7

Thanks Lin for keeping me on track. I am sorry that it sounded like I was implying that Obama was something special in comparison to Bush. I have’nt built him up to be that but other people have……..like you said. I just noticed aside from his liberal leanings that he did make a quick apology in the middle of his conformation mess, (and not many do that.) No more politics 🙂

I guess some men and some women as well have issues with humility. President Bush NEVER apologized or admitted to any wrong doing during his years in office. While Obama was quick to admit and (publicly) state that he had beenwrong in some of his choices for cabinet officials. We learn more from our mistakes than we do from our successes and you have to be humble enough to admit that you possibly could be wrong………step one.

The evaluation of  prophetic tongues as authentic is to be reserved for those in authority ( patriarchalist belief).  The laity and women in particular have NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to make evaluations.  Heck, the strategy of these men are bent on disallowing prophecy from women period so as to prejudge ANY WOMAN speaking as being unbiblical.
These leaders are trying to  predispose  congregations to believe that women cannot have the gift of prophesy therefore any woman who has the audacity to prophecy publicly and audibly will be subdued.  The refusal of the gift of prophecy has everything to do with the flesh/gender that the gift is wrapped in.

Prophecy is for edification, exhortation and comfort for the church.  Pentecost was considered by most to be womens ‘Emancipation Day’, and the avaliablity and access of the spirit was made avaliable to both men and women as the text states.  When we see the devaluation of the work of the Holy Ghost in mens lives we also see the silencing of the sisters.  When the Holy Ghost is rejected/grieved men begin to lead themselves as the spirit is no longer welcome.  Authority structures is no substitute for the leading of the spirit, or you end up with what we are seeing today………….no healing, no miracles, no words of wisdom etc. = no spirit.

I believe that the Vicar was trying to be gracious (as much as his traditional belief would allow)  but instead sounded condescending at times.  Much that is said of women is said quite matter-of-factly.  Many teachers are aware that female abuse was a staple of Pauls day (as history records) but few dare to to ask hard questions or even pronounce that such abuse was wrong.

If I remember correctly the Vicar quotes Wayne Grudem.  I can’t remember exactly the quote but he stated something to the effect of New Testament prophecy being a mixture of truth with error.  Therefore, he makes prophecy (the one spiritual gift that you see women excercising often in scripture)  to be non-authoritive (scripture only).   Wayne Grudem believes that NT prophecy does not count, but where does it say in the Bible that it has been done away with and has little or no value for today?

I think the undermining and elimination of prophecy  is a strategic move, and is one way that patriarchalist have found that could possibly (if they twist enough) totally silence and exclude women permanantly.  Of course, the elimiation of prophecy from the churches does not affect men to the same degree.  They will still continue to maintain all the authority and oversight (as the expulsion of prophecy from the church does not challenge the male hierarchy).

I’m

whats-a-girl-to-do

To begin with I disliked the fact that they compared (women) in ministry to (girls.) The implication is that girly/women have alot they can do in the church and outside the church, why are they not satisfied? I feel that the author of the post is trying reallyyyyyyy hard to be gracious in thier interaction with Cheryl which is more than most (you must give credit where it is due.)

But the fact is that Religiousity demands that men throw women a morsel or crumb while standing back and hoping that they don’t ask for the whole loaf.

Response to post #113

Thank you thatmom. I really do want copies of your Podcasts on Patriarchy and Patriocentricity on CD. The resurgence of male supremecy is evident in even my small independant church. I so badly need the reflections and informed opinions of others in this area, as I feel that I am alone in my church, as it does not regard the negative effects on women involved in patriarchal institutions (they don’t see a problem.) I have heard the statement ‘thats just the way it is’ so many times……it’s become mantra. Many give no sound, logical, biblical reason for the demands and regulations that they place on women……..just the above statement.

A small independant baptist church that one of my friends attend does not allow women to wear red dresses as that is the color of a harlot. Another does not allow open toe shoes for women, another does not allow colored hose because it draws attention to a womans legs. Where does this insanity stop?

I walked upon a discussion between two dear sisters and a dear brother last night. Catching the very last comment of the conversation, “Its better to live on a roof top then in the house with a brawling women” (all three laughed.) I sat down behind my brother and said, ‘ I don’t find to many examples of brawling women in the bible, but I can find alot of mean men’ (crickets chirping.) Matter of fact nobody gave me one example of a brawling/quarelsome woman from the bible. And as I walked away I heard one sister whisper to the brother, I’m just assuming it was about my egalitarian leanings which they mistake for burning liberal feminism. Like most women I guess I am expected to laugh at things I no longer find funny. Why many feel the need to constantly tear down the female gender is beyond me. Maybe the tendancy of some to always be critical and negative about women in general precludes you from taking them seriously (and women themselves play into this.)

I have asked my pastor three questions:

1. Can you please locate the scripture that says that the husband is the head of the (home?)

2. Can you please tell me which group of people are exluded in the submission ethic in Ephesians 5:21, it says submitting yourselves one to another, who does that exclude?

3. If Ephesians 5:22-33 has it’s roots in authority why did Paul use the example of (Jesus as Saviour and his crucifixion) instead of (Jesus as Lord Master of all) to teach husbands how to love thier wives?

I felt the need to ask him these questions as he was using terms like; chain-of-command, Supreme ruler, Gods protocol to describe male and female relationships. As of yet he has not responded to my questions, and this has been months ago. He is friendly enough with me but I can feel the vibes of disapproval for even asking such things. 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 sometimes wonder if complimentarian women defend hierarchy out of self preservation. Young girls are raised to be passive in thier relationships with boys. Carolyn Curtis James, the author of ‘When life and beliefs collide’ made the comment in a taped conference that she was conditioned/instructed to lose any game she played against her brothers. I thought that was an interesting comment, as I have heard other women say the same thing. Most young girls are rewarded for “bowing out” or “dumbing down” to make boys feel masterful. Its no wonder we see what we see in society or the church, should we act surprised? The desire for male approval in some women is so strong that submission, denial of ones talents, abilities, and gifts is a small sacrifice for such a great reward. With Mrs. James it seems the ability to try hard to be a loser was what made her a great sister (my opinion.) For complimentarians the preservation of female inferiority (which equals no visible authority) must be maintained even if the boundries are blurry and keep being moved, and women must be the first to agree with this and be happy about it (go along to get along, self preservation.)

When some authority is given to some complimentarian women (like Diane at Carm.org) she goes into preservation and protector mode. She has to preserve what little authority she has been given and she must use it to protect her man. She could never disagree with her man because POOF there goes the little authority that she has been given.

I hope that does’nt sound mean spirited but that is what I have observed as an infrequent lurker at Carm.

The more I read of bloggers like the Baylys and those on the discussion boards at Carm I really can fully appreciate blogs such as this. It seems to me that the accusation of egalitarians having a problem with authority is misplaced. Complimentarians seem to view everything through the lenses of power instead of love. The scripture says that “God is Love” and that the proof that your are one of Christ’s is the love we show one toward another not the power that we can claim over one another. I Corithinans 13 tells us that ” that love is not puffed up” and “love seeks not her own”. The ugly attitude and personal attacks errupt (when they ca’nt rightly defend thier position, Diane on Carm has called Bibically informed egalitarians stupid) are symptoms of the lack of love in some members of the body of Christ (therefore, all the members suffer.) In such an effort to be orthodox (as they see it) they have omitted the weightier matters of the law which is judgement or justice, mercy and faith. Make no mistake Egalitarians do not miss the air of superiority that leaders in the complimentarian movement exude, that spirit is really there and it thrives among authoritarians. It is not just a figment of the Feminized Church’s (so complimentarians call it) imagination.

The main problem with the posters dedicated to carm is that they teach authority as domination whereas, egalitarians view authority among believers as a partnership between equals. To hierarchalists theological truth is to be found through hierarchial ordering instead of interdependance and inclusion among the brothers and sisters. The exclusion of women from leadership/gifts as stated on the carm discussion boards is said to be divinely sanctioned by God so, who do we think we are to allow something that God forbids. They would lead us to believe that the submission asked of the wife negates or nullifies her authority. Therefore, not only must she be obedient to her husband but she must take a back seat when it comes to spiritual gifts, because of this lack of authority. They have indoctrinated women into believeing that having men/husbands reign over them is better than having Jesus? Women are asked to accept this as natural, normal and divinely sanctioned by God…………..

The women over at carm have taken the bait of patriarchy and swallowed it whole and now they are hooked. They will have to overlook and turn a blind eye to the inconsistancies in complimentarians interpretations of scriptures when they are compared to other texts dealing with the same issues. It takes alot of juggling and acrobatics with scripture to hold on to thier cherished “chain of command” doctrine. But complimentarians feel that all this division in earthly roles and spiritual roles between the sexes is necessary to maintain order………….ca’nt you just see the devil laughing!

To work for the Lord we can be
adders and multipilers but never subtractors and dividers.
I think it is easy to see what they are doing.

I rarely post but, I wanted to let everyone know that I keep up with the discussion at the carm website as well as here. It is disturbing to me as I watch the discussion at carm digress ( i would like to say progress.) Don and Exegetist present thier replies with a logic and reason that seems to escape the regular posters and moderators at carm. They do not seem to want to dialogue and discuss where egalitarians and complimentarians differ but insist on a stiffnecked stance of resistance to the information that is presented to them by eagalitarian believers (by the way you guys are doing a great job there.) Diane and Simple Theist replies to Don and Exegetist seem to be based squarely on thier emotional stance and what they have been taught by others concerning women in leadership with a few out of context scriptures thrown in for good measure. Both of these women, Diane/Simple Theist say that they have studied this issue and are confidant of thier beliefs but I don’t see this deep knowledge/wisdom in thier responses. They only respond to questions with scriptures taken out of context, along with thier personal beliefs, followed sometimes by a series of question marks or exclamation marks that sometimes appears somewhat childish and immature to me (i don’t know if they realize that that is the impression that they are giving some.) The fact that they have labeled the discussion forum as “Evangelical Feminism” was strategic in nature, all of us here know that. We also know that complimentarians define feminism only in a negative context and therefore consider it to be against Gods ordained order. The goal for the regulars at carm is to dominate the discussion and to (publicaly) reject factual information (not discuss it) given by egalitarians.

One of the last posts I read reffered to the egalitarian poster as an amazoness with a loin cloth and spear…………now how does that help us understand one another?

I affirm one more time that you are doing a great job esp. in Cheryl’s absence.

I would like to ask the group here about some of the reference material that I use. I have read so many informed, intelligent posts on this blog that I trust your more experienced judgement. I have just recently started my journey into greek by purchasing my first interlinear by George Ricker Berry. Being unexperienced I just sought out the first interlinear that I could use with my KJV. My church only uses the KJV which is fine, and personally I perfer to stick with this version also. I am not to thrilled with the Strong’s Commentary but I do use the Strongs Concordance and Dictionary (simply because these sources all reference the KJV). If I am going to convincingly show them the erroneous interpretaions of scriptures pertaining to women it will have to be done through the KJV (so, you know I need all the help I can get :-).

Any suggestions or observations about the material I use, or other sources that might be more helpful for my personal study would be greatly appreciated.

“People who are hypersensitive that even the slightest disagreement is seen as a hostile attack”.

I believe that quote is pretty accurate. There are several members in the body of my church that behave just that way and I am so wearied with trying to communicate effectively with them. It seems that every communication becomes a miscommunication of sorts, because one party refuses to genuinely listen to the other party and consider their proposal. I have come to believe that most leaders/ Pastors want conformity instead of unity, and when conformity is the goal it eventually and effectively stifles the working of the Spirit through the people in the congregation.

I am so encouraged by the posts on this site, they are intelligent and thought provoking. To walk in unity we must willing to engage and encourage one another in the faith not discourage and disengage, keeping people at a distance.

Bless you all!

Cheryl,

I noted the little “AHA” (now I know where she is going) when you finally were allowed to talk about the passage in 1 Timothy and the usage of the singular toward the end of the debate. He might decide (now) to research those passages a little more (and thats good).

Lin,

The strongest believers in hierarchal relationships between women and men base everything on levels of authority. Some complimentatrians will conceed that woman can have authority and responsibility but it can’t be over men and that a woman can’t presume to have a knowledge or annointing that surpasses the men. This effectively keeps women in the background and sidelined in ministry. Sure a woman can be called into the ministry as a secretary of Pastor so and so because hierarchal men see that as a secondary role and one in which they deem acceptable for women. But, they must constantly edify the woman in this role of secretary to assure that she does’nt aspire or seek after a better gift in the service of God. The Pharisses desired the best seats in the synagogues because thier hearts were not right, and also that they may be perceived as some great man of God by the people. But, God tells us to take the lowest seats ( which women are usually GIVEN because of thier gender) and that he will bring us forward to a place of honor in due time and in His time. Women have been sweet talked by male leaders into taking the lower seat and staying there. If you have ever heard the saying, “They will give you a crumb hoping you won’t ask for the whole loaf”, it applies here.

I did notice in the debate between Cheryl and Matt that he had no problem with letting his wife teach a mixed assembly of men and women but, Cheryl did quickly add that it was out of his (Matts) teaching material. This would be techincally ‘OK’ in his eyes, because she was teaching his thoughts and interpretations from the Bible but, she was’nt teaching directly from God’s word.

This was what was wrote on carmorgpodcasting about Matt and Cheryls debate.

“What and interesting discussion. It is amazing what people will do in manipulating verses in scripture and attempts to ignore the plain teaching of Gods Word to make it fit thier personal opinions or what they want the Word of God to say. Matt does point this out to the caller many times in the conversation that the caller is simply refusing to believe what the Bible says.

Oh by the way, this is Diane and I am not held down or “silenced” by anyone in the ministry 🙂 The Lord has blessed me with MUCH WORK (emphasis mine) to do in his service, and I certainly do not need to be ordained as an Elder in order to be USED (emphasis mine) of God :-)” (Notice the writer of this little post did’nt even use Cheryl’s name, Cheryl was just “caller”. Either she did’nt know Cheryl’s name or just felt it was irrelevant.)

The fact that Cheryl had sent her DVD’s to Matt over a year and a half ago was quite telling. Cheryl knew much about Matts teaching but he knew nothing about hers. He did not even take the time evidently to research anything for the debate…….that tells me alot about him.

It was sad that you were never allowed to lay a foundation for your teaching without being constantly interrupted. It is like building a house, the foundation must be built first, and it must be built soundly in order to maintain the rest of the structure. If you had been allowed the time and space to prove one point convincingly then the rest of your apologetics would have been more credible (but Matt was not that gracious.) I found it incredulous that in the middle of the debate that he began to sigh and laugh. I guess this was to let the listening audience know that he should be commended for putting up with such a frustrating woman this long. Cheryl, you deserve a commendation for your composure, manners and Christ-like disposition. I think your good manners even compelled him at one point in the discussion to be more mindful of his own.

God Bless and I look forward to hearing the next debate.

Sis. Cheryl,

The condescention in Mr. Slicks tone was undeniable. But, this is usually the normal reaction from teachers of his sort when asked to discuss concerns over women in the service of God. Most commentators can wax eloquent and be quite persuasive when they are alone with a microphone and not under pressure to awnser tough questions.

I received the “Women in Ministry” DVD’s and have reviwed them three times in the last few days, Sis. Cheryl, you have nothing to worry about, you can hold your own! Your apologetics and interpretation dealing with the difficult passages on women are hard to refute by even the toughest complimentarians……..that’s why they prefer to “agree to disagree.”

It is my prayer that God will fill your mouth with His Words, so that the doubters might be astonished and silenced.

Some people mistake being loud for Holy Ghost boldness, and listening to the short broadcast I think Mr. Slick might feel compelled to try that with you, just don’t let it confound you.