Paula

I’ve written before that if something is a law, then there must be penalties for breaking it. This is of particular importance on the issue of legalism and whether the old Levitical Law applies to Christians. The fact that there are no penalties in the NT for, say, failing to tithe, tells us it is not a law for us.

Likewise, if something is a sin, then there must be prescribed penalties for committing it, or remedies for forgiveness. No such penalties or remedies exist in the NT for a woman preaching correct doctrine, so it cannot be a sin. And if it is not a sin, then we must ask whether it applies under the general principle of being considerate of the “weak in faith” or the surrounding culture, per Romans 14. This is exactly the case with head coverings, especially for Christian women married to unbelieving men.

I think this argument is even tougher for male supremacists to circumvent.

Slick again commits a logical fallacy in this case, trying to equate the non-repeating of Heb. 10:25 as proof that God doesn’t have to repeat a law. His error lies in calling this a law at all. Is every grammatical command in the NT to be called a law? Hardly. Does he actually think Paul, the great liberator from the old law, went about making up new ones that were on the same plane as the old? Hardly.

The fact is that Heb. 10:25 is not a law, and there is no law against women teaching true doctrine either. Neither is repeated; neither carries penalties for violation. Slick apparently does not understand why you’re making the point about repeated laws at all. You’re saying we know it’s not a law because it’s not repeated, but he thinks everything is a law.

Paul prescribed actions to take against the man who had his father’s wife, and against false teachers, and John wrote strongly against “proud Diotrephes” who put people out of the church. But where is the penalty for women teaching the truth? What does the NT tell us to do as punishment? If the NT gives instructions for other things then why not for this? The answer, of course, is that it isn’t a sin, a law, or even an impropriety.

Yes, and Grudem and Piper do the same thing with the Hebrew in Genesis, claiming that since God called Adam and Eve “man” that this indicates male supremacy! And yes, they call themselves scholars.

Same thing Grudem does, start with English and read it into the text.

We need to get more Greek experts into this, who are not prejudiced. This was Bushnell’s lament over 60 years ago, that those who control translation and dictionaries have gotten away with murder all these years. They rely on the ignorance of the masses and forbid any to question them. At least most of our opponents aren’t Greek experts either, so we’re all in the same boat, gleaning what we can from available sources.
We are at a decided disadvantage due to the outdated dictionaries and biased commentaries, since those are the “authorities” people look to when deciding who is to be believed. Even the UBS texts have not been free of tampering, as in the case of the name Junia. So we need scholars to come forward and correct these foundational authorities and put an end to this uneven playing field.

Actually, I would classify Slick’s objection to the “possibility” argument is not so much a straw man as a case of guilt by association. He is trying to equate your case with that of the atheists’ Flying Spaghetti Monster, where if an idea is to be believed just because it is possible, then any idea, no matter how absurd, is to be given the same weight. But the atheists err in committing the fallacy of exclusion, where pertinent data is removed from the syllogism to lead to a false conclusion.
Likewise, Slick errs in implying that your argument has only possibility on its side. He dismisses the other facts you bring in, such as the use of didasko for false teaching, the general context of false teaching, the grammar of she/they, Eve’s deception, etc. as unimportant, yet they give much more than mere possibility, but strong probability. And, as you pointed out, he commits the very thing he accuses you of in arguing for the right of primogeniture as having any bearing on the discussion in question.
The question for Slick is then, Exactly what does it take to go from possibility to strong probability? If we use the same standards he uses for the right of primogeniture, then certainly he must also allow your argument as being very strong. But if he wants to dismiss your argument as on the level of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then his own argument must be dismissed as well. He can’t have it both ways. He is using a double standard.

Not to mention the fact that “the woman” of vs. 14 HAS BECOME in transgression. The verb gegonen is parsed as 2nd. Perfect, active, 3rd person singular. If it were Eve, then she’d have to still be in a state of error, which was impossible at the time of Paul’s writing since Eve was long dead. The only way around that would be to make “woman” (there is no article in the Greek) mean “womankind” or “all women for all time”, which of course many people insist is the case in spite of other clear scriptures to the contrary.
So he’d have to show either how Eve is still in a state of error, or how the Bible clearly teaches that all women are still in a state of error, or he’ll have to admit that (as Occam’s Razor would dictate) only a particular woman alive at the time of Paul’s writing could have still been in a state of error.

Yep. 🙂
It always goes back to “not so among you”, doesn’t it. Jesus, as the Cornerstone, is not representing the roof of the building but the foundation. He “gets under” us in order to lift us up. That’s what Phil. 2:5-11 is all about, Jesus stooping down to the lowest level to get under us and lift us up. That’s true “servant leadership”… and true love.
Anyone who still wants to “lord over”, to haven preeminence, to boss, control, or command, is being prideful and ignoring this primary example to Jesus, an example given to both men and women without distinction.

Hey, thanks for the plug, Cheryl! 🙂
Also, I’m working on an overhaul of the equality central site, including a new message board. You can currently see the demo at This Link for their main site, and from there you can see the proposed message board and blog.

And I’m a tea drinker and cookie eater. Shocking but true!

Sure, no problem. Anything that helps spread the word is okay by me.

You’re welcome, Truthseeker… but be advised, going from Cheryl’s blog to mine is like going from a tea party to a bar & grill.

Hi Truthseeker,

Just to clarify for anyone who might be confused, when we say this is a secondary issue, we in no way mean it’s not important. We’re just saying it’s not something that should make some believers condemn others. But it’s most definitely important because that happens; it’s important because male supremacism has made it so. When half the Body of Christ is bound and gagged, we have to take a strong stand against the system of theology that promotes it.

That said, your pastor is equivocating on “submission”; he’s comparing apples and oranges. Both men and women submit to leaders, but even then it should be for as long as the “students” are in training. It should never be a permanent situation. If the “students” never graduate then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the “school”!

So there is nothing men submit to that women don’t. But there is something women submit to that men don’t. Your pastor thinks that the issue is just submission, but it isn’t; it’s unilateral submission, it’s a double standard. And this special class of submission for women has grave consequences, both in the church and in the home.

When a woman submits in the church, she is told not to use her spiritual gifts to half the believers, if such gifts include pastor, prophet, or any other “presentable part”, which male supremacists have wrongly classified as “authoritative”. She is told she is in sin if she dares to exercise such gifts to adult males. Quite illogically, she is entrusted with the wisdom and guidance to bring boys to maturity, but once they get there they are her spiritual superiors!

When a woman submits in the home, she is basically treated as a child who never grows up. She can be trusted to teach the children how to dress themselves but not decide what she herself can wear. She can present the gospel to them but not to adults. She can teach the boys to be independent someday but never for herself or her daughters. Her children can pray directly to God and learn to follow his voice, but she can only hear from God through her husband. And she is inherently disqualified from protesting these maddening and logic-defying regulations.

The woman alone is held guilty for Eve’s sin, while the men claim Adam’s alleged leadership role even though Adam was quite unfit as a leader. Apparently the curtain in the Temple was only torn in two for men; apparently only men can “come boldly to the throne of grace”; apparently only men, by virtue of their reproductive organs alone, are trustworthy with the Gospel and the spiritual responsibility for their grown-up wives.

Don’t know if my rant helps, but there it is.

Yes, the GWTW site announced that a while back. It was most disappointing. But the problem is that Nyland has access to sources I don’t have. I’d really like to find links or references that anyone could check, without the baggage of gay theology. We need a list of sources that are authoritative and acknowledged as such by everyone.

That’s why lately I’ve been trying to argue this verse from the angle of the fact that women had no option to be unfaithful. It would make little sense for Paul to specify that a female elder must be faithful to one spouse if it was a rarity even among the pagans. So his expressing this in what appears to be male terms is simply because it was only an issue for men.

Don,

I typed the Keener ref. from the footnotes of Nyland’s The Source, and the typo is in her notes. However, I trusted her since I do not have that book (I have his Paul, Women, and Wives though and will see if it’s in there too).

Personally, I believe Paul is answering a question about a particular man’s aspiration to eldership. But as for the inscription, so far it seems everyone quotes the same single source: C. Keever, And Marries Another, (Massachussetts: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 91-92. Dr. Instone Brewer states, “in NT times those phrases meant … someone who is faithful.” in Divorce and Remarriange in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities, (Pasternoster: Great Britain, 2003, p. 177). I also found this online article that takes a slightly different angle: Divorce and Remarriage, under “I Tim. 3 in detail”.

Hi Lin, I’ll see what I can do.

What the French prefer is completely irrelevant to what the apostles wrote in Greek. Two completely different cultures and languages. And tis can be either masc. or fem.

Single men do not preside (prostenai) over any household; that’s like saying they preside over themselves, so I agree it must refer to a married man at the very least. And this word is from the same root used for Phoebe in Rom. 16, meaning not “helper” but one who “stands before”, a protector, representative, advocate. This simply cannot refer to any individual presiding over themselves. But it certainly does speak against polygamy; what else can “a one-woman man” mean? Verse 12 is on the topic of deacons, not guardians (episkopes), so his trying to drag the plural grammar of vs. 12 over to this singular grammar is very poor exegesis.

Of course this is not to say there should only be one guardian per assembly; we have clear scriptures to the contrary. However, we also cannot ignore the use of the singular here. Just as in the passage in 1 Tim. 2 about “a woman” and “a man”, we have Paul using “anyone” and “a [one-woman] man”, yet elsewhere (ref. deacons) using the plural. So there is no reason that this cannot be another instance of Paul specifically addressing a particular man. Yes, he said “anyone”, but he also said “a man”. I propose that Paul is answering a question about a particular man’s aspiration to the position of Guardian. Paul does not know the man but gives guidelines for Timothy to go by.

This view takes care of both the grammar and the alleged basis for male-only Guardians. Paul can say “a one-woman man” to an individual without jumping to the conclusion that he would only ever address a man for that position.

Now to vs. 12.

The topic is plural and refers to diakonoi, meaning ministers or servants. Paul gave a rule about a particular man needing to be “a one-woman man”, and he extends this rule to all servants. Regarding polygamy, as before, it surely does rule against it. And what would be the point of Paul having to tell the women to only have one husband? Did they have a choice? No, so there was no need for Paul to say that. But for men, it was almost presumed, and he needed to expressly state that this would not be acceptable in the church.

If anyone wants to talk about who is to “rule the home”, it’s women: 1 Tim. 5 expressly states, “I intend then that younger ones marry, bear children, rule the house [Gk. oikodespotein or “house despot”)…”. Since women are given this responsibility and authority, such an injunction to Guardians or Servants cannot be taken as a male-only indicator.

If we truly “seek God’s best” we will not try to mix scripture passages on a whim or ignore grammar. And truth be known, it is culture that has always favored patriarchialism, so that if anyone is bowing to culture it is male supremacists. Paul was being very counter-cultural in many respects, not the least of which was his prominent mention of women and their honored service and gifting. Lists of spiritual gifts do not come in “pink” and “blue”, and there is nothing in scripture to limit the only to things that can remotely be considered “offices” to males.

Dr. Bushnell, who was a medical doctor and missionary to China, was appalled to read the Chinese translation of the Bible due to its blatant changing of scripture to bow to the male-centric culture. When confronted about this, the translators said “We had to be sensitive to the culture.”

I noticed that the word used in Rom. 16:1, diakonon, is also used of Christ in Rom. 15:8. diakonos would be the “lexical” or dictionary form which is always the nom. masculine. We should also note that the feminine (acc. sing. fem.) form diakonian is used of Paul himself in 1 Tim. 1:12.

Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon shows diakonon as both masc. and fem.; that is, the form itself does not indicate grammatical gender.

Which is another important point: grammatical gender has no bearing whatsoever on biological gender. Only English does that.

Don, can you give us some references? I know full well about their gender-bender on Junia, but so far I haven’t found anything on which form of “deacon” is the original.

There’s a handy Greek parallel Bible at This Link. It appears that it is the feminine form in all major Greek texts. However, this in no way indicates some kind of secondary or inferior “office”, but simply a minister who happened to be female.

Also, prostatis means much more than the weak “helper” of many translations; it typically referred to “one who stands before”, a leader, protector, and possibly also benefactor.

That this woman would be trusted with delivering Paul’s scriptures to the Romans, and that she is to be respected and supplied with whatever she would need, is a very significant commendation from Paul. Were this a man, people would not hesitate to give that person great honor today as an outstanding “minister”. (Of course, “minister” didn’t mean any kind of spiritual CEO then, and was never intended to be such. It meant “servant”, and “ministers” today would do well to remember that.)

Light,

Funny you should mention “badge of honor”. I posted there years ago after being reamed by “Christians” because– are you sitting down?– I wondered if they’d consider a more modern message board format! I kid you not. And they had such a good apologetics ministry. Must be some kind of disease.

Very true, Greg. That such “preaching” gets out of any seminary is bad enough, but the harm it does to the Body of Christ is going to come back on the heads of such people.

I am sorely tempted to ask the guy why he doesn’t have a beard. Is he trying to look more feminine? Doesn’t his KJV tell him not to cut the corners of his beard?

Aw, thanks pink!

Don: **&#()($* I wasn’t hugging the tree, I was, um, holding it down.

Greg: “The parallels between rigid fundamentalism and Islam (social structures) are striking.” They certainly are! Look at this “message”: (video link)

Whether it’s a joke or not, that kind of “hermeneutic” is actually used by a lot of people. But here’s actual, serious, Islamic teaching: Islam Monitor.

They’re all Pharisees as far as I’m concerned.

Thanks Cheryl! I just thought it was time for me to “come out”.

(except that some of us are…)

Hi Sandy,

I know a lot of comps who’d call you a “radical feminist” just on the basis of what you wrote here! 🙂 I only wish they all had your attitude. And I wholeheartedly agree that this should never be a salvation issue.

What responses have some of you to the belief that comps have shared with me that it is not about heirarchy but about separate though equal areas of responsibility, if you will? It seems to me that the man’s area, spiritually, always includes everything in a woman’s realm of reponsibility, but not vice versa per these comps. It is then pointed out that Christ was equal with God but submitted to Him while on earth, and this is supposed to pave the way for the equivalent submission teachings for women. (from Phillipians)

Truthseeker,

I was in a blog that went on for hundreds of posts about that very thing. But you point out the main issue: that no matter how terms are defined and tweaked, the bottom line is that men wind up with no restrictions and women have borders around their gifts, borders drawn by men and not God. And egals of course see this as intrinsically unequal, that is, hierarchial, while comps insist that “separate but equal” can be defined as “he orders, she obeys”. This seems to be the point of impasse.

But they step even farther over the line in drawing much more analogy from the Father/Son relationship than is warranted by scripture. When Paul spoke of the Christ/Church mystery relating to husband/wife in Eph. 5, the context tells us it was about unity and being “one flesh”, not about hierarchy at all.

And besides, Christ is the model for both men and women. His human submission to God was an example for everyone. But comp. wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want only men to relate to how Christ rules over the church, but only women to relate to how Christ submitted to the Father.

Most people don’t know that the word “pulpit” or “pastorate” is not in the NT. And that the word “tithe” only appears in reference to what has been done away with (and that the “church” is NOT the “storehouse”, and that tithes were of INCREASE of property, not cash salaries, etc.). And that ordination simply means “set apart for a purpose”, not the giving of a title to a graduate of some school.

While circumcision was never mandated for Christians, it certainly was for Jews, as long as there are Jews. A case could be made for Paul forbidding it, but context tells us the forbidding was due to the motivation. In other words, if someone wanted it strictly to be legalistic and “boast in your flesh”, that would violate Paul’s clear commands not to go back under any part of the old Law.

Seeing that it isn’t expressly forbidden for other reasons, we can’t call it wrong or a sin. But that only leaves one other reason, which would be medical. Even so, there are conflicting medical views on this. One side says it prevents or minimizes the chance of infection from improper hygiene, while the other cites the pain and reduced sensitivity.

So I’d call it a matter of medical judgment, but the Christian must never do it out of any kind of legalistic religious duty. Neither must it be done to reduce sexual pleasure, male or female. I see that as barbaric, especially female genital mutilation.

Cheryl,

Yeah, as I sometime say, I’d rather be wrong than spineless. (Not that being wrong is a good thing, but that being the kind that won’t take a stand is worse!) Glad to brighten your day.

Just A Berean,

Tanx. 🙂 It’s a sad state of affairs, and all too common. It really does apply to the discussion about 1 Timothy as well, since that’s about people teaching who don’t know what they’re talking about. But in all fairness it isn’t limited to Christians. Atheists tend to think themselves “scientists” when they’ve had only 2 years of college, and some politicians and actors think themselves experts on climate. 😉

Hello MN Swede,
I’m sure Cheryl will tell you about the upcoming DVD she’s working on about the Trinity, but in the meantime, there’s a long and involved discussion of it Here. There is a definite link between concepts of the Trinity and justification hierarchialists use for the subjugation of women. In fact, discussion about the Trinity had been long dormant in Christianity until revived by George W. Knight III, in his 1977 book, The New Testament Teaching on Role Relationship with Men and Women. We can reasonably deduce that since this resurgence came from a book primarily about gender relationships in the NT that there is probably a connection.

This reminds me of something I blogged a while back, before any of the current issues, and concerning several other message boards not related to this one:

Christian Living vs. Day Care.

And I know well the fine line of being the owner or admin of a blog or message board. I had to shut down a board I’d been running for many years, because newer members felt they had the right to bash others but that the admin did not have the right to ban or restrict them. It seems there are many believers who think “turn the other cheek” is for everyone but them. But you’re right, it’s impossible to please everyone. No matter what you do, someone will say you were wrong.

My philosophy on internet communities is this: the owner makes the rules and can do whatever they want; it’s their “home”. They pay the bills, they take out the trash, they guard against hackers, they are responsible for the whole thing. If I don’t like how a board is run, I leave. I don’t stay and stir up opposition, I don’t spread hate about them elsewhere, I don’t tell them what to do in their own house. I just leave.

And it hurts.

But in Christian boards, there is an added element of spiritual responsibility. If the owners are not acting in accordance with basic teachings of the faith and practice, it is the duty of others to warn them. But this warning must be restricted to spiritual issues. If, for example, an admin tells lies, defames people, “stalks” them elsewhere, etc., the others should warn them of these sinful acts. But if the warning is not heeded, the owner cannot be told what to do; it’s their house. However, the ones who warned have every right (and responsibility, IMHO) to make the Christian public aware of the spiritual state of that board.

In this case between CARM and WIM, CARM was openly allowing Cheryl to be defamed and libeled. She was there to try and voice her scriptural opposition to their teachings, but they responded with banning and public lies and threats. She therefore has every right to expose them here, both as a Christian and as a blog owner. They can’t tell her what to do in her own blog, any more than she can order them around in their board.

So it’s very important to recognize the rights of the “homeowner”, but also the responsibilities of all Christians to each other. Keeping those two principles separated isn’t easy, but it’s vital.