Should complementarians debate egalitarians?
While there has been some genuine, respectful dialog between complementarian and egalitarian scholars, more often than not, the emotions that are brought into the dialog have brought less than respectful debate. The body of Christ is meant to fight the enemy together but when some turn their weapons inward in order to fight their sisters in Christ because of a secondary issue of faith, this certainly brings not only shame upon our Lord Jesus, but harm to some precious members of the body of Christ.
How should we react to the debate when it has become vitriolic? I would like to suggest that we need to stay the course and continue to deal with the issues in a respectful way. When some turn the debate on women teaching the bible authoritatively to men away from the issue and choose to make it instead an attack on the person, we need to refrain from following suit. The Lord Jesus is best served when we treat our brothers in Christ with respect even when that respect is not afforded to us. Yet we do not give up sharing truth and doing so in love. The winning side will be the one who fights for the truth of scripture while passionately debating the issues in love.
While responding with love is a mandate of the Lord Jesus, we may choose the way we debate to limit the abuse that we receive because we can identify those who have a habit of using verbal attacks to try to control the debate. Let me give an example of what can happen through an audio debate when a brother in Christ has a problem holding his emotions back from attacking a fellow believer in Christ.
On April 6, 2006 I received an invitation for an informal dialog on Matt Slick’s Faith and Reason radio show. While the invitation was very kind, I had heard Matt debate other Christians before and I was not impressed with his combative “style”. While he assured me that he would dialog with respect, I did not accept the invitation until September of 2007 when I heard Matt persuading women that their calling from God in ministry would not be a valid call. I decided that it would be worth the risk of being attacked because I truly cared for Matt’s listeners who were only hearing one side of the debate. While I kept my cool and kept my respectful attitude towards Matt, he did not treat me with either respect or Christian charity. Matt must have had some negative feedback about his treatment of me on his radio show because the next week he started out much more calm but in the end he stopped me from giving my biblical understanding of 1 Timothy 2:15, a verse that is key to the understanding of the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, and he lost his cool once again this time raising his voice and calling me a heretic for merely differing with him on this secondary issue.
Later Matt said that he would consider having me back on his radio show only if I would agree to limit my answers to his questions to 1.5 minutes a piece. No one else has ever been given such a strict time limit on his radio show before, but when I agreed to his restrictions, he backed down and would not allow me to debate him even with me under strict time limits. Months later in April and May of 2008 Matt produced articles on a limited portion of my position on women in ministry (he has my full view on my 4 DVD set “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” but he apparently chose to ignore a good portion of my material) and I have been going through each of the new articles refuting his “refutation”. I have also offered Matt Slick a respectful written debate on his position and his articles since his position has many holes, errors and faulty premises. I agree with Matt’s position in his original offer to have me on his radio show that those who produce a non-interactive position on women in ministry (DVD or written form) should allow themselves to be questioned on that position. I met him on his “playing field” on the radio and now I have asked him to answer my questions on his position in a written debate. Matt has declined to do so. Matt’s position is that he is comfortable with his discussion board, his radio show and Paltalk and he won’t venture anywhere else. I have offered a neutral site where we could both debate without editing or anyone controlling either one of us and apparently he is very sensitive and needs his “safety zone” that he won’t leave. I have also included links to the audio files of both of Matt’s radio shows with me as his “guest”. They are at the bottom of this post. Listen carefully and see how gentleness and respect has been subsequently interpreted by a very sensitive Matt Slick as an “attack” on his person.
Matt has already refused to have me back on his radio show, his discussion board is highly controlled and edited by his vice-president and Paltalk is a forum where Matt can continue to verbally abuse those he disagrees with and it is not suitable for keeping him accountable to a respectful dialog. I am including the type of “respect” that Matt Slick offers. The following are words to me on his discussion board regarding Matt’s “offer” to debate in an audio form. See if this sounds like I would get a fair and respectful audio debate:
Matt titles his comment “this is how it is” found at http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=108945&page=2
I’ve already written the section refuting the liberal position on women being pastors/elders. That’s the written form…
I don’t go to your blog. I don’t debate anywhere but here, Paltalk, and the radio.
I’m too busy to get buried in a written debate with you… If you write like you talk on the radio, you’d KILL ME!…. not with competence, but with sssllloooowwww and condescending remarks that would drive me up the wall. No thanks! On the radio you’d not answer a question directly. You beat around the bush, said a ton of NOTHING, to get to some invented position, and acted in a condescending manner. I was ready to shoot myself you were so difficult to deal with. Again, NOT your content, your manner and deliver is what is difficult.
You’ve been refuted by me and those much smarter than me.
I believe you’re given over to your error by God. I believe you are injuring the body of Christ. I further think more of what you’re really made of will become evident.
Now, stop your whining. If you want a debate with me, Paltalk is the place. I’ll put your stupid arguments in the trash where they belong. If you’re not up to it, then go away, stop whining, stop playing around. I mean, sheesh, just get over it and take your liberal feminism somewhere esle and help the enemy undermine the church from some other location.
You want to take the man’s place? Want to compete with men? Okay, bring your pants, step up to the plate….and let’s go, Paltalk! If you accept, I’ll bury you. If you don’t accept, go away.
Does this sound respectful or kind? Matt is not going to debate me in a forum that he cannot have control of or win. I will continue to work through his articles and provide my own “written” refutation. If and when Matt Slick allows me to question him, I will provide those answers and of course my own refutation as appropriate.
*Note since I copied Matt’s “invitation” to do an audio debate on Paltalk, he has changed his post to read this way:
I’ve already written the section refuting the liberal position on women being pastors/elders. That’s the written form…
I don’t go to your blog. I don’t go to any blogs or boards other than CARM stuff because I don’t want anyone to say I posted somewhere else and say something I didn’t. So, I DO NOT go anywhere….except for tech boards for computer stuff at Microsoft and VB.
I don’t debate anywhere but here, Paltalk, and the radio.
I’m too busy to get buried in a written debate with you… If you write like you talk on the radio, you’d KILL ME!…. not with competence, but with sssllloooowwww and condescending remarks buried in so much error that it would take volumes to expose the idiocy you posit as support for your position. Which only “you” have figured out and the whole Christian church has missed???? LOL. Anyway, you’d drive me up the wall. No thanks! On the radio you rarely answered my questions directly. Instead, you beat around the bush, said a ton of NOTHING, to get to some invented position, and talked down to me in a condescending manner. I was ready to shoot myself to get away from the droning, incessent, drivel you offered for your position. You were so difficult to deal with — NOT because of your content. It was your manner and deliver is what was so irretatingly difficult.
Anyway, you’ve been refuted by me and those much smarter than me. CARM’s women section will continue to grow as you help me expose more errors in your liberal position. Thanks for the assistance in fighting for orthodoxy and working against liberal crap infiltrating the church.
I believe you’re given over to your error by God. I believe you are injuring the body of Christ. I further think that more of what you’re really made of will become evident as you heap error upon error.
Now, stop your whining. If you want a debate with me, Paltalk is the place. I’ll put your stupid arguments in the trash where they belong. If you’re not up to it, then go away, stop whining, stop playing around. I mean, sheesh, just get over it and take your liberal feminism somewhere esle and help the enemy undermine the church from some other location.
You want to take the man’s place and teach and have authority in the church? You want to compete with men? Okay, bring your pants, step up to the plate….and let’s go, Paltalk! If you accept, I’ll bury you. If you don’t accept, go away and stop being a crybaby.
51 thoughts on “Should complementarians debate egalitarians?”
Wow…talk about showing what one is really made of! Matt Slick has been given over to his error and he’s glorying in it. He’s guilty of everything he claims you are, Cheryl. Meanwhile, you’ve maintained impeccable Christian propriety and extending to Matt the respect and courtesy that every Christian ought to show, but which Matt refuses to give you.
He’s showing one of the huge flaws in patriarchalist thinking in his very words. Thank you for posting them, so that we can be aware of his vitriol and his illogical, emotional rants against what you’ve so soundly shown us the Scriptures say.
Keep up the good work.
Keep on keeping on, knowing that the truth will out.
Smear tactics may convince some, but not me and not others.
If you don’t mind, I would like to emphasize for posterity the points made by Matt that show forth a very bad attitude, regardless of whom he might be addressing. Such “trash talk” is really unacceptable behavior for Christians. And the deplorable thing about it is that he is a leader who is teaching other Christians to do the same.
Let me say it plainly. This is the way abusers and bullies talk. There is nothing Christian in his attitude, nothing anointed in his words. It is shameful. It is so shameful that even Matt does not want to risk being exposed by those who would disagree in a more godly manner.
The written word remains for a much longer time and is more readily available than the spoken word. One can say “I didn’t say thus and thus” regarding a spoken dialogue, and unless some go to the trouble to record it few are going to make the effort to research it. But a written dialogue is much more easily open to critique. Writing a paper is one thing. Written discussion is different. It is my opinion that Matt is so deeply tainted with arrogance and a desire to dominate that he is unable to have a respectful dialogue with those who disagree with him or with those he imagines himself superior to.
Please forgive my bluntness. But this man needs a mirror and glasses!
Psalmist,
Thank you! I have a strong desire for truth and this kind of disrespectful talk needs to be accounted for by those who think it okay to treat other Christians this way. When will it stop? I don’t know however when the Christian world is given the ability to see what is underneath the surface perhaps they will call him to account. Can you imagine what an unbeliever would do who was treated like this? Who would blame them for thinking bad thoughts about Christians?
A Christian apologist must be accountable for his attitude. God wants us to defend the faith but he also cares about our attitude when we do the defense. The Bible speaks about the attitude of those who should be teaching us:
Tiro3,
I agree that this is trash talk. It is something that I would expect to come from the mouth of an unbeliever. I have seen so many respectful egalitarian Christians do so much better, even many who have shown up on CARM (Matt Slick’s discussion board) and who have been Christian enough to dialog respectfully even with those who have called them many other bad names. This is shameful and I wonder who Matt Slick is accountable to? Surely he has some mature Christians in his group of friends who could counsel him on a proper attitude. I have no doubt that if he is a true Christian that he could learn.
Sometimes people don’t learn until they are brought to account publicly. It can be a painful lesson, but it usually is a lesson that won’t need to be relearned. If Matt’s friends really love and respect him, they should be the ones to call him to account because I do not think that he will listen to anyone else.
Don,
You make a good point. Those who have integrity and who love truth will not be convinced by smear tactics. We are to test all things and to hold fast to what is good.
These recent bully tactics by Matt have caused me to open my eyes and take an interest. Right now I’m listening to some of Matt’s radio tapes. Here are some things I’m noticing. And Yes, I am critiquing. And yes, it is on the border in my mind, of being the patient and gracious person I normally try to be.
While there were many good things the guest speakers said, I am not critiquing them, but rather Matt’s responses, the things that he liked. This man is a huge bully. As I listen, I hear Matt perking up at things that will be enablers for him to defend his bullying.
Bullies and dominators listen with a filter to what they can use to excuse and permit their bullying ways. They want to view things women do or those who they consider lesser, as demeaning things for “real men” to do.
Matt applauded the idea that the church is trying to make men be like women by inviting them to do things in the nursery and being an usher. IOW doing humble ministry is feminine, not to be desired, and not “authoritative” enough for “real men”. Sad.
While I do think Christians (all Christians) need to stand up for God’s Word and God’s ways of living — in a strong way —, I do not think that in doing so we need to revel in the “me Tarzan, grunt, I eat steak raw, let’s wrestle”, kind of mentality. (The opposite mentality of “me Jane, I like pink, and can’t get my hands dirty, I’m so helpless”, is just as improper, soulish and carnal IMO). We are to seek to be like Christ not …….
OK, now I’m not going to listen to that stuff anymore. 🙁
PS. how do you put things in quotes. don’t see a tool for it!
tiro3,
Here is how you put the code in for “quote marks”
Go into the html at the top of the comment box (top right) and you will need to add <blockquote> at the beginning of your paragraph or quote and at the end add </blockquote>
This pulls up a separate box where you can add in this html code. When you are done, click on the update button on the bottom right. That should do it!
I think the woe quote is from the Bible.
tiro3,
As far as the “he man” quotes from Matt and others on his radio show, I just roll my eyes. My husband is a real “he man” and he isn’t like this stereotype at all. He has emotions and he is a real strong man who has learned to understand what gentleness is. He also never makes childish five-year-old jokes to prove his manhood. There are a lot of men who are real men who love women who are strong and can defend themselves biblically. I rather think it should be said that real men and women are strong and mature in the faith and their strength has nothing to do with muscles, good looks, eating a raw steak or making grunting sounds.
Don,
This one is from the bible:
“Woe to those who call good evil and evil good”. The complete quote is here from Isaiah 5:20-23 and it is sobbering to read the whole quote:
… as pretty much every person on this blog would say. 🙂
The tone of his comments say it all.
I agree with Tiro3. Many of the comments directed toward you, Cheryl, fit the criteria for abusive language. I’m so sorry you are being attacked instead of debated. I don’t always agree with your views but you have always treated me with respect for which I am grateful and I have thoroughly enjoyed the respectful tone of this blog even though I don’t post often.
Scripture tells us to only speak that which is edifying to one another and to always season our speech with grace. God’s Word tells us that people will know we are Christians by our love for one another, even those with whom we disagree on certain topics. It is one thing to speak what we believe is truth to others but I do not think mockery and abusive language is ever appropriate from the mouth of a Christian.
Thank you, Sandy.
Cheryl,
I’m struck with your comment #10 about strength and commitment to a cause you believe in. Too many people equate strength with a macho fantasy like “Braveheart”, or some John Wayne epic of yesteryear. Keep up the good fight in terms of attrition, freeing one woman or man at a time. Remembering too, that it was a nation of farmers with water buffalo and rice paddies who sent the most powerful nation the world has ever known, home with its tail between its legs.
Thank you, Greg. Yes, strength and commitment are very important and some of the most unlikely people have been used by God in the past just because they didn’t give up. That should give hope to all of us. Numbers don’t count and personal power doesn’t count. It is a matter of dedication to what is true. If we stick to that and serve the Lord Jesus with all our heart, how can we fail to fulfill his calling on our lives? When one has this attitude, how can mere words stop us? They can’t.
I think that a real man wouldn’t have a problem debating you on your home front. A man afraid of a debate with a woman? huh? Aren’t the men suppose to correct the women in the church? Apparently Matt is afraid.
Jennifer,
Provocative points! Apparently some are willing to try to correct people if they have no talk-back at all, except of course for 1.5 minutes at a time. I even had my timer out and was ready to practice with the timer. All I needed was the questions ahead of time. I suppose supplying the opposition with the questions ahead of time was a bit of a scary thought. Didn’t scare me none but who would know that? I don’t eat raw meat so I may be just a wee bit different 🙂
I’d like to second Jennifer’s comment.
I have told her that I would come over here to see if my assessment was accurate, noting that I’m sure Don Johnson would correct me if I am wrong. To my knowledge all harsh language about Matt, did happen after Matt & Cheryl’s first radio show because of Matt’s harsh words with Cheryl.
It was my statement to CARM’s VP that “So, I don’t see any innocent sides here. Both CARM and Cheryl’s Blog share some wrong dialogue.” I had also stated that only Matt and his VP were being criticized. But I see that that is in error. Apparently, there have been some harsh words about ChristDependent too, although I don’t remember them. My guess is that was also in response to some of ChristDepenents harsh words.
While I may agree with some of the “words” here and there, I’m not sure that it is to anyone’s benefit except where mistakes are being corrected. Perhaps, Cheryl’s friends can support her more privately, since the public stuff seems to just fan the flames and flamers.
CAn I interject on how ridiculous this is? He calls you a heretic for proclaiming what many comps actually DO: Allow women to teach men. Has been happening for years…. they just don’t admit it.
They will have Elisabeth Elliot speak to their church, they have women on their CBMW advisory board along with men and Dorothy Criswell taught a 300 person MIXED SS class for a million years. I could give you a hundred examples of such things going on in comp land.
Now, they will tell you these women did this under some ‘mans’ authority. But what does that mean in practice? Does Mrs. Elliot give them her entire sermon (testimony) before she speaks? Is there a man nearby to run up and grab the mic if she utters one wrong word? Do the men on the advisory board not allow the women there to speak in meetings? Do they cover their ears when they speak lest they ‘learn’ something from a woman?
They also need to tell us at what age a woman cannot teach a boy/man. When does it become sin? Age 13? 18?
They refuse to debate scripture and they also refuse to answer such questions. We are left to wonder how it all works in practice. Are we allowed to witness to a man? Are we allowed to answer doctrinal questions asked of us whether at church or at work by a man?
Confused….women continue to ‘turn away from God and toward ‘man”.
I saw a follower of McArthur questioned about a husband who happened to be an elder at church who hit his wife… if he was still her “head”. He said he should be in jail. Good answer. But, is he still her ‘head’ in jail? No answer. Is a husband only her ‘head’ if he is a genuine Christian? No answer.
There are too many questions that comps have no good answer for. That is because the premise behind the questions is WRONG. It makes no scriptural sense when viewed in this light.
Methinks Matt and all the other Patriarch/comps should consider a Christian Talmud so we can keep up. We need a playbook for this oral law they have developed.
It may be the ONLY way. See all this stuff sounds so good in theory when one only needs to proof text a few verses. But, put it into practice in the reality of everyday life and we see real quick that they have set up a ‘priesthood’ for women only. And, they have to IGNORE lots of scripture in order to believe what they believe.
Cheryl, consider it a badge of honor to be called a heretic by such as Matt. There is absolutely no room in Christendom for his rhetoric and invective toward another believer. What bothers him is that you ARE a great teacher and make TOO MUCH sense from scripture. And all he is left with is name calling, nastiness, contolling the venue and hoping the angry masses in his audience are with him. He has to make you the enemy to have any credibility.
And that about sums it up, Lin.
Lin, you’re right on the money with the term “Christian Talmud”. That’s exactly what they’re doing (“they” being male supremacists in general). The Jewish one is all about control, and so is the “Christian” one. It’s about pride and power. They are like the wicked tenants of Jesus’ parable, or Diotrephes, or the Jewish legalists that constantly badgered Paul everywhere he went.
Oh, how the organic waste material will strike the oscillating air circulation device on Judgment Day! (I’ve heard it can be used to feed a fire, e.g. 1 Cor. 3.)
Exegetist,
What you said was the truth and not a lie. In over two years of history on this blog only once did a name come up (“christdependent”) from CARM’s discussion board and it was only regarding why there was a double standard and while egalitarians were being disciplined on the CARM, yet there was abusive language being allowed to happen against egalitarians by one of CARM’s posters and Diane was responsible for doing nothing about it even though it had been reported many times.
When one creates a set of rules and then allows some to bypass the rules while others are treated with the letter of the law, the question will come up why the double standard. Why allow the name calling and mocking when it is by one of their own complementarians? This is not an “attack” on a person posting on CARM but a valid example of an two tier system that treats people differently depending on their view of women in ministry. If Diane had disciplined “christdependent” for her name calling and mockery, she would never have been mentioned on my blog. No one here called “christdependent” evil or wicked or a witch or going to hell. Can this also be said about some of the posters at CARM? Diane herself has done much name calling and allowing these abusive words to be said about egalitarians merely because of a difference in belief in a secondary doctrinal issue is a shame from those who call themselves followers of Christ!
When the leader in charge watches a person throwing stones at another person and then that leader complains that the stone thrower is “attacked” because the one who has been hit by the stone complains about the abuse (when nothing has been done by the leader to stop the abuse), this is the same tactic practiced by high control abusive groups. Someone not involved in such a group can identify the tactic for what it is. It is blaming the victim for the abuse and using the fact that one “dares” to speak out against the abuse as a reason for hurling more abuse.
What happens with hierarchists is that they need to grab onto anything, and I mean ANYTHING to support their harsh treatment of women. Matt says that I attacked him first on the radio so this justifies his attack on me. I have asked people who know neither Matt nor myself to listen to the audio files and tell me where the “attack” is. People have told me there are amazed and ashamed at how Matt treated me. Do they recognize an “attack” against Matt from me? No one has seen it or pointed it out to me. The fact is that Matt holds women back from teaching the bible with authority and he isn’t going to allow me to be looked on with favor no matter how kind I come across. I must be made to look like an enemy of the church so that he can create a reason to call me names, speak of me in a disrespectful tone and mock me. Then if anyone comes to my defense, they are seen as “attacking” Matt. So in Matt’s eyes the only way that I would not be “attacking” him is for me to say that I am wrong in believing that a woman is allowed by scripture to teach the bible with authority to men. Anything else is “attacking” him.
Also the only way for someone who regularly enjoys reading my posts to not be attacking Matt is to say that Matt is a man’s man who should be allowed to jump on women for teaching the bible with authority to men. If they disagree with Matt’s treatment of me, they should suck it up and not speak up regarding this injustice because Matt is just too sensitive to take any criticism for his behavior. What is wrong with this picture? Matt loves to be called a heretic by Oneness Pentecostals and he doesn’t feel “attacked” at all, but let someone say he is wrong to call me a heretic and the world has suddenly fallen in. This is certainly a double standard and it is not wrong to point this out. The bible is filled with instances of injustice being pointed out. When an unrighteous act is identified the result should be repentance, not an escalation of the same “attack”.
The fact is that strict hierarchalists must make enemies of egalitarians. Those who take hierarchy to the extent that CARM does can not say good things about egalitarians no matter what. While I found good things to say about Matt’s ministry and I commended him for his ministry on the first radio program, he has yet to say that my ministry is valid or worthwhile or that I am teaching good things to Jehovah’s Witnesses and helping them find faith in Christ. Why is that? It is because anyone who doesn’t agree with him on this secondary issue is an all-out enemy. It appears that it is almost impossible for him to find something good to say about me even though we agree on all of the essentials of the Christian faith.
I have been told that I was extremely nice to Matt on his radio program even when I was constantly cut off and derided. Yet Matt makes fun of my gentle manner that does not attack back. What Matt would like me to do is to say anything that he could rework and create into an “attack” that would justify his own bad behavior. If I tell people that I don’t want hateful speech on this blog, then I am wrong for saying I will edit out bad words. If I don’t edit people when they share their disappointment and dismay at bad behavior, I am told that I am an evil person.
All of this is the fruit of hierarchy. There is great fear in their losing control.
Lin,
You make some very valid points!
The fact is that one cannot find all of the “rules” against women in the bible. This is why CBMW has created a huge list of what women can and cannot do and some grey areas that even CBMW doesn’t know the answer to yet. Churches have to come to CBMW to check to see if they can use women in certain ministries because they can’t find the answers in scripture. And what used to be okay in the past is now not allowed. CBMW used to allow women to be Hebrew teachers in a seminary but now that is forbidden by scripture. Also teaching church history is now forbidden to but where did scripture change in the last few years that these two things are now forbidden when they used to be fine?
It is absolutely true that we have created a Christian Talmud in this hierarchy movement. In my opinion we have out-phariseed the Pharisees themselves!
One other thing…when I questioned why CARM was allowing “christdependent” to attack posters and did nothing about her attacks on egalitarians, I also questioned why the name “christdependent” when she was not apparently depending on Christ or on grace. My comment was not a question of her salvation but rather a comment about her “depending on Christ” to give grace to others. When one attacks and calls other people names are they showing that they are dependent on Christ in their actions? Jesus’ example is that of grace towards brethren in Christ and those who regularly refuse to give grace to others may be dependent but they are not being Christ dependent since Jesus says that we are to have grace with each other and to love one another.
.
It is amazing at how people can twist one’s words. It is not uncommon to say “If you are a Christian you will forgive others”. This is not an accusation that one isn’t a Christian. It is an assumption of obligation to do certain things because one is a Christian.
It is even more than a Christian Talmud, it is a teaching Magisterium that they seem to be intent on creating. That is, THEY will define how to interpret the Bible and claim that other ideas outside of theirs are heterodox.
They tried to get the TNIV people to RESTRICT the meaning of some words in the lexicons; this is simply not possible to do and when the TNIV translators pointed this out, the gender hierarchicalists said that the TNIV people broke their promise. It is simply not possible to agree to change the meaning of words in a lexicon, the very idea of being able to make such a promise is bogus.
So the gender hierarchicalists had major influence on 2 recent translations, ESV and HCSB. This is their attempt to address all the “problem” verses by making a translation that removes the problems (from their perspective).
It is ironic as this is exactly what started the Protestant Reformation.
At least we’ve got one thing in our favor this time, Don. They can’t burn down the internet. They’d be destroying their own freedom of speech in the process. And given a choice between whether the internet should ever be controlled by either the world or the church, I’ll pick the world. They don’t care how we interpret the Bible, and they don’t pretend to be speaking for God. And persecution of true believers is never worse than when it’s done in the name of God.
Are honest scholarship and accurate dictionaries really that much to ask?
This is why CBMW has created a huge list of what women can and cannot do and some grey areas that even CBMW doesn’t know the answer to yet.
I have just become aware of this list. Does anyone have a link to it on the CBMW website? Someone copied the list on another blog but I would love to see the original.
I am blown away that these mere men would develop a women ministry approved list that includes such groups as the lame and blind. Are lame and blind men not really real men?
So, they were able to glean these approved ministries for women from scripture? This is nothing less than popery.
Lin,
Here is the link http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-13-No-1/Women-in-Ministry-Practical-Application-of-Biblical-Teaching
Thanks so much. In my search on their site, I was not using the right title words to find this.
It is true that interpretation is a 2 step process, (1) exegesis of the original meaning and (2) application for today. Once CBMW exegetes 1 Tim to say women cannot teach men, I could see a pastor or congregation wondering if something they do would be condemned by them by some paper in the future. In other words there would be a natural tendency to play it safe and forbid women from doing lots of things where they might end up teaching men. This is entirely a problem of their own making due to their exegesis, which is really eisegesis.
Don,
You have identified the problem right there. CBMW has recently changed their own man-made laws to include prohibitions that didn’t exist a few years ago. What will be next? They already say that women are not allowed to teach doctrine even in their own home, but perhaps next year they won’t be able to teach the gospel either since that is teaching the bible. This is part of the church that appears to be going backwards taking privileges in Christ away from women.
They will do as much limiting as they can get away with. Notice they waited until Patterson won his case. So we can see this is not about integrity and honest exegesis.
That is the way bullies operate. They will keep bullying until the abused stand up and tell them to stop. Then its no fun anymore. It’s all about them and what they can hoard for their personal benefit. Think of the Pharisees.
I noticed Diane left a note on CARM she wanted me to call into the radio show. She’s so afraid to ask me herself. 🙂
In the newest CBMW “rules” about what women can and cannot do, I find it amazing at the level of authority they believe they have to interpret God’s thoughts. On page 20 they say:
It appears that they believe they have authority to make absolute rules in some cases and then back off and make “suggestions” on how to apply the “law” in other cases. Apparently they believe God was not able to make himself clear on the “prohibition” in 1 Timothy 2:12 and so they are the ones who have to figure out whether doctrine is being taught by a woman or whether she is only “helping” a man and not providing direct doctrinal instruction. Yet all of this seems so out of place with how scripture views women. Did not Priscilla teach doctrine to Apollos? If she was correcting his doctrine and teaching him the truth from scripture, there isn’t any doubt at all that she was teaching doctrine to a man. If CBMW had existed back in Paul’s day, I can just hear it now….
Oh, Cheryl, don’t encourage me! ;-p
You know I could have some gut-busting fun with the idea of a manly-man Bible.
Paula,
I say, “Go for it!” I think we need a few smiles in our life with all the Talmudic rules out there.
oooo boy!
(Hey, the security word says “broad”. I’m offended!)
^^ but that does give me some ideas, e.g. “broad is the way…”
Okay, first draft (men like that word)
Paul of Tarzan, the High-Ranking
To Tim the Toolsmith, my best buddy
Okay, listen up! I’m gonna cut to the chase and skip all that sissy stuff about love and peace and tender-hearted. I’m in charge, and you’re not, got that?
In the beginning, God made Man. Not mankind, Man. But God said, “It ain’t right for the Man to be alone– he needs somebody to boss around.” So he made woman, which everybody knows means “woe to man”. Things were okay for a while, but one day she brazenly dusted his golf clubs. That was unforgivable, so God cursed her and her female offspring for all eternity. And even though Man wasn’t supposed to leave his golf clubs out where they’d get dusty, God decided to let him keep bossing Woman around anyway. It’s just how things are, and everybody knows God is a Man too. But a really big one. Ever since then, women have lusted after golf clubs, and it’s men’s job to keep their wimpy hands off them.
So husbands, rule your wives firmly. Don’t give an inch or they’ll take a mile. Never let them catch you without an instant ruling on any matter; a wrong answer is better than “I don’t know”. Grow a beard, because women can’t. Not good girls anyway.
Fathers, teach your sons to hunt and your daughters to shut up and cook. Give the sons manly names and just give the daughters numbers, because they have to take a man’s name someday, so who cares.
Ruling men, you’re in charge, so act like it. You are the alpha-males of the pack; do not back down from any challenger. No man can be an alpha-male unless he has hair on his back and can take a tight S-curve on a Harley at 80mph without breaking a sweat.
Women,… um… just do whatever any Man tells you. That’s all you need to know. Hey, what are you doing reading this?? It’s only for men!
Men, find the dipstick that taught the women to read, and send him to boot camp.
Well, real men don’t like to write, so I’m signing off. Say ‘hi’ to to the guys, tell the girls to stifle. Tell Peter to bring my tools, I left ’em in his garage. Demetrius the Ironworker still owes me five bucks.
Now, git ‘er done!
Paul
Hey Cheryl, did that post get to you?
Hi Paula,
I did get the “broad” post. Are there any confusions on the new format for comments? Any ideas?
I emailed you the first draft of the Manly Man Bible, because it wouldn’t post it here. I’m guessing it has to do with the fact that I typed it in a word processor and then pasted it into the comment box.
I would love a peek at that too! <<brig grins>>
🙂
Paula (a.k. Paul),
(snorkle) I found it in my spam box! I unloaded it with the tools that were available to me and it has shown up as #40.
Great spoof, you got a job. (Get ‘er done!)
Kewl! But I have to smell some flowers and each chocolate before I write any more stuff like that.
Hey, I git 2 votes to your 1, cuz I can grow a beard.
You guys are too funny. Cheryl’s sounded just like CBMW and Paula’s sounded just like the rough and tough Driscoll!
Thanks Lin.
I have been reading CBMW material for years now and their influence has certainly rubbed off!
http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/
Here is a link to an official debate about Patriarchy and male only eldership. The debate format is interesting and something that Matt should really consider.
Thanks Lin,
That is a great way to have a written debate. I think Matt should see this even though he will not venture into territory where he doesn’t think he can control the outcome.