Lin

“What is interesting about Andreas Kostenberger is that at the time of our correspondence he remarked that his view on 1 Cor. 15 was not accepted by some in CBMW yet since that time, …”

Cheryl,

1 Corin 15? The Resurrection of the Dead?

You probably meant 1 Tim 2, right? :o)

“Especially in a congregation, all the influences of the environment and the setting reinforce this for the unsuspecting, earnest, trusting follower sitting in the pew. ”

Cindy, this really resonated with me. In 1 Corin, Paul talks about several speaking when they meet and then others would judge. Can’t we see how this would lead us to scripture when we meet and help keep out error?

A few years ago, I decided to study scripture with only the thought of looking at what the early church was like. I found little that looked similar to what we do now.

Normally, I am not a big fan of Barna but I bought his book, Pagan Christianity, written by him and Frank Viola. It is a look at the history of church. He tracks all the things we do now in church, even our buildings and tells us where this ‘tradition’ came from. Some of it I had already researched with the conversion of Constantine. It is quite shocking what we have added. And what we have added speaks to your comment above. The ‘environment’ is perfect for thought reform through a captive ‘audience’ and perceived authorities we should not disagree with publicly.

Just as an example, Barna/Viola track the single ‘sermon’ by one person with a ‘pulpit’ and people sitting in rows facing the speaker to listen…… to Greek Orators who came into the church. It was a tradition in the Greek world to listen to ‘orators’ and it was a big deal to be an ‘interesting’ and well spoken orator. Does this sound familiar?

But Paul makes it clear that he did not come with good speech or fancy words but with truth.

There was also very little ‘overhead’ in the early church as they met in homes, etc., sitting around listening, taking turns in praise, singing, teaching, etc. I try as hard as I can to imagine Lydia not saying a word in her own home or not even sharing a testimony in this setting for fear of teaching men. Did they just use her place or was having the Body meet in her home a serious commitment to her?  Or even Phoebe coming back from visiting Paul and not sharing the wonderful truths she learned from Paul while there and teaching it to others in the Body at Cenchurea. (sp?)

It just makes no sense. We love our traditions too much.

“I was in correspondence with Andreas Kostenberger while I was writing my script of WIM.  He is the one who proposed that 1 Timothy 2:15 means that women were promised by God that they would be kept spiritual safe if they stayed within the boundaries of their roles as wife and mother.”

That explains a lot. Because many of these pastors/seminary students mention his name. It is amazing how a ‘view’ of one teacher can become  prevelant so quickly.

It is as if CBMW has become the only source for this issue in these circles.

Oh yes, but eventually the wife reverts to manipulation to get her way. It is almost subconscious for her to do this. It keeps her as a little girl manipulating ‘daddy’ to get her way. It really sets up some sick situations. I have heard it too many times: Make him think it was his idea. As if he is some idiot you cannot have a grown up conversation with.

How many sermons have I heard the pastor say, the husband is the head and the wife turns the neck. See, the affirmation for her to manipulate? Or how about this one: Anything with 2 heads is a freak. (Meaning both husband and wife cannot be in charge) Well, if we take that one as it is meant, then the wife is a freak because she has 2 ‘heads’: Her husband and Jesus. That is why I think this understanding of ‘head’ as authority makes no sense in relation to these passages.

I read something from a young Christian man out of seminary not long ago where he told someone that if he had a job offer in another state, he would ask for his wife’s input BUT if she did not want to go, he HAD to make the decision for the good of the family because they did not have time to wait on prayer together for the offer was in two weeks. the answer he got was quite funny. This guy told him that if he did not have a job, his wife would probably start packing before he finished the sentence. However, if she did not want to go, he would be a fool to force the issue because driving to another state solo is lonely. :o)

These young guys think it all sounds so pious but it really reeks of pride and arrogance. Where is the ONE FLESH UNION in this thinking?

Cindy, I wrote the editor and thanked him for helping to connect some of the dots with this doctrine and the SBC.

Your presentation has opened many doors and I am thankful.

I have been stunned to read on blog comments how many SBC pastors believe that the passage in 1 Tim 2:15 refers to women staying in their role and bearing children. It does not occur to them that this would be a WORK for salvation. They do not see that. They say it is not a work but an admonition to stay in their God given role. They are blinded.

Can you imagine? Only women have to earn salvation through a role?

‘Sort of a case of ‘partial mutual submission’ if you will, based in part on their application of the verse telling us to ‘obey those who are in authority over us’.  ”

Ah, another verse which is misused quite a bit. You wouldn’t obey your ‘authority’ in the church if he all of a sudden decided you should move to Guyana and drink some kool-aid. :o)

You know what I find most ironic about all this? These professors are doing exactly what many of them have accused Rick Warren of doing: Interpreting scripture to fit a premise.

We all know, if the premise is wrong then all of it is wrong.

Grumdems “Systematic Theology” is being taught everywhere. It is basically a textbook in the SBC now. I am still trying to figure out how Grumden comes to the conclusion that God is subordinate when He helps us. Parents are subordinate to kids when they help them and so on. All of this to PROVE ezer means subordinate. Mohler highly promotes both his books which means every seminary student in the SBC will read them and take them to heart.

” Most of us who have read somewhat in the Fathers (the field is called “Patristics”) know quite well that most of them were unsound on one thing or another.  Many are also wordy, inexact, boring and idiosyncratic).  ”

Thank you!! My sentiments exactly.

“I would think that he would have been more open to show me the error of my way instead of saying “God have mercy on your soul” and cutting off communication.”

This is a variation of one of the standard responses when they see you are NOT coming around to their way of thinking. It is meant to be a conversation stopper and it works. Another one that is used quite a bit is “It is in the bible you just don’t believe it”.

I would be interested in a link or resorce to the Koukls ‘raise the roof’ technique to get to the bottom line of a debate.

If you would have told me that this was being taught by conservative SBC professors I would never have believed it unless I saw it for myself. People are really having a hard time believing it. These men have lots of credibility and influence. I have been told that I have misunderstood what they are REALLY saying or that I am applying it wrong. Or, that it is not an ontological thing.
(I was told this exact same thing when I spoke of Ware’s teaching that women are made in the ‘indirect’ image of God)

So much of what they have written or spoken is so convulted that unless you are vigilent and bring it down to basic questions they can spin what they are saying any way they want. We hold them accountable to clarity.

But, the bottom line is that for so many, these men just cannot be wrong. And that is a dangerous place for too many.

This is nothing less than an attempt to create a new religion that makes gender roles primary doctrine.  But, without the Supremacy of Christ…it is not Christian.

http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/

thought I would let you guys know that Pastor Paul Burleson is writing on how culture has influenced scripture interepretation concerning women. His last couple of posts have been great.

” I am beginning to think I need to quit my day job and go to seminary!”

That could most likely be the worst place to learn the scriptural truths of this issue! There are some very Patriarchal interpretations of this issue coming out of SBC and other seminaries these days. It seems our choices are very left wing or very patriarchal when it comes to seminaries.

One of the best things today is all the resources at our fingertips that were reserved only for scholars years ago.

“Jesus needs to be honored and lifted high because this is how we honor the Father. Those who do not give equal honor to Jesus are not giving full honor to the Father.”

Cheryl, The things I have read and heard over the course of the last few years on this issue have devestated me (angered me, too!) as well so I can only imagine what it would be like to immerse yourself in it. This teaching about Christ is growing and becoming more mainstream.

But we need your DVD. And you have been gifted as a teacher because you love the Word, are clear and make complex issues easy to understand. That is so important…and should never discounted. That is one reason I think this teaching has prevailed to the point it has…certain scholars make it complicated as if only a PhD could really understand it.

Oh yes, I will pray even more for this project. I pray His Name be Lifted up and exhalted because of your efforts. I will also pray about the many burdens you face as you work on this.

“It is not just a Hebrew idiom, it is a Greek one, as is found at Ephesus on pagan and Jewish tombstones of both husbands and wives.”

You know, in thinking about this, I have to wonder if it was not considered an honor to be the only wife of a husband back then? Why put it on a tombstone?

Paula, thank you for tackling that. Much to think about. The more I read, the more I see people are really stuck on ‘one woman man’ thinking that proves it is for men only.

Cheryl, Paul Burleson has a nice compliment for you in the comments of this excellent post:

http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/

Also, Wade has a great post on authority in the church today.

Hi everyone, I ran across this comment on Burleson’s blog. They had been discussing the word deacon in 1 Tm 3 but also other other verses that proved Paul was ONLY talking about male elders. I hope you can decipher what he is saying:

Quote: Deaconess doesn’t really matter for our purposes, but you guys need to understand that in many other languages, that is exactly what they do. In French specifically, since I live in a Francophone country, a female (insert occupation) would feel insulted if you didn’t use the (occupation)-ess form of the word.

(the point was made for him that ’tis’ is used in verses 1 and 5 hile aner was used in the verse about husband of one wife)

About tis: in 5, the rest is tou idiou meaning his own (both in the masculine). Thus ‘if one, his own house rules not’

(Now he is trying to prove by verse 12 it is really ONLY men as elders saying this is not about polygamy at all and does exclude single men…)

In 12 it specifically says ‘be one (the number) woman (singular feminine) men (plural masculine).’ You cannot change that to say he was talking about polygamy. The only option apart from be the husbands of one wife is polyandry.

Since you say that polyandry was illegal, the only option left is it saying ‘be the husbands of one wife.’

I am not trying to be a ‘knucklehead’ nor am I trying to deny the gifts of the Spirit to women. It is not about prohibition, it is about seeking to understand the ‘better way’ that Paul has written to us about in the inspiration of the Spirit.

I just want us all to live out God’s best intention for us and not try to live ‘close to the line’ where we don’t have clear biblical prohibitions.

By the way, this does matter in my context. In a country where the Church is very new, we need to be able to deal with these issues scripturally; not seeking God’s prohibitions, but seeking God’s best.”

Any thoughts on tou idiou and verse 12?

Off topic.

I read recently some pastors saying that the word Deacon in Romans 16 for Phoebe is different than the word in 1 Tim 3. I looked it up and found the same defnintion for both. Can anyone enlighten me here?

I don’t want to be unkind here but I really think there are some very pertinent reasons why people are reacting so vitriolic to this issue and are making it a primary doctrinal hill to die on.

It sells.

Bear with me. At my age, I can look back and see the progression of this issue since I was a teen. There were no terms for it such as egal and comp. People in the church did what had to be done and did not give it a second thought. My mom witnessed and taught men all the time. It was NEVER an issue.

There was a backlash to the culture in the 70’s in some churches and this issue eventually became the whipping girl (blame) for liberalism in doctrinal issues because of feminists and women flocking to seminaries in the 70’s. This was also a time of horrible economics as more and more women were graduating from college and taking white collar jobs. It started with a womans ‘role’ in marriage and spread out from there…encroaching more and more into legalism

Another element is that as it became a focus in the church with more sermons preached on it, books written, seminars, etc. It has become a checklist doctrine of roles and rules. People LOVE this. It is so much easier to follow laws than it is to have faith and an intimate relationship with our Savior. Everyone was looking for the magic bullet for the perfect marriage and these checklists fit the bill. If only I submit more….Don’t appear to be smarter than the men in doctrinal matters, etc. (Some are now even teaching that it is a sin for a woman to work outside the home)

Then, something even more sinister was happening. This issue is a HUGE money maker. Books, CD’s, literature, seminars, etc. on this topic of ‘women roles and/or marriage relationship’ are huge money makers. I know because I was involved in marketing a lot of this stuff. Speaking fees of some of the big name preachers on this issue can be up to 20,000 for an hour! I am serious.

Then you have the whole problem of book blurbs and cross pollenation of an issue. It is a club of sorts. You blurb my book and I will sell your book at my conference sort of thing. I hire you to guest speak at my church and you hire me for your conference. It goes on all the time. These sorts of relationships mean that RARELY is anyone going to admit they may not have gotten a docrtinal point wrong. Even when CBMW is wrong on a technical point, it quietly disappears from their site. These people all are invited to speak all over the place. They have followers.

We cannot dismiss this aspect of it. It has become big business. You would not believe the dollars I saw flowing in and out of it for years. And Cheryl wonders why they refuse to critique her work fairly. Or, even discuss it. They have too much to lose personally.

I know I sound cynical but I worked with and around big names in Christendom and I know that it has become big business. I saw it everyday until I got out. It made me ill. Stil. does.

We have seen how this issue has been treated by many. Wade Burleson has a series going on at his blog about women in ministry that is bringing out the worst in people. It absolutely floors me to know that this attitude is so strong in the SBC that historically believed so strongly in the Holy Priesthood.

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

4. Do not lump together other debates in the body of Christ; let each debate stand or fall on its own merits.

This is one area that I have to work hard at not to be personally offended. Because of my views on women, automatically, it is assumed by many that I believe homosexuals should be ordained and that I hate men. It is also assumed that I am liberal in my doctrinal beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, a huge issue with me is the watered down preaching in churches that tickles ears instead of the full Gospel which convicts hearts.

I am stunned at how quickly people label me as a liberal because of this ONE issue.

Cheryl, thank you for this. I don’t know how many will listen but I pray that they will.

What I have NEVER understood is how we think the ‘teacher’ or ‘preacher’ is the message and has the authority. The WORD has the authority and the teacher is only the messenger. If the teacher is teaching truth, then it applies to everyone. If the teacher is not, then it applies to no one. It is the TRUTH of the WORD that is important. Not the conduit (messenger) that God uses. I really do believe that most churches have it backwards. And if we got that part right, women teaching would not be an issue anymore. Only the truth would be the issue.

I say this because we are elevating preachers to a Pharisee status. And I pray we will, once again, focus on the Holy Priesthood and understand that every true believer is a ‘minister’.

Thanks Cheryl. That passage has been confusing because there is no ‘leading’ up to it. It is astonishing to read that God would have killed Moses. Moses!

What is even more interesting is that Moses did not seem to be punished not marrying a Hebrew woman.

Wow Cheryl, this is a lot to take in. I certainly plan on printing this out and studying it. The circumcision question and how women relate to this has confused me for somtime.

Now, not that you are busy or anything (smile) but how does this verse relate to any of this…it has confused me for years:

Exodus 4

24At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.

You have been more than patient, Cheryl. If only she would engage in actual facts backing up her allegations or even disagree with grace, it would be different.

‘
I wonder if he gives any examples of this from scripture. Of God helping and being subordinate by doing so. I sure would like to see them

“I am incredulous that he has not only been NOT been publicly rebuked by his peers but they are heavily promoting and teaching from this book in seminaries and churches all over.”

Clear as mud, huh? I was doing two things at the same time. Here is the translation:

I am stunned he has not been publicly rebuked and even more stunned that his book is being promoted by so called scholars everywhere.

Another interesting post from pastor Wade Burleson of the SBC about comps and egals:

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

“I believe that it is time that we expose the attempt to put Jesus into a position that is less than the position of the Father. When we place one person of the Trinity as “more” of anything than the Son, we have dishonored the Son.”

Like Corrie, My jaw dropped on reading the quote from Grundem. I have not read the book but I have to ask…does he say anywhere that the quote refers only to humans? And not to God? I am incredulous that he has not only been NOT been publicly rebuked by his peers but they are heavily promoting and teaching from this book in seminaries and churches all over. Every student at seminary has one under his arm.

But, I want to say that this position grieves me to no end. The Name of Jesus Christ MUST be lifted up. He must increase. I saw the liberal seeker churches humanize God and try to bring Him down to our level and I am blown away that so called ‘conservative reformed’ theologians are doing the same.

Could the end be near?

A few more quotes from this article:

“Finally, Grudem returns to the issue of homosexuality, arguing that the hermeneutic employed to advocate egalitarianism leads, if pressed consistently, to the normalization of homosexuality as well. “The approval of homosexuality,” he notes, “is the final step along the path to liberalism.” ”

Guys, I hear this everywhere. It is making inroads as being ‘logical’ which it is NOT. How could the ‘hermeneutic’ be employed for this? Scripture is MORE than clear about homosexuality.

I could use their hermeneutic to argue that complimentarianism leads to less respect for women and more Domestic Violence. But I know that sin leads to sin. And I don’t know which came first…the domestic violence or the comp belief!

“The great value of Wayne Grudem’s new book is its combination of cogent argument and fair presentation. Grudem is careful to acknowledge that many, if not most, evangelical feminists have not moved completely along the trajectory toward the full embrace of theological liberalism. Nevertheless, his surgical approach to their theological arguments and hermeneutical proposals reveals the clear and present danger to evangelical orthodoxy posed by egalitarian theory and practice. Evangelical Feminism is truly a tract for the times–a manifesto that should serve to awaken complacent evangelicals to the true nature of the egalitarian challenge. Furthermore, the book serves as an arsenal of arguments to use in revealing the crucial weaknesses of the egalitarian proposal. ”

Read that last sentence again. War words. Use the book as an arsenal of arguments.

“Nothing less than the future of the Christian church in North America is at stake in this controversy. Evangelicals no longer have the luxury of believing that this controversy is nothing more than a dispute among scholars. Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? has arrived just in time. Get this book quickly–and read it with care.”

Is this scare mongering or what?

check out this article on Grundems book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-10-23

Notice the strawman argument we see being used everywhere about egals:

“In a brief historical analysis, Grudem demonstrates that denominations move through “a predictable sequence” of theological liberalism. First, biblical inerrancy is abandoned. Then, in turn, the denomination endorses the ordination of women, rejects biblical teaching on male leadership in marriage, sidelines pastors who are opposed to the ordination of women, approves homosexual conduct as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains homosexuals, and elects homosexuals to “high leadership positions in the denomination.”

After reading this article, I am starting to see where their ‘language’ comes from.

BTW: On doing a search on Grundem, I was astonished to find him very involved with the Vineyard Movement.

BTW: Can anyone define inerrency for me? I get confused. This is a huge deal with the SBC which is made up of Calvinists, Arminians, cessationists, non cessationists, tongues, no tongues, etc. Get my point?