hannibal.lecture

Cheryl and Kerryn, Cogent thinking both of you. In Wayne Grudem’s book “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth”, I could not believe the tap-dancing he did when it came to head coverings (p332-339). It’s astonishing how head coverings can be culturally
relative to first century Greece and yet the mere thought of women teaching the Bible to men will have the CMBW bristling with spears! Bottom line? They will not be persuaded by us, nor we them. I can accept that as a non-essential of the faith. But when they (Moore) insist that my eternal destiny rests upon whether or not I allow a woman to teach me what I don’t know about the Bible, they need to know that they are judging their brothers and sisters in Christ in a way that scripture doesn’t allow.
Respectfully,
H.

Cheryl, One of the hallmarks of brilliance is the ability to simplify the complex which you have done admirably. So my previous post is not just kind words, but a genuine and honest assessment. There are many pretenders out here, those who rely on obfuscation, bamboozlement and fear, fear of going against the Bible (1 Timothy 2:12). This site of yours is a Godsend to many who struggle with this fear. And Justa Berean? Love your blog! Full of common sense, which is God-given too. Here’s the link to Grudem’s book “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” http://www.efbt100.com/evangelical_feminism.pdf
It’s rather lengthy and tries to argue that gender-based patriarchal hierarchy is mandated from the beginning. But as you’ve stated, when you search the scriptures, it just ain’t there.
Respectfully,
H.

Cheryl, You have nothing whatsoever to “repent” of with regards to teaching from the Bible. There will always be men who feel they cannot learn anything from a “woman”. They will always feel threatened that their patriarchal manhood and power are at an end. And that’s what this controversy is really all about;
power and control. Yours is the same struggle fought by Luther centuries ago, except this time it’s not the holy see in Rome, it’s the ecclesiastical protestant hierarchy. My how history repeats itself! As I’ve stated before, if the Pauline letters are to be taken as a new “Mosaic” code which must be followed to the letter, then we’re all in trouble. But if not, the church will be made richer by the contributions of brilliant and Godly women such as yourself.
Respectfully,
H.

Cheryl, Brava and kudos! Again you’ve shown what is tradition and what is emancipation. For the life of me I still cannot see what all the fuss is in the complementarian camp! Grudem in his extensive tome still can’t point to anything in the Tanach that mandates the subordination of women unless he manufactures it. Moore would have us all on the rack (or worse) to extract a confession and then off to the stake we’d go. I guess it’s all just more drama in church history huh? But you know what’s really disturbing? If Jesus’ work was not finished at Golgotha, and if the LORD is still thundering out of the thick darkness atop Sinai; we’re all in deep you know what.
Respectfully,
H.

Cheryl, As always your thoughts are compelling and as always, the complementarians are still mired in tradition. Grudem, Moore, Kostenberger et. al. must now re-manufacture the trinity so that it has a divinely instituted hierarchy (eternal subordination of the Son to the Father). They do this to bolster their case for the continued subordination of women throughout the church age. Kevin Giles has written an excellent essay on this, in which he dismantles their thesis as simply a repackaging of the old Arian heresy in the early centuries of church history. Here’s the link and I do hope it’s typed correctly as this window would not allow me to paste it in:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/ETS%202006%20Paper%20Sons%20Authority.pdf
Bear in mind also that Kostenberger would not allow Giles to publish a rebuttal in JETS (Journal of the Evangelical Society). Giles’ stuff was returned to him as “unacceptable” by Kostenbeger. Whew! that was a mouthful! (window full?) Once again Cheryl,
I am indebted to you for your patience.
H.

Cheryl, After doing some research on Hebrew vs Greek thought, it occurs to me that the topic is indeed voluminous. The dissertations written on this subject alone could probably fill a wing of the Alexandrian library (if it still existed). If you’ll permit me, I’ll attempt a brief encapsulation here. Two key words are in order here, dynamic(Hebrew) and static (Greek). Take a sheet of paper and place five dots roughly in the shape of an archway. Now connect the dots with a straight edge. The straight-line segments are rigid, fixed, and unbending (static). Now take a French curve and fit a smooth path through the same points and you’ll see a graphic demonstration of the dynamism of Hebrew thought as opposed to the “either/or” , “if/then” constructs of the Hellenistic mind-set. Again, what’s the point of all this? The apostle Paul had a gentile and largely Greek thinking audience in mind when he wrote his epistles. He became as a Greek in order to win hearts and minds.
Respectfully,
H.

Cheryl,
Bless providence that you and your husband are safe
and sound in your new digs. Good to have you back!
H.

Cheryl, By the way, I received an “A” on my paper.
You have been an inspiration to many of us men whose testosterone has not clouded our thought processes. The God of Jacob shield and guide you always.
H.

Cheryl, Thank you so much for your patience and understanding. I too hold fast to God’s word as breathed out by him personally and that it is the final arbiter of faith and sound doctrine. Notwithstanding, I must also issue the caveat that though we have inerrant scripture, we do not necessarily have inerrant interpretation. That is why as you say, we must check and sharpen each other. Thanks also for your lucid illustration of how God broke the sin line of Adam and corrupted human male DNA. You made it crystal clear of how dangerous it is to tamper with the language simply because we don’t see how God could make a virgin conceive. How else could the person of Jesus be without sin and therefore God’s spotless passover lamb for us?
Respectfully, H.

Cheryl, At the risk of intruding into areas I know nothing of, namely Hebrew grammar and construction, I’ve heard it said that Hebrew thought is far different than the Aristotelian (Hellenist) logic we are accustomed to. If it can be shown that this is indeed the case, it would account for much of the difficulty in rendering that I see in my ESV translation’s margin notes as I go through the old testament. Please shed some light on this as I am eager to learn.
Respectfully, H.

Cheryl, Good question and I think it’s one that deserves attention. But here’s the rub. We egalitarians are not going to change the minds of those who hold fast to tradition any more than “they” are going to convince “us” to formally adopt the complementarian view. Christian love and harmony among God’s people is one thing, but at the same time when some in the body of Christ want to make complementarianism an article of faith and indeed even a “condition” for salvation, we must stand firm and resolute. Luther understood this well when he nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg in 1517.
Respectfully, H.

Cheryl, As always your thoughts are cogent and penetrating. I wondered much the same when I began to wade through Grudem’s tome as research for my humanities paper. Any good paper which takes a position and argues for it must also posit a claim from the other side and show that it is untenable. In the case of Grudem et. al., they do this too. But when faced with a claim they cannot support, they will as you say “cartwheel”, resort to special pleading, appeal to inerrancy, and even level charges of heresy at the opposition. You have far more propriety than I with your comment of “hogwash”. Mine would have been a vernacular noun (rather vulgar) from the realm of bovine scatology.
Respectfully, H.

Cheryl, In his book entitled: Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, author Wayne Grudem makes much of Paul’s old testament “law” reference as a prime motivator of his 1 Corinthians 14:34 passage in which women are told they must keep silence in the churches (p246). Since there exists no such explicit command in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible), the author assures us that the Tanach must be taken as a “whole” for Paul’s intent to be understood. Starting at page 84, Grudem will then launch into some rather convoluted legal gymnastics on what women can and cannot do in the churches. Have I missed something here? Is God still thundering out of the thick darkness atop Horeb or do we have liberty and common sense in Christ Jesus?
Respectfully, H.

Let’s assume for just one moment that God is indeed male. In the same space we’ll even say that he bears
an uncanny resemblance to Gandalf the White. Do these
two conditions in and of themselves cogently argue
for the centuries old proscription concerning women
in ministry? Not any more than “Dominion” and “Manifest Destiny” are valid endorsements for the
wholesale rape and plunder of the Earth. What’s my
point? Simply this , God is sovereign and will do as
He sees fit. To say that He cannot raise up brilliant
women to teach His word is pure hubris…
Respectfully,
H.

Moore makes much ado about how evangelical feminism
compromises the Good News of Jesus Christ. I still
don’t see how. What I do see however is a grotesque parody of the dim past,when perhaps the Holy See in Rome prepared written documents for distribution that railed against Luther as heretic and anathema…