The CBE Scroll

Comment by Irma

June 12, 2008 @ 8:44 pm

It’s like what Joyce Meyer talked about. They kept telling her that her husband should be the preacher and he reluctantly tried it for a while. She and her husband finally agreed that she should do the preaching and he should run the business end of things and it has woked out splendidly ever since.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

June 13, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

My wife, Julie, and I just about broke because of our me-Tarzan-you-Jane beliefs concerning marriage. Julie particularly still carries emotional scars. The details are unimportant. I don’t know if we’re truly “egalitarian” in our marriage. I have a more dominant personality and am more comfortable weighing options and making decisions. Julie is better with finances than I am. We both have depression/anxiety disorders. I am able to work outside the home, so I bring in the income. Julie cannot work outside the home, so she takes care of the home front. Initially, that was because I was Tarzan. Now, it’s just that I’m the one who can handle that kind of stress. Our changes over the decades have not been so much of action as of perception and methodology. We discuss what (usually) I think we should do. I usually make the final decision, but not always. I don’t think Julie ever felt she could not make suggestions or tell me what needed to be done. Now, though, she is more of a partner in decision making. We’ve reached a pretty good comfort zone as we each do what we can and try to offer what support we have for each other. I see myself continuing to move from boss to leader and Julie from “employee” to partner. It took awhile for both of our families to get used to the fact that, as I’ve put it for some years now, I am not Julie’s supervisor. We share responsibility and, as Julie is comfortable with it, decision making. We often base authority on who is not the weakest at present, more of a less-stressed than more-gifted idea.

Comment by jlp

June 13, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

Hubert,

You sound like you and Julie are in a healthy dynamic marriage that deals with life on a pretty realistic basis. Good for you!

Comment by faith

June 14, 2008 @ 10:05 am

for me the gender stuff and role teachings provoked a whole variety of spiritual growth issues. when i encountered teaching on freedom for men and women in marriage and ministry, my trust in institutions and institutional teaching crashed. it caused a re-examination of faith in general and a search that led me to re-evaluate core teachings of the church and theological assumptions etc. while i did not abandon faith in jesus, i stopped basing everything i believed on sanctioned experts.

i began a journey to know my faith for myself. much has been revised in my own thinking. i know my beliefs more thoughtfully and i am less dependent on other spiritual knowers and christian gurus. i hang on to jesus more and my trusts rests more in him than people. it’s a better more secure place.

but lots of folks who have not been on this journey don’t get me. oh well…

Comment by jlp

June 14, 2008 @ 9:41 pm

I don’t think it has dawned on some of the sanctioned experts you speak of that their support for complimentarian teaching has actually caused people not to look at them as experts anymore. My own disappointment and disbelief in complimentarianism caused me to begin to doubt anything these people said on anything. I figured if they couldn’t get it right on what the Bible said about women, how could I believe they got anything else right about what the Bible said.

Comment by faith

June 15, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

yes… i feel the same way. if someone is what i perceive to be anti-woman, i dismiss their other teachings as well. for example, i will not read anything written by the authors of biblical manhood and womenhood. can’t do it.

Comment by Virginia

June 16, 2008 @ 8:42 am

I definitely relate to the distrust for complementarian Christian authors/speakers/etc described in the comments. However, as the main post suggested, complementarians believe passionately that their interpretation honors God. We haven’t all received the same revelations, which is why we are called together as one body to share, instruct, and encourage one another. Yes, that process is hampered when some of the people in the room want to silence some of the other participants, but that doesn’t mean that complementarians don’t have things to teach us in other aspects of our faith. We all have beliefs that need revising.

Comment by jlp

June 17, 2008 @ 5:30 am

The point I was trying to make is that there are some individuals who feel as if they have more knowledge of God and God’s will than others within the Christian community, and that these people’s knowledge of what the Bible said about women was definitely lacking while at the same time they were claiming superior knowledge.

Comment by faith

June 17, 2008 @ 7:22 am

virgina,

we do have beliefs that need revising. i agree that complimentarians have things to say. i am not sure i am in a place where i can hear them. when i read their stuff, often it is lensed through a complimentarian view and frames how they see the world.

for example, i have a complimentarian friend who sees all of the christian life through a heirarchy of authority. first god, then government, then the church, then husbands, then wives and children. all of spiritual growth is lensed through this authority model of growth.

Comment by madame

June 19, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

I don’t know if my story qualifies because I still consider myself complementarian, but don’t believe in hierarchy.

I was brought up to believe that wives obey their husbands, husbands have the last word. We do what daddy says. I don’t have to say that didn’t suit me!

When I got married, I believed the most important issue was unity. Leave daddy and mama, and start living on our own. Then I started reading marriage books, all complementarian, ranging from “soft” to “hardcore” or patriarchal.

About a year and a half ago, I started doubting God’s love towards me. Why would he keep women under authority all their lives? Why this belief that women need extra “protection”? What does it mean that the man is the head? Why this insistence on man’s prerogative to have the final say? Why can’t two function as one without one becoming a doormat?

And on and on I kept questioning my old and newfound beliefs.

There was a time when I would walk into a church, a woman would preach, and I’d discard the church as a non-Biblical one. Now we are in a church where a woman preaches.

So far, my beliefs are sort of hanging between complementarian and egalitarian. Complementarians like to talk about authority and headships a bit too much for my liking. They hang the validity of a Christian marriage on how it reflects their understanding of the relationship between Christ and the church a bit too much for my liking.
They don’t take into account the culture Paul and Peter were writing to, or the way Jesus treated women. They put too much emphasis on keeping a certain “chain of command” in place, so much that they sometimes forget that they are talking about human beings, and that they are totally contradicting themselves.
How do you consider a woman equal to a man, and still give him the last word in every decision? How do you consider a woman equal to man and still talk about stigmas that she has to get rid of through childbirth?

I’m still a bit confused. I’m glad I found out there are other ways to interpret some difficult Bible passages, and that’s giving me the strength I didn’t have a year and a half ago. Some Scripture still makes me want to throw the Bible against the wall and call God a misogynist. I know I probably need to view them in the light of the whole of Scripture.
Complementarian teaching is based on a very small amount of the whole Bible, and I believe they tend to carry analogies a bit too far.

I believe men and women were made to complement each other; that the most troublesome passage for marriage, Ephesians 5, has been grossly misinterpreted to mean hierarchy, when in fact, it’s talking about how each should submit their life and will to the other and to Christ; that headship must mean something between source and spiritual authority/responsibility, but I can’t figure out how the analogy is supposed to be understood and to what extent a man has “authority over” his wife, if any.
I still believe the foundation of marriage is unity and mutuality, not hierarchy.

I’m still trying to dig my way out of the cell I built for myself with the help of Complementarian experts, but I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Comment by LMcC

June 19, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

Madame:

I know what life is like on the line between Biblical equality and traditionalism. It’s a tough place to be, but people who are there are working hard at thinking things through so being there isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Many of us here have done our time in the gray zone ourselves.

Does it help if I tell you that egalitarians also believe that men and women complement each other? Biblical equality does not erase sex differences or deny that men and women are made for each other or that we bring different strengths to the church. If anything, we affirm all of that. We just don’t believe that true complementarity of the sexes and a permanent hierarchy are compatible. In fact, some Christian egalitarian authors use the terms “egalitarian-complementarian” and “hierarchal-complementarian” to describe the sex role divide in an effort to blunt the false accusation that believers in Biblical equality do not believe in complementarity.

My transition from traditionalist (even stricter than complementarian!) to egalitarian was not easy. I didn’t stumble so much over the mutual submission model of marriage. I was single then and had actually given up on marriage, but I was thrilled to discover that there was no real Scriptural support for wife abuse and other disgusting behavior toward women and girls after all. It was women preaching that tripped me up. Fortunately, I got over that one too :) (Now if I could ever find a church where a woman preaches!)

The hardest part about the change wasn’t in making the change itself, but in grieving the loss of some hopes and dreams based upon the old beliefs, in knowing I had been a part of giving people “Christian” advice that wasn’t really Scriptural at all but was harmful, and in missed opportunities and other wrong choices based on the old beliefs.

Once the change was made, here’s the amazing thing that I hope is good news to you: I didn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater when I accepted Biblical equality. I didn’t lose my pro-life views or belief in the sanctity of marriage or strong faith in other core doctrines. I lost nothing that really mattered spiritually and gained so much more than I could have imagined. If anything, I’m more free to be feminine than I ever was before because being female is no longer a curse and a hindrance. I’m more free to submit to others out of reverence for Christ because it is no longer forced upon me. I also got married last year, even though I had given up on finding a Christian man in this town who could deal with an egalitarian woman. He’s a practical egalitarian rather than a committed one, but he’s been sneaking peeks at my Priscilla Papers (a CBE publication) so that could change :)

Comment by Karen T

June 19, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

WOW - I feel as though I am reading my mind as I read everyone’s input. Since stumbling upon the egalitarian message I have questioned so many, many things about my faith and beliefs – and inspite of this I have a closer, safer relationship with God then ever before. I have more questions then answers and I am content. I try to look at both sides more often rather then just one view point. All of this has helped me in this journey…. but it has not made it easy. I am often misunderstood – even by those who are close to me. I find that I have to search for patience and believe that God will help them to see the truth of the egalitarian message in time. As for speakers and authors that spout the patriarchal message – I can not, and will not, listen to them. It just makes me frustrated and at times angry that they are leading people down a path that I was on and I won’t ever go down again.

Having said all this I sometimes wonder what the next big leap will be in the thinking process of my life and faith. Where will He take me next? It’s exciting to know that we are part of the story that is unfolding.
Thanks for talking about this revision Maryann! It blesses me to know that there are many of us walking in the same direction.

Comment by faith

June 20, 2008 @ 8:57 am

Karen, i am reading a book by Alan Jamieson entitled church leavers. (i am not recommending leaving church) but he studied their spiritual journey’s and found that God began drawing them and often they became disillusioned in some way with institutional church and began to question, doubt, seek, journey etc. i most connected with wayfinders because through the seeking and journeying and doubting and questioning, God did something profound spiritually in their lives. while they remained orthodox, they placed greater faith in God than the institution and what the institution said and moved deeper with him and became more comfortable with ambiguity.

i resonated with the book because my disillusionment began with a call to ministry and subsequent disillusionment due to the challenges i received. i am still finding my way though i remained with the church.

Jamieson reccomends to:
find safe journey companions who are ok with your questions and doubts.
let your questions teach you, examined faith produces something different that received faith.

The woman issue provokes things, questions, doubt, but it leads somewhere real, and authentic.

Comment by madame

June 20, 2008 @ 11:45 am

I didn’t stumble so much over the mutual submission model of marriage. I was single then and had actually given up on marriage, but I was thrilled to discover that there was no real Scriptural support for wife abuse and other disgusting behavior toward women and girls after all. It was women preaching that tripped me up

I don’t have a problem with mutual submission in marriage either. In fact, I think that’s exactly what Paul and Peter teach, and what God meant from day one. Unity based on looking after each other and together to God, not each looking after him/herself, or man looking after himself and wife looking after him too.

Once the change was made, here’s the amazing thing that I hope is good news to you: I didn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater when I accepted Biblical equality. I didn’t lose my pro-life views or belief in the sanctity of marriage or strong faith in other core doctrines. I lost nothing that really mattered spiritually and gained so much more than I could have imagined. If anything, I’m more free to be feminine than I ever was before because being female is no longer a curse and a hindrance. I’m more free to submit to others out of reverence for Christ because it is no longer forced upon me. I also got married last year

Thanks for your encouragement, LMCC.
From what I’ve observed, Egalitarians seem to have the happiness of freedom that many Complementarians lack. There are no blogs where women are lecturing other women on how to reach a deeper level of submission. There are no long descriptions of procedures to make a claim before one’s husband. There are no blogs condemning men for not being masculine enough…

Little by little I’m moving forward. If I never embrace Egalitarianism fully, at least I don’t ever want to go back to the prison of “regulated femininity”.

Comment by Frank

June 23, 2008 @ 11:09 am

I hesitate a little in sharing how my life and thought was changed by embracing the egalitarian viewpoint, partly because my struggles seem somewhat insignificant to what the rest of you have shared. Anyway, here goes. I’m 57 now, but embraced the egalitarian viewpoint my second year in Bible college, which was roughly 32 years ago. What I struggled with for several years was relearning what it meant to be “a real man,” fully conformed to “the image of Christ” in my relations with God and with people. I had grown up with the “Marlboro Man” model being the path I should take to real manhood. But when I truly tried following Christ, I found myself being accused of being effeminite or even being gay. And that certainly hurt my male ego, for a short time. But I have persevered in following Christ, and regardless of what some may have thought, I more a real man now than I was ever back then. Another issue I struggled with was having my intellectual ability and integrity denied because I had given up the “traditionalist” view on men and women. I have always had a strong propensity for being a thinker, scholar and writer who, as regarded matters of truth and justice, spoke out against anything I thought was untrue or injust. And in the Calvinistic Baptist circles I moved in back then, only someone who was “a liberal feminist heretic” would even dare to espouse such a view. I could rarely even engage someone in a calm, rational discussion of the issue. So these accusations against my intellectual and moral integrity as Bible scholar and teacher were just as hurtful as the accusations against my manhood. Eventually, I got involved in a non-Calvinistic, evangelical church that was more open on this view, and where I didn’t have to constantly prove my intellectual and moral integrity so I could minister.

Comment by Liz

June 23, 2008 @ 6:40 pm

So glad you shared some of your story Frank. It describes much of what we have experienced as well. It is really important for men such as yourself to express what you have been through - both for encouragement to other men and women and also to demonstrate the fact that equality is not just about ‘women wanting to be like men’ or any of the other derogatory statements which are made. Lack of equality affects men just as much as women and we hope you story will encourage more men to write and tell us how they have managed this journey to freedom.

Comment by fjs

June 23, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

Thanks, Frank and others… i can relate to what you are saying Frank about some viewing egalitarians as less intellectual with masculine women and feminine men. i get that too. as soon as i say i believe men and women are free to lead and minister mutually in the home and church, i am tagged with radical femminist, liberal or someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible, as well as one who might support abortion. Then i am asked about homosexuality. there is even a sense that one is unsaved or less spiritual if one embraces biblical equality. And yes, my femininity is attacked too because of the narrow definitions of what a woman is and how she should behave.

It would appear their are only two boxes…

1. complimentarian, feminine women, masculine men, biblical and orthodox or

2. egalitarian, feminist, feminine men, masculine women, liberal, gay or unorthodox maybe even heretic.

that is classic either or thinking with no other possibilities. personally, that does not seem all that intellectual.

Comment by fjs

June 23, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

Madame, what is your struggle with women pastors and preachers?

Comment by LMcC

June 24, 2008 @ 9:38 am

FJS: Madame was quoting me.

Basically, I had been brainwashed on the issue. Even though my Pentecostal grandmother was a preacher, I had bought the lies my IFBx church had taught. It took a few months of letting Lee Grady’s book get into my head and reading some other egalitarian material that made me wake up. After all, the truth is the truth whether it comes from the mouth of a man or a woman.

Comment by fjs

June 24, 2008 @ 9:41 pm

gotcha… it has taken me time for egalitarian teaching to sink in too. it is so ingrained that that is what God demands, it’s hard and fearful to unlearn it.

Comment by Trevor

June 24, 2008 @ 9:45 pm

LMCC: After all, the truth is the truth whether it comes from the mouth of a man or a woman.

Exactly, that’s always been my argument. I’ve never been so much concerned by the deliverer as I have been of the delivery. I want to hear from God and I simply need to discern whether it is God speaking His truth through this person. Be it a man, a woman, or as has happened in revival times, a child of either sex. We need to get beyond this idea that ‘a man’ is somehow franchised as the sole dispenser of God’s word and then becomes, by default, another mediator. Dangerous stuff!

Comment by Lin

June 26, 2008 @ 12:13 am

“And in the Calvinistic Baptist circles I moved in back then, only someone who was “a liberal feminist heretic” would even dare to espouse such a view. I could rarely even engage someone in a calm, rational discussion of the issue.”

Have you noticed it has only gotten worse? And that it has spread to non-Calvinist baptist churches? This issue has become so heated and vitriolic that one cannot even discuss it civilly using Greek, etc. The name calling has gotten worse and I believe this is in part because more and more people are studying scripture with all the resources for free and discovering that much of even the creation account that they have been taught is READ INTO the Word. It is not there! And they have to defend what is NOT THERE.

If you even respond with pointed questions you are automatically a feminist and liberal. I am neither. I firmly believe in inerrancy of scripture…just not inerrancy of translators. :o)

I believe there is a fleshly need to have authority. And to defend ‘authority’ at all costs. It seems that egos are at stake more than anything. There is a need for them to be ‘obeyed’ and ’submitted’ to. And I am not just talking about marriage but pastors and leaders in Christendom.

They have perverted what is authority in the Body…which is ONLY the Word. Not humans. Humans in the Body can only be servants that contend for the truth. They cannot lord it over.

That is why, Frank, the conclusion you came to and suffered for… makes you more ‘manly’ because you were willing to check your ego at the door for the truth of ‘mutual submission’ and ’servanthood’.

That is a harder road. To be in mutual submission and service to others while following our Lord means we must be filled with the Holy Spirit…Abiding in Him constantly.

It would be much easier to just tell people they HAVE to obey you because you are the authority and then twist scripture to prove it. People want to be lead…they love ‘check list’ religions where you have a specific role that is laid out for you….it is easier than being in Christ and led by the Holy Spirit.

Comment by Lin

June 26, 2008 @ 12:21 am

“Then i am asked about homosexuality.”

Here is my new stock answer to that ridiculous dictonomy:

Homosexuality is a sin. Being a woman, isn’t. They are equating women exercising their gifts from the Holy Spirit as a sin akin to Homosexuality! Incredible!

This false dictonomy is a straw man that would be akin to me saying that complimentarianism leads to more wife beating.

Then I suggest they do some research and see that Patriarchal cultures historically have been very homosexual. They are usually shocked to hear that and deny it. But, it is very true.

Comment by Watcher

June 26, 2008 @ 6:47 am

Have any of you read “The Shack”?

I haven’t. But it has created quite a stir on other loops I participate in.
Some Christians say it is a wonderful book dealing with great sorrow from a Christian world view.
Others say it is heresy.

I don’t know.

But I’m disturbed by some of those who say it is heresy because one gal said so based on the fact that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity!

Several others had trouble that God the Father was represented by an Aunt Jemima type female and the Holy Spirit was represented by an Asian woman.

Whether this book is good or not, I don’t know. But I’m saddened by people disregarding it based on the two examples given above.

Comment by Frank

June 27, 2008 @ 11:19 am

Response to Watcher(86728) : I haven’t read “The Shack” itself, but I have read the reviews in CT, USA Today, and World magazines. So my impression is that since it is an allegory, some literary license should be expected. As for its “female” imagery not being a fit picture of God, some of Young’s critics either don’t know or just plain ignore the “feminine” imagery of God in Isa. 49:14-16 and Lk. 15:8-10. And the complaint of Young’s view of the Trinity being co-equal and relational rather than hierarchical just shows to me, once again, how the “Neo-Arianism” of Grudem and his followers has infected Evangelicalism, and that it must be exposed and challenged for the serious departure from the orthodox view of the Trinity that it really is. Furthermore, Eugene Peterson, an orthodox theologian, endorses this as an allegory of the same calibre as Bunyan’s “Pilgrims’ Progress.” I don’t think he would have done so if he thought the book were truly anti-Trinitarian. And I think it upsets people because, while it views the Triune God as gracious and compassionate, it severely criticizes the lack of grace and compassion in the institutional church. At least that is the impression I have gotten from what I have read.

Comment by Molly Hintz

June 28, 2008 @ 4:52 am

In response to the comments on The Shack…I encourage you to go buy a copy for yourself!!! And while you are at it…get an extra copy because you will want someone else to be blessed as you were! I have passed out numerous copies & encouraged many to purchase their own. The most frequent comment I receive is “that’s the best book I’ve ever read.”
The author has just been interviewed locally…it’s obvious, he carries the heart of God.
Don’t miss this oportunity!!

Comment by Frank

June 28, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

I guess questioning misrepresentations of the egalitarian view is still going to get me in trouble. The recent on-line edition of CT had two articles “Wounds of A Friend: A Complementarian and Egalitarian Viewpoint,” which were intended to be conciliatory in nature. However, I thought Prof Sumner did more than self-criticism of egalitarianism; I felt she was making concessions to the opposition that were ill-founded, and said so in my comments. And her upholding the heirarchical interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 led me to make strong, pointed criticism of Wayne Grudem and company using that as a key text promoting “Neo-Arianism,” which I regard as and will continue to oppose as a deadly anti-Trinitarian heresy. Well, a Dr Blacketer responded to me with some choice words, accusing me of personally attacking Dr Sumner and “demonizing” the Grudem group. I then responded that I did not mean to personally attack Prof Sumner, but was strongly dissenting with her critique of egalitarianism. And as for the “Neo-Arianism” of the Grudem group, I believed Kevin Giles had proven the case against the Grudem group, and that on the basis of Jude 3-4, I was taking a stand against a deadly heresy for which I would never make any apology. Of course, my concern is not merely to avoid the reputation of being an “angry, self-righteous ranter” but also of saying or doing anything that would make it difficult for other egalitarians present our viewpoint. But I felt compelled to speak out and draw some lines according to my convictions, and I would surely appreciate any counsel you all might offer.

Comment by jlp

June 28, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

Frank,

You said:

However, I thought Prof Sumner did more than self-criticism of egalitarianism; I felt she was making concessions to the opposition that were ill-founded

I read the same article and felt exactly the same as you did. Can you give me the website address of where you posted your comments? I would like to post some comments on her article also.

Comment by faith

June 28, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

here’s the link

wounds of a friend egalitarian.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/28.41.html

wounds of a friend complimentarian.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/27.40.html

What I found uncomfortable about the articles was that they spoke with the assumption that all egalitarians see head as source and all complimentarians see marriage in terms of authority.

Such is simply not true. There are wide opinions about what head means in Ephsians 5 and
1 Cor 11.

Furthermore regarding the kantian logic… not all egalitarians see things in terms of rights and wanting rights.

The writers of each made sweeping generalizations about what egalitarians believe and what complimentarians believe. I wish they would have critiqued certain authors instead of the two movements as a whole.

I see cbe and other egalitarian groups being forums for discussion and dissemination of an egalitarian biblical perspective. There is not lock-step agreement on the meaning of head but differing perspectives some carrying more weight biblically than others.

What debaters sometimes forget is that interpretation is an art not an empirical science. (the error of modernism)

Comment by Lin

June 28, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

Frank, I totally agree with you and felt the same way about Stackhouse’s book that I have about how Prof Summers has dealt with certain passages in some of her writings.

It seems there is a strong need in some egal circles to want to be liked over truth and some are debating based on emotive arguments which are not necessary. Scripture gives us all we need. I believe we should be gracious but to concede to be ‘accepted’ in some circles does not work.

I also would like a link to what you are referring to.

I also agree that we should not back down from the Trinity issue for one minute. That is the more serious issue even if it is being used to promote earthly hierarchies so some can lord it over others.

Comment by Frank

June 30, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

I am glad that some of you were able to find the CT articles and comments, and actually see what had been written and why I responded as I did. For those who might still need the links, check Faith’s posting (86831) and if you want to see the comments, then click where it says, “See all comments,” but if you want to post comments, click the “Post comments” bar,which is at the lower right at the end of the articles’. Years ago, when I was doing research on prophetic ministry in the NT church and how that applied to the modern controversy of women in ministry and leadership, God impressed it upon me that I was to be a prophetic teacher like Barnabas, and so I’ve always tried to be encouraging and uplifting in whatever teaching, preaching, and writing I’ve done. But I’ve also learned that it also means when people pervert the Gospel of Christ, just like Barnabas and Paul did with the Judaizers, you must contend fiercely for the Faith against what is a deadly heresy; not to do so would have grave consequences for the Church and its mission. Still, your words of affirmation and support mean more to me than words can express. Thank-you.

Comment by jlp

June 30, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

Frank,

You did a good job. You were contending for the faith.

Thanks.

jlp

Comment by faith

June 30, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

Thanks Frank for your persistent and passionate advocacy. Some of us over in this camp really appreciate it. anytime you need to get some support, come here.

I have also felt for a long time that keeping women from leadership and defining women’s roles so narrowly is similar to the Galatian heresy. We are not to rely on the flesh but on the Spirit. male only leadership is a type of relying on the flesh and some of the teachings diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in women. It is the task of the Spirit to lead us into truth. Women have the same Spirit that the men have. To place a women under a man because she couold be easily deceived diminishes the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of women.

According to Paul, only a little bit of untruth changes the gospel into something else. Blessings on you for contending for the faith.

Comment by Trevor

July 3, 2008 @ 1:37 am

I know that it’s a little off the track, (ie.’revision’), to continue this more recent discussion on Frank’s foray into the CT debate, but I guess that it does have some ‘revisioning’ aspects to it in that can be further aired on this forum.
I have noted that some of you from the Scroll community have entered that debate also. I attempted to place a further comment on the site without success so perhaps that topic has been closed for now, at the CT end?. I would have wanted to have commented to Dr Raymond A. Blacketer that his response to Frank fell more deeply into the area of an “utter lack of Christian charity” than ever Frank intended. As a complementarian he (Dr Blacketer) responded in exactly the way that we have become used to from those who seem hardened against egalitarianism responding. While rebuking Frank for his “less than humble” approach it was OK for him to use such highly emotive phrases as, “extreme remarks”, “viciously attack”,”self-righteous vitriol”, “demonizing his opponents”, and finally, “Mr Geis’s rant”. For those of us who have been in the debate for many years we have become used to this double standard. There appears to be one rule demanded of egalitarian commenters (by hierarchialists) and a free for all when they point up our apparent misdemeanors. All of this is intended to render void our contribution. Another barb that Dr Blacketer used was that, “none of the theological greats cited would have supported the ordination of women.” That fact hasn’t escaped us, they (the church fathers) denied women equal status on the basis of an assumed biological inferiority and innate inability of women to lead men. Women were seen as lesser beings than their male counterparts. Such biassed theological suppositions were swept aside with advances in medical science. What Frank rightly asserted was that in its place some hierarchialists have inserted the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son as proof positive that women should remain eternally submissive to men and that this is God’s order. You cannot label that as being anything less than a re-emergence of the Arian heresy. Again, it’s OK for hierarchialists to label egalitarians heretics, even though we are not in any way discrediting the person and work of Christ, but not the other way round. Egalitarian believers have had to endure that accusation for decades.

Comment by Frank

July 3, 2008 @ 11:11 am

Trevor, thanks for confirming Dr. Blacketer’s misrepresentation of what I said and what I intended. And I don’t want to say anymore on this issue, other than that before complementarians and egalitarians can come together in common cause for the Gospel, as some in both camps are urging, this “Neo-Arianism” has to be thoroughly dealt with and repudiated by all who call themselves evangelicals, because it is a deadly heresy which, if I may make an analogy as an old fisherman, will gut the Gospel of life and power like you gut a fish you have hooked on the line.

Comment by Liz

July 3, 2008 @ 6:29 pm

Hi Frank.

Maybe you could write a post for us to put up which addresses this issue of hierarchy in the Godhead. It may be time this issue was re-visited as a separate lot of comments.

Comment by Liz

July 3, 2008 @ 8:01 pm

One more comment re the CT articles. It is important to realise that both articles were written by people who declare themselves complementarian. Confusion could have arisen if readers thought that one writer was egalitarian.

Comment by Lolly

July 4, 2008 @ 9:01 am

JLP in 86667:

[blockquote]I don’t think it has dawned on some of the sanctioned experts you speak of that their support for complimentarian teaching has actually caused people not to look at them as experts anymore. My own disappointment and disbelief in complimentarianism caused me to begin to doubt anything these people said on anything. I figured if they couldn’t get it right on what the Bible said about women, how could I believe they got anything else right about what the Bible said.[/blockquote]

Yes, I know how you feel. Right now my Sunday School class is watching a video series put out by a
well-known Christian author, who is famous for his books on spiritual growth. A couple of weeks ago the video was on marriage, and holy mackerel, he spent the entire thing preaching the patriarchal view. I’m sorry, but I just can’t respect him anymore. For 45 minutes he gazed into the camera and said if you don’t practice what he’s preaching in your marriage, God won’t bless you (and by implication you’re sinning against God). In his mind there’s no question that he’s right and I’m wrong for beleiving otherwise. I just can’t bring myself to read anything he writes anymore. I’ve had the same response to other famous Christians when I found out their views on women. That’s probably why I’m more comfortable in the secular world.

Comment by Frank

July 7, 2008 @ 12:32 pm

Liz: I would love to do a posting on “The Trinity and the Neo-Arian Threat.” But it might be a while before I can do so 1) unfortunately, my company downsized in April, and so I’m spending a fair amount of time and energy on finding a new job; 2) I’m the process of trying to get my commentary on Jude’s letter published, and am finding it a more complicated process than I had anticipated; and 3)before I post a blog, I want to carefully study all the pertinent ancient and modern texts, and then carefully mark out my line of rational argument–I certainly don’t to be accused of “attacking straw men” or poorly substantiated, illogical arguments. But having said that, yes, I would be willing to do such a project as soon as possible.

Comment by Liz

July 8, 2008 @ 7:27 am

Thank you Frank. All the best as you walk through all the challenges you have at the moment and when you are ready to write the post, please email us and we’ll let you know what is required for it to be published.

Comment by faith

July 10, 2008 @ 8:17 am

Lolly, i agree with you. Bruce Ware said something on a DVD i was watching about women and the image of God. He said (not a direct quote) that men bore the image of God fully but women bear God’s image as a derivitive image. After that i could not read his commentary on Genesis. i felt that it was a comment defining women as inferior, something less. While he may have much to say on many things, i now find it hard to hear him because when i see his name, i think of what he said.

while some may say, he is not personally speaking to me… it is personal in a way because he sees women as something less. And i am a woman.

I could not reccomend his book because for me, it would be akin to reccomending a commentary that advocated the subjugation of an ethnic group as being less.

Comment by the

July 24, 2008 @ 2:25 am

qbxde

Comment by free

July 25, 2008 @ 3:38 am

stqpkl zlma fzkmlw qpry

Comment by free

July 26, 2008 @ 10:22 pm

wkfqtx fsurz