TL

Women are left out partly because of translation issues. If translations were not so biased in favor of men, we would see God related to the feminine much more.

One example ….. The first names God was called were Elohim (pl.) and El Shaddai in Gen. 17:1 commonly reinterpreted “Almighty God”, but which means the breasted, and was in the feminine. The 1909 edition of the Schofield Reference Bible has a beautiful footnote by Schofield in which discusses the meaning of the word.

LOL Robert, there are good listeners and talkers here.

Also, the Equality Central Forums have some ex Carm members as well.

Rachel,
I’m so sorry to hear this. I wrote my comment in response to pinklight and didn’t read yours. This is terribly difficult to grow up with. I know since I experienced similar.

However, what I’m going to say now may feel strange. Our best hope of healing will be found in forgiving such people. They are spiritually sick. We don’t need to share their sickness. Forgiveness is letting go of expecting to be righted. God will make it right. They aren’t going to change unless God does something. And God isn’t going to do anything in them if they resist His admonitions. Once we let their influence in our lives (on this subject) go, we can then stand back and be who we really are. And we can extend both pity and mercy toward them, for they are blind to their sin. We can also resist future bad influence from them. Once we forgive them, our ability to say NO with graciousness, firmness and understanding will be increased.

And then we can honor such a parent as a parent without receiving the damage from their sins.

It is my belief and observation that often those who take an unusually strong stand toward controlling women and limiting women, have an underlying dislike, even hatred, of women. It will do little good to point out the wrongness of their judgements. They need to see the root of their judgements; that their foundational viewpoint toward women is not godly love. What such people need to be made aware of is that they are filled with a sinful attitude toward fellow believers and God will not honor it. They violate all the ‘one another’ Scriptures.

sorry about that LRC. Such issues of discrimination are likely to be around for a while. No sense in staying in a church where one is forbidden to grow, or strongly discouraged.

Also, I would love to hear your responses to what has been said, TNew.

Also, pastorTNew, I would love to hear your responses to all that has been said.

Pastor TNew,

you misinterpret Don’s comment. He is a kind hearted forthright speaker. His words are not meant as insulting. He has no ire in them. I’ve known him for many years and am pretty sure I can tell his tone now.

Some of us just speak a little more plainer and blunter than others. Frankly, 🙂 , I appreciate Don’s plain speaking.

Bill Mounce is also informative, although I disagree on some things here and there.

http://www.teknia.com/

Hi there!

The main point is not what was prohibited, but rather that Paul states with emphasis that Timothy is to “LET a woman LEARN.” From there we deduce that this woman (or specific women) is to learn in the manner of a student — with all quietness and an attitude of submissiveness. While learning she is not to attempt to teach or to usurp (force her own) authority from the man (possibly her teacher or her husband).

Paul has decided that this woman (or women) should be allowed to learn instead of thrown to Satan as Hymenaeus and Alexander were. It is possible that the reason is that the woman in question was one of those who were desiring to be teachers but were untrained in the law. 1 Tim. 1:3

“Perhaps a definition of the biblical understanding of freedom might be formulated in parallel to Mill’s definition: The only freedom that deserves the name is that of freely pursuing the good of others, not by depriving them of liberty, but by promoting their liberty” (Richard Bauckham, “Freedom in the Bible: Exodus and Service,” GOD AND THE CRISIS OF FREEDOM, p. 20).”

yes, yes, yes. This is what I do my best to teach. As well, this is also the definition of mutuality or mutual submission. And it is the picture of unity in marriage. This is the way a true “head of” and a “body of” connect and stay together. This is also the picture of a true servant/slave that Christ spoke of in Matt. 20:25-28

LOL takes one to recognize one. ((wink)) 🙂

sounds like you’ve a good husband. 🙂

“Humble headship – “God made me no smarter than you, and I don’t even know if my way is God’s way in this. But he made me the head. That’s why.””

Sounds like Stupid Headship to me. Why would anyone want to direct something, or make decisions about something if they were not sure what the best decision should be?

“Dr. Wayne Grudem: Before the fall, Adam and Eve had a relationship that was beautiful, harmonious, loving, and kind, and yet there was a leadership role that Adam had that Eve did not have. After the fall God says I am going to introduce conflict here as a punishment. The punishment is: Eve, you’re going resist that authority that Adam has, and Adam, you are going to rule over her by virtue of the fact that you are stronger. And there’s conflict.”

Another new doctrine by Grudem that has no Biblical basis, just a bit of Grudem’s eisigesis of Scripture for which he has become famous.
http://www.reviveourhearts.com/radio/revive-our-hearts/a-balanced-look-at-roles/

“This is not because I am a wiser or more gifted leader. It is because I am the husband. God has given me that responsibility. “

This is one of the more idiotic statements of the gender hierarchalists. IMO it takes someone either not very smart to say it or one who thinks he is able to fool many (which Grudem has indeed done). Those who believe it either just want to have that responsibility or don’t want any responsibility. Neither is a good stance to take in life. Anyone who takes the time to research if Scripture actually promotes such a foolish stance will find it glaringly absent from Scripture.

Wisdom says not to meddle in the things one is not gifted for. If a decision is to be made about something one really has no insight on, then the decision either needs to be passed on to someone who has more knowledge or they both need to do some research and brainstorm it together.

Lynne,

Is it possible that you could go to a different denomination? Women like you are very needed. The body of Christ needs to receive of your gifts. It is such a shame that women such as yourself have been hidden from the church, shackled from being used of God in their callings.

but times are changing. And we are never too old for God to use.

Thanks for telling your story Cheryl and standing up for others as well. I was around at the time, having experienced similar treatment at times before. What is amazing about what was done to you is that the person did it with her own name while she was in a position of leadership on a well known forum. Not very wise. Some people just think they are untouchable and can do anything they want. 🙁

Well, as far as God calling Himself King, a handful is hardly “pervasive”. 🙂 I think there are numerous ways that God describes His omniscience. He is all and everything that we need as His creation and handiwork.

In Genesis 5:1-2, God calls both the man and the woman, Adam/Human. So, as you say, it’s more of a designation, or ‘family’ name. We are all of the family of Human. 🙂

“The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2)”.

This is also a curious claim. Adam was not a personal name until the man called himself Adam. Adahm meant ‘human’. It was a designation, a name for ALL humans, all those creatures to be born through the women throughout all future history. Just as some people name their cat, “Cat”, so the first human, for whatever reason denied himself a personal name and just became “Human”.

Has God actually referred to Himself as King. I can’t recall anything offhand. 1 Tim. 6:15 has Paul calling God King of Kings. And the Romans called Jesus King of the Jews mockingly.

Yet, Piper claims that pervasively, i.e. widely, God has called Himself King. Can anyone come up with a Scripture or two to support that?

Well done, Cheryl. A very well reasoned and researched response to the ‘male dominance clan’.

Please forgive me for making a side note on a similar and equally important point. Feel free to delete if this is too disruptive, Cheryl.

Has anyone seen the following post on Marc Cortez’s blog. It has gotten quite the comments. As well, he dared to put up a vote and at this point the vote has shifted to over 50% are supporting “Do you think there are NO gender-specific qualifications for ministry in the church?”. I don’t think he expected that kind of a response. I encourage those who have not voted, to vote. It will encourage many to think again about this subject.

http://marccortez.com/2012/02/04/forced-choices-egalitarianism-vs-complementarianism/#comment-10063

thanks for joining us Dejablue. Welcome.

It is indeed sad beyond measure that such a view is promoted anywhere in the world, and most saddening that it is promoted among Christians. 🙁

This is what happens when believers think that much studying gives them the gift of ‘discernment’. The gift of the Holy Spirit in question is a gift of discerning of spiritual things that (as in all the Holy Spirit manifestations) needs the unction and revelation of the Holy Spirit in order to function. In short, this person doesn’t even know the Bible as well as he thinks he does. 🙁

finally got around to checking here to see what you’ve been up to. Excellent argument.

This is great to hear. I’m looking forward to part 2. We’ve been missing you, but understand that there are seasons and times for everything. This was your season for some extra working.

“Now, clearly this hasn’t satisfied you and that is ok, but i only wanted to point out that it is possible and that Cheryl’s challenge relies on the faulty premise that one accept her contextual approach.”

That would be incorrect. Cheryl’s challenge relies on honest exegesis of a particular troubling section of Scripture that has been misinterpreted for much of Christianities history. And the point she has challenged you on has been overlooked and not adequately addressed by those who prefer to see gender hierarchy in the Body of Christ and life revolve around who has authority to rule over others and who doesn’t. Cheryl did not demand that you accept her approach, only explain how your view handles certain words. You have not done that. Instead you ignore their relevance and pretend it doesn’t matter.

”You answered yourself, did you not, by affirming that a singular can be generic.”

Of course it CAN be. Anything can be anything, but it is context that determines.

”What it appears that you are asking is to show the reason for the “irregular and unusual grammar change” based on the acceptance of your contextual understanding. But surely you must realise that this type of language is based on your preconceived conclusion and understanding of the context.”

Based on the context of skipping from modesty and attire of all women, to a new topic of a specific admonishment from Paul to Timothy to allow a woman to teach a man, we can see that something quite different is being addressed. And in that the singular has specific significance. Instead of general encouragements of activity, now it is about allowing a particular woman to learn (something women were not encouraged to do by the Judiaizers) in the manner and attitude of a student (quietness and submission). The not teaching and not usurping of authority of a singular man are also unusual and require the good reader to go back and look for the full subject matter that is being dealt with here, which is found in chapter one.

”i find it much harder to accept your contextual understanding which has Paul shoot off in a rather different direction between v10-11 which can only be understood by reference back to earlier parts of chapter 1. This for me, seems like the irregular and unusual approach.”

On the contrary, good exegesis ALWAYS looks for how the author has been building up to a point to see the conclusion more accurately. The concept that a sentence or two can be understood clearly without reading before and after it is irresponsible reading. And from there one builds irresponsible doctrines with errors in them. And errors in doctrines will always hurt the people of God somewhere, somehow.

Hello Patrick. I’ve a few minutes to spare.

The reason that your example doesn’t work is because upstairs or downstair the subject is the same, no mingling of the boys and girls.

Paul switched subjects from modesty and attire of all the women to a particular woman learning. Two different subjects. Two different settings. And the switch from plural to singular was part of it.

Another point. This was clearly not about Paul giving instructions to all women. It was clearly about a specific incident, some specific individuals, and Paul’s specific instructions to Timothy on how to handle it. Paul did not make a law, did not carry it into the future. However, if these same circumstances came about (a woman in ignorance as in chapter one – overriding, using coercive behavior, on a teacher/leader/husband), it is reasonable to handle it in the same way that Paul recommended to Timothy.