lmb

Marg (14),
I think I just met another Gnostic! In her book By Design (1994, 1998) comp author Susan Hunt says that Eve “willfully yielded to the tempter’s lie” (p. 26). Doesn’t sound much like deception, does it? More like deliberate, willful sin. And Adam was “influenced” and “his helper became his hinderer.” And there we are, right back saying that it was all Eve’s fault. Adam couldn’t help himself; she “influenced” him to eat. And Eve, well, she “willfully” believed Satan.

OK, now I see your point. I’m pretty sure I heard the “uncle” idea along the way, too! It’s too bad we can’t eliminate the “male rule” idea as simply as we can correct this mistake 🙂

Well, he was her cousin, but it also says he adopted her. I was a bit confused, too, Cheryl, when I read this one.

Lydia@259,
I have been hunting for Wright’s response to the Danvers statement that you mentioned. In his article “God, Metaphor and Gender: Is the God of the Bible a Male Deity?” in Discovering Biblical Equality he says it is posted on the CBE website. But I cannot find it there. Does anyone have a link?

BTW, if you want to read his essay above, about whether God is male and why we think so, you can go here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6G-RSR6JlmMC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=R+K+McGregor+Wright&source=bl&ots=iTGvtOFPmK&sig=KLPeA3-tQIAi-H5V8y8IZdcq2tQ&hl=en&ei=WTwVTLCpO8aqlAfO4b3-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=R%20K%20McGregor%20Wright&f=false. (I hope this works)

“Should women stay away from offering food, directions or advice to a man for fear that they will also be charged with usurping his authority?”

I like it! All women can stop cooking, navigating, or buying men’s clothes, lest they use authority wrongly. He can just do it all for himself! LOL

strange, I seem to remember in the OT sacrificial system that there is a sacrifice for every kind of sin, except willful, deliberate sin. Isn’t that what Adam did? So shouldn’t that help us correct the whole “deceived-is-worse” mentality?

“Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth.”

Seems obvious that “less prone to see the importance ” of something indicates a flaw, a lack, a shortcoming–an inferiority, despite all the double-speak.

“While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear [they] are . . . ill-informed.”

Ill-informed = deceived.
How convenient for hiers! If a woman challenges their assessment, then clearly, she is deceived, therefore proving their premise!!

What ever happened to brains, logic, intelligence, or common sense? What would it take to enable more women and men to stand up and say “That particular emperor has no clothes on¨? Breaks my heart.

Mark, first you said:
“Just because there is a feminine and masculine form at the beginning of the chapter to attempt to prove that the ‘plural’ form 15 or so verses later includes both genders, is a stretch.”

Actually it isn’t a stretch at all. In Greek a masculine plural is the grammatical form used for a group of men, or a group of men and women. So the fact that the paragraph starts out specifying the presence of men AND women actually strengthens the idea that the masculine plural in v. 17 is addressed to both.

Next you said:
“On top of that verses 1-2 have nothing to do with ‘elders’. Although a similar base word is used in the greek, it does not mean that these verses ought to be tied to verse 17. The context clearly shows that it isn’t. Verse 1 and 2 are about the older men and women. Verse 17 is about elders. The two are not connected.”

It’s actually the exact same word. V. 1 uses the masculine singular ‘presbuteros’ v2 uses the feminine plural ‘presbuteras’ and v17 the masculine plural ‘presbuyteroi.’ Remember that the masculine plural is the only form that can refer to a group with both men and women in it. The fact that he has already specified both men and women in vv 1-2, and then spent vv3-16 describing the requirements and characteristics for women leaders in the congregation means that when he gets to the summary statements in vv 17-21 he is talking about the men and women who lead the congregation.

Next you insist that chapter 3 can only ever be about men. You say
“Remember that chapter 3 can only ever be masculine when Paul outlines elder qualifications. For your theory to stand strong you must some how prove that women are included in chapter 3 where Paul explicitly is talking about elders.”

Now how do you conclude that chapter 3 can only be about men unless you had already decided before you ever read chapter 3 that only men can be elders? The language of the chapter itself certainly does not support your position.
“Here is a trustworthy saying; WHOEVER aspires to be an overseer. . . .” 3:1 Note that Paul says “whoever” which is the Greek indefinite pronoun ’tis’ which means, well, anyone. It does not specify males. Next, all the verbs in the passage are the 3rd person singular form with the pronoun understood. So in your English Bible if you have a series of ‘he’ and ‘his,’ those are not present in the Greek. Greek verbs can include the person without using a specific pronoun. A correct English translation would then be ‘the person’ or ‘that person’ to indicate that no gender has been specified.

So the only possible indicator you have left is the phrase ???? ???????? ????? “mias gunaikos andra” or “husband of one wife.” This was a specific requirement for male elders because only men could have more than one wife. Legally, women could not have multiple husbands, so the only group that needed restrictions were the men.

Bear with me for a minute while I give an illustration.
Mark, do you have topless beaches in Austrialia? In Europe we do. So if I want to recruit teenagers for a beach evangelism project I might write up a list of requirements for them thus:
“Participants must be believers, must be recommended by their church, must be able to share their faith, must wear bathing suit tops at all times, must be fluent in two European languages, must raise their own support.” Anyone reading that list in my environment would know perfectly well that bathing suit tops are required for women team members. No one would insist that it means men, because bathing suit tops are not an issue for men. (Morally, anyway– no comments on sunburn, skin cancer, etc! ) Similarly, Paul’s readers, and Timothy, would know that the issue was polygyny, not polyandry, so the requirement would make perfect sense to them.

So, Mark, if you want to insist that 1 Tim 3 is only about men, the burden of proof really lies on you. The grammar and the context in no way exclude women from leadership in the church. The fact that Paul spends quite a bit of time describing exactly what the qualifications are for women leaders later in Ch 3 and again in ch 5 makes it pretty clear that women actually ARE included in church leadership.

Seems to be true for women an awful lot. Do all the work you want. Just don’t expect to get paid for it, or get the title that a man would get for doing the same job. What’s the real issue here?

“The sudden silence here is unnerving.” Gengwall, I’m with the others. I couldn’t make head or tail out of your person’s statement. It was sort of like somebody saying, “There’s a lot of sand on the beach. Everyone who believes in Santa rejects this truth.” The statements are so disconnected as to be complete nonsense, as far as I can see. Is “complete nonsense” a category of logical fallacy?

So Peterson says in his translation the exact opposite of what Scripture says. MacArthur does too. After somebody quoted him I went and read all 4 sermons about the curse on the man and the woman. Here’s what he has to say about Adam not being deceived:

“We know from 1st Timothy 2 that he was “not deceived.” It tells us there: The man was “not deceived.” He was not deceived by Satan and, therefore, we can assume that perhaps he wasn’t even there when the conversation was going on between Satan and Eve. And that would have been the way Satan would have chosen to have it, so that he could pull the woman out from the man’s protection and authority, and deceive her.” http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/90-245.htm

So according to MacArthur, since Adam wasn’t deceived “we can assume” he wasn’ t there. But Scripture says the exact opposite. Gen 3:6 “she gave some to her husband who was with her.” We can assume nothing of the kind, and there is no need for assumptions at all!

Mark,
The others have answered better than I can, but I do have one request for you. Go to the CBMW site and read chapter 3 of RBMW by Ortlund. Then come back and let us know what kind of attitude towards women you sense from this man.
I used to have a copy of it on my computer, but now that my daughters are old enough to read and understand it, I removed it lest they find and read it. I honestly think that reading something like that, which claims to be God’s view of women, is worse for them than some of the blatant worldly objectification of women that they see in the world. At least I can easily tell them that it’s ugly and sinful if its movies or media. But when someone claims to speak for God and says things like that, what do I tell my girls?
BTW my anti-spam word is “pain.” Like the others, I also come from a comp background, and it brought and still carries a lot of pain!

Cheryl said “more knowledge = more personal responsibility. More knowledge does not equal rulership over others.” And gengwall said “What we don’t need to accept without support is that “first!” of any kind equals “leader” or “authority”. Since there is no proof of THAT synthesis in scripture, the “first!” argument fails regardless of the factual reality of the “first!” in question.”
Ha! OF COURSE (yes, I’m shouting with joy 🙂 ) I do know that. I ought to know that. When you say it I know it’s true.
So why do I still react to those old first-equals-best-equal-leader ideas? even when you’re not saying them? Sometimes it’s hard to get free of the old clothes even when they don’t fit!
Thanks for supplying the scissors to cut away the restricting bands of those old garments.

Ok, thanks. I suppose since the hier. group does tend to shout “first! first!” when it suits them (creation, primogeniture, interrogation) and ignore it when it doesn’t (first message from the angel, first at the tomb, first to betray was a man) mean that at least considering the question of “order” and having a reply is worth the effort.

Thanks, Gengwall. That helps. Now could you also summarize the implications of the two different views? It seems that you each think that the other’s view will lead us into hierarchicalism. I’m still shaking that dust off my feet and don’t want to go back :-).

Everyone, my head is spinning! Can anyone sum up for me in posts of less than 1000 words 🙂 the issues that gengwall and Susanna are addressing?

Cheryl, I’m having trouble with this statement:
“God gave a responsibility to Adam before Eve was created and that was of guarding the garden. To the one whom much has been given, much will be required. God called Adam to account first because He had more to account for. He was the first created and He was responsible for the safety of the garden as the one who was there when the garden was created. He was the one who saw the tree of life created as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
Isn’t’ that exactly the basis of the comp argument that Adam was the leader and therefore men are to be in charge?
What am I missing? Please help me understand!

Kay,
If MacArthur were consistent, he would also say to the men, “Forget the briefcase, forget the road show, forget the career. Stay in the field. Pull the weeds. Chop down the thistles. Stay in that category where the curse has fallen.”

But I suppose logic and consistency have nothing to do with his view.

Gengwall, Mark,and crew, (I need an icon to indicate “read the following with a tone of sarcasm”)

It wasn’t a coincidence that Mary, Mary, Joanna et. al. saw Jesus first. They were “properly” fulfilling their “womanly” duty of tending to the dead. Because they were adhering to their “role” they “happened” to be the first to see the empty tomb. But that was all, because they had to tell the brothers, who then did the “real” preaching. . . .

I forget which hierarch floated this gem. I think it’s in RBMW somewhere, but I can’t bring myself to go back and look.

Great glimpse of her heart for the Gospel! Thanks, Cheryl.

It’s 1 Thess 5:19 that you’re looking for: Do not quench the Spirit. NIV says Do not put out the Spirit’s fire, which makes me think of Acts 2 where the Holy Spirit looks like fire on the heads of the men and women gathered together. Peter goes on to quote Joel:

17“ ‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.

Hi, Cheryl. I would love to ask Stan this question. I was reading 1 Timothy, and chapter 1 verses 9- 10 says that the law is made for “slavetraders” and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. I wonder if when he was studying the slavery arguments he found the slavery proponents arguing their way around this verse. And I wonder if there’s any similarity in the way the proponents of hierarchicalism get around verses that contradict their position.
Maybe you could ask him?

Hey, gengwall. Though I am a missionary I’m definitely NOT with the IMB!! ROTFLOL I’m lmb (as in a “lamb” belonging to Jesus). See, now all your greek grammar is rubbing off on me because I can’t say “lamb of Jesus” because that could be construed to mean something else . . . And I suppose if we think of Hebrew grammar, since I didn’t point my letters, you might think I was a “limb.” Limb of Jesus, reaching out to the uttermost part of the earth.
Oh, no, I really need to get serious and get back to work!
I’ll try your page again later. I really liked installment one, though!

Thanks, gengwall. This is actually the first time I’ve seen it all in one place.
BTW I visited your blog but couldn’t get the link in your ShowStoppers article to take me back to the previous posts. Don’t know if it’s just me or the link is broken . . .

Jay’s comment about cherry-picking is precisely the problem with the proponents of gender hierarchy. It’s really the only way they have to try and prove their point. I was reminded of the Apostle Paul talking about teaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27, in his talk with the Ephesian elders about the problems in store for them.) That seems to me to be the complete opposite of “cherry picking.” It’s much more what Cheryl and the rest do here in looking at the whole context.

Hunting through Logos to find the verse, since I couldn’t remember exactly where it was, I found this fascinating comment written in 1937:
“The student who is not prepared to lay aside all prejudice and has not become possessed with a desire to know “the whole counsel of God” is ever in danger of being led into controversy over the mere captions of theological systems, sharing in all the misunderstandings that result therefrom. Theological captions are words with which prejudiced writers often conjure.”
Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 94 (94:216-217) DTS

Is there any way to persuade our hierarchy brothers to lay aside prejudice and become possessed with a desire to know the whole counsel of God?

“to be honest, having a Southern Baptist affiliation has not been especially helpful when it comes to connecting with our largely unchurched community.”

Pastor Pennington-Russell’s attitude is fabulous. The import (my anti-spam word, lol!) of her statement is exactly right. The church is there to reach the community and draw people in, not push them away. I wonder how many good, intelligent, capable women AND men in her unchurched community have given up on Jesus and faith because of lies told in God’s name?

I hope that Pastor Pennington-Russell’s church will EXPLODE with new growth as they love people and preach Jesus! I might just go pay them a visit myself 🙂

Well, I’ve never heard Cheryl’s point that the usual explanations have Eve sinning before sin entered the garden before. That was a huge a-ha moment for me. Nor have I heard pinklight’s excellent explanation of the deception and the difference between the singular and plural you and the verbs in the serpent’s speech. Those were both very helpful explanations!

My anti-spam word is “leader” but I’m definitely the follower here :-).

So, going back to Lin and Gengwall, part of the problem for comps is they give Paul precedence over Jesus. As a preacher I heard a couple of weeks ago put it, “we have to let the epistles inform the narrative.” Huh? Oh, yeah, that means that if there’s confusion, the epistles decide what the narrative means. Does that make the Epistles the Head of the Narrative? Hm.

I first came across the FACT that the passage talks about head/body and love/submission (not headship and submission!) in Sarah Sumner’s book, Men and Women in the Church. Have any of you read it?

Cheryl, I am still laughing at your humor, but it’s only to mask the sobbing going on in my spirit. I grieve for all the women (and men!) who are deceived and think they are enlightened.

Hi, Cheryl. WOW! is the first thing that comes to mind. I’m speechless! Well, not quite. 🙂
First, how typical to set up a straw man example that everyone will see is ridiculous and then say, “Of course that’s a wrong application, but that doesn’t make our position wrong.” Gender-based spiritual hierarchicalists do this all the time. People agree with the first statement, and then think the second one must therefore be true, too.
Second, your section on the husband’s kingly rights reminds me of something I read somewhere, and I wish I could cite it for you, about how the Reformation, great as it was in so many respects, essentially moved kingly power from the secular ruler to the home, with every man now a king.
I completely agree with you that the entire heart of this view is the power and authority of men. It’s about power, period, end of discussion. How is that biblical or God-honoring?