To Diane Sellner Of Carm
**October 2008 addition Note: A public statement regarding Diane Sellner’s role in the public attacks against me is at
Date: 2008-03-27
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2008/03/27/to-diane-sellner-of-carm/
**October 2008 addition Note: A public statement regarding Diane Sellner’s role in the public attacks against me is at https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2008/09/06/public-statement-regarding-matt-slick
To Diane Sellner,
I have invited you to my blog and provided a safe place for you to dialog with me. I thought this was thoughtful, kind and generous. What you have done is accuse me of teaching error and then you put posts up on CARM that say I haven’t answered the accusations yet you have blocked me from posting as you have my posts on moderation and they are not showing up.
Clearly we have two different standards.
Here is the new discussion board that Diane has delegated both for general discussions and the issue of women in ministry http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/forumdisplay.php?f=91
If any visitor to my blog would like to see the side of hierarchy that regularly bans egalitarians who post in a respectful manner, and dominates and controls those who don’t agree with them, please do visit CARM’s discussion board and pay close attention to the attitude displayed there. The really old posts on “feminism” are downright scary when you consider the leadership at CARM are supposed to be fellow Christians.
Now I would like to ask a question to the visitors on my blog: why do you think that there is such a double standard with hierarchists? What might be some of the reasons that causes them to treat this secondary issue in the body of Christ as if it is a matter of salvation, thus causing them to be divisive towards their fellow brothers and sisters in the faith?
Also I would like to ask for wisdom from the posters here. What has helped you to keep a respectful attitude when you are being attacked? Are there points of wisdom that you can share with all of us that will keep our eyes focused on our Lord Jesus and less on the attacks coming from this hierarchical camp?
I would also like to bring attention to my previous post where I have answered some of the challenges posed to me but which to this point have not been allowed to appear on the CARM board to this point.
Apparently my wisdom in deciding that my own blog is the appropriate place to answer the challenges to my egalitarian argument by Matt Slick has been a good decision. It is the only place I can do this in a respectful manner without having my answers held back. I really appreciate the ability to be able to post here and to find such a respectful community of believers who take the challenge to heart about representing Jesus with a truly Christ-like attitude!
Also a quite note that I am still working hard on the Trinity DVD so my periods of absence here are for a good reason!
Blessings,
Cheryl
I have a lot of patience…
That’s for sure!!!! God bless!
I think the reason CARM responded as they did as they saw that their non-egal position on women was losing and they did not want to change their position so they up’ed the ante.
Jael,
You are so funny! 🙂 Some, you know, see my name as a swear word. That just blows me away!
Jas 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.
Thanks mrsflib,
Exegetist is welcome to post here or get your email from me. Blessings back!
Diakonos in Rom 16:1 is singular masculine.
Don,
I find that interesting I also head that it was singular masculine, but when I checked the parsing it says singular feminine. See here http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom16.pdf
I am wondering if there is a different Greek text where it came out singular masculine??
Some people reading here may wish to post their experiences with CARM at this blog: http://abadgeofhonor.blogspot.com/ . The blog’s purpose is to expose un-Christlike behavior of professing Christian discussion board administrators. By exposing this behavior for the sin that it is, it is hoped that the perpetrators will reflect and repent of their sin.
There’s a handy Greek parallel Bible at This Link. It appears that it is the feminine form in all major Greek texts. However, this in no way indicates some kind of secondary or inferior “office”, but simply a minister who happened to be female.
Also, prostatis means much more than the weak “helper” of many translations; it typically referred to “one who stands before”, a leader, protector, and possibly also benefactor.
That this woman would be trusted with delivering Paul’s scriptures to the Romans, and that she is to be respected and supplied with whatever she would need, is a very significant commendation from Paul. Were this a man, people would not hesitate to give that person great honor today as an outstanding “minister”. (Of course, “minister” didn’t mean any kind of spiritual CEO then, and was never intended to be such. It meant “servant”, and “ministers” today would do well to remember that.)
Light,
Funny you should mention “badge of honor”. I posted there years ago after being reamed by “Christians” because– are you sitting down?– I wondered if they’d consider a more modern message board format! I kid you not. And they had such a good apologetics ministry. Must be some kind of disease.
tiro3,
It looks like the majority of the references say that DIAKONOS can be male or female. However diakonos is considered a male word even though it can be used with the feminine ending for women.
From this site: http://www.bfchistory.org/Studywomendeacons2005.htm It says:
“(re Romans 16:1) Here diakonos is clearly applied to a woman. The form is masculine. As noted above, the lexicons say diakonos can be either masculine or feminine. Paul did not use a distinctively feminine word despite Phoebe being “our sister.””
The feminine term “deaconess” was a third office in the term not the same as deacon.
“these women are not to be regarded as constituting a third office in the church, the office of ‘deaconess’ ….” Deacon is the term to be used. This is congruent with the Greek usage of diakonos as both a male and female noun: the word diakonos is one of fifteen nouns used in the New Testament that can be either masculine or feminine gender” (see the list in Trenchard, 296). A separate feminine word for “deaconess” (diakonissa) does not arise until the fourth century (Cross, 377).”
So it appears that the word deacon is considered a male term yet having both masculine and feminine grammar. Phoebe was not called a “deaconess” but a “deacon” and the name is the same as the name for the men. Whatever they were, she too would be.
Hi Lin, I’ll see what I can do.
What the French prefer is completely irrelevant to what the apostles wrote in Greek. Two completely different cultures and languages. And tis can be either masc. or fem.
Single men do not preside (prostenai) over any household; that’s like saying they preside over themselves, so I agree it must refer to a married man at the very least. And this word is from the same root used for Phoebe in Rom. 16, meaning not “helper” but one who “stands before”, a protector, representative, advocate. This simply cannot refer to any individual presiding over themselves. But it certainly does speak against polygamy; what else can “a one-woman man” mean? Verse 12 is on the topic of deacons, not guardians (episkopes), so his trying to drag the plural grammar of vs. 12 over to this singular grammar is very poor exegesis.
Of course this is not to say there should only be one guardian per assembly; we have clear scriptures to the contrary. However, we also cannot ignore the use of the singular here. Just as in the passage in 1 Tim. 2 about “a woman” and “a man”, we have Paul using “anyone” and “a [one-woman] man”, yet elsewhere (ref. deacons) using the plural. So there is no reason that this cannot be another instance of Paul specifically addressing a particular man. Yes, he said “anyone”, but he also said “a man”. I propose that Paul is answering a question about a particular man’s aspiration to the position of Guardian. Paul does not know the man but gives guidelines for Timothy to go by.
This view takes care of both the grammar and the alleged basis for male-only Guardians. Paul can say “a one-woman man” to an individual without jumping to the conclusion that he would only ever address a man for that position.
Now to vs. 12.
The topic is plural and refers to diakonoi, meaning ministers or servants. Paul gave a rule about a particular man needing to be “a one-woman man”, and he extends this rule to all servants. Regarding polygamy, as before, it surely does rule against it. And what would be the point of Paul having to tell the women to only have one husband? Did they have a choice? No, so there was no need for Paul to say that. But for men, it was almost presumed, and he needed to expressly state that this would not be acceptable in the church.
If anyone wants to talk about who is to “rule the home”, it’s women: 1 Tim. 5 expressly states, “I intend then that younger ones marry, bear children, rule the house [Gk. oikodespotein or “house despot”)…”. Since women are given this responsibility and authority, such an injunction to Guardians or Servants cannot be taken as a male-only indicator.
If we truly “seek God’s best” we will not try to mix scripture passages on a whim or ignore grammar. And truth be known, it is culture that has always favored patriarchialism, so that if anyone is bowing to culture it is male supremacists. Paul was being very counter-cultural in many respects, not the least of which was his prominent mention of women and their honored service and gifting. Lists of spiritual gifts do not come in “pink” and “blue”, and there is nothing in scripture to limit the only to things that can remotely be considered “offices” to males.
Dr. Bushnell, who was a medical doctor and missionary to China, was appalled to read the Chinese translation of the Bible due to its blatant changing of scripture to bow to the male-centric culture. When confronted about this, the translators said “We had to be sensitive to the culture.”
For those looking for what is happening on CARM and with Diane Sellner make sure to read the comments on the last post at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/03/26/dr-randall-buth-refutes-accusation-against-me-on-carm/ especially comment #16
There are some interesting points that most people miss in 1 Tim. 3. It starts off with pistos ho logos – faithful is the Word. Paul continues with tis episkopE oregO kabos ergon epithumeO – ANYone craving on-noting/supervision/bishop is desiring an ideal work. And then typical to Hebrew thinking his very first requirement is that the person must be a “of-one woman man”. This is a Hebrew colloquialism that means faithful. This information is detailed out in Bruce Flemings book “Familiar Leadership Heresies”. Paul is hammering in that the Word is faithful and there must be faithful people who serve it. And then he continues on to bring up more character qualities of a faithful type person: sober, sane, hospitable, of good behavior, apt to teach, no wine bibbler, etc. These are not qualities that only males can achieve.
Also, the way I read verse 4 is that one is to manage their own household, not themselves. That very generally says to keep your own household orderly. Just like a woman is to manage her household, organize and order it to make daily life easier. Proistemai tinos. Can also be translated “care for, give aid”. See also in Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 3:5, 1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Thess. 5:12; Titus 3:8,14. Has been used as one who is a leader, patron, supervisor and director. Some have translated it as “rule” after the bad King James who wanted his authority and rule validated. But really that is stretching it and perverting the true spiritual intent of caring management.
It is not just a Hebrew idiom, it is a Greek one, as is found at Ephesus on pagan and Jewish tombstones of both husbands and wives.
Paula, thank you for tackling that. Much to think about. The more I read, the more I see people are really stuck on ‘one woman man’ thinking that proves it is for men only.
Cheryl, Paul Burleson has a nice compliment for you in the comments of this excellent post:
http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/
Also, Wade has a great post on authority in the church today.
Lin,
Hey thanks for posting that link! http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/2008/03/incredulous.html It was very encouraging to me and I sure appreciate you taking the time to pass it on to me, especially this week when I really needed encouragement. Pastor Paul has been a great encouragement to me. I also appreciate his son Wade a whole lot. The wonderful words that Pastor Paul gave me sure helped a lot to counteract all the attacks I have been fielding recently!
I will be commenting on the thought-provoking comments on this post hopefully by tomorrow. I have been so engrossed in my work on the Trinity DVD it has been hard to get me away from the script. I will post again later when I can take a break.
In my understanding, to be a one-man woman was considered an honor, but the reverse was not expected. However, there were cases where both spuses were such and this was held in esteem.
Personally, I believe Paul is answering a question about a particular man’s aspiration to eldership. But as for the inscription, so far it seems everyone quotes the same single source: C. Keever, And Marries Another, (Massachussetts: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 91-92. Dr. Instone Brewer states, “in NT times those phrases meant … someone who is faithful.” in Divorce and Remarriange in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities, (Pasternoster: Great Britain, 2003, p. 177). I also found this online article that takes a slightly different angle: Divorce and Remarriage, under “I Tim. 3 in detail”.
Here is the ref.
The second qualification: “Faithful spouse” (3:2)
The second qualification in the list deals with the
overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that
this qualification means that whether one is a husband or
a wife it is important to be a “faithful spouse.” It requires
that an overseer, if married, be faithful and be “a one-spouse
kind of person.”
According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French
Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this
Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish
and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman
or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way
characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”
When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase
was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where
Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him
myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.
Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2
surprising because modern versions of the Bible
translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” –
making this qualification appear to be restricted to men
only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is
about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is
not saying that oversight is “for men only.”
Pages 87-88
Think Again about Church Leaders by Bruce C. E. Fleming http://www.ThinkAgainBooks.com
This is also in his book “Familiar “Leadership” Heresies Uncovered” which is very insightful, altho the title is a mouthful.
—————
The Keever citation is a typo, it is Craig Keener, but when I look there I cannot find it. So I would use the above ref.
How is your DVD on the Trinity doing Cheryl?
54 Lin,
Regarding 1 Timothy 3:12, the quote you gave from the person who said this could not be about polygamy is not following what has been an historical interpretation. Polygamy was an acceptable thing in that culture and while the unmarried were allowed to be Apostles and leaders in the church, polygamists were not allowed to be examples to the congregation. Paul himself was unmarried and it would seem out of place for him to encourage others to remain unmarried as he was, so that they could give more of their time to Christian work and then turn around and deny those who followed his advice from being leaders in the church. That would be a contradiction in Paul’s practice with a prohibition on single men’s service.
Now regarding the masculine language of 1 Timothy 3, the “default” language is masculine even when it includes males and females. For example every one of the salvation passages is in the singular masculine. For example:
Mat 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Mat 16:25 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
The “whoever” and the “anyone” is in the singular masculine. Are only males allowed to take up their cross and follow Jesus? Are only males who lose their life for Jesus told they will find their lives? No, this passage along with all of the salvation passages are in the masculine because that is the default way of expressing men and women. We cannot take away women from having leadership places in the congregation because of the masculine language of 1 Timothy 3 any more than we can take away women’s ability to follow Jesus and receive salvation because these passages are also in the masculine grammar.
If Paul wanted us to know that women were forbidden from having any leadership places in the congregation he would have told us this directly. He also would have explained why God went outside this prohibition by using women in leadership positions in the Old Testament. Paul does not have to explain away women leaders in the Old Testament because his language is not one of direct prohibition. It is also never listed as a “sin” for a woman to give of herself to shepherd the flock. Rather Paul says that if “anyone” (not the male term “aner”) desires to be an overseer that person desires a good thing. What did Paul recommend for women who desired to be an overseer? Should they be put into jail? Should they be kicked out of the congregation? Should they be shunned? Paul gives no such punishment for women. There is no penalty given for the “crime” of a woman desiring to use her God-given gifts for the benefit of the entire body of Christ. Why do we punish godly women who desire to use their gifts to benefit their dear brothers in Christ? What biblical precedent do we have to mete out this judgment? There is nothing in scripture that lists these women as practicing sin nor does scripture tell us how to punish them. I respectfully suggest that those who hold to patriarchy have gone above and beyond the clear teaching of scripture by holding back and punishing women when scripture never tells us to do this. There is not even one example in either the OT or the NT that gives an example of a woman punished by God or by the congregation for using her God-given gifts in public.
Dear Cheryl,
You are in my thoughts and prayers!!!
Psalm 121.
http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/
thought I would let you guys know that Pastor Paul Burleson is writing on how culture has influenced scripture interepretation concerning women. His last couple of posts have been great.
Truthseeker,
What a great idea. I think I will start a post to address this things.
Hello Elizabeth, I’m sorry to see that you’ve been banned from CARM. But you are in good company. Many others have also.
You might want to check out http://www.equalitycentral.com/forums for another good place to dialogue. Many from here also dialogue there.
blessings,
TL
This is also a good reminder that if you are going to post here, it would be a good idea not to post with the same name as on CARM or give information that would identify you with your identity on CARM. Diane Sellner has her spies who read and watch especially this blog.
It is amazing that a group that exposes cults and aberrant movements would resort to milieu control. This tactic conforms to Lifton’s identification of brainwashing and mind control groups. Milieu control is identified as all communication with the outside world is limited, either being strictly filtered or completely cut off. This milieu control also extends outside of CARM as their spies search the internet for any negative word regarding Matt Slick, Diane Sellner or CARM and they report back. Those who dare to challenge any of the strict rules will find themselves cut off from their friends on the discussion board, threatened or censured.
Do a search for Diane Sellner on the internet and see how she has threatened people. People who have stood firm have not bowed to her threats. Look below at the censorship she tried on wikipedia. Diane Sellner is the Diane S referenced on the pages below and her sock puppets and meat puppets are discussed. This is wikipedia’s record of their dealing with Diane Sellner and Diane’s complaints cannot have it removed from the record. Reading through all of this lengthy material gives one a very clear picture of what goes on behind the scenes and why Diane Sellner has the reputation that she has. This is evidence of her “ministry” as she is released by her boss to go after anyone who they perceive as an enemy, even if that enemy is a fellow Christian whose “sin” is to believe differently than they do on women in ministry, which is a secondary issue of faith and not an essential issue of salvation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry/Archive_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry/Archive_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry/Archive_3
looks like the thread is gone now Elizabeth. I couldn’t find it. ??
Its on page 2 of the Apologetics board and the thread is titled “Equal in the eyes of God?”
Amen!
Cheryl,
You have my prayers!
Cheryl,
You have my prayers too through this whole debacle !
my prayers are with you.
Cheryl,
I’ve been praying and praying for you as you prepare the video on the Trinity, but I will also pray specifically about this disappointing situation with Matt Slick, too.
I downloaded this old sermon of Walter Martin’s from the late ’70s when he spoke at Lee College (where about half of my Spiritual fathers came from). http://spiritwatch.org/cultrise79.ram
As I listened to this wonderful sermon, not quite 40 minutes into the download, Dr. Martin talks about how he met and spoke with Rocky Marciano, the heavyweight champion of years gone by. I was overwhelmed and started to cry as he talked about what Rocky had to say to him and I could think about nothing but you as he told this story.
Rocky apparently had very short arms. If he swung at someone, they had to be close enough for him to get in one good punch, and he could knock them out. But he had to take a lot of hits in the process, because he had to wait to get close enough to be able to make that one solid punch. Dr. Martin said that this was an excellent analogy for the Christian life. We have the goods. All we need is that one, good shot, and we can win.
Matt is certainly not the enemy. We all belong to Christ and we are on the same side of the battle, so it is the deception that holds him that you fight against. And I don’t even see this all as a disagreement over gender at the root of this but the fact that Matt (as many like him) choose to deal harshly and cruelly with their brethren who disagree over intramural doctrine. We should afford one another liberty under the bonds of the Holy Spirit and of love, not ridicule, strife and insult.
As I listened to this today, I was just overwhelmed with how I identified you with Rocky. You have what it takes to pierce through this deception and all the miserable cruelty with God’s love, power, Spirit and truth. There’s no doubt in my heart that you have the Living God, sound doctrine and a spirit of love behind your punch, whatever it is that you’re doing. And you’ve been given an opportunity to face the same type of petty behavior and attitude that has taken over the very groups that I used to support. In that sense, you’re in there fighting for me and for all of us who have watched this cruel arrogance invade the Church that is supposed to be known by our love for one another, not all of this adversarial stuff that has become commonplace among those who hold to Slick’s belief system.
So I hope that this encourages you today — maybe there’s something else in that message for you to hear as well. But I’m just going to focus on you making one stand for truth and love in Christ Jesus against this commonplace cruelty for which so many areas of the Church are now known. I don’t think you have to “throw a lot of punches” but you need only make one good stand to pierce through all of this junk. Like Rocky Marciano, you’re getting close enough to take your appointed stand against this principality or power or whatever this happens to be — a light piercing through the darkness. You only need one good shot. And I have confidience now but will pray that you will have it when you go to pierce through this. You’re not goint to miss.
Know you’re loved and be encouraged. I don’t know what to expect for an outcome from this encounter with Matt, but you’re definitely going to hit the mark. I believe and feel strong and sure of it. Just like Walter Martin said we will do as Christians.
Jael,
You have been a real encourager to me always believing the best and knowing my heart!
Thanks!
Lin,
Thank you for expressing your thoughts so clearly and by doing so you have encouraged me too! I too feel the same way as you do. These are our brothers in Christ who deserve to be encouraged by us and nourished by the gifts that God has given through us. If we simply ignore the divisive behavior and never seek reconciliation we are acting as if they are the cancer in the church. I for one am not willing to do that without giving everything I can to be a peacemaker. Whether I can be that peacemaker or not remains to be seen. I know that we are to reject a divisive man after a couple of warnings, but I think the warnings should be an all-out loving confrontation. This is exactly what I would want someone to do for me if I was in error. If they really loved me as a sister in Christ, then I should be pursued and lovingly taught the truth as if I was deceived, not that I was a deliberate deceiver.
The fact that strong hierarchists want nothing to do with me says more about their relationship with Christ than it does about me. If one really, truly loves Christ, that one is to love the brethren in Christ. How can one say that he loves God when he hates his brother? I have not been loved by any of them and my objections have not been answered. Rather I have been hated and rejected, lied about and forbidden to speak. This is not the “Way of the Master” and when I have pointed this out, I have been accused of being judgmental.
Well I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I am persuing peace and standing up for what is right. I do this in order that the one who has been extremely against women’s ability to teach the bible with authority as 1 Peter 4:11 encourages us to speak, will know that there are those who love him enough to say the truth in love and hold him accountable.
I have been told that I am an enemy and hurting the church. If I am such an influence in the church, then why would they not take the time to personally influence me and do it in a loving and kind way? I believe it is because the “fruit” of hierarchical teaching is not one of love and respect but power, control and a fight against any who would challenge the “right” to be the only spokesmen for God to the church. There is simply no love lost towards their egalitarians brothers and sisters in Christ and it is such a shame. This should never be.
I will be posting a response to an article by Randy Stinson on my blog where he talks about the necessity of complementarianism. I have a special interest in this article especially since Randy is the one who threw my DVD set in the garbage after watching only a short bit of it. Apparently he couldn’t stomach a woman teaching him even one-on-one on DVD. My communication was with Chris Cowan from CBMW and he let me know that Randy Stinson was not even interested in trying to refute my exegesis. Since they had originally agreed to do a review of the DVD series, they were obligated to send me a check for the DVDs that they deposited in the garbage. In that way CBMW has unwittingly supported my work without any kind of refutation. It is sad but typical.
What is the link for Stinson’s post?
tiro,
One must repent of being an egalitarian in their minds or else….
Don,
The link is herehttps://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Is-Complementarianism-a-Merely-Personal-Conviction
Dane,
Thanks for the update. It is wonderful to know that a loved one has finished the race and gone on to be with Jesus.
LOL Robert, there are good listeners and talkers here.
Also, the Equality Central Forums have some ex Carm members as well.
I just found out that Diane Sellner passed away June 27, 2018.
Debate Points
**October 2008 addition Note: A public statement regarding Diane Sellner’s role in the public attacks against me is at
None
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more