***
I’m just going to leave this here for discussion. I am very well aware that there are differences of opinion on women as pastors. But beyond that, what does his tweet say to you?
Finding resolve amidst the dissonance of "churchianity"
Finding resolve amidst the dissonance of "churchianity"
***
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Really, a whole chapter by Elizabeth Elliott??? Oh, that’s rich.
LikeLike
Katy – there are two sorts of feminists: the first want to be treated fairly, equal pay for equal work etc. No problem with that. The second are the more secular ideologues, basically revolving around the idea that whatever men can do, women should also be able to. The whole thing is centered on removing any distinction between men and women. Career rather than family, motherhood is even denigrated. When Christians start following this line of thinking, they start going into error.
Are all women considered “rebellious, troublemakers, and revilers in your eyes, according to your standards?”
I’ve not mentioned women being troublemakers or revilers, where are you getting this from? I’m not arguing for my standards, rather adherence to apostolic instructions, in particular Paul. The instructions in 1 Tim on ministry, male and female, are for the church – I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Since this concerns the will of God for his church, we ought to be very careful before consigning it to the past, irrespective of what modern, not exactly godly, culture embraces, let alone be in outright rebellion against it as is the habit of some.
In answer to your third question about receiving counsel from women in the church, the answer is an unqualified yes! I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent – providing that specific restriction is kept in the gathered church, everything else is allowed and should be encouraged. I’ve already said I don’t have a problem with women having a ministry. (Avid Reader – hope this answers your points as well.)
LikeLike
Mark,
Widows are the responsibility of their immediate family. If they don’t have any family then the people of God are asked to meet their needs.
Not a religious organisation. The people of God.
So if you have a neighbour who has no family and is elderly… would you palm them off to the local religious club OR would you serve them as that member of the Body who are called to help them?
I have heard of no religious organisation called a church that pays widows in its midst.
I’ve heard of plenty of pay ridiculous salaries to religious professionals though.
And we all know widows are a little more important that religious professionals in the heart and mind of God.
LikeLike
Excuse spelling errors. Haha. Baby brain.
LikeLike
I know we reserve some portion of the budget for church members in need – who is receiving it is not public knowledge.
Now, as then, many widows are actually wealthy women, comparatively speaking, and would not need help from church.
LikeLike
KAS,
God standards are over 100 hundred verses in the Bible telling women to speak up. That verse you keep referencing in 1Tim—Paul was dealing with false doctrine in Ephesus. What Paul actually wrote was:
“I don’t allow a woman to teach that women are the originator of man. For Adam was created first then Eve.”
Then Paul deals with the false doctrine that says Eve received some great revelation from the serpent. That’s why Paul mentions Eve being deceived.
So why do people keep making sweeping generalizations from one verse while ignoring whole passages that describe how God gives spiritual gifts to women?
By the way, that book Recovering Biblical Manhood—-that book is considered a reference manual by many pastors for proving Comp theology. If you ask them questions, they’ll tell you to read that book for the answers.
That’s why it’s so funny that they spend the whole book saying women can’t teach only to give Elizabeth Elliott a whole chapter to teach all these male pastors!
LikeLike
KAS,
And while we’re on the subject, it’s really insulting for Gabriel and you to minimize Our years of research by saying that we’re just a bunch of rebellious women.
The truth is that no matter how they try to slice it—Comp theology always takes away the ability of women to make their own choices. You can’t obey God if someone is making all your choices for you.
The whole reason why we spend all these hours in heavy research is because the women here really do have a heart for following the Lord. Comp theology was getting in the way of that.
Remember the devil is the rebellious one. No surprise that he’s behind all of this—always trying to blame women for being rebellious.
Take a step back and look at the Bible as a whole. How many times does the Bible tell us to do something? To fear not. To stand strong in the Lord. Etc. Etc.
Not once did the Bible ever tell us to allow someone else to make all our choices for us. That’s what Comp theology is after.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not to nitpick, KAS, but your ‘yes’ was not unqualified. In fact, you followed it up immediately with a caveat. And I quote, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent – providing that specific restriction is kept in the gathered church…”
So yours is actually a “qualified yes”, am I right? Or am I missing something?
LikeLike
Hi, Gabriel,
There’s much discussion which could be profitable if you wanted to say more than Wow. And there are things in your Jan 2 article with which I agree, such as that men and women should be complimenting one another.
But when you use the term “help-meet” hyphenated as if it’s one word and not “help meet” like the King James says, I think you may be un-meet to be a bishop– because you seem un-meet to teach. Then later you describe women as “helps” rather than “helpers”. Are you saying they all have the spiritual gift of “helps”?
LikeLike
The irony is that Gabriel, KAS, and Amos are all making the same Comp argument that denies the reality that God actually does give these spiritual gifts to women.
LikeLike
Salty, interesting that you don’t try to argue from scripture.
When you say “religious organization”, what do you mean? When the Bible says 5000 were added “to their number”, are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit simply gave Peter a running count of the number of believers, or do you think Peter was well aware of the number because those people needed discipling and they needed to figure out how to disciple ~10,000 believers.
Keep in mind, 10,000 believers who were participating in an illegal religion who could not meet in public.
In the same way you know of no religious organization that pays its widows, I know of no amorphous group of 10,000 believers living in a city that are being discipled, having their needs taken care of by rich benefactors and their poor and widows provided with daily sustenance without some form of organization, all the while contributing to explosive growth.
In fact, there was an organization. The apostles. When gifts were brought to the church, they were given to the apostles. The apostles then were in charge of the distribution of the gifts, and, in Acts 6, they realized that the church was too big for them to manage themselves, so what did they do? They created another layer of management – church leaders that were chosen to be responsible for the distribution of food to the widows.
LikeLike
KAS, “Katy – there are two sorts of feminists:”
This is a fallacy, called false dichotomy. There are more than two sorts of feminists. At a minimum, there is a third kind of “feminist” who believes that women should be allowed to enter fields that they are qualified for. That is a subtle difference from the “anything a man can do a woman can do”, and I believe that is much more typical of the ordinary feminist than what you are claiming.
I do believe there are feminists like that. They want women to serve on the front lines of battle, even though military exercises have demonstrated that mixed units are far less capable in these combat situations, mostly due to the heavy packs and the need to carry wounded soldiers out. So these feminists want to create different standards for men and women in the name of leveling the playing field.
But, I don’t think that is the story about women who feel called to ministry, for example. I think these women read and believe the scripture and they feel that the patriarchal translation and interpretation of scripture is in error and they are proposing that there are valid ways of interpreting the same scripture that lead to different conclusions.
This wouldn’t be the first time. Martin Luther had a different interpretation of scripture that led him to write the 95 theses. He was at odds with about 900 years of church interpretation of certain passages. Supposedly it was Pope Gregory I d. 604, who first formulated the salvation = faith + works.
LikeLike
Mark, the early believers in Acts met “from house to house”.
I’m no member of some religious organisation called ‘Church’ and somehow I managed to gather with other believers (which included older mature ‘elders’) for satisfying to ‘one another’ verses.
Somehow, without being a part of a religious organisation my other half and I were able to contribute financially to support a widow (unrelated) who will actually be living with us very shortly (through an incredible turn of events).
All of this without a club house.
Amazing eh?
How can we possible manage to fellowship with believers without a club house and a salaried religious facilitator with a Receptionist?
Amazing eh?
And yet here we are.
LikeLike
My argument isn’t that women should become ordained preachers, but the tweet is ridiculous as well as rude. Would Pastor Hughes be happy if a bunch of “feminist” women became preachers? I don’t think so. Egalitarianism and feminism are different belief systems too.
HUG, about your comment that Pastor Hughes is the king of a tiny church like the Westboro Baptist cult or a mega church, I’d guess it’s the former. Not a Joel Osteen feel good pop guru. More like he specializes in a niche catering to husbands anxious to enforce God’s will of wifely submission upon their spouses while conveniently ignoring anything He says to them!
LikeLike
I wish people would stop dragging this church/no church argument into every thread.
I absolutely think they can and should if they feel called. Women at all levels of church leadership is best for the church. I’ve seen too many bad examples to think otherwise.
LikeLike
Avid
For your information I am neither Comp nor Egal. 🙂
Where I fellowship in the Body of Christ…
There is neither Male nor Female…
Male and Female are “ONE.”
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is NEITHER male NOR female:
for ye are ALL “ONE” in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
xxxxxxx
Does this verse say male and female are equal?
NOPE…
Or does this verse say that male and female
have put down their “titles” and “identity”
with this world system and in Christ
male and female do NOT exist?
For as the body is “ONE”, and hath many members,
and all the members of that “ONE” body, being many,
are “ONE” body: so also is Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:12
That they all may be “ONE”; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be “ONE” in us:
that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 17:21
If you’re In Christ; is there male and female?
Or is there “ONE”?
And – Is “ONE” always a number?
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd – One Leader
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLiked by 1 person
Avid
I’m NO longer part of “Today’s Abusive Religious System.”
It is “Today’s Corrupt Religious System” that restricts women.
NOT “The Church of God,” His Ekklesia, His Body, His Church.
When you see a “Religious System,” that restricts women…
Do NOT give them money – Do NOT go there…
Where I live, and move, and have my being, in the Body of Christ…
When WE, His Sheep, His Kings and Priests, His Ambassadors…
His Ekklesia, His Called Out Ones, His Body, His Church…
His Friends, His Bride, His Servants, His Redeemed…
His Followers, His sons…
His Disciples…
When WE, His Sheep, His Body, Comes together…
ALL can, and are expected to “Participate.”
1 Cor 14:26 KJV
How is it then, brethren?
when ye come together,
every one of you
hath a psalm,
hath a doctrine,
hath a tongue,
hath a revelation,
hath an interpretation.
Let all things be done unto edifying.
Where I fellowship – Gender is NOT the issue…
Who has Jesus – Who has a revelation – Who has a teaching…
Christ in us the HOPE of Glory…
LikeLike
Salty, I think your experience is an amazing testament to the fact that we have this treasure in earthen vessels. God is able to use us to accomplish his purposes of bringing light and justice in the world.
I don’t think your amazing testimony is proof that God is approving of every area of your theology.
Lea, people are bringing the church/no church argument into this because the “no churchers” are saying that women can minister in the non-church to the extent of their gifting without the need for others to approve or disapprove of their work.
Whether women can minister is really a question for the organized church, where these women are recognized, chosen and appointed to positions where they have a specific relationship to the congregation as a whole, and that is, I think, what you’re debating.
LikeLike
Amos,
The truth is that underneath all those endless questions that you keep repeating over and over, you’re still trying to put women’s spiritual giftings into the same box that Gabriel and KAS do.
God doesn’t need your permission to decide whether God’s going to keep giving these spiritual giftings to women. God’s not going to suddenly decide—oops, guess I can’t keep giving these spiritual giftings to women because Gabriel, Amos and KAS don’t think they should have them!!!
LikeLike
Avid
You mention a few times…
“women’s spiritual giftings”
Since that term is NOT in the Bible…
Can you be a little more specific?
Can you explain what you mean by “spiritual giftings?”
“spiritual giftings” to do what?
Can you list, name, these “spiritual giftings?”
And who in the Bible, has these, operated in, these “spiritual giftings?
xxxxxxx
And do you have any of these “spiritual giftings?”
Which ones?
Is there anyone today, here, or where you fellowship…
Who is restricting your use of these “spiritual giftings?”
LikeLike
Serving Kids – I am happy to receive ministry from women, and the caveat I gave, namely the 1 Tim 2 verse was merely to make clear that I draw the line where i believe Paul speaking with apostolic authority would do the same.
Avid Reader – I added the sentence everything else is allowed and should be encouraged regarding my attitude to women using any spiritual gifts given to them. In what way is this deciding what women are allowed to do, or how is it making their choices for them? I’m intrigued by this ‘all or nothing’ approach, meaning either you have no restrictions or you impose silence on women (for all practical purposes in a gathering of the church), as the stricter MacArthur complementarianism appears to do.
May I also clarify what I have in mind by rebellious women. Two examples of this would be Rachel Held Evans, who I think is dangerously close to walking away from the faith, and Jory Micah. Both are claiming 1 Tim 2 and 3 do not restrict women from teaching and having authority over men, and both are going into gross religious error and deception, mixing paganism or idolatry with Christianity. I have in mind worshipping a female deity as mother amongst other things. Exactly what 1 Tim 2 was designed to prevent. Feminism is becoming their religion.
Now there may also be believers who genuinely think that Paul’s restriction was local and temporary, and in their case I still think they are from my perspective being disobedient, but I wouldn’t necessarily catagorise this a deliberate high-handed rebellion. I don’t particularly have a desire to concentrate on others’ disobedience anyway, nor judge their motives, since this is a general problem amongst evangelicals, we all have areas to work on. It’s still not right not to exercise discernment though, especially in this area. Scripture must override supposed subjective personal calls to a ministry.
LikeLike
KAS, “I have in mind worshipping a female deity as mother amongst other things.”
Do you think the Bible errs in portraying God as a woman?
LikeLike
Prov. 1:20-: “Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares.
She cries out in the chief concourses, At the openings of the gates in the city …”
Prov. 9:1-: “Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars; She has prepared her food, she has mixed her wine; She has also set her table…”
Luke 7:33-35: “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by all her children.”
Also, if you look at the etymology of “El Shaddai” one of the primary theories for that description of God is “The God with Breasts” – El, meaning god and Shaddai being the plural of Shad, meaning breast.
God transcends gender, and has been personified in the Bible using both male and female language, so I don’t think it’s inappropriate for people to highlight that fact.
Remember that Adam was created “good” in the garden without Eve. That very well might mean that Adam was genderless with the ability to procreate, forming, in a sense, one image of God. But, God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God took, part of Adam’s nature, symbolically the rib, to create woman, and introduced a concept of gender.
To place a single gender on God, and insist on that gender as being an immutable part of his nature is to, I think fall into the warning of Paul: “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” I think God is more masculine than man, and simultaneously more feminine than women, to the extent that both masculinity and femininity in their truest sense are reflections of the true nature of God.
It’s interesting that it is somehow taken as heretical to place femininity on God. Interesting because it lays bare the thinking of those who do so, that women are somehow, by nature, inferior to men, and I think that is the fundamental issue of complementarians.
LikeLike
Amos,
That’s the whole point. God gives women many different types of spiritual gifts. Yet women face years of resistance from many people denying, questioning, and shutting down their spiritual gifts.
The last thing we need is more resistance from more people denying and questioning our spiritual gifts. Remember God is still gifting women with those spiritual gifts whether we choose to accept that reality or not.
LikeLike
KAS,
Watching how powerful it was when Rachael Denhollander spoke in the courtroom— imparting wisdom to a wide audience of both men and women—makes you wonder why people are still questioning and silencing women’s spiritual gifts.
Comp theology allows women to teach men as long as its a mother teaching her sons. So how can it be right for a mother to teach tiny children too young to know the difference between right and wrong—but its forbidden for women to teach mature men who can easily discern faulty doctrine?
KAS, take some time to do some more reading on this issue. The more you read the more you’ll begin to see the same patterns of faulty reasoning repeating over and over in different Comp books. They reject God’s commands to keep their own tradition.
After reading most of the leading Comp theology books, I learned something. It all boils down to one simple thing—they don’t want to accept the spiritual giftings that God gives women so they just keep denying and questioning it. Same line of reasoning as Amos.
LikeLike
Avid Reader – I appreciate this theme can go on for ever, so after this perhaps time for a break!
You may find it difficult to believe but I actually argued against a complementarian who made the statement to the effect ‘women should not teach men because they are more easily deceived’. If that were the case, why did Paul commend Timothy’s mother and grandmother, what about women teaching other women, what about Priscilla? Needs a bit more thought than just that.
I came to the conclusion it is the teaching of doctrine combined with authority in the local church that is the problem, which is Paul’s reasoning in 1 Tim 2. It is something God has not placed on women – indeed going by James not very men either.
I understand from reading in say the MacArthur camp, commenters in particular, that some complementarians have an attitude towards women (imo quite awful) I would want to distance myself from, at best looking down on them, but women who react to this by embracing egalitarianism are going a stage to far, and as discussed before liable to end up being disobedient.
LikeLike
KAS, I used to be there. One of the things I’ve struggled with is, how do we deal with the call on one’s live.
What I mean is that Joe shows up at church one day and he says, “I believe the Holy Spirit has called me to be a pastor”. The church gives Joe big pats on the back and sends him off to Seminary to be a pastor. Throughout the interview process, as long as Joe checks all the boxes and jumps through all the hoops, there is never any doubt that the Holy Spirit has called Joe to be a pastor.
However, Mary shows up at church one day, and she says, “I believe the Holy Spirit has called me to be a pastor”. The church says, “you don’t have a penis, so you are lying!” But, you look at the qualifications of this person. She is able to teach, she is hospitable, she is not hot-headed, her children are living godly lives, she has a good reputation. She has everything but the penis.
So, why based on a chromosome or an appendage do we arbitrarily accept or deny someone’s spiritual gifts?
In fact, it’s intriguing to me that we retroactively redefine the Bible to match our patriarchal misconceptions. For example, Deborah was a (p)rophetess, not a (P)rophetess, because her gifting in the spirit was somehow less than someone like Nathan. Even though there is nothing in scripture that even hints to that effect.
In fact, in comparison to our modern fundagelical interpretation the Israelites were downright feminist! They let a woman talk with Joab and negotiate a peace settlement for their city. Joab sent a woman to advise a king!
LikeLike
Mark – you raise a good point. I am a great believer in the body of Christ. I don’t think anyone should simply claim ‘the Holy Spirit has called me to be a pastor’, this is too subjective, but rather they should emerge as one by ‘ministering’ amongst fellow believers. This will be recognised by the body of believers – a bit more objective. Only then should they consider formal training for a ministry, which may or may not be appropriate. I for one do not regard it as essential, and many a keen evangelical has had the fire in them doused by too much academic theology.
Pastoring is never a job you can simply train to do. It’s a mixture of doing and being recognised by the body, a confirmation of the Holy Spirit’s enabling.
I have read egalitarian women claiming ‘the Holy Spirit has given them gifts of leadership’, but not one I have read has ever claimed this was recognised by the body of believers they were in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark and KAS,
I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where a person claims to be gifted by God with overseeing the flock of Christ.
If Paul is telling the truth and God gives a person a gift to oversee another believer (in a servant like manner not lording it over them) then I would imagine this gift would be clear and obvious.
I find it suspect when people claim to be ‘called’ to be a Pastor when that really means a leader in an institutional religious setting.
If they were ‘called’ to do ‘it’ then surely they would already be overseeing others as God enables the person gift wise.
I can think of few other people (men and women) who are older and godly and guide younger believers in a servant like manner. They have no title called Pastor. No building etc. They are simply believers who walk with the Lord and reach out to younger believers who need exhortation and encouragement.
Surely these are ‘those pastors’ Paul was referring to.
I agree with KAS’ comment.
But I wouldn’t go as far as to elevate such a person to ‘leader of the flock’ status.
Jesus was pretty clear about servant hood. None are above another.
Surely a ‘pastor’ or overseer would be the humblest person in the room. Man or woman.
As elder simply refers to age and pastor/Poimen is an entirely different word I can’t imagine why women would be excluded from ‘overseeing’ another (Titus 2 woman style).
There’s plenty of older women who shepherd/encourage/exhort male brethren ‘unofficially’ through daily life. Are these not gifted women?
I think the whole establishment makes a lot more of this ‘role’ than what God intended.
There are mature believers and there are not.
Mature ones who have a servant heart and who guide by example are highly likely those ‘pastors’.
Not the seminary trained salary hunters who feel ‘called’ to Leadership.
Just some thoughts
LikeLike
Salty,
Just a few thoughts.
That’s the exact argument almost verbatim that Frank Viola makes when he tries to say that the existence of the clergy automatically proves that the whole church is doing it wrong—-but of course Viola has all the answers to straighten us out.
Funny thing—Viola actually does believe in the clergy. He turns around and contradicts himself by saying that most people aren’t qualified to set up their own house church. If they do it themselves they will fail because they need one of the few people God has called to be apostolic workers. And he argues that point from Ephesians 4:11!!!
He’s just trying to get rid of his competition and setting himself up to be seen as a clergy/honored speaker, etc. Viola still travels to churches and preaches from the pulpit—the exact thing that he says is wrong. It’s wrong for everyone else but right for him because it makes him money.
LikeLike
Lea, doing things just because of how you FEEL is not good. If a woman can intellectually reconcile her desire to preach with the pastoral epistles that would be better. Even then, humans frequently twist scripture to rationalize doing what’s wrong.
Both our intellect and emotions are corrupt and fallen, but Satan usually employs the latter when he tempts me to sin.
That said, it’s easy to see from the Pauline epistles themselves that women played an active role in the early church. In 1 Corinthians after speaking against unisex hairdos, Paul talks about women keeping their heads covered when praying or prophecying. So it seems safe to say women weren’t supposed to be mute doormats or chew toys in the 1st century church.
LikeLike
I said nothing about ‘feelings’ that I can see. I said ‘think’. Many have examined the bible and found the ‘no girls allowed’ interpretation to be lacking. I find it intellectually inconsistent with the rest of the bible. I find it inconsistent within the church and I find the fruit of eliminating women from positions of leadership in church to be poor. We see it every day. I also decided that the director/pastor divide seemed like semantics and that ultimately drove me away from the SBC entirely.
This was not ‘feelings’ it was thought. I do not have a pastoral call. I don’t knwo what that means for an individual, but when a church tells you you can never be a pastor, many women just put aside that urge. Sometimes until much later in life when they realize that it’s still there, it wasn’t a passing thought and that they wish to serve in this way. And then they change to denomination that doesn’t stop them. This I have seen.
Although there is nothing wrong with feelings. They tell you things, if you listen. What motivates a person to go to seminary, to be a pastor? That is another question, but that is an individual question. There are doubtless feelings involved in all such motivations. How can there not? We are human. We feel. This is not a bad thing.
LikeLike
Avid, Frank and I define the meaning of the word Ekklesia differently. He seems to want to recreate ‘church’ as meetings of believers in houses. I don’t believe the word Ekklesia is a reference to meetings of believers. Jesus is building his people, not meetings of his believers.
I believe we (God’s people) are the Ekklesia (one body, one Shepherd) and the Ekklesia is not a religious meeting. That means we are the Ekklesia whether or not we are in an ‘organised fellowship meeting’ or not.
I understand the point you are making about what Frank believes but I do not believe the same thing as Frank Viola (I would know if I did).
I’m not advocating for a return to ‘house meetings’. I believe God’s people (those who love him and are passionate about the gospel) will naturally meet with others (whether two or ten) and exhort and encourage on another.
I do not believe elders must be present every time Christians gather to encourage one another. Elders are simply mature believers who are there to guide and encourage younger believers. They were ‘appointed to every city’. Not ‘to every meeting’.
I don’t know Frank’s motives but the fact that you had to purchase a whole lot more books after Pagan Christianity in order to get a solution (his) to the problem (the Institution) suggested he was profiting from books sales in the process.
There are plenty of website with good information (truth for free is one) where men aren’t making money of exposing issues with Institutional Christianity.
Avid, it’s entirely possible that there are men and women amongst the people of God who are untitled, unsalaried members of the Body who are gifted as evangelists, teachers and ‘pastors’ with a little p.
I believe this to be the case as it’s GOD who gives the gifts for HIS work and purpose.
I also believe there’s a whole lot of play acting going on amongst Christian folk where people are role playing out these spiritual gift/ body functions where no gifting exists and people are being charged money for the ‘service’.
My thoughts anyway
LikeLike
The word “assembly” itself describes believers meeting together. There’s a lot of ways that happens. I’m in favor of all of them.
LikeLike
Salty, “If Paul is telling the truth and God gives a person a gift to oversee another believer (in a servant like manner not lording it over them) then I would imagine this gift would be clear and obvious.”
Think about this. Jesus was the Messiah. His birth, life and death were foretold by hundreds of Old Testament prophecies, yet when he came, it was not “clear and obvious”. I think partly, he came into the same humanity we see today where leaders are the ones who prop themselves up and get others to kiss their feet, rather than leaders humbly serving and pointing others to a holy and fulfilling life.
Even when Paul says this is what a leader looks like, the typical church twists it back into “servant leadership” back to the world of self-propping and feet kissing. I’m disgusted enough with how this works that I’ve pretty much decided to have no part in it. Why, in most churches do the leaders have to shove our faces in their new lap dogs so that we “recognize” their gifts? Is that because they think we’re too stupid, or is it because they think we might be too smart? I don’t know.
LikeLike
Hey Mark, good thoughts.
When I consider the purpose of an overseer/guide/shepherd/elder it’s to protect and encourage and exhort. It’s never to exert control or to extract money “filthy lucre”.
Regarding the elders being clear and obvious to us… I’m not talking about believers who heap up teachers. I believe that the Lord leaves these people to get what they desire. If you want a King and his name isn’t Jesus then you’ll certainly find them in Christendom.
I’ve been walking with the Lord for a while and by God’s grace, he’s always brought godly mature believers into my life (usually met through the local clubhouse where the ‘Pastor’ was simply a sermoniser and not much of an encourager).
These overseers are to me, folk whose hearts are fixed on Christ and they get the difference between servant hood and ‘servant Leadership’.
I’ve experienced it for myself so it exists.
I imagine that it you are deeply immersed in the Sunday club systems then it’s a lot harder to experience this as many and most sit to hear and receive then go home.
Are there godly mature believers within the institutions who are not salaried religious professionals? Who are these genuine elders? They exist and for the most part are likely doing God’s work under the radar (ie: off the program) and for free. This is my experience.
Spending multiple hours in the presence of a mature godly believer (the definition of an elder) to discuss life and the Lord IS to me, the function of an overseer.
It’s not the deliver polished sermons week in week out and facilitate religious programs.
I haven’t heard a ‘sermon’ for years… and the Lord is still on the throne.
Mark, is your family involved in a ‘church’? Do you think it’s possible to fellowship with believers outside the clubs?
LikeLike
Sometimes it helps to diagram reasoning so we can understand it better. So here goes:
1) All pastors try to be king therefore all pastors are wrong. Therefore its impossible to be a pastor without trying to be king.
Nope—the Bible never lists trying to be king as a pastor qualification.
2) All pastors are controlling therefore no one can pastor without trying to control. Thus we must flee all pastors to escape being controlled.
Nope—manipulation and control are never listed by the Bible in the qualifications for ministry.
3) Believers do fellowship outside of church therefore all churches are wrong.
Nope—Bible says not to forsake the “assembly” of believers. That “assembly” comes in a lot of shapes and sizes. Let’s not try to put it in the box that says anything involving four walls must be wrong because only assembling outside four walls is real NT. Funny thing, even home fellowships still involve four walls.
These are all the same points that Viola makes in his books. We can’t just believe everything that we read but we need to put it all to the test.
Salty, we’re not saying that you have to attend some mega church. All we’re asking you to do is stop attacking other parts of the Body of Christ.
And Gabriel, we know you’re reading this right now. So feel free to steal all our points and preach them on Sunday. That’s ok as long as you admit that you learned this from women! 🙂
LikeLike
4) Because ancient Greek orators existed, therefore all sermons come from these Greek orators, thus all sermons are wrong because they come from pagan Greek origins.
That’s diagramming the reasoning that Viola makes for throwing the whole concept of the sermon right out the window. He’s ignoring all the verses about Jesus teaching sermons to crowds both inside and outside the brick and mortar church of His time.
Jesus said, “Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts….”
Mark 14:49 (NIV)
“Jesus was teaching at the temple every day……”
Luke 19:47
This reasoning ignores the example of Jesus teaching daily in the temple. If all brick and mortar churches are wrong, Jesus would have said so. Instead He made a point of teaching sermons where the people gathered.
Jesus is the real source of where the idea of the sermon comes from. Not from pagan origins as Viola has taught in his own sermons.
LikeLike
Avid, what an accusation. Who exactly in the Body of Christ and I attacking?
If a believer follows a harlot and sometimes calls it out, it’s not an attack it’s a warning.
Read the prophets please.
Paul and Jesus also called out idolatry of the spiritual kind. Christendom is full of it.
Some questions Christians need to ask and don’t:
How many times does the bible use the word pastor (Greek: Poimen) and of those times it is mentioned how many describe a modern day ‘Pastor’?
Considering questions 1’s answer:
Who, where and when did this concept of a ‘Church’ building with pews, sermons and clergy/laity distinction come from?
Once you’ve done some solid research into the history of the Harlot Church System, done some God seeking on your knees and repented of teacher healing, you can thank me profusely for bothering to point it all out.
It should be master of the obvious stuff.
Unfortunately. It’s not.
Because nothing has changed.
LikeLike
Excuse spelling, yet again. I type this from a smart phone and it’s fun 😆
LikeLike
Avid, I would love for you or anyone to use the NT scriptures to prove to me that I need to have a man (or woman) called a Pastor to ‘minister’ to me for a financial cost, in a purpose built facility where I must attend meetings.
You won’t find it anywhere in the New Testament.
Regarding “not neglecting the assembling together of yourselves”.
That verse has absolutely nothing to do with your Church meetings.
It has to do with not neglecting meeting together with other believers.
Don’t insert the beloved harlot Church System into that verse.
It’s scripture twisting at best.
LikeLike
Salty,
All we are asking you to do is stop labeling good people as the “harlot” of Babylon just because they gather with other believers on Sunday morning.
LikeLike
My understanding is early Christian met in house churches, which is a building. I suspect that had chairs, and pews are just fancy chairs.
A church building is a practical solution to a group of people not fitting into someone’s house. Go to one or not, I don’t care and I don’t think either is more or less spiritual than the other.
LikeLike
Lea,
Funny fact:
Viola goes so far off the deeep end of silliness that he even says the use of rugs and chairs come from pagan origins. Guess that means we all better start sitting on the floor or we aren’t following NT guidelines!
LikeLike
Salty, it takes a lot of energy to establish and maintain friendships and especially since I feel I have a lot of baggage that I bring to relationships. Also, my personal history is that my emotional needs were rarely met, so I had to figure out how to function in essentially complete isolation. My friendships have primarily been work or church.
What I read in the Old Testament prophecy is not “your leaders are evil, I’m going to get rid of leadership”, but “your leaders are evil, I’m going to bring a new spiritual economy”. I think there is a lot of half truth. God pours out the Holy Spirit on all believers, which is different than the OT where the Spirit was poured out on select few. But yet, even then, the apostles preach that some will get different gifts.
So, on one hand, we have an authoritarian and oppressive leadership that wants to go back to the OT economy and claim that they are somehow uniquely gifted where the rest of us knuckle-draggers are not (that is the rise of the clergy/laity distinction). However, I think there is an equal and opposite issue where people want to cast off any sort of church structure or authority and instead want to be ‘me and Jesus’.
I’m not upset with where you are – recognizing that you have spiritual mentors and mentor others, but I think that system hasn’t worked for me because I have yet to find anyone willing to help me wade through my spiritual baggage. Very few have even offered some sort of mentorship role, and one informal discipleship group I attended, I was essentially asked to leave, not in that sense exactly, but more, here’s what you need to look like to continue here, and I realized I wasn’t going to look like that.
LikeLike
Also, we know that our experience in this life is going to be a huge struggle against the enemy. God hasn’t put an invisible sin force field around the church, so when we walk in the doors we are still in a world where there are all sorts of abuse.
In the same way, there is no guarantee that you will find a spiritual mentor who is actually a narcissistic abuser. Perhaps God has been gracious so far, but I’ve run into those sorts of people inside and outside the church.
LikeLike
Ha! For real?
LikeLike
Lea,
Yes. It’s the correlation vs causation fallacy. Viola keeps saying that because two random events happened—therefore the existence of two random events automatically proves one caused the other. That’s how he argues that the existence of pagan Greek orators automatically proves the sermon comes from pagan origins. And even rugs and chairs come from pagan origins too! Then he pressures people to run fleeing from brick and mortar churches for fear of supposedly pagan practices like preaching the Gospel. Exactly how is preaching the Gospel of Christ Jesus—pagan anyway?
That would be like me saying that since ancient people ate rice, that proves eating rice comes from pagan origins. The only way for us to be real believers is to eat fish, barley and lentils!!
Apparently no one told Jesus that it was a sin for Him to give sermons, especially inside four walls, since any ministry done inside four walls must be pagan!
LikeLike
Avid Reader – how does Viola cope with the etymologies of the names of the days of the week and many of the names of the months? 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I think that’s what JA was doing with this post. I don’t think he heard her.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Because right and wrong is not a question of popularity.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gabriel Hughes said (and his Tweet identifies him as “Pastor Gabe“),
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)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said,
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.
LikeLike
Lea said,
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)
LikeLike
Part 2.
Lea said,
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.”
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
Julie Anne said,
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)
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Any dude who is so concerned about women submitting has control issues.
LikeLike
Huge red flag. Yep.
What people focus on, with so many options, tells you a lot about them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS, keep in mind that the church argued for centuries whether James was part of the Bible, because James says this about faith,
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”?
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
I have said this many times. If we submit to each other, obviously this is not mindless obedience. That would be stupid.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
KAS – I am so sorry to hear of your loss. May you find peace when your heart needs it the most.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, KAS. Isn’t that the truth! Thank you!
LikeLike
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:
LikeLike
And I just found this (also about Mutual Submission):
_Submissive to One Another_
– from the “Redemptive History & Theology” blog
LikeLike
I just read that a few minutes ago. It’s excellent, Daisy. Comps sure love to change the meaning of that verse!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/pastor_gabe/status/969782276388212737
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy
Thank you
That was wonderful to read this morning.
xxxxxxx
Yes…
“…exactly “who” receives the praise, the honor, and the glory?”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike