Comments on: Revision

By: faith

faith — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:17:14 +0000

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.

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:27:09 +0000

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.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:32:23 +0000

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.

By: Lolly

Lolly — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:01:45 +0000

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.

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:01:22 +0000

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.

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:29:39 +0000

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.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:11:14 +0000

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.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:37:39 +0000

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.

By: faith

faith — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:39:46 +0000

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.