The CBE Scroll

Comment by TeriLynn

May 28, 2006 @ 7:03 pm

Very appropriate title. People who have an agenda have a mindset. As such their ears become muffled in hearing. It’s really an amazing thing when the mindset is for the things of God, but dismaying when for self serving purposes.

Sometimes telling the difference is only possible with the discernment of the Holy Spirit. Even though schooled in psychology and having a gift of discernment, when my ears tingle and red flags go up, I still wait to research what I’m sensing warning signals on.

Something I’ve noticed lately (with some people I’ve come in contact with in real life) is that people with an agenda don’t dialogue. They propagandize. They have set answers that often may not actually relate to the questions being asked. And they often promote programs rather than God or Scripture. Instead of giving Scripturally researched information in support of their program, they tell how many churches have done it, who has supported it, how long it’s been around, etc. And of course the real clincher is that it’s got lots of Bible Scripture to support it so it must be right. And when you tell them that having Scripture and using it correctly is not the same thing, they will have a pained look and assume you’re a troublemaker, because anything that so many people have supported must be right.

With so many churches having program after program with so much Scripture being taken quite out of context, to introduce the ideal of learning to actually study Scripture is like building a snowman in summer. Some literature and curriculum even goes so far as to have a small portion of a verse as their support Scripture omitting the part that might actually disagree with their agenda. Hardly ever do pastors these days explain the contextual setting of the verses they use, even well intentioned pastors.

So whenever I teach I make a considerate effort to introduce context, historical setting, and grammatical relationship when introducing Scripture.

One of the most satisfying praises I’ve received recently is when a women had a moment of discernment who had been excited over the concepts of reading each epistle as a whole letter, diagramming to a small degree, inductive versus inductive study. She said that previously she had gained bits of insight into the book of Romans, but after taking my classes and learning to view each epistle as a whole rather than verse by verse, she suddenly began to make sense of it as if all her bits of insight were fitting into a whole. Now if I could just figure out how to get more Christians excited over inductive contextual study of the Scriptures, we might be able to help some people let go of their programs and personal agendas.

☺

Comment by Liz Sykes

May 29, 2006 @ 3:01 am

Getting more people excited about studying the scriptures - that’s a huge question in today’s society with short, sharp answers and sayings for everything. I think we just have to all do our small bit of whatever God puts in front of us and ask God to multiply it. Just like the loaves and fishes principle in the gospels.

It’s extremely frustrating to be excited about something and not have a willing audience to hear. We often say that’s it’s hard to have answers when few people seem to be asking the questions. Both my husband and I are expositional preachers/teachers, which is almost a lost art in many church circles except extremely conservative groups, who are a long way from being egalitarian in any degree.

Comment by TeriLynn

May 29, 2006 @ 2:32 pm

Hello Liz,

Is that like a discourse between the two of you? Do you team preach/teach? Sounds very interesting. Do you have any CD’s of you two teaching together?

Comment by Lori

May 30, 2006 @ 8:02 am

Very appropriate title. People who have an agenda have a mindset. As such their ears become muffled in hearing. It’s really an amazing thing when the mindset is for the things of God, but dismaying when for self serving purposes…. Something I’ve noticed lately (with some people I’ve come in contact with in real life) is that people with an agenda don’t dialogue. They propagandize. They have set answers that often may not actually relate to the questions being asked. And they often promote programs rather than God or Scripture. Instead of giving Scripturally researched information in support of their program, they tell how many churches have done it, who has supported it, how long it’s been around, etc. And of course the real clincher is that it’s got lots of Bible Scripture to support it so it must be right. And when you tell them that having Scripture and using it correctly is not the same thing, they will have a pained look and assume you’re a troublemaker, because anything that so many people have supported must be right.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Unfortunately, I have encountered this attitude too many times among my fellow Christians. :( I used to really try and debate the issue of women’s roles on some of these Christian online forums, but then I saw it was hopeless. Most people who posted there had their carefully chosen proof texts and nothing, absolutely nothing–not discussing Greek words, not disussing ancient cultures, not even discussing the entire biblical context–would make some people change their minds. Instead, they would cling to those precious few words that seemed to support their view. And I have actually had people tell me, “Well, the Church hasn’t let women serve in leadership for 2,000 years, so obviously it must be the correct position to hold. Why change tradition?” Somehow, when I point out views that the Church also held for 2,000 years–that Jewish and black people were inferior, say–they become greatly offended.

For me, choosing to discuss this issue is a matter of timing. Some time ago, my husband and I attended a Bible study that greatly offended me. We would break into small groups to discuss a passage, then assemble into a large group and the leader would talk about it. We were studying I Peter, where he tells wives to submit. Well, suddenly our leader starts lecturing about Adam and Eve, and how the Fall was Eve’s fault and it clearly proves that women should be subordinate to men and shouldn’t serve in leadership, etc. I was so hurt I almost felt like crying, but I didn’t say anything.

When we got home, though, my husband and I had a wonderful discussion about the issue and he was able to see why it bothered me so much. Earlier that day I had run across a CBE article that thoroughly refuted what that teacher said, and so I read the article to my husband to help him understand why those teachings were so wrong. I think it must have been a God-thing, my finding that article on the same day I would need it!

Anyway, we stopped going to that Bible study, but we didn’t tell anyone why because I didn’t want to make waves. As part of my training to become a Local Preacher, however, I am going to have to get up and give a presentation about a biblical subject to the circuit meeting of preachers. I’m going to present my views refuting what that Bible leader said. I’m hoping that through dialogue I can educate my fellow LP’s about why it’s important for women to be able to serve as God calls them.

Comment by TeriLynn

May 30, 2006 @ 11:03 am

Hello Lori, that was quite an experience. It’s one thing to read such demeaning statements and another altogether to hear them being said to our faces.

It’s interesting that when it is thought that it’s the woman’s fault for the fall, that there is no true redemption but universal gender subjugation. But when it’s thought that it’s the man’s fault for the fall, then his punishment is to be forced to take the lead and prove himself worthy. Those who want to be in control can think of a hundred reasons why it is their right, but careful searching of Scripture will show none of them.

There needs to be more teaching on the far reaching effects of Christ’s death and salvation. Christ died for all our sins, for all the effects of sin in each person’s life. This works for each person who will receive Christ as Lord and believe IN Him. Christ set women and men free to grow into the fullness of the man Christ Jesus. Christ’s sacrifice sets men and women free to do the works that Christ did as He said we would, if we believed. We must not allow other peoples unbelief to reduce our belief.

Comment by Liz Sykes

May 30, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

Yes Teri, we agree that the teaching on salvation/redemption is a huge component of how people view themselves in Christ. Apart from our personal experiences with gender bias we strongly believe that it is critical that we teach the full redemption which was achieved for us. We consider it a slight on the very character of God to suggest that he created 2 types of human beings and would perpetuate such an institution as hierarchy. But…as I said before, it’s not a particularly popular subject in this climate of self-actualization and power preaching. It can sound like it’s all about “me” and not about God and his magnificence.

Comment by Liz Sykes

May 30, 2006 @ 9:09 pm

Teri…for the sake of others reading these comments, I’ll briefly repeat what was on your email. No, we don’t have any CD’s of our preaching together, although there are many of Trevor over the years. We have spoken at some seminars, sharing the teaching, but only one was on biblical equality (we would love to do more).
As I explained to you, I have only recently begun actually preaching because of restrictions in earlier years and I have used my teaching gifts in mixed gender bible studies and “daytime home groups” (so-named because I refused to call them “women’s bible studies”)

Comment by Lori

June 1, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

We consider it a slight on the very character of God to suggest that he created 2 types of human beings and would perpetuate such an institution as hierarchy.

Do you know what this debate reminds me of? The civil rights movement. I mean, back in 1954, Thurgood Marshall stood before the Supreme Court and argued that “separate but equal,” by its very nature, implied that the segregated group was unequal. Today, however, many Christians continue to believe that women should be “separate but equal.” They say that women are created in the image of God, like men, but then they put all sorts of limitations on them. Do they not realize what the implications are of restricting women like that?

That conference mentioned in an earlier blog entry here is a great example. (The one hosted by MacArthur, et. al. where they asked women to give up their seats in favor of men.) So women are created equal in the eyes of God–but we can’t train them to evangelize, we can’t let them preach, we can’t let them do this, we can’t let them do that. Those things are only reserved for men. To me this sounds exactly like what Marshall and the other civil rights leaders were fighting against. I think Gordon Fee summarized it brilliantly: “[according to the complementarians] The only way for men and women to be equal is for women to submit.”

Comment by TeriLynn

June 3, 2006 @ 10:26 am

The idea that one segment of society wants to dictate to any other segment of society that they are not permitted to do something that they are quite capable of doing because they are different (different but “equal”) leans toward the insane IMNSHO.

Comment by Beyond Words

June 3, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

I was invited as a spouse of a leader :) to our church’s regular leadership training event last night. It was open to anyone, but the only people who were really leaders were men and one single woman who’s leader of a single women’s small group. We were asked to celebrate what God is doing in our lives, and several women testified to significant breakthroughs in relational evangelism. One of the men made a joke about how surprised the disciples who wanted to be first in the kingdom might have been to get to heaven and find that it was their wives chosen to sit at the right hand of Jesus. Everyone laughed uproariously, completely oblivious to how demeaning it was to make a joke of men’s privilege. Then one pastor said, “That’s what those disciples deserve for wanting to be first in the kingdom,” as if the only way women could be promoted would be to punish men. This same pastor then went on the say how much the men value the wives for staying home long hours while the men fight the spiritual battles. They completely missed the point that the women aren’t staying home letting the men fight the battles, they are building bridges, evangelizing, and winning people to Christ.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 6, 2006 @ 10:39 am

Yes, BeyondWords, that is a very important observation about the worldview of patriarchalists. It is considered insulting to men for women to have any real or perceived preeminence. I have read patriarchalists use proofs texts from Scripture to claim that God uses women in this way to shame men (how many times have we read about Deborah being chosen because no men would step up??). On the one hand, the patriarchalist will claim to hold women in the highest esteem and that we egalitarians demean women because we “deny women’s God-given roles.” On the other hand, when women are lifted up, even by God, some patriarchalists (male and female) view that as a slight against men.

How much simpler and more godly it is, when Christians humble themselves and esteem others higher! Then there is freedom for those who are called by God to positions of authority to occupy those positions without all this posturing and complaining and demeaning jokes. The last being first in God’s Reign is no joke!

Comment by Lori

June 8, 2006 @ 6:14 am

I’m from Texas, also, and for years I attended a comp. church. I remember once our pastor got up and said, “Now, if there’s anybody who feels called to the ministry, my wife and I would like to invite y’all to our house for lunch next Sunday. I’ll be happy to answer your questions about ministry and seminary. Oh, and by the way, if you have a wife or girlfriend, bring her along, too.”

At that time I was feeling the first stirrings of wanting to study for the ministry myself. I remember thinking, “I wonder what would happen if I showed up all by myself?” I didn’t, though, because I didn’t want to make a fuss.

Comment by Liz Sykes

June 8, 2006 @ 9:36 am

Liz: that’s just it ! “Didn’t want to make a fuss,” how many times have we done that (women and men also who are sympathetic to the cause of equality) I’m more inclined now to make that fuss, albeit graciously, and see what God will do with it. Now that we are not connected to one particular church in any official way, we don’t have the concern of our views adversely affecting the reputation of the church group. It can seem as though we just have a pet issue which we like to bring up at every opportunity so we keep a low profile in case people get the wrong idea or we “cause our sister or brother to stumble.” Funny thing though, is that whenever we do speak out, all our careful consideration before doesn’t get remembered and people treat us as though we were always being outspoken. Most people have little appreciation of the fact that we do think and pray before we go into “battle” for those things we feel deeply about.

Comment by Jon Trott

June 12, 2006 @ 11:19 pm

Much more work needs to be done, I think, by those of us so-called “egalitarian” males in putting feet on what we say we believe. I came home tonight and my wife was not feeling well. Thank God, I caught myself becoming irritated at needing to fetch her some dinner (not even cook it — I live in a commune so the cooking was done!) and some ice water, a blanket, and so forth. I smiled, and did it without her asking. So how many times have I done that for her? Sigh… don’t ask.

HOW MANY TIMES has she done that for me, and not even blinked at it, been mildly surprised when I thank her for it?!? ARGH! It is so bred into those of us with the little dangly guy that we somehow should expect preferential treatment!

The post is right on the money. I also think (RAMBLE alert!) that we egalitarians need to flesh out just what real submission looks like. Because we are indeed supposed to “submit one to another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). What does that submission look like? How is it implemented in (a) marriage, (b) church, (c) non-familial, non-formal male-female relationships between Christians?

I remain convinced that submission, properly understood, is the greatest need the American Church has — and in it lies the place to embody Jesus’ command to love one another as He loved us. Submission is necessary, an inter-submissive weaving of one to another. But gender-based, one-way “my way or the highway” submission is not only extra-biblical, it is even downright unbiblical.

Oh, and it is also a surefire way to make sure the biblical type of mutual submission never happens — in a marriage, in a family, in the world, or in the Church.

Sorry. Got a little carried away. And did you notice the little button to post a comment here says…. “Submit”? Hehehehe…

Blessings,
Jon

Comment by Canopy

June 13, 2006 @ 3:19 am

People who make demeaning statements generally inspire my sympathy more than dislike. Perhaps it’s because they tend to be depressive, edgy or have failed relationships. Or be somehow not entirely real and whole. Is this just my imagination? And I’ve noticed that male chauvinism unexpectedly seems to have worse results on males than females.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 14, 2006 @ 10:28 pm

The reference to the “separate but equal” lie of Jim Crow segregation is a very apt one. As one who grew up at the end of segregation, whenever I hear that “this group is equal to that group, but…” I know that the group not in power (women, African Americans, etc) is going to get short shrift. Our complementarian brothers and sisters might do well to ponder this. Let Gospel freedom ring.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 18, 2006 @ 10:53 pm

I can relate to what Liz said because how many times have I sat there when someone said something demeaning about women and “not made a fuss” either. In another CBE blog a complementarian actually used Luke 10:17 where demons are “subject” to being cast out by Jesus as a parallel for wives being “subject” to husbands. Equating the subjection of demons who are eternally damned with Paul’s instruction to wives was one insult I did indeed answer, for there is no connection at all. I hope he didn’t mean it as it came across. As I inferred in my statement above, I am from the South, a comp. place indeed. I was reared in a Christian home and accepted Christ as my Savior at age 8. My Dad was a wonderful father, but he was a Southern Baptist pastor with all that that implies. My trek to egalitarianism began as a child reading about the great suffragist Susan B. Anthony. It was the first time I knew that the Bible had been misused to hurt people and it was a real eye-opener, the first of many such. Of course, Miss Anthony knew the Bible and was able to answer her critics, but it still came as a shock to me. God used that book to begin me on my journey to where I am today through Bible study, prayer, and background study on these issues we are discussing. By the time anyone told me outright that women could not preach or lead men, it was too late. I had already read about Deborah the Judge, the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene, and other stories! These many years later, I am egal. to the core. It is the only position that makes solid, scriptural sense from Genesis to Revelation when discussing the relationship between the sexes, and how women may serve God.

Comment by Liz Sykes

June 19, 2006 @ 4:10 am

Wonderful to hear your testimony Kathryn and a great encouragement that even in the most hierarchical situations, people can read/hear the truth of equality in Christ. I know there would have been a lot of pain from a-b but with the journey begun, there has been no turning back for you and hopefully many others.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 20, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

Thank you Liz, and right on!

Comment by Lori

June 22, 2006 @ 6:34 am

The reference to the “separate but equal” lie of Jim Crow segregation is a very apt one. As one who grew up at the end of segregation, whenever I hear that “this group is equal to that group, but…” I know that the group not in power (women, African Americans, etc) is going to get short shrift. Our complementarian brothers and sisters might do well to ponder this. Let Gospel freedom ring. (Comment #16)

I, too, was raised in the South. Although I was born after the civil rights movement, I still remember my father’s pictures of his hometown before it started. Seeing a storefront window bearing a sign saying “N***** not allowed” is enough to turn your stomach. That’s why I, too, see the struggle against the oppression of women in the same light as the civil rights movement.

My Dad was a wonderful father, but he was a Southern Baptist pastor with all that that implies (Comment #17).

My father, too, was a Southern Baptist minister. However, he changed over to the Methodists. Looking back now, I’m glad. I wonder if and my Mom would be so supportive of me today if they had remained with the Baptists, and that’s a scary thought. Just out of curiosity, Katherine, how have your parents handled your change in philosophy?

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 23, 2006 @ 7:27 pm

Thank you Lori. Before she went to Heaven this year, my Mother finally was able to admit her dislike of the Southern Baptist view of submission (she called it “awful”), and her disagreement with their treatment of women. Submission was almost all she ever heard about marriage when she was a young woman. For her, this admission was extraordinary although she never completely embraced egalitarianism either. My Dad and I get along fine because we agree to disagree on this. We didn’t specifically say that, but it’s just the way it is.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

July 1, 2006 @ 11:08 pm

Changing “mom” to “parents” illustrates a Scriptural truth: words are full of power. The Bible tells us in Proverbs that “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”, and Jesus spoke on the power of our words too. Images are also powerful. I see so many commercials that continue to perpetuate gender stereotypes even today. Mom is the cook and housekeeper; Dad mows the yard and earns the paycheck. As was stated in the introduction, cultural attitudes take years to form, and they take years to change.