202 comments on “Pastor Gabriel Hughes and His Rude Tweet

  1. Since you’re “just leaving this here for discussion”, I will contribute and say that I completely agree with Pastor Gabe’s comment. I say this to prove that not all women think his statement is rude.

    Like

  2. I say this to prove that not all women think his statement is rude.

    I suspect it is because you do not identify as a ‘feminist’ and have decided he’s talking about all those other bad women, but that’s just a guess…

    Like

  3. I hope you will understand that I am busy, and it’s simply not realistic for me to read through these comments and try to respond to them (those that actually want a response, not solely to belittle). If you would like to visit with me further, desire clarification, or offer a kind correction, I am easy to reach. My e-mail is pastorgabehughes at gmail. Thank you!

    Like

  4. Hi Gabe,

    Conversation is a two way street. It’s becoming more obvious that you want to do all the talking but none of the listening. Sorry pal, but that doesn’t work in the real world.

    The truth is that you’re too scared to actually debate us on this issue. That’s why you silenced Julie Anne on twitter. That’s why you keep refusing to answer our questions, even though you’ve actually do read all our comments. Gabe really does have time for this—he’s just scared of real conversation because he doesn’t want to listen.

    Now let’s have the discussion that Gabe is afraid of. He’s welcome to join anytime.

    First of all there’s no male or female pronouns in all the NT verses on pastoring. God NEVER limited the pastoring gift to men. Yet Gabriel can’t accept that because he wants to feel superior to women just because God made him with different parts. Time to let go of your pride, Gabe. Women really do want to obey God. Don’t revile us with that false accusation. In fact, before Gabe can “correct” us, he first needs to correct himself for the sin of reviling.

    1Timothy 3 is talking about BOTH men and women in church leadership. Bible translators altered it to sound like the wives of the church leaders. That’s not what Paul wrote!

    Paul tells the church to accept and even help women in ministry in Phil 4:3. Yet today is the church helping or hindering women?

    1Cor 14 Paul was answering their question on whether women could speak in the church. They wanted women silent, Paul responds with an explosion in ver 36. There’s Greek punctuation that shows Paul was going WHAT???? Do you really think that God only speaks through the men? Nope.

    Paul encouraged women to speak and even TEACH in church in 1Cor 14:26-31. Then Paul deals with the objection that they don’t want women talking. Paul makes it clear that God actually does speak through both women and men.

    Secondly, the Apostle Paul actually encouraged women to speak in church and even (GASP) TEACH MEN!!!! Paul applauded Junia the female apostle and sent Phoebe the female deacon—same word the NT uses to describe male deacons. Funny how Bible translators try to change that.

    The Bible has over one hundred verses telling women to speak up, yet Gabe throws all that out the window to try to justify his stupid opinions that try to discredit and silence women.

    I can keep going—making this case with more and more. However, it’s time for Gabe to do his homework. Here’s some great books written by men, since Gabe doesn’t believe he can learn anything from women! 🙂

    Read the books:
    Women Deacons in the Early Church by John Wijngaards
    Hidden History of Women’s Ordination by Gary Macy
    Man and Women One in Christ by Philip Payne
    Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy by Gordon Fee

    The truth is that women really do want to serve God—but that isn’t happening because of all the stubborn people that keep putting road blocks in their way.

    God isn’t going to stop giving spiritual gifts to women just because Gabe doesn’t want them to have them. God doesn’t need to ask Gabe’s permission! But Gabe will have to answer to God for hindering and blocking the call of God on people’s lives.

    So Gabe how long are you going to resist the Holy Spirit?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. @Gabe: “or offer a kind correction”

    Would you say that “They all want that no one, including God, tell them what they can or can’t do” is a kind correction?

    It sounds like “hasty generalization” and “poisoning the well”. You are using a rhetorical trick to first generalize all women who disagree with you on that issue as ‘feminists’ and then claim that they are not even believers.

    I’m probably a “feminist” by your definition, and I found that there was a huge disconnect between complementarian talk and complementarian action. I finally was able to see that the definitions and translations chosen by complementarians drive theology into the Bible rather than letting the Bible driving theology. As was mentioned above, the word “deacon” is translated “deacon” or “servant” based on presuppositions and theology of the interpreters, not based on the context.

    Like

  6. Gabe,

    Now it’s your turn to make your case for why you think all women are automatically disqualified from these spiritual giftings. Prove your own points.

    Like

  7. Mark,

    Great points.

    After years and years of heavy research what I’ve found was that the root of this theology is selfishness and pride. They are rebelling against God’s command to humble themselves and prefer one another in love.

    Like

  8. I left this in the other thread but it seemed appropriate:

    No man is good enough to govern any woman without her consent. Susan B. Anthony

    Like

  9. Gabe,

    The Bible makes it very clear that the devil is the rebellious one. Don’t fall for the lie from the accuser of the brethren that falsely accuses women of what the devil actually did.

    Like

  10. According to history, Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were both inspired by Angelica Grimke.

    Grimke was the fourteen year southern belle who boldly stood before the whole church board in the early 1800s telling them to repent for being slaveholders.

    The pastor replied—how can all of us be wrong and you be right? So to put that quote in historical context—the women’s suffrage movement was birthed by Christian women fighting for emancipation and being silenced because they were women.

    I could write a whole book on how the same arguments used today were also used to keep women out of the pulpit in the 1800s because they were preaching against slavery and some very powerful people were trying to silence them by saying women couldn’t be in the pulpit.

    So the women fought back by showing how women have just as much responsibility to obey God as men. That’s what birthed the suffrage movement and gave women the right to vote today.

    Like

  11. The pastor replied—how can all of us be wrong and you be right?

    Because right and wrong is not a question of popularity.

    Like

  12. Misogyny is the act of correcting women who fail to give men what men believe they’re due, says @kate_manne

    They key is: what they (men) believe. Gabe isn’t saying anything Biblical. He’s speaking out of his own belief system that women are inferior to men.

    The idea that Gabe presumes to speak for feminists if laughable. When these (YRR) guys talk about feminists, they are talking about extreme feminists. They don’t give credence to: women being able to vote, women being able to get a credit card, women being able to buy a home, women being paid the same as men for doing the same work, etc.

    The issue here is respect. Gabe is disrespectful to women in his tweet. He is intentionally trying to shame and put down a particular group he feels threatened by. His behavior is not Christ-like. It’s rude.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Gabriel Hughes said (and his Tweet identifies him as “Pastor Gabe“),

    Hardly any feminists who argue that women can be pastors actually want to be pastors themselves.
    They all want that no one, including God, tell them what they can or can’t do

    Gabriel needs to realize that some conservatives reject complementarianism (or female subordination, or whatever he terms his views on these matters).

    I am a conservative and I do not identify with the term “feminist” (apologies to those of you who do, but the word tends to be associated in the minds of most conservatives as meaning “pro abortion,” “Democrat voter,” etc, and that’s just not me).

    I’m a conservative, I don’t go by the term or label “feminist,” but I rejected views such as Hughes years ago. My family raised me to be and believe in gender complementarianism, but I no longer agree with that view.

    I have never had any desire to be a preacher, yet I recognize that the Bible has been misapplied and misinterpreted by guys such as Hughes for years to treat women unfairly, including to bar women from certain ministry positions.

    The fact that I don’t want to be a preacher myself actually works in my favor, as it does all those feminists Hughes dislikes. It’s more difficult for Hughes to argue that I’m arguing that ‘women should be preachers because I want to be one myself’ when I have no such aspirations.

    I don’t have a dog in this race, except in so far as that I am opposed to sexism, on people such as Hughes rejecting women applicants to a position based solely on their biological sex.

    Hughes, though, clearly has an ax to grind, he does have a horse in this race. Hughes wants all pastoral or influential or authoritative positions in a church to belong to men only, so of course he wants to insist that the Bible says that women cannot or should not be preachers.

    Gabe is a pastor, his Twitter handle says. He has an ulterior motive – based partly on sexism, I believe, but also not wanting more competition for any pastoral positions from women.

    Hughes said, “They all want that no one, including God, tell them what they can or can’t do”

    Why, Hughes, do you want to tell women what they can and cannot do? Jesus said in the Bible that for you to be the greatest above all, you must make yourself servant. Jesus also told you not to seek authority over others.

    God is not interested in forcing people to do or not do certain things. God respects people’s choices and boundaries.

    (This does not mean God likes every choice people makes but he grants people the free will to do what it is they choose to do. God does not, at least in the New Testament and beyond era, force anyone to follow him or do things.)

    Why are you framing the very healthy behavior of respecting other people’s choices as being wrong?

    No, Gabe Hughes, you cannot tell me what to do or not to do. And that must drive you crazy. You want to control people and boss them around.

    By the way, you would probably benefit greatly from reading the book by Christian psychiatrists Cloud and Townsend called ‘Boundaries.’

    _Boundaries: When to Say Yes, when to Say No to Take Control of Your Life_ (on Google Books)

    Like

  14. Why, Hughes, do you want to tell women what they can and cannot do?

    He absolutely does and it comes through loud and clear in his tweet. And if you, a woman, decide to pass on that, he will accuse you of hating God. Very reasonable.

    I read an article by somebody…Keller maybe? Anyway he’s one of the ‘soft’ comps, but he went into this whole thing about how women are too biased in favor of themselves to have a reasonable opinion about this stuff – while sort of kind of acknowledging that men also have a ‘bias’ but that doesn’t actually matter.

    Like

  15. Julie Anne said,

    The idea that Gabe presumes to speak for feminists if laughable. When these (YRR) guys talk about feminists, they are talking about extreme feminists.

    This one drives me nuts. I’ve done a few blog posts on my Daisy blog addressing this.

    I am a right winger, so no, I don’t agree with left wingers on everything, and that would include some of the things liberal feminists say.

    BUT, I do actually take time to read some of the things liberals or feminists say (on their own sites and forums) and I give them a fair shake.

    Some of what feminists say on some subjects makes sense.

    Unfortunately, many other conservatives don’t bother to try to understand what feminists are saying, but prefer to caricaturize all of them, or, they get their understanding of feminism through right wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, who tend to distort or misunderstand what feminists mean.

    I do think at times that such conservative commentators unfairly misrepresent feminists, ~OR~, they choose to focus on the extreme wack-a-doodles among them, so, they are trying to make the entire group or view point look nuts, which is not fair.

    (Sometimes liberals do this to conservatives as well – they will focus on only the biggest kooks among the right wingers, or they get all their info about conservatives via liberal sites or via liberal celebrities. This is a problem that both sides have.)

    There are some liberals or feminists who are pretty bad, intolerant, or kooky, but not all of them are like that.
    However, guys such as Hughes keep making broad assumptions about all feminists or all of feminism, such as, assuming they all hate men, that all feminists hate the nuclear family, and all or most of them want to have a matriarchy where they ‘rule’ over men. These are common tropes among conservatives about feminists.

    Like

  16. Lea said,

    He absolutely does and it comes through loud and clear in his tweet. And if you, a woman, decide to pass on that, he will accuse you of hating God. Very reasonable.

    I read an article by somebody…Keller maybe? Anyway he’s one of the ‘soft’ comps, but he went into this whole thing about how women are too biased in favor of themselves to have a reasonable opinion about this stuff – while sort of kind of acknowledging that men also have a ‘bias’ but that doesn’t actually matter.

    Yes the hypocrisy is really clear and out there.

    Hughes wants to control everything that women say or do, or if they can or cannot be a church preacher, but then wants to say that women (or feminists), don’t want God (or anyone) telling them what they can or cannot do. Perhaps he thinks of himself as God.

    I don’t agree with Hughes that the Bible calls for unlimited, endless female subordination in church (or in marriage or anywhere else). But he really wants and needs to believe that because HE wants to control women.

    Notice the one part of the Bible, like in Ephesians 5, the writer of the text (Paul) asks women to submit to their husbands.

    No where does the Bible say, “Pastors and Christian men, you may DEMAND submission from women. I, God, want you, the men, to order and boss women around, and yell and stamp your feet about this issue, and tell women they MUST submit to men.”

    No.
    The one or two places where female submission is discussed in the Bible in the NT, the submission is being direct AT THE WOMEN themselves, and asking them to do it; it’s not demanding women submit to husbands.

    I don’t share the complementarian understanding of these ‘submissio’n verses, but whether you grant the complementarians their interpretation of those passages or not, it remains that it’s not Pastor Gabe’s place to demand submission from women, or ask them to submit or defer to men.

    Those verses ask women, makes a request of the women. It’s not written in such a way suggesting that deference is something men may demand, command, and order of women.
    (continued in part 2)

    Like

  17. Part 2.
    Lea said,

    I read an article by somebody…Keller maybe? Anyway he’s one of the ‘soft’ comps, but he went into this whole thing about how women are too biased in favor of themselves to have a reasonable opinion about this stuff – while sort of kind of acknowledging that men also have a ‘bias’ but that doesn’t actually matter.

    This would be like white, American Christians in 1847 telling black slaves in the south that they are not objective about the slavery issue.

    Ergo (going by that view), black people should keep out of white Christian debates on whether or not God is fine with 19th century white Americans owning black people as slaves.

    No matter that yes, slavery directly impacted black people themselves, and understandably, they would object to being held and treated like property, but –

    According to men such as Gabe Hughes or Keller(?), if we were using their logic here that they use about women in the church, black people are too dang close to the topic
    to be impartial on that subject, so they should just shut up and let the white people debate it.

    Gabe and Keller and other such men are doing the same thing with the topic of gender roles.

    And yep, Gabe and Keller and other complementarians are not unbiased in the gender role debate.

    Their gender role beliefs tell them they are ‘Top Dog’ and can treat another entire group of people (i.e, women) like servants at their beck of call, so of course, they are thrilled with the status quo.

    These gender role views mainly benefit men, more so than women, so of course, such men want to argue to keep it in place. But they like to say the affected group, who is treated unfairly, should not and cannot speak up and dispute any of this, because the fact we women are treated like garbage in this system makes us “too biased.”

    Like

  18. Vs 22 of Ephesians 5 is a continuation of verse 21 which says we are to submit to one another. That means husbands are to submit to wives, too. It’s mutual submission. Just like we submit to Christ and he laid down His life for us (the church). There is only one verb between verse 21 and 22 – that tells you they are part of the same thought. Comps love to say that vs 22 begins a new section on marriage. Not so!

    Like

  19. Julie Anne said,

    Vs 22 of Ephesians 5 is a continuation of verse 21 which says we are to submit to one another. That means husbands are to submit to wives, too.

    It’s mutual submission.

    Just like we submit to Christ and he laid down His life for us (the church). There is only one verb between verse 21 and 22 – that tells you they are part of the same thought.

    Comps love to say that vs 22 begins a new section on marriage. Not so!

    Oh, I know, believe me. I pointed that out to a comp guy (who I call “Flag Ken”) at Dee’s blog over a year ago (that the verse right before calls for mutual submission).

    However, he kept saying that ‘submit to one another’ did not apply to Christian husbands, even though the text does not omit husbands.

    That was coming from someone who says he takes the Bible literally, and he said that my pointing out the cultural context to his favorite cherry picked complementarian verses (to show him that that verse was not applicable to contemporary American readers) was a “liberal practice.”

    (Later, he quoted from extra-biblical sources himself to prove one of his points, but I guess that is not “liberal,” and hence acceptable, since it supported his perspective, LOL.)

    That slays me about complementarians. They claim that non-comps play fast and loose with the Scripture, that we allow culture to color how we read it, etc, but they do those very things themselves!

    Some of them do deny that the Bible calls for mutual submission.
    That argument was addressed here:
    MUTUAL SUBMISSION IS NOT A MYTH (on Marg Mowczko’sd blog)

    Liked by 1 person

  20. However, he kept saying that ‘submit to one another’ did not apply to Christian husbands, even though the text does not omit husbands.

    Even if this were true, the mere fact that we are told to submit to each other’s means that submission is nothing like this obey at all costs nonsense that is pushed. It obviously includes a lot of discretion.

    Like

  21. Any dude who is so concerned about women submitting has control issues.

    Huge red flag. Yep.

    What people focus on, with so many options, tells you a lot about them.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Sorry folks, but I’m still caught up with the term “feminism.” Exactly WHO coined the term “feminism” in the first place….who defined it…..who shaped it……and WHO is using the term for their advantage to divide, conquer, and destroy?

    Seriously, when all else fails in a pseudo Christian debate, argument, or conflict of interest, the words “feminist” and “jezebel” are speared at the target like vengeance, hoping to silence the wise counsel of another believer. For the love of our LORD, I just can’t wrap my mind around this one word, feminist, because of all of the wonderful verses in the Word of God, in which Jesus actually values both women and men alike…..as in “sheep.”

    The word “sheep” doesn’t indicate a male or female believers, but encompasses both genders, with Him being the One and Only true shepherd for all time. I just shake my head at pastors who focus on the word “feminist,” then twist the Scriptures to beat up women, hoping they will gain a large feminine following to boost their distorted egos. Perhaps their coffers are full to overflowing with “tithes and offerings” on a Sunday morn when they speak on “feminism and the c’hurch, so they have experienced huge ratings in the religious gender bender sermon series. More money equals more and more pseudo religious gender sermons, designed to make “little gods” out of mice and men.

    I suppose if I grew up in an environment where I didn’t have to pitch manure (along with the bloody blisters from the shovel) with my brother growing up on a small farm, I would completely understand the feminism thing. Or after marriage, working like a man (I also had to assist in training and working alongside our temporarily hired men, and they LISTENED to my instruction…a horrible and unspeakable feminist am I) on our farm due to the heavy work load. If this woman didn’t do it, the work wouldn’t get done on time, it’s a fact of this life.

    It’s called “work.” The false church has become so consumed with this gender thing because of fear. And to the shame of those who perceive themselves as “leaders within the visible church,” faith in Jesus Christ has been replaced with faith, trust, and hope in man to have the answer to all of life’s issues. Replacement theology so to speak, and it stinks worse than that manure I pitched in my youth. Is it possible religious men, not men of faith in Christ alone for salvation, have a difficult time seeing women share the Gospel with adults of both genders?

    Are women really that hopeless and helpless?

    Like

  23. Katy,

    Great points. Yes, the word Jezebel is used to label(silence) any woman who has an opinion or tries to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. Funny thing no one ever bothers to mention is that the real Jezebel in the Bible was actually supportive of her husband.

    Like

  24. Some of them do deny that the Bible calls for mutual submission.
    That argument was addressed here:
    MUTUAL SUBMISSION IS NOT A MYTH (on Marg Mowczko’sd blog)

    All credit to Marg for attempting to defend the idea of mutual submission. I read her piece, but don’t think she proves her point. I also appreciated she did not make this personal against Grudem.

    I have tried discussing this in good faith at various times and places with those espousing the egalitarian view, but they either simply beg the question by repeating Eph 5 : 21 (sometimes almost mantra like), or refuse to publish the arguments against the mutual understanding, or say ‘we’ll have to agree to disagree’ about this, which isn’t particularly helpful.

    I’ve given up, coming to the conclusion this is an irrationally held belief, or, if not quite that, a belief driven by something else other than what the text actually says.

    Like

  25. KAS,

    Have you had a chance to read those books that I asked you to read?

    After years of heavy research, I’ve read literally all the leading Comp books and arguments on this subject. It really boils down to double standards where they want to define the same Greek word two different ways. They keep changing the meaning of words to dodge what the Bible actually says.

    No one ever wants to talk about how verses like 1Peter 5:5 actually tell men to submit. The Comp books scream in protest at that!

    God gives the exact same command to both men and women. So why do Comp books claim that they are exempt from God’s command to submit just because God made them with male parts?

    KAS, it sounds like you have a lot going on right now. But if you ever have time to read those books, then we can have the honest discussion you’ve requested.

    Like

  26. I’ve given up, coming to the conclusion this is an irrationally held belief

    I suppose men’s belief that they should be able to control their wives is entirely rational…

    I am going to happily agree to disagree with anyone who would keep women as subordinates in life.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. KAS, keep in mind that the church argued for centuries whether James was part of the Bible, because James says this about faith,

    What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

    The final solution came was when there was broad understanding that James meant something different by faith than, say, Peter or Paul did, but it took centuries to reconcile that, for James, faith was “intellectual assent”.

    So, it is intriguing how easily the word ‘submit’ is dismissed when we are told to submit to each other, and yet becomes the cornerstone of our relationship to husbands and leaders. Because, if we hold that we ought to ‘submit’ to each other in the same way that we ‘submit’ to leaders, then it means the word submit is not as strong as the complementarians want to make it. There is nothing that suggests that word has a different meaning, except for a presupposition of patriarchy that those people, who desire slavish obedience, bring to the Bible. Where do you see Jesus living out the complementarian vision of authority? Does he say, “obey because I am GAWD!” Or do the disciples obey him because “only you have words of eternal life”?

    Like

  28. Mark,

    Exactly. That’s what most of the Comp books do. They keep saying the Bible really doesn’t mean what it says when it tells men to submit.

    They keep giving themselves exemptions to disobey God’s command. Their favorite words are that they don’t have to submit in “the same way” because apparently the Greek word Hypotasso gives them a get out of jail free card. But of course it means absolute eternal subordination for everyone else!

    Like

  29. KAS,

    There’s a reason that I’ve spent so many years reading so many books on this subject. I’m the type of person who does a crazy amount of research before making a decision.

    We don’t just wake up one morning and decide our theology. Our theology comes from years of heavy research and walking with the Lord and the strong desire to obey God.

    That’s why it’s so insulting when people who are too lazy to do as much research as we do, (Gabe Hughes) falsely accuse us of jumping to conclusions. Nope. We’ve done our homework to “study to show ourselves approved unto God.” Time for people like Gabe to catch up on research.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. I think they don’t research because of the power it gives them. Why would they want to research it if it means they might have to lose that power? Ignorance is bliss for them. Not so much for the women left belittled, depersonalized.

    Like

  31. Because, if we hold that we ought to ‘submit’ to each other in the same way that we ‘submit’ to leaders, then it means the word submit is not as strong as the complementarians want to make it.

    I have said this many times. If we submit to each other, obviously this is not mindless obedience. That would be stupid.

    Like

  32. If I had a dime for every time I heard, “well, on the surface it sounds like this, but what the passage really means is…” in complementarian sermons, I’d be much better off.

    It’s interesting that the problem with being a Pharisee in Evangelical circles has never been about control, manipulation and spiritual abuse, but always about salvation by works, as if that’s the only problem the Pharisees. And… to compound it, the answer to not being a Pharisee isn’t about not being a slave to works, but about being a ‘saved’ slave to works.

    Like

  33. Mark said “And … to compound it, the answer to not being a Pharisee isn’t about not being a slave to works, but about being a ‘saved’ slave to works.”

    Amen to that one Mark! So much for the freedom and liberty in Christ Jesus….oh no….must not have none of that, for the reality of this true doesn’t stroke the egos of those whom love the praise, adoration, and the power elite within the c’hurch.

    I remember, vividly, how our sheep on the farm did NOT care which gender fed them their daily “meals,” they just accepted the hand that fed them. No questions asked.

    Like

  34. Avid Reader KAS, it sounds like you have a lot going on right now

    I meant to get back to you on this. More perceptive than you might think!

    At 95 after a short illness over Christmas, my dad died on Jan 6th. That the end was getting near was becoming obvious in the last three weeks. At last the family got to see him, and I had a good time with him immediately after Christmas when I visited and he was still very with it.

    I’ll tell you something, at his funeral I said if you could sum up his life in one word it would be the word kind. He loved his neighbour as himself. At home as well.

    And what mattered was that he put his faith in Christ in 1943 in the bombing in London, and still had faith in Christ in 2018, when he went very peacefully and without fear. It’s what he wanted. It also means you can grieve, but not without hope. Takes away the sting. In fact you can even rejoice.

    Puts a lot of perspective on your views of who does what in marriage, predestination and freewill, or even the millenium, as if that’s what it is all about.

    He will be remembered for his good works and being a lovely man – though not without faults and mistakes like all of us – rather than particular doctrinal positions and arguments, even if these do have their place. People are remembered for their deeds rather than their words.

    Like

  35. KAS,

    Sorry to hear of your loss. Sounds like he touched many lives. Thank you for sharing those memories. Our thoughts and prayers are with your family during this difficult time. May the Holy Spirit comfort you and your family with the peace that passes all understanding.

    Like

  36. KAS,

    Thank-you for sharing the brief life of your Dad and I, too, am so sorry to learn of your loss. This statement you made is a beautiful online eulogy to your loved one;

    “I’ll tell you something, at his funeral I said if you could sum up his life in one word it would be the word kind. He loved his neighbor as himself. At home as well.”

    Brings me to tears. Just lovely.

    What a moving testimony to the faith of your Dad, KAS, and blessed be all the memories you share of him. Praying for you and your loved ones during this time of reflection.

    Like

  37. KAS

    Thank you for giving that wonderful ”kind” story about your Dad.

    So sorry for your loss.

    Wow…
    Put his Faith in Christ from 1943 to 2018.

    “In fact you can even rejoice.”

    Be blessed.

    Peace.

    Like

  38. Just to say thanks for the thoughts and prayers expressed above. It is really appreciated.

    It’s very easy to lose sight of the fact that despite differences of opinion that are often expressed here and in similar blogs, if we are trusting in Christ and honouring his word we have far more in common than the differences.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. About mutual submission.
    Written by a Bob Edwards on another site (I spaced out the URLs in his comments so they would not automatically be turned into links in this blog post):

    by Bob Edward:

    Trouble with Wayne Grudem’s understanding of Ephesians 5:21:

    Complementarian scholar Wayne Grudem does not believe that Ephesians 5:21 tells all Christians (male and female) that they should be “submitting one to another out of reverence for Christ.”

    He seems to think that only some Christians (women) should be “submitting” to other Christians (men).

    Wayne Grudem:
    “I think ‘some to others’ is a better understanding of Ephesians 5:21” (From his article entitled, “The Myth of Mutual Submission”).

    How does Mr. Grudem think the passage should read?

    “Be subject to others in the church who are in positions of authority over you” (Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, p. 46).

    Here’s what’s appears to be wrong with Mr. Grudem’s thinking:

    The Greek participle in Ephesians 5:21, “ὑποτασσόμενοι,” is plural, and in the middle voice.

    [The web site] Hellenisticgreek. com explains that this voice is used to describe “a group in which each member acts for the benefit of another member, in which case we call the usage reciprocal” (http:// hellenisticgreek .com/ 20.html).

    According to the Liddell, Scott, Jones Greek Lexicon, the next Greek word in Ephesians 5:21, ἀλλήλοις is literally defined as “to one another, one another; hence, mutually, reciprocally” (http:// www. perseus.tufts.edu/ hopper/morph).

    Does Ephesians 5:21 tell Christians, “Be subject to others in the church who are in positions of authority over you”?

    Is this verse meant to reinforce the alleged authority of men over women?
    No, not remotely.

    So then, what does this verse actually say?

    It tells us that everyone who is filled with the Holy Spirit of God (see Ephesians 5:18) will demonstrate this by “submitting one to another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21).

    In other words, all those who are filled with God’s Spirit will serve one another out of a heart of love and humility. Men are not exempt from this command, either in the church or in their homes.

    The apostle Paul encourages *all Christians* to demonstrate this attitude towards one another, as we follow the example of Jesus himself,

    “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
    Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Philippians 2:5-7)

    Mutual submission it not a myth. It simply appears to be something Mr. Grudem chooses not to practice, in spite of what the Bible teaches us in its original language.

    It would seem that he believes the tradition of “male authority” in the church is more important than the Bible’s actual commands.

    “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!” (Jesus Christ, to the religious leaders of his day, Mark 7:9)

    Like

  40. Just a question here for thought: “If complementarians take those verses concerning submission, sanctification, justification, and lordship out of context to prove the superiority of men verses women (the gender bender gospel), husbands over wives, male church authority over women, etc., then Jesus, no longer needs to be our personal Mediator between our Father, Who art in heaven, and us, believers in our One and Redeemer. Would that not be preaching and teaching “another jesus” then, instead of the One of our Holy Scriptures? Again, a type of replacement theology so to speak?

    If this “other jesus” becomes the head of any church organization, it becomes increasingly clear to me, why those “words to wound, kill and destroy”…..”you feminist, you jezebel, you rebel, you bitter and angry woman, you troublemaker, you reviler, you spiritual harlot, you spiritual nothing, you low life sheep…..become the cornerstone of the power broker elite……all spoken from the hearts of supreme authority who do not follow the greatest “servant” that ever walked this earth…..the real Jesus.

    It would have been deeply moving to have been a part of that upper room scene, where Jesus bent over and washed his disciples’ gross, dirty feet, as a pure act of submission. Does Wayne Grudem (whoever he is….not familiar with his name….ouch!) believe in the practice of serving people from a foot washing perspective…..or is he one of those important theologians who doesn’t really know the Jesus of our Holy Scriptures?

    Like

  41. Like

  42. Julie Anne,

    How does one define “theological kook?” I was called a “kook” at the Thanksgiving dinner table by a couple of churched folks (they hold positions of authority in their local institutional churches) when I stated that I no longer put my faith, hope, and final destination in the pastor or church leadership, but instead, choose to follow Jesus as my personal LORD and Savior.

    There was a theological gas, oops, I mean gasp in the room when I stated this….accompanied by the proverbial religious eye ball rolling syndrome….I see that phenom quite a bit in conservative churches who boast in knowing a jesus better than the rest of the denoms.

    So exactly what is a theological kook? Asked in love, not in hate, for the record.

    Like

  43. Katy – I think the archtpye theological kook that Gabe has in mind would be the likes of Rachel Held Evans, her commentariat and similiar bloggers (I could think of a name or two).

    Her variety of egalitariansm is leading her out of the faith – she doesn’t understand that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. This is obvious with her abandonment of Christian sex ethics, but also the idolatry of turning God into a mother figure, a goddess. Deceived and falling into transgression. You could argue all day whether this is an inevitable result of such egalitarianism, its logical out working, but it is a very real danger.

    The sad thing is that some who rightly oppose her influence (and similar bloggers) do so in such a snarky if not nasty way that you could hardly blame her for not listening (e.g. Pulpit and Pen).

    Like

  44. Thank-you KAS for your view. I’m not familiar with Rachel Held Evans, nor her teachings and have no desire to follow her for religious instruction.

    Regarding our Holy Scriptures for the truth, I grew up in a church environment where the Gospel was taught as the truth, the Way, and the life, not from a complementarian or an egalitarian perspective, so please forgive me when I struggle with the religious terminology of our day. I have so many questions and the answers that I am being fed, just do not line up with ways of Jesus, my LORD and Savior.

    And I never sat under a pulpit sermon in which the pastor discussed “men’s roles and women’s roles.” I grew up in a modest (our church was made up of mostly farmers, many of whom were struggling financially, so the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel would have been a total wash in our assembly) congregation in which both men and women had to pitch in to do the LORD’S work. At times the men would lead, and on other occasions, the women would lead……it wasn’t about “men vs. women” or “women vs. men,” our lives and our faith was about Jesus, and loving and serving one another as Christ commanded us to do.

    And yes, sure, there were a few “lord it over types,” both men and women within the congregation for every assembly has them. The wheat and the tares sit side by side within every church, and Scripture clearly tells us “and ye shall know them by their fruit.” So we must always be on guard, as the Bereans were in Acts, and test the spirits to show thyself approved, especially with regards as to exactly who the lordship belongs too. Exactly who receives the praise, the honor and the glory within the church structure….is it a man, or a woman, or is it our King, our Redeemer?

    I personally have always cherished our LORD’S prayer, for it states, “Our Father, Who are in heaven, hallowed be thy Name.” Exactly “whose” name should be hallowed with regards to our faith in Christ alone? I find it fascinating within the concept of modern Christianity, that a man or woman’s name is now to be “hallowed,” rather than our LORD. Again, a sort of replacement theology.

    The life saving Gospel message, of which both women and men, men and women, believers in Jesus Christ, are to share lovingly with the unbelievers around us, has been covertly sabotaged by another gospel, seeking to point souls after men and women of religion, instead of faith in our LORD and His teachings. And instead of giving Bibles to the folks with whom we share the Gospel, we are now instructed (by the church hierarchy) to pass out a “tract” or another man or woman’s penned book in place of the Scriptures ….another form of replacement theology. This due to the fact that we have relegated Scriptural understanding to the religious elite of our day…..giving them authority over our faith, whether a man or a woman.

    American religion has turned my LORD, my Redeemer, my Savior, and my King, Jesus Christ, into a complementarian or an egalitarian, men verses women, power and prestige over serving Christ with humility. Wow! And I have no doubt that given our modern language standards, the religious theologians of our day would have called Jesus (and John the Baptist for that matter)…….”theological kooks”….had they been walking this earth during the time of Christ.

    So at the end of the day, exactly “who” receives the praise, the honor, and the glory? Any human being…….or the One Who died on the tree and rose for thee?

    Jesus.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Katy

    Thank you
    That was wonderful to read this morning.
    xxxxxxx

    Yes…
    “…exactly “who” receives the praise, the honor, and the glory?”

    Like

  46. At times the men would lead, and on other occasions, the women would lead

    There is nothing in the bible that says only men should ‘lead’. If you have a proper understanding of what leadership actually, you would know that that is impossible anyway.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s