Lydia
Active 2009–2012
Tag Cloud
“I understand, historically, the rationale as to why women were under authority. However, how would a hierarchialist answer today about that which necessitates a woman be under authority.”
They always answer because the Bible says so. They never discuss why Jesu Christ would put an authority layer between a wife and Jesus Christ. (Not speaking of civil authorities which both husband AND wife are subject to) Just speaking of believers who are married.
But this is a problem. What if the husband becomes incapacitated and must have his diapers changed? And the wife must make the living because he cannot. And must make decisions about everything from money to where they live. Who is in authority then?
This happens. What then? (Let’s just hope she is prepared and not a ditz because she was never allowed to make a decision or be part of making decisions for the family)
“I wonder if you feel like the church leaders are also a layer between you and God? I’m not saying the husband is the ‘high priest’ so to speak of the wife, not at all. Just that he is the head of his wife and she should submit to him.
I don’t understand why you think an authority figure over you is a ‘layer’ spiritually between you and God. We all have authority over us, but that does not mean I am any less spiritual than that authority figure.”
Mark, you seem to be stuck on this authority thing.
From a spiritual perspective what does it mean to you? That those with churchy titles are always right and must be obeyed? Like Ted Haggard? Jimmy Swaggart? They both had authority titles.
There are some very evil people out there who abuse their perceived “Authority”. Are you allowing for the fact it is ok NOT to submit to them. If so, then why? If someone has enough discernment to know better then why the focus on authority?
Jesus Christ is the authority. we are to want all believers to grow and mature…grow in Holiness. That means they might just grow spiritually PAST the perceieved authority.
Instead of focusing on “authority” why don’t you do as Paul in 1 Corin 4 and describe yourself and men as servants…actually underrowers…the lowest level of rowers on a ship that were usually slaves. Why do you focus on what you perceive as authority? Which is really the lowliest servant of all?
Christianity is about humility and putting others first. Not about having authority over other believers. Elders are to be the most humble of all. They are certainly not like Diotrephes who obviously demanded to be followed and obeyed.
Why not give us an example of how YOU think a wife must submit. Where is the line drawn that she should NOT obey her perceived authority. Is the wife allowed to teach the husband anything the Holy Spirit has illuminated to her in scripture or is that wrong? If he disagrees what must she do? Suppress it?
The problem I see is that comps take metaphors too far. For example, pastor is shepherd. So that means we must stay dumb sheep who always follow the pastor who is only a human. Thjat is taking a metaphor too far. You take a metaphor about love in 1 Eph 5 and now women must ACT like a church. And you must be Jesus? Her Savior?
“Oh, and Mark: isn’t our relationship with God between two persons?”
This is the WHOLE point! Why do women need a layer between them and their Savior? Why are they not allowed to fully mature in spiritual things but must be “under” the authority of another male believer? This would mean our spiritual growth would be hindered to whatever our “authority” is. This seeks to replace the Holy Spirit in our lives. It is simply not spiritually logical from the point of view of the Cross which tore the veil in two. Women are “adult” believers. Not perpetual children who must have a daddy figure.
There is no way our scriptures teach this. It is simply very bad translating. The translators were not inerrant. But the Word is. That is a major reason we need the indwelling Holy Spirit to illuminate the truth in the Word to us. Otherwise women are not really a full participating part of the “priesthood”. And some folks want us to believe that only men get some sort of special anointing that women cannot have. Or if they do, they must supress it or it will be sin. Insidious@! Satan loves this.
Mark wrote”
” I find it fascinating that you say Christians talk about ‘gifts’ not roles. I think there is an element of truth to your claim, but i also think ‘gift’ based theologies and practices are increasingly becoming unbiblical. Any ‘gift’ that is bestowed will always be in accord with Biblical revelation. Not only that who decides that one is ‘gifted’.”
Wow Mark. Talk about making Grand Canyon sized leaps! I mention gifts and all of a sudden I am a pentecostal! “Spiritual gifts” as in the eye cannot say to the hand I have no need of you. Everyone in the Body is needed. (The true Body, of course)
You do realize that you come here with preconceived notions. I think you picture (like most of us who were brainwashed ) a bunch of feminazi’s in sensible shoes who want to ordain homosexual pastors.
You would be shocked at how conservative I am not only in politics but in Doctrine. I just happen to know that wanting authority over others in the Body is sinful. A true overseer is the lowliest servant who cares for souls. Puts others before him or herself. Jesus Christ is the authority.
Why not ask me to clarify before you jump to conclusions? While you are at it, why not show me in NC scripture where it mentions ‘laity’. Or did you not know in the NC, all true believers are “priests”? Even women are included in that.
“As in relation to culture wars, the egalitarian ‘gift’ based interpretations of scripture and practice may not be so innocent as you seemingly hint at. We are all products of our culture, egalitarianism included and probably more so than any other.”
Gifts have nothing to do with egal or comp. They are given by the Holy Spirit to edify the Body. Just so you don’t go leaping off tall buildings again, understand I do not believe in speaking in tongues. But I do believe in the indwelling Holy Spirit but that the Holy Spirit illuminates the truth of the Word to us. (Best seminary professor ever!)
The Danvers statement WAS a response to the culture. The entire comp movement was a response to the culture. If you want to discuss the feminization of the culture, you gotta go back to the early 1900’s where the true feminists were hanging out.
The relationship pre fall was egalitarian. Ezer is help.God is described as Ezer. So are men in the OT. Eve was a help comparable to Adam. His mirror, so to speak. Adam recognized this…we know by his own words. They are ONE FLESH. How does one get authority over out of ONE FLESH, I will never know.
So, egal is pre fall. Now, in Christ, there is neither male nor female. IN CHRIST…with full inheritance.
You are speaking to a former comp. I lived it. Read all the books and inside I knew something was wrong. All around me men and women were focusing on each other’s roles. It took the focus off CHRIST IN ME and onto the roles and rules. It was a works religion.
Only until I decided to really study the Word did I find different. Mutual love and submission with Jesus Christ as each believers authority. There is no layer between a woman and her Savior.
“ALL submit to church leaders as the shephards and overseers.”
Mark, Do you believe all the ‘one another’s” in scripture apply to overseers and shepherds, too?
I will go a step further, shouldn’t they be living them out instead of expecting to be in “authority”?
“Significant, I think, that “gifts” is actually IN the Bible, while “roles” is not – Yet gifts are being called into question and roles are not.”
Exactly. Most of compism is redefining. Role originated as a Fr word for the scroll used as a script for plays. It is associated with ‘pretending’ to be someone. And that is exactly what happens in compism. Roles with rules for sanctification. It is works based.
When saved, we are “In Christ”. Christ is IN US. I do wonder how there can be a salvic”biblical womanhood” when Jesus Christ was male. How can a women be Christlike when so much emphasis is put on the non biological differences with proper roles for Christian men and women? We know the answer…..being in Christ transforms gender. We are wives and mothers but we are IN CHRIST….FIRST and LAST.
But compism wants a pink and blue Christianity complete with roles and rules for each sex. It is WORKS!
“I find it fascinating that you say Christians talk about ‘gifts’ not roles. I think there is an element of truth to your claim, but i also think ‘gift’ based theologies and practices are increasingly becoming unbiblical. Any ‘gift’ that is bestowed will always be in accord with Biblical revelation. Not only that who decides that one is ‘gifted’.”
Wow Mark. Talk about making Grand Canyon sized leaps! I mention gifts and all of a sudden I am a pentecostal! “Spiritual gifts” as in the eye cannot say to the hand I have no need of you. Everyone in the Body is needed. (The true Body, of course)
You do realize that you come here with preconcieved notions. Why not ask me to clarify before you jump to conclusions? While you are at it, why not show me in NC scripture where it mentions ‘laity’. Or did you not know in the NC, all true believers are “priests”?
“As in relation to culture wars, the egalitarian ‘gift’ based interpretations of scripture and practice may not be so innocent as you seemingly hint at. We are all products of our culture, egalitarianism included and probably more so than any other.”
Gifts have nothing to do with egal or comp. They are given by the Holy Spirit to edify the Body. Just so you don’t go leaping off tall buildings again, understand I do not believe in speaking in tongues.
The Danvers statement was a response to the culture. The entire comp movmement was a response to the culture.
The relationship pre fall was egalitarian. Ezer is help and God is described as Ezer. So are men in the OT. Eve was a help comparable to Adam. His mirror, so to speak. Adam recognized this…we know by his own words. They are ONE FLESH. How does one get authority over out of ONE FLESH, I will never know. Unless it is just pride.
So, egal is pre fall. Now, in Christ, there is neither male nor female. IN CHRIST…with full inheritance.
“But today, such belief has been abolished which has left the comps without a foundation.”
This is so key. Suzanne, just wondering in your research did you run across this book: 1977 George W. Knight III, The NT Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women (Baker)
This book is the forerunner of today’s comp movement. Let’s face it, the days of the old interpretation of the consequences of the fall as virtue for women were over. Too many people knew better. So a new foundation had to be laid in order for men to maintain their authority over women. It was also a backlash to the culture of the time. I have always maintained that today’s comp movement is a result of the culture wars.
Christians do not speak of roles. They speak of gifts, one another’s, humility and love. They are not seeking to be first or have authority over others within the Body like the Gentiles do. They do not redefine words to make them fit their premise. If the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate “authority” of husband over the wife, there are plenty of other Gk words that are quite clear on communicating authority.
I think all comps should be forced to attend a secret Chinese home church. They are certainly not worried with such silliness. Women teach men and even witness to men at the risk of prison! So Paul would frown on this?
Charis: FYI
“The PCA holds to the biblical teaching that limits the ordination of elders to men only, a teaching with which Mrs. James expresses agreement. However, there remain plenty of untapped opportunities for women to work in the church, she said.”
“Did you read Carolyn Custis James post? I think she expressed it better than I and she is one of your own (an egal)”
Do you have a reference to her declaring herself an egalitarian? In one of the books I read she described herself as Complimentarian. I think the book was When Life and Beliefs Collide. It might have been the Gospel of Ruth. But I know for a fact she described herself as a comp. Any reference to your above statement would be appreciated.
One only enables sin when we cower and submit to a bully. It will only continue to get worse. Even for a ‘season’. (John Piper suggested women submit to bullying for a ‘season’. I would like to see him do it first. Would he put up with that everyday at work being bullied by an authority? Or would he rebuke him and get away?)
Mark, you have mentioned 1 Corin 14 several times. Can you tell me which passages make you think of it as a ‘formal’ church situation?
“- what makes “church” so special that women can’t teach there, but they can present the identical teaching to an equivalent (and even possibly, identical) audience (adult men) if the setting is not “church”?”
And how do we know if there was just one Body of believers meeting in homes in Corinth? Perhaps there were several. I can remember reading some archeologists who said that the typical 1st century home could have crammed about 35 people in. There would be no pews, no stage, no altar, no pulpit. One home was excavated in Ephesus that had obviously been remodeled to fit in 70 or so people.
As we read in 1 Corin where Paul advised that several prophesy and some others judge what was said is so alien to our tradition, we can hardly imagine such a thing.
We would not really think of this as a church today. How much of tradition is our filter for these rules and roles of ‘pastor’/elder? 1 Corin does not say only pastors or elders can prophesy. Elders would be the most spiritually mature. They would look the most like the salt elements of Matthew 5!
Was Lydia, being the first convert in Europe, not allowed to teach men in the Body that met in her home?
It seems the 1st century church was quite informal.
“Pastor is both in my opinion. You do not want someone as a pastor who is not gifted to be there. Also it is an office. Overseer/elder/ shephard all convey the same meaning as ‘Pastor’. ”
There are tons of hirlings out there doing ‘formal’ church. That is why we are having this discussion.
Pastor is actually mentioned once in the NT yet has become the single most important function in the church since when? Since
Constintine when the church was legalized and these ‘offices’ became important to men?
What is the difference between a pastor and a teacher/evangelist/preacher/missionary, etc. As an example, scripture defines Stephen as a deacon but we know he stepped outside that box big time.
What exactly does ‘pastor’ mean in the NT? And how does that line up with how it is defined now?
Where do we see one main pastor for each Body in the NT? How do we know there were not many in the Body? Let me give you a recent example. A missionary in South American country that is very backward wrote me about one of my comments on another blog about the spiritual gift “pastor”. As they are starting churches in the jungles and discipling people, they are totally relying on the Holy Spirit to bring forth spiritual gifts in the believers as they grow and start other churches. A surprising thing has happened. Women are being gifted as ‘pastors’ (shepherds) to new believers. They are ‘pastoring’ these new believers. This happened naturally from prayer, worship and study. They do not even know what a formal office of pastor would look like because they have not been corrupted by traditions. They are simply operating in their gifting. It is not them. It is the Holy Spirit.
It is a function that comes from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. And yes, they are ‘pastoring’ men who are new believers.
(One of my contacts says the same thing happens in the underground church in China. Many men have to go into hiding or go to prison. They do not have the luxury of roles)
But let’s face it, our goal should be mature believers who go on to “pastor” others. To make it an official office for a few means we cut the Holy Spirit out. We have made it into a man made tradition and office. That is the truly sad part.
Don’t let our English translations and bias’ against roles interfere with terminology conveying the same things. Perhaps you want to dispute like many that there are no such offices at all in the New Testament? I’m not sure? As far as i know Paul is VERY interested in overseers/elders/presbyters/deacons which were all present in the early church and his letters.
“Paul in writing those letters was addressing a church and a pastor of a church. Both the immediate contexts of the passages refer to the ‘formal’ if i can call it that assembly of believers. Not bible study, not youth, not mission, not bible college, but ‘church’. Simply stated with the exponding of Pauls comments regarding eldership and how i see that role in the bible, i conclude that men should only be in that position teaching in the church.
That said there number 1 priority should be to humble themselves and do everything in their power to make their ‘church’ as much like Christ as possible.”
Hmmm. If the “pastor” is so important, then who was the ‘pastor’ of the Corinthian church? The Phillipian church? And so on. How come ALL the Epistles were not written to the “pastor” or Elders if leadership/authority structures are so very important to the Body?
“Pastor” is a spiritual gift. Not an ‘office’.
“Lydia,
It saddened me to think of several childless couples I know perhaps reading these statements. If becoming pregnant was a life or death situation for her, I bet she’d choose to use contraception.”
There is a very strange movement afoot that I am seeing all over the blogosphere where ‘Christians’ are making statements about people hating children because they do not have any or only have 1 or 2.
If you look at this position logically it falls apart. First of all, many who are making such statements are making 6 figures and only have a few kids!
Folks like Al Mohler, Pattersons, Russell Moore, etc. Moore adopted his 2 and was given 10,000 cash gift by a seminary donor to do so. Even though he makes 6 figures.
Mohler wrote an article about this a while back saying that those who remain childless are selfish. He never said whether these were specifically Christian couples but he quoted a few people who said they did not want children. Mohler only has 2 children.
But I see something very different out there. I see woman struggling horribly to GET pregnant. And all this focus on childbearing and contraception, etc only puts heavy burdens on these women.
Lots of do as I say and not as I do teaching going on out there. But that is what happens when we get away from the basic Gospel and focus on the secondary stuff making it primary. It becomes a works salvation.
My view is that the OC was: Be fruitful and multiply
The NC is: Go and make disciples
After all, the basest of our society can have children all the time and do. So when the Christian woman is bombarded with these messages about childbearing it makes them wonder why on earth God is punishing them. Cheryl, I would love to hear you speak to this. It took me many years to conceive. The emotional pain is unbearable. We had started saving to adopt internationally (no fat cat donors giving us funds!) because it is actually cheaper and safer than adopting in the US! (You have NO guarantees in the US anymore of keeping the child)
anti spam word: pain.
Yes, she is a simple housewife with a PhD who travels the world and has a pastry chef on staff at Pecan Manor.
check this out
http://www.dorothypatterson.info/Contraception.cfm
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant they must think their followers are. Perhaps they are?
Frank, I had a similar situation in my family with cousins who were long time missionaries in a very uncivilized part of Africa. When missionaries were forced to sign a statement, they could not in good conscience sign it. Why? The husband was many times out in the bush and the wife would lead the Bible studies/worship. (She has 2 masters degrees from seminary and speaks 4 languages) And this would mean they were violating the document they were forced to sign. They offered to sign their bibles but were refused. So, they left the SBC as missionaries after almost 20 years.
There are many stories like this. But if you think about it logically, you can see that our dollars for missions are not being used efficiently in this scenerio.
And what would be the use for single women missionaries (like Lottie Moon) as they might find themselves in a position to teach a man but would be violating man made rules to do so.
Dave this is not nice but around the SBC she is known as Hyacinth Bucket. She loves to entertain, too. And lavishly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/keepingupappearances/
Did you see her bio where it states she had a midnight buffet with Yasser Arafat in one of Saddam’s palaces?
“But what will PP do when the money is not there? He may cut the wages of everyone else or lay people off. Surely he wouldn’t consider that his wages or the wages of his wife should be touched, right? After all he is the most important person there and without him where would the leadership be? ”
That has already happened in quite a few places he has been. It is always about him living the high life. Did you know he has a pastry chef at Pecan Manor, the presidents home at SWBTS? My point is they are not safe anyway. Especially educated women unless they are married to someone in the inner circle.
“The question of how to get ineffective or unethical leaders off of their place of influence is a huge one. I think that inevitably someone of importance or someone with a backbone of steel needs to stand up to these people. And then another one needs to come after him/her. And then another one and another one and eventually something will be done. How many “dead” bodies it will take before anyone listens, I am not sure. I sure do wish that I had God’s ability to know the answers.”
That is not going to happen. The trustees are all hand picked and most of the other leaders like their celebrity status, too. No one wants anyone looking too closely. Which is why they hate blogs.
When I was a kid 20,000 people used to go as messengers to the convention and were actively involved. Now they are lucky to get 7000 and most of those are ministers and staff people. Now the whole thing is run by a few good old boys who have thrown the Priesthood of the Believer out the window. Their amassing of power has made them influential and wealthy and authoritarian. And tons of young men in seminary are dying to emulate them.
BTW: No one knows exactly how many people are still in the SBC. They throw around the 16 mill number but most know it is most likely about half that if that much.
And there are much more efficient ways to support missionaries than sending it to the SBC to help pay for the high life of our leaders instead of boots on the ground.
“The truly sad part is that PP has been splitting the SBC since 1979 and no one will stand up and tell him he has, he is doing this horrific damage.”
That is because he knows where all the bodies are buried. :o)
What about his brother in law he put on the IMB Trustee Board who was investigated WHILE ON the IMB Board and eventually convicted and sent to prison for fraud?
When folks stop sending their money to the SBC this will go away. No money, no big celebrities who can get by with all this stuff and fewer young men wanting to follow in his footsteps and be ministry celebrities, too.