Lin

Greg, I do plan on bringing it up. Thanks for your support. If anything, it IS labeled a ‘Christian’ school and the goal is to teach them to bear the Image of Christ.

“The implication is that while you are defending women that you are simultaneously berating men, or the fact that you are defending women means you are not defending men………which really means, you hate men???”

I know exactly what you mean. It is as if any words that are positive about women becomes an insult to men or we are ‘feminizing’ the church. I am so sick of hearing that one!

Yesterday my daughter came home from her 1st Grade Christian private school very upset. She said the boys sang this song to the girls at recess, lunch and whispered it to them during class when they could:

Boys go to college to get more knowledge
Girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider

Now, I know these are silly kid games but it starts here. And I am paying out a lot of money for a ‘Christian’ environment. So, while these ‘Christian’ boys are acting like this, I have to teach my daughter not to respond in kind but to love. I am telling you it is harder to explain this when you are dealing with other Christian families! And it is not just this…the boys are extremely disrespectful to the girls in all ways. They are just not learning respect at home.

Thanks, that is a relief to hear. I always feel like ‘odd man’ (ha) out at these types of teachings. I cannot multi task at all and find that women who can, do not understand me at all! :o) I focus on ONE thing and a tornado would hit and I would not know it. I think romance is silly so when that subject comes up as it always does at these things, I beg my husband not to listen or buy roses. I say, clean the loo, buy me a book and I will know you love me. :o)

I always get a bit nervous with things like this. As a woman, I am extremely compartmentalized in my thinking and usually fit more into the male category on all those tests/assessments.

I do have to wonder how much is nature or nurture. I do get concerned when I see someone make a point about women and their emotion.

Paula, Great article you wrote. You are more ‘scholarly’ than the scholar! :o)

Thanks, Light. Unbelieveable.

Here is another confusing quote from the same article:

“Moore called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father, whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. ”

This only reinforces the teaching of putting Jesus in a subordinate place within the Trinity, calling for men to model God the Father instead of Jesus Christ is confusing. Doesn’t scripture call for us all to model Christ as He was on earth?

“‘History does repeat itself in cycles though, and I do see the complementarians breaking off and creating a kind of eastern empire, much in the same way Constantine did in the 4th century.’”

Or even during the Reformation. The groups who had been outside the Catholic church were thrilled with the Reformation until they realized that the reformers were keeping many things Catholic like infant baptism, state church, etc. The refused to join and were considered heretics. Many descendents of these groups later coming to America seeking freedom of worship. I read something recently that approximated that only 6% of the American population were members of the Church of England before the Revolutionary war. I was stunned since that was the ‘state church’.

The parallel is how many comps are now teaching that egal doctrine is as dangerous as Open Theism or Liberation Theology and is sin. People are being shamed and shunned for being egalitarian. I know many who just keep their mouths shut about it at church. Why? It is very hard to find an egalitarian church that is not liberal in primary doctrine.

Did anyone notice in the paper how concerned Moore is about complimentarians being too soft? And this softness, to him, means they are losing to egalitarians? I do not understand this at all because comps pretty much hold the power reigns in many mega churches and denominations.

Light, you summed it up in what you heard him say about mutual decision making in marriage. Do you remember the reference by any chance? That is pretty hard core.

anti spam word: light :0)

Cheryl, I was very sorry to read Kamilla’s response. I thought your rules of engagment were very protective for her. And I agree that a public correction is the only option here. We must all test everthing taught and be Bereans.

I have several friends who have been kicked off the Bayly blog because they were women who disagreed..quite nicely, too. This was probably over a year ago. They were accused of being in sin and rebellion for disagreeing with Patriarchy.

As long as I have been reading you, I have found you to be extremely respectful, loving and gracious toward those who disagree. But, I am also glad you will not be bullied.

BTW: Has anyone else here read this paper by Russell Moore titled After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate:

http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf

It is scary. (And on topic with this thread as he is arguing a more Patriarchal complimentarianism based on authority within the Trinity)

Here is an excerpt:

“Authentic biblical patriarchy is necessary because the problem is not that evangelicals do not hold to “traditionalist” notions of gender and family, but rather where they find these notions. Wilcox correctly argues that patriarchy is “pervasive, at least symbolically, in the world of conservative Protestantism” since “God the Father stands at its Trinitarian core, transcending heaven and earth.”13 It seems, however, that the symbolism is not well fleshed out in evangelical churches, since “patriarchy” in conservative evangelicalism is so loosely, if at all, tied to the Fatherhood of God.
There is some progress here in evangelical complementarianism, largely in response to egalitarian claims for “mutual submission” within the Godhead. Complementarian theologians such as Bruce Ware and Peter Schemm have demonstrated convincingly that the Trinitarian “bungee-jumping” of egalitarians such as Gilbert Bilezikian and Kevin Giles have erosive implications not only for male headship, but also for an orthodox doctrine of God.14 Randy Stinson of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has demonstrated a dangerous trajectory within religious feminism when it comes to the God/world relationship.15

But there is more here to be said about the Fatherhood of God—a Fatherhood that is not just eternal and abstract but realized in a divine relationship with Jesus as the representative Man, an historical Father/Son covenantal relationship that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers. Patriarchy then is essential—from the begetting of Seth in the image and likeness of Adam to the deliverance of Yahweh’s son Israel from the clutches of Pharaoh to the promise of a Davidic son to whom God would be a Father (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26) to the “Abba” cry of the new covenant assembly (Rom 8:15). For too long, egalitarians have dismissed complementarian proof-texts with the call to see the big picture “trajectory” of the canon. I agree that such a big-picture trajectory is needed, but that trajectory leads toward patriarchy—a loving, sacrificial, protective patriarchy in which the archetypal Fatherhood of God is reflected in the leadership of human fathers, in the home and in the church (Eph 3:14-15; Matt 7:9-11; Heb 12:5-11). With this being the case, even the so-called “egalitarian proof-texts” not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, they actually prove the opposite. Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy—a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.

This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded then in the overarching theme of all of Scripture—the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).16 It does not divide God’s purposes, his role as Father from his role as Creator from his role as Savior from his role as King. To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to his headship—a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ (Heb 12:5-11). This protects evangelical theology proper from both the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and from the “most moved mover” of open theism. Indeed, the evangelical response to open theism would have been far more effective had evangelicals not severed the issues of open theism and egalitarianism. Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different. It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.
Many egalitarians are quite willing to concede what some complementarians are afraid to say: a rejection of male headship means a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty.”

Cheryl, Thanks so much! It is important I get the distinction right.

” And, my friend, please do know that they are not God’s anointed. No one but Jesus is God’s anointed. This is a tactic that many use as a “thought-stopping” technique. It doesn’t work with me because I know that we are to test all things. ”

Cheryl, what does this in 1 John mean? I always thought it meant that all true believers were anointed:
20But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.21I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. In the same vein, Peter writes that we are all a Holy Priesthood.

But this idea of ‘God’s special anointed’ is making headway in many denominations. I am hearing it all the time. It feeds into this topic…if the pastor or elders are God’s anointed…and the husband is ‘priest’…then the woman has no chance. She is burdened with many authorities. It really is a ‘thought stopping’ statement and I think it is meant to be by many in leadership. Where do they get this ‘God’s anointed’ teaching as if they are ‘set apart’ with special revelation or something?

Is it a hold over from the clergy/laity distinction brought into the church? NT scripture just does not support this.

All these issues…women’s roles…God’s anointed….husband as priest…all evolve from wrong teaching on ‘authority’.

http://www.sohmer.net/Velvet_Elvis.pdf

Charis, Here is something you may want to prayerfully consider.

Cheryl, This is excellent news.

“In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. Page 461-462 ”

I am confused. Doesn’t he negate his point?

“My wife has a simple question for people who misquote the scriptures by saying “the two shall become one.” She simply asks “which one?” ”

I have not stopped chuckling over this one!

” If it becomes too focused on the felt needs of the non-Christian and stops growing and equipping the Christian, we need to be concerned.”

Cheryl, This is so important and one reason I even started to look at your teaching. You make clear in all of your teaching that sound doctrine is all important. When I first found your site, I kept waiting for the ‘liberal’ or felt needs doctrine to make its appearance. After quite a while, it has not. I purchased your DVD set, studied scripture in context along with it and it is right on. The introduction on that series is excellent.

I came out of a seeker church. Ironically, they won’t preach the full Gospel, but they were very strict complementarians! Go figure.

Does Mr. Lepine ever say who the husbands ‘priest’ is? Wonder how he would like to live with a priest? Who is confronting the husband’s sin? And what is his advice for the wife in dealing with her husbands sin?

What is SO scary about this is that Mr. Lepine is assuming that most husbands will do this lovingly all the time with correct motives?

Quite frankly, I am more worried about the husband’s eternal life with this teaching for many reasons I won’t go into here. This is obviously false teaching and I am thankful you are making it public.

I can totally relate to what he said about the big picture. That is exactly what did it for me. There were too many contradictions to accept the hierarchical position.

This is an awesome testimoney. Thanks so much for posting it.

“To say that it is prescriptive (1 Tim. 2:12) is to say that Paul is now our new Moses, our new law-giver, and that Christ’s efficacy at the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are only partially enfranchised in the Body of Christ. I for one, flatly reject the prescriptive interpretation.”

I never thought of it like that before. But when I ask comps if Jesus left earthly priests for women after the cross, they actually equivocate because they do see the husbands role as her priest. they just do not like the way I describe it. They say, “head” ans she submits to the head… but their interpretation of head is really ‘earthly priest’ when you get right down to it.

What about the argument that women leaders or prophets were not the ‘norm’ back in the OT and for that reason the few ones were non normative and if God had intended it otherwise we would see much more of it?

Or that none of the Apostles were women and if God wanted to show that women were not in universal submission He would have had a woman apostle?

Or about the argument that history proves that all denominations that have ordained women or had women in leadership became liberal in doctrine which started their downfall?

I keep hearing these same tired arguments.

I ran across this in Philippians…

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

I would be very interested to understand what is meant by giving Jesus the name that is above every name. By this passage, I became convicted even more that God is Glorified when the Name of Jesus is exalted.

“God exalted Him to the highest place”

Speaking of united will. Has anyone read Rev 1 lately? Who is speaking to John and described as the Alpha and Omega? My take is it is Jesus Christ because of verse 18.

Any thoughts?

“…yet scripture shows that in the Trinity the three have a united will. Only if the Son’s will is identical with the Father’s will can the Trinity have a true equality of essence because their united will is part of the essence of God.”

Just in reading Isaiah the other night…I noticed that God said, “who will go for US”. Not Me but US. I had not noticed that before.

I am starting to be very concerned about the trend to speak of God more than Jesus. I am seeing this just about everywhere. The Name of Jesus must be magnified!

“Any thoughts about why the husband is never granted the right to take authority over his wife?”

Because there is only one authority now (except for government) for Christians and that is Jesus Christ?

God is Sovereign. It is not like He did not know how Mary would respond. And it is not like He does not have the power to change hearts!

The point is that God did not approach Mary’s father or Joseph first.

Cheryl, I am so grieved to hear what is happening with the Canadian Government and your ministry. Moving may not be fruitful as I suspect the US is not far behind. I pray that God will be Glorified and the Gospel proclaimed.

The biggest shock to me over the past 5 years has been the vitriol coming from professed Christians. I have been the recipient of it in devastating ways. We forget that the way is narrow (Matt 7) and that many will not be acknowledged by our Lord. This is a wake up call for all of us.

To make keeping women out of ministry the focus of ones life and ministry is scary. It has a magisterial and legalistic ring to it. I have noticed this issue becoming more and more divisive and contentious just in the past 20 years. It is as if Satan found something that really works. If he can keep half of all Christians silent on the Gospel, he has accomplised quite a bit.

I also agree with you that the accepted concept of ‘authority’ or leadership we find in most churches looks nothing like what was practiced in the NT or what Jesus taught. Sometimes I find it hard to believe I am reading the same bible as some of these teachers. It just grieves me to no end. People end up following men and not Christ.

You may never know the impact you have had on people with your ministry. The grace and love you show toward those who disagree is contagious. Your ministry about women did not change my mind so to speak…it drove me to scripture to study deeply to see for myself. I am sure that is your intention. One thing I realized is that I did not have the creation account correct at all. And that is the foundation for everything! I owe you a debt of gratitude.

You are a wonderful, godly teacher.

“I looked over on the CARM bulletin board a little, and I see for them and for me that the whole “authority” thing muddies the waters.”

Charis, I am convinced that a misunderstanding of REAL Biblical authority is a root problem in many areas of Christendom.

This of this: Can a false teacher have ‘authority’?
How can we know if one is a false teacher? (Be a Berean)
Are all believers now “Priests”? A part of the Holy Priesthood? (Hebrews and 1 Peter for starters)
What is an elder? Someone mature in the faith.

What is true Biblical authority? One who rightly interprets and teaches the Word has Biblical authority and once we hear/know the truth we are personally responsible for it.

“The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs”

There are so many theologians I enjoy reading but do not agree with their interpretations. Examples include: Infant Baptism, Pro or condoning Slavery , Baptismal regeneration and Reformers who supported the state church and it’s magistrates. Could any of these been wrong for 2000 years? 1000 years?

My friend, if you are going to put up comments like this…tell Cheryl WHERE her interpretation is wrong.

“The Reformed Movement of today desperately needs a renaissance of liberty and freedom. ”

I could not agree more. I hear more about Calvin than I do about Christ from many of them these days.

“I believe that God’s bringing it in perfect time, and we are here for such a time as this. I’m just not sure how to persevere to the end.”

As my mom always said about persevering: Read 1 John. And pay close attention to chapter 3:

16By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

19By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22andwhatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

Cheryl, The time limit for responses is quite telling. However, it is very unfair of him to refuse to mention your DVD. How about insisting he read the website address after every break?

I know what it is like to hear something on the radio and have no idea where to look for more information.

Also, he needs to mention the ground rules he gave you for the program to be totally open and transparent.

Agent Starling, Do you realize that by your interpretation of the qualifications for elder that the Apostle Paul would not qualify?