Some have wondered why “Chris” the complementarian stopped posting here. Apparently, he could not get his refutation of my work to stand in an interactive forum so he moved it over to a place where he could have the floor to himself. He has posted a claim that he has refuted me in his post called A Refutation of Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12.
Chris is now posting under the name Neopatriarch, and he describes his post as filling a need for those who are exasperated with me and my “associates.” (Paula I think he is referring to your excellent refutation of his logical fallacies.) This gives me an opportunity to examine Chris’ (aka Neopatriarch) claims that he has “refuted” me. Let’s have a look to see if what he has to say is worthy of his lofty claims. …
While this blog is mostly always about the issue of women in ministry, today I digress so that I can pass on some of the cute sayings of my four year old grandson Isaac. Above is Isaac and his mom Misty (my daughter). From Misty’s “Funny things my kids have said to me” file:
1. Just this morning Isaac called out to me from the bathroom…”MOOOMMY! YOU GAVE ME TOO MUCH CARROTS!!!”
2. Isaac spent a lot of time yesterday “baking” floam cookies for the company we were having later that evening. (Floam is like playdoh but it doesn’t dry out). While he was baking he says, “Mom? God is giving me PASSION to do this!!!” (Isaac takes after his Grandma in the passion department!) …
This is the ninth in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.
Doug, a strong complementarian will be questioning Paul on 1 Corinthians 14. Paul will be speaking to him about the Sovereignty of God and whether there are restrictions on women in the church. Let’s listen in. (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.)
Doug: Paul, I am anxious to talk about 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 today. This is the final passage that convinced me that you did not allow women to teach the bible to the entire congregation. This is also one of the clearest passages there is.
Paul:I am very happy to be able to help you out with this passage. We do need to remember the complete context of this passage so that you will know how to interpret it in line with all that I taught. We are going to work with another box today. Today the box will be the filter that we need to read 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 through.
Julie Pennington-Russell is pastor of First Baptist Church, Decatur, Georgia
This is the eighth in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.
Doug, a strong complementarian will be questioning Paul on his own strong hold today. The issue will be women pastors. Let’s listen in. (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.) …
This is the seventh in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.
Doug, a strong complementarian is questioning Paul on why the man alone brought sin into the world. Let’s listen in. (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.)
This is the sixth in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.
Doug, a strong complementarian has been patiently waiting to question Paul on his reference to the order of creation in 1 Timothy 2:13. Let’s listen in. (The previous interviews are linked at the bottom of this post.)
This post is the fifth one of a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.
Doug, a strong complementarian is itching to question Paul regarding who is referred to as “they” in 1 Timothy 2:15. Let’s listen in. (The previous interviews are linked at the bottom of this post.) …
This post is the fourth one of a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.
Doug, a strong complementarian has still more questions for Paul on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Let’s listen in. …
This post is the third one of a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day. Doug, a strong complementarian has been given the opportunity to ask Paul about tough passages of scripture that Doug thought were clear to him. In his dialog with Paul, Doug is troubled by the implications of what he has been hearing and in this third interview Doug has decided to push Paul on the issue of the universality of “woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. …
This post is the second one of a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day. While Paul gets to experience life in the 21st century, Doug, a strong complementarian, is given the opportunity to interview the Apostle Paul on the hard passages about women in the bible. The first interview is located here. In the second interview Doug wants to revisit 1 Timothy 2:12 before moving on.
Doug: Hello brother Paul. I am so glad that we are able to continue with our interview. Did you enjoy taking the pulpit for John MacArthur?
Paul:I loved it! Well, actually I didn’t take the pulpit. I just spoke to the congregation from the floor because I wanted to encourage everyone to speak and use their gifts. That was the way it was meant to be. After all we are all brothers in Christ and we can learn from each other. Unfortunately I don’t think they will be having me back anytime soon.
This post will be a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day. We are interested in asking Paul his reasons for what he wrote about women and what he thinks about the present day church regarding women’s ministries. However the interviewer that gets first “crack” at Paul will be a complementarian Christian who strongly believes that women are restricted from teaching men in the church. The interviewer’s name will be “Doug”. …
The picture above represents not only the “bride” of Christ held back and controlled, but women in the “bride” of Christ held back and controlled. It is a great concern to me that there are many in the body who think that authoritarian control is needed to keep people in line and to keep the unity of the faith. But is the removal of the ability to question those in leadership or to question secondary doctrine a necessary thing to keep the unity of the faith? Some apparently believe that questionable tactics are allowed if the end result is unity but I would like to propose that unity based on an abuse of authority produces artificial unity.
Wade Burleson has been doing a series of posts on authoritarian control in the church and within non-profit groups and I believe that this issue is a major problem in the church today. Those who use intimidation tactics to prevent people from asking legitimate questions have risen up in our churches at an alarming rate. Where is this all coming from? There appears to be an emphases in many seminaries that sways impressionable young graduates to the belief that pastoral authority must be defended at all costs. Wade Burleson comments on the results of such teaching that creates an elite group of “the Lord’s anointed”. While Wade’s commentsare specifically about the Southern Baptist Convention, the application can be made throughout all denominations. …
Many people think that God was especially hard on Eve after she was deceived by the serpent in the garden. In fact hierarchists have determined that God was so hard on Eve by punishing her with a multitude of lashes for her sin, that some might get the idea that God punished the one who was deceived in a more severe way than the one who sinned willfully and without remorse. Others are so confused about what God said to Eve many think that sexuality is a necessary evil that came after Adam and Eve left the garden, since Eve experienced no pregnancy before they left the garden. Understanding exactly what God did say to Eve can help to remove the misconceptions.
God’s words to Eve gives us the reason why Eve did not get pregnant in the garden after her marriage to Adam. It would not have been because Adam and Eve did not have normal marital relations. After all God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply and marital relations is the normal way of making that happen. However Adam and Eve were created to live without dying and in that original creation, Eve’s rate of conception was not the same as it was after she ate the fruit and became subject to death. Let’s look at the first part of God’s words to Eve in Genesis 3:16. …
One of the most bizarre teachings of CBMW is the one taught in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in chapter 3 written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. Here Mr. Ortlund states that God pronounced the death sentence on Adam alone so that Eve died not because she ate of the forbidden fruit. According to Ortlund she died because of Adam’s sin. On page 110, Mr. Ortlund writes:
The fourth point here is that God told Adam alone that he would die. But Eve died, too. Why then did God pronounce the death sentence on Adam alone? Because, as the head goes, so goes the member. [emphasis mine] …
In an interesting blog post on Pyromaniacs the February 10th post, author Dan Phillips tries to link the rebellion of King Uzziah and his punishment of leprosy with the “unfaithful” act of women who apparently are committing treachery against God by becoming pastors. Is this really true? Are women pastors committing treachery against God? First let’s look at Dan Phillip’s article to see how he equates women pastors with illegally burning incense on the altar. Taking the opposing view for effect he says:
Surely King Uzziah had every bit as much right to burn incense on the altar as… well, as women have to be pastors in our day!
No matter how wonderful it (women pastors) looks, treachery is still treachery. …
The creation account has been used by many as a foundation to produce myths and stories. While this post will concentrate on modern day myths, it is also helpful to understand some of the historical myths about the creation of male and female.
One of the myths of creation comes from Plato where the androgynous sex existed as what humans were in the beginning. Here is the edited speech at the Banquet by Aristophanes (189e-193b of Plato’s Symposium):
“Anciently….the androgynous sex existed…coupled back to back…till jealous Jupiter divided then vertically …as people cut eggs with hairs…after then, these divided and imperfect folk ran about over the earth ever seeking their lost halves to be joined to them again…and the reason being that human nature was originally one, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love…..”
Another version is concerning Hermaphroditos who was a Greek androgynous deity. …
Was the first man needed to give woman her self-understanding? According to Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, the answer is yes.
Ortlund has written chapter three of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood CBMW’s book. In this chapter, Ortlund says:
In designating her “Woman” the man interprets her identity in relation to himself. Out of his own intuitive comprehension of who she is, he interprets her as feminine, unlike himself, and yet as his counterpart and equal. Indeed, he sees in her his very own flesh. And he interprets the woman not only for his own understanding of her, but also for her self-understanding. God did not explain to the woman who she was in relation to the man, although He could have done so. He allowed Adam to define the woman, in keeping with Adam’s headship. (emphasis mine)
Let me ask a couple of questions. Who explained to the man who he himself was for his own self-understanding? …
This is a quickie post because I couldn’t resist allowing my four year old grandson Isaac to teach us all some of the basics. Ready? Here goes:
Trying to figure out what boys and girls are…he says, “Mom, if boys are MALE, then girls are EMAIL, right?”
So why do we have to go to the complicated complementarian rule book? Let’s just learn from nature and ask a four year old!
If you have some cute kid’s sayings about male and female, just post it here and let all of us enjoy it!
Oh and by the way, you might want to know what a four year old hockey fan calls not wearing clothes? Ready for this one regarding Adam in the buff? It is a good one! Answer: PUCK naked. (For those of you who don’t get these four year old sayings, just think about how a small hockey fan would interpret “BUCK naked”.
In our discussion of CBMW’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, continuing on in chapter 3 in the writings of Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Mr. Ortlund redefines the creation account in such a way that God’s creation of the male first is said to be necessary in order that the nature of the male and female is not obscured. Ortlund writes on page 102:
God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction. Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman. He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear. (emphasis is mine)
Ortlund’s presumption here is quite clear from this chapter. God made man first, according to Ortlund, to show that woman-
…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.
and
A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)
In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, chapter 3 is written by Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. and called “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship Genesis 1-3” but honestly, I think it could be retitled “The Emperor has no clothes” a thoughtful comment from a child in the fairytale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes“. This chapter in CBMW’s book is one of the most fanciful reworking of the Genesis account that I have ever seen. Take for example the reworking of sin to be “operating on Eve’s mind” even before sin entered the world.
On page 106 Ortlund writes:
Eve hadn’t even known that there was a “problem”. But the Serpent’s prejudiced question unsettles her. It knocks her back on her heels. And so the Serpent engages Eve in a reevaluation of her life on his terms. She begins to feel that God’s command, which Adam had shared with her has to be defended…Eve’s misquote reduces the lavish generosity of God’s word to the level of mere, perhaps grudging, permission…
After the words “which Adam had shared with her”, Ortlund inserts a note number 39 and the end notes from chapter 3 note 39 reads: …
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and on page 73, John Piper and Wayne Grudem write that Adam was ordained as the one responsible for the life of the garden. The reference is in response to a quote from 1 Timothy 2:14 where Adam is said to have not been deceived. Some take this as a proof that women are more gullible than men and easier to deceive, but Grudem and Piper say that this is not so. Instead, CBMW brings a new meaning to “not deceived”. They say “not deceived” means that Adam was not approached by the deceiver. They write:
If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this: “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”
Since when does “not deceived” mean that you must have a direct interaction with the deceiver? …
The story of Deborah and Barak in the book of Judges has caused many hierarchists to assign the God-given work of judge delivering the people of Israel to Barak while denying that God raised up Deborah as a deliverer. By assigning a calling to Barak that scripture never assigns, it appears that the example of Deborah and Barak is a clear example of reading into the text the tradition of men and failing to identify in the text God’s own inspired words which give the calling to Deborah. In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s (CBMW) Journal article, Barbara K. Mouser writes concerning Barak:
Barak is a weak man who does the will of God when paired with a righteous and wise woman. He does the job of deliverer-judge, makes the roll call of faith, but suffers a loss of glory because of his lack of zeal and obedience.
Barbara Mouser also denies that Deborah is a God-given judge who is raised up by God to deliver Israel:
Deborah is Not a Judge
She is not a judge in the sense that the book of Judges defines a judge; she is not a military deliverer.17 Rather she is a prophetess, and as a prophetess, she commands and exhorts Barak with God’s own words and authority.
The amount of “reading into” the text is astounding in this article. For example, where is Barak said in scripture to be “raised up” by God as a judge? Barak is never called a judge but Deborah is and Judges chapter 2 makes it very clear that all the judges were raised up by God.
Judges 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.
The raising up must include all of the judges and in this account of deliverance it is only Deborah that is identified as a judge, not Barak.
Next the CBMW article identifies women as a sign of degeneracy:
Isaiah tells us that the rule of women is a sign of degeneracy, not liberation (Isa 3:12).
The issue of women in ministry allows us to the opportunity to ask questions about the hard passages of scripture and to work through these passages to discover God’s intended meaning through the inspired context. But in many quarters, questioning is a “sin” that will get a reprimand from a strong authoritarian leader. Is it really a sin to ask questions? The New York Times has produced an article by Molly Worthen called Who Would Jesus Smack Down? In a surprising view of “the cussing pastor”, Mark Driscoll is not only against women pastors and what is called the feminization of the church, but he also refuses to tolerate any opposition to his views. In The New York Times article Molly Worthen writes:
Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.
Recently I was contacted by Dr. Barb Orlowski who has compiled her research on spiritual abuse into a manuscript that will form the basis of a yet unpublished book called “Ministering Restoration: Recovering Spiritual Harmony”. Dr. Orlowski wrote to me because she is interested in the issue of women in ministry as it was part of her study on spiritual abuse by authoritarian and abusive leadership in the church. In her on-line book in chapter three “What does the Bible say?” she lists the inherent weakness of the hierarchical/authoritarian model of leadership. These models can be used as a way to abuse the flock if the leadership demonstrates power driven or controlling tendencies. Barb writes:
Hierarchical and Authoritarian leadership can often slip into abusive patterns. What appears to be a reasonable system of church governance can often get molded instead to suit the designs of certain types of leaders. Unfortunately, these leaders distort church authority in ways that eventually misrepresent biblical principles for church governance. Leadership then becomes a command and control style which slowly erodes the effectiveness of that church body and leaves those under that regime dependent and immature in their Christian lives.
One of the ways that these leaders become abusive, according to Dr. Orlowski, is by not allowing others to participate and these “authorities overstep their bounds and use their position of leadership to mistreat those under their care”. …
Complementarians claim that 1 Timothy 2:12 is universally applicable because they say it was written for the church to know how to behave. According to John MacArthur, in God’s High Calling for Women part 1, 1 Timothy was written to “set the church in order”.
First Timothy 3:14-15 gives us the overall intent of the letter: “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. ” First Timothy was written to set the church in order.
MacArthur appears to deny that Ephesus had godly women as he states that the Ephesian women were “desecrating” the worship service.
First Timothy 2 focuses in on another problem involving women. Under the pretense of coming to worship God, they were flaunting themselves and desecrating the worship service. Their dress and demeanor betrayed an evil intent rather than a heart of worship.
While John MacArthur’s exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:9ff is about women with an “evil intent”, a statement completely foreign to the text, yet he claims that the prohibition that follows in verse 12 is all about the “biblical role” of all women in the church.
From his discussion of the problems women were causing in the worship services, Paul branches out into a discussion of the biblical role of women.
In the “biblical role of women” given universally for the church, the apostle Paul, according to John MacArthur, states that women must come to church with a “proper sense of shame”. …
Very few people quickly admit their beliefs are wrong
This blog has been a meeting place for many who have received huge challenges to their view of women in ministry. Here I receive questions about how to deal with a spouse or a pastor who is strongly opposed to allowing women to freely serve the body of Christ with their God-given gifts. How does one deal with opposition even when one has presented well-reasoned arguments and the other person is unwilling to engage the arguments or is unwilling to really listen to what you have to say?
Today I would like to call attention to a very gentle apologist who has written some really great tactics that are very encouraging to me in how to deal with those who oppose women in ministry. While I understand that some people are so abusive and unChristlike that it is better to stay away from them rather than engage them and risk being personally attacked yourself, sometimes it is impossible to stay away from strong opposers because they are part of our family or the church family where we worship.
In today’s issue of Stand to Reason’s (STR) “The Page”, Greg Koukl’s email updates sent to subscribers, Greg gives some wise advice on the issue of why change is so hard and how to handle opposition. …
In the beginning God made male and female. Together they were to do God’s work on earth but unfortunately the fall happened and their work done together as equals was challenged by the man who took the sole rule for himself. Society became strongly patriarchal, and men were seen as the only ones who were capable of speaking for God and interpreting his word. But without the female complement working together with the male, some scriptures took on a decidedly male bias that is foreign to the context. For example, look at 1 Timothy 2:9 to see Paul’s instruction given to godly women.
1 Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
1 Timothy 2:10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
We can note from 1 Timothy 1:2 that Paul is writing to Timothy. In chapter 2 Paul gives a standard for godly women to show their Christian maturity from the inside out. Women are to adorn themselves modestly and discreetly as is proper for women who make a claim to godliness. This is where some veer off into male bias.
The male bias reads a sexual temptress instead of godly women into this passage.
As a woman in ministry, I have struggles like everyone else, wanting to do my best for the Lord Jesus, yet finding opposition from the enemy who tries to sap my strength and take away my passion. Sometimes there isn’t even a soft place to land when places/people which have been trusted as a safe place are no longer safe.
I am reminded of David who was a man after God’s own heart, yet at times felt betrayed and homeless. I am also reminded of Jeremiah who is known as the weeping prophet who did God’s work by being the messenger bringing a warning of judgment, yet as the messenger he was rejected and abandoned.
Everywhere I turn, I see godly people having some of the greatest struggles of their lives. When one is tested and tried and the work and the struggle is difficult both emotionally and physically, where does one turn to to find a soft place to land? Where or what do you turn to? …
Merry Christmas to all. May the real meaning of this season be foremost in your thoughts today as you celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Tradition has flavored a lot of things for us that causes us to see everything in terms of tradition instead of thinking outside the box.
Today I am offering a guest post to Don Johnson who will challenge us to see things without our traditional “glasses”.
How Many Wise Men? by Don Johnson (guest post)
The Question
Here is a fun question you can pose to your friends. Please be as specific or as general as warranted by the biblical text. The answer may surprise you if you have not heard this before. …
While this post isn’t exactly a “Women in Ministry” post, I think it does highlight the importance of men and women working together in complementary ways for the benefit of the body of Christ and for ministry to the lost. God often uses women in ways that are different than he uses men simply because he has made us to provide what is missing. This is the definition of a helper – one who provides what the other is lacking. Together men and women can make a great team each uniquely providing their gifts with teaching provided by not just one but both as a full rounded view that is beneficial for the common good.
My gift is seeing outside the box on disputed issues. I have the gift of seeing in scripture what others miss. The article below was written by myself at least ten years ago as an apologetic response to those who see the star of Bethlehem as a satanic tool that was used to guide ungodly men who brought about the deaths of many baby boys in Israel and whose actions also threatened to destroy the Son of God as a child. I think that at this time of year it is a good article to post because there are many naysayers who dispute Christmas as a freedom for Christians to celebrate the birth of the Messiah. I think you will find the following dialog to be an interesting read and could be helpful the next time a Jehovah’s Witness comes to your door and tells you that Christmas is pagan and the star of Bethlehem was satan’s star sent by the enemy to bring death and destruction.
The following article is in dialog form for ease of reading. It is a simulated dialog between a Christian named Chris and a Jehovah’s Witness named Joe. This article has been used by God in a mighty way for many years to free those who used to be bound by the Jehovah’s Witness religion regarding their fear of Christmas. Those who come out of this false religion remain bound by their traditions until the word of God is used as pure water to wash away the false doctrine. (Note the New World Translation is the Jehovah’s Witnesses own in-house translation).
I don’t do “humor” too much on this blog, although I love humor and I love to laugh. The issue of women in ministry is normally a serious one but I couldn’t resist this funny cover that comes from my friend Pastor Jon Zens. Pastor Jon’s web site is here and he has written a good article on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 here called Are the sister free to function? There is also an answer to whether a woman is to be silent in the church here called A discussion on silent women. Pastor Jon has been very support of the function of women in the church using their God-given gifts. He has been a personal encouragement to me and he recommends my DVD set to many people.
Jon also has a new video clip on the front page of his web site revealing his views that the church should not have a clergy class but that elders and pastors are a part of the body of Christ and not a special “class” of believers.
The charge is often laid that egalitarians twist the scriptures. I would like to apply a saying that I read recently. Here it is:
(Complementarians) are quick to accuse of foul play but there are no rules that they have to follow.
What egalitarians are trying so hard to do is interpret scripture with scripture and take the full context instead of isolating scriptures from their context. Let’s see if complementarians play by the same rules or if they hold themselves as exempt from their own rules.
1. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is used as a general principle that forbids godly Christian women from using their God-given gifts for the benefit of their Christian brothers. If this is true as complementarians assert it is, can you please tell me why Paul uses singular and a plural grammar in verse 15? Who is the “she” who will be saved in the future if “they” continue on in faith, love, holiness and self control? Isn’t it a twist to ignore the specific grammar of verse 15 which is the conclusion to the prohibition? How can we know who Paul is prohibiting in verse 12 if we do not know who the “she” and “they” are in verse 15? …
There has been much talk in the last few years about the “feminization” of the church. Books have been written about this “serious” problem and many men are thoroughly disgusted with seeing men outnumbered by women in the church. These men feel that something drastic must be done to bring men back into the church. I think that it is time we give this issue a “serious” look in order to help those men who have stopped going to church because of the “feminization of the church”.
Before we look at a solution, let’s have a look at the problem as identified by men:
1. Men don’t like singing love songs to Jesus. Jesus is my savior, they say, not the “lover of my soul”.
2. Men do not like to see flowers and tissue boxes at the front of the church nor do they enjoy sitting on pink cushioned pews.
3. Men need to separate from women to assert their masculinity. Men don’t want to be around a place where there are a lot of women. In the book “The Church Impotent the Feminization of Christianity“, Leon Podles writes about men’s need to separate from women. David Wayne reviews the book by writing: …
According to complementarians, Galatians 3:28 is not about equality in Christ, but about all of us being in the same “boat” of salvation. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has made quite an effort to try to demolish Galatians 3:28 as a basis of spiritual equality outside of salvation. Instead, they say that this verse is only about the equality we have in Christ in regards to salvation. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood pages 71-72, John Piper and Wayne Grudem comment:
The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: they are equally justified by faith (v. 24), equally free from the bondage of legalism (v. 25), equally children of God (v. 26), equally clothed with Christ (v. 27), equally possessed by Christ (v. 29), and equally heirs of the promises to Abraham (v. 29)…Galatians 3:28 does not abolish gender-based roles established by God and redeemed by Christ.
But is Galatians 3:28 only about equality in salvation? Let’s have a close look at the book of Galatians to find out if this is true.
Paul speaks about agitators who had come into the community and had thrown the Galatians into confusion (Galatians 5:12). These agitators were false brothers, Judaizers and the “party of the circumcision” and they had come into the congregation to spy on the liberty that the Christians had in order to persuade them to come back into bondage.
Galatians 2:4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
Paul describes in his letters some of the areas that the Judaizers were working to bring Christians into bondage and causing the Jews to treat some with prejudice. In Galatians 5:2, these men were trying to bring circumcision into the congregation of Gentiles. Also in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 these followers of the Jewish oral law were trying to silence women in the congregation and they wanted to stop women from public learning. …
