teknomom

As Mark Twain once said, “It’s not the parts of the Bible I don’t understand that bother me, but the parts I do understand!”

There are many, many Bible teachers who really don’t like what it says. So I don’t expect anyone at CARM to admit they accused you falsely, even when you have indisputable proof. But those with eyes will see it.

I think it’s the old “tail wagging the dog” thing. They start with a pet (ha ha) invented doctrine and “reverse engineer” from there. They start with male supremacism and keep inventing things just to cover their core belief, and it leads to ridiculous extremes like this.

I’ve noticed many such similarities between RCC and Reformed theology. They both go back to Augustine, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. They claim to be so very different but simply traded one set of rulers for another. Both systems ultimately end in pride of some men over other men, and all men over all women.

People do desperate things when they feel threatened.

One thing that’s frequently overlooked is the instances where the Greek word is “theos” and not “pater”. If we pay careful attention to the difference (typically translated “God” and “the Father”), we can see that it isn’t always the Father when we think it is, but God, the entire Trinity.

Another point is, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity (Gk. theh-ot’-ace) lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). Notice the present tense: it says “lives”, not “lived”. Jesus is the embodiment of the Trinity, yet also still retains his individual personage, as also do the Father and Spirit. It’s difficult to grasp, but we cannot deny that this is what scripture teaches.

I hope and pray that someday people will stop calling good exegesis “modern” and the perpetuation of poor exegesis “the plain reading of scripture” (see also This Article). What many call “plain reading” is just lazy reading.

Cheryl, you’d think that after 2 years someone would have come up with a refutation of your material, especially given the rabid misogyny of CBMW. For them to ignore you is a very telling sign. I think they’re afraid!

156Billy
The phrase “anyone” is not refering to women, and it is clear that throughout the book of Acts the men are counted in the numbering of the church at Jerusalem. I Cor. 14:34 is the very passage that says a women is not permitted to speak. I know the arguement of it is in the context of tongues, but he uses the same language in I Tim 2. It is not cultural or for a specific time or place because in I Cor. 14 he takes it back to the law and in I Timothy 2 he takes it back to Adam and Eve. With this being the case it must be a role issue.

Please back up your assertion that “anyone” is not refering to women”. Where does the Bible indicate that women cannot be in view? Are you referring to a specific verse, and if so, which one? We need to examine the context.

The “law” you refer to in 1 Cor. 14 is not from the Bible; it cannot be found anywhere in the old testament. It is a rabbinical tradition and Paul is strongly refuting it. He has been writing this letter to answer questions put to him by the Corinthians, and there are no quotation marks in Greek. Instead, the quoted text is typically followed by “What??” or “Or” as it is in English translations. This is the same Paul who wrote Galatians, wherein he spent great effort to turn people away from the old laws. There is no precedent for Paul himself turning back to such laws in this or any other case.

If you do some reading here before bringing up these already-refuted claims, it would save us having to repeat ourselves. As we’ve already shown, and Cheryl has so thoroughly shown, Paul’s referral to Adam and Eve is to explain why an inexperienced person taking a position as a teacher and teaching false doctrine is to be silenced, not all women. Eve was inexperienced and did not ever see God create anything, and so thought she could be like God. So Paul refers to the danger of false and ignorant teachers.

Anyway, that’s all more thoroughly explained in documents here, please read them.

Got some links for you JB:

http://www.christianstandard.com/lettersmarapr07.asp
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/10/junia-apostle-part-1.html
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/juniapreato.htm
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007/05/junia-response-to-michael-burer.html

I think what you’re seeing is another case of “search engine flooding”, where a few people put out a lot of documents and make sure they get posted and repeated all over the place. And of course CBMW has a vested interest in spreading their teachings far and wide. But when we look at all the research and see that the majority opinion of scholars is that no male form of Junia existed until the middle ages, the burden of proof is on the “gender benders” to present evidence that is recognized by both sides (and non-Christian scholars with no ax to grind) as credible scholarship.

Martin,

The root word “presbutero” can be translated either as an appointed Elder or simply an older person. Only context can tell us which is meant, and it isn’t always clear.

In 1 Tim. 5 we see both male and female “presbutero” are mentioned, but context does not tip the scale either way. Even so, whatever is meant by the word for males is also meant for females, so it’s either speaking of male and female Elders, or of old men and old women.

However, we do see in Ch. 4 verse 14 that a “group of elders” laid hands on Timothy to give him a gift of prophecy. This being only a few sentences before the other “elder” words would tend to lean the meaning toward that of an appointed position, not simply the aged.

This same issue holds true in the letter to Titus. Paul specified that “elders” were to be appointed, and of course age cannot be appointed so it must mean positions of respect in the assembly. Then Paul goes on to talk about male and female “elders” in ch. 2. So here again we see “elders” defined as positions and then both male and female “elders” addressed.

The point of all that being, whatever is true of male elders is also true of female elders; they all come from the same root word.

Actually, the first Alpha and Omega reference in chapter one is to “the Lord God”, but the last one in chap. 22 is to Jesus.

And then there’s the prophecy in Isaiah about the Son who is also “the mighty God, the everlasting Father”.

And that Mary would be “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit as well as “the power of the Most High”, meaning both the Father and the Spirit were involved in the incarnation of the Son.

That’s the fundamental problem underlying the gender debate, Greg. People just don’t get it, and never have. The Assembly was never meant to be another religion of performance, but a relationship to the God who stooped down to become one of us. We have Jesus’ statement you quoted, plus “not so among you”, plus “neither here nor in Jerusalem but in spirit and truth”. We have the believers in Acts just sharing their lives, and Paul blowing away the old hierarchies and legalities. We have not one hint of the establishment of a corporate structure, liturgy, relics, etc.

And somehow, in spite of it all, for most of its history, Christianity has been nothing it should have been and everything it should not have been.

The gender debate is only part of this overall issue of authority and domination, this need to “be like all the others” as ancient Israel did in demanding a human king. How it must grieve God to see most of his children despising the free gift he bought at a great price and trading it for “a pot of stew”. And even in the “out of church” movement, people still exclude women from these wonderful blessings and freedom.

The comps must be confronted: is this a man-centered religion, or is it Christ-centered? Is it Masculinity or Christianity? An earthly kingdom or a heavenly/ spiritual kingdom?

If Adam is any example, the man should be the last person to be given authority over anyone. 😉

As for the writings of Paul, why would there have been need to give even more authority to husbands when it was taken for granted in that society? It was during a time when the way of the world and even Israel was for husbands to lord over their wives. Yet he only used the word for authority when he spoke of both husbands and wives regarding each other’s body, and when he tackled the issue of women having authority/power over their own heads in regards to head covering traditions. So he gave wives more authority than they had ever had before.

Yet more importantly, neither Jesus nor Paul taught hierarchy among believers at all, and in fact taught against it explicitly. So rather than ask why husbands are not given authority over wives, we should ask why no believer is given authority over another believer in any capacity.

And of course the answer is that Christianity is never supposed to be about authority and hierarchy, but service and love among equals. For Paul to ignore Jesus’ overturning of worldly authority and his own statements about mutual submission by making an exception in marriage alone would be utter nonsense and self-contradictory.

What could possibly motivate people to want hierarchy in the church or the home– and even in the Trinity? Why do they always try to make a military or business model the assumed divine order, instead of friendship or family? How can it not be the sin of pride to want to lord over another believer?

Tanx Kerryn… just having a little fun. 😉

Ah yes, the ‘hypostatic union‘.

People get so torqued about precisely defining the undefinable, yet refuse to precisely declare the undeniable. They obfuscate the simple gospel, straining out a gnat only to swallow a camel.

Which, being interpreted means, they make mountains out of molehills, and vice versa.

Sounds like they’re becoming more like the Pharisees every day.

You make a good point there, UMG. (well, at least it’s not OMG!)

Strictly speaking, when the saving gospel is spelled out, it’s “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” or “Confess the Lord Jesus and believe God raised him from the dead”. The “Jesus Only” people at least meet these simple criteria (assuming they take “God raised him from the dead” as true since Jesus is God; Jesus also said he would raise himself in John 2:19). It’s all about Jesus, who is fully God and fully Man, and it’s these comps who can’t grasp his dual nature and wind up demoting him to a lesser deity. But of course they think they can have their “deity and subordination too”, just as they claim “equality of being with inequality of function”.

If anyone’s interested, there’s a short thread about the Trinity Here.

Yeah, funny how they appeal to “the way things have always been” when they know the Bible doesn’t back them up. I happened to blog along those lines today (Here).

If the apostles were battling heresy in the first century and predicted the rise of false teachers after their departure, why would anyone think an appeal to “church fathers” guarantees orthodoxy?

Yes, and not only Mormons, but Muslims as well. It seems comp. has more in common with cults and other religions than Christianity.

As you know, the complementarian view requires an eternally subordinated Son. So from the start they are out to prove a prior assertion, instead of putting what scripture actually says first. If the Son is not eternally subordinated then they can’t claim that two beings can be equal while one of them is eternally in a lesser position. In other words, they must separate eternal subordination (“role”) from equality of being (“essence”) in order to say that women’s inferior “role” is not in violation of their being equal in “essence”.

This is essentially Rebecca Groothuis’ argument, that there cannot be equality of being with inequality of function unless the subordination is both temporary and voluntary. So the complementarian agenda is to make this logical fallacy into a scriptural teaching, or their whole platform collapses.

Cheryl, I wasn’t too sharp when I wrote “phase”, but something good came of it. :-0

Yeah, that old “God was scraping the bottom of the barrel when he used women” argument is so… what’s the word… sorry, it’s asinine. The most glaring problem with it is that scripture NEVER SAYS ANY SHUCH THING. They PRESUME God’s reasons instead of getting them from God; they put words in his mouth. But that’s what they do across the board, in their whole worldview from top to bottom.

Oy, a flashback to my electronics days. I must have been out of phase when I wrote that. 😉

Actually, a blue lens would make the blue verses invisible. They undoubtedly use something with a little more contrast.

Yes, to them, “the plain meaning of scripture” is whatever English version suits their theology. If you go to the original languages they call it “gymnastics” and trying to change scripture.

Never mind that the name was clearly and always feminine until 1928 when Nestle changed it to masculine in the Greek text without explanation or attestation (see This Excellent Article, and it remained so for 50 years. Then, again without attestation or any kind of explanation, it was changed back. So through 50 years of Bible translation everyone trusted the official Greek text and did a “gender bender” on poor Junia. Similar alterations of original language texts have plagued the Hebrew as well. The rabbis, who hated Jesus enough to kill him, were the kind of people who would tamper with the very Word of God to hide prophecies about him (ref. this article). These rabbis also put their hateful and misogynistic traditions above God as well.

None of that seems to phase the comps. Like the Pharisees, they care more about their position and traditions than about the Truth of God’s Word. And if they’d stoop to tampering with that, what won’t they stoop to?

Good points, Charis. And they touch on the whole infant vs. mature disciple debate. Some (particularly the “Lordship Salvation” view) insist that without external evidence (based upon arbitrary criteria), people must not be saved. I’m not saying Cheryl is suggesting any such thing, but that some people say so explicitly.

Personally, I believe there are some very carnal Christians, but Christians nonetheless. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians were written to exactly those types of people. Those who seem to have external signs of maturity and discipleship will certainly be rewarded, but those without such external signs will have all of their works “burned up” (1 Cor. 3) yet be saved themselves.

Matt is thus a good case study or cautionary tale. On one hand he does have some “gold and precious gems” regarding the cults for example. But on the other he has “wood, hay, stubble” regarding hierarchy and what I’d call the “Diotrephes Complex” (3 John 1:9). The refining fire of judgment will consume all he has built up that is ungodly and proud.

So we all can take warning from Matt’s example. We must be careful to avoid the worthless things we think are so pretty or admirable but to God are trash. Matt has made “straw” the cornerstone of his ministry, and we know what happens to a building with a bad foundation. But that only highlights the need for ALL members of Christ’s body to help each other, not telling half that they are worthless to the “presentable parts”. Only by honestly listening to each other will we get rid of the trash in our lives.

Don,

Thanks, I’ll check it. But I don’t do Windoze, so no Word Spellcheck, but I have other tools.

The reason for the unusual translations is that the “mainstream” ones have been perpetuating errors, even after the important manuscript discoveries of the 1800s and 1970s. My only alternative would be to go to the original languages, but that won’t do much good for the average English reader. I have more about that in other articles.

I do hope those weren’t the most important things about the article! 🙂

PS: Cheryl, I wrote a summary of what I understand the egalitarian position to be, at my blog. Please let me know what you think. I’m sure it can be improved.

Yes, the seeds have been planted, and it’s time to move on to other “pastors” (get it?). How the soil reacts is not our problem, although we should be careful not to throw it all on rocks (of all kinds).

The hierarchy teachers just don’t get it: they cannot stop us. Perhaps, like when Paul told the Jews he would now turn to the Gentiles, we need to tell the hierarchy teachers that they had their chance, and now we will turn to the people directly. And I think blogs like this are the spearhead of a breath of fresh air to all believers.

Wow! Very profound! Thank you for contributing this. And I for one will be staying away from wolf dens and I desire that this forum will be a welcoming place for any complementarian who desires to fellowship with us in the Lord Jesus. When we offer love and respect, I believe that eventually the honest hearted ones will respond as they see Jesus in us.

Thanks, Cheryl, but you know any profundity did not originate with me. 😉

My primary commission seems to be to tell others how to leave The Institution and go back to The Body, and for us to no longer do church but be the church. And that means being all the church, not half of it!

And I agree with how Matt and his Carmites are being described. 1 John 4:20
“If someone says, “I love God,” but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar; for if we don’t love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see?” I really have to question anyone who claims salvation but is filled with hate, which is murder. Passionate defense of one’s convictions, yes; name-calling and defamation of character, no.

Luke 12:48b says “When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.” Matt has set himself up as a teacher and authority, so his judgment will be severe. God will pay everyone back from what crop they have sown. The one who has been sowing hate will reap death, and the one who has been sowing love will reap life.

Of course, there will always be those who claim disagreement is hate, but I’ll let God be the judge.

Good point brought out earlier, one I’ve had on my mind a lot lately…

Let the men have their “lodges”, their “boys’ clubs”. Let them live as tyrants over other men and all women. Let them call it Christianity if they want. Let them call us names and persecute us, “thinking they are doing God a favor”.

We can preach freedom for women to them the same way we preach salvation to the lost. We don’t have to belong to their clubs to do it. But we can get the message out, and provide fellowships to welcome them. Maybe we should stop entering the dens of wolves and just stand outside and preach.

We don’t need buildings, budgets, bake sales or backing. We don’t need accolades or approval. All we need is to practice the Christian community as the NT tells us, and to bring the truth with us as we go about in life.

Cheryl,

If it’s any consolation, I’ve been stabbed in the back so many times by fellow believers that I whistle when the wind blows. It hurts. The first time, you pick yourself up and try again. And again. And then again. And it still hurts. Eventually, you just learn to pick your battles and not set yourself up as a target for jackals. (Or as I say in the summertime, I have to go outside and feed the mosquitoes.”)

We all want to believe the best about other people, especially believers. But there are carnal Christians, even among apologists. They are still worldly in at least some areas of their lives, and when you expose those areas they can get ugly.

I used to fight in the trenches too, but now I focus on just blogging and letting whoever wants to read, read. If they want to comment, fine, but I only ask people to treat me as I treat them: I don’t go to anyone else’s blog to bash them, call them names, etc. If I don’t like what they say, I just move on. There’s constructive criticism, and then there’s just plain mean-spiritedness.

All I know is, “The first will be last, and the last will be first”. Male supremacists need to ponder that truth for a while.

You know we’re all a-standin’ 😉

All I know is that God will do whatever he decides to do, and no government can stop him. We don’t always know why doors open or shut, or whether God is telling us to persevere or move on. So I would pray for a clear direction from God, not pushing this way or that way. We always have peace when we know his will, whichever way it goes. Of course that’s easy to say, but I believe it’s the right thing to say.

This isn’t deep or detailed, but I just think God is meaning to embarrass the proud, evil rulers of Israel. These were people who even considered it embarrassing to be killed by a woman (see Judges 9:54, 2 Sam. 11:21). God is humiliating the proud and defiant.

Funny how the comps keep going always to the OT to make up rules that can’t possibly apply to the church.

Sorry, I thought I could use “ordered lists” in the comments. The second paragraph should look more like this:
I can see how some might invoke Paul’s teaching on lawsuits between believers in this. But the problems in this case are that the seminary’s actions:
—were very unchristlike and violate the most basic principles of Christians caring for one another, especially since she is the primary wage earner and her husband is disabled
—violate Paul’s teachings on how employers are to treat employees, especially if they are believers,
—are illegal in this country