Doctrine, People, Preachers Answering The Big Questions September 29, 2010 Darrell 356 Comments Next up, the urgent matter of Adam’s belly button…
356 thoughts on “Answering The Big Questions”
He irks me so much……..
Thou art not far from the kingdom. 😉
(that was a joke)
(which means it wasn’t serious, I was trying to be funny)
(so I wasn’t really saying I doubted your salvation or anything and replying to me with a Bible verse would be the act of a great big toolbag)
(not that I think you’re a toolbag either. That was another joke)
methinketh I behold backhanded compliments and vieled insults
…now where was that Bible verse…….?
data point, even though it was repeatedly stated it was a joke.
I would consider it as an invalid datapoint as it is >7 days old. I won’t punish anyone for past regressions 😆
Seems like a good policy.
From Answering the Big question:
Darrell, I did no’t realize you needed Fairness Doctrine like Counterpoint on this site to keep us from ruining it. Seems there’s a new sheriff in town. Sheriff John is here to clean this site up.
The Long Arm of the Fundy Law has come to town. 😯
“… I don’t make a big deal about it in our church if the women get happy …”
Awfully big of you there, Pastor.
I think he probably prefers for the women in his church to “get happy”….if you get my drift. The foot fetish he reveals when preaching about open-toed shoes shows serious sexual deviancy. I suggested he get some professional help for that on his Facebook fan page, but it got deleted right away…
Like would we really want to?
Say ‘Amen’ to any of that?
Glad we cleared that one up.
Toolbar? That isn’t in the glossary yet, Darrell. 😉
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that on youtube before. Idiotic.
I can’t help but noticed the french cuffs and wonder if that’s really manly enough for someone who makes such a big deal of being distinct from (and in his/fundamentalists opinion better than) women.
So it’s more acceptable in his church if a man chooses to make a spectacle of himself during the service?
I thought the same thing!
It’s a common tactic among fundie men: refer to women in such a way that you pretend to believe that women are better and holier creatures, far above rubies and anything earthly, while maintaining in your heart an opinion that they are just creatures and thereby far below your head or feet or anything else that rises above the level of the ground. It’s a neat trick, really.
Exactly. The words do not match the actions. When in doubt, believe the actions.
And if a woman should speak in the church, Jack would probably slap her.
Women are dumb anyway. they’d probably embarrass the men by saying amen at the wrong time. It’s probably better this way.
As to the belly button question:
Please tell me that originated in the Onion or some such place. Please please, they cannot be serious.
It’s fake. Under their “gift-shop” section you can purchase your choice of “heathen” or “Fornicator” t-shirts, sadistic Bible-verse calendars, and other such stuff.
Landover is a parody site.
Now boys and girls…you are an idiot and I am going to talk down to you while I smile like a used car salesman and patronize you…
They don’t seem to have any idea how patronizing that “very, very important role” line sounds. Or maybe they do, and they just don’t care. I’ve heard the same line from more moderate Christians, too, and I feel like sending the kindergarten teacher voice right back to them.
Making green bean casserole is a “very, very important role.” Are you doubting that?
And angel’d eggs! Don’t forget or sell short the delicious delicious angel’d eggs!
We can’t called them “deviled” eggs anymore? Thanks. That would have been a nasty faux pas.
@Dan Keller 😆
I thought they were called…
I almost walked into one his his traps. Satan sure is crafty. 👿
That brings back memories. I went to a freaky fundy church that would not use a “dirt devil” vacuum cleaner. It had to be from Satan! 😯 And then, to make matters worse, we had an evangelist come thru and JOKINGLY say, now we don’t eat those devil’s food cakes, no sir, it’s only angel’s food cakes for us Christians. I kid you not, he even chuckled as he said it. Later when I was in the nursery, a bunch of women got all serious and started telling how they were NEVER going to make any chocolate cake again…you know that whole “appearance of evil” thing since someone might mistake their cake for one of the DEVIL’s food cake which of course came straight from the pit of hell. 🙄 😈 I really wanted to slap them ALL!
@I’m not telling – okay, that proves that fundieism is of demonic origin. Any religion that causes people to question the sanctity of chocolate cake cannot be of heavenly inspiration.
I guess fundy hockey fans can’t root for the New Jersey Devils 😀
@ Scorpio — I guess that can’t root for Duke or Wake Forrest either.
You are correct Phil.
Favorite team of fundies….Anaheim Angels 🙄
See where I grew up, we had a soccer team named “Perth Glory”. We weren’t allowed to follow them because they were taking glory for themselves instead of God. 🙄
We weren’t allowed to buy “Lucky Charms” because there was no such thing as luck, only God’s providential care. (I am seriously not kidding you about this. We really couldn’t. Those marshmallows looked so yummy too – magically delicious!)
I have been told by fundies that saying “good luck” to someone is wrong because it shows you are not trusting in God.
Anaheim Angels? Is that better than the New Orleans Saints? (Of course, I’m not a sports fan; I don’t even know if they play the same sport. Maybe you can cheer for them both.)
Anyone else actually hear someone from the pulpit use an illustrations that the Tampa Bay Rays started winning when they changed their names from the Devil Rays cause they “got the Devil out”?
Didn’t have anything to do with them rebranding a young talented team they believed was on the verge of winning so they could sell more gear. They started winning cause they changed their name.
Fundies are amazing.
RobM – I never actually heard that from a pulpit but to a fundie it would make perfect sense.
More SFL: Attributing coincidences to divine intervention.
He should just leave his head in there… when he takes it out, all he can produce is residual colon blow like this. 😯
Now why did I have to click on the other videos and watch them too? 😯
Apparently, family planning is up to your pastor and FBC staff can’t wear beards because nothing has changed at FBC for 123 years.
I think more than a few of them are wearing beards, just not the facial hair kind. 😆
Did you catch the one where he says, “It will be a cold day in Hell before I let a woman …”
That should be his epitaph, Hay-men?
I did the same thing the first time Darrell posted a link to that page. I sat and watched almost all of the videos. It was like a train wreck I couldn’t pull myself away from
Oh man, the one about aliens was classic fundy approach to scripture. It almost ripped my heart out to hear him give such importance to the word “it”. Then I remembered that it was Jack Schaap talking about aliens, and I didn’t care.
Oh, man, now I did it, too. (I can’t stop picking at a scab, either.)
I can only conclude that some biolab has managed to merge the genome of a yapping terrier with that of a Baptist preacher.
The weird thing is there are actually women in his church. Isn’t that like African-Americans attending Ku Klux Klan meetings?
And yet, if his church is like most, women sing solos and participate in ensembles that provide special music, thus bringing attention to themselves. And as many gospel and religious songs are either quoting Scripture, or trying to communicate doctrine and spiritual truths, these women could be said to be prophesying. Such hypocrisy and double-standards.
I also love that, in trying to make what he’s saying sound somewhat less offensive to the women, he says that the women are so strong, they don’t need to speak. So then, the men speaking is the equivalent of driving a hummer with extra big tires? “I have a lot of compensating to do for my deficiencies, so tonight’s sermon will be extra long” (pun very much intended!).
Yes, this is exactly what came to my mind, too, Diachenko. He even used the word “vocalizing,” which, apparently, excludes the idea of singing. Double standards abound.
“Extra long!” 😈
Talk about trivial pursuit! How meaningless can he get?
In college there used to be one woman at FBC that always belted out long ‘amens’. I wonder if that was the happy one.
Yep, that was her. The happy one. 😀 😀
He says women are so strong they don’t need to say anything — they have other ways to demonstrate their strength…I guess we womanfolk should sit down, shut up, take care of the nursery,cook, clean, and keep our menfolk’s satisfied in the bedroom. What a wonderful world that would be.
His snarky smile and attitude make me want to scream. Maybe he is so weak in mind and spirit that he can’t handle a smart, strong woman.
I’m totally creeped out by that smile when I click on SFL. I hope Darrell posts a new one soon because his face is NOT something I want to see much more of!
It must be a sign of my spiritual immaturity that I never thought to ask this question.
But wait . . . he’s being un-Biblical. It clearly says that a woman should not speak in church. That means we’re not supposed to say one.single.word. anywhere on the church premises. He’s not taking the Bible literally!!!
So what would he do about Phoebe (the deaconess mentioned in the NT) or Deborah (judge over ALL Israel, not just the women)? So how exactly did they do their jobs while being completely silent?
Beth, they can explain that, too. Deborah was judge only because the nation was so messed up at the time she was all they had, but it was not blessed by god. Same for Lydia and Phoebe — aberrations. And they will explain them away in two shakes.
Darrell, thanks for reminding me why I’ll never darken the door again. (And now for some reason I have a craving for deviled eggs.)
They may attempt to explain them away as aberrations, but regardless of why God had His hand on them and chose them as leaders, He did. True, Deborah was the only one qualified and willing to accept God’s calling at the time. But isn’t it God’s way to choose those the establishment calls “weak” to defeat the “mighty”?
I’m not sure I believe that Deborah was the only one qualified. Scratch that, I know I don’t. Deb’s husband Lappidoth was right there. Barak could have been brought in without Deb’s help. There had to be at least some guys in that army Barak led who had some sense. The most obvious answer to the question “Why Deborah?” is simply “God wanted her”.
I hate the “Amening” it always seemed so arrogant. Like, if the criticism was hitting super close to home, you probably wouldn’t amen it, but as long as there was some distance…….AAAAAAAAMEN. Shut up, k?
I noticed this a lot in different churches. Pastor would preach against tattoos, CCM, other versions of the Bible, drinking, etc. and “Amens!” would sound all over the church. What if he were to preach against gluttony, gossip, unforgiveness, hardness of heart, pettiness, holding grudges? I don’t think they’d be saying “Amen” quite so loud. They call it “hard preaching.” I call it “preaching about something you already don’t do so you can feel superior.” A shepherd is SUPPOSED to deal with the real needs of his flock so he shouldn’t spend the majority of his time preaching about sins they aren’t tempted by.
I’m not an “Amen-er” (too shy), but I prefer “Amens” to be after a statement about God’s majesty and grace not after mean-spirited comment about someone else’s sin: “All those panty-waisted ****** [fill in the blank here] will wake up to find themselves in hell someday! Amen?” How about, “If not for the grace of God, we’d be bound for hell but because of the shed blood of Jesus, I’m on my way to heaven! AMEN!!!”
It’s OK for the preacher to “step on toes,” as long as those toes aren’t mine. 🙄
I always hated the “protocol” for amening. Amen? 😀
Seriously, The further the sin is away from you (gays, drugs, liberals etc.) the louder the amens. Something that is close to home (too much tv, not reading the bible or praying enough, not being in church every time the doors are open etc.) the amens would be more scattered and not as loud.
Except for the handfull of truly holy and (self) righteous ones. When the preaching hit on something close to home on most people, they would shout out a huge “Uh-Oh”. Basically saying that the preacher is hitting close to home and they agree and are basically judging everyone else.
I really did not like them at that moment. 😡
What’s really funny is when they say stuff besides ‘AMEN!’. My brother went to a fundie school for a semester and one of the expressions a couple of guys used was ‘ride that donkey, preacher!’.
Being a nonfundie I found that to be laughable, especially since ‘riding the donkey’ sounds like an awesome euphemism to me. Somebody should have pointed that out to them and told them to repent of their appearance of evil.
“Shake that bush!”
“Can I get a witness?”
Here in NC we have one that I thought was unique”
“Somebody, hold my Mule!”
Er … hold your mule while you do what?
I don’t know, I never asked him. He usually spouted off that phrase when he was about to make a particularly emotional appeal concerning “Faith Promise Missions Giving.”
I remember one time in he was making a point about the lad’s five little ol’ barley loaves and two minner’ sized fishes… and how Jesus fed five thousand men (not counting the women and children)[and I am not discounting the miracle of the feeding of the 5000+ in anyway shape, form, or fashion]… anyway, he was getting very annimated and he stopped, stomped, grinned and said, “Somebody Hold my Mule, I’m about to get started preachin’!”
I don’t have a problem with people saying “amen.” I figure that it allows the pulpit and the pew to work together. Granted, This may be due to having been raised as a Pentecostal. Whatever the case, the thing that really bothers me is when the preacher begins to pump the crowd for Amens: “Somebody better say Amen,” “Raise your hands and say Amen” “If you believe that say Amen” There are more but you get my point. If people want to support you that’s one thing. If you’re begging for support that’s sad indeed.
I say AMEN to that!
That’s not as bad as the preacher who solicits applause for his preaching. I really heard of one like that once. I believe his line was, “Why don’t you give me a hand for preaching like that.”
“I think this is Scriptural” in non-Fundy land = “this is my opinion, so feel free to disregard or have your own opinion”
“I think this is Scriptural” in Fundy land = “this IS God-breathed, so you WILL obey or have the state of your heart or salvation questioned”
And for the record I dislike “Amening” across the board. It starts seeming so flippant.
Can anyone explain to me how and who “your sons and daughters will prophesy” to if she can’t speak in gathering of believers?
You didn’t listen closely enough — they will be teaching the young women (to cook and clean) and the three, four, and five year olds (inaccurate Bible stories). I guess any boy over five is already superior to the womenfolk.
Nothing reinforces the arrogance and self-centeredness of a 13 year old boy like saying a godly 45 year old college professor is unfit to teach him simply because she’s a woman.
Oh, another thing. When I was at HAC he was gradually and subtlely getting rid of many of the women who had positions of leadership. They would mysteriously be ‘led of God’ to resign and their positions replaced by men. (Or a husband/wife trio as happened with the dean of women position.) I wonder if some people just don’t like women who can handle authority.
Could you clarify about the husband and wife trio?
Sure! ‘Trio’ is what flies off my finger when I type while tired!
But, now that I think of it, they’d be following Jack Schaap’s agenda, so maybe it’s more accurate than what my brain thought it wrote.
I understand although I am a bit disappointed that the trio was not what I thought it was originally! 😉
A husband/wife trio??
This gets more and more interesting.
I love the husband wife trio thing! Wouldn’t it be husband/wives? 🙂 I always suspected that Schaap was jealous of Warren Jeffs!
It’s that Jack Hyles thing that he seems to be alluding to however. You… Your wife… and your spiritual wife.
oops, that should be: “spiritual” wife
Ah, gotcha. Forgot about that handy arrangement.
double oops, Sorry Emily, I meant “she” not “he.”
george go and perform rectal-crainialectomy on self now…. good thing I wearing tie, and use Preparation KY-H on hair this morning. Make easier to remove head and help shrink swelling.
funny, look like Jack use same hair treatment… him wearing tie too. bet him need breath mint.
Is the tie a handle to facilitate the rectal-cranialectomy?
@Scorpio almost never fails to make me laugh. This is no exception. Kudos sir (or madam).
That would be sir. I appreciate the kind words.
george say good evening. Want to thank Scorpio for kind words. 😀
yes, tie used as hindlic maneuver emergency removal tool. usually can remove own head with simple tug.
can also tie tie to car bumper and have friend drive off. (can be dangerous if friend have bitter root about when you choke his dog to death while leading him in sinner prayer.)
Or can tie tie to door knob and sit down quickly.
i only called in when there be case of vapor lock and have to break vaccuum seal with crowbar.
ur bro in gid,
Misogyny runs deep in Fundyville…it makes me sad for all of these little girls I see growing up in that environment. 🙁
Schaap has said in other clips that he’s proud to be a chauvinist. I think it was in the grandma slap clip.
Wait, he slaps his Grandma? Which clip is that?
This one: http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/07/slapping-grandma/
Thanks, Darrell. Yes, he really said he wants to slap grandmothers. What a sick dude.
And this guy still has a church? And people come to it??? 😯
Seth: speaking as a former “little girl” from Fundyland, you got that right. It was Hell. Sadly, conservative evangelicalism for the most part isn’t much better.
I like to say amen and I like when others do too. Neh 8 is just one of many examples where amening takes place. It said in Neh 8 that all the people said amen…I guess that includes the women.
To me this is a microcosm of everything wrong in fundie land. I didn’t hear anything in there in regards to being concerned about what brings glory to the Savior, only what is “proper” and what HE has instructed “his” women to do based on the twisting of a couple of verses.
Basically Jack says to women “shut the H*** up!”
Because of people like Schapp and Mark Driscoll, I’d love to see women walk out of misogynist churches.
We’ve been blamed for every freaking thing that’s wrong in the conservative and fundamentalist churches even though we have little or no voice and certainly no authority, so let’s do the men who blame us a favor and walk out. It would be the ultimate response to their “shut the **** up”.
We’ve been having to care for our own spiritual needs anyway. We can have our own Bible studies while the men can have their churches all to themselves and fix everything they think we screwed up.
Sadly, I’m not kidding. Although I don’t believe in breaking up the body of Christ, I figure that misogyny has done exactly that. It’s time for women to pull themselves out, minister among themselves, and let these men see if they can have their perfect church without us. I don’t see another way. Well, I do, but it’ll never happen in my lifetime. 😥
Would it be too annoying if I remind you that there are a good many churches that teach the equality of women and men?
To give a few examples, United Methodists, Lutherans (ELCA), Presbyterians (PCUSA), United Church of Christ (UCC), Disciples of Christ, Epsicopalians (the mainstream, not the breakaway faction), and American Baptists.
All of these have women pastors, women bishops (or the equivalent), and women speaking, teaching, and preaching at every level. None of them fully live up to their aspirations toward gender equality, but at least nobody in those churches could get away with spouting this kind of toxic waste about slapping Grandma, etc.
Yeah, but my husband refuses to consider going to any of them. *sigh*
I’m sighing w/ you LMcC. Am currently attending a PCUSA w/ a husband/wife co-pastorate. Am enjoying that a lot.
RobM, I’m jealous. It was all I could do to get him into a Church of God-Anderson, and that’s barely different from the SBC (except for more freedom for women in ministry).
Even then, here in the South, even the “egalitarian” denominations are often tainted by Southern Baptist influence and don’t really allow the women to experience Biblical equality.
A list of those who deny the Bible’s teaching on many other subjects too.
Seriously, ordaining women into the pastorate has to be one of the easiest ways to identify apostasy.
Just go ahead and stop pretending to be biblical.
Flame away, but it’s still true.
And everytime I post Bible people complain, because obviously that’s not allowed here
OK John I’ll bite. It’s not that you “post Bible” that causes us to complain. It’s that you use your interprtation of the Bible to judge us.
Seriously, Scorpio. You know it. Fundamentalists have to write out of the Bible women like Deborah, Huldah, Anna, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Jael, etc. Either that, or misinterpret their stories to the point of being unrecognizeable. (I never even heard of Huldah until after I left Fundyland, and she set King Josiah straight.)
Not to mention they have to ignore their own history. The pre-Fundamentalist evangelicals of the 19th century had a high number of women speaking publicly at revivals for women’s rights and civil rights. Some of these women were involved in the formation of the WCTU, which helped raise awareness about domestic violence and child labor laws. Fundamentalist women were preachers in the early 20th century. Moody used to train them. IFCA allowed churches with female pastors up until 1930. Fundamentalism and evangelicalism unfortunately did to women what many religious movements have always done: use their zeal and energy to build the movement, then toss them aside once the movement gains some respectability. Sad, really.
Let’s agree to just see other people…
Seriously, do you REALLY go that far?
There are multiple reasons why the 12 aposltes were all men, no book in the Bible is wroitten bya woman (out of 66) not to mention Church history……women are very important and in many ways superior than men—but egalitarianism is extremly unbiblical.
What’s wrong with Mark Driscoll? He holds a complementarian view, last time I heard. He’s a part of the Gospel Coalition and I think he’s a swell preacher.
Driscoll is well-known for a VERY negative view of women. He has made references to the “chick-ification” of the church, using both an offensive term about women and dismissing the efforts of the women in his church who serve faithfully. Not to mention women in his church have come forward talking about the heavy-duty pressure to give up careers and have lots of kids whether they think they are mom material or not. Not cool.
You know what, LMcC, at first I thought you were kidding. But I’ve been thinking that I would LOVE to go to that church! And there’s no bible verse that I know of that says wherever the women go the men have to be allowed in too. I can imagine that while the men are shoring up their earthly dominion amongst themselves, we’re off talking about, y’know, Godâ€” instead of learning new ways to bow down to the Sons of Adam. That sounds wonderfully free.
Yeah, it would be nice not to have men blaming us for everything even when it isn’t our fault. It would be great if women in misogynist churches would stage a mass walk-out, claiming to do so for the good of the church (and it would be, for the female half). I have already decided that I *will* walk out of any church where I hear the words “feminization” or “chickification” and explain exactly why. My relatives can just deal when that happens. Let’s face it… no matter what I do, everything I can offer a church is by definition “feminized” (or *gag* “chickified”) since I am female. If the church doesn’t like that, my gifts can go anywhere else… including the ones that may be in my wallet 😉
My church in IL was a “plymouth brethren” church. I put that in quotes because they really weren’t part of the actual plymouth brethren. Why? Because women were allowed to give testimonies at the breaking of bread service and weren’t required to wear head coverings (I know horrible right?). But now I attend Park Street. We have an all male pastoral staff, but we do have frequent female prayer leaders and there are leadership roles for Women. We even had a sermon last year given by a woman. To be honest. I prefer it this way. Especially when the best Shaap can come up with is, “Women have an important role.” Yes Shaap lets condescend just to keep them quiet. I love how all the women have asked him for advice on whether they should talk in public. I wonder if his wife has to ask him for permission just to talk at home.
What a tool. I never heard of this guy, but I have heard plenty of sermons like this when I was a fundie.
What is even more tragic is that some women are drawn to men like this.
And I know why. From experience. Once you’ve been trained, either through a screwed-up family or a screwed-up church (or both), that this is how a Godly man should be, that’s what you’ll automatically go for. The pull is even stronger when you’ve been trained not to trust a truly good man or if you’ve never even been exposed to one.
It takes a lot of deprogramming to undo that mess. Unfortunately for many, that deprogramming comes at the cost of abuse and/or divorce. I was one of the lucky ones who didn’t marry until I was far enough away to find someone who truly loved me.
I know that I was one that got married in fundy land and after a few years of abuse aimed not aonly at me i too went through a divorce. I still find it odd when a man views me as his equal. Heck, I appreciate it when i’m just not put down for havign different anatomy
It gets easier with time, my new friend 😀 Welcome!
Granted, once you do get used to the idea that some out there can see your value as a full human being and not just a carrier for those body parts they really like but don’t possess, you’ll then get annoyed that it doesn’t happen more often.
That’s so true! I didn’t leave for several years of wanting to because I was convinced that it was my heart that was wrong. I’d try to pray for my heart to change and it wouldn’t. I’d fast and just be hungry and grumpy. I’d wonder if I was somehow ‘cursed’ by God for something I’d done- and because of that he was rejecting me. When I left fundyland and was on the plane to boot camp there was a storm and I spent the whole time thinking that God would crash the plane to punish me. (Tell me I’m not the only one who was threatened with stories of people who died right after leaving.) It’s been almost a year out and those thoughts still come across my head sometimes. It’s a wonderful feeling to be thought of as an equal, but sometimes I wonder if those feelings and doubts will ever go away.
Emily, your doubts will be around for a while. You may still have a fundie brain and thought processes. It does take time. It took about 5 years for me to completely deprogram myself. But I still struggle with low self esteem and speaking up for myself.
Emily: It does get better. It’s not a quick healing, and it isn’t easy to face up to some things we once accepted as normal, but it does come. There will be a day when you will be on the outside looking in, and all the bad things will be so crystal clear that you’ll wonder why anyone could consider those things to be from God in the first place. You will see that day, and you’ll be grateful for freedom in a whole new way.
Emily, my earliest “Christian” affiliation was in an actual cult. I too was told that if I left I would end up dying and going to hell, and I believed it. But the bondage and torment were so unbearable I decided to risk it anyway! God met me where I was and “walked me” out of the bondage. It took a long time before I felt psychologically and emotionally free. Now that I do, I agree completely with what LMcC expressed! Freedom and grace are waiting for you!
This guy is very condescending to women. I believe women do get abused a lot in those circles.
But am I allowed to believe that women should not be elders/shepherds/pastors based on God’s Word without being accused of being a woman abuser?
I think men should be the one leading. And if a man is a good leader he will not make decisions on his own or just with other men. He will involve everybody including women in making the right decision based what’s found in God’s Word.
I don’t believe a man that leads is superior to a woman. A good leader is someone that serves and listens carefully to others and tries to put other needs before theirs. There shouldn’t be a I’m better and have the final authority type complex in the pastoral staff because God is the ultimate final authority and we are all His servants.
Why should men by necessity be the ones to lead? I know of many women who would make or who would have made excellent leaders, and I know many men who can’t lead out of a paper bag. And no, I’m not saying I’m a leader. If anything, I’m also one of those who can’t lead out of a paper bag.
Truth be told, it is impossible to say that men must always lead without also implying that women by nature are inferior. Why can women never lead? Physical strength? Then be consistent and kick out all the short, old, and physically challenged men from leadership. Are we mentally and/or spiritually inferior? Then why on earth are we being put in charge of teaching growing and vulnerable children? Women as sexual temptresses out to disrupt everything? Please, churches have accused us of either being temptresses or frigid forever…. can’t go both ways. If not, then what’s a good answer? History has proven there isn’t one.
Also, look where male-only leadership has put women. Girls as young as ten being sexually harassed and abused by church men, and having nowhere to turn for help because even their own churches blame them. Domestic violence victims who have been sent back into the fists of their husbands in the name of submission, and some have even died. Even among non-abused women, many of us have lost valuable time and opportunities for education because of leaders who thought we weren’t worth the effort. Having even one female advocate in leadership would improve the lives of women in conservative churches. Power corrupts, and absolute power (such as men have over women in Fundy churches) corrupts absolutely. Been there, seen it for myself.
It’s a sad thing when Godly and gifted women cannot use their gifts for the Lord and have to use them solely in the secular arena… even more so when the prejudices of men prevent the women from even knowing what they had in the first place so those gifts never come to light.
Four of my last six pastors were women. They were about as good, and about as bad, as the men. None of the arguments against women in ministry hold up under scrutiny, in my humble opinion.
BG: Isn’t that the truth? Up until 2001, I was as traditionalist concerning sex roles as anyone. You couldn’t even call me “complementarian” (which has even more problems than the traditional view IMO). Granted, I had enormous struggles with the conflict between all-male leadership being good for the church with all the instances of sexual abuse and domestic violence I was discovering among Christians, and nobody seemed to have any answers that actually dealt with human nature as it is… but I was hanging in there. (Barely.) Over the course of several months, not only did I discover the writings of a Godly man who actually thought abuse of women was a bad thing that deserved legal action, I also came across people who believed it was *gasp!* OK for women to preach. Even weirder… they were as conservative as I was then! What, you mean people who believe in equality weren’t a bunch of “lib’ruls” and manhaters who hated God and the Scriptures? *shock, faints* It took me longer to accept women in ministry than anything else about Biblical equality (I had my well so poisoned against it for sure), but it did happen. And yes, I agree that women preachers can be as good _and_ as bad as men doing the same thing. It’s called “being human”.
@Big Gary and/or LMcC
i am interested in reading articles and/or books that answer the major arguments against egalitarian leadership in the church. do you have any recommendations?
I’ll give you a whole site. 😀 equalitydepot.com is Christians for Biblical Equality’s online bookstore.
For men, I give special recommendation to anything Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian writes. He is an ex-complementarian who came around through a series of events concerning time he spent serving at an overseas university for a year away from his family, and he is completely _not_ a feminist.
@LMcC thanks for the website recommendation.
I’m not going to take on the gender debate here but I’ll chime in about the Americanized way we “do” Church. I know that lecture is the best way to get the greatest amount of information to the greatest number of people at any given moment. I just cannot see that as being the sole approach to “church.”
First off, it puts too much power and control in the hands of too few, or even the one. This inevitably leads to a cult-of-personality, which in turn creates a power base that will eventually seduce even the best of men.
Secondly, Lecture does not produce disciples. Unless there is interactive learning at some point, there is no learning of knowledge but only the rote mantras recited from the pulpit. This is in direct conflict with the Great Commission to make disciples, not just gather converts!
So the main problem with the gender issue is directly related to this aberration that we call “Church” and the fact that the gifts in Ephesians 4 are treated as offices that sanctify the holders of them instead of being what they are: gifts, that are to be used to disciple and train the whole body of believers to do the work of ministry.
Very well put. I cringe at the idea of only having one leader. I really don’t like the word leader either. I know I used it… now I wish I could change it to guide/guiding like a shepherd.
We are all called servants and in that sense we are all equal in the Church. Some people just have different gifts. Some people have the gift of speaking and some don’t. It’s true that someone that has the gift of speaking is more prominent than someone that doesn’t but that doesn’t make him superior or more sanctified.
Having said that I do believe in some form of church structure to keep people accountable. But in a broader sense the Pastor has no more authority than the guy behind the sound booth.
Do Bible patterns/guidelines mean nothing to you?
Yes, they do, that is why there should be multiple elders leading and serving a local body of believers. If you believe in the one man rule then you have missed the Biblical template for the local assembly of believers.
The best example of the results of a one man rule is given in III John, Diotrephes is the result of not having multiple elders to be accountable to.
Powere corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. -Lord Acton’s Axiom
Yeah I used to belive that too–even debated it.
Too bad it ain’t biblical.
I don’t think leadership means superiority. At least not in the Biblical sense of being a leader.
I understand people are sinful and some men do abuse their leadership positions. But I don’t think that’s a good enough argument for women to be in a leadership position in church. Since women can be just as flawed as any other sinful human being.
I *personally* can’t get around 1 Tim 2 and 3 to be comfortable with a woman that leads a church.
In I Tim 2:12 Paul argues from Adam and Eve and so I don’t think you can reason your way out by saying this was cultural.
I Tim 3:1-13 talks about qualifications for being an overseer and a deacon. Which being a male is definitely one of the qualifications. Unless you want to leave out verse 2,4,6,7,11 and 12 then you are safe saying it’s ok for women to be in a leadership position.
Again there are a lot of dirtbags out there that abuse their leadership position. They obviously don’t qualify for being a leader since being a man doesn’t automatically qualify you for a leader. A leader like I said before is a servant. A servant who is not greedy or a lover of money. But is kind and has humility.
Obviously other people believe you can interpret these passages in a different way. But I don’t think it is a far reach for me to believe that women should not pastor a church. I believe the Bible allows me to believe that without me believing that women are inferior to men.
Very well said
“Unless you want to leave out verse 2,4,6,7,11 and 12” – Sure. Why not? Or leave them in and twist them to meet your agenda. That’s what most IFB preachers do anyway.
PvR – I like your description of a leader but the mental gymnastics you have to go through to agree or disagree with the concept of women in leadership roles in the church makes my head hurt.
Actually, PvR, I can argue my way around the Adam and Eve issue, but it would be way too far off-topic here. Fortunately, some at Christians for Biblical Equality have already done the job so go check them out.
You haven’t proven your case. Speaking as a woman, I know from experience that it is impossible for the ideas of the equality of the sexes and the permanent ban of women from any public influence to be even remotely compatible. Every single time I scratch the surface of someone who claims to believe both, he always has some underlying belief that women are inferior. Every. Single. Time.
IMO, I believe the church has too much worldly influence when it comes to authority issues and that all positions of the church are supposed to be ones of service, but we’ve lost that. If the church really saw these church positions as service positions, then there would be no issues at all with women doing them. But instead, as I said somewhere else, the only positions in churches women get to do involve children, cleaning, and everything else the men find distasteful. No brain-showing allowed. *shrug*
Most fundies live in a fantasyland that is based on their specific interpretation of the bible. I wish that those who cry the loudest that women should be silent take a step out of fantasyland into the real world. Get a real job where there is a 50/50 chance that you will report to a woman. I work for a Fortune 500 company and there are more woman managers than men. I know I am off topic in regards to women in the church, but I find any preaching about women being submissive and silent to be disgusting.
I understand that it’s way offtopic. I really don’t want to go there either for the sake of both of our sanities 😉 . But I’ll definitely check it out.
I actually agree 99% with the rest of what you said. Where we differ is how this is implemented in a church.
Am I allowed to say amen to seeing all position at church as a serving position?
“Am I allowed to say amen to seeing all position at church as a serving position?”
Sure, PvR, but then you’d really have to recognize women serving right beside you as your true equals and not just talk about it 😆 😀
(To get back to the subject) You can agree with me or not about women in leadership, but this Jack Schaap flaptrap isn’t even about that. It’s abundantly obvious that this SOB (son of a buffoon) hates women with a white-hot passion. He tries to dress it up with Bible verses and theology, but his preaching is just plain against women. His main beef with women and girls is that they exist.
It’s one thing for a person to have such views privately, but this guy is the face and voice of a large church. I do have a problem with that kind of hate being institutionalized in this way.
PvR, basing your argument so heavily on I Timothy is rather dicy, given the widespread acknowledgement that it cannot have been written by Paul and was a later interpolation. The reason that it was accepted into the corpus of writings that eventually coalesced as our Bible seems to have had a lot to do with politics and the desire to re-assert social norms on women in the church.
Drat, forgot the links. These offer a good introduction to the issue, be sure to click on the ‘Works Cited’ button for a bibliography:
I highly reccomend the book Why Not Women by Loren Cunningham.
Paul basis his decree on male leadership in church assembly/government on an Aristotelian outlook, the outlook commonly held in his day.
The idea is that every creature is given its “form” in order to carry out the tasks or role designated for it by God. Men and women, (Paul and Aristotle both agree) have the same substance. They are inherently equal. But they have been given subtly different forms. And the forms direct the roles of the two genders.
People today say, it’s always the substance that matters: after all, it’s what is inside that counts. Well, consider the analogy of steel in the form of a sword vs. steel in the form of a tea tray. They are both the same substance, but the form makes a genuine difference in the roles they perform.
What the fundies and most modern Americans miss is that authority itself (what fundies call “leading”) is *form*. Women are not prohibited from power. Power is the *substance* of living in Christ. This is why women prophesied, even in the church, and were not prohibited. What was clear to that culture was that speaking in tongues, prophesying, bursting out into prayer, were signs of *power*, ie, the visitation from God upon a person’s soul. That was God’s business, and Paul does not restrict it.
But authority, which is a public, emblematic office, would have been regarded as a social form, an appearance designed for public view. This form was regarded as suitable and morally appropriate only for men. In churches where women were so prominent that the surrounding culture itself was offended by them behaving as men (in their point of view), Paul reigned in women from the form: ie, visible church authority.
This is why he mandated the head coverings at Corinth for the women who were praying and prophesying. Paul doesn’t interdict the power. Rather, he wants to give that manifestation of power the appropriate form, a sign of social humility, which was regarded as appropriate for women.
The question remains, was Paul making a decree only for his time, or was he making a decree for all time regarding women’s role in the church? I’m not going to answer that.
But the idea that a woman should not lead is not what Paul is saying. He himself was instructed by women. He went street preaching, and from his account, women were street preaching right along with him. He refers to Phebe as his guardian.
What Paul prohibited was the station or office of authority for women, the public “form” that would have been offensive in a culture that relied so heavily upon “decorum” (the idea that God has created a hierarchical order, and rightness is achieved when everything functions in its place in that order).
Schaap is an ignorant idiot, a prime exampel of a person who has authority (the form) but lacks spiritual power (the substance). Sorry to once again boost my site, but if this interests you, you can read the six-part series I wrote that explains it in a little more detail:Religious Education and Women Elders
I find the irony of Bass breaking down passages better & more accurately than Schaap to be delightful! I find depressing that a atheist literature professor denying any kind of inspiration could/would be more faithful to the text, and have an audience hold him more accountable to be faithful to the text. What a toolbar! 🙂
Do you mean me when you talk about an atheist professor? I’m not an atheist! I’m a Presbyterian! We’re not atheists! We’re just really boring!
LOL. I think that should be the official Presby slogan. 😛
Just insulting Schaap, I think someone reading the Bible as just literature would be more true to the intent than HAC idiots.
“DOES GOD BELIEVE IN WOMEN PREACHERS?”
1 Timothy 2:11-12
What would the Church do without women?
Mary’s, Martha’s, Joannas and Susannas, Tabithas, Lydias and Eunice’s abound, and I Thank God for them!
But …Only MEN can be M(E)Nisters!
We are to “Speak the truth in love”
It is not a matter of superiority but of priority and authority.
I have been asked Do I “believe in woman preachers” …but what matters is what God says!
This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation- It takes an OPEN MIND and an OPEN BIBLE
I would rather have you hate me for telling you the truth than love me for telling you lies!
DOES GOD BELIEVE IN WOMEN PREACHERS? ” God says NO!” HOW? ….
I. IN DIVINELY STRUCTURED ORDER
Vs 13 “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”
1 Cor 14:40 “Let everything be done decently and in order”
The birthright, throughout Scripture, belongs to the eldest
The birthright belongs to the oldest son, and carries with it the idea of leadership–The fact that God created Adam first implies, according to other Scriptures and this one, that there is an abiding distinction in the roles that God has given men and women
1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
Ephesians 5:22-23 ” Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.”
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (in context of TONGUE speaking in Church)”Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak .”
The matter cannot be settled by opinion. It cannot be settled by observation. IT IS A MATTER OF OBEDIENCE!!!!!!!
It’s not a matter of RIGHTS but of REQUIREMENTS and RESPONSIBILTIES!
Women are called to teach other women. (Titus 2:3-5) Women teach children. (2 Tim 1:5; 3:14-15)
II. IN DISTINCT SCRIPTURAL OMISSION
The Word of God has been clear on this matter for centuries.
Study Church history and listen to the deafening silence!!
Reverend Rita , Pastor Pam and Bishop Bertha are modern day inventions—God tells us by precept and example-
No woman Prophets or Apostles.
No Woman priests or Temple workers of any kind whatsoever.
The qualifications to be a pastor/elder/bishop in Titus and 1 Timothy 3 always without exception uses male pronouns!
2x says they must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6).
Plain language makes plain sense.
1 Tim 3: 4-5 “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
In a world where woman have always outnumbered men 3 to 1-more during times of warâ€”that God Almighty only used men as priests?
Men as Kings? That Jesus chose 12 MEN as Apostles?
III. IN DIRECT SPITE OF OBJECTIONS
In an attempt to argue some say they find allowance for such actions.
A. ARGUMENT #1 â€“EQUALITY Men and women are equal in the eyes of God.
1. Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” 2. This has nothing to do with gender roles !
Men and women stayed different. Jews and Greeks never traded nationalities!
* Adrian Rogers. “My wife doesn’t want to be equal with me because then she would have to come down from her pedestal.”
B. ARGUMENT #2 â€“ CULTURAL
There are those who like to write off Pauls writings as only cultural—. They have a bit of a problem here.
Paul’s reasons go all the way back to God & the Garden.They are eternal teachings from a culture far removed from Paul’s.
The roles of men and women were set at creation and means they are not cultural , & CANNOT be changed!
Pagan priestesses of the Diana abounded in society then!!
Some were getting saved and thinking that they could come into the church and have the same role.
Think about it, why would Paul write this to Timothy if it was all right for a woman to teach men in the church? The incident would seem to ignite the necessity for Paul to address the subject!
C. ARGUMENT #3 PROPHESYING– Joel prophesied that in the last days, women would prophesy.
1. Joel 2:28 — “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:”
2. Women may prophesy — I Cor 11:5 says that a woman may prophesy (under authority)! She can have the spiritual gift of prophecy!!
3. To prophesy has NOTHING to do with authority! It is Witnessing
Balaams ass prophesied too but that don’t mean your Chiauahah can Pastor a Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deborah in the book of Judges Prophesied-but she was Judge!
Deborah wasn’t a preacher — she was a political Margaret Thatcher (Judges 4:4-5)
D. ARGUMENT #4 â€“ ABILITY God has used women preachers so they must be called!
Never RIGHT to do WRONG in order to do RIGHT!!!
Just because you COULD doesn’t mean you SHOULD!
Our position and our perspective is not going to be dictated by the culture, but dictated by Scripture!
Any other conclusion is contrary to the Bible.
Do we want to be in His will? Then we must stay in His Word!!!!
If the Bible said otherwise, I would preach as strongly in favor of women pastors as I now do against them. I have no personal grudge or agenda.
If the message is offensive, take it up with the Author.
Sorry, John, but there was a female Apostle. Her name was Junia, though for centuries, the male translators made her over into Junias, a man. (They had an agenda, you see.) It’s clear in the Greek that she is a woman. See Romans 16:7.
Prophesy has everything to do with authority…God’s authority. But not the prominence of societal authority, of position and eminence.
But all Christians witnessed, and yet prophesy was regarded as a gift, like tongues, but more elevated. That’s why the church was directed to “try the spirits,” because any prophecy that was tested and tried (and passed the examination) was regarded as coming from God. Your claim that prophesy was just witnessing is bogus. Women, in church, stood up and prophesied. And they were not stopped or hindered, but they had to behave appropriately in a public setting, keeping their heads covered in humility.
You hide as much of the clear meaning of the text as much as you expound it John, you shameless apostate. But then, a defender of a religion that frets about women in pulpits but protects child molesters in pulpits would have to coerce the text.
I’m a former BJU-style fundamentalist who went mainline after discovering mainline has been more faithful to the core of the Gospel than IFB and similar churches. I work in a church. My boss, the pastor, is a woman. She has unique gifts for her position and I like her very much. I find a discussion about women preachers so 1977.
I understand what you said and it is well thought out! I agree that it is important to know about the culture to better understand the Bible.
But…I am not fully convinced that you can write off the qualifications and the general theme of the Bible as being cultural. I guess like you said it depends on whether Paul’s writings were meant as a permanent church decree or if it just applied to the churches living in that culture.
Paul thinks it is perfectly OK to have a man with the right qualifications in office. So I think that’s a lot safer than trying to squeeze a woman into office. Which I don’t think is impossible…just more of an exception to the general rule. You have to argue a lot from outside the scripture to get to that conclusion.
Personally I don’t think I am an apostate living in 1977 hiding child abusers. I really don’t think you have to read too much into the Bible to support a man with the right qualifications.
I did read some of your blog. Again well thought out posts. But I can’t say I agree with you (not because of your gender but because of the content).
I hope that we can agree to disagree. I have nothing against women. I have nothing against women that are smart. I don’t fear women that are smarter than me. In fact I am marrying one in 6 days who has a Masters in English…I have a Masters in….burping the ABC’s.
The “Junia” argument is intentionally ignorant and the Greek is clear alright–as clear as Dana and Ashley–two guys I know.
So you’re arguement is:
“God sure did a lousy job getting that truth across
And Bass, I hid nothing , and why do you call me
Also, wherein have I EVER in ANY way even appeared to defend child molesters? Are you THAT judgemental? Wow.
Bible authority , Church history and ..well everything but liberal ideology are unanimous–God has forbid women in the pulpit.
Your word against God’s–I’ll take God’s.
1 Tim 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
Yep, still there.
Still will be when you are gone.
Ok, we’re back to Americanized Christianity. For the sake of this argument we need to define “Preacher.”
What is a preacher? The word used in Romans 10:14 is kÄ“ryssÅ: In this verse it is associated with the “doing” or proclaiming of the Gospel. The other uses of “preacher” in scripture deal with the “Heralds” of the Gospel, or “Heralds” of the Truth.
Again I am not going to get into the gender debate here. I am much more concerned with the traditions of men according to the Americanized version of Christianity and what Scripture actually says in it’s historical, and social context as well as it’s universal application to all believers at all times in history.
The problem in fundyland is “gid” is in a box and the fundy-subculture-bunker mentality defines the size and dimensions of that box. The fundies are so dogmatic about the appearances of scriptual decorum that they reject anything that does not come out of their prepackaged box with the Independent Fundamental Bunker stamp of approval on it. The fundies have shut down the voice of the woman to the point it is only heard in the choir, in song and in the women’s conferences and children’s Sunday School Classes.
That muzzles and mutes one half of God’s original human Creation in the whole discipleship process. Even in the KJV, Acts 18 says of Aquila and Priscilla : “they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Just a quick question though: Who was the first Samaritan preacher of the gospel?
I just want to be sure what we are talking about here. Are we talking about the Americanized (per)version of what a preacher is… or are we talking what the biblical version of who a preacher is.
Are we talking about a preacher or a shepherd? Scripture never says preachers have to be Bishops or shepherds. Stephen and Phillip were both deacons but they preached.
The debate is moot about roles of men and women until we properly define the positions themselves.
Personally, I believe that men are God’s instruments to lead… not dominate and dictate… but lead. If there are no qualified men then God uses whomever He chooses according to His purposes. There are Godly women out there who are more mature and more intune to the things of God, and have a depth of scripture knowledge greater than I will ever have, and if I can learn from them and hear their wisdom… I would be a fool to dismiss their teaching solely on the basis of their gender.
Upon re-read: According to Ephesians 4,
should read gifts rather than positions.
The American (per)version makes offices and positions to be filled of these gifts, rather than what they are: gifts. Gifts given to, “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
John, you dared to to try to change the meaning of the text in your pathetic and wicked declaration that prophesying is just witnessing. That deception, lame as it is, is a sign of your apostasy. When the Bible does not agree with you, you change the Bible, you apostate devil.
PVR, The question for me does come down to whether Paul was making a decree for his time–for the Church where it was then–or for all time. Now that I have seen how determined Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are to preserve the grossest possible sins known to mankind in their pulpits and hide and excuse those sins, I am a lot less offended by the idea of women preachers than I used to be. We have child molesters and closet queens reigning in pulpits: who cares if women also are in pulpits? They are definitely way down the line when it comes to unworthy preachers, if they are in the line at all.
But if anybody thinks we are going to solve anything by simply adding another gender to the incredibly corrupt system of Christianity that we have going right now, think again. That is really my belief, in the end. If women preachers do not start calling for repentance and change and the expulsion of grossly sinful preachers from pulpits, then they have simply become a part of an extremely corrupted Church. If they simply come in and learn how to play the game, then it doesn’t matter, ultimately, if we have women preachers either way. They cannot possibly make the situation worse, for the evidence of God’s condemnation is already upon American Christianity. And if they do not make it better, they share in the condemnation that comes.
You just keep making your case look worse donâ€™t you?
Also, why the petty insults and accusations? Ohâ€”thatâ€™s rightâ€”because thatâ€™s what children do when they have lost the argument.
Sorry, but your case is against scriptureâ€”not me.
If you donâ€™t agree with Gods word, stop pretending like you do.
I give scripture after scripture (after scripture) that is as clear as glass on this, and you giveâ€¦.arguments and accusations against me and the apostle Paul.
Preaching does not mean pastoring—-the Samairtan women did not set up a pulpit in the middle of town and give a sermonâ€”she witnessed to those she came in contact with.
(1Timothy 2:12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
America has NOTHING to do with it.
The Fundy mindset either compliments or confuses the scripture on this one, but is in NO WAY the source.
Your statement â€œWe have child molesters and closet queens reigning in pulpits: who cares if women also are in pulpits?â€
Is REALLY disturbing.
You yourself equate themâ€¦interesting.
All three are wicked , evil and forbidden. Even you seem to know this.
You feminism is a lot like the fundamentalism you fight. Interesting again.
I love this site.
Is your reply to me or Bassenco?
If to me, you did not answer my question. Are you talking about preaching or shepherding? But that’s ok, I have already stated my position, and this will be the last I post on this subject.
I guess you get the last word, and that will make you the winner. Congratulations! 😕
Don,, that would make YOU the one having the “Last Word” wouldn’t it?
John. prophesying is not the same thing as witnessing, though it is a witness. You are the one twisting Scripture, you apostate.
And I’m not especially keen on women elders, but I will point out that your godless, apostate religion strains at keeping women out of pulpits while excusing and hiding and profiting from child molesters in pulpits.
Purify your pulpits, and I’ll believe you really care about the Word of God. Right now, it’s simply apparent that you merely fear/resent women.
You just cant help yourself can you?
I suppose Islam and Homosexuality are Ok with God too, because to say they aren’t makes me “Islamaphobic” or “Homophobic”?
Your insults and accustaions really make you look bad–helps my argument for sure, but make me feel sorry for you.
Also, your tricks don’t work on me, I am NOT part of the camp you wrongfully accuse me of and lump me with.
Also, you say ” prophesying is not the same thing as witnessing, though it is a witness”
Hahahahaha! Thta’s what I am saying! You AGREE with me in your argument AGAINST me. Classic.
How would I go about this BTW?
“Purify your pulpits, and Iâ€™ll believe you really care about the Word of God.”
” Right now, itâ€™s simply apparent that you merely fear/resent women”
In now way is this correct. I greatly respect and revere women and womanhood, and women are very active in all areas of the our Church that God ordains. Our men dont have babies, our women dont Pastor.
John wrote, “I suppose Islam and Homosexuality are Ok with God too, because to say they arenâ€™t makes me â€œIslamaphobicâ€ or â€œHomophobicâ€?”
Straw man alert, the fundy’s favorite ploy. Got nothing to do with the matter at hand John. You are falsely defining a term from the Bible, you apostate.
Prophecy was a gift of the Spirit, and women were allowed to prophesy in public assembly of the church, but Paul decreed that they be properly attired, with head coverings. It was way more than person-to-person witnessing. You just can’t deceive your way out of it. Women prophesied in the early church and were not forbidden.
Nice try. You ignore/avooid all verses and irrefutable logic and whine.
I already stated that authority was the issue concerning prophecy.
Prophecy was a gift of the Spirit, and women were allowed to prophesy in public assembly. So? Apples and oranges.
You just canâ€™t bluster and bombast your way out of it. Women prophesied in the early church but were expressly and repeatedly forbidden from holding authority over a man in any Church role/office/function.
It is the way God ordained it, and it goes back to Adma and Eve.
The Jews knew it and practiced it for centuries, a nd the new testament Church did too.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
“Teaching” and “authority” are closely tied together in 1 Timothy 2:12. To be in a teaching relationship with someone is to be exercising authority over that person.
(See 1 Cor. 16:15-18, where Paul instructs his readers to submit to certain of his fellow workers, not just to their ministries.) Under Christ’s authority, and through His word to us in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, we are told that women ought not to teach or have this sort of authority over a man. Teaching a man is wrong, because by teaching him, the woman enters into a relationship of authority over him. By teaching the man, the woman is falling into Eve’s error, turning the order of creation upside down. Such teaching is the flip side of learning in “quietness and full submission” (v. 11). Eve’s sin involved overturning the order of creation and teaching her husband.
Similarly, Adam’s sin came from “listening” to his wife, in the sense of heeding and following her instruction. He was taught by her, thereby putting himself under her authority and reversing God’s order of creation.
This biblical teaching may seem hard, especially for a society where women aim for, and often achieve, authority over men. Paul’s instruction on this matter seems far less terrible if:
1. We believe in God’s goodness – that He wants what is best for us.
2. We don’t see “quietness and full submission” as weakness, but as meekness – not as a demeaning and pathetic thing, but rather as a holy and life – affirming response to how God has created the world.
3. We – both men and women – recognize that Christ is our ultimate teacher and that He has ordained through His Word that men and women relate in this way.
John wrote, ” To be in a teaching relationship with someone is to be exercising authority over that person.”
The Bible never says this, and the Bible clearly shows women teaching men. Priscilla taught Paul, as Paul said. And Paul, by the way, called Phebe his Guardian/Governess, a title of authority (though not ecclesiastical authority), but he was telling the church at Rome that it was Phebe who governed the distribution to him from the church. Priscilla also taught Apollos.
Church authority is broken into many forms. The deacons “waited tables”. Phebe had charge of distribution. Wealthy members had charge of their houses where small local churches met (and some, like Lydia, were women). So there are all types of authority within the church, and there are even types of authority in teaching. Women did explain and expound church doctrine to men. But women were not permitted to establish church doctrine, to settle doctrinal disputes.
So, you’re wrong again John. You just don’t know the Bible.
Hey! Bass didn’t resort to outright name calling this time! Just insults! Bravo Bass–you are woman enough to mature maybe.
As for the authority issue, though it seems more and more obvious that you ignore any verses or facts , you do state that Paul “called Phebe his Guardian/Governess, a title of authority (though not ecclesiastical authority)” which is exactly what I was saying
AGain you are forced to agree with me to save face, and still you try to twist scripture to make a case that can’t be proven.
This discussion is about women “speaking” to the ekklesia, the local body , with authority–specificlaly in the office of Bishop.
So, youâ€™re wrong again Bass. You just donâ€™t know the Bible.
Gosh John, what is it with you and gender? Speaking of saving face, now you have to make womanhood a sign of some virtue or other. Give it up. We’re all depraved sinners, and one must be a man or a woman, so there is no spiritual virtue inherent in either.
As for the rest of your dodging and evading, nice try. The facts are, women taught men in Scripture. Women even held church authority in terms of distribution, over men. Women stood up in the congregation and prophesied and prayed out loud. What Paul forbids is for women to have an office that made them decision makers of doctrine or, really, the prominent teachers of the religion, that emblematic role in which authority is vested.
Again, the real question is, was that just for his time, or was that for all time? I’m not sure, but if it comes down to one or the other, I think it is more crucial to get the child molesters out of pulpits than women.
Put another way, if you keep women out of pulpits and let child molesters into pulpits, your religion is still giving evidence of being cursed by God, so you may as well put anything you like in the pulpit. Your religion is merely an apostate counterfeit and lots of your leaders are going to Hell.
By the way, the Women’s Conference is going on this week on the Recovering Fundamentalists podcast, and today’s program covers the idea of “Headship” and how fundies have taken a simple concept that would have been pretty obvious in an Aristotelian culture and turned it into a mystical doctrine all its own. Tune in if you like: http://www.jeriwho.net/podcast/?p=564
My original post(s) dealt clearly with those matters and you were forced to save face by agreeing with them, now you bring up something else I already clarified (with a Adrian Rogers quote no less) as a new idea?
Are you confusing me with one of your other arguments you have going on some other forum?
You are correct that weâ€™re all depraved sinners, man and woman, and there is no spiritual virtue inherent in either. That doesn’t change the fact that creation order is what it is. The case is made by Paul not me.
Do you also ignore
(Genesis 3:16) “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
Is that verse not in the bible anymore?
Name me one thing I have dodged or evaded.
your straw men burn witht he slightest spark Bass.
The facts are, women helped men in Scripture–but never taught publ;ically in any position of authority at all. none. Nada.
12 Apostles–no females. NO book in the Bible written by a woman. No women sent out two by two. No women preachers in history except heretics.
God is pretty clear on this–and the scruptures I have given easily explain this to all but the most intentionally oblivious.
1 Cor 11 has nothing to do with pastoring or even what we call preaching. “in” and “over” are two different words and concepts.
YES Paul /God forbids women to have an office that made them decision makers of doctrine or, really, the prominent teachers of the religion, or any such office or role.
That’s what I have been saying!
Absolutly without a doubt that was for all time.
To try any other argument would also demand it apply to other cultural mores and it is the same argument used to defend homosexuality and a litany of other modern changes in the view of sin, fornication, adultery etc.–and before you get all fundy on me, this is a fact regardless of whether it is “either or” or “Slippery slope”
This thread is not about child molesters in pulpits -but indeed they should never be allowed to be here.
I don’t know who you keep confusing me with, but Hyles was a heretic half the time and those were his good sides. What he allowed while pastor is shameful and disgusting and he should have resigne dinthe 80’s after the whole Garland Road Dave Hyles fiaso that was abominable.
IMHO FB hammond should have went under and closed its doors for the sake of the gospel 30 yrs ago and Schaap should be selling cars.
Bob Gray was a pedophile pervert who lived a lie and should have rotted in jail but died to quick.
The Jacksonville cover up is a shame to humanity.
Their sins should not cause us to compromise and approve and allow women in pulpits any more than child molesters.
You don’t even know what “(my) religion is” yet you are judge and jury?
Who are my “leaders” Bass?
Name me one since you know me so well. Try and see if you can even come close to getting one right.
I can name one of yours, and he was a murderer who causes Severetus to die.
You really need to stop being exactly what you claim to fight. You have confused me with your charicatures and caused yourself to look stupid, small minded and judgemental, all the while calling me names and lumping me theological and ecclesiastical circles that I most certainly do NOT belong.
I don’t expect or ask for an apology, but I hope this serves as a help to you not to make the same mistake(s) again toward me or any others out there you have trashed and abused in your misguided zeal.
This is a fun site that I enjoy laughing at, especially when it DOES come close to home–please don’t ruin it.
Healthy debate is one thing , but I have already allowed you to bring out the worst in me, and I hope it stops here.
Sorry about the typo’s in the previous post—(“scruptures” LOL)I haven’t had my coffee yet and forgot to proofread before I hit “submit”
S’OK John. Your post was so long, boring, and pointless that I doubt anybody read it. It also failed to answer my points from Scripture.
It must be so lonely in your bitter little world , all by yourself grinning malevolently as you scan comments quickly, looking for something to insult.
Your personal vendetta and ax to grind has marred your every manner and motive.
Your admit that you don’t even pay attention, so why bother?
That’s what you want right? To make me mad , so I will go away and you wont have to answer for your actions and vulgarity?
You didn’t make any points to answer.
Your venom drips from every post, and you put up a front to scare off any and all logic you don’t like.
..Hyles must be so proud of you.
Wait! It just clicked–did you want to grow up and be a Catholic school nun?
I grew up in Catholic school and wanted to be a detective, like Nancy Drew.
Way to rip the verse in ICor 15 out of context……
That’s 2 and a half minutes of my life I can never get back. 🙄
It is amazing that anybody would even come up with a question like this. I mean, if you read the Bible, or even just the New Testament, or even just I Corinthians, you see that the text has nothign to do with saying Amen in church. What this dolt recommends, by the way, fails both interpretations: either Paul is talking about teaching and challenging the teachings of the church, and so it has nothing to do with saying Amen. Women are perfectly allowed to do so, as much as they are moved to do so. Or Paul is directing complete silence during public worship. And if that is what he is doing they must be totally silent. But Schaap’s answer is not obedient either way. He is either restricting women when the Bible does not restrict them; or else he is giving them permission when they are not permitted. This idea that they can say Amen if everybody else is doing it, is certainly not found in the text.
Once again, Schaap supports the culture of Fundamentalism as his authority, even when the Bible, no matter how you interpret it in context, does not do so.
I feel like everything Schaap, HAC, etc does is a lose lose for themselves and everyone they come in contact with! 🙂
Muncing popcorn! Watching the fierce handball game between Bass and John.
Score so far.
Bass 3 John 1
(Munch! Munch! Pass the Pepsi!) 😉
I agree with Bass on this particular post.
Man enough to admit it 😎
The context Schaap uses is way off from what he reaches. Its about Authority, not “amens”
“Man enough to admit it ”
Oh gosh you have got to be kidding. Can you pathetic fundies not keep your stupid manhood out of anything?
BASS: Of course not. They have to keep women in their place, you know. They have to imply that the women aren’t strong enough/moral enough/good enough to do anything they do, even if one’s sex has nothing to do with what’s been done.
It really is bizarre to equate apologizing with some kind of manhood/manliness. I remember like yesterday, a fundy roommate at college apologizing for something that didn’t need to apologize for and making sure to add that it took a really big man to do that. Took me a few to realize he was either feeling awfully emasculated by apologizing or trying to use an apology to establish himself as the manlier man in our “relationship”. I’ve never seen as raw competitiveness to alpha male yourself as I’ve seen in fundy landy to the point where apologizing really often is little more than an opportunity to declare oneself the alpha dog/male.
That is part and parcel of the “Weaker Brother” elite christian class. Rule from a position of feigned weakness and false humility.
@Don very true. I’ve never met a man I respected who had to tell people how manly he is/was. In my favorite occurence of irony fundies declaring their manhoood *always* makes me start questioning anymore. 😉
Wow. It has to do with MATURITY
If i was a woman , I would have said “woman enoguh” i.e. in opposition to childishness.
Do you guys/gals have to make EVERYTHING out to be gender roles??
it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad
The ability to recognize a mistake and apologize is a sign of maturity in young teenagers, not really for adults. And you can blow the “man enough” comment off, but you’d be better served to stop using it, it really does draw attention/question why you feel necessary to proclaim your manliness.
John: Wow. It has to do with MATURITY
Then quit boasting about your manliness, John. Stay on topic.
“I have instructed my daughter, as well as the teenagers in the church…”
Where do these “pastors” get the idea that they have ANY authority over other men’s children? This type of high-jacking of authority infuriates me. 👿 I, as their father, am the only man that God has given any authority over my teens. ❗
Can I get an “Amen?”
EWWWW YUCKKKK I need to shower with bleach now!!!!
I was thinking about taking a shower after watching this too, but I think I’ll listen to a sermon by one of my pastors instead–the Rev. Linda Gosnell.
Maybe she’ll shower with you
Well, now we know where your mind really is, not in the Word, but in the gutter.
John – you said
‘The birthright, throughout Scripture, belongs to the eldest
The birthright belongs to the oldest son, and carries with it the idea of leadershipâ€“The fact that God created Adam first implies, according to other Scriptures and this one, that there is an abiding distinction in the roles that God has given men and women’
Without even going into whether this relates to women in ministry there is a strong theme in the Scriptures of the birthright not going to the eldest – Jacob and Esau being one example, but we can also mention Isaac and Ishmael, Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. David had seven older brothers
And of course there is the parable of the prodigal son.
If you do take the order of creation to be definitive in the roles of women and men, you could equally argue from this that women are favoured by God to be leaders over men as he removed the birthright from the older son and gave it to the younger.
Jo A is right. The demonstration in the Old Testament is that man gives the glory to the firstborn, but God favors the youngest or least esteemed son, right from Cain and Abel.
It thrills me to see women repeatedly correcting fundy John’s poor interpretations of Scripute.
Fundies rush in where angels dare to tread (fair?)
Spoken like the filthy apostate that you are. Thanks for another demonstration of your spiritual deadness.
See what I mean?
It is really so painfully obvious.
Incredibly obvious, John, as you pointed out
Yep. You always make me look good Bass!
I’m pretty sure everybody here has got your number, John.
Hope so…..though you seem to repeatedly be wrong in your assumptions about me.
Because I dare to disagree witht he lot, I am branded and belittled.
I’m not here to cast pearls, but to point out the absurdities when they are shown so that when others wander across this site, they will see that not everyone is drinking the kool aid.
Most here are okay, but you and a few really show true colors that are as dark and ugly as the fundies you froth over.
You make my work here easy. It is your comments that prove the point(s)
Wait, John you think you’ve been winning the arguments with Bassenco? You have some serious delusional fantasies going on.
No one “Wins” arguments with Bass–it’s impossible, like nailing Jello to a wall.
My point is, that she makes my points for me by her hateful attacks.
So Diachenko, now do you get it? John is winning this argument.
Yeah, even Bass admits it!
John, I’ve been following the running conversation between you and Bassenco, and it’s pretty clear that although you don’t need any help making yourself look bad, she’s done a pretty good job of doing it for you. In nearly every post you try to say that she’s making you look good, illustrating your points, etc. ad nauseum. But every post of yours I read, I think, “Wow, she really is right about this guy.” And I’m willing to bet that most other posters here are thinking the same thing.
Wow, John, what a dirty thing to say. All that good Fundamentalist teaching really makes what you say so righteous and holy. I want to be just as foul-mouthed as you when I grow up. *snork*
Rude jokes and insults about a person you not only don’t know, but isn’t even here to defend herself is anything BUT a good Christian witness. Thanks for showing the truth about Fundamentalism in ways the rest of us cannot.
Dirty? What have I said that was dirty?
The comments speak for themself
Bass has no argument, so she insults.
Don’t play innocent, Vulgar John. You insulted Walter and his pastor in a vulgar and demeaning way. You have your mind in the gutter. Quite honestly, it’s a sad pattern among Fundamentalist men, and you’re no different. You think you’re so much more righteous than us, yet your own words are more vulgar than those of many non-Christians in that regard.
Another fine demonstration of a fundy believing his own deceptions even when everyone else sees them exactly for what they are: pathetic lies and excuses.
The eldest/younger argument is all about EXCEPTION to the rule, and relates to election.
The exception proves the rule.
Ok well yes let’s agree that it’s about election as in Roman’s 9 vs 6-13. Then why apply it to male/female roles in the church?
Adam and Eve didn’t have any sort of birthright because they weren’t born. I’d be interested if you could find out from the Bible if God instituted tbe birthright of leadership going to the eldest or if its a cultural tradition.
No need to prove it. Seems a cultural mandate that God never condemned or condoned, but did use as a basis for revelation of Biblical truth.
Ok so it’s a cultural thing. God overturned it in several significant cases as a demonstration of the truth about election. We can find that in the verses I mentioned previously.
Still don’t see how birthright of the eldest relates to male/female especially as you now say its a cultural mandate which God is indifferent to. If that’s the case we’d need some more evidence from the Bible to support any relevance beyond its practice in that culture (which we do have for election).
But God used the EXCEPTION, not the rule.
But God used the EXCEPTION, not the rule.
And I do apologize for the crudeness of the earlier comment—MAN enough to admit my mistake.
Hey, this business of holding you up to those higher standards you believe you have actually works! 😆
LOL Join us! 😀
Sorry, John, I’ve already been a Fundy. Why would I want to return? Sloppy theology, classism, sexism, selective forgiveness, and a complete lack of love and grace. On a personal level, no room to discover my gifts, much less use them. There’s nothing for me there but condemnation and hatred. I prefer life under grace with hope. I experienced neither under Fundyism. Tell you what, God’s grace has room for one more. We’re waiting for you.
Too late! I’m already there–everybody here is so judgemental and sees a fundy behind every bush
And ya’ll just keep poping up validating our claims.
Dude, I remember when I used to be just like you. A chip as big as Texas on my shoulder, out to win every argument at all costs, Proof-texting to make my point, yep, I was going to make everyone one on the blog where I was posting see things “MY” way because I knew I was right with God, and I seemed to be the only one on the blog who was right with God (in my mind anyways). Yep, I knew I was right and I was going to prove it. Eventually I realized I was just being a jerk. Even if I overpowered my opponents and beat them with my incessent posting, and even if my point was righteous and valid… I had made a wreck of my reputation with them and had turned them off at best and made an enemy at worst.
So, your self righteous crusade around here is getting tiring. You are not going to convince anyone here to see everything your way…. so lighten up.
This is a blog about the crap we have all experienced in the bunkers, caves and prison cells of the Independent Fundamental movement. We are here to tell the truth we have experienced in that world of legalism, of works sanctification, of performance christianity, and of dictatorial pompus windbags who have called themselves to the pulpits and preach a false god of works salvation, of performance christianity, of a mancentric gospel and of decisional regeneration. And we tell the story with humor, sarcasm, and passion so that others who read behind us will be warned to flee the cult of Independent Fundamental (often King James Only) Baptists and all other fundy cults that follow the same pattern. We tell our stories and our experiences to heal ourselves and each other because our stories have such strong commonalities.
So why don’t you dial it back a couple of notches and listen to what we are saying and try to keep from correcting us “dad.” We’re not your flock, we’re not your kids.
I appreciate your tone here, it is a welcome reflief from all the attacks.
Dude, I remember when I used to be just like you. A angry hyper-calvinist bent on blaming my fundy past for all my ills and the ills of Christendon, only to find out that the alternatives were worse…at least the fundy’s tried.
No, not the defending the crazies like Schaap, just pointing out that what is going on here on this blog is more than just “good humor”.
I get a laugh too, especially from the things I know firsthand…but the bitterness and hatred is occasionally all to apparant to even the most casual observer, and too many comments deserve a counterpoint to help keep these attitudes at bay and not ruin the whole site.
Have a good one
oh… such as the angry hyper calvinist remark. btw who is the hyper-calvinist? and do you know the difference between the doctrines of Grace and so-called hyper-calvinism? but I digress, back to the issue at hand.
Hey, Darrell, did you realize this is what this site needed? Did you know you needed a “Counterpoint” to keep these attitudes at bay and not ruin the whole site?? That is so “Fairness Doctrine-ish.”
I just never realized how much we needed that here, wow.
Carry-on then and enhance our experience here John.
Keep us in line “dad.”
There is very little difference between the doctrines of Grace and hyper-calvinism.
This comes form one who was once very deepy involved in, and spoke at, Sovereign Grace meetings in various states.
…..but I digress, back to the issue at hand.
You’re welcome “son”!
John: “Too late! Iâ€™m already thereâ€“everybody here is so judgemental and sees a fundy behind every bush.”
Not me. I keeo finding them at the bottom of the toilet.
Don said “This is a blog about the crap we have all experienced in the bunkers, caves and prison cells of the Independent Fundamental movement…..”
Don also said “And we tell the story with humor, sarcasm, and passion….”
It is this concept of what this site is about that is lost on you John. We are not here so we can be judged (which you do), we are not here to listen to someone else’s personal interpretation of the scriptures (which you do). For the majority of commenters here, we all had enough of that in fundyland.
You have claimed in other posts that you are not a fundy, that you are all for grace alone. Yet you come across very “fundyish”. When you are called out for your condescending and judgmental comments, you run and hide behind a scripture verse that you deem to apply.
We are not here to be judged or told of the alleged errors of our ways. These are personal experiences that are shared, some of them painful. Go and read some of the stories in the Burning Out post. They are heartbreaking.
John, you may not think it but you do behave like a fundy in your comments. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, you got yourself a duck.
Or to steal a concept from Forrest Gump…..fundy is as fundy does.
I thought admitting error was more of a character issue than a gender identity issue (?)
Michael: In Fundyism, a man must never waste an opportunity to look down at a woman.
But then leave it to a liberal to bring feminism into every discussion.
…..see how easy unfair generalizations are?
Yeah, be careful with those demonstrations, John, or people might mistake you for an ignorant fundamentalist.
Leave it to a fundamentalist to think either “liberal” or “compromiser” to be an insult, and use it as such.
You brought it up, you used the word, then you whine.
I’m pretty sure this is a data point, but I can’t totally tell what he’s saying or who he’s replying to.
Your gender has nothing to do with it. I wish you fundies would quit idolizing your testicles.
Who’s vulgar now Bass?
Sometimes I wonder if you aren’t a fundy in disguise trying to make ex-fundies look bad.
John “Who’s vulgar now, Bass?”
“I wish you fundies would quit idolizing your testicles.”
Now that is funny. It is not vulgar. Yet another data point for my theory that fundies do not undertand sarcasm, irony or humor.
Whenever John decides he’s embarrased himself enough on here, you will probably be able to make at least some kind of white paper if not a doctoral dissertation on how discconected from reality fundies are.
You guys are a riot.
If I had brought up Bassencos breasts you would have all had mini-strokes and launched off into wild railings.
Hyper hypocrisy suits you well.
See also Bassencos “toilet” remark above
Phil Kidd would be proud
“If I had brought up Bassencos breasts”
You just did. That is so vulgar! 😉
Disclaimer: I am not saying that Bass’s breasts are vulgar 🙂
Here’s the big news, John: neither breasts nor testicles produce virtue. They don’t produce mercy or good works or kindess or courage or integrity or anything like that. Your Gnosticism is just one mroe stupid characteristic of your weird apostasy. And yes, you’re vulgar.
What big words you use LOL
Do you even know what Gnosticism is Bass? Obviously you know everything I beleive to make such baseless accusations
Mighty big testicles you got there!
Thanks for the demonstration, yet again, that you are just a vulgar apostate.
On another thread, a few of you are joing in a chorus calling for kicking Jack Shaap in words more vulgar than the technical term–and paying for, or paying others for, the priviledge
Physical violence and gutter language.
I wonder what he would say about those of us in liturgical churches, where the whole congregation responds throughout the service.
Oh, you probably don’t want to know.
Since that’s more than likely how Jesus worshiped, I don’t know what bad he could say, but, now that I’ve said that, someone will come up with something. Actually, the church has a lot of authority. Jesus looked at Peter and said, “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (My paraphrase) So, the church has a lot of authority to do what they perceive is the will of God. My experience teaches that people who proof-text really don’t know the Bible, they just know enough to be dangerous.
I think the accusation I always heard was “vain repetition” with the implication of mental assent without heart change.
Is he friggin serious? Pew puts out a study that indicates more than half of American Protestants don’t know the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and he’s blathering on about THIS? Um. Education fail?
Now THAT’S funny!
This actually was sad, not that funny. Data point.
They don’t know because they are not Catholic and differ in theology with Catholic tradition.
I find that understandable.
“Similarly, Adamâ€™s sin came from â€œlisteningâ€ to his wife, in the sense of heeding and following her instruction. He was taught by her, thereby putting himself under her authority and reversing Godâ€™s order of creation.”
John, Adam’s sin was that he disobeyed God directly…it has NOTHING to do with listening to Eve. Your argument is Fundie Phantasy, but it even smells of Confessional Lutheran theology (the ole “order of creation” argument)
You’d think fundies would know something that basic for all their Biblical bluster. You’d be wrong. Chauvinism (among other things) always trumps Truth (in fundyland).
You’re antiquated and inaccurate theory/treatise in birthright and creation order establishing God’s secret and unspoken/unrecorded designation as alpha males to establish dominance/”leadership” over people and women in general. Its a pretty vile motive that will twist scriptures in empower themselves over another group of people in general, and fellow Christians in particular.
That’s quite an accustaion you throw at Paul, all the other Apostles, John Calvin, C.H. Spurgeon, and…everybody else through Church history up until 60 yrs ago.
Bunch of Chauvinists—especially God.
Your disregard for Paul and God’s opinions/writings is the issue. I don’t hold Calvin or Spurgeon as my heros. If they did endorse chauvinistic policies based on poor scripture exegesis, then shame on them. I have little doubt that Spurgeon had chauvinism as one of the many things he had to apologize to God for his unfaithfulness to the text about. Am semi unfamiliar and uninterested in classic and new Calvinism.
Why do you think Spugeon was a chauvanist just because of the time frame he lived in?
I don’t even know that he was. John’s saying he was, and I’ll take his word, but don’t really have that much affection for Spurgeon due to his love of condemning Alcohol, general moralizing, and if memory serves was a big fan of preaching an angry angry wrathful vengeful God.
I was referencing John’s chauvinism, that he’s eisegeting (prob not a word, but inserting his chauvinism into Scripture), and then hiding behind Calvin & Spurgeon.
I think Spurgeon both drank and smoked cigars. He was an advocate of the one wine theory(all wine is alchoholic.) I don’t know about moralizing either or the preaching an angry God(you sure your not confusing Spugeon with Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist 🙂 They’ve been in the news lately with their court case.) Are saying this from memory of reading Spurgeon or leaning about him back in your PCC days?
Um…take itup with God and Paul then…
Tim 2:12-13 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
I didn’t invent “(the ole â€œorder of creationâ€ argument”…it has been standard Bible interpretation and application for centuries and centuries until feminism said it wasn’t okay anymore.
If you don’t like it, you don’t get to change it.
Paul writes, “But I suffer not” etc. SO was Paul making a decree for all time, or was he saying this was the decision he had reached in his admninistration of the churches.
And notice, by the way, the Paul is exercising ecclesiastical authority across all church lines. It is unclear to me if he is speaking or all time or just for his time, but it is cleaer that he is, at the very least, talking about all the churches. This was a universal Christian policy. So there’s an end to “local church authority”. Paul just handed out an edict for all churches, and they were expected to obey it.
Of course, he was an Apostle
There were other apostles. Why was it that it was Paul’s decree that was given and took hold? Peter was an apostle, in fact. But when he went with the Judaizers, Paul’s rebuke of Peter and Paul’s system of doing away with the trappings of the Law was accepted. So when two apostles were at odds, one was accepted and the other publicly rebuked. How could that be, if all churches are independent and autonomous?
BASS: You can stop on him now. When he quits arguing and pulls out any verse basically telling you to shut up, that means he has run out of arguments.
Well done 🙂
(Actually, we could have all stopped when he pulled out the B-word, because that is pretty much the equivalent of Godwinning by a Fundy.)
Bass cuts and runs and goes to Aristotle for her arguments, and everybody keeps complaining when I quote scripture
It is so painfully obvious why you left fundyism—it’s because you left the Bible.
“It is so painfully obvious why you left fundyismâ€”itâ€™s because you left the Bible.”
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I left fundyism because I actually read the bible. 😯
@Scorpio, I’m still “leaving”, but it’s definitely because I’m reading the Bible too!!!
Yup, it’s amazing how fast people run for the door when they actually read the Bible instead of just talk about doing it.
You misapply the Bible John. That doesn’t count.
And, like it or not, Paul was writing to Greek people and was conversant with Greek culture. The behavior of the women in Corinth that were prophesying in church was offensive to outsiders, and so Paul lays down rules for prophesying in public. His reasoning doesn’t make sense to modern readers unless you explain the moral and societal expectations of the people of that culture.
You think it’s evil for me to do that because, as an apostate, you love ignorance and blindness.
Reading the Scriptures, in context, and seeing who the author was speaking to, what he was saying to them, when he was speaking to them, where he was speaking from… when one starts reading Scripture critically then so much of the fundy mythology dies in its tracks and the whole fundy house of cards crumbles in on itself. Then one can see what the Lord was saying through His spokesman, in short: one can then see the truth as it shines through the debris of the ruins of fundy pre-concieved, pre-packaged cult mythology.
No it’s not getting away from the Scripture that is our “problem” …it is that we have gotten away from the fundy biblical mythology and the shallow, cheap, mancentric preaching and are thinking for ourselves instead of parroting the rote lectures from a dictatorial pulpit.
Free coffee for you at the flea market, Don!
Adam was NOT decieved, he chose to sin…..but he did indeed listen to his wife who was wrong, and that was wrong.
I’ve always wondered why Paul considered it better for Adam that he chose the evil, while Eve slipped into it. And why does Paul say that Eve was “in the transgression,” when actually, it was by *Adam’s* fall that the race of man fell into sin? Care to explain that John?
Eve was deceived
1 Timothy 2:14 â€œAnd Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.â€
Eve wasâ€¦.. Naive! She could truly say â€œI was just born yesterday!â€ 😉
Adam did so deliberatly out of love for Eve- willing to literally die for her —
(Eph 5:22-24) “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”
Romans 5:14 â€œâ€¦Adamâ€¦. who is the figure of Him that was to come.â€
You still haven’t answered the question: if Eve was deceived and transgressed, and Adam CHOSE to sin with full knowledge, why would Eve’s condition of being decieved be worse than Adam’s deliberate choice to rebel? Why is Paul saying that Eve’s transgression was worse than Paul’s and has disqualified all women from church leadership? After all, it was in ADAM (not Eve) that we all sinned.
And where does the Bible say that Adam did what he did out of love for Eve? He could just as easily have done it to also have his eyes opened.
You don’t read my posts, remember?
So I will sum it up by saying ….
Logic Bass, logic…all of Paul’s arguments on the first Adam/last Adam are based on Christ’s love for His Bride.
Adam was “NOT decieved” he knew what he was doing and as a repeateded type of Christ and 1 Timothy 2’s context is all about Eves greater guilt.
There is no other way to interpret that part.
Logic? No, you mean, “a guess”. There is no indication in Scripture at all that Adam sinned out of love. In fact, the Bible is clear that he sinned out of rebellion. Love had nothing to do with it. If we have to guess, the better guess is that when he saw that Eve’s eyes were opened, he wanted to have his eyes opened.
BTW, you still havenâ€™t answered the question:
if Eve was deceived and transgressed, and Adam CHOSE to sin with full knowledge, why would Eveâ€™s condition of being decieved be worse than Adamâ€™s deliberate choice to rebel? Why is Paul saying that Eveâ€™s transgression was worse than Paulâ€™s and has disqualified all women from church leadership? After all, it was in ADAM (not Eve) that we all sinned.
I guess you’ll just have to ask God then, cause that’s what He says—as to why, us mere mortals will just have to wait–we don’t get to change what we don’t fully comprehend.
Doesn’t change the fact(s)
(1Co 14:34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
(1Co 14:35) And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
(1Ti 2:12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
(1Ti 2:13-14) For Adam was FIRST formed, THEN Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
(1Ti 2:11-12) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
So you’ll go to this ridiculous, unbiblical “logic” of yours to change Scripture and teach that Adam sinned out of Love for Eve. But when asked a point blank question to explain a verse and clarify why Paul says that Eve being deceived was so significant, you refuse to answer, even though the Bible clearly teaches that the fall of man occurred in Adam. The verse is puzzling (at least as it is presented).
You cannot explain why Eve being deceived was that significant, that it seems, from what Paul is saying, to overshadow Adam’s deliberate choice to rebel?
Yep–you really don’t read the posts.
I point blank said it can’t be COMPLETLY understood, is puzzling to a degree, but that doesnt CHANGE the fact or God’s balme being placed thusly.
Romans 5 and Adam’s federal headship backs up the creation order reasoning.
For WHATEVER reason(s) God holds her accountable.
Nope, no Aristotle here…..
(Eph 5:23-24) “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
John said, “I point blank said it canâ€™t be COMPLETLY understood,”
Of course it can be completely understood, John. Paul is, after all, explaining his rule by pointing out that Eve being decieved was in the transgression.
What Paul is NOT saying is that because Eve was deceived, all women are more likely to be deceived. That’s what idiotic fundies like to say, because one, they are ignorant, and two, they fear women.
Paul has just pointed out that Adam was first created. He was the preeminent one of the two. But in the fall, even though Eve was deceived (ie, she did not have Adam’s full knowledge; she did not have the learning directly from God that Adam had), Eve was still in the transgression.
Eve fell in Adam just like we all fall in Adam. That is, her role was still to share part and parcel with him in all things, so even though she was merely deceived, she was also in the transgression; that is, she fell with the same guilt.
Therefore, in Paul’s logic of the prominence of man over woman, woman is still in subjection to man in terms of prominence. But, she is given her standing of salvation in the child bearing, in the birth of the Messiah. Eve fell in Adam, but a woman is not saved from sin because a man is saved in sin. Rather, as God decreed in Genesis, her Seed is her salvation, the Seed of the Woman.
So Paul is again (as he did in I Corinthians) explaining an order of prominence, not of value. This is an order of decorum, which was so highly valued by the Greek cultures of his day.
That’s the explanation, and yes, John, you are an apostate who does not even know what the Scripture teaches,
John, now you’re dipping into silly.
You have no apparent idea that BASSENCO is actually a committed complementarian. Or maybe you’re just pulling the typical Fundy stunt of arguing with people who are closer to your own beliefs and ignoring the people whose beliefs differ much more from yours. It’s as bad as watching IFBs complain about Southern Baptists and not going anywhere near the Scientologists.
AFA Adam sinning out of love: Oh, please. A more reasonable idea would be that Adam was just as tempted as Eve, and wanted a nibble of forbidden fruit himself. He didn’t take his bite until he saw that she didn’t explode or something else suitably horrid on the first crunch. It’s pretty safe to guess he was throwing her under the bus by letting her take that bite instead of stopping her (after all, he was right there, according to Scripture).
(after all, he was right there, according to Scripture).
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. There is no way to solidly draw that conclusion from
(Gen 3:6) “.., and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
With her could mean in the Garden, not standing there, which is more logical since there is no mnetion at all of him being there beforehand or being involved in the narrative in any way.
Neither argument can be made clealry from the Hebrew, but he safer bet is that he was there int he garden, not just standing there.
Historically, it has been understood this way, and I have only heard a few fundys make the “standing there” argumnet.
If you cut off the blood supply to a tumor it dies. John is feeding off the attention he gets here. Just a thought.
You ever heard of Bassenco before?
We know who Bassenco is and we accept her and respect her for her POV. Where did you come from? Obviously the Lord has not opened your eyes to the Cult of Fundy-dom. In fact, you are the apitamy of fundy. You are beginning to be a nuisance and the more you post the less relevant you become.
You have have shown that you have an axe to grind with Bassenco and you have taken it on yourself to set us all straight with your superior piety and the incessent posting of your version of the truth. (please don’t embarrass yourself by claiming all your proof-texting is the word of God. While the verse you use may be from the word of God, your taking it out of context and using it as a stand alone proof of your opinion’s validity is merely another proof of your fundy bonafides.)
But I do appreciate your posting here, it truly reminds of all the fundiness I left behind. If anything your being here if a great example of the cult mentality we left behind. Thanks for playing.
Former fundy, and former Calvinist–jumped from the kettle to the fire so to speak. Found it was way worse, as it totoally reinforces all that i sbad about fundyland–but with a liberal instead of a legalist slant. Now you aren’t judgemental of those with LESS standards, but those with MORE.
“Poor fools, they dont even smoke cigars and go the movies with us–or even drink.”
And Don, please donâ€™t embarrass yourself by ignoring and downplaying the word of God. Whatever hurt your divorce has brought you, don’t let it poison you and all that God offers you.
Not a standards issue, dipstick. The standard is Christ.
You say you’re a former Fundy? Quit acting like a current one.
I’ve had to deal with more than my share of people who left Fundamentalism but forgot to let Fundamentalism leave them. Plenty of those in Southern Baptist congregations and Churches of Christ. It really ruins the church experience for those who got out and got serious about their walk with God who then have to deal with people who are just bringing the pollution into a new church.
“You keep ona using that word, I do not thinka you
know what it means”
Um, I never said because Eve was deceived, all women are more likely to be deceived, not do i beleive that.
The oder argument is used repeatedly by Paul as a reason for Eves curse, and th order argument keeps coming up whne it comes to headship in marriage and authority.
Regardless of WHY , the WHAT is still so.
Yes, it is prominence, not value. It is more than mere decorum, which Paul woudl have called that clearly and din’t even hint at in Ephesians.
So why are you so hateful toward men?
“So why are you so hateful toward men?”
This is starting to get good now.
John: â€œapostateâ€â€œYou keep ona using that word, I do not thinka you know what it meansâ€
It’s a person who knew the truth and denied or altered the truth to serve himself, as you have done right here with that nonsense in your re-translation of women prophesying in the church.
Apostasy is also made to demonstrate its condemnation by the committing of unspeakable, abominations, such as the epidemic of child molesting in Christian Fundamentalism.
John: “Yes, it is prominence, not value. It is more than mere decorum,”
You’re too ignorant of Greek culture to know what you are saying. *Decorum* to them was both social and moral. It was a ruling principle in the way life was conducted in ancient Greece. Decorum had to do with the order of creation itself and a moral propriety in observing that order. The word decorum as we use it today is way, way watered down from the way the Greeks used it. Go take a real college course in ancient civilizations, John, and then you’ll understand the social and civil and historic context of the New Testament a lot better.
John: So why are you so hateful toward men?
Apostate men like you are always on the prowl to bring damnation to the innocent. In the particular brand of apostasy that I end up encountering, I find that they are the first to start talking about their manhood. They worship it: one more sign of their condemnation (and Gnosticism).
Pass the popcorn
@exIFB: Can’t I’ll ruin my dinner 😀
Dang I just realized should’ve said “rejoiceth over” instead of trumps, and refdrenced the verse in james that says mercy rejoiceth over judgment. C’est la vie.
“Câ€™est la vie”
what’s this french stuff? I don’t think the KJV was written in french. You liberal compromiser! 😉
Dang, I’ve been expossed again.
I’m really surprised that the help-meat issue didn’t come up during this whole argument.
My guess is that he’s saving that for his perceived denouement, and thinks noone sees it coming.
One must not read some of the posts in this thread with a mouth full of orange juice…..or one might have to buy a new monitor and keyboard after reading about someone idolizing their testicles. 😛
Just wanted to say bravo to Bassenco. I’m a moderate complentarian and I thought her explanation was awesome:
“So Paul is again (as he did in I Corinthians) explaining an order of prominence, not of value. This is an order of decorum, which was so highly valued by the Greek cultures of his day.”
Thank you! The only way to reach a conclusion on this matter is to understand exactly what he is saying and why.
Nothing to do with Ephesus
You haven’t know what yo were talking about throughout this thread, John, and you don’t know now.
Paul maintained a single policy, which he defended with the same reasoning where ever he was speaking about it: whether Corinth or Ephesus. Ephesus, as a city that had been part of the Greek empire (though it was in Asia, right on the coast), was a city of Greek cultural influence, and Paul’s comments on the societal prominence of men would have made sense to them.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
No Aristotliam accusations hold water here.
Insult and slander me all you want, but your argument is against God’s word, not me.
Wives are to be subject to their husbands in response to their submission to the Lordship of Christ (5:22). The reason , says Paul, is that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church (5:23). The next verse makes the matter even more plain: “as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (5:24).
The key is the parallel of the headship of the husband with the headship of Christ. As the Church submits to Christ as the one who has rightful authority over her, so the wife is to submit to her husband as the one who has rightful authority over her.
When husbands truly love their wives and wives submit to their husbands, we see the sinful distortion of the male female relationship defeated and a return, then, to what God intended in his creation of man and woman.
What, oh what, is an “Aristotelian Accusation”?
First of all, John, you are changing the argument. You have moved from the womanâ€™s freedom to prophecy in the church and the limits placed upon the offices she can hold, to a discussion about a wifeâ€™s duty to her husband. Not being able to prevail in the one argument, you have simply switched to another argument.
But notice this, Paul is still using the same argument. He uses that same Greek word, â€œkephaleâ€ to say that Christ is the head of the church. This is the same word he uses when he says â€œGod is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of women.â€ Paul is still talking about social propriety: prominence. The view in his day, in Greek culture, was that the woman was naturally designed to function as the keeper of the cupboard and home finances, and the man functioned as the keeper of the â€œouterâ€ world of the town or village. The husband held the role of being the prominent one, and as such he did rule his home.
But Paul is still talking about prominence and social station. Even his statement, that the husband is the savior of the body is an analogy to Christ supplying everything for His church, and the husband in similar fashion must supply the needs of his wife, protecting her and caring for her because he has the means to do that, but she does not, not in that culture. Itâ€™s in parallel to Christ having the means to provide for His church the things that the Church cannot obtain for itself.
But this analogy no longer holds, not in our culture. Paul builds his policy on an outlook and a culture that no longer applies. Notice that he does not go back to the Law on this, but rather to social propriety and the order of prominence.
Yes, he is still sticking to his policy that prominence is established in the created order, and it was a good policy. But his policy rests upon the Greek outlook on morality and social decency, not upon the Law or the teachings of Christ on these matters.
I think Paul was very wise. He knew that the Christian Church had to be socially pure and upright. He reasons his case well: wives were entirely dependent upon their husbands in Greek culture. Only the poorest women and prostitutes went out into the streets. Men were the complete protection and care givers for their wives, as Christ is for the church.
But itâ€™s not that way now. Husbands are not the saviors of the wife today. Women go out into the world and earn money, and furthermore they have protection under the legal system as equal citizens that they did not have then.
So we are still faced with that question: was Paul writing for his time, or for all time?
This is where we disagree–I think it is clear in all the passages, (especially in Ephesians since contextually there is no customs mentioned or inferred)that it is for his time AND all time.
Again, I appreciate your civility in this post, and promise not to hold the fact that you don’t think Tom Baker was by far the best Doctor against you.
But it ain’t easy
Paul’s very argument is resting on the Greek cultural perspective, but you’d have to be aware of that perspective to know that, and you simply do not know that. You’re too uneducated, which I knwo in your culture is considered a virtue in a preacher.
And remember, this discussion is about women speaking in the church, not wives being submissive to husbands. You tried to change the subject, but it still comes up zeros.
Thank you though, for not outright deceitfully re-defining terms from Scripture as you did before. I think you are an apostate, and I think you are dreadfully afraid of women, but I am glad you had the sense, at least around this audience, not to so grossly mishandle the text a second time.
..and again with the insults.
You don’t know anything about me Bass. I have taught in both secular and Christian institutions (and Computer Science at a Tech School),possess two undergraduate degrees and am pursuing a masters.
But you didn’t know that, or my culture. You were wrong, just like you are wrong about Greek cultural perspectives being the be all end all on the subject, which they are not.
The very same arguments you use can be used to dismiss homosexuality as sinful (Cultural/outdated) and a myriad of other things.
Or maybe you simply don’t care.
You continue to take the discussion wherever you want and ignore any application of scripture. The headship rabbit trail was your work.
You repeated accustaions that I am an apostate prove that you are still very, very fundy, and that you base this on a disagreement we have on mostly one subject. This is extremely immature and illogical…not to mention judgemental and carnal.
BTW what specifically have I “fallen away” aposticized from Bass?
I think you have repeatedly proven that you deeply resent men and manhood, and everybody knows you are a frustrated closet feminist, so there’s really no need in pretending anymore.
..and Tom Baker is still the best.
I am not insulting you, John. I am pointing out a sad and dangerous truth: you change Scripture from what you know it says to what you want it to say. That is apostasy. Anybody who values the Bible as the Word of God recognizes that you easily profane that sacred word to suit yourself. It’s a sin of staggering arrogance before God.
Also, you lack sufficient education to fill the office that you claim.
You can dance and prance about it as much as you like, but you are just one more fundy apostate, and people should beware of you. You also should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you are not capable of that.
That’s what I said!
That’s what I said!
I listened to your audio file on 1 Cor 11
You were well spoken. It was well thought out, logical, and polite.
Though I do not agree with your conclusions, it was very civil.
Why then are you so crude, abrasive, and arrogant in your comments?
Maybe because you come across extremely condescending and self righteous in yours??? But I don’t need to defend her, she’s better with words than me.
“O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.” (Robert Burns)
@John, I agree with Soli Deo Gloria that you really are coming across extremely judgmental and condemnatory and thus self-righteous. Most of us from fundy backgrounds have never been allowed to express our opinions: whether it be parents, college administrators, or pastors, we’ve been shamed any time we said anything that didn’t toe the party line. This blog allows us to speak up about all the things we saw around us that we didn’t like but had been told was biblical. And now you come along, scolding people for what they write.
Do I agree with everything said on this site (especially in the comments!)? No! And sometimes people disagree with me! But there’s a difference between people disagreeing and people attacking and accusing. You’ve mostly been doing the latter, John, and it gets people’s backs up, especially people who’ve spent all their formative years being muzzled. I don’t mind someone expressing a different opinion than mine (someone did a while ago over my espousing of getting to know the unsaved before sharing the Gospel; they felt it was a “bait and switch”. I didn’t agree with their point, but it was their opinion and they’re free to express it.) Contrast that with someone several months ago who got so mad at something I wrote that they said I probably wasn’t saved. See the difference?
Some people come hear to laugh, some to mock, but some who are here are bearing serious wounds administered to them in the name of God, and your attitude may be exacerbating those wounds. Don’t break the the bruised reeds, John!
Well said pw. There is such a huge difference between having a discussion with someone who has a differing point of view than yours (and realizing you won’t convince each other) and being “fundy judged” just because your point of view does not follow the fundy line.
This website is satire (another attribute that I must add to my theory along with sarcasm, irony and humor) that is lost on fundies. They see the posts and comments from people and immediately play the “you’re just bitter” card, we should be out winning souls instead of complaining or the coup de grace, you probably aren’t even saved.
In my podcast, I address people who are not apostates.
LOL. I’m already looking forward to tagging whatever the response is with a data point.
We are having too much fun this. 😎
😮 wow I’m with BASS! John just seems like he has this ax to grind, and he’s annoying!
I’ve been lurking for a while now. I wanted to leave a comment today after reading (some of) the heated battle between Bassenco and John. I think this giant, in-depth study by Glenn Miller of the Christian Think-Tank lays out some facts pretty well while explaining those seemingly obvious verses by Paul John brings up:
I believe that the Bible verses in particular are dicussed in the section entitled “Paul and Women”.
Anyway, it’s a great website and I hope everyone on here will profit from it. His articles on other Christian topics are fantastic as well 😀
i thnk women should keep quiet in church. its biblical and they just need to be quiet. . .sorry, but its true
Thanks antonio, for capsulizing it for us so eloquently!
anthony…. the things you do for attention…. lol, you crack me up
First of all, John, you are changing the argument. You have moved from the woman’s freedom to prophecy in the church and the limits placed upon the offices she can hold, to a discussion about a wife’s duty to her husband. Not being able to prevail in the one argument, you have simply switched to another argument.
But notice this, Paul is still using the same argument. He uses that same Greek word, “kephale” to say that Christ is the head of the church. This is the same word he uses when he says “God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of women.” Paul is still talking about social propriety: prominence. The view in his day, in Greek culture, was that the woman was naturally designed to function as the keeper of the cupboard and home finances, and the man functioned as the keeper of the “outer” world of the town or village. The husband held the role of being the prominent one, and as such he did rule his home.
But Paul is still talking about prominence and social station. Even his statement, that the husband is the savior of the body is an analogy to Christ supplying everything for His church, and the husband in similar fashion must supply the needs of his wife, protecting her and caring for her because he has the means to do that, but she does not, not in that culture. It’s in parallel to Christ having the means to provide for His church the things that the Church cannot obtain for itself.
But this analogy no longer holds, not in our culture. Paul builds his policy on an outlook and a culture that no longer applies. Notice that he does not go back to the Law on this, but rather to social propriety and the order of prominence.
Yes, he is still sticking to his policy that prominence is established in the created order, and it was a good policy. But his policy rests upon the Greek outlook on morality and social decency, not upon the Law or the teachings of Christ on these matters.
I think Paul was very wise. He knew that the Christian Church had to be socially pure and upright. He reasons his case well: wives were entirely dependent upon their husbands in Greek culture. Only the poorest women and prostitutes went out into the streets. Men were the complete protection and care givers for their wives, as Christ is for the church.
But it’s not that way now. Husbands are not the saviors of the wife today. Women go out into the world and earn money, and furthermore they have protection under the legal system as equal citizens that they did not have then.
So we are still faced with that question: was Paul writing for his time, or for all time?
Bass – what methods do you use to determine if we should apply certain biblical mandates to our time? Textual context is important, as is cultural (as you’ve pointed out here)…what other methods do you use (if any)?
1. Interpreting all Scripture in the light of other Scripture to form a coherent whole (thus eliminating the “my verse cancels out your verse” syndrome that you see so often in Fundamentalism).
2. The context/reason/purpose that the book was written, including its audience, if it names an audience.
3. How the passage in question contributes to the significant themes of the book in which it apepars in the Bible; ie, how it fits into the larger discussion at hand (not pulling the verse out of context);
4. The place in time and events during which the book was written;
5. Echoes or similarities of other books of the Bible that the writer may be alluding to or referencing;
6. The exact words in the original that the writer uses, and the nuances of those words, first based on where they appear elsewhere in Scripture, and then where ethey appear in other extant writings of that time.
7. The commentaries of godly Bible scholars down through the ages.
Thank you. 😀