"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

A Woman Indulging in the Exposition of Scripture

There were several things that Dr. Paige Patterson said under promise to tell the truth in his depostion for the Klouda v. Southwestern Seminary, Et Al lawsuit that are incredulous to me. And, yes, the word 'incredulous' is the appropriate word here. It is difficult for me to believe that a man, much less a Southern Baptist leader, would make such statements.

First, as reported by SBC Outpost, Dr. Patterson participated in this exchange with attorney Gary Richardson regarding Dr. Klouda's work in the classroom as she taught Hebrew to future pastors:

Question (Richardson): Well, I’m interested in whether or not you claim here under oath today, Dr. Patterson, that you mentioned to these two gentlemen (Blaising and Allen) any concern about her (Klouda) violating the stipulation that she was placed under?

Answer (Patterson): Yes, I did mention it to both of them.

Q. And what — what is it you say you said to them?

A. I don’t recall the exact conversation, of course, but I did say to them that I felt that there was violation taking place perhaps, and furthermore, that I felt that it was inappropriate ecclesiologically for her to be in this position.

Q. And what was the violation that you claim here today that you told them that you thought was taking place?

A. I believe that she was indulging in the exposition of the scripture.

Q. Giving her own conclusions?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Yes?

A. Yes, I’m sorry.

Dr. Klouda, a Hebrew professor, trained at Criswell College in the subject of Hebrew, bestowed the Master's and Doctoral Degrees from Southwestern Theological Seminary for her expertise in the Hebrew language, hired unanimously by the trustees of Southwestern Seminary Theological Seminary to teach Hebrew - 'indulged' in drawing conclusions about the sacred text.

Ladies and gentlemen, last time I checked the sacred text was written in Hebrew. How in heaven's name can you study the Hebrew of the sacred text and NOT draw conclusions. I find this absolutely incredulous.

Second, and probably even worse, is this exchange between Klouda's attorney Gary Richardson and Paige Patterson (complete and unedited)

Question(Richardson): Would think in regards to the issue of -- of women in the church, that you and Paul Pressler have acted responsibly for the convention?

Answer (Patterson): I certainly hope we have, we've done our very best.

Q. And -- and I think that you would agree that- that Wade Burleson would feel that he's done his very best, wouldn't you?

A. Yes, he probably does, uh-hu. I'm not judging his heart. That's only known to God. That's something he does fairly regularly with regard to me.

Q. On Page 1595?

A. Yes.

Q. In view of time, I'll try to rush through this, but the third paragraph down it says, There it is. There is the narrow, biblical interpretation that says it all and causes our convention some serious problems. No woman shall have authority over a man. Did I read that correctly -- correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. And he (Wade Burleson) is saying that in his opinion, that you have gone far beyond the prohibition of women pastors?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Right?

A. Apparently that's what he's saying.

Q. And, of course, you disagree?

A. Yes.

Q. According to Patterson's rigid and narrow interpretation of the Bible, it is wrong for a woman to serve in any position of authority over a man; is that an accurate statement?

A. In the church, yes.

Q. How about anywhere else?

A. Well I don't take a position about anything else, because the Bible is not crystal clear on it. The Bible does say in the Book of Isaiah, that it is something of an indication of a wicked society when women rule over them.

Patterson claims to not 'take a position about anything else' (i.e. in terms of women being in 'authority' over a man) BUT THEN GOES ON TO SAY IT IS AN INDICATION OF A WICKED SOCIETY WHEN WOMEN RULE OVER MEN. Further, throughout the deposition Patterson made remarks about how society is not following the standards of God's word, but the church must follow the infallible Word of God when it comes to women not having any authority over men.

For Paige Patterson, and men who believe like he, the issue has never been about Senior Pastors. That is only a smoke screen. The issue, pure and simple, is this: No woman shall have any position of authority over a man - period. If this attitude is allowed to prevail in the SBC then we will be no less culpable than when we allowed leaders of the SBC to convince us that slaves should be subjected to their masters.

In His Grace,

Wade

96 comments:

Pastor Bob Farmer said...

Regarding Page's second remark on a wicked society that has women leaders, the Bible and history disprove that. Yes, you can find some women in history that have been despots, but not every one. Look at Queen Victoria. It was during the Victorian period that British rule was consoladated worldwide, helping the modern mission movement by alowing safe travel to unreached peoples. The Biblical examples are also numerous, look no further than Judges 4. Deborah was a prophetess and judge over Israel. It seems that Page's statements violate the Baptist doctrine of the Priesthood of ALL Believers.

Bob Cleveland said...

I stumbled onto this. whilst Googling around a bit:

"3/5/2008 - HON. NANCY GERTNER - RECIPIENT OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S 2008 THURGOOD MARSHALL AWARD

On August 9th, 2008, United States District Judge Nancy Gertner, Co-Chair of NAWJ’s Federal Courts Committee, will receive the ABA’s distinguished Thurgood Marshall Award."

I believe the ABA would be interested to know that Judge Gertner represents an indicator of a "wicked society".

My twisted mind almost hopes Sen. Clinton is elected President. I'd start an office pool on where Dr. Patterson would move to.

carl thomas said...

I wonder if I should rebuke his secretary if she would not put a call through to him? Certainly she should not have authority over who I can talk to.

Lin said...

This is exactly what the Patriarchy movement teaches and it is totally in line with Mormonism. (I could give you a list of those within Christendom who now teach this view)

Think of the implications. A Chrisitan woman who happens to be a police officer, judge, CEO with male employees, etc., etc.

According to his beliefs each of these women are in sin because they are Christians who are in authority over men in their work.

The biggest problem I have with this view besides it being very bad interpretation is that his view of the church is unbiblical. The church is not a building and it is not something that happens or two days a week. God dwells within US and there is no difference between the secular and religious for a Christian.

The only thing that has authority over us besides the civil authorities is Jesus Christ and HIS WORD. Patterson and the other Patriarchal types give themselves way too much credit. It is NOT the messenger that is important but the message.

Corrie said...

"Q. And what was the violation that you claim here today that you told them that you thought was taking place?

A. I believe that she was indulging in the exposition of the scripture."

So, when a woman exposits scripture it is "indulging"? I wonder if he would use that phraseology to describe what male teachers do at the seminary?

Pastor Bob Farmer is right on that the Bible and history disprove using the verse in Isaiah to say that all female and child rulers are a judgment.

I don't want to indulge myself in expositing the scripture in Isaiah that is used as a proof-text but suffice it to say, Patterson and others are using that verse wrecklessly and ripped out of its context.

The Baylys have discussed this verse, too. Tim Bayly says that he would "gnash his teeth" if a female police officer dared to wield her authority over him and pull him over and write him a ticket.

Her authority is a sign of wickedness and rebellion against God's word? Well, maybe he shouldn't have given her a reason to pull him over. :-)

And someone needs to tell the Queen of the South (or God, Himself) that her position of Judge on the last day is indulgent and against the laws of God.

And if all female rulers are a sign of a wicked society, then what are the male rulers of our day a sign of? Hitler? Stalin? Mussolini?

I bet we could find many examples of oppressive male rulers but since males are supposed to rule per Isaiah, then that must be a sign of blessing?

Mr. Thomas,

Yes, you have a point. Maybe you should gnash your teeth that a woman usurped your authority as a man and would not patch your call through to Patterson. But, she was probably following Patterson's authority which is a problem in and of itself according to patriarchalist doctrine. She is under a "double curse" where she has two masters. She shouldn't be working outside of the home, anyways, and that presents another problem as far as the inconsistency of patriarchalist doctrine goes.

Wayne Smith said...

Wade,

I Guess this is why Dr. Paige Patterson didn’t want to “ Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth, So Help Me God “.

In His Name
Wayne

Cindy said...

Q. And what was the violation that you claim here today that you told them that you thought was taking place?

A. I believe that she was indulging in the exposition of the scripture.

Q. Giving her own conclusions?

A. Uh-huh.


Wayne Grudem produced a chart of acceptable ways for women to occupy themselves a few years ago as published in the CBMW Journal some time ago. I also note that the Catholic church has added a new list of sins to the mortal ones, a list including things like hurting the environment.

List of Modern Evils
Environmental Pollution
Genetic Manipulation
Accumulating Excessive Wealth
Inflicting Poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Now women are not permitted to read the Scriptures and discern them, even women with expert training and credentials? I suppose the SBC needs to concoct their own, formal list of modern evils like the Vatican has so good Baptists everywhere can make sure that they are not in violation of information that is only obvious to these modern prophets. Maybe they can go up into heaven for us and bring down this higher knowledge so we are not in danger of hell-fire. Better yet, until everyone catches on, maybe we should be going to monthly confession Q&A sessions so we can be sure that we've discerned things properly? Maybe Paige Patterson can produce a Bible for women with all the text summarized for us?

What will follow next?


(God bless you Pastor Burleson, for making this stand. Women like me who are of no reputation who have been indulging in exposition of the Scriptures (like I was taught) appreciate it more than I can say.)

Sharon N. said...

"The issue, pure and simple, is this: No woman shall have any position of authority over a man - period."

Oh, good grief, Wade, this has ALWAYS been the issue!!! This is their goal - people like the Tim Bayly and Patterson, et al. Let me narrow the issue even more - the issue is about POWER - plain and simple.

I predict the next step will be not to allow women to take any theological courses at all. In fact, does anybody know if that is already underway?

So the next question is.... how far will the SBC let this go? When will enough be enough? Where's the line in the sand?!

Tom Parker said...

Sharon N:

I agree with you. When are people going to begin speaking up. It has been awful silent in many areas in the SBC for a long time and look where we are and where we are headed.

Anonymous said...

Wade said, "For Paige Patterson, and men who believe like he, the issue has never been about Senior Pastors. That is only a smoke screen. The issue, pure and simple, is this: No woman shall have any position of authority over a man - period." Which is essentially what those who were branded as "liberals" said it was about 20+ years ago. Sharon N. commented, "Let me narrow the issue even more - the issue is about POWER - plain and simple." Which is exactly what those branded as liberals said it was about 20+ years ago. Hmm. . . .

John Fariss

Lin said...

"I predict the next step will be not to allow women to take any theological courses at all. In fact, does anybody know if that is already underway?"

Sharon, I don't think that will happen, they need the money. As McArthur said, it is ok for a woman to go to college as it will help her teach her kids better.

But I would think that once a son reaches 13, a mother would not be able to exposit scripture to him nor rule him in anyway without being in sin. :o)

The SBC is going to need a manual to give out so we can keep up with all the nuances of the rules that come with this issue. I did read where CBMW does talk about how a woman can give a man driving directions without seeming to be in authority over him.

I am serious. It has gotten this bad.

Sharon-You nailed it though about power and I would add: PRIDE, which is sin... just as Genesis 3 said it would be.

Anonymous said...

I want to play the "Lord's Advocate" for a minute, as there seems to be a hate fest going on.

Lin, you say... "The only thing that has authority over us besides the civil authorities is Jesus Christ and HIS WORD."

Well... it is HIS WORD that gives us the order of authority and submission to authority guidelines. These guidelines are for the home... the church... and the workplace.

It is His Word that says... "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." This is otherwise known as God's order of headship. It is a God designated line of responsibility. Furthermore, it is a permanently existing arrangement.

This verse names three relationships in which the principle of headship is in effect by divine decree:
(1) the head of Christ is God
(2) the head of man is Christ, and
(3) the head of woman is man.

The meaning of headship for the man-woman relationship can be arrived at by examining the God-Christ relationship. Jesus once said: "I and my Father are one." that speaks of equality. On another occasion, Jesus said, "I do always those things that please him [the Father]," That speaks of the Father's leadership. By way of summary, one could then say that in the Father-Son relationship there is a blending of equality and cooperation along with a mutual awareness that ultimate authority resides with the Father. If then, in a relationship that is wholly divine, headship or leadership is needful and good, how much more so in the human, man-woman relationship. Both men and women need to recognize, that there is for each of them a God-appointed place and function and that they make their greatest contribution and reach their highest glory when cheerfully serving in that capacity.

Suppose a railroad locomotive could speak. It might say, "I'm tired of following the same old tracks and going through the same old towns." And suppose the locomotive would then leave its tracks and start across the open fields. Would it be better off? Would it find greater liberty? Would it increase its usefulness? Of course not. In one way or another, it would eventually get stuck. The locomotive is most useful when it follows the tracks for which it was designed. In this day of supposed liberation for women, that lesson is urgently needed. We make our greatest contribution when we function in our God-designated sphere.

This is not about POWER... or PRIDE... but PERSPECTIVE.

Joe W.

PS... Sorry so long...

Cindy said...

Joe W,

I'm troubled at your use of this term "hate fest." There is not hate fest at all.

Well, perhaps there is a hate fest concerning hatred of some of the many implications of what Patterson said. He said that it is improper for a woman to discern the Scriptures. That is indeed something to hate, IMO. That has serious implications when taken to its logical conclusion: women have no business figuring out what the Bible has to say. In fact, even a Hebrew scholar cannot do so if and because she is a woman.

A Christian woman is responsible to know Scripture so intimately to the point that her life shines forth before all people so that her heavenly Father is glorified. But she is not permitted to speculate about what it means? Is that not taking knowledge and translating it into wisdom? I could easily go into a discourse about how the Scripture calls us all to wisdom.

If a woman nurse in a hospital tells her patient that he has no option but to get out of bed after surgery, is this denying male headship? The nurse knows that if she lets this man stay in bed, his chances of pneumonia, his bowels shutting down and developing deadly blood clots in his legs, so she knows that her duty is to get the man out of bed to walk. Is she denying headship if he refuses?

I don't believe that women should be pastors or elders, but I don't believe that I am denying male headship by reading the Word of God, doing what any thinking person does by understanding and applying the Word of God to my circumstances. That is the point and the critical issue concerning this post. This thread draws into question just what it means for women to read the Bible and how to apply it to their lives. The Bible I learned said that the Word of God was that which transforms me into Christ's image and renews my mind that I might be delivered from the wiles of the world and my sinful flesh.

Tom Parker said...

Joe W:

A hate fest is not happening in this blog. Some of us see things differently than you do. You may be right in your position, but you might also be wrong. You just can not conceive of that possibility can you?

Sharon N. said...

Joe W.

This is just such a tired argument - the ol' equal in "being" but separate in "function."

Read Rebecca Groothuius "Good News for Women."

But I'm not responding anymore - I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked into anything on here. I have been very keen on the Klouda case for obvious reasons, but I have already settled this issue and gone elsewhere to a denomination that I don't have to hear "perspectives" about how I should cheerfully get behind the locomotive...or on the tracks...or off the tracks...or whatever the current metaphor is being used to keep women in their place.

Anonymous said...

Tom Parker,

I could be wrong... would you please show me that I am with your Bible and not your opinon. I have espoused to you my synopsis of the text concerning headship. The burden now falls to you to dispell it as error.

Cindy,

Dr. Patterson plainly said he did not apply this outside the church or religious realms. What we have here was a female teacher of future Pastors. Not saying I necessarily agree with Dr. Patterson(although I mostly do), but let's not go overboard and put words in his mouth.

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

Sharon N.

Was Jesus less than God when He willingly submitted to the Father?

or

Was He equal with God?

I believe God created Men and Women equal... not identical. It is not a tired old argument, it is the Bible.

Joe W.

Lin said...

Thanks Joe, but I have studied this all in depth for a very long time. Kephale is one of the most vague words in Greek. Even in Greek literature it is NOT clear at all it means ruler or authority. It all boils down to OPINION and what the translators decided to use. There is tons of scholarship on both sides of this one.

I guess I have to ask you why...if the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate authority over... why He did not inspire the words Arch or Exousia so it would be crystal clear?

Basically you are saying that passage teaches that married women have an earhtly priest. That the temple veil was not torn in two for women. That there is an extra layer of sorts between all married women and their Savior?

I am in total agreement with submission for Christians one to another so please do not go there.

Let's also remember the context of that passage in 1 Corin 11. It is about head coverings. Let us also remember that a woman was NOT considered her husband's 'Glory' in that culture. She was a piece of property. This passage is more about not being 'shamed'.

Would you agree that that God is the source for Jesus Christ as His Son and that man is the source for woman?

Go down a few verses and read these verses as it will help you interpret that passage better:

10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

NOte that 'symbol of' was added to the passage. It is not in the original text. But, why the angels? What does that mean? It refers back to 1 Corin 6:

3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

Sorry Joe, but this even includes women believers. So why mention 'because of the angels' here? This part is VERY important. Women have authority over their own head and they, too, will judge the angels.

Here is the part of Pauls teaching which sums up the whole passage for you:

11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Get it? IN THE LORD and then he goes on to show how woman was made from man and man is born of woman. Woman is NOT independent of man NOR is man independent of woman.

"13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?"

Notice the FREEDOM Paul is giving to believing women who faced a cultural moral dilemma over head coverings. If they uncovered and did not have believing husbands they could be divorced for it. But they were not in sin if they uncovered.


Ever wonder why we don't make women wear them today?

It floors me how we take a beautiful passage about FREEDOM in Christ and make it into a club to beat women over head (pun intended) and draw them AWAY from their Savior unto an earthly priest who is just a depraved sinner saved by grace as she is.

Ray said...

Joe W.,

Since you say you speak for the Lord, maybe you can give me some divine guidance to the passage you bring up about headship. You might rightly talk about the "headship" in this passage. But the whole context of th e passage, you have left out. I mean, I don't see very many women outside of the Middle East covering their heads anymore. This also is in a context of worship is it not? There it assumes women taking an active role in the worship through prayer, but with their heads covered. Also, I see no context of the people Paul is writing to. Corinth was a town known for its temple prostitutes. The way you distinguished yourself as a prostitute was that you didn't wear the head covering. Now if a Christian woman is not wearing a head covering in Corinth, what does that say about the Christian church? Call me crazy, but maybe the word "head" is a play on words with the surrounding passage, and that women not wearing head-coverings reflected poorly on the church in society. Maybe this passage isn't about headship at all, but about how a church deals with society.

Ray

ray said...

Looks like lin beat me to the punch.

Lin said...

"It is not a tired old argument, it is the Bible."

That is the tired part, Joe. It is YOUR interpretation. It is what is taught in seminaries as a foregone conclusion. Just like many really believe there is a clergy and a laity. :o)

ezekiel said...

Joe w.

Let's not confuse women ministry with the relationship of man to his wife. In other words all of Ephesians 5 applies to that relationship and I don't see how you make the jump from a marriage relationship to a "part of the body" relationship.

When you start exercising your marriage (where we are to submit to one another) (Ephesians 5:21 precedes 5:22) on other equal members of the same body, you have to remember that in that relationship we are all part of the Bride. Neither male nor female.

26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Put simply, you or any other man has no authority over my wife. And she is just as much a member of the Body as you are. Don't try it with my daughter either.

You can scripturally justify "headship" over your wife if you can tell us how you do that being "mutually submissive" but you nor Patterson or any other man has "headship" over women in the Body of Christ unless you can show us headship in the Body of Christ. As you interpet it, you seem to suggest that from the neck down there is some sort of male dominated hiarchy that I can't find scriptural justification for.

I can go along with the prohibition on female pastors but we are being told these days that the senior pastor is the only shepherd of the local flock. If that truly is the case, then a hiarchy of overarching dominion and submission is just not scriptural. Keep your marriage at home. I am not part of it either....

Jesus really does hate those Nicolaitans.


Don Smith

Chris Johnson said...

Wade,

You certainly bring up some provocative statements…..

As I am new to the Klouda and Patterson situation, it is clear that the SBC seminaries are excluding women from certain functions; and as the Leadership at SWBTS believe… for the right reasons.

The SBC seminaries are in an interesting dilemma. For sake of comparison, based upon the premise that some SBC seminary leadership may embolden a similar ideology, there is another non-SBC seminary that does an outstanding job defining their mission. The Master’s Seminary in California defines their mission as such….

“The Master's Seminary, founded as a non-denominational graduate school in 1986 in association with The Master's College, exists to advance the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ by equipping men to be pastors and/or trainers of pastors for excellence in service to Christ in strategic fields of Christian ministry. Students are provided a thorough educational program and environment which emphasize unreserved commitment to the worship of God, submission to the authority of the Scriptures, a life of personal holiness, the priority of the local church, and the mission of penetrating the world with the Truth.”

They have a specific charter, and the Master’s seminary is an outstanding seminary. I have benefited from their dedication to biblical scholarship and in their openness and friendship to advance the gospel of God. I have great friends there.

My point in bringing this comparison is echoing much like what Alan Cross brought up a few posts ago. That the SBC needs to clearly define its mission and how its seminaries will be preparing the men and women of the churches that associate within.

Unfortunately, the mission is a bit muddled or at least poorly communicated and inconsistent. An all male seminary is not a bad thing (the Master’s Seminary is an outstanding example), but the SBC seminaries (who’s charter is not male only) must communicate how they intend to include both male and female in its pursuit to train and prepare the next generation of spiritual leaders and ministers.

Blessings,
Chris

Anonymous said...

Chris,

Not to put down your leader but I read over at Phil Johnson's blog a while back (I think it was in the comment section) that if a man asked his wife or Mrs. McArthur a doctrinal question, they would not answer it because they are women. Phil did not say where this was asked, if at church or anywhere but did make it clear, that they would NOT answer a doctrinal question from a man.

That is a bit steep in legalism for me. And after reading that, I have had a very hard time listening to McArthur at all. It really floored me.

I really doubt SBC churches are ready to go that far. Maybe they are and I am just in denial.

Lucy.

Tom Parker said...

Joe W:

I know you do not mean to but I find your comment to me hilarious. You read the Bible and how you interpret it is authoritative, but when I read it and interpret it, it is my opinion. What would your position have been on Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong?

Chris Johnson said...

Lucy,

Thanks for the feedback…. I do have some very good friends that teach at the seminary. I am in no way saying that is what the SBC seminaries should be aiming to achieve. I was bringing this to light, because there are seminaries that are very clear on their methodology to teach pastors and the Master’s Seminary is very clear….that’s all. That was my point and encouragement to the SBC seminaries to work hard and inform its members.

I don’t agree with Johnny Mac on several things, but I believe his ministry is God honoring and the some 700 deacons in the church he serves are great encouragement as they serve each other to the glory of God. I am not ready to use the word "legalism" with John just yet.

Blessings,
Chris

Alan Cross said...

As with all legalism, the implications of a woman having no authority over a man are laughable. I imagine that they mean a POSITION of authority. But, it is just common sense that women would direct men in many affairs, both in the church and in the home. We often have ministry events where women tell the men who are helping them what to do. It is necessary. The men are not so prideful that they cannot take some direction from a woman. In every marriage that I have ever seen, wives direct their husbands on many issues. Has anyone ever heard of a "honey-do list?" Are we not talking about that? This approach is non-sensical. Can women now not be college professors, in the business world, doctors, lawyers, or involved in any profession where they might have authority over men, and if they do, it means we are a wicked society? Someone needs to hook this crew up to a lie detector and find out what they really think about things.

I can be taught something by someone without the person being an authority over my life. I can be directed by someone in an endeavor without considering myself "under" them. There is a great deal of insecurity going on here. My Hebrew professor in seminary at GGBTS was a woman. She often used the Scripture to illustrate points about the Hebrew language. I still remember her perspective on Hesed, or lovingkindness. It was beautiful. She taught me and graded my papers and tests. But, I never saw her as a spiritual authority over me. I never saw any of my seminary professors that way because THE SEMINARY IS NOT A CHURCH!!!!!!!! For someone who is so concerned about ecclesiology, you would think they would know what a church is and is not. Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

"I am not ready to use the word "legalism" with John just yet."

Chris, you are kind but keep in mind there is NO legalism for YOU as you are male. And you are not being taught it is sin for you to answer doctrinal questions from another gender that you know the answer to from serious study and prayer.

Grace and Peace. Lucy

Anonymous said...

Ray,

You might have missed it, but the "Lord's Advocate" quote was what Wade told me he was when I accused him of playing Devil's advocate to issues he does not really believe in. After all, Wade is a complementarian just like me.

It is true I left out the context of the passage, it was already a lengthy post. I understand it to mean what you do... however... the headship point was made on the front end as an established fact to explain and enforce the idea that Christian ladies such behave as such.

Ezekiel... I am not confusing marriage and women in the ministry. My post was in answer and directed to Lin who said the only authority in her life was civil authorities and Jesus.

Tom... I am glad to stand with the historic Baptist position... the 2000 BF&M... and "my" interpretation of the sacred Word. As far as I know, neither Sister Armstrong or Moon preached or taught future pastors in seminary, but may be that did. ;)

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

Lin,

I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate your flawed interpretation of this passage of scripture. You say you have studied it at length... I am not sure who you are reading after, but you ought to look elsewhere. This passage clearly speaks of headship and humility.

I especially find troubling your interpretation of the angels. Chrysostom says, “Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?” Bengel explains, “As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God’s face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Isa_6:2). Man’s face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mat_18:10, Mat_18:31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them.” The most natural interpretation seems to me to be this: A woman in the public assemblies, and in speaking in the presence of people, should show her modesty... wearing a veil was the usual symbol of modesty and subordination - because the angels of God are witnesses of your public worship Heb_1:13, and because they know and appreciate the propriety of subordination and order in public assemblies.

Joe W.

Bryan Riley said...

What if we all just focused on Jesus and stopped pointing our fingers at everyone else or at words of text about which can be many human interpretations?

What Dr. Patterson believes is definitely different than what I believe. The best thing I can do, though, is pray for the church, for him, and for unity in the Body of Christ. All my judgment will never bring God glory. I want to rail against him and his interpretation and decry the injustice, but doing so will not honor Jesus. It just won't. Jesus called me to love, not to judge; that job is reserved for the One Who has the ability and character to judge righteously and lovingly.

I will point to the Way. The Way is one of love. The Way is what Easter is all about. "It is finished." Jesus giving it all on the cross out of love for the Father and for us. The curse is over. There is now neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free. We who are in Christ are all free.

When people teach something in opposition to that, then let's pray that God will convict them of that. And let's pray that their errant teaching will fall on deaf ears and that the good news of the cross will be what's heard.

But for all of the persuasive skills that God has given me the reality I must face is that I can talk until I'm blue in the face or type until my fingers bleed and all of those words will be vanity. God's spirit must move.

Let's keep prayign the prayer Jesus told us to pray... Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done... at SWBTS just as it is in Heaven... in the US courts of law just as it is in heaven.... in my home just as it is in heaven... in my heart just as it is in heaven...

Meanwhile all this bickering over jots and tittles as though it will solve the world's problems is folly. Plain and simple. Until we truly agree with Jesus that we need unity in Him and that we need to love God and love others we are chasing the ways of this world.

Lin said...

Thanks Joe, for sharing YOUR flawed interpretation of scripture with me.

Many Blessings to you. And I mean that sincerely. :o)

Lin said...

"As far as I know, neither Sister Armstrong or Moon preached or taught future pastors in seminary, but may be that did. ;)"

What would the difference be in teaching adult men on the mission field and adult men in seminary?

Anonymous said...

Lin,

I have reread my post... I must admit it sounds harsh when read out loud. I did not mean it to sound that way.

Here is the problem I have with your interpretation. You say... "Women have authority over their own head and they, too, will judge the angels." I sincerely believe the Bible is teaching the opposite in this passage.

Joe W.

Cindy said...

Joe,

You wrote: Cindy,

Dr. Patterson plainly said he did not apply this outside the church or religious realms. What we have here was a female teacher of future Pastors. Not saying I necessarily agree with Dr. Patterson(although I mostly do), but let's not go overboard and put words in his mouth.



Are you referring to my analogy of a nurse "in authority" over a male patient in her care, or to the fact that Patterson has said that it is improper for a woman to interpret the Bible?

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth but quoted Patterson directly from the main post. I did say that the logical conclusion of this concept had many implications, the most serious of which is that women cannot and should not be interpreting what the Bible actually says. If an expert in the language cannot interpret, where does that leave the rest of women? I'm sorry, but it sounds dreadfully Romanist, something contrary to sound Bible doctrine.

My point was to place the topic of headship to the side and to focus on the LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS of what Patterson had to say. I did not put any words in his mouth, I INTERPRETED the ramifications of his statement and how they relate to me.

believer333 said...

Joe W.,
”By way of summary, one could then say that in the Father-Son relationship there is a blending of equality and cooperation along with a mutual awareness that ultimate authority resides with the Father. If then, in a relationship that is wholly divine, headship or leadership is needful and good, how much more so in the human, man-woman relationship.”

The problem with this picture is twofold:
1. God the Father is not an ultimate authority over God the Son. This creates a division in the perfect one-ness of the Trinity and alludes to them having more than One Will. And it reeks of Arianism.
2. The marital relationship is not the same as a father-son relationship.

Because you predetermine that “head of” can only mean “authority over” you are constraining yourself to read into the Scripture what is not actually there. “Kephale” has a range of meanings determined by context. And “authority over” is a rare use of kephale.

”Both men and women need to recognize, that there is for each of them a God-appointed place and function and that they make their greatest contribution and reach their highest glory when cheerfully serving in that capacity.”

One of the many problems with these ideas of limited places and functions for males and females is that only the woman is thus limited. It is not limiting a man to tell him he cannot do what he already knows he cannot do, that of bearing and nursing children. Try as he might even if he were so desirous a man will never BE ABLE to achieve those “functions”. But women are HUGELY limited from many things that they can in fact achieve if they were so inclined. Thus the real thing being said here is simply that some men do not WANT women to do some of the things that the men are enjoying doing.

”This is not about POWER... or PRIDE... but PERSPECTIVE.”

On the contrary, it is all about limiting women and privileging men. That spells power.

believer333 said...

Joe,


” Here is the problem I have with your interpretation. You say... "Women have authority over their own head and they, too, will judge the angels." I sincerely believe the Bible is teaching the opposite in this passage.”

Are you suggesting that women should not have power over their own heads, IOW be able to make their own decisions. Or are you suggesting that women will not be judging the angels in the hereafter?

Anonymous said...

Chris,

Are you talking about Dr. Jack Hayford's seminary? Are you sure it is an all male seminary? If so, kind of hard to believe since Hayford is Four Square and that denomination was founded by Aimee Simple McPherson, right?

And if that is the seminary you are speaking about, so nice to hear you speak nicely of Pentecostals/Charismatics! Ha!

Ron

Anonymous said...

Believer333... you said... "The marital relationship is not the same as a father-son relationship."

You should explain that to the Apostle Peter. He wrote these words... "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls... ... Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear."

Submission is not a bad thing... in this way the woman plays the role of Christ. Submission does not mean servitude.

You also ask the question... "Are you suggesting that women should not have power over their own heads, IOW be able to make their own decisions. Or are you suggesting that women will not be judging the angels in the hereafter?"

Again... I am suggesting that women having power to judge Angels has nothing to do with the proper interpretation of this passage of scripture. This passage is not about female power... it is about modesty, humility, and submission.

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

What saddens me in this controversy is that everyone on both sides of the issue is indulging in the behavior of the lowest common denominator. The only two people that I have found who have engaged publicly in an appropriate manner are Dr. Paige Patterson and Dr. Sherri Klouda. Perhaps we all could learn lessons from their behavior in the aftermath of this decision.

In reading the blogs and the views on both sides of the issue, I want to make one point of clarification and ask one question if I might.

Sharon and others -- there was a big fear after the firing of Dr. Dilday that women would be excluded from the school of theology. I believe that this fear is unfounded as I received a degree from the school of theology only a few months ago and the diploma is signed by Dr. Patterson. I hear a lot about the politics of personal destruction and I truly believe that this fear is evidence of this view.

WB -- would you mind explaining why your name was brought up in Dr. Patterson's deposition? Every deposition gave answers that were to be expected and anticipated. The debate was between Dr. Klouda's perspective and Dr. Patterson's understanding of the situation. Your name in the deposition came as a surprise and I simply wonder why you were mentioned.

Amy

Chris Johnson said...

Sister Lucy,

Just because men are men does not disqualify them from "Legalism". Unfortunately, there are a lot of men that engage in legalism and are the recipients of it as well. I’m not convinced that John M. is engaging in legalism. His deacons (both men and women) comprise a large segment of their church body and are affirmed on an annual basis.

Brother Ron,

Not Jack, it was John MacArthur. The seminary that he is leading would not be classified "charismatic" under the same definition put forth by Jack Hayford, but I’m sure that John would say the seminary is “charismatic” none-the-less according to scripture.

Blessings,
Chris

Anonymous said...

I would like to change the word from "everyone" to "a great many" on my previous post. I don't wish for my words to be parsed and hopefully this change will prevent that from occuring.

Anonymous said...

I am a graduate of SWBTS and it concerns me greatly that any man who would say those things under oath and actually believe them, is President of our beloved seminary.

Where are the trustees in all of this? Oh, I forgot. Paige handpicked all of them so what do you expect.

What a sad day for Southern Baptists.

Only By His Grace said...

Some of you women worry me.

I am a man, Wade is a man, and most of the bloggers on this blog are men. Are you in direct disobedience to Dr. Page Patterson in teaching us? I dare you be in such a state of insurrection. We are convening a council with Dr. Patterson in Salem, Massachusetts after the next solemn Sabbath to have you tried as witches and then hanging you.

Sound ridiculous? No, it is nutty; however, that is exactly what our Puritan forefathers did to some poor wretched men and women in 1692. Over one hundred and fifty men and women were arrested, property confiscated and sent to trial. Twenty-nine people were found guilty; and in a old type of "water boarding" using rocks instead of water an old eighty year old farmer was crushed to death over a two day period; fourteen women and five men were hung for witchcraft—all in the name of Jesus Christ.

In this idyllic land of Massachusetts Bay, boys were allowed to go hunting, fishing and climbing the mountains, but girls were allowed only to stay home to spin yarn, sew, weave, clean house, cook and be servant to their fathers, mothers, brothers and later their husbands. Any girl who rebelled against this pattern was considered to be under the influence of the devil and headed toward witchcraft.

These were such sweet godly Christian men by names like Increase Mather and his son, Cotton Mather. They were considered some of the greatest divines of the New World. I would hate to have lived with the worst of these hypocritical divines. It is reformed theology at its worst.

We saw what the world was like when Christians ruled Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD; we saw what New England was like with the Puritans ruling with their iron rod and heavy hand from the settlement of the colony until the Revolutionary War. No, thank you. I will take the New Testament way of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Let the magistrate bear the sword to the terror of lawbreakers, but let the church reach out her hand to the most ungodly in our midst. It is what God did for us and it is the least we can do for the sinner (Romans 5:8, "But God commended His toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us").

Phil in Norman.

Kerygma said...

Dang that Margaret Thatcher!

Anonymous said...

"Wicked society" could mean to say that few men are qualified with the Word and in cultivating in realm of the nuturing in discipling others. In the realm of human development research shows that in the formative years a male needs the mentoring of a mature male. This debate is too gnat splitting while camels are being swallowed. We all fall short of some sort of legal standard let get back to edifying.

oc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastor Hilliard said...

John MacArthur has women deacons. So, I would hesitate to throw the "legalist" title on him.

Wade Burleson said...

Amy,

Gary Richardson was quoting from one of my blogposts that he entered as an exhibit. That's why my name was mentioned.

believer333 said...

Joe W.,

Please understand that while I am disagreeing with the interpretations that you put forth, I do so with the utmost respect and charity toward you as my brother in Christ. There is absolutely no antagonism on my part at all. Rightly dividing the words of Scripture is something I delight in discussing.

Now, in my observation, the context in 1 Peter is that of following Christ’s example in not reviling in return when subjected to the harsh treatment of those not obeying the Word of God. It is not about comparing the relationship of the Son to the Father to that of the husband and wife. This is a section dealing with unrighteous treatment of those who do not obey the Word of God. This is seen in 2:1, 12, 16-17, 18-23; 3:1,7, 8-9, 13-14, 16-17. In the case of the wives and husbands in verses 1-7 it is likely dealing with those who are living with unbelieving spouses.

And you are absolutely correct that Biblical submission is NOT about servitude.

believer333 said...

Joe W.,

As for 1 Cor. 11, I see it as more concerning modesty and honor, and yet much more. Some of the elements that I note are:

1. 10: 23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.

10: 31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

2. The foundation laid in the preceding chapter tells me that Paul is inferring that the woman in verse 11:5 who is publicly praying and prophesying in the assembling of the believers, needs to have the ability to decide for herself (power/authority on her head) how she is to give no offense to Jews, Greeks or the body of believers (or indirectly her husband). I see the words in verse 3 to be a matter of recognizing that honor should be given to husbands (don’t embarrass them) as well as to God and Christ (she is publicly praying and prophesying). The balance of honor being shown in vs. 12 reminds both to respect each spouses contribution to their part in life.

3. The admonition to judge for yourselves (vs. 13), hints that a choice can be made. The sticky is to make an edifying choice. The reference to angels is likely referring back a few chapters earlier (6:1-6) when Paul is admonishing the brethren not to be warring amongst themselves in the public courts. Since all believers will be judging angels how much more are we able to settle matters amongst ourselves. And the final word in verse 11:16 lets us know that it is a simple choice of either option to the point of non offense, since there is no such religious rule amongst the churches.

This is why there is still no religious rule that wives should wear veils. It was a product of the various cultures. Cultures change.

Wayne Smith said...

Wade,

Thanks for placing the Time within the Date on all of the comments. It is much easier to pick up on the comments when returning to read comments within Your Posts.

In His Name
Wayne

Only By His Grace said...

Provebs 31:
10. "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."
13. "She seeks wool, and flax, and works willingly with her hands.
14. She considers a field, and buys it: with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.

See how many women have been able to "see a field and buy it" in Christian History and in Muslim History, but it was proverbial in Jewish history and in the early church.

In dealing with I Corinthians and sometimes in dealing with the whole Greco-Roman world, we must keep in mind that Corinth had a Temple of Aphrodite with a thousand priestesses who were no more than temple prostitutes. These women ran the Temple, and by most accounts I have read, they wore diaphanous clothing, heavy jewelry, shaven heads and were crass in their loudness in the agora.

Most likely many of the gentile converts were from these ranks as well as others. In the light of all this, Paul's words to the Body of Christ at Corinth would have a different ring to it than his letters to the Romans and the Thessalonians.

If I read with my heart the Gospels and Book of Acts account, I find women in leadership.

When Jesus was at Cana to begin his earthly ministry of miracles, it was his mother who took charge of the awaiting social catastrophe; when he was in the home of Martha, Mary and Lazarus so many times, we hear much about Martha and Mary; but little about Lazarus; when the resurrection is announced, our Lord appears to Mary before Peter or John; when Peter is broken out of jail, he goes to the home of John' mother, Mary, not Nicodemus or Joseph, but a woman's where a prayer meeting is in progress; when Paul goes to Philippi, he finds Jewish women who convert to Christ to begin the first church without a man being present; Paul writes to Timothy the last of fourteen letters (his authorship of Hebrews is primary doctrine and grounds to break fellowship if you don't agree- un huh), he mentions that Timothy is the man of God he is because of a mother and grandmother with no mention of a father or grandfather at all; there is Lydia whom we all would agree was a business woman and made decisions as any owner of any business would mostly likely make with a majority of male employees; and even this letter is initiated by the concern of a woman who contact's Paul about some rank heresy and open sinfulness going on in the Corinthian church; whereas some of the old divines believe that the Corinthian church met in Chloe's home; last when the brave Twelve fled for their lives into the darkness at His Passion, there were the women at the cross. I think they could have taught those boasting men a thing or two about a quiet courage of faith that is stable in the face of death.

I am probably a complementarian, but I had better be careful of all my stewardship and I had better not brag too much for my wife is much stronger in her personhood and her faithfulness to the Lord we both love than I ever will be.

My disagreement with Dr. Patterson and his adherents is that he runs this business of women in submission into the ground and applies it where it should not be applied causing us to appear too narrow and bigoted to a news hungry lost world while hurting my sister in Christ when there was no need to hurt her.

They will know us by our love to each other and to them, not by who gets to be boss for the day.

Only By His Grace,
Phil in Norman.

Bryan Riley said...

Phil, great comment. Although I still wish we didn't have to say I'm a _______. :)

And it's not just when you read the bible with your heart. The entire Word of God, Jesus, points to a time when all are free to worship God is spirit and in truth. Sons AND Daughters prophesy. You don't focus on worshiping at Jerusalem or in Samaria. All are gifted as the Spirit wills - male and female. The curse is broken. and all are responsible to operate in the gifting granted to point the unreconciled to the Father and to edify the reconciled.

Anonymous said...

Jesus spoke of those who lord it over others and told his disciples not to be like that. It seems this might be relevant to this issue.

Could it be that desire for power is behind the whole issue of what men say women can or cannot do? If women are considered equal in the sight of God then men have less power over them.

And desire for power was behind the - to use a neutral term - change in the SBC. Some people wanted to run things their way. It's become more visible all the time in the fact that they keep consolidating their power and lording it over anyone they can.

I think many issues are not about the issue spoken about but simply a new way to gain power. Find an issue and convince some people it's the most important thing going and get people riled up against those you want out of power. It has worked quite well, hasn't it?

I guess it's not important that non-Christians see people who call themselves Christian, even Christian leaders who teach others, treating people in ways they (the non-Christians) consider wrong. Just as long as women are put in their place and their own power is upheld - that's what seems to be important.

But I'm just a woman, so you men can safely ignore my comment, I suppose. Especially since I mentioned Jesus' teaching. That might be considered Biblical interpretation, or even preaching!

Susie

Anonymous said...

There is a need for some wise pithiness here: Dealing with Klouda to turn the tide of liberalism is like dealing with Marth Stewart to turn around the economy.

PJ said...

1638 ... Anne Hutchinson was put on trial by Governor John Winthrop in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for pretty much the same issue as Sheri Klouda, being a woman teaching the Bible. At the time, Hutchinson and her family were put out of Puritan society. The Puritans themselves had sought refuge on American shores for the sake of religious freedom and conscience. Anne and her family found a new home in Rhode Island among a group of people then more interested in the Gospel and exercise of religious freedom than in building a Stepford Wives Society ... they were called Baptists.

But history shows "... (M)en whose presentation of Christianity would drive the world to a preferable infidelity..." It always seems to cycle back to control and power, whether the issue is a woman or something else. George MacDonald wrote in open criticism without apology of abuses of power and prestige within the church of his day, writing as Wade does today. MacDonald was subtely fired as pastor by the continual reduction of his salary, but what was meant to hinder him only served to give him more time to lecture and write, and thus his influence spread the further, even into the 21st century.

Patricia Jones

Lin said...

"I believe that this fear is unfounded as I received a degree from the school of theology only a few months ago and the diploma is signed by Dr. Patterson."

Women will always be able to get degrees in Theology. It brings in money. The question is: What are you going to be able to do with it within the SBC?

Lin said...

"Are you in direct disobedience to Dr. Page Patterson in teaching us? I dare you be in such a state of insurrection. We are convening a council with Dr. Patterson in Salem, Massachusetts after the next solemn Sabbath to have you tried as witches and then hanging you. "

Phil, they also put women in 'stocks' for disobeying their husbands. What gets me is that the husband had to rat on his wife to the Puritan 'magistrate' and that was considered ok.

We idolize the Puritans quite a bit in reformed circles but as a friend of mine who did his doctoral thesis on them asked: What happened to them? Where did they go?

They went the same place the Ana Baptist went: Legalism and earthly Hierarchies KILL personal relationships with Christ.

Lin said...

"Phil, great comment. Although I still wish we didn't have to say I'm a _______. :)"

Brian, I am amazed that I had no idea if my parents marriage was complimentarian or egalitarian. All I know is that they had mutual love and respect for one another. My mom witnessed to and taught men all the time. Especially Muslim young men from the University who visted the Foreign Student fellowship house downtown. Her motto was: If they are at room temperature, I witness to them. It never occured to her she was in sin to teach the scriptures to these men. It never occured to my Dad she was in sin.

We have come a long way.

Does it occur to us that by labeling these things, devoting massive time and teaching to the differences with rules and regulations, do's and don't (even down to have to give directions to a man) only creates a divide in marriages and our churches? As time has gone on the soft comp has become Patriarchy.

Wayne Smith said...

PJ / Patricia Jones,

Do I know you and Your Family. We use to live at 412 Clarence Lane.

In His Name
Wayne

PJ said...

Wayne,
I don't think you know me, at least I don't think I know you. I don't know of any street named Clarence, or in what town it is. Nice to meet you, though.

Blessings,
Patricia Jones

Wayne Smith said...

PJ / Patricia Jones,

The City was Escondido, Ca

In His Name
Wayne

Anonymous said...

sharon said:

"I predict the next step will be not to allow women to take any theological courses at all. In fact, does anybody know if that is already underway?"

I think that Midwestern Seminary has an MDiv program that has different classes for women than for men.

I don't want to be slanderous and I could be mistaken so please double check with someone who would know for sure.

I remember a few years ago they were discussing something like this and some reporter wrote about it but i don't know the details.

grace
wtreat

R. L. Vaughn said...

To read a different take on 'kephale' than presented in this comment thread, one can find Wayne Grudem's The meaning of Kephale: an evaluation of new evidence and The meaning of Kephale, Appendix 1 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood online.

Anonymous said...

To read a different take on 'kephale' than presented in this comment thread...

There seems to be "evidence" and "new evidence" popping up every day.

John Fariss said...

Alan Cross comes quite close to what I suspect is the answer to a question I would like to raise. Please bear with me as I lay this out.

I have noticed, in this comment thread and similar others that (1) there are commentators who really get into issues of authority and the "Federal headship of Jesus" and all that, and that many of them see teaching (whether in a seminary or the Sunday school of a local church) and the pastorate as all being very wrapped up in authority; and (2) that there are others who perceive authority, on the one hand, and preaching, teaching, and ministry in general on the other as relatively seperate issues or matters. Now: this is no condemnation of either, not even a judgment call, but I regard it as a simple observation. Keep this in the back of your minds as I proceed to another rung in my ladder of reasoning.

Next, I don't think ("think" being the operative word) that those on either side of this issue would disagree that people have different personalities. This would include the classic "Type A driven personality," those more laid back, introverts and extraverts, those who by either nature, nuture, or choice relate as a commander-style, a hermit-style, a catalyst-style, etc., etc., etc. No doubt experience and maturity (or the lack thereof) also enters into one's overall personality. Having different personalities, different things appeal to or resonate with different people. Everybody still with me?

I think most people will agree (not everyone of course) that we, as human beings, tend to be somewhat myopic, that is we have tunnel-vision, we see the world with blinders on so that we seieze upon the things which are, figuratively speaking, in front of us,. and remain oblivious to things at the periphry.

So my question is: could it be that those who see preaching, pastoring, and teaching as inexorably bound up with issues involving authority are those whose personalities are, for whatever reasons, bound up in matters of authority, while those of us (I am in the other group) who do not see them (and I speak Biblically here, of what we see in the Bible) as being seperate, barely even touching on power, control, and/or authority?

I'd love to know, say Wade's, Bob Cleveland's, Sharon N.'s, Phil in Norman's, Lin's, and Tom Parker's personality, and learn if there were any significant differences between theirs and folks like David volfan007, Joe W.'s, as well as that of several anonymous commentators, and perhaps especially Dr. Patterson's. I wonder if we would learn something about how much of this issue is something pivotal and Bible verses how much of it is of our own manufacture.

What do y'all think?

John Fariss

Anonymous said...

To read a different take on 'kephale' than presented in this comment thread...

There seems to be "evidence" and "new evidence" popping up every day.

Wed Mar 26, 03:00:00 PM 2008

Exactly, I have already read several scholars of Greek (even from Bible translation teams) who show that Grumden has to IGNORE lots of stuff to come to his 'conclusion'. But these scholars are not promoted by Mohler.

Grumden has become our Protestant Pope and people believe his edicts on all teaching. I think more seminarians are reading his books than read scripture!

Lucy

believer333 said...

Good questions John Fariss.

As a long time Bible teacher, I'm pretty laid back in my bringing the Word to my brethren. I don't try to claim that what I present is the only possible way (except for the basics) but I bring what I believe to be the most truthful. I don't forbid disagreement, but I do require respectful dialogue and limit the bulk of the disagreements to after class.

My view is that I am God's servant and tool to bring information, inspiration, encouragement and correction via Scripture to God's people. The Word is the authority.

The Bishop said...

Dr. Patterson has been a loose canon all his life. I grew up hearing the stories about him from people at Criswell. And now, as a graduate of SWBTS 20 years later, I am still hearing these stories.
It's a sad day for us...a sad day indeed.

R. L. Vaughn said...

John, you raise some interesting questions. I suspect your interest in personalities is more in the more prominent people in this debate, but I'll add my two cents. If you find a "rule", perhaps I would be an exception to it. I don't see preaching, pastoring, and teaching as bound up with issues involving authority. I also believe in plurality of elders. Personally, I am very laid back. Managerially, I am a "let's do this together type" rather than "I'll tell you what to do type." Nevertheless, based on my understanding of the New Testament, I also come down in favor of elders only being males.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Lucy, I have given links to some of Grudem's stuff so readers can view and judge for themselves. You could do us a favor by pointing us to scholars of Greek who write contra Grudem. Book references are nice, but it would be great to know if there is anything online we could link to.

John Fariss said...

believer333,

I would certainly agree that the Bible is the authority, as would most (if not all) the contributors here. But I would also suggest that all of us view the Bible (and everything else) through a certain lens or filter, which is "generated" by our personality, understanding, level of maturity, culture, and other factors. Some "images" pass through this filter, others do not. Consequently, our verbalized presuppositions aren't necessarily as important as the unspoken, unarticulated ones. Those are what we HAVE to recognize in order to truely understand what the Word says. Or such is my soapbox for the moment.

John Fariss

Lin said...

"So my question is: could it be that those who see preaching, pastoring, and teaching as inexorably bound up with issues involving authority are those whose personalities are, for whatever reasons, bound up in matters of authority, while those of us (I am in the other group) who do not see them (and I speak Biblically here, of what we see in the Bible) as being seperate, barely even touching on power, control, and/or authority?"

Interesting question. What if I told you that both Mother Theresa and Hilter were Type A's?

One was driven to care for others while the other was driven to obtain personal power.

Anonymous said...

Lucy, I have given links to some of Grudem's stuff so readers can view and judge for themselves. You could do us a favor by pointing us to scholars of Greek who write contra Grudem. Book references are nice, but it would be great to know if there is anything online we could link to.

Wed Mar 26, 06:06:00 PM 2008

Are you kidding? And sic the magistrates who comment here on them? They have had enough blackballing and abuse from the Patriarchs to last a lifetime. They don't have the protection and promotion of the Mohler/Patterson's of this world.

Do a google yourself. Or, just ignore what I said and say it can't be true. I really do not care. If you are not going to search for other views of Kephale yourself, my links certainly won't change your mind.

Lucy

John Fariss said...

Lin,

Interesting. Of course, I posed this as a question and a legidimate one, not one that I claim to have the answer to.

I would like to think that the presence of Jesus Christ in one's life would make a difference as to whether one was driven to a life of service verses one of megalomania.

John

R. L. Vaughn said...

Wow! No I was not kidding. I am perfectly able to google, but if you have some specific references in mind, it would make it easier to find the ones you are talking about if you would reference them. It's hard to imagine that Greek scholars who have written on the meaning of "kephale" would be afraid to have their writings referenced. Perhaps I'm just too much of an information addict to have a clue where you're coming from with this objection.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Sorry, John. That reply was to Lucy. I didn't notice that you had posted.

believer333 said...

Vaughn,

Here is an excellent link regarding Grudem's work and kephale.

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/index-cbmw-grudem-kephale.html

Lin said...

"Interesting. Of course, I posed this as a question and a legidimate one, not one that I claim to have the answer to.

I would like to think that the presence of Jesus Christ in one's life would make a difference as to whether one was driven to a life of service verses one of megalomania."

That is exactly it! The pesonality traits are just that...traits that are used for Glory or evil. Are they nature or nurture? I must confess I have about 16 years experience as a personality type indicator facilitator so I may see it a bit differently. We make way too much out of personality types.

Think of this paradox. Traudle Junge was Hilter's personal secretary...even in the bunker. She said he was the most gentle, sweet man one could work for. He never got upset at her mistakes but was always patient and kind to her. He never showed his 'temper' in her presence.

I could facilitate an indicator assessment on a group and tell them to answer the questions as they are at HOME and get totally different answers than I will if I tell them to answer as they are at WORK.

Probably the most valid results would come if you had your spouse answer your questions for you. :o)

Cindy said...

I Love Lucy!

Anonymous said...

rl, here is one for you from the pope himself:

1 John Piper and Wayne Grudem. “An Overview of Central Concerns” in Recovering Biblical Manhood. (Crossway: Wheaton, Ill., 1991), pp. 79-80 and 479.


One of the scholars wrote about their trip into Junia land trying to prove SHE was a HE:

"The alleged exception in Epiphanius arose from an electronic search of the thesaurus Linguae Graecae, which turned up Junias of whom Paul makes mention in Epiphanius (Index disciplulorum, 125, 19-20, where the relative pronoun is masculine, making Junia a male or indicating a male Junias). Note, it is a relative pronoun. John Piper and Wayne Grudem had a “eureka” moment when this was discovered and felt they had hit pay dirt, the mother lode of gold. Wayne Grudem and John Piper are the ultra-champions of a male only leadership model in the church. However, the mother lode turned out to be fool’s gold as Piper and Grudem themselves confess in commendable candor, “We are perplexed by the fact that in the near context of the citation concerning Junias, Epiphanius also designates Prisca as a man mentioned in Romans 16:3, even though we know from the New Testament that she is a woman.”1

Grudem and Piper were soon taken to task by the scholarly world, and two female scholars were among them. You can hear the words from the woodshed, “We were wrong (mea culpa), guilty.”"

We won't even go into the stuff they have quietly removed from CBMW when it was shown not to be a proven conclusion.

Lucy

Corrie said...

"In this idyllic land of Massachusetts Bay, boys were allowed to go hunting, fishing and climbing the mountains, but girls were allowed only to stay home to spin yarn, sew, weave, clean house, cook and be servant to their fathers, mothers, brothers and later their husbands. Any girl who rebelled against this pattern was considered to be under the influence of the devil and headed toward witchcraft."

Phil,

Great post. This attitude is alive in well in the Neo-Puritans of our day. There are many who would love to bring back the "good ol' days".

Lin,

"But I would think that once a son reaches 13, a mother would not be able to exposit scripture to him nor rule him in anyway without being in sin. :o)"

Uh oh. Someone better tell King Lemual's mother and King Solomon who said that a son was to obey his mother's law. Oh. Don't forget Timothy. Paul must have had a moment of temporary insanity for praising Timothy's grandmother and mother for instructing him in the scriptures.

Some women! The nerve to think that they can indulge themselves like this and teach their sons about scripture and expect them to obey their rule! ;-)

Corrie said...

Tom,

"I know you do not mean to but I find your comment to me hilarious. You read the Bible and how you interpret it is authoritative, but when I read it and interpret it, it is my opinion. What would your position have been on Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong?"

This is good. I may just have to borrow it sometime. :-)

R. L. Vaughn said...

believer333, thank you for the link.

Lucy, in your absence of willingness to point us to any specific links, I will give the following:

The Evangelical Debate over Biblical 'Headship' by David H. Scholer gives some interesting history of the debate of the meaning of kephale. Scroll down to "The Meaning of the Term Kephale." And an article from Searching Together -- What about the word Kephale ("head") in the New Testament? by Laurie Fasullo -- will provide some online reading concerning kephale as "source".

I didn't find links to any of the works of scholars such as Bilezikian, Cervin, or Kroeger giving their answers/objections to Grudem's position. If they are online any willing person who knows can link them. But a limited preview of Gordon Fee's work on I Corinthians can be found HERE, and a blog posts quotes from Bilezikian and Fee HERE.

Anonymous said...

Lin,

Thanks for your input and perspective. You obviously are very knowledgable on the subject of personality type (ye gads--did I just admit that a woman taught me something? Something that while perhaps not theological, is certainly related. Call the thought police at SWBTS, quick, somebody! I need an immediate infusion of phariseeism, or an adjustment of some kind--TIC).

Still, I cannot help but wonder if there is some identifiable, measurable parmeter (perhaps along sopciological lines?) that would differentiate between believers who emphasize authority and believe along the lines of Dr. Patterson and those who see authority as less involved with female "participation" yet believe themselves to be equally Biblical in their outlook.

John Fariss

Anonymous said...

rl, You can buy this book and read their mea culpa on insisting Junia is a man quoting the vile Epiphanius.

1 John Piper and Wayne Grudem. “An Overview of Central Concerns” in Recovering Biblical Manhood. (Crossway: Wheaton, Ill., 1991), pp. 79-80 and 479.

Regarding Kephale:


I Corinthians 11:1-16

The participation of women in worship activity, praying the Lord’s Prayer, singing hymns and anthems, and reading responsive readings are sanctioned by I Corinthians 11:2-16 (women should pray and prophesy, including reading God’s inspired word). What does “head” in verse 3 mean? The Greek word kephale, “head” has twenty-five possible first century meanings. Among them are “top”, “brim”, “apex”, “origin”, “source”, “mouth” “starting point”, “crown,” “completion,”,
“sum”, “total.” The list does not include our English usage of “head” as “authority over”, “leader”, “direction”,
“superior rank,” or anything similar. “Kephale” is used once in the Septuagint as “origin or source” to convey what the Hebrew word meant. The Hebrew word “ro’sh” (head) was used sometimes to describe a leader but never the Greek word “kephale”.

Philip Barton Payne did research on the ancient Greek literature’s use of “kephale”. The idea of “authority” was never a recognized meaning of “kephale” in classical Greek. Nor does “kephale” ever appear as a synonymn for “leader, chief, or authority.” The use of “head” in this verse as “authority” is only used in our western culture by people who misinterpret “kephale” from a male dominant viewpoint.

Paul was a Greek and Hebrew speaking Jew and he grew up in the Greek- speaking city of Tarsus. The meaning of “head” in verse 3 is normally used in churches that say women are not to minister (as a chain of command). Yet all lexical, historical, and cultural evidence indicates that “authority, leader, chief” were not Greek meanings of ”kephale”. The Greek meaning that best fits the context here is “source or origin”. Verses 8-12 are centered on origins: “man was not made from woman but woman from man, for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman and all things are from God.”

Another way to check the interpretation is to go to the early church fathers who were closest to the Greek culture. In all the early church fathers: Tertullian, Eusebius, etc, the idea of “source” or “origin” is used for “kephale”. For instance, Cyril of Alexandria wrote in the fifth century, “Thus we say that the head of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him and the head of woman is man because she was taken from his flesh, likewise, the head of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature.”

Prophesying means teaching, and both men and women were teaching.

RL, Perhaps you can tell me why the Holy Spirit did not inspire a very clear Greek word for authority over in this passage such as exousia?

I am not going to get into dueling scholars with you. Your scholars are backed by big money and promotion. They make lots of money selling books that say women have an earthly priest or layer between them and Christ. Let's focus on content.

And content, if we are honest, says the meaning of Kephale is much in debate.

Again, why wasn't a clear Greek word meaning authority over used?

Lucy

Anonymous said...

Junia an apostle


John of Chrysostom’s statement is pointed and unambiguous.

“Greet Andronicus and Junia…who are outstanding among the apostles.To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They are outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed how great the wisdom of this woman was to have been the one deemed worthy of the title Apostle” (In ep ad Romanos 31:2 PG 60.669-700).


Theodoret (ca.393-458), Bishop of Cyrrus, echoes the same sentiments; he says that Junia is a woman and Andronicus is a man.

They are to be called ‘of note’ not only among the disciples but also among the teachers, and not just among the teachers but even among the apostles (Interpretation in quat vordecum epistolos. S. Pauli 82-200).

One other witness, John of Damascus (CA 675-749, concerning Junia

And to be called ‘Apostle’ is a great thing but to be even amongst those of note consider what a great encomiom this is. (Commentary on Paul’s Espistles 95:565).

We have sixteen Greek and Latin commentators who affirm Junia, sometimes Julia in the Latin, as a female. These writers include: Origin (185-254) as translated by Rufinus (345-410); Ambrosiaster (ca 375), though he uses Julia; John Chrysostom (Ca 345/354-407); Jerome (Ca 345-419); Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Ca 393-458); Ps, Primasius (died ca 567); John Damascene (Ca 675- ca 745); Hraban of Fulda (780-856); Haymo of Halbenstadt (840-853 writing); Halto of Vercelli (Tenth Century), who names Junia; Oecumenius (first half Sixth Century); Lantrauc of Bec (ca 1005-1089); Brum the Carthusian (ca 1030-1101); Theophylact (1095-1169)). Linda Belleville adds the following Latin Church writers: Ambrose (339-397); Claudius of Turin (died 827); Sedulius-Seotus (848-858); Guillelmus Abbas (1085-1147); and Herveus Burgidolenis (late edition 1151).

Lucy

Lin said...

"Still, I cannot help but wonder if there is some identifiable, measurable parmeter (perhaps along sopciological lines?) that would differentiate between believers who emphasize authority and believe along the lines of Dr. Patterson and those who see authority as less involved with female "participation" yet believe themselves to be equally Biblical in their outlook."

John, Rest assured I am not teaching you...we are simply "exchanging information" in case the SBC police are lurking. (wink)

My guess, is that until a 'pride meter' is invented, we will be in the dark on this one.

Could the beatitudes be a measuring indicator?

When Blanchard piloted his servant leadership training, it was supposed to be the answer to the lording it over in leadership circles in Christendom. (sans the woman issue)

Problem is we cannot make the servant/leadership leap in Christendom. Jesus literally turned the system on it's head. Even Jesus called Himself a servant and not once lorded it over anyone. The first will be last, God is no respecter of persons, there is no caste system in the Body where there are those who are elevated over others because of special revelation or knowledge. There is way too much teaching out there on 'touch not thine anointed'. We are in a New Covenant. Even ignorant women like me can prayerfully study scripture and have the truth illuminated to me by the Holy Spirit. That is just ONE more beautiful thing that happened on the Cross besides the Wrath He took for me. I can go directly to HIM.

All saints have anointing. (1 John) and all true believers are in the priesthood. The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you.

We cannot get away from the worldly thinking that SOMEBODY has to be in 'charge'. We misunderstand what an 'elder' is and have given that function in the body a position that was never meant to be. Elders are simply the spiritually mature that care for your souls. We would LOVE to honor and submit to someone like that.

In the Body, Christ is in charge. It is HIS church, His Bride. And He WILL present a pure and spotless Bride to Himself. This should scare us.

The pastor, elder, etc., should be just one part of the Body that is gifted by the Holy Spirit as are others gifted in different ways. All gifts are needed and equal.

What would happen in the Body if we all gave up our man appointed positions and power, fell on our knees and sought the leading of the Holy Spirit corporately?

There would be the 'unity' Jesus prayed about for us.

believer333 said...

Lin and anyone else interested I wonder if you could come over to Equality Central Forums and share some of your insight. We are having a "happening". Several people are discussing some hot topics trying to find a balance between comp and egal thought and doing so with obvious Christian Charity and respect.

http://equalitycentral.com/forum/YaBB.pl

John Fariss said...

Lin,

Amen sister. Preach on! Er, uh, no, I must surely mean "exchange information on."

BTW, Re: the earlier entries, sometimes I understate my position, more-or-less deliberately. Maybe it's because I am an introvert, maybe because I try to explore all the options fairly, maybe because I try to take seriously Jesus' admonition to be a peacemaker, maybe because I like what Theodore Roosevelt said ("Walk softly but carry a big stick and you will go far in the world," and I know of no bigger "stick" than the Word of God). For whatever combination of reasons, I agree that PRIDE (and I would specify self-pride and maybe a dose of egotism) are very likely culprits.

John

R. L. Vaughn said...

Lucy, I find your angst concerning my post(s) inexplicable. Perhaps the mention of Grudem is the cause. You write "Your scholars are backed by big money and promotion." I assume you mean Grudem (and whoever else I do not know). In fact, I had never read anything by Grudem (except perhaps a blurb quoted by someone else) until Friday March 21. Hardly "my scholar". Perhaps you also failed to note that the other links I gave are not "my scholars" either. These are all people who are discussing the word "kephale". Or on the other hand, all whose writings I have access to are "my scholars".

My original question to you was for you to direct us to some links for online reading of Greek scholars who have replied to Grudem -- which you brought up. I still don't understand the very negative response to that.

Now to your question to me. "...why wasn't a clear Greek word meaning authority over used?"

I don't know. Here are a few possibilities I can think of. (1) God didn't want it to be clear. (2) God wanted us to argue about it and divide over it. (3) God has hidden this from the "wise and prudent" and revealed it unto "babes". (4) God wanted the church to progress under a complementarian meaning for many years until they were at a point to be able to grasp an egalatarian meaning. (5) Because it doesn't mean 'authority over'. Again, I don't know.

I suppose we could also turn the question around to ask "...why wasn't a clear Greek word meaning 'source' used?" Why do you think God chose a word without a "clear meaning"?

Anonymous said...

rl, ignore the book I sourced where Grumden was forced to admit his error on Junia. No problem. believer333 gave you a link on some of Grumdens errors. I am uncomfortable sending people to scholars who have been lamblasted by the Pats and comps for so long.

I do not believe Kephale is a problem. Interpreting it as 'source' or 'origin' fits the context of the passage perfectly.

My point was that if it is to mean 'authority over' why not use exousia? Or even Arch?

At this point, we are talking past one another. Let's agree to disagree and still believe we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Lucy

Anonymous said...

Angst?

R. L. Vaughn said...

rl, ignore the book I sourced where Grumden was forced to admit his error on Junia.

I should, since that has nothing to do with what I originally asked you. I can only suppose that you sourced that to discredit Grudem's scholarship. All scholars I know make errors. I wouldn't expect that only the complementarian side has published things that are incorrect. BTW, several prominent Bible translations made the error of translating Junia as male. Yes, I did write "error". (For disclosure, I believe that Junia was a woman, but not that she was an apostle.)

As far as "scholars who have been lamblasted by the Pats and comps for so long," I don't know about that. I'll just have to take your word for it. That is evidently an issue for comps and egals who are moving in different circles than I (I move in very small primitive circles, or sometimes in larger circles with small contents). I have read some of both sides disputing the correctness of the other's interpretations, explanations, etc. I didn't take any of it as lambasting, but maybe that's just me. Some of them claim to be friends in "real life".

As you, I do not believe 'kephale' is a problem. It, like many words in many languages, has a semantic range of meaning that must be interpreted in context. When a context or an interpretation is disputed that causes people to take sides on which meaning the word has in a particular context.

I agree that we disagree, and probably will never see eye to eye -- and that has no bearing on our relationship in Christ. I have no reason to question whether you are a sister in Christ.

Anonymous said...

When Jesus spoke to Peter, He said three times "Feed My sheep", "Feed My Lambs", "Feed My Sheep". It seems to me that the objective is to FEED THE SHEEP!! Not "who" is to feed them. I live in a part of the world where there are women shepherds (of real sheep) and men shepherds. I don't think the sheep mind who takes them to pasture --- but they definitely WOULD mind if they don't get fed and starve to death! At judgement day, how many "starved sheep" are going to be on our hands? How many folks are going to hell because there is no one (women or men) to feed them the gospel of salvation?