The CBE Scroll

Comment by Donald Guffey

March 27, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

I hope this is a blessing to everyone and I welcome all comments and would like to also give a shout out to any and every CBE member 25 years old and younger And I would love to see the CBE youth post some comments along with everybody else whose comments I so enjoy reading every post. God bless and give me some feed back

Comment by jlp

March 27, 2009 @ 6:19 pm

Thanks Donald. You are a real encouragement to me!

Comment by Beth

March 27, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

Donald,
Thanks for your insight upon this topic. I too think that women should have just as much right to do the ministry of the lord. He has called us all to be in service for Him.
That is why I am a Methodist today for that reason that women can be a part and be called to pastor. I am grateful for women who took a stand when men would not.
Thanks again and I appreciate your maturity level and I pray the Lord will continue to give you your direction and understanding for that direction. I am proud of ya.

Comment by Russell

March 27, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

Donald,

It is evident your personal journey has influenced and informed your perspective on women in ministry. The issue of gender equality is much more than the single issue of women in ministry, however, the latter is indeed important. Correct exegesis of the sacred text, along with a balanced hermeneutic, reveal that both genders have their place within a biblical paradigm of ministry. Continued blessings in your journey.

Comment by Pam

March 28, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

Donald –
First of all, thank you for feeling inspired to fight for women. It is so marvelous to hear those kind words.

I’m so grateful for your experience of equality in your home and church. Praise God.

And thinking of Russell’s comment on hermeneutics, exegesis, etc – letting God direct us, not society, and the discernment of the Spirit given gifts point out our leaders, rather than our preferences, is so important.

I do want to “throw in” some historical dimensions to the conversation on women in ministry. Thinking about your denomination, the Church of God, I am wondering what the situation is today. I know you said you are twenty, Donald, so you haven’t seen a long history there. But, I was intrigued reading Susan Hyatt’s book, In the Spirit We’re Equal, because she documents even the Pentecostal denominations moving away from women’s leadership in today’s climate.

For instance, she mentions the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) and says that it “had been organized prior to the Pentecostal Revival, embraced the revival but retained their existing organizational forms and their policies regarding women.” She adds a footnote to this quote and speaks of Charles Conn’s writing about the Church of God. She says he wrote in Like a Mighty Army Moves the Church of God, that women are “regarded as co-workers in the evangelization of the unconverted, women [are] permitted a restricted ministry which [does] not include ordination.” Then she went on to say that “At its 1992 General Assembly, the Church of God extended voting rights to its female members.”, p. 211

I emailed Susan while reading her wonderful, much history-covering book to ask her specifically, “Is there more openness to women in the Pentecostal denominations?” Her email and her book had a gloomy answer to that. “As Pentecostalism became institutionalized,” she says, “women found themselves less utilized.” Always, the real rub is the ordination “thing.” It can look like women are viewed as legitmate if their door sign says, “Pastor of Children’s Ministry.” But the fact may remain that that identifies a lay person and it is still women taking care of the children or often the secretarial roles in the church.

I’ve just finished Donald Dayton’s Discovering an Evangelical Heritage. Apparently, the holiness, revivalistic, evangelical offshoot denominations of the 1800s like the Free Methodists, Nazarenes, Wesleyans, and Salvation Army had a growing sense of endorsement for women along with their abolitionist stands. At one time the Nazarene church had 20% women pastors, according to Dayton, now today, that has shrunk back to 6%.

I am a former United Methodist pastor. Yes, it was a place for women to be ordained, but at great cost for me personally as I am a theologically conservative person. So, now as I move towards the more theologically conservative bodies, particularly those 1800s orginated, revival and reform focused groups mentioned above, the opening for women has shrunk.

Anyhow, wanted to put that in the midst of us for more talk.

Again, Donald, thank you for your good heart!!

Comment by Donald Guffey

March 28, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

Pam it is true that the road towards full rights in the ministry in the Church Of God has indeed been long and frustrating and it has been a very gradual journey. I have been blessed to see the fruits of so many’s labor in the church come to fruition, Women are now fully ordained as pastors able to perform marriages, funerals and offer sacrament ( these were restrictions on the Church Of God female pastors of old). What I am hoping is that the next step will come into being in my lifetime. There are three levels of ordination in the church of God the Exhortor , the ordained minister, and the Bishop or overseer. Women have long been given their ” Exhortors license ” the level of licensure often held mostly by our itinerant evangelists, the next big advance for women came when women were given ordination and the ablility to be fully functional senior pastors. Though the number of such pastors in the church are still few it’s a great advance none the less. The next big thing which is in the works right now is to grant women the role of a bishop ( this means that apart from being the pastor of their church they will also be responsible for the other churches within a district or state.) This is a big thing! and I am praying that it happens. While I am thankful for the open honesty of Mrs. Hyatt I find that the Church Of God slowly yet surely is in fact moving in the direction of equality with the passing of a generation. I believe Mr. Conn passed some time ago. Also speaking of his book ” Like a Mighty Army” which is a history of the church in the section she specified, one would read on to learn that women have served as pastors since 1920 and that 1992 was when they received voting rights at the assembly. ( even to this day some issues are only for the bishops to vote on) Conn goes on to mention great accomplishments of several women pastors so one must stay positive and count any advancement progress.

Comment by Liz

March 28, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

From the two preceding comments, it confirms again that in many cases the local church decided in some measure how much freedom women have to minister.

The official policy may be one thing but some churches are more strict while others can be more free (for a time at least) Also, it’s one thing to have the ability to lead written down, but being accepted and offered positions is another thing entirely. Just recently we read of “Singing Owl” who is a pastor in a denomination which affirms ordination of women and yet the reality is far from that.

It is good to rejoice in the progress but the job is still far from completed and in some areas, things seem to be going backward. As Donald says, the younger ones have opportunity to work towards change and we wish them all the best.

Comment by joanne

March 29, 2009 @ 8:30 am

this is a great story. my dream for the church is that both men and women will become strong in the Lord able to follow Jesus uninhibited and with great passion.

When I think of that verse… blessed are the children for they will inherit the Kingdom, I think of stories like yours. When the kingdom is present, the children live within a different world where God’s shalom is present. I love hearing stories of the kingdom.

May God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Comment by John Umland

March 29, 2009 @ 2:33 pm

It sounds to me that you are describing a church where one gender acts like bullies and another acts like pushovers. It doesn’t seem to me like an improved church.
Patriarchy will not go away until the easiest reading of 1 Timothy 2 goes away or the apostles story of selecting a replacement for Judas includes women. Rightly or wrongly, Occam’s razor is used by people who have never heard of Occam; they seek the simplest explanation.
God is good
jpu

Comment by Liz

March 29, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

OK John….I have never heard of Occam. Please explain (and excuse my ignorance)

Comment by Sarah

March 29, 2009 @ 11:53 pm

Liz – “Occam’s Razor” is a principle stating that the simplest solution to a question of fact, often in science, is most likely correct. This principle often holds true, but it’s not the equivalent of natural or divine law. It is certainly intuitive and many folks use an instinctive version when interpreting their world. Some pitfalls in this type of reasoning include incomplete or inaccurate information (such as the downfall of comfortably simple Newtonian physics in the face of quantum mechanics and general relativity, or distorted readings of I Tim. 2 fed by inadequate understandings of the complexities of the passage as well as its full textual and cultural contexts) and bias or improper logic on the part of the interpreter (Darwin’s finches don’t prove atheistic evolution, and a group of male apostles doesn’t disprove gender equality). Sometimes we confuse familiar with simple, and overlook complications in our own conclusions because we are used to rationalizing or minimizing inconsistencies.

Comment by Liz

March 30, 2009 @ 3:14 am

Thanks Sarah – that’s an excellent explanation. I rather thought it was as you said.
It’s a bit like logic…..things aren’t always what they seem (or what we would like them to be)

Comment by Donald Guffey

March 30, 2009 @ 9:23 am

John, while I appreciate your comment and participation in the blog I feel that you have misunderstood me or some of the others who have posted comments. We in no way advocate a church in which one gender bullies another ( I am unsure what you meant by that statement either men bullying women or vice versa I assume) but in either case we would not see this as the ideal church. Having myself, because of my line of work ( pre-school teacher) had a slight taste of reverse sexism I certainly don’t want a church where men are looked down upon for being men and neither do I want the fact that someone has an extra X chromosome than I do to be a reason for disdain. What I and the rest of the folks on this forum want to see is a church where men and women work together side by side equally in all factions of church life doing what God has called them to do regardless of whether it meets our society’s gender stereotypes or not. This is what we advocate – an equal church that is a bully free zone.

Comment by Frank

March 30, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

John, the thing about razors, like swords, is that they can cut both ways. I could argue, on the basis of a simplistic use of “Occam’s razor” (such as you do) that when we compare 1 Tim 2:5 and 2:15, that salvation for men is by faith in Christ alone, but for women it involves faith in Christ plus the work of childbearing. However, such an interpretation violates Paul’s own teaching regarding salvation by grace vs. salvation by works in Galatians and Romans. So any text, interpreted and applied apart from its proper historical, cultural, and literary context, is nothing but a pretext for some novel or questionable teaching. And a misuse of “Occam’s razor,” John, only compounds this error. Our God, who is a God of truth, expects us to properly interpret and apply his word at all times and in all situations; not to treat it with flippant disrespect.

Comment by John Umland

March 31, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

Donald, the author describes women in his church who makes those who cross them regret it, and men who go with the flow. If I described a church like that but the men made others regret crossing them and the women just went with the flow, I think many of the readers here would lament it. So I’m not sure why this author’s church is celebrated here.

Frank, I’m not saying the simpler interpretation is mine, it’s just simpler, and for many people who don’t have time to read blogs or greek or opposing theological opinions, the simplest is the default. 1 Tim 2:5 is simple, but 2:15 is hard and can be relegated to something some preacher can settle for me.

God is good
jpu

Comment by John Umland

March 31, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

When I wrote “but 2:15 is hard and can be relegated to something some preacher can settle for me.” I was speaking in the voice of someone who has no energy for this stuff.
God is good
jpu

Comment by Frank

March 31, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

John, you say in that your previous comment (89007)you are not presenting your own view, acting as “a devil’s advocate” for those who do hold this view. Okay, I’ll play along in this “legal fiction,” if that’s all it is. So, let us say Donald had written the fourth paragraph of his posting, not with the clauses that apparently offend your constituency, but as follows (Note: Donald, your own response to John was adequate; I am just acting as “legal counsel” for the opposite side in this “fiction”):

“Women have always been a positive role model in my life. My mother is strong, assertive, and a born leader. She is a woman who knows what she wants and is definitely not a pushover. My aunt is a woman of grace and poise and knows how to get the job done. My grandmother is a woman who is also assertive and has no trouble speaking her mind. No one inside or outside the family would dare to change. Then men in my family are easygoing, accepting their women as they are, and making every effort to complement one another and work together.”

Now, sir, if Donald had expressed his view in this fashion, would your constituency still find it offensive or not? Or would they not only object to the women being of independent mind, strong in heart and body, refusing to be bullied by others, but also to the fact that their men stood with them in this and refused to force them to abide “in the proper, private” sphere of women? That is the question, sir, that needs to be answered.

Another question I have, sir is this. You made the statement, “Patriarchy will not go away until the easiest reading of 1 Timothy 2 goes away, or the story of the apostles selecting a replacement for Judas includes women.” Does your constituency really think such inconsistent and incoherent arguments would sway the judgement of this court? Now I can understand such a simple reading regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15; however, Sarah (89010)has correctly testified to what all scholars agree is the fatal flaw of this “simple” reading. But the replacement of Judas by a man being the ground to bar women from being, along with men, missionaries who go out preaching the Gospel and making disiciples, such as Christ commanded? And we know from Acts and several of his epistles, that Paul’s own church-planting team was composed of men and women. Surely, sir, your constituency is not so dull of mind and wit that they would seriously argue such a thing? I just can’t believe it!

Well, so much for my play on John’s legal fiction.

And as for people letting their pastors do this work for them, shame on them. Don’t they know 1 Pet. 3:15-16, which calls us all to so know and love the truth of the Gospel, that when we are asked what we believe and why, we are able to do so–this is their responsibility, not the pastor’s. And shame on pastors and leaders for failing to teach their people to love the truth, to proclaim the truth, and to defend the truth–this is one of the works of service for which they are to train and equip the saints(cf. Eph. 4:10-16.)

Comment by Donald Guffey

March 31, 2009 @ 6:00 pm

John, First I wrote the article and If you cared to read further into it I was describing the women in my family not in my church. Second I was saying that because of my Mother’s personality she was the one who would make one regret crossing her male or female now whether or not that is a positive trait or not I leave to the individual to decide for their self. All that I was trying to get across is that my upbringing and those God has surrounded me with have helped to mold my egalitarian views. Now the reason I take the time to mention strong women in my family and celebrate that strength ( I don’t view my mother’s personality as a bad thing she is actually a very loving woman she is just nobodies doormat and neither are the men in my family I just said that we go with the flow because we have better things to worry about than who is in charge of the household.) The reason I celebrate this strength is that while granted women in ministry isn’t the whole picture of biblical equality, they tend to be built uo more because they ( Women) have gotten the raw end of the deal from the get go so they need encouragement. These were my intentions and I am dismayed that you think that I am in favor of reverse patriarchy in which women rule over men. I suggest in the article excactly what I said in my last comment that the church should be a place were people are equal and free to be who they are and to do what God has called and gifted them to do. I am sorry that you felt that my article suggested otherwise.

Comment by John Umland

March 31, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

Hi Frank
If you need to peg me, I would consider myself an inconsistent complementer. I’m an elder in a Calvary Chapel. My interpretation of the types in Song of Songs would not fly at a CC conference. Please read my series at my blog about that book where I tend to see Jesus in the woman instead of the man. My wife is a strong egalitarian. I’ve read many of the popular books on the egalitarian side and several scholarly journal articles as well. I also read NT Greek if that matters. I consider myself informed, but not convinced about egalitarianism.

I have had almost exclusively positive experiences under Christian women leaders, much like Donald. I have no doubts about competencies or abilities of Christian women. I just can’t get past the pattern and proof texts of the NT regarding leadership by women in the church. That’s why I read this blog. I’m looking for something to convince me. My wife still gets the CBE newsletter.

I do have friends who see things as simply as I related but are committed to the Lord and the Word. They really do exist. I don’t run in rarified circles. So I’m trying to provoke from y’all very simple ways to discount examples in Acts (Mathias and the deacons) as well as Corinthians and Timothy and Titus.

Sorry if I make y’all mad.

God is good
jpu

Comment by Donald Guffey

March 31, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

John you do not anger me in fact someone to discuss with is indeed in a weird cosmic kind of way refreshing. Now I can see that people can’t accept my way of thinking because of the easiest reading of new testament passages. But as your also well aware that taking the Bible at face value while granted it is the easiest thing to do it is simply something you can’t do and I’m sure with other passages you don’t for example has your eye ever offended you john? do you happen to still have that eye? Well then you obviously didn’t take the easiest reading of that passage in the Bible for if you did you would be writing your posts with one less eye. So if one wishes to truly know what the scripture is saying on a subject contexts of history culture and original language of the text must be looked into. So while it is indeed easier to take the easiest reading of a scripture which I don’t think Christ encourages taking the easiest way of things then it to me is either because they have already established in their heart what they believe on the subject or or they don’t care or don’t have the strength for this stuff as you put it. John If you are simply looking for someone to convince you that women are able to minister then why don’t you just pray and ask The Holy Spirit to help you for one thing I mean He did write it after all. also I’m wondering if you want to be convinced about the issue or something else it sounds as if your at a cross roads of belief and depending on where you are at this point in your life even if we give you all the historical contextual and spiritual reasons a women can function in the same way a man can ( the resources are on this site by the way.) you may or may not even accept it but I do hope your able to find what you are looking for, you don’t anger me I’m just not sure your ready to receive what we are saying that’s my honest opinion I hope i don’t anger you either.

Comment by Liz

April 1, 2009 @ 2:09 am

Thanks for sharing where you are coming from John. It makes it easier for others to respond carefully. The folks at CBE respect the fact that it can be hard to get around some of the texts you mention and at the end of the day, it is a matter for interpretation. I hope that your participation on this blog will make it easy for you to dialogue and that you won’t feel coerced to believe certain things but have the freedom to explore at your leisure. My husband and I understand the CC commitment to scripture and applaud their diligence in this area.

Comment by Sarah

April 1, 2009 @ 3:12 am

John, welcome aboard :-). I wish you well in your search for God’s best in this area. Is the difficulty you are referring to in Acts the instructions that Judas’s replacement and the Seven were to be chosen from among available men -apparently not including women among the candidates? If so, an interesting point (tho potentially complicated by the presence of the apostle Junia and deacon Phoebe in Romans 16 :-)). Blessings . . . and yes – God is good!

Comment by Greg Anderson

April 1, 2009 @ 10:37 am

Welcome John Umland #89023! I attended Calvary Chapel for many years until for conscience sake I could no longer accept their view of the famous/infamous Timothy passages with regard to women in ministry.

And you are right, many people are perfectly happy to have somebody else decide for them what the Bible means with regard to faith and practice in the church age.

I dunno why it’s this way, maybe it’s a herding instinct, a fear of lost group approval, and horror of horrors, going against God’s holy and inerrant word?

It took me awhile to realize that aside from the essentials of the faith (virgin birth, Jesus’ bodily resurrection etc.), that we don’t have inerrant interpretations of God’s word.

I credit the writings of Katharine Bushnell in this regard. Her sound exegesis and legitimate textual criticism of the ancient languages convinced me that the alleged one-size-fitz-all gender roles established by God in Eden are the traditions and doctrines of men.

Comment by Frank

April 1, 2009 @ 11:54 am

John, indeed welcome. I wasn’t trying so much as to “peg you,” as I was trying to understand the reason for the objections and arguments you gave as an “acting advocate.” And by turning our interaction into a “legal fiction,” with myself as an “acting advocate,” I wanted to achieve some clarification and also address my own questions and objections in a creative way that did not offend either Donald or you, but clearly aired things out, as it were. So if I offended you, I apologize. However, as regards my comments on both Occam’s razor and that it is shameful for Christians to expect their leaders to explain and defend their faith for them, when Jude (Jude 3-4), Peter (1 Pet. 3:15-16), and Paul (Phil. 1:7 and 2:27-28)so plainly teach and urge us all to do this, pretty much still stands.

Comment by Trevor

April 1, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

John,
Thank you for declaring yourself so graciously. It takes courage to state who we are when we hold a position of responsibility within the church. Other lurking CC members may take advantage of such an admission as your being present and engaging in debate on this site. When I was discovering biblical equality for myself even the fact that I was on this journey segregated me from my ministry colleagues who felt that the question need not be put.

While I was unable to clearly enunciate my position at that time, and would not make an issue with it, I was held under such suspicion that my denomination secretly banned me from the practice of periodic pulpit exchanges within the group. It was felt that I might use the opportunity to subvert my hearers. The truth was that I respected the collective conscience of the other congregations and would not expect the Holy Spirit to give me a message that violated the accepted teaching of the host church.

This belief was not followed by my ministry counterparts who felt that an opportunity to share in our church pulpit was an occasion given for them to correct my apparent theological shortcomings. The whole thing ended rather sadly with me being disfellowshipped by some of the more hardline conservatives and the fellowship of churches dissolving. Sad but true.

Comment by Donald Guffey

April 2, 2009 @ 10:01 am

I truly feel for those of you who come from denominations that are not egalitarian and as I stated in my article I really can’t fully understand what that is like seeing as how granted I’ve had my share of outside opposition and people who didn’t agree with me but I always had the solace of my church family and my real family to build me back up. I thank God for that and my hope is that in return I may be that solace for those who talk to me or read my writings; that they would see me as a friend who will build up their faith, after all that is true christian friendship we are called to build up and edify each other. Frank you certainly didn’t offend me in fact I was deeply touched you in so many ways came to my defense. I plead with everyone to keep in mind that this is my first real article I have written so the wording might not have been the best. As for John, I said in a previous post that I truly hope you will find someone to convince you of what you want convincing. You seem to truly want to believe in biblical equality to the fullest but it is hard for me to fully understand the drawbacks to this since I’ve really never faced any, but as with anything within this christian walk we are called to sometimes believe and do things that will cause friends to lose confidence in us. Ours is a life of sacrifice – sometimes we may lose friends and face. I am sure there are many people around that think me liberal ( yeah right) feminist ( why thank you LOL) and a biblical illiterate , but that’s life. John I want so much for you to find what you’re looking for. Just know that the truth will indeed make you free and it also will free you from some alliances as well. Also I am unfamiliar with Calvary chapel so if someone would enlighten me on this church I would greatly appreciate it thanks and God is indeed good.

Comment by jlp

April 2, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

Trevor,

Did you suffer reprisal in the Christian community for having egalitarian beliefs? I’ve heard that a lot of Christians have suffered thus.

There’s a major Bible School in my area. I heard through the grapevine that a lot of the professors are secretly egalitarian, but are afraid to express it for fear of getting fired.

Comment by Trevor

April 6, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

JLP,

My situation at that time was that I was under suspicion. It was felt that my attitude toward women, meaning their ability to minister alongside of men, was doctrinally unacceptable to some in the fellowship of churches of which our church was a member.

The most frustrating thing for me then was that I was not able to challenge the suspicion and give a personal defense of my position, I was simply blacklisted and some refused to even shake my hand in brotherly fellowship, from that point on. It was a sad, sad day.

Those who felt this way believed that if I had compromised myself on the women’s issue I had probably jettisoned other conservative doctrinal positions that were important to this group. That was not the case but I was unable, even though I was present when this was discussed, to answer those criticisms.

I guess that you could call that reprisal. As I mentioned in the earlier comment the organization eventually dissolved shortly after this incident anyway and we were able to move on. In time we led our own, independent, church into recognizing gift based ministries and changed the constitution so that we could continue to operate that way.

It saddens me that some of my ministry colleagues, from that era, are still distanced from me and that we have no opportunity to restore fellowship even though we (my wife and I) have shown ourselves more than willing.

Comment by joanne

April 7, 2009 @ 6:25 am

Hi John, Hope I am hearing you correctly, I got the sense from your first blog entry that you were concerned, based on the opening article, that women in Donald’s life were dominant leaving the men without voice.

I would be concerned with relationships that left men without voice. A relationship based on equality is one or should be one that has room for the voices, opinions, input, insight, of both men and women. The goal is for two whole people who have a sense of their own person in relationship.

I worry about a lot of marriage teaching that focuses on headship and men having the final say that do not encourage wives to have a voice or sense of self. And I would be concerned about any marriage teaching that does the same to husbands.

The goal is two whole people able to self-define who are in relation with one another. Conflicts, yes! Differing opinions? You Bet!!! An interesting marriage, no doubt! Two whole people with voices enables a couple to resolve conflicts accepting and respecting each one.

I would not want my spouse to hide his voice for me. Nor would it be good for me to hide my voice to be submissive. True submission is mutual and each person must become a good listener, and hear the heart of their spouse. Only then can there be wholeness. I would argue that submitting to one another is most about listening to one another.

Comment by Jeanine S. Moss

April 7, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

Several comments back I noted a reference to the Church of God and their stance on women in leadership/ministry. I was reminded that several years ago as I was beginning to seriously research this issue, I came across a copy of “Vital Christianity,” in the most unlikely place. It was in one of the waiting areas in the hospital where I worked. I was browsing the reading material on the table while waiting for a committee meeting and uncovered it. What a coincidence!! I have shelves of
books and files of information gathered over the years, so I went to my files for that particular file. The information is contained in the May 1989 issue and is subtitled “Women in Ministry,” with an article by the same title authored by Sharon C. Pearson, identified as an adjunct faculty member of Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA. The article was very thorough and addressed many of the traditional arguments in opposition to women in leadership. JSM

Comment by jlp

April 7, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

Thanks for sharing, Trevor. This is so sad.

Comment by SingingOwl

April 8, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

I’m so sorry, Trevor. :-(

And John, you want to be convinced, I think? Just a thought…if there are arguments on both sides, and you are unconvinced but open…would it not be better to err on the side of allowing everyone to use their gifts (even if this turns out to be wrong). If egalitarians are wrong, is harm done by allowing women full participation in the life of the church? If complimentarians are wrong, is harm done by not allowing woman full participation in the life of the church?

Comment by Frank

April 10, 2009 @ 11:47 am

John, I just read an essay by Aida Besancon Spencer, “Jesus’ Treatment of Women in the Gospels” that addresses some the questions you raised regarding both Jesus’ choosing the Twelve Apostles and why it was important to replace Judas. If you want to do some further study on this matter, this essay might be a helpful resource.

Since you are also a student of Canticles or The Song of Solomon, have your ever read the commentary on this book, A SONG FOR LOVERS (IVP, 1990)? In the Baptist church I grew up in, this OT book was primarily treated as a type of the love between Christ and the Church. But in my youth, I often wondered why there was no book in the Bible that extensively dealt with love, sex and marriage. However, this IVP commentary which I refer to (sorry, I’ve forgotten the author’s name), while honoring the secondary, typological use of the Song of Solomon, explains it was primarily a handbook on love, sex and marriage, which the rabbis didn’t let their young people read until they were married.

And since this is the time of year we commemorate our Lord’s sacrificial death on the cross and his glorious resurrection from the dead, let us recall and rejoice in the great salvation he has obtained for us all. May his grace and peace be with you all. Amen!

Comment by Kathryn

April 24, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

There is a song in the show South Pacific called Carefully Taught that underscores the fact that prejudice, while originating in the sinful human heart, is indeed passed down through teaching. As to the question of who replaced Judas, how do we know that Junia, the female apostle in Romans 16:7, didn’t replace him? We don’t know that Paul was the replacement in God’s eyes.

Comment by Dr.Shirley

May 1, 2009 @ 9:33 am

Kathryn -I was thinking the same thing (about Junia). And maybe Phoebe was the replacement for Stephen (who was killed)? In reality, there WERE more apostles than the 12 or 11 (such as Barnabas, Silas, Paul, Junia, and Timothy), and there were probably a lot more “diakonoi” than the named ones in Acts and Romans. And who knows how many of them were women?