW disagrees with Driscoll as he allows women to teach men in Bible studies)  Driscoll is the rising star in the Reformed movement and is a big church planter. His teaching on Eve is illogical. If we follow his logic then NO MAN should ever preach or teach because they are all evil traitors on purpose like Adam. Perhaps men were redeemed but not women? (It must be nice to live in a bubble where no one ever points your logical fallacies to your face!)

The full article by Denny Burke and John Hamilton is here:
https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-12-No-2/Younger-Evangelicals-and-Women-in-Ministry-A-Sketch-of-the-Spectrum-of-Opinion
“Mars Hill Church has published a little book that describes the church’s posi­tion on various issues related to church leadership. In this book, Driscoll insists that “Paul’s clear teaching” is that “only qualified men should be elders/pas­tors.”32 Driscoll comes to this position in part as a result of his understanding of 1 Tim 2:12-14. Driscoll writes,
Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gull­ible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed.33

Driscoll’s droll interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12-14 is precisely what makes his ap­plication of the text so surprising. Mars Hill Church endorses gifted (but ap­parently “gullible” and “easily deceived”) women to lead and to teach men so long as such women are not ordained as pas­tor/elder.

It is the opinion of the present writers that not only is Driscoll mistaken in his interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12, but also his application of it to the ministries of his church is a non-sequitur. Why would one allow a person from the “gullible” and “easier to deceive” sex to lead and to teach God’s people? How could such a person possibly be qualified to teach and to lead when they are so easily brought under the spell of error? We are not ready to concede Driscoll’s interpreta­tion of Paul on this point.36 Yet even if we were to grant his interpretation, we believe that his praxis is hardly a legiti­mate implication of his exegesis. ”

The article ends with this:
 “The whole process led Wayne Grudem to comment, “Suppression of any al­ternative point of view is probably the most common way for an egalitarian viewpoint to be advanced in a church… Mars Hill [followed] that pattern ex­actly.”53 ”

The entire article is interesting because one can see they are moving away from the term ‘complementarian’ which I think is good. It does not fit and it is not honest. I also noticed that the only scripture they reference for their view on woman teaching men is 1 Tim 2.

“Joel 2:28  “It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.”

And Peter, under the power of the Holy Spirit, repeats this at Pentecost. This, to me, is proof of woman being able to preach. Of course, I have been told this was JUST for that day…Pentecost. I believe it is for the church age.

Cheryl, You have no idea how much I respect the fact that you are going to the trouble and expense to do this. This is a very big deal and I pray that it would happen more in the Body of Christ to deal with this sort of thing. you are blessed to have a pastor who is willing to stand with you on the truth.

I pray that Matt will understand that we can disagree on a secondary doctrine and be brethern in Christ. There is no need to call someone a heretic. How about we all search the scriptures for truth. Taking this biblical step to deal with a brother is the right thing to do.

I am just floored at how vitriolic the disagreement on this issue has become from the comp position. Tommy Nelson at Denton Bible church described the egal position as Satan making his way into the church. Imagine describing brothers and sisters in Christ that way! People who love and live for Jesus Christ? It makes me weep.

It makes my heart heavy but at the same time discovering biblical truth about women is the single most freeing thing that has ever happened to me. Studying scripture in depth, knowing the Holy Spirit gifts me and guides me alone, knowing that I am not a second class Christian anymore but made in His Image and designed to proclaim the Good News to anyone, regardless of gender, has been exhilerating.

I, for one, can never thank you enough for all the time and energy you have put into searching the scriptures and teaching us. I think the part that bothers some of our comp brothers is that you are not liberal in essential doctrines so it makes it harder to dismiss you. That was the ONE thing I kept looking for on your site and in your teaching.  I have yet to find it. Praise God!

My prayers go with you.

“Ben Witherington has posted a very liberal view of the Trinity at http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/jesus-as-unifier-of-bible.html saying that Jesus is not the YHWH of the Old Testament and did not appear on the earth in a pre-incarnate form. . ”

Oh my word. I just went over and read the comments. I cannot believe that he thinks the OT is not really about Jesus. Isn’t that what it boils down to? Funny, I have been reading some of the writings of some of the early European Ana Baptists who had some of these same debates with some of the Reformers who wanted to live under OT laws. Their whole debate was pointing back to the OT to point to the New Covenant and Jesus Christ.

Anything to lessen Jesus Christ and Who He really is. We are seeing it from all corners now and unlikely places both liberal and conservative.

Cheryl, I so look forward to your DVD. My cousin and I tried to do a study on the “Lord of Hosts” one weekend we were away together for study and prayer and were overwhelmed!

“As time goes on, I am becoming more astonished at what the Bible does not say more so than at what it does say.  Question is, where else do the facts in scripture point to something other than what has been accepted dogma since Constantine, Luther, and Calvin?”

I am having the same experience, Greg.  I have become very suspicious lately, too. Too many are quoting Calvin, Luther, Augustine, etc.,…and what THEY say about scripture instead of exegiting scripture in context. And so many of our churchy  traditions are no where to be found in the NT.

“This is exactly what I have experienced too. No matter how nice one speaks forth the truth, one is still accused of being “negative”. ”

Actually, I have experienced this quite a bit from other professing believers. Mostly when discussing things like Hebrew 10 or 1 John. They cannot conceive how serious sin is and believe in cheap grace. They become very upset if anyone dares mention that if one is in willful habitual sin then they may not be saved. I am amazed at how many professing believers do not understand regeneration or Holiness. It is scary and shows how dumbed down the preaching is these days.

Probably too much time spent on preaching about ‘roles’ than the full counsel of God. (Acts 20)

I had never heard of this teaching that Adam was to “guard” the garden until Paula pointed it out on her blog. I checked the Hebrew and was amazed. I have never heard this taught.

Most of the translations make it sound like his only job was to farm it. :o) What was Adam to ‘guard’ or protect the Garden from? We are not told. I also often wonder if Adam named the serpent.

However, another thought is that we rarely hear about the responses of Adam and Eve, either from the hierarchalists teaching of this passage.

Don, you make a great point that Eve admitted she was deceived and could only do that when she wasn’t any longer. So, she admits it. She does not say, ‘Adam did not protect me’. Or, ‘he allowed that serpent in here’. she did not play the blame game.

Perhaps people have seen Genesis 1 and 2 as always being sequencial and have missed very important information.

“What we can see from this added information from Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis 3 is that God is capable of adding information regarding his permission to eat and he is not restricted from the words given originally to Adam alone. The information that is added in Genesis 1:29 to both the man and the woman is not a contradiction of the information given to Adam in chapter 2. God gave the basics to Adam and added to it later. ”

What do we know about Genesis 1. Was it written at the same time as Genesis 2? Is it supposed to be a macro version of creation or a different verison? I have never really understood this but I do know that too many (including me) have ignored it for too long. We can see this from all the riches you have mined from it that are right there in black and white!

“Dr. Wayne Grudem’s book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth is usually the source book for many of these answers.”

Man, is this true! Everyone is quoting his books for answers on everything…not just this issue. No one stops to ask if all HIS interpretations are correct. Or questioning the contradictions.

Don,
Jesus is fulfilling prophecy by quoting Psalms 22. Right?

I went back and reread it so how does Psalm 22 relate to this concept of Him being “Damned”?

Cheryl, Thanks so much for your reply. You are so right that it is about Grace. Another way to look at this besides this being their pet doctrine is for this to remind us to always check all teaching. NO matter what it is. It has been good for me to see such luminaries be so wrong on something to the point of being absurd. It makes me test all teaching.

Recently, I read a post at Steve Camp’s blog about Piper and Mahaney preaching that Jesus’ words on the Cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me” is the ‘Scream of the Damned” This was a concept both of them used at a conference.

Words mean things. Jesus was not damned. He was cursed, became sin, etc, but NOT damned.  I went and listened at Resolve.org to Piper’s sermon and yes, that is exactly what they are saying.

I bring this up because we all have to be so vigilent. It is NOT a sin for us to question these famous, well loved guys and point out with scripture the error. Even though many are saying that ‘cursed’ and ‘damned’ can be interchangable.

By the way, I have no doubt you are experiencing extreme warfare over this DVD. Anything that elevates, lifts up and proclaims Christ’s Name above all Names is going to be fought. I will be interceeding for you many times. I give you my word on that.

Cheryl, This whole thing with Matt Slick brings up another question. We expect this kind of behavior with the secular world in rejecting the Gospel and dealing the Christians but it is quite a shock to receive it from other Christians. Really, we are seeing more of this from other Christians than we are from the secular world: Name calling, hate, sarcasm, lording it over, deception, lying, etc. All of this to advance a secondary doctrine that we should NOT divide over to a primary position that is drawing more lines in the sand. Why?

If this is not of the flesh, then what is? How could we ever ‘worship’ in Spirit and Truth with folks who do such things?

This is a serious question. Perhaps there are no answers but it does concern me.

“It is an attempt to re-establish a Magisterium, a supposed infallible teaching authority, similar to the Pharisees.”

And it is working beautifully. They have many followers I have seen this concept of legalism increase in credibility in the last 20 years.

(I can hardly believe I saw a 25 year old male seminary grad rebuking older women for speaking in a mixed bible study.  I saw another seminary student walk out of our church during communion rebuking  loudly the entire congregation because 2 women were serving. We said…go, but go in peace.)

Wow Cheryl, I am surprised they are allowing your comment to stay up.

” Their response was that men from the bible study could individually watch the DVD and be instructed by the woman but the men were not allowed to get together and all watch the DVD at the same time because it would then appear that she was the “teacher” and this is not allowed.  Their response was that men from the bible study could individually watch the DVD and be instructed by the woman but the men were not allowed to get together and all watch the DVD at the same time because it would then appear that she was the “teacher” and this is not allowed. ”

Seriously? This is incredible. They need a Christian Talmud!

What is even sillier is that the woman on the DVD cannot even answer questions and they can stop the DVD anytime they want or even throw rocks at the screen! This is legalism at it’s ugliest.

So, I guess this means they can only watch YOUR DVD in private and not, say, in a room with a couple of men. How convenient.

Another thing that really bothers me about their stance is that they give the messenger the authority. It is the WORD that has the authority. The Holy Spirit. I have been studying Acts and boy, you cannot get away from the fact that everything they did was because of the Holy Spirit!

Too much credit and adoration is given to a human ‘authority’ in their scenerio.

They see Priscilla as a moot point because she is always named with Aquila. Therefore she is under her husband’s authority. That is how some comp women get by with teaching in public today.

Cheryl, They believe this law or rule  comes from the order of creation because 1 Timothy 2 refers to creation order. I know that is not what it means but they really do believe this.

Another good question is why would the rules change from Pentecost and 1 Corin 11 to all of a sudden a prohibition for every women in 1 Timothy 2?

I know a few of you are reading and commenting on this very long comment thread about Bruce Ware’s recenct teaching here:http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2162#comment-39315

I want to make an observation about the comments. It has been enlightening to see the egals mostly as the ones not only quoting scripture but including Greek and Hebrew, different translations, etc. They are the deep diggers into the word. Whereas, most of the comps are quoting CBMW or other mere humans! That should tell us something very important.

It has struck me again and again how this whole issue is so man centered and NOT Christ centered.

My goodness, I just visited that site. I am amazed that Suzanne has not been banned yet. she is making too much sense and giving too many facts! :o)

One other thing I would point out is the problem in the comp world of scriptural contradictions with their view.

The entire view rests on ‘earthly authorities’ within the Body and if we get that wrong, we get it all wrong…including the marriage part between Christians.

There are contradicting passages where women are prophesying within the Body and at Pentecost fulfilling the Joel prophecy for the church age. Even in 1 Corin 11, Paul is writing from the point of view that women ARE praying and prophesying in the Body to men! There are other examples so we know there are contradictions with the comp view. We know how they explain these away but the real problem is how many different explanations they have…some are more liberal and some are very legalistic.

But, to me, it all starts in Genesis and understanding the creation account. Reading it without any presuppositions. Much of what comps teach is READ INTO the account and is NOT THERE.

I grew up more like you even though we did not have terms for it! But, like you, I started attending a seeker mega church in my 20’s that was very intent on gender ‘roles’ that I later realized was simply a backlash to the culture. I always had an uncomfortable feeling about it all but just went on. It started becoming a huge problem in later years as the divide heated up. Anyone else notice that more time is spent on this issue in many churches than the basic Gospel? (And many in those churches have never heard the full basic Gospel! but they hear lots about happy marriage, raising good kids and balancing checkbooks!)

I saw that this issue was being presented more and more as a ‘salvation’ issue in a general way and that was too much for me. I saw more and more conferences, books, sermons, etc on this ONE issue than anything else. I started feeling like women were being held responsible for the behavior and even the salvation of many men because they did take their submission ‘role’ seriously enough.
Funny how my mom warned me about this 20 years ago and I ignored her. She warned me to beware of churches who spend most of their time on secondary doctrines that are not a salvation issue.

”  I have just been challenged by a comp to defend my egal position just using the bible (interlinears and concordances being ok, also.) ”

Give them Cheryl’s DVD. It accomplishes exactly that!

I do not know about anyone else but I am noticing a trend when I listen to sermons or read articles from many well known Theologians and pastors on the internet: They mention Jesus less and less. I hear lots of references to God but fewer to Jesus. This is a great concern of mine.

I am looking forward to your DVD. It is sorely needed.

“Two facts are brought out—Adam’s priority and Eve’s weakness in being deceived.”

Your response is right… as Carson takes being ‘deceieved’ by the serpent as the universal weakness of all women. But they ignore something even MORE powerful in their illogical stance:
If Adam knew better and sinned outright knowing the truth THEN using their reasoning… all men… for all time cannot be trusted even if they are saved. It is the same logic they are using for women.

Off topic:

This debate http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/ is fascinating about male only elders. While I do not agree with CD Host on every single point, he makes some very important points about the ESV translation that have bothered me for a while now.

It was quite a shock to me to study this passage and find the words “symbol of” were added into the text. I believe in the inerrancy of the Word but not in the inerrancy of the translators!

Thier whole house of cards comes tumbling down without ‘symbol of’ and even with it added in this interpretation makes it very confusing when reading verses 11 and 12. Anyone studying the Word deeply  would spot a contradiction and know that the translators got something wrong. The ONLY way to make this work for them is to proof text this passage. And that, of course, it what they have done.

“Wouldn’t this be a failure of God’s to explicitly delegate authority so that we have to guess this is what he intended? It is my contention that God said what he meant and meant what he said”

Exactly. So much has to be read into it and assumed. They are speaking for God when they say that creation ‘order’ implies authority. But God tells us exactly why He waited when He brings the animals to Adam to name. If I use their interpretation tactics, I could make a good case that being created last means Eve is more important! (Not to mention that animals were created before Eve…wonder how they justify that one…is she lower than a cow to them?)

There are so many things they read into the account: Ezer means subordinate…when it doesn’t because God is an ‘ezer’ all over the OT.

The bottom line is this…If Adam was in charge of Eve then why wasn’t he held responsible for HER actions in Gen 3?

BTW: Cheryl, something I keep hearing from the CBMW crowd is that we must allow church history to teach us when we do not understand or agree upon scripture. If most theologians over time agree then it must be correct. This sounds so good but it really does lead us down a dangerous path. Studying church history and what theologians agreed upon for a thousand years leads us to infant baptism, sacraments, magistrates, state church, slavery, burning heretics, etc. They use this same argument on the issue of subordination of women. It really is dangerous and leads us away from sola scriptura.

I think of all the resources we have for free now at our fingertips to study scripture in depth..Greek, Hebrew….it really is changing things and they do not like it.