Women Ministry Sins

An anonymous blogger who only allows comments on the blog with his/her approval.

Any claim on their part to be any sort of a Christian is not just laughable – its offensive. And the one this person offends the most is the God they pretend to love.

{edited by Cheryl to remove name-calling. Although in this situation I am tempted to leave it in, I think it is wise to remain objective and respectful even though I have not been treated that way.}

Oh Cheryl, I am so sorry about this. The things ‘spiritual’ people do thinking they are alright in the eyes of God is shocking. It is also a reminder to me to not to repsond in kind. But we are finding that any response of truth or plea to be fair and just is mocked.

I only read through a portion of the mocking site and could see there was quite a bit of ‘editing’ going on. This is really the same hatred and arrogance we saw coming from the Touchstone site in how they responded to Don.

You know, if they had truth on their side, they would not feel the need to resort to such tactics. All we can do is pray that their eyes will be opened to the fact that the Lord would not have his children respond to one another like this who disagree on a secondary doctrine.

My prayers go with you. Only the Holy Spirit can change the hearts that are so bound up with such hatred for a sister in Christ.

Ah, can’t you just hold your hands over that blog and feel the love? That’s the kind of blog that draws in the lost and comforts the saved, I’m sure.

The cannibals are getting restless.

It is telling that Cheryl links to “Anonymous'” blog, but “Anonymous” does not link back. Who’s afraid of being examined for selective quote-mining, I wonder?

This whole situation takes a lot of wisdom to know what to do, so I am praying the Holy Spirit will give EVERYONE involved wisdom.

{Edit by Cheryl to remove information that may identify the ministry that this person works}

This is off topic a bit but what you wrote, Don, reminded me of things I witnessed many times in mega church and para church organizations. The Matthew 18 process was always emphasized to deal with conflict among staff but rarely carried out. People saw how it was dealt with and were just taught not to go there. One reason Matthew 18 does not work in many situations is because of the teaching of hierarchy. People are busy looking at the caste system and if the brother was sinned against by another with a higher title or position within the church then they could not advance the process because they were not to ‘question’ or impune the character of the ‘leader’ by such accusations.

I have been watching with interest this new found interest in church discipline from the reformed movement. At one conference, the Matthew 18 process was taught. Everything was fine except they ADDED a step to the process. The extra step was to take it to the elders before it went to the whole church. Sounds ok. Sounds logical, even pragmatic. But it is NOT in scripture. And scripture does not specify who the witnesses need to be except other believers.

The extra step is fine if the elders are godly men chosen according to biblical precepts. But my experience is that many are chosen for more pragmatic reasons and this renders the extra step, added by the reformed group, null.

I wrote a satire on one incident I really did  witness. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. :o)

It is also a reminder to me to not to respond in kind.

I think this statement from Lin is a good reminder.  The promotion of the truth will be all the more powerful if our response to criticism is simply to address ideas themselves and not the attitudes, feelings or behaviours of our opponents. Let’s focus on keeping up the high quality of discussion on this board doing this very thing, demonstrating what mature Christ-like character ought to look like, and remind ourselves to lay our emotions and desire for justice at God’s feet through prayer.

Cheryl,

It is true that 1 Tim 2:12 is the most famous verse used to restrict women in ministry (often with the claim that some translation is the clear teaching of Scripture) but there are other verses that are also used to do that and I am sure you know this.  1 Cor 14:34-35 (women be silent), 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 (husband of one wife) are some others used by non-egals, as well as using inconsistent or non-primary meaning translations of Rom 16:1 on Phoebe and Rom 16:7 on Junia.

I wish it was a simple as one verse.

Don,

For me it is pretty simple actually, from the book of Acts Chap. 15. The text makes it pretty clear to me that God was long finished with writing in stone out of the thick darkness atop Mt. Horeb.

In verse 20, and then repeated in verses 28 & 29, I am assured that there are only 4 things that I am to refrain from in my Christian walk, and that sitting under a gifted woman teacher of the Bible is not among them.

What then do I do with a personal letter from Paul to his protege Timothy saying that he “Suffers not a woman to teach…”?  I use common sense and the context of false teaching to conclude that it was never intended to bar Godly women from preaching & teaching Christ crucified.

Don,  I know that you have been magnificent in defending the sisterhood of believers from the depredations of patriocentric dogmatists and I salute you for it.  All I am saying is that I think we have overlooked Acts 15 as a pivotal manifesto of the freedom we have in Christ and his new covenant.

@Greg Anderson # writes:

For me it is pretty simple actually, from the book of Acts Chap. 15. The text makes it pretty clear to me that God was long finished with writing in stone out of the thick darkness atop Mt. Horeb.

In verse 20, and then repeated in verses 28 & 29, I am assured that there are only 4 things that I am to refrain from in my Christian walk, and that sitting under a gifted woman teacher of the Bible is not among them.

Greg, I don’t think it is quite that simple. When the apostles concluded “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality,” surely they didn’t mean to say that they were free from the moral commandments such as those requiring them not to murder, steal, covet, lie, etc. Indeed, after listing these few restrictions which they were to communicate, the apostles make it clear why they don’t have to repeat all of the moral requirements: “For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21).

The apostles were only addressing the issue of those ceremonial and judicial laws which were stipulated to separate the Jewish people from other non-Jewish people. In other words, all that was being said here was that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish customs, aside from a few of the food laws and an emphasis on avoiding all sexual immorality, not that they were freed in any way from the transcendent moral requirements given by Moses.

On the issue of women in ministry, while there are clear verses which seem to be very clear on the treatment of men and women in the Kingdom of God, it is these difficult passages listed before which people use to oppose it and restrict women. Therefore, the best way to prove a view to be correct is to show how it fits with both the verses which seem to agree as well as those which seem to disagree.

Hope that helps…

Ryan

I appreciate your point.

I might understand Acts 15 somewhat differently.  The context is gentiles and what do they need to do to be saved.  Do they need to join the Mosaic covenant?  No, as the Mosaic covenant does not save anyone, as pointed out by Peter in v. 11.  Do they need to be circumcised and join Abraham’s covenant?  This is a little trickier, but no, as they are in Jesus and Jesus was circumcised they are already IN Abraham’s covenant.  And if “circumcision” is referring to the traditions of Pharisees on conversion v. 5 (which it might) then no again, as James points out both Jews and gentiles will worship God v. 17 per Amos quote so there is no requirement for Jewish coversion.

So Jews and gentiles are saved by accepting Jesus and accepting the Spirit in them v.8 & v 11.

But what will it take so Jewish believers will not be grossed out by being with gentile believers?  (They might be saved, but do I have to sit next to them or go to the same church with them?)  These are the 4 minimal requests, from a Jewish POV these were gross things that exemplified what it meant to be a pagan, so please stop doing these worst things from the Jewish POV so that Jewish believers in Jesus can be with you in fellowship.  Remember, they are trying to make it as easy as possible on the gentiles v. 28.

But this does not talk about what a church is to do for leaders or what a family is work, that is elsewhere in Scripture.

dont bother to ever respond on that blog. they ban others from their forum. who cares what they think? she is obsessed.

Don:

I realize that this is getting a bit off the original topic for Cheryl’s post, but I’d like to carry this one through.

Don, I like how you showed earlier that the Pharisees and other Jews were requiring something for salvation that wasn’t to be a requirement.  However, to say only that “Jews and gentiles are saved by accepting Jesus and accepting the Spirit in them v.8 & v 11” is missing the whole idea of Jesus’ statement, “If you love Me, you will obey My commandments.”  Both Jews and Gentiles in OT times were saved by faith looking forward to God’s future work.  However, until the way was made clear, Gentiles were separated from Jews in some way unless they also physically became Jews under the covenant of Moses.  I can’t say I fully understand all of this yet, but this does seem to be the case.  Feel free to correct me from scripture.

As I read Acts 15, the Jews who believed didn’t understand there was a fulfillment of the ceremonial and food laws which were previously intended to separate Jews from Gentiles such that they were done away with when the way was made known and the veil was torn from top to bottom.  These were no longer to separate Jews from Gentiles.  However, we have a similar practice which all who profess to believe ought to do which is baptism.  Baptism separates those who believe from those who do not believe and it separates these two groups from fellowship together in Christ.  Baptism is a sign like physical circumcision (though much easier and universal to include both men and women), representing inner workings of the heart.  To say that someone is not saved because they have not been water baptized is insufficient.  It may be that this person has not yet had an opportunity to do so (ie. you need water to carry it out like you needed a knife or flint stone for circumcision).  But if such a person was negligent or refusing to do so, that is more serious as it communicates a heart condition which is not healthy.

I think this is more clear when we understand faith as an action word like trust, intending that we believe so we obey.  How will anyone (even ourselves) know we have saving faith in our heart if it is not evidenced in our actions?  And if we continue through the tests of life and see no evidence of that faith in our actions, what good is such faith?  Further, if the evidence proves the contrary, then it makes evident something about the heart condition which would otherwise not be known.

These are the 4 minimal requests, from a Jewish POV these were gross things that exemplified what it meant to be a pagan, so please stop doing these worst things from the Jewish POV so that Jewish believers in Jesus can be with you in fellowship.  Remember, they are trying to make it as easy as possible on the gentiles v. 28.

Was sexual immorality something that believing Gentiles would be free to do if it weren’t for the sensitivities of the Jewish believers?

Looking forward to your response.

Yes, one needs to strive to obey all commandments of all covenants one is in.  Do not enter a covenant (e.g., marriage) if you do not intend to keep your vows, for example.

You cannot divide a covenant up, the Bible says it cannot be done, if in the Mosaic covenant, keep all those commandments that apply to you and that you can do.  Many Messianic Jews try to do this, they keep Sabbath and kosher and I do not see this as wrong, they are honoring God by what they do.

There is some 1st century context that is useful to understand some of the NT.  Most gentiles were pagan but some were called God fearers and were allowed in the temple up to the court of the gentiles.  In effect they were on the road to becoming a Jewish convert and stopped part way.  This was allowed, they could go to synagogue and learn, see Acts 15:21.

Mikveh baths were a part of 2nd temple Judaism.  This is where the idea of baptism of believers came from.  The Jews would do this to be ritually pure to enter temple areas.  It was also the very last step of conversion of a gentile, when they came up out of the mikveh bath they were considered Jewish with all rights and responsibilities.  Before that they needed instruction, to be circumcised if male and to pay for a temple sacrifice, this last was changed to a contribution after the temple was destroyed.

Being baptised is one of the early acts of obedience of a believer and is a public declaration of the inner transformation.  This is also where Jews are freed from the being in the Mosaic covenant by dieing in baptism (Rom 6:4, Col 2:12) to enter the new covenant see Rom 7:1-6, which is a better covenant, e.g.,  God commandments are written on one’s heart and not just stone or paper.

Yes, faith and trust are implied in the Hebrew and Greek, it is English that makes them seem different, but it is good to point out what it means Biblically.

On sexual immorality, see 1 Cor 5:1.  There was a concept among pagans about sexual immorality, but it was not the same as the Jewish concept.  The Jews are asking to meet the commandments of the Jewish understanding.  Recall that some gentiles might be new believers.  Paul teaches not to be immoral also.

Ryan & Don ,

I never remotely meant to imply that I am free of any moral constraints.  Murder, theft, adultery, and other sins, are universals that must not be engaged in under any circumstances, and Paul argues that even the heathen world has a conscience that bears this out (Romans 2).

The main gist of my comment earlier, was primarily a defense of women in ministry based on what I still see as a manifesto of freedom in Acts 15 for all people, whether 1st century Jew or 21st century gentile believer.  I also see this same manifesto, or at least a corollary of it in Galatians 3.

So far as church governance goes, I believe that what’s written in 1 Tim. are nice suggestions, but they are by no means written on stone tablets and absolutely binding.  Some churches follow the autocratic Moses model, while still others opt for a representative checks and balances approach.  E.W. Bullinger (hardly a liberal theologian) had this to say:

3. To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical, kind”.  These directions afford no warrant whatever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today (Bullinger 1799).

Source: Bullinger’s  Companion Bible , first printing 1922.

‘dont bother to ever respond on that blog. they ban others from their forum. who cares what they think? she is obsessed.’
I agree. And what is this person(s) obsessed with? They are obssessed with accusing, and showing anger and hatred, beyond strange or weird. To me, they are definately ‘out there’ and no, not just because they are an accusser or full of anger to tear down or apart. I would just sum up their ‘blog’ being full of accusations and hate. Woah, that’s christian? What’s christian that is over there ( I read a bit of it)? Nothing at all. It’s directionas on how to repel that which is holy.

{Note Cheryl edited out the calling of a name just to keep this blog on a higher level than the one we are talking about}

I agree the gospel gives freedom and this is more than just freedom from being a slave to sin, it means choices and is one of the principles of the Kingdom.

I have the Companion Bible and it has many insights I like.

Gal 3 is the most egal statement for centuries, it was quiet unprecedented, no wild Greek philosopher went that far.

I agree the Bible does not discuss big church hierarchies, I prefer rule at a local church myself.

Acts 15 has a specific context, given in v. 1 and it is important to understand the whole chapter in that context.  It does not talk about Jews, only gentiles.

Today is the day. Cheryl has shown immense courage and her faith is an outstanding example to all.  I know that our prayers and thoughts are with her today.

I read a fair bit of that blog and all I can say is there’s not much evidence there of the fruit of the Spirit.  What I do see is a contemptuous attitude comparable to the ones shown to Don on the Touchstone site.
Matthew 5:21-22 (You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment’. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council.)
Gill’s Expositor says that ‘raca’, “is expressive of indignation and contempt … and denotes a worthless, empty headed man; a man of no brains; a foolish, witless, fellow”.

(Doofus, anyone?  Sanctimonious cretin?  On your blog sweetie?  Completely clueless?  AIRHEAD?  Just “plain stupid”?)
What Jesus is saying in verse 22 indicates that those who are angry with another person without cause are in danger of the judgement, i.e., will be condemned as murderers by God (because those who did not kill with their own hands were left to the judgement of God) but those who treat others contemptuously shall be condemned as murderers by human judges, (i.e., in Jesus’ day, the sanhedrin).  I presume that’s because whereas anger is in the heart and can only be seen by God, treating another person with contempt is something that can be witnessed and testified to by other human beings.
Now it’s all very well and ordinary to get upset with other people.  What matters is how you respond.  This person’s response is so sub-Christian that it can’t be regarded as Christian at all.  That’s not a good position to be in if you want to take the high moral ground.
I think the best thing we can do is pray that s/he will learn how to respond lovingly to people with whom s/he disagrees.

May the Spirit act mightily at this meeting.

But… but… but…

What about the way he treated you? About calling you a heretic and all?

He refuses to admit that a person cannot be a heretic on a secondary issue of faith when the secondary issue is also accepted as orthodox in the church.  He states that any church that accepts women in ministry is also heretic.

Well, I can’t say I’m at all surprised, but I had hoped for a miracle, that he would be “broken” and “remember the height from which [he had] fallen.”

Either way, though, you can finally put this behind you (hopefully!).

Can you tell us of the impressions your pastor had after the meeting?

…And yes, I can put this behind me now.

Cheryl you must be exhausted after your trip, thank you for updating us.
Himself knows who does and who does not show Love to his neighbour. No-one could have tried harder or shown more reason. You have ‘taken the horses to water’ but you could not ‘make them drink’ and thus you have no choice but to walk away and leave them to their self inflicted fate.

I think a heretic was originally one who differed from the accepted and Pope authored doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. Thus a protestant is considered a heretic. Thus Luther was considered a heretic … but only by the Catholic church

Those who think they are the ones to establish the acceptable doctrines for the body of Christ in general, are then making themselves the Popes of the church in general with full rights to call anyone who disagrees with them a heretic. Of course this is ludicrous, arrogant and divisive.

An individual denomination can, if they wish to be popish, decide what the acceptable doctrines are for their denomination. Anyone of their denomination who did not accept them could be called a heretic and ostracized. But it would be improper to call those of other denominations a heretic since they are outside the ‘authority’ of that denomination. However, most churches today recognize that with so many denominations, it is foolish to think non salvic and debatable subjects can be required beliefs to hold over all Christians. Who is to decide? Christ has already decided what is required for salvation. We are foolish to go beyond that.

And welcome back Cheryl.

Really that was an acceptable outcome of the meeting. Miracles do not always happen when or how we would like them to happen.  And it surely will take a miracle for them to see things differently.

{Cheryl edit to remove names that would identify a ministry}

“Who would then decide which is the “orthodox” position on each non-essential?  Seems to me that this would make everyone a “heretic” in someone’s eyes. Who would then decide which is the “orthodox” position on each non-essential?  Seems to me that this would make everyone a “heretic” in someone’s eyes. ”

Well, this is exactly what we have seen in history even from the Reformed church that decided Ana Baptists were heretics for re-baptizing and refusing to allow their babies to be baptized. This thinking on non essentials is dangerous. Even the Reformed church burned these ‘baptizing heretics’ at the stake.

I am very glad you can put this behind you. It would be interesting to hear where you think you are in the Matthew 18 process in this particular situation. But, I understand if you would rather not speak of it. :o)

Cheryl,

I am glad you can put this behind you.

As a matter of looking to the greater good I have already taken off several comments on this blog. I do not have time for disputing over words and if those who mock and attack have an issue with me, they can contact me directly through email.

I am appealing to God as my Advocate.  He will make things right in his own time.

If those who are mocking and attacking would like to continue the attack, they will be the ones to answer to God. I will not let their mud-slinging come this way. The motives of their hearts will be seen by all by their own words whether for good or for bad. God will be the judge.

tiro #37,

Good thoughts.  The only real purpose of calling someone a heretic is to divide from them.  The body of Christ doesn’t need anymore divisions.

How helpful would it be to have church after church and Christian after Christian calling their brothers and sisters in Christ as “heretics in this one area”.  We need to keep the term heretic and heresy in its proper biblical context.  A true heretic needs to be warned and then if unrepentant separated from.  Separation is a cleansing thing for the church.  Separation over non-essentials isn’t cleansing but is harming the church.  When we hold our view as more important to protect than we hold and protect a fellow brother in Christ, we have fallen from love.  Anyone who wants to do ministry outside of love is not walking in the true wisdom of the word.  It is only love that covers over the offense of the sin.  Without that love we are not being obedient to Christ.

Oh dear me – have you seen the latest on that silly blog? Rude comments about someone’s appearance, questioning whether they are male or female. Rude comments about someone’s mental condition and questions about their medication (well we all know who claims to be the expert on psychiatry). People lifting our ‘names’ to post so that they can disguise their own identity- there’s now a ‘Paul’ and a ‘Norah Nutty’ on there. People demanding husbands phones numbers so that they can ring them up and order them to discipline their wife. Do they want my husbands phone number or are they too mean to phone international, and they would only get laughed at if they did- and I suggest others give the same reaction. Threats to go to newspapers. We must be on the right track – nothing else would scare them so much. They even deleted a CARM thread which asked about the Christian values of peopple who created such anonymous blogs.

I refuse henceforth to give them any more of the attention they crave. Let them pile up sins for which God will judge them. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

While I had originally decided to remove this post, it is imperative that people be warned about those who mock Christians and impersonate others are merely trying to draw attention to themselves. Private sins are to be repented of to the persons involved. Public sins are to be exposed publicly. Those who mock and rip at the sheep will one day stand before the judge of all.

This is it. Here draws the line in the sand. They will get no further attention from us.

______________________________________________

We are moving on to more positive things and leaving those who drain us behind.

Just a couple of my thoughts on this:

1. For a woman who runs a significant portion of an online ministry to preach against women teaching is rather hypocritical. When I once brought this up, the excuses made by both her and her boss were of such an irrational nature that there seemed to be little point in even discussing the issue.
2. As Paula hinted at, the purpose of any online ministry should be to draw in the lost. Unfortunately, many “ministries” instead serve to push people further away from Christ – the focus is on “defending biblical truth” rather than reaching the lost. If the bible is truly God’s word to us, as I believe it is, it can take care of defending itself; I’d much rather focus on following its teachings instead.

There seems to be some sort of excuse for this along the lines of the ‘rules’ only apply to a church, as in a physical building that is called a church. As far as I am aware, buildings that could be regarded as Christian churches did  not exist when the Bible was written. I have always regarded the word ‘church’ to have a much broader meaning, along the lines of ‘where two or more are gathered together in His name’ and the word church is then applicable to a house, a beach, a mountain top, a website etc. etc. So, IMO it is illogical to say its OK for women to teach men on a website but not in a building called a church. If two or more Christians are gathered together on a website to talk about and praise the Lord, then it is most certainly a church. The fact that the website is categorised as a non profit making charitable business in the same way that a ‘church’ is, rather bears that out.

Jimmie,

I agree with you that it seems very odd for a woman in ministry teaching men in a non profit organization and having authority over men in this organization on the discussion board would be fighting so passionately against women in ministry outside of her little in-house kingdom.

I listened to Lee Grady give a speech once where he talked about this same kind of situation.  He had preached on women’s ability to serve in the church using their gifts for the benefit of men.  He was preaching a message of freedom from the scriptures, but his message had an opposite reaction with many of the women.  They were cold and angry at him preaching such a message.  He said that the women were more against him than the men were.  Why is this?  If I remember his words right, he came to understand hat the women were offended because the thought of freeing women to do what they were forbidden to do because of their own personal circumstances, caused them to feel jealous.  And the men were fearful of having some “special” rights taken away from them.  So his understanding of the strong reaction is that it is a combination of fear and jealousy.

I am seeing this fear come to life in what has been written about me.  Why would someone be so afraid of my bible teaching that I have become enemy number one to the church?  Why is a particular person so afraid to admit that they have watched my DVD series?  I don’t have answers to these questions but I do tend to agree with Lee Grady.  Men who are godly men and have a confidence in their calling and gifting by God do not need to fear Christian women.  Those who refuse to look at the evidence or who have looked at the evidence but are afraid to admit they have looked, and who hide in their own little corner content to slander and tell half-truth lies are not real men.  Real men stick up for their sisters in Christ.  Real men are willing to humble themselves and serve a sister in Christ and they will open doors for her to serve instead of shutting doors in her face.  Real men live for Jesus instead of living to protect their own name.

I thank God that there are many real men in the Church.  I have met many of them here on this blog.

Elizabeth,

It is true that a recognized church and a non-profit organization operate under the same charitable rules.  For one to say that their “ministry” isn’t “in” a church so they can teach men and take an authority over men against the will of these men is obviously a view that is suspect.  Also for those who follow CBMW who say that God created women to be helpers and not leaders of men, one would have to understand that a “ministry” inside or outside the church when one is teaching spiritual matters and taking authority over men, would not be allowed.  It is an arm of the church.  A church is not defined by how many elders one has or whether there is a set pattern of worship.  A church is a gathering of two or more believers who have come to serve one another with their spiritual gifts.  Churches met in homes in the NT time.  The Church does not have walls.  It has people.