For those who have been following my comments on Wade Burleson’s post, the three blog articles that I refer to can be found here:
Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part one
Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part two
If there are any questions, I would love to take them either on this forum or at Wade’s blog.
Wade Burleson has a great new post on women called “Are The Sisters Free to Function?” It is an article written by Jon Zens. It is long….22 pages printed out, but Jon brings up some good points and the hot discussion following his article might be interesting for you to follow. I appreciate Wade a lot with his courage to take on a tough subject amongst Southern Baptists. You will notice that many of the men and even at least one woman posting responses are very much against women teaching the bible to men.
I am up to my ears in paint as we are getting our home ready for sale and our final move to our new ministry location. If I don’t have a new post that I have time to work on, I will point you to other blogs and information that will help you. Please pray for us that our home will be sold quickly and that our preparations for its sale will go fast. Our hearts are really in full time ministry, not Mr. and Mrs. fix-it, paint-it, and clean-it of 34 years of memorabilia.
Is God male in some way? Many Christians think that he is. But how could God be male when God is pure spirit? God has no male sexual organs and he has no testosterone. Because God does not have a body, it is impossible for him to be structurally male. Therefore in his essence God is neither male nor female.
But some would argue that God is male in his characteristics. If that were true, then God would only describe himself in purely male characteristics. But that just isn’t so. Although God describes himself with many male characteristics, he also describes himself with female characteristics. God describes himself as a mother in Isaiah 66:13 and as a nursing mother in Numbers 11:12. God’s motherly characteristics are highlighted in scripture as well as his fatherly characteristics. God is described with both male and female characteristics therefore God is not uniquely male because of his characteristics.
So why is God always referred to with the male terms of “he” and “Father” and never “she” or “Mother”? It is because God has chosen a relationship with us as Father. It is with this relationship that God shows us his nature and his love. God is the source of all things. As source he is referred to as Father. Ephesians 3:14, 15 says:
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name.
Every family in heaven and on earth derives its name from the Father. The word family in Greek is “patria” and it is a feminine noun meaning family or lineage running back to some progenitor. God is that progenitor. 1 Corinthians
For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
God is the source and originator and progenitor and as progenitor he is called Father.
The man was also created first to be the source of the woman. Adam then became the source or foundation for the woman. But God did not keep the preeminence with the male alone. He then made the woman to bring forth every other man. The woman then became preeminent as the source of the male. God has brought equality to both the male and the female by allowing each one to be the source of the other, yet ultimately the preeminent source must be honored as Father – the progenitor of every family.
Scripture shows that God is not male, but he has chosen to call himself Father because he is the ultimate source. When we honor him as Father, we do not honor him as male, but we honor him as our source.
While I still intend to write an article about 1 Corinthians 11 – Head coverings and authority, the video clip below which is an excerpt of part 3 of “Women in
[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/C33wUR9zcBg”][/gv]
Can a woman serve God with all her heart without fearing that somehow she is violating a commandment by God? This segment is a preview of part 7 of the 4th DVD of “Women in
[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=” http://www.youtube.com/v/JCUFC1ss-Dw”][/gv]
Understanding the basics in Genesis gives a foundation for understanding the way God views women in ministry. In this segment from the first DVD of “Women in
[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/7fH5_MIF6Jk”][/gv]
I have posted a third preview of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVD on YouTube. You can view the preview of 1 Corinthians 14 below. Click below on the picture to watch the preview of part 5 found on the fourth DVD.
[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/zryLDmoeqso”][/gv]
To watch an excerpt from the section on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 click here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/03/30/1-timothy-2-video-preview-now-available/
To watch the entire introduction to “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” click here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/01/09/wim-video-preview-on-youtube/
I have posted a second preview of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVD on YouTube. You can view the preview of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 below. Click on the picture to watch the preview of part 4 on the third DVD.
[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/dwzI-kW7E-I”][/gv]
This week CBMW (the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) released two audio tapes from the February 2007 “Different by Design” Conference held in Minneapolis Minnesota. (http://www.cbmw.org/media/differentbydesign.php) I was amazed at the way that the gospel was connected to the gender issue in such a way that those who do not hold to patriarchy and male-only leadership were charged with not holding to the gospel. I would like to present some clips from the first audio tape by Russell Moore in this post and reflect on his comments.
The source of the following audio clips is from CBMW’s audio files (http://www.cbmw.org/media/differentbydesign.php) (Update 2017: the origin file is no longer available at CBMW but it is available at Russell Moore’s website here.) The first speaker from the February 2007 conference is Dr. Russell Moore who is the dean of theology at the Southern Baptist theological seminary in Louisville Kentucky.
Dr. Moore starts out by stating that evangelical feminism is winning the debate in our churches. The clips below are very short so it won’t take long to get through them. The shortest clip is only a few seconds long and the last clip which is the most jaw-dropping clip is just over 1 minute. Below is clip #2.
Dr. Moore then asserts that Christians who hold to the egalitarian viewpoint do not have an exegetical argument and have largely abandoned (trying to use exegesis). Hear Clip #2 below.
I would respectfully disagree with Dr. Moore. I have read many excellent biblical exegetical arguments from evangelical egalitarian sources. In 2006 our ministry also produced a careful and respectful verse-by-verse exegesis of the hard passages of scripture in our 4 DVD series called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” It was extremely important to us to recognize that as Christians we need to work hard to rightfully divide the word of truth. We believe that scripture is God-breathed and we do not advocate disregarding any parts of scripture. All scripture has been given by God for our learning and our correction. Have egalitarian Christians abandoned an exegetical argument on the gender issue? Absolutely not! Those who hold tightly to scripture do not have to abandon scripture at all to reject patriarchy.
Dr. Moore then says that women who teach the bible in the media, like teaching on DVDs, are taking a pastoral role that isn’t allowed to them and men who watch and listen to women teach the bible on DVDs are more willing to let women teach them. Listen to clip #3 below.
It is interesting that Dr. Moore appears to be very against women teaching scripture using various media. Should women stop teaching scripture? No. We are in a battle against the enemy and we must not be silent. We cannot stop teaching the bible if we are to be faithful to Christ. Women who teach scripture on DVDs as I have on my WIM series are following Christ using the gifts that he has given us. Should women be forbidden to teach using the media? It appears that Dr. Moore believes so. Why? He says that this debate is not a secondary issue but is an issue of the gospel. He says that it is not an intramural debate where brothers and sisters in Christ can disagree on a secondary issue. Rather according to Dr. Moore and CBMW, the gender debate is not a secondary issue but a core issue of the gospel. Listen to clip #4 below.
Dr. Moore goes on to say that we as a church have treated the doctrine of God as a more important issue than the “male headship” or gender issue, however he disagrees. He says that brothers and sisters who are together on the doctrine of God are not really together if they disagree on the gender issue because open theism (a view that denies God’s full knowledge i.e. the teaching that God is not omniscient) is not worse than evangelical feminism. Listen to clip #5 below.
How sad that the gender debate can be considered in the same category as open theism. How this must hurt the heart of God when a brother in Christ is willing to separate from other brothers and sisters in Christ over a secondary issue, instead treating the gender issue as a core issue of faith. This is not a core issue of faith but an issue where sincere brothers and sisters in Christ can differ without breaking fellowship. Those who are charging egalitarians with serious doctrinal error and with dismissing the gospel just because they believe that women are allowed to use their spiritual gifts without restriction,have moved over into a divisive and unloving stance. This should not be.
The last clip brings a great sadness to my heart.
Evangelical feminists are not necessarily lost? Perhaps some of them can be saved? It is just so sad to hear Dr. Moore state that those who hold to the egalitarian argument are holding to a belief that seems right to them because they are shaking their fists in the face of authority. He says that lives are at stake. He says that the gospel is at stake.
Beloved, our brothers in Christ are seeing this issue as in-house spiritual warfare. We are the enemy to them and they are out to win because they believe they are fighting the battle for the gospel.
This is not a battle for the gospel. We believe in the gospel just as strongly as Dr. Moore and CBMW does. In fact the core of our ministry is the defense of the faith and we have been instrumental in leading many Jehovah’s Witnesses to Christ by presenting the gospel to them. But when one adds conditions to the gospel that the bible does not add, then there will be an attack on those who do not hold to those conditions.
I say that it is time that our brothers in Christ stop treating us as the enemy. Where is the love for others in the body of Christ who do not think as they do? Jesus said that they will know us by our love. Our love MUST be for the body of Christ. Complementarians need to learn to love us and do it for Jesus’ sake.
What is your opinion? What do you think of these quotes?
In closing I would like to quote a short piece from a blog article by Justin Taylor (Update 2017 : Justin Taylor’s blog article is no longer on Between Two Worlds, but is listed here.
The article is regarding controversy and how we as Christians need to treat others who disagree with us. Justin quotes John Newton, writing in a letter on controversy (The Works of John Newton, 1:273-274):
It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defences were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our day, when errors abound on all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly misrepresented.
And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most are but of a secondary value.
This shews, that, if the service is honourable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made!¦
Amen! We all need to work at keeping that humble, tender spirit especially towards fellow Christians who are also members of the body of Christ even as we expose error.
We are mostly moved into our new home and much of our time has been spent in unpacking boxes. Our living room now feels like home since six book cases of my research and bible study books have been unpacked.
Now that we are starting to find space on the floor to walk, I am trying to find time to work on a new blog article regarding the latest audio files from the complementarian camp. I was saddened to hear how they are continuing to become more militant as the time goes by. It is now claimed that those who do not accept a patriarchal view are guilty of dismissing the gospel. This is one of the main reasons why this blog exists – to show that those who accept an egalitarian view regarding women who use their God-given gifts for the entire body of Christ, can view the Bible as God’s inspired word and God breathed. It is imperative that we give a basis for our belief in a reasonable and respectful way. The body of Christ is hurt when those who hold to a restrictive view of women use this non-essential issue as a way to build barriers and even “rip apart” other sheep, doing much damage to the very ones whom Jesus commanded them to love. Christians on both sides of this debate should remember that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, it is essential to expose error, but godly Christians should be able to interact and dialog in a loving way without attacking one another by making this non-essential issue into an essential doctrine by accusing the other side of denying the gospel.
Keep watch for my new article. I plan to include audio clips so you can hear the material for yourself.
Those who believe that God created a hierarchical relationship between men and women will usually state that God created Adam as the “federal head” of the human race. This “federal headship” is said to be not only physical in that all of humanity has its origin in Adam, but spiritual because of a divinely-ordained covenant which God instituted between only Adam and himself.
In this view, God gives the prohibition to Adam alone in the garden and God does not include Eve because she is to be represented by Adam in the same way that Adam represents all of mankind. This view is very much embedded in the complementarian mindset so that those who hold this view believe that it is not a tradition but is instead based on scripture itself. But is this true?
While I agree that when Adam sinned he took all of his descendants with him because all of us were produced from the body of Adam after he sinned and thus all of us are physically connected to Adam in his sin nature, however I strongly disagree that God created a special relationship with Adam alone that made Adam a spiritual or physical representative of Eve.
The unscriptural nature of this view is shown by those who take this teaching to its logical outcome. A strong proponent of the teaching of Adam as God’s appointed federal head of mankind is Les Feldick. Mr. Feldick is an Oklahoma rancher and preacher who teaches on a television program called “Through the Bible”.
Mr. Feldick takes the federal headship of Adam to its logical outcome by attributing Eve’s fall to Adam. He says:
“the woman’s fall was not precipitated by Eve’s eating of the fruit. Never! It was Adam who ate and the whole human race fell! We have to see here that Eve was part of that fall because she came out of Adam, just the same as you and I came from our parents. Eve came from Adam.” http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesbk1.html
Mr. Feldick states further that:
“she (Eve) simply inherited her sin nature from Adam.” http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesbk2.html
If Adam was the federal head of all mankind and appointed as such by God when God made a covenant with Adam alone, then it would have to follow that Eve’s sin did not come from her eating of the fruit. Her sin would have to be attributed to her when Adam sinned just as Mr. Feldick asserts. That means that Eve would have inherited the sin nature even if she had not been disobedient herself because Adam’s sin would also have been attributed to her. Now I agree that this would have been the case if Eve had been created after Adam sinned. When Adam sinned he took all of the future humanity with him because all of us were created from his sin-tainted flesh. We all inherited Adam’s sin nature because all of us were created after Adam sinned. But what about Eve? Eve was not created after Adam sinned but she was created before he sinned. Nowhere in scripture is her sin attributed by God to Adam and nowhere is Adam’s sin attributed to Eve. Eve is held accountable for her own sin just as Adam is held accountable for his own sin. God does not go to Adam and ask him what Eve has done. God goes directly to Eve and deals directly with her without the mediatorship of her husband. If Adam was some kind of representative head appointed by God for all of humanity, then surely he would also have been the representative head of Eve. But God does not treat Adam as a representative head of the woman. Each person is dealt with individually and each person must account for their own sin.
So why if Eve sinned first, did God put the blame solely on the man for bringing sin into the world? It is because Adam’s sin was done in a deliberate and willful way (Hosea 6:7) while Eve’s sin was done through her being deceived and thus she fell into sin (1 Timothy 2:14)
Next the question can be asked, since the seed of the woman was to be born without original sin, does the sin nature pass forward from the male alone? Scripture makes this clear in that it makes the foreskin of the male as a metaphor for sin. Where the seed comes through – that skin is said to represent sin. When God made a covenant with Abraham, all of Abraham’s offspring were to be in the covenant including males and females, yet only the males were required to be circumcised.
Genesis 17:10 “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.”
The cutting off of the foreskin was a sign of the covenant because only the foreskin is a sign of sin and the physical passing on of the sin nature was through the male alone. If a male was not circumcised, that was a sign of sin not being cut off and God required that person to be cut off from his people.
Genesis 17:14 “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
While the physical transmission of sin is from the male alone, God tells us that each one of us, male and female, need to circumcise the sin in our heart symbolized by the metaphor of the foreskin.
Deut. 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (ESV)
Jeremiah 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart.”
God himself promised that he would do the work of removing of the sin in our hearts and he likens it to physical circumcision.
Deut 30:6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.
Spiritually we all need circumcision. However in a physical way only the males were required to go through the cutting off of the physical representation of sin. The foreskin of the male represents sin while the skin of the female (hymen) always represents purity in the Bible. Does this mean that women are pure while men are sinful? No, not at all. We all are sinners in our hearts and all of us have inherited the sin nature of Adam. But only the men’s seed passes on Adam’s seed of rebellion.
One Pastor who has a Masters in Divinity asked me to explain why if the foreskin is a sign of sin, then why was Jesus born with a foreskin that needed to be circumcised? The reason that Jesus was born with a foreskin although he did not have an inherited sin nature, was because the Bible says that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
Jesus had to be made in our likeness but without the sin nature. That is why Jesus had to be born with the sign of sin in his body. He looked like us in our sinful bodies, but he was completely free of sin. In that likeness of sinful flesh he condemned sin in the flesh. Our sin nature is now spiritually circumcised by Christ himself.
Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
In summary, Adam’s sin has been passed on to all of us through the physical seed of the male, but Christ who is the physical seed of the woman, has become flesh in order to cleanse all of us who through faith will come to him to receive forgiveness. Christ alone is able to permanently deal with the sinful “foreskin” of our hearts.
Well part one of the relocation of our ministry and the move of our household has occurred and we have a two week break before we go into phase two of the move.
This week I am going to try to catch up on the comments and questions that I need to respond to on this blog and I will try to write a few new posts as time allows.
While I was away, I gave a great deal of thought to the importance of how we view the husband as head and wife as body (one flesh union) because I can see that our understanding of the husband and wife relationship greatly influences how we view the issue of women in ministry. I have been seriously considering doing a second DVD series on men and women in marriage and how it relates to women’s ministry in the church. I would like to incorporate both biblical teaching as well as interview clips of those who have struggled through this issue in their own marriage and in their church ministry and have made it work.
If anyone has questions that they would like to see a series like this answer or suggestions for the series, I welcome any feedback that you have.
I was listening to the January 26, 2007 radio program online by Matt Slick of carm.org. Matt answered a caller’s question regarding women leading in the church by appealing to Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2 where it says that a Pastor/Elder/Overseer must be “the husband of one wife”. Matt said it was “case closed” because women cannot be “the husband of one wife”.
I appreciate Matt a lot for his excellent web site that exposes many cults and aberrant movements in Christianity and although I consider him a brother in Christ, I must disagree with him on his quick and pat answer to his callers regarding women in ministry. What Matt didn’t tell his callers and what he should have been challenged on is that “husband of one wife” used in the strict way that he uses it to disqualify women would also disqualify single men as well as married men without children, since the Elder/Pastor/Overseer is to be a “husband” and also required to keep his children under control (1 Timothy 3:4).
Instead of just shutting out women, single men and married men without children, we must work to understand what this passage means. Is 1 Timothy 3 a check list of qualifications (i.e. must be married, must be a father) or is it a set of principles that set a basis for godly standards? Every church that I am aware of uses 1 Timothy 3 to set principles because none of them forbid single men or married men without children from being a Pastor.
But if women are to be included along with single men and married men without children, then why did Paul say “husband of one wife” and he never said “wife of one husband”? The reason why Paul only mentioned “husband of one wife” is because it is a reference to polygamy. Polyandry (a woman married to several men at the same time) was not allowed in that culture and so Paul would not have needed to say that women in leadership must be the “wife of one husband”.
In the Jewish faith as practiced through the Talmudic law, Jewish men were allowed to have multiple wives but the High Priest was forbidden from being a polygamist. The High Priest could be married and divorced but he could not marry more than one wife at a time. The High Priest then, was to be “the husband of one wife”. Paul brings the same regulation to the leadership of the Church. Although polygamists could become part of the congregation, they were not allowed into leadership. In the early church, the believers were unsure of how to deal with polygamists. Some tried to force them to divorce all of their wives except for the original wife in order to be baptized as a Christian, but that left the women destitute and without support. Paul gives the final word by allowing polygamists into the church who come into faith after their multiple marriages had already occurred. The only prohibition was that polygamists were disallowed from serving the congregation as an elder or deacon. In 1 Corinthians 7:24 and 27 Paul talks about the marital state in which one has become a Christian.
1 Corinthians 7:24, 27 “Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released”
If a man is bound in marriage, he is not to dissolve that marriage just because he has become a Christian. So the early church then allowed polygamists into fellowship, but they also followed the lead of Christ in teaching that it was God’s will that only one husband and one wife were to be in the marriage union.
Mark 10:6, 8 “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE… AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
So let’s review why the “husband of one wife” cannot be used to disqualify women from leadership. I think the answer will become evident from asking other relevant questions.
1. Do we stop a single male from being a pastor?
2. Do we force a pastor to resign if his wife dies and he is no longer married?
3. Do we stop a married man from being a pastor if he does not have children? After all the same passage says in 1 Timothy 3:4
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
We know of no church that disallows single men from being a Pastor. We also know of no church that disallows married men with no children from being a Pastor. Why is that? It is because we can understand from the passage that there is a principle being set forth. The principle is that if a person wants to be an Elder/Pastor/Overseer they must have their children under control (that is “if” they have children); they must not be a polygamist (that is “if” they are married and “if” they are a man).
The problems with interpreting 1 Timothy 3 as forbidding women from being an elder is:
1. There is nothing in the passage that says that a woman cannot be an elder in exactly the same way as there is nothing in the passage that says that a man cannot be an elder if he is single.
2. The Greek is written in such a way that allows both men and women to aspire to being a Pastor/Elder/Overseer.
1 Timothy 3:1 says: Trustworthy [is] the word: If anyone aspires to [the] position of overseer [Gr. episkope], he desires a good work. (Analytical-Literal Translation)
The Greek word used is NOT “aner” which would mean “If any male aspires…” Instead of the Greek word for males, the generic Greek word for”anyone” is used which is “tis”. “Tis” means men or women and has the exact same Greek grammatical structure as “anyone” in John 6:51 and every other passage concerning salvation.
John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”
All of the salvation verses are just like 1 Timothy 3:1 and they are singular masculine in the Greek grammar but all of them use the generic Greek wording which includes men and women. If we dispute that the Greek can include men and women because the grammar is singular masculine, then we must also be consistent and disallow women to be saved since all of the salvation passages are written in the same way as 1 Timothy 3:1 with generic words having a singular masculine tense in the Greek.
3. 1 Timothy 3:12 also says that Deacons must be the husbands of one wife and this term clearly did not disqualify women because Phoebe was a Deacon of the church of Cenchrea.
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;
The word that the NASB translates as “servant” is “diakonos”which means Deacon. If Phoebe could be a Deacon of the church at Cenchrea and the term “husband of one wife” did not disqualify her, then why would we think that this same term would disqualify a woman from being an elder/pastor/overseer?
So the next time that someone tells you that 1 Timothy 3 forbids women from being a Pastor, you make sure to ask them if the same passage forbids single men and married men without children from being Pastors. If a person is going to be a literalist without considering the standard that is actually being set forth, then they must also follow through with the same standards for single men and married men without children. To fail to follow through with applying the principle across the board would be hypocritical.
I have been following a blog documenting the injustice done to Dr. Sheri Klouda a professor of Hebrew who was forced out of her teaching position at the Southern Baptist Convention’s Southwestern Theological Seminary because the new President, Paige Patterson, does not believe that women should be teaching men. This comes after Dr. Klouda had been at the Seminary and approved for teaching by the board of trustees since 2002. I think that this is a very important issue to follow as it reveals the cold heart of some men towards other members of the body of Christ. Wade Burleson, a Pastor in Enid, Oklahoma writes:
It is essential for Southern Baptists to speak out when there is an injustice within our convention. This post is written for the purpose of drawing attention to a brilliant theologian who served Southern Baptists as a professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Theological for a total of seven and a half years, three and a half as an adjunct professor and four as full time elected faculty, establishing impeccable credentials and an extraordinary track record, only to be forced out from the job of her dreams for solely one reason — her gender.
To read the rest of the blog post documenting the gender discrimination that has occurred within the Southern Baptist Convention click here. I appreciate Pastor Wade for having the courage to document this injustice and his courage to speak out.
One other note – Paige Patterson is on the board of reference for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and his wife is a CBMW Council member.
I should call this post Part Four of “Does God have one unique law?” but instead I chose to make it a “unique” post of its own. Let me ask you, do you believe that there are any laws of God that Satan agrees with? Apparently he is in full agreement with the “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men.
Let’s see how this works itself out:
Satan loves it when men and women teach false doctrine, but he hates it when anyone teaches correct biblical doctrine because the teaching of correct biblical doctrine thwarts his purpose to infiltrate the church with false doctrine. The teaching of correct biblical doctrine immunizes Christians from error. It also opens their eyes to the deception that lies within satanic doctrines. Does Satan like that? Absolutely not! Satan does not want his lies exposed and he fights long and hard to stop the teaching of true doctrine. …
I am reposting the link to my series, “Does God have one unique law?”
https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2006/11/29/does-god-have-one-unique-law-part-one
Parts two is linked at the bottom and there is also a link to part three.
After five years of planning, my husband and I are moving our home and ministry office 10 hours away to join Keith and Lorri MacGregor our ministry partners. There have been some challenges these last few years working together with such a long distance between us. We look forward to producing many more DVD’s and feature length movies together with the MacGregor’s as our goal is to educate the church on the cults and aberrant movements within the church. I do have plans for another series on the women’s issue expanding it to include the relevant scriptures on marriage and how that affects women in ministry.
I also plan on keeping up with this blog although if I am off line for a period of time, it’s not that I don’t have anything to say, just that the move is such a massive one for us. We are having to do some major downsizing and to save money, we are doing the move ourselves so it’s a lot of work! Between packing, moving and unpacking we have a conference on apologetics in Alabama to attend. Exciting times, but also very, very busy.
In part one, we discussed the fact that the Bible does not contradict itself so when a complementarian has a “proof text” that is used to prove that women are not allowed to teach the Bible to men, they must also deal with the apparent contradictions of this view. Here are some of the contradictions that need to be answered:
1. 1 Timothy 2:12 is the only verse in the Bible that seems to suggest that women are not allowed to teach men. Since Paul commended the Bereans for checking his doctrine by the measuring stick of the Old Testament, what Old Testament scripture would they have turned to that confirmed the prohibition disallowing women from teaching the bible to men?
2. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal prohibition, why would Paul word God’s universal law with the words “I do not allow”? Where else did God ever give a universal prohibition with the words of a man saying “I (the man) do not allow”?
3. If women are said to be more susceptible to deception than men, why are women allowed to teach other women (who by their nature would also be susceptible to deception) and young children (who by their age would also be susceptible to deception)? Why would they only be stopped from teaching men (who would be the very ones who would be able to correct them if men are the ones who are not susceptible to deception)?
4. Since Paul’s concern in leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus was to stop the false teachers, what reason did Paul give to stop godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men? Why would Paul have not mentioned in chapter one that he left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers and the women from teaching men?
5. If God does not want the teaching gifts of women to be used for the benefit of men, then doesn’t this make women’s teaching inferior to men’s teaching? How can a woman’s gifts be equal to a man’s gifts if he cannot benefit from her spiritual gifts?
6. If a group of men are not allowed to be taught by a woman, why is a single man allowed to be taught by a woman? Can you explain why Paul’s prohibition stopping “a woman” from teaching “a man” is not applicable for a single woman teaching a single man?
7. In Acts 18:26 Priscilla is said to have taught Apollos and corrected his doctrine. What scripture explains why Priscilla was allowed to teach Apollos? Was the universal prohibition to stop women from teaching men given before Priscilla taught Apollos or after she taught him?
I have posted a preview of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVD on YouTube. You can view the preview below. Click on the picture to see the introduction to WIM.
[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0e9TL5TWdac”][/gv]
To watch a preview clip of the 3rd DVD on 1 Corinthians 14 should women be silent in the church click here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/03/30/1-corinthians-11-should-women-be-silent
To watch a preview clip of the the section on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 click here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/03/30/1-timothy-2-video-preview-now-available/
I came across an excellent post written very tongue-in-cheek about the issue of slavery using all of the standard arguments against women teaching the bible to men. It is worth the read and the link is here. My mouth just dropped open as I first read it thinking that he was serious. But as I read I recognized all of the old arguments that I have heard about stopping women from ministering from the bible in the presence of men.
I will be back posting again in a few days after taking a few days off to recover from the very busy Christmas season. I wish everyone a very wonderful new year and God’s richest blessings!
One of the things that bugs me when Christians have discussions about the women’s issue is the point when they are at loggerheads regarding “proof texts”. One person says they have their “proof text” scripture and so they are not willing to listen to what the other person has to say. The other person also has their “proof texts” and also isn’t willing to budge. However proof texting is simply not good enough. While you may have one verse that seems to agree with you, you also need to deal with the texts that don’t agree with you. This is the point where many people give up. They hold onto their proof text and stubbornly refuse to look outside of their already made-up mindset.
So how do we handle the situation when we come up against someone who is holding onto a wrong interpretation because of their “proof text”? What we need to do is to look carefully at their proof text and examine it within its entire context. That entire context may be broader than the chapter it is in and may include the entire book of the Bible that it is included in. Why is this important? It is important because if we do battle with our “proof texts” we are in essence saying that the Bible contradicts itself. Do you believe that? I don’t. So now here comes the challenge – instead of retreating to your corner with your proof text, how about proving that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself? …
While we have seen from part one that Adam’s sin was said to have been a deliberate transgression of the covenant and as a result it was a treacherous act against God (Hosea 6:7) where does that leave the seriousness of Eve’s sin?
God has made a dividing line between those sins which come from a deliberate defiance against God and those sins which are done unintentionally. Numbers 15:22, 27, 30, 31 says:
‘But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses… Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering… But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’
If one sins unintentionally, it is still a sin, but there is provision given for grace to cover this sin. 1 Timothy 2:14 says that Eve was deceived and fell into sin unintentionally through that deception.
And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
While some believe that Adam was the representative head of the human race and merely brought sin into the world because he was “head” (i.e. some say he was the covenantal head of humanity) the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin was more serious than Eve’s and it was the seriousness of his sin that brought humanity along with him into inherited sin.
Before we consider the seriousness of Adam’s sin, let’s make sure it was only Adam who brought sin into the world.
Romans 5:18, NASB says:
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men
Who was the one who committed this one transgression? Romans 5:14, 15 NASB: …
This post is a continuation of the comments from part one with discussion between Michael and Cheryl.
I read with interest Wayne Grudem’s claim that 1 Cor. 14:34 means that women are to “keep silent”regarding weighing of the oral prophecies in the assembly. While I respect Mr. Grudem as a brother in Christ, I am wondering how he can separate women from the responsibility of judging when scripture says that we all have the responsibility to judge. Judging is not a male activity, but an activity of the mature Christian. Paul had already told the Corinthian church that the saints will judge the world. 1 Corinthians 6:2 says:
1 Cor. 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?
Paul said that the saints will not only judge the world, but we will judge angels! 1 Corinthians 6:3 says:
1 Cor. 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?
This is not a male matter of judging, but an activity of the saints. If women are also going to judge the world and the angels, shouldn’t they be allowed to judge matters in the church relating to truth and error and the bible? Nowhere in scripture does it say that women are not allowed to judge. In fact God himself set Deborah up as a judge in the Old Testament. Where is there any law in scripture that forbids women from judging truth from error in the congregation? There is none!
In 1 Cor. 14:29 it does not say that there is a responsibility for males alone to judge. Instead it is the congregation who must learn to be mature and judge between truth and error. “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.”
I respectfully say that Mr. Grudem may be fulfilling 1 Cor. 12:21 “And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” Is there really no need of women to be mature and judge between truth and error in the body of Christ? Can men do this *alone* and they don’t need women? I don’t think we have a right to tell women that they cannot participate in the mature responsibility of the entire body to judge prophesy. Women must be allowed to be mature and to judge right from wrong. If Paul really was claiming that women were not allowed to judge prophesy, then he was contradicting himself when he pushed the saints on to maturity by telling them that judgment is a Christian thing that we will all be required to do. Indeed, judging in a mature and honorable way is not as Mr. Grudem claims only a male activity – it is an activity that is to be practiced by all mature members of the body of Christ – even women!
1 Timothy 2:13, 14 show that the first creation of Adam is connected to the fact that Adam was not deceived. Why was Adam not deceived? If the Hebrew text shows that God created the animals in two creative acts – one before Adam was created and one after Adam was created (but before Eve was created) – then we can understand that Adam had knowledge about the huge difference between God and creation that kept him safe from deception. See my summary of the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage explained in 20 short points posted here to understand the complete context of what we will be talking about in this post.
The discussion has taken on a question of whether animals could have been created after Adam if the old earth view is considered or if only a young earth model could fit the context. I will be posting several comments that came in under the 1 Timothy 2 passage and placing them under this post so that they can be answered here. I will then take each question and comment on them as time permits in my schedule.
In this part three of “Does God have one unique law?” we will be discussing the last set of circumstances that set apart the “law” that complementarians say God made that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. It is our desire to point out that all of these unique circumstances that set apart this “law” as something completely unique from all of God’s other laws should cause us to see “red flags” regarding making 1 Timothy 2:12 a universal law.
If we look at the entire context of 1 Timothy chapters 1 and 2 we are able to clearly see a context of deception and false teachers that Timothy was left behind in Ephesus to deal with, therefore we should be very cautious in using one verse taken out of its context to condemn all godly Christian women who obey God by using their gift of teaching to include men.
In the last two articles where we have been discussing this unique “law”, we have discovered that God has certain characteristics concerning his laws that are common to all of God’s laws. …
Complementarians have stated that God has a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. This law, they say, is revealed in 1 Timothy 2:12. Since we saw in part one that this law is foreign to the Old Testament, let’s have a look at the New Testament to see if there is a second witness to this law.
Paul stated that repetition is for our safety. Philippians 3:1 says:
Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.
Paul knew the importance of repetition. Every time doctrine is repeated and every time a prohibition is restated, we have a verification of the facts. Cults often take one scripture out of context and twist the meaning. When a fact is repeated, it is less likely that the fact can be disregarded or disputed. Repetition is indeed necessary for our safety.
So since we know that the “law” that forbids godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men is not stated in the Old Testament and would not have been a tutor for the women in the early church, is there a repetition of this “law” in the New Testament anywhere? No there is not. Now isn’t that odd? Every single “law” in the bible is verified by a second witness, except for this one. For more discussion on the necessity of having a second witness click here. …
I was challenged to present my view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 on another blog and I thought it would be good to summarize my view on my own blog. Here is the teaching from “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” our DVD series on the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, presenting the 1 Timothy 2 passage in a nutshell. Below the summary are links to my 4 DVD set for free on YouTube.
For a full media production of this passage along with the other hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, we have placed our entire 4 DVD set called Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? for free on YouTube.
Part 1s & 2 can be found here.
Part 3 can be found here.
Part 4 can be found here.
Parts 5-7 can be found here
A fuller version of my article on 1 Timothy 1:11-15 by clicking here. To purchase the 4 DVD set of Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? go to our website here.
Does this exegesis make sense?
If complementarians are right in their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, then God must have one completely unique law. This “law” forbidding women from teaching the bible to men is not like any other law in the bible.
All of God’s laws have several things in common. Every law is able to be traced back to its origin in the Old Testament.
All prohibitions that are God’s law written in the New Testament are traceable back to the Old Testament law.
But it is an odd thing about the law about women not teaching men-
It cannot be traced back to the Old Testament. There is no connection there at all! Now isn’t that odd? The 1 Timothy 2 “prohibition” about stopping women from teaching the bible to men is a unique law, the only”law” that cannot be traced back to the Old Testament! …
Since God is neither male nor female, some have suggested that the Messiah could have been born a female. I would respectfully like to differ with that view. In this post I want to show from scripture why the Messiah had to be a male.
The scriptures definitively say that sin came through one man.
Romans 5:12 NASB: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”
Paul carries the thought further by saying:
Romans 5:19 “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
Although Adam and Eve both sinned, the willful disobedience of the man was what brought sin into the world. …
It is common for hierarchists to say that Adam was Eve’s head not because he was her source, but because he had authority over her. While the teaching that Adam was Eve’s ruler before the fall of man is unsubstantiated, the fact that Adam was the source of Eve is foundational to the doctrine of the kinsman redeemer.
Let’s see if we can draw out the important connection regarding Adam’s headship and the new head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ. Adam was the first human creation and from his body, Eve was created.
The fact that Eve was created from Adam’s body and that he was the source of her flesh-and-bone-body is highly important because of what happened next. Although Eve was deceived and she sinned because of her deception, Adam sinned willfully without being deceived. Adam sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing. Adam was charged with bringing sin into the world. The following diagram shows how Adam’s blood line was tainted with sin.
God, however, prophesied that the Redeemer, the Messiah, would come from the woman. It is vital that the seed of the woman alone would produce the Messiah because of the inherited sin nature that comes through the man. The diagram below shows that the Messiah is produced from a virgin woman.
In Genesis chapter 3 God speaks to Eve about her future. Unfortunately God’s words have been interpreted by male expositors in a way that makes God out to be a false prophet. In Genesis 3:16 in the NASB, God said “In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband”
After the fall, God speaks about the future. In the quote above, God says “you will”. This is a prophetic utterance about the future and about the desire that Eve will have for her husband. What is this desire? In the Hebrew the word desire means a stretching out for – a longing for. The Complete WordStudy Dictionary describes this as the strong feelings of desire one had for another, but it wasnt always a healthy one. So is the “desire” of Genesis 3:16 a healthy desire or not? The word translated as “desire” is only found three times in the Old Testament.
In Song of Solomon 7:10 it says “I am my beloved’s, And his desire is for me.” This desire is a very healthy desire of a husband toward his wife. This desire is between a man and a woman.
In Genesis 4:7 it says “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” This desire is a figurative desire of sin wanting to control a person.
So which kind of desire is God prophesying about in Genesis 3:16? Is it like the figurative desire of sin to control and to destroy? Or is it like the longing of one person for another? Almost every commentary you read, the male commentator says that God gave a judgment on the woman so that she will desire to rule over the man. But is this true? Can scripture be properly interpreted that way? First of all the fact that the woman will desire her husband is not God’s judgment against her. It is a prophecy that would be shortly fulfilled and the desire for the man is the natural longing of the woman in spite of the pain that she experiences from having his children and in spite of the domination that the man has over her. She will long for him in spite of all the reasons for her to want to stay away from him.
In a recent bible study class the instructor brought up these verses and said that it was God’s judgment that women would desire to rule their husbands. When we broke up into groups for discussion, the first thing that the women said was “I have no desire to rule or control the man.” Every one of the women in our group said the same thing.
If we take the interpretation that the male interpreters have put onto this passage, then it puts God into dire straits because he has predicted something that on the whole simply is not true. Perhaps the male expositors should have taken the time to ask women what their desires are and then they would have known for sure the proper way to interpret this verse. So what do women really want?
Women want men to love them emotionally. Women long for their men to hold them and speak tenderly to them and to be treated as if they were the only woman on this planet. Yes women want sex too, but sex is an outworking of the emotional bond between man and woman. Women are not like men. Women do not use emotions to get sex. Women throughout the centuries have naturally used sex to get emotional love. So what is it that women want? Women want and desire emotional love. Women’s innate desire is not to rule men.
I have spoken to many women about this verse and most think the concept about them desiring to rule men is abhorrent. They can’t even conceive of it. Think about the women in all the third world countries. Do they desire to rule men? No. They dream about and long for freedom from being dominated and controlled. Women just want to be free to be themselves, they aren’t looking to rule the men, and above all they want to be loved.
So why have men chosen to believe that God said that the woman would desire to rule her husband? It is only because they are men who don’t know the internal nature of women.
Now think about it this way- if God’s intention was to punish women by making them want to rule their husbands, then why is it world-wide that women are not trying to rule their husbands? Why is it that the womanâ’s natural state is one of being easily controlled? It is because the woman’s natural tendency is to please the man and to want to do whatever will get emotional love from him. God’s words about her desire are not a curse on the woman, they are a prophetic statement concerning the innate longing that the woman will have.
And within a very short time, God’s prophetic words will come to life. Think about this – God kicks Adam out of the garden of Eden. He does not kick Eve out. Why is that? Because God knows that Adam in his rebellious state will desire to eat from the tree of life. Eve was deceived into eating the forbidden fruit – she did not eat because she was acting in a rebellious way. So God kicks out the rebellious one.
Genesis 3:23 and 24: therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
God kicks out the rebellious Adam and he is forced out of the garden. So if God doesn’t kick Eve out, then why did she leave? It is so simple. God has already told us. He prophesied what was going to happen. Eve left because she desired her husband.
With the push towards defining biblical manhood and womanhood, often men are pressured into a leadership role where they feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Probably none more stressful than the title given to them as “Priest of the home”. But is this position biblical?
Nowhere in scripture is there to be a designated “priest of the hom”. In Judges chapters 17 & 18 Micah, an idol worshipper, consecrated his son as a priest in his home (Judges 17:5) and he also persuaded a Levite to be his personal priest (Judges 17:7-13). This “priest of the home” was involved with idol worship (Judges 18:4, 14-20) and he was not set up as a “priest in the home” by God.
A priest is one who represents the people to God and offers sacrifices to God. Our High Priest is Jesus himself and he is both a mediator between mankind and God and the one who offered the ultimate blood sacrifice for our sins. Since we have Jesus as our High Priest, is there any need for a single priest in the home representing the family to God? Let’s see what scripture says. 1 Peter 2:5, 9 says that we are all to be priests to God in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices.
1 Peter 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
By removing the wife from a joint priesthood with her husband and making only the husband responsible for seeking God’s will in all family decisions, those who espouse the unbiblical position of the man as the sole priest in the home, relegate the wife’s participation to a secondary and subordinate position in the home. This dismantles the woman’s equality as joint-heir with her husband and threatens to limit her spiritual growth.
The ultimate goal of every believer is to be conformed to the image of Christ and to grow into a mature “son” of God. All believers are called “sons” of God because all believers are fellow heirs with Christ. Because we are fellow heirs with Christ, all believers are expected to grow to maturity by learning how to make spiritual decisions that conform to biblical principles. Paul said that in the next life we (men and women in the body of Christ) will judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3) so it is so important that we all learn how to make mature spiritual decisions in this life.
By believing in the faulty doctrine that men are the sole priest in the home, many women have been taught that their husband is spiritually responsible for them. They think that if they love God and follow their husband’s spiritual lead that they will have no responsibility in the decisions made by their husbands. However in two of the best known examples of a husband not making wise spiritual decisions, Adam and Ananias (Acts 5:1), the wife was judged for her actions equally with the husband. There is no example of a husband called to account for his wife’s actions or a wife freed from spiritual responsibility because her husband made the original decision as in the case of Ananias. God did not ask Adam what Eve had done even though Adam was there with Eve during her temptation (Genesis 3:6) and Sapphira was held equally responsible for her acceptance of her husband’s plan to deceive the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:9).
As joint-heirs of Christ and partners in the holy, royal priesthood, husband and wife have equal responsibility to seek God’s will for the family and equal responsibility to work together to preform God’s will in the home.
With all of the talk on submission of a wife, we should at least grant that submission is not related to suppression of God’s gifts. In other words if a woman is gifted to teach, her submission to her husband and her desire to honor him should not be a means to stop her from using her God-given gifts. My husband’s position as my head is “worked-out” by his sacrificing for me. He gives up his life for me in order to provide me every opportunity to use my gifts and in turn I honor him by serving him and stepping outside my comfort zone in service to the body of Christ because of his encouragement. In my shyness in the past I have stepped back from using all of my gifts because of fear of man, but my husband has continually pushed me and prodded me to grow and mature. He has used his headship wisely for my good and my growth just as a physical head feeds the body.
True headship nourishes and encourages and lifts up the woman to be everything that she can be in Christ. True submission allows the head to nourish and sacrifice for her benefit. When my husband “works out” his headship in a godly way, it will always lift me up and will never suppress or hold back my God-given gifts.
