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

And What Is It About Patriarchy That Scares Us?

For the last couple of years I have observed what I perceived to be professional mistreatment of women within the Southern Baptist Convention, all in the name of biblical patriarchy. Though I have no personal disagreement with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement that declares the office of pastor to be reserved for men, I have been puzzled by the removal of female chaplains and other women supervisors on the mission field, the lack of promotion of women to administrative positions in our SBC agencies, and the termination of SBC trained female Hebrew and history professors at our Southern Baptist seminaries. I have truly wondered about the root cause for such actions. What is the philosophical or theological premise that would lead some to exclude women from Southern Baptist positions for which they are either gifted, trained, or eminently qualified to hold?

Cindy Kunsman offered a possible rationale when she spoke at the 2008 Kansas City Evangelical Ministries to New Religions Conference, hosted by Midwestern Theological Seminary. The leaders called this year's conference Biblical Discernment and Apologetics in Missions: The Language of Hope and gave to Cindy Kunsman the opportunity to examine the rise of extreme patriarchal behaviors within groups claiming to be both evangelical and Christian. Her lecture, entitled The Development and Practice for Patriarchy: Cure for Cultural Decline or New Gnostic Disease?, included a pre-approved handout, a power point presentation, and a question answer time which followed.

Cindy is a complementarian herself. She states her personal beliefs on her blog where she writes:

Personally, I hold to a traditional, complementarian view wherein women . . . do not meet Biblical qualifications to be senior pastors or elders . . . but they certainly can minister as a members of pastoral staff(s).

The above statement is consistent with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. However, it is what Cindy said about the views of Southern Seminary's Dean of Theology Russel Moore, highly esteemed theologian and Southern Seminary professor Bruce Ware, The Council on Manhood and Womanhood and Paige Patterson that caused any reference to her presentation to be removed from the EMNR's website, a change in Executive Director leadership at EMNR, and a demand for disclaimers and retractions from Cindy.

The press release distributed by EMNR reveals the specific complaint against Cindy Kunsman:

Several people have contacted us regarding a presentation on "Christian Patriarchy" by Cynthia Kunsman at EMNRʼs national conference, held at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in March 2008. After reviewing her presentation, the board of EMNR and the administration of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary concur that Mrs. Kunsman made unwarranted and misinformed accusations against Christian teachers and ministries, including the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and agencies within the Southern Baptist Convention. While several aspects of the "Christian Patriarchy" movement (exemplified by Vision Forum) merit study and correction, in this instance the speakerʼs criticism of alleged "influences" on this movement was faulty.

Cindy said in her presentation that the Southern Baptist Convention, specifically Russ Moore, Bruce Ware, Paige Patterson, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have influenced the statement of faith, church practices, and strategies of Vision Forum Ministries and her controversial patriarchal pastor and leader Doug Phillips and the emphasis on Family Integrated Churches.

The Lecture That Caused The Controversy

Presenter Cindy Kunsman quoted from Dr. Russell Moore's 2007 lecture at the CBMW sponsored Different By Design Conference where Dr. Moore states complementarians who live like egalitarians are functionally open theists. A similar charge was made by Russell Moore two years earlier at the 2005 Evangelical Theological Society where he added an exhortation for why his listeners should defend patriarchialism: An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism. Though many Southern Baptists may not fully understand the basis for Professor Moore's statements, the essence of his argument is that the roles of women in society, not just the church, are essential to the gospel itself, and protects against any slide into theological liberalism. As Russ Moore stated in his ETS lecture, for Christians to show the world the gospel it "means specificity in terms of what complementarianism looks like in the present era."

Baptist Press reported in September 2007 on a conference hosted by Southwestern Theological Seminary, where SBC leaders sought to raise awareness of Baptist Identity by emphasizing the gospel through the normative family. The BP reported:

When the church's view of the family is awry, the Gospel is being falsely presented, theologian Russell Moore said during Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's third annual Baptist Distinctives Conference.

Also speaking on this year's theme -- "The Family: Reclaiming a Biblical View of the Family, Womanhood and Manhood" -- were Southwestern President Paige Patterson and Dorothy Patterson, professor of theology in women's studies; Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; Mark Liederbach, associate professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; and Tom Elliff, senior vice president of spiritual nurture and growth for the International Mission Board.

The family is a "Gospel issue," Moore said in his presentation, titled "Have Baptists Changed or Has Culture?: The Baptist View of the Family

The idea that the gospel is in danger when the 'normative' family is in danger is the same sentiment expressed by the controversial patriarchal pastor, and according to Cindy Kunsman, new Christian cult leader Doug Phillips, who on his Vision Forum Website gives The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. Pastor Phillips and Vision Forum were specifically discussed in Cindy's March lecture on 'New Cults' within Christianity, and as such, she quoted Pastor Doug Phillips:

The church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.

Cindy Kunsman expressed concern in her lecture that anyone would associate 'the gospel' with specific roles that women should play in society and the church. Further, she revealed several of the 'roles,' as envisioned by Doug Phillips, that women must take in order for the gospel to revealed. Some of those mandates for Christian womens' behavior in society and in the church include:

(1). Women are called by God to serve their patriarchs (fathers) until married when they will then serve their husbands.
(2). Women are not to speak in a church setting, but are to ask their husbands any questions they may have and remain silent in the presence of men.
(3). Women are not to work outside the home for any income, but are to be housewives and homemakers within the home.
(4). Women are never to teach a man anything, but are to learn from men in a quiet and submissive spirit.
(5). Women cannot have communion unless given to them by their husband or, in the case of an absent husband, an elder from a 'normative' family or, in rare cases, a mother can be served be her son if he (the son) is old enough to walk and carry the host and is present in worship with her.
(6). Women are to cover their heads as a sign of their 'submission' to their husbands and to God.
(7). Women are not to attend a university or any institution of higher learning for the purpose of pursuing a career.
(8). Women are not to vote, but are to let their husbands speak for them.
(9). Women are never, for any reason, to use birth control.
(10) Women are to respond to abuse in a quiet, gentle and submissive spirit.

Though a couple of the examples given above may be unfamiliar with most Southern Baptists, the majority could be taken from the headlines of Baptist Press these past ten years.

The Theological Foundation for This New Christian Cult

Again, it must be remembered that Cindy was lecturing this past March on the aberrant views of Doug Phillips, President of Vision Forum, and not the Southern Baptist Convention, whom she at no time in her presentation called aberrant or heretical. Yet, in attempting to find the theological source for the specificities of womens' roles held by Pastor Phillips, Cindy discovered roots in the beliefs and teachings of Civil War Presbyterian theologian R.L. Dabney, Southern Seminary Professor Bruce Ware (the chief theological defender of modern SBC patriarchy), Doug Phillip's friend Paige Patterson, Southern Seminary's Russ Moore, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It was Southern Baptist theologian Bruce Ware whom Cindy credits with articulating the theological basis for modern patriarchy, and whom she quoted at the conference. She stated objections in her lecture notes to at least three theological views held and taught by Dr. Ware, which she claims has influenced the 'specificities of women's roles' as held by Doug Phillip's Vision Forum Ministries.. (If you are uninterested in the theological basis for Phillip's aberrant views of womens' roles in society, skip to the next section where Doug Phillip's Southern Baptist ties are outlined).

(1). Man is created in the image of God directly, woman indirectly

"Man is the image of God directly, woman is the image of God only through the man… Because man was created by God in His image first, man alone was created in a direct and unmediated fashion as the image of God, manifesting then the glory of God in man, that is male man… If male headship is rooted in the image of God itself, then it isn’t just a functional distinction of how we work out. It really does mean we are made in a different way.It may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated and unilateral fashion, while the female was made image of God through the man and hence in a indirect, mediated and derivative fashion. So while they are both fully image of God, there is also a God intended priority given to the man as the original image of God through whom the woman, as image of God, derived from the male comes to be… Identity is rooted in priority given to the male… Her identity as female is inextricably tied to and rooted in the identity of the male… Her created glory is a reflection of the man’s… has her glory through the man. Seth is the image of God because he was born through the fatherhood of Adam. Specifically Adam is mentioned and not Eve. As Seth is born in the likeness and image of Adam, so is he born in the likeness and image of God. Male headship is a part of the very constitution of woman." Bruce Ware in his lecture Building Strong Families in Your Church

This theological belief, according to Cindy, causes some patriarchists to believe in 'the priesthood of believers,' but not the priesthood of every believer. Due to man bearing directly the image of God, the husband must be the priest of his wife, and the father of his daughter, for it is the prayers and leadership of the man that 'sanctify' the female. In short, only men, according the logical extension of some who hold to Ware's theology, can be priests unto God. This is why a woman who attempts to pray, teach, lead, or display spiritual authority 'in the presence of men' is forbidden to do so by some patriarchists.

(2). Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, and thus, Christians should only pray to, petition, and glorify the Father, for Jesus serves His Father's will, not His own.

The Son stands in a relationship of eternal submission under the authority of His Father… We’ll see and marvel at the fact that while the Father and Son are in a relationship marked by eternal authority and submission. We’ll see, in short, that the Son in fact is the eternal Son of the eternal Father, and hence, the Son stands in a relationship of eternal submission under the authority of His Father . . . What do we learn from this first account,? First, the very same Jesus who claims implicitly to be God (John 8:23) then proceeds to describe himself as doing nothing by his own authority speaking only what the Father teaches him, and in doing only and always what pleases the Father (vv 28-29)… As eternally divine and not of this world, he is God the Son, but as under the authority of his Father, and as the eternal Son of the Father, he is God the Son." (Pages 71, 74) Bruce Ware in his book From Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance

Cindy Kunsman stated in her lecture that Ware's belief in the eternal and ontological submission of the Son gives the basis for a woman submitting to the man in all things. Ware affirms only eternal 'funcational subordiation' and not ontological subordination. However, many take the concerpt of 'eternal submission' of Christ as the basis for the woman's submission to, and service for, the male - in speech, conduct, and lifestyle. To the hard-line idealogues who logically extend Ware's theology of the Son's eternal submission, female submission reflects the God of creation and restores creation to its pristine, orginal order, and reverses the curse. This view, according to Cindy, is similar to the views Christians in the south once held regarding 'slavery.' For some Christian leaders in the south, as recently as the 1950's, to give equal status to black people was thought to be contrary to the nature of God. As abolitionists were once called 'liberal,' so too, those Christians who promote the equality of women today are called 'liberal' because they threaten to undo the very nature of God. Thus, in Doug Phillips mind, anyone who does not follow his very specific rules for women (no birth control, modest dress, stay at home mom, no higher education, homeschooling kids, etc . . .) is undermining the very character of God.

(3). Jesus is not equal to the Father in authority. He never was nor ever will be. He comes from the Father, as the woman from the man, and is subordinate to the Father, as the woman is to the man.

"The Western church adapted the Nicene Creed to say, in its third article, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the son” (filioque) and not merely that he proceeds from the Father (alone). While I agree fully with this additional language, I believe that this biblical way of speaking, as found in John 15:26, (But when that Comforter shall come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth of the Father, he shall testify of me.), refers to the historical sending of the Spirit at Pentecost and does not refer to any supposed “eternal procession” of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. The conceptions of both the “eternal begetting of the Son” and “eternal procession of the Spirit” seem to me highly speculative and not grounded in biblical teaching. Both the Son as only-begotten and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father (and the Son) refer, in my judgment, to the historical realities of the incarnation and Pentecost respectfully.” Footnote 3 on Page 162, from Ware's book From Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance

Cindy believes this view may contradict historic Christianity and Scripture itself. Jesus said, "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:13), and "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" (John 14:14) which indicates there is no ontological, or eternal functional subordination to the Father.

Doug Phillips Ties to the Southern Baptist Convention

Doug's father, Howard Phillips, served in the Nixon Administration and was a director for The Council on National Policy. Serving with Howard in 1996 on the Council for National Policy were his son Doug, Southern Baptists Paige Patterson, Judge Paul Pressler, Judge Roy Moore, and others.

Remember that Cindy was speaking on a conference about new cults arising within Christianity, and specifically she expressed her concern with the direction of Vision Forum. Her premise was that Doug Phillips and Vision Forum have been heavily influenced theologically by a few Southern Baptists, but "the specificity in terms of what complementarianism looks like in the present era" (as Russell Moore calls it) were Vision Forums specificities and not necessarily the Southern Baptist Convention's.

Or are they?

Dorothy Patterson commends Doug Phillips book Passionate Housewives Desparate for God where women are called to stay home and not work. Doug Phillips himself speaks admiringly of Paige Patterson and the conference platform he shared with Dr. Patterson in May 2003, where the two men discussed the godliness of boys hunting, going to war, and women staying home to serve the men and children.

As Doug Philliips honors two women in his Wednesday, June 23, 2004 blog who abstained from birth control and gave birth to a total of 40 children, so too Dorothy Patterson writes on her own blog that abstinence from any artificial birth control is 'God's Plan' for women.

We could go on about Doug Phillips belief that women should not pursue graduate degrees for career purposes (but can pursue homemaking degrees such as those offered at SWBTS), and the belief that a woman must be absolutely silent regarding spiritual matters in the presence of men, and the unique 19th century dresses, hats and other modest clothing that women and girls are encouraged to wear (see here, here, and here) . . . but you get the drift.

Conclusion

Cindy Kunsman lives just outside Detroit. Her husband, Gary Kunsmen, Phd. is the chief forensic toxologist at the Oakland County Medical Examiner's Office. Cindy and Gary have been members of two churches that mistreated women because of extreme patriarchal views of the leaders within those churches. As stated, Cindy is a traditional complementarian but is concerned with a new brand of patriarchalism that is subjugating women in ways not seen since the 1700's. A friend of Cindy's has coined the word "Patriocentricity" to define this new movement. Cindy is concerned enough to research the subject, present her views on it, and at least discuss the issues with those who disagree.

She's not used to people reacting the way they did after her talk at Midwestern. I have two questions for those who have accused Cindy of Southern Baptists and their influence on the patriarchal movement across evangelicalism, specifically through leaders of Southern and Southwestern Seminaries. (1). Does the demand for a retraction from Cindy mean that some folks at these agencies within the Southern Baptist Convention are now seeing the potential dangers of a resurging patriarchal movement within evangelical circles? and, (2). Since when is an 'Academic Conference,' as was the EMNR Conference in March 2008 hosted by Midwestern Theological Seminary, subject to censorship? Would it not be more appropriate for a response to be given to Mrs. Kunsman's lecture than to act like it never happened?


Finally, if there are those who question how a solid, evangelical Southern Baptist theologian like Dr. Bruce Ware, or other Southern Baptists could ever be spoken of in the same breath as Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, let this be a lesson that just because someone articulates truths that may be taken and misused in 'specificities' does not necessarily mean the articulation of those theological views is necessarily wrong. In other words, just as complementarianism and Christian patriarchy do not automatically mean 'cultic,' neither does egalitarianism and equality necessarily always mean 'liberal.' On the other hand, we should always be on guard that we don't allow drifting toward extremism in any one particilar doctrine. Christians sometimes really do go off on tangents - both right and left.


In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

166 comments:

Richard D said...

Wade - Thank you for this synopsis of recent events and attempts at silencing dissenting opinion. I have been amazed at the ad-hominem, the vitriol, and the extreme lengths that these people are going to in order to silence any opposing opinions.

The fact that they do not attempt to defend their argument in the face of opposition but instead try to shut the mouths of those dissenters loudly proclaims to me that they have no defense, just a lot of bluster and anger.

I will link to this post on my blog.

thatmom said...

Pastor Burleson,

Thank you for being willing to address the issue of patriocentricity on your blog.

When men like Doug Phillips state that their own views of the roles of men and women are "presuppositional" and "part of the grand sweep of revelation" as they have, (those are quotes, see Doug Phillips' blog) they are setting the stage for behaviors just like Cindy Kunsman experienced. Who wants to question "presuppositional truth", especially when you can find your support for that "truth" among well-respected SBC leaders?

I had considered myself a complementarian but now find that label hijacked by name-callers. Because I believe that women can have their own callings from the Lord and daughters can attend college I am "an androgynous white-washed feminist." Because I believe that women can speak in the church under the authority of pastors or elders, much as Elisabeth Elliott has done for years, I have "joined the side of the enemy and am no longer a sweet, Christian homeschooling mother." The patriocentric voodoo is powerful and dispensed liberally.

And don't forget that SBC's own Voddie Baucham has lent his credibility to Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. His appearance on VF's Return of the Daughters DVD places him squarely in the middle of this mess.

Cindy said...

Oh Wade,

Just a couple of clarifications. I attended the same church (Grace OPC) with Doug Phillips, prior to his formally establishing of Boerne Christian Assembly in the San Antonio area. The Rev. Jack Peterson was my pastor there, and Doug suppposedly attended there but was rarely ever there for Sunday service. I never was under the care or the authority of Doug Phillips.

Also, about the birth control issue. This is complicated, I admit. Often in spiritually abusive or controlling settings, there are two kinds of rules: the official, written ones and the unwritten ones that are conveyed through unstated assumption, vague inference and those that are enforced by social pressure and social mentoring. So although Vision Forum formally states that they believe that birth control is not God's will for believers, they only "strongly discourage" it as stated in their literature, readily available in articles on www.visionforumministries.com. But in reality and as is consistent with the unwritten rules conveyed in spiritually abusive settings, anyone who does not follow the group ideal of birthing about eight children per family (listen to Phillips on sermon audio on patriarchy) through their "spiritual eugenics" that they call "militant fecundity" -- they suffer a high degree of negative reinforcement and social penalties for their non-compliance. These believers are not generally made to feel welcome in their "Family Integrated Churches."

I praise God for your stand for Biblical Truth that, through responsible hermeneutic, DOES NOT teach us that women are the appendage of their patriarch. Women are not saved and sanctified through mere men but only through the Atoning Blood of the Lamb, and the divine miracle of the transforming power of the Spirit and the Word of God.

God bless you, abundantly above and beyond I can ask or think! I believe and ask that God bless you for taking this stand for the Deity of Christ and the priesthood of ALL believers. (And for all the men and women who suffer under this type of spiritual abuse.)

Sola Deo Gloria!

Cindy said...

And don't forget that SBC's own Voddie Baucham has lent his credibility to Doug Phillips and Vision Forum.

And don't forget Wake Forest, NC's own Scott Brown, SBC minister, friend of the local SBC seminary and Director for Vision Forum Ministries' "National Center for Family Integrated Churches."

His local church is another veritable bastion of headcoverings, I'm told. I'm not sure if they wear headcoverings at his former church where he pastored, one that split over FIC madness.
www.ephesians511.wordpress.com

Disclaimer: My best friend wore hats to church for many years, and I supported her completely and deeply respected her desire be obedient to her convictions at the time, resulting from the teachings of the infamous Bill Gothard.

Chris Harbin said...

I wish I could be shocked by this account. Unfortunately, it just points to more of the endemic same turf protection and self-protection by men hungry for greater power and prominence.

How long?

K. Michael Crowder said...

Pastor Burleson,

Thank you so much for your willing to address this topic and for, your willing to stand up for the rights of women...

*gags self*

Although, the "I’m a little tea pot" photo of Patterson made me chuckle a bit.

God has truly blessed our convention to have serious scholars of such matters in the persons of Drs. Moore and Ware, et al.

Although this whole patriarchal system of society is in complete contrast to the biblical model of matriarchalism and whereas Eve was ultimately responsible for the sins of personkind and whereas the promise of God to Sarah was that through her seed the nations would be blessed, and where as Jesus’ (the incarnate child of the ‘heavenly parent’) exhortation in Matthew 5 to be the salt of the earth is really just paying homage to Lot's wife, and where as most women pastors have short hair and look like lesbians, be it resolved that I had better stop and get to my last Greek class of the semester. Woohoo!

David said...

To look at the two of them, it would seem no one could tell much difference by appearance between Doug Phillips' wife and one of the Fundamentalist Mormon Church women now making the national news. Maybe Phillips' group is interested in Central Texas acreage available next door to that Mormon cult group; their men can proclaim their aberrant theology from there while their women give birth in silence and submission to 20 children each?

I believe that the Fundamentalist leanings of the current Missouri Baptist Convention arise in part from the undue influence of a few who appear to hold many of the same beliefs have had on that state convention. Most Missouri Baptists didn't "get it" until the MBC was/is in the shape it is now. Caution is due, it appears.

NativeVermonter said...

Two quotes that caught my attention:

“The essence of his argument is that the roles of women in society, not just the church, are essential to the gospel itself.” Uh, yea, live for Christ…just like the fellers. The roles of BELIEVERS in society are essential to the Gospel itself.

“The idea that the gospel is in danger when the 'normative' family is in danger.” Yup, when the world sees our divorce rate, they rightly conclude that we don’t mean what we say. When the world sees our lifestyle, they rightly conclude that we don’t mean what we say. But for those who don’t live like they say, they probably aren’t doing much saying either…funny how that works.

John in St. Louis

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this information.

If the list of supposed truths in this blog about men and women hit our church, it would not get very far. Head coverings? Come on. You have got to be kidding me.

It is good to be aware of and watch movements like this, even though I believe this movement will not attract large numbers.

I cannot dissect or refute the various hard or dotted lines between Phillips and his list of doctrines and the people mentioned in the SBC, but we need to be really careful in understanding who is saying what. If Cindy was not careful in her speech and made connections that should not have been made, then a clarification or apology would be in order.

A good example in this article is the reference to the Council for National Policy, Howard Phillips and Paul Pressler, with the argument being, "Howard Phillips is the father of Doug Phillips, Howard Phillips is a member of the CNP, so is Paul Pressler, ergo - Paul Pressler = Doug Phillips!"

I know the post does not say that, but it is implied.

The Council for National Policy (I am not a member) is supposed to have lots of members with lots of differing views on different topics. One of my clients is a water utility, and I recently watched the speech of someone on the national council who believes that the flouridation of water is an international plot to cause disease, lower birth rates and control the population. But just because that guy believes that doesn't mean others in the group do.

In other words, let's don't do what so many people do with connecting things that should not be connected.

For sure, if Pastor Phillips wants to promote head coverings, let him go for it, and we can debate the issue.

But let's be really careful about being too quick to draw lines and make connections that may not be justified.

Louis

jensgems said...

Wade, thank you for an extremely informative and interesting article. As one who was intimately involved in the patriarchy movement and who sat under Doug Phillips’ teaching and authority for five years before being (unbiblically) excommunicated by him, I think I can offer a few additional insights here. While I am certainly extremely concerned about the current patriarchy movement, I have also been concerned about the recent trend to use the logical fallacy of guilt by association, especially when used to connect dots that truly may not exist in the same picture.

For example, let’s look at these three statements by Bruce Ware:

1. Man is created in the image of God directly, woman indirectly.

2. Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, and thus, Christians should only pray to, petition, and glorify the Father, for Jesus serves His Father's will, not His own.

3. Jesus is not equal to the Father in authority. He never was nor ever will be. He comes from the Father, as the woman from the man, and is subordinate to the Father, as the woman is to the man.

While I am adamantly opposed to these statements, and think it is right for Cindy Kunsman to speak out against these direct quotes, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Bruce Ware, and these statements, have not influenced Doug Phillips in his teachings on patriarchy. This is not an accurate association.

I also do not believe that Doug Phillips has been influenced by Russell Moore or CBMW. CBMW is far too liberal in Doug’s thinking and he has sought to distance himself from them until my story about his ecclesiastical abuse came out and many people took a strong stance against Vision Forum’s brand of patriarchy. At that point, he made a weak attempt to state that his parents were complementarians, but that he promotes patriarchy.

While the SBC and Vision Forum may both embrace a form of patriarchy, I can tell you that they are so far apart that they surely cannot be considered to be in the same camp. However, there are at least two significant ties that Doug Phillips does have within the SBC camp and that is with Paige Patterson and Scott Brown. Doug Phillips was (still is?) on a board of directors with Paige Patterson and one other person for quite a while. That board represented a Vision Forum-related patriarchy group. Also, Scott Brown, the director of Vision Forum’s National Center for Family Integrated Churches, is an adjunct professor at the SBC university in Wake Forest, NC. Scott Brown is one of Doug Phillips’ closest friends.

In looking at Cindy Kunsman’s list of those who influenced Doug Phillips’ thinking, Dabney is certainly one of his greatest influences, as Doug would speak of him and quote him often. Also, Doug’s father, Howard Phillips, has had more influence on him than perhaps anyone else. Paige Patterson is directly associated with Doug, although I don’t believe he has had much influence on Doug’s brand of patriarchy. However, as far as I am aware, and I knew Doug Phillips and his teachings very well, neither Russell Moore nor Bruce Ware, and certainly not CBMW, have influenced Doug Phillips and Vision Forum in their version of patriarchy.

While I am sure that Cindy had many important things to present in her lecture, I am equally concerned about her propensity for connecting dots in this movement that simply do not exist. I appreciate the direct quotes by both Ware and Phillips, but to juxtapose them upon patriarchy in general only muddies the waters in our attempts to expose this extra-biblical movement. I would rather have seen her address either Ware or Phillips, but not to try to put them together in the same lecture, as I do not see them as being united in purpose.

jensgems said...

Louis, Doug Phillips does not believe in head coverings.

thatmom said...

Since I first started reading things published by CBMW, my impression is that they have moved further down the Richter scale toward patriocentricity. Take, for example, the essay by Wayne Grudem where he had a long list of things that he believed women could do within church ministry and still be considered to be orthodox. That list included things like a woman speaking in a church setting to both men and women. James Boice and J.I Packer were listed as those who held to that position and were still considered orthodox.

But now it would not be allowed by many who are either influenced by Ware, Mohler, Phillips, the Bayly brothers, etc. or by those whom these patriocentrists have influenced.

I think it is very difficult to determine who is influencing whom and on what levels. However, if Phillips quotes various ones of these men on his blog,including leaders in the SBC, obviously they are influencing him.

One other note...this is not some johnny-come-lately movement that has reared its ugly head during the last few years, as Jen implied. I have watched it grow since the mid-1980's, know many people who have sought to expose it for what it is for more than a decade, and watched it pick up steam after the Y2K debacle left them needing a new rallying point.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Burleson,

Where does one even begin with this?

The incredible number of factual inaccuracies in Mrs. Kunsman's presentation? The fact that, for example, she is apparently not even able to articulate the difference between Federal Vision and Vision Forum? Do you find youself in agreement with Mrs. Kunsman's attack on the belief that, at least from a Christian's pespective, marriage is normative? She is presenting a seminar on "new religious movements" as though male headship and the normativity of marriage are cultic.

And Mr. Burleson, why didn't you mention Wayne Grudem in your post, since Grudem is mentioned in the presentation? (Perhaps Sam Storms can answer that question.)

Does it bother you, Mr. Burleson, a five-point Calvinist who affirms unconditional election and limited atonement, that Mrs. Kunsman believes that these aspects of Calvinism are "a sick Christian version of karma" (http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post.html)? Perhaps she cast a spell on you, since she is a trained hypnotherapist and all (http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-twisted-calvinism-election-as.html).

This post could provide the forum for discussion about the actual merits of, for example, Russell Moore's tying of complementarianism to the gospel itself (Christ pursued the church and not the other way around, Eph 5) or Bruce Ware's work on the eternal functional (not ontological) subordination of the Son to the Father (a belief held by nearly every other Christian throughout the history of the church, for John tells us, for example, that Christ was sent to do the will of the Father). Or the fact that merely asserting that Paige Patterson and Doug Phillips are friends does not, in and of itself, prove one thing.

Or the fact that Mrs. Kunsman believes that complementarians are arguing for an "uber-Adam." She's right. We even know his Name, and it's Jesus of Nazareth (Rom 5).

But, for discussions such as these, perhaps I need to go elsewhere. And besides, around here, the parameters seem just a bit too narrow for me.

Phillip

Anonymous said...

Sorry. The last comment was posted by me, Phillip Bethancourt. (It didn't include my last name.)

Wade Burleson said...

JensGems,

Thank you for your comment. I agree. All Christians should be very careful in writing off other Christians because of 'guilt' by associaton.

When I listened to Cindy's lecture via video, I did not one time hear a critical statement of the Southern Baptist Convention because of Doug Phillip's specificities regarding women, but rather, a concern that the theology articulated by Bruce Ware (which you acknowledge) was forming the basis for views held by men 'like' Doug Phillips.

Whether or not Doug Phillips has been influenced by Southern Baptists is open for debate, but there is no doubt that he is well acquainted with, and practices some of the same 'specificities' regarding women, that a handful of our SBC leaders practice.

Our Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Seminary, Southwestern Seminary and other SBC agencies are doing some great work. The point of this post is we must be careful on how far we go to the right on women's issues, and not be afraid to be challenged by people who may suggest we are going to far to the right.

Thankfully, we are NOT as extreme as Doug Phillips. I'm not waiting around till we are before I say anything.

Steve said...

Wade,

I still recall the time we first watched our dog birth pups. That was entertaining and a little scary.

Many people watch the science TV shows that focus on the birth of a new island out in the ocean.

We seem to have ringside seats at the birth of a new religion that we can tell our grandchildren about years from now.

The involvement of Paige Patterson, Judge Paul Pressler, Judge Roy Moore, Voddie Baucham and others with this "patriocentric voodoo" (great phrase!) should embarrass and alarm non-cultic Southern Baptists.

The clue that this is becoming a cult is, as always, how this man-made line of thinking misrepresents Jesus Christ. Will we be seeing a New Book that has to go along with the Bible from this bunch to explain all the places where the Bible got it wrong, like with Huldah, Deborah, the Woman at the Well, etcetera?

Wade Burleson said...

Phillip,

I am aware at Cindy's statements regarding Reformed theology, and though I believe in the doctrines of grace myself, I have no objection to Cindy articulating her views. She is more than entitled to her opinion and I respect it and am not threatened by them. I would be more than happy to fellowship with her as a sister in Christ, and were she in our area, we would love for she and her husband to be a part of our church, even though she vehemently disagrees with my soteriology.

Further, I agree with you that Dr. Ware prefers the nomenclature 'functional subordination' rather than 'ontological subordintation.' The debate, however, revolves around the 'eternal submission' of Christ, whatever the nomenclature, and whether Ware's 'eternal submission' makes Christ lesser in glory, lesser in honor, and lesser in functional equality than the Father.

And, it is a debate - with nobody having all the answers.

Finally, I also agree that Cindy is in error in several things she presents and believes. So are you. So am I. So is Dr. Ware. We are human. The issue for me is the inability to address issues of concern within the Southern Baptist Convention BEFORE they turn into problems like those at Vision Forum.

The Southern Baptist Convention needs to cherish dissent, debate and dialogue before the death of dissent means the death of a denomination built by dissenters.

Anonymous said...

Patriocentic voodoo in a developing Baptist Identity Cult.

Never a more descriptive phrase have I heard about what I see going on around me. I would sign my name, but I am emplyed by the emerging cult.

Thank God for the courage and grace of men like Wade Burleson.

Anonymous said...

Be careful, Wade. Doug Phillip's beliefs and business are one in the same. He does not ignore any bad publicity and usually threatens to sue people who dare question his practices.

His income and his 'religion' are one and the same. He makes his living selling Patriarchy as a lifestyle. And he is very well connected politically. People are afraid of him and should be.

Anon for good reason

Robert Garvin said...

Wade, I don't think that anything about Patriarchy itself should be scary. The thought of a Christ-led loving protective servant-leader husband-father is something that no Christian should find scary.

I think the problem isn't Patriarchy but the corrupt-hearted egomaniacs the movement has attracted. A crop of carnival barkers with "short-little-man syndrome" like Doug Phillips and RC Sproul Jr saw an opportunity to make a fast buck, and they gett to lord it over others to boot. It's gone rapidly down the tubes from there.

Rather than offering Patriarchy as a personal family choice it became "central to the gospel." Inevitably though we discover that such legalists are themselves very corrupt and abusive men. RC Sproul Jr was defrocked for ecclesiastical tyranny and tax fraud. Doug Phillips can't be defrocked because he's a non-ordained self-appointed non-accountable "pastor" in charge of what looks far more like a cult than an actual church. Doug Phillips is allegedly quite a charlatan, bilking his Vision Forum customers with various scams.

Given good leadership the Patriarchy movement might have actually become something that honored Christ. Under present leadership it's just an abomination.

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous,

I can assure you my sole concern is that the Southern Baptist Convention stop becoming more and more like Vision Forum. I am both accustomed to, and uaffected by, threats.

Wade Burleson said...

Robert Garvin,

You may be surprised, but I agree more than you realize.

However, I have enough experience to know that most Southern Baptists sit by and do nothing untiil it is too late.

The issue to me is not patriarchy. The issue is the abuses of some who hold to patriarchy and the charge by patriarchists that it is impossible to be a sincere, Bible-believing, Christ honoring church or individual without believing exactly like they do in the specificiites of their theology.

Wade Burleson said...

ThatMom,

Interesting observation. I almost said 'keen' but I am going to go back and look for myself before I bestow that adjective.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Once again, I see with clarity the issues before us. I read certain bloggers who only talk about Baptist Identity and I wonder 'whose/ identity wins out. Now I am beginning to realize that the narrower you define 'Baptists' the more specific "Identity" you can carry. Frankly, reading some of the Identity people, I'm not sure I want to be a part. I was watching the news the other day and I saw the women in the patriarchal cult in Texas. They looked odd. They all talked the same, looked the same, and acted the same. They had a peculiar identity caused by inbreeding.

My dad was a farmer. He always used to tell me you had to introduce new bulls in the farm herd every so often to keep the genetics from mutating because of too much inbreeding. Without the new bulls, disease, deformity and eventually destruction of the herd will occur. I now realize the same principle applies to Southern Baptists. We must be very, very careful that we don't continue to exclude people who don't believe like the 'Baptist Identity' leaders, talk like the "Baptist Identity' leaders, and act like the 'Baptist Identity' leaders in the SBC. If we do continue to separate, isolate and excommunicate, we are going to wake up one day and realize we are a Baptist Identity Cult.

Like Anonymous above, I thank the good Lord for the introduction of a few new bulls in the SBC herd.

Fred Jenkins
Life-long Southern Baptist
Florida

Wade Burleson said...

I'm off for ministry and afternoon golf. I will be unable to respond until later tonight.

Cindy said...

I just wanted to remind those reading here that the lecture that I presented was not specifically focused on Doug Phillips but gave an overarching perspective of a very diverse group of different beliefs and practices. I did use Phillips and Vision Forum as a prototypical example for the general practices within patriarchy. The growing popularity of head coverings is so well documented within the FIC, something that I actually didn't mention specifically in the lecure BTW, I believe that it eventually found its way into the discussion.

The subordinationist concept (a modifier that Dr. Ware denies is applicable to his views) was listed within the lecture as one of many influences on the development of the non-monolithic patriarchy. Kevin Giles traces the many of the same trends that I do in the lecture, and I believe that citing Giles thesis is the source of much of this controversy. Giles' writings connect many more dots than I did, including the connections to the pro-slavery arguments and the sanctification of women as a consequence and logical conclusion of ontological subordination.

It's also instructive to note that Federal Vision's subordination is nearly identical to Dr. Ware's concepts. As many individuals associated with Federal Vision have been cited for plagiarism, this might be something to notice as well. And the connections between and among groups like the Constiution Party, ETS, CBMW and others is well documented, and many patriocentrists cite these works, but Doug Phillips had done so as well, since that is of interest to some. Many of the discussion threads on Jen's Gems diercted me directly to some of these groups that are suggested to be unrelated to patriarchy. I wholeheartedly disagree as does Giles that the subordinationists have not had a primary theological impact on patriocentricity.

The lectures are available online and the bibliography and some weblinks are available at www.undermuchgrace.com for those who wish to view them and investigate some of these things further. The connections are very well documented, otherwise I would not have offered them and placed the sources online. In fact, I primarily intended to offer an overview so that people could more easily find resources that they could investigate on their own.

The primary issue of concern regarding the disclaimer surrounded Bruce Ware's material which I directly quote in the lecture and offer one comment from Giles regarding subordinationism in general.

Lin said...

The dots do connect that there are those in the SBC who WANT and promote a slide toward Patriarchy in the SBC.

I have been reading it myself from both Moore and Ware. I am seeing it in action from Patterson.

Here is a seemingly sublte quote from this Henry Institute article "After Patriarchy, What?" by Moore:

"We must instead relate male headship to the whole of the gospel. And, in so doing, we must remember that complementarian Christianity is collapsing around us because we have not addressed the root causes behind egalitarianism in the first place"

1. Male headship must be related to the whole Gospel? As in men are god and women are to be like Christ? How does this work? How in the world do we go from a few proof texts to this whole new religion of male headship (Patriarchy) for all women? Does this mean that only women have an earthly priest?

2. An egalitarian to Moore could be a woman who witnesses to men. It could be Lottie Moon or Eliz Elliott. Or even Beth Moore because she stands in 'pulpits'.

The Holy Priesthood is dead to these men. Everything in the Gospel has 'gender' connotations and gender roles for them.

Jesus taught and practiced something very different from what these men are teaching.

Cindy said...

she is apparently not even able to articulate the difference between Federal Vision and Vision Forum?

I certainly can articulate the difference. Did the person making the comments here actually watch the lectures? Douglas Wilson of Federal Vision fame espouses many of the same ideas of the patriocentrists, though their conduct standards are not as rigid as other groups like those who follow Vision Forum. Wilson has a flavor of emergent church, but all the patriocentrists share the sacerdotalism and the basic view of subordinationism. In practice, I'd rather follow Federal Vision, but I would much rather follow the more traditional, basic theology of Vision Forum. Both groups love the neo-Confederate idealism. They both observe theonomy. Federal Vision supports paedocommunion and some of the FIC practices, etc. All of these groups believe that it is men who govern or participate in the sanctification of their wives.

Anonymous said...

lin,

Wow. That's all I can say.

Wow. Thanks for your comment.

My eyes are open.

Anonymous said...

What scares me the most about Patriarchy is that it is 'man' centered and not 'Christ centered'.

Think about it. Patriarchy is simply about what human is in charge of others.

Lucy

Cindy said...

Lovely pejoratives!

I would love for people to read the "Calvin as karma" post on my blog. Since the passing of men like Rousas Rushdoony, and with the advent of Y2K, there has been a new, virulent strain of Calvinist out there that would say to the lost that they should get what they deserve and offer no evangelism to them. Limited atonement is seen largely as some kind of an excuse to hate the lost and as Doug Wilson states, we should pray that the heads of the heathen should be crushed upon the rocks, that the unborn of the heathen die and that we should basically rejoice that the children of the heathen lay naked and starving in the streets. That's Calvinism turned into some karma-like sick type of cause and effect, very typical of the patriocentrics.

And considering my 12 year study of thought reform and my nursing experience, focused on acute and chronic pain management, pharmacology and analgesia, hypnotherapy was a very helpful continuing education pursuit. It actually helped liberate me from much of the Word of Faith dogma and I found the principles of hypnotherapy basically identical to those of Word of Faith. A European trained mesmerist named
Quimby worked with Mary Baker who took those principles and formed Christian Science. Kenyon took Mary Baker Eddy's work and injected the Word of God into it and learing all of this helped me understand the problematic doctrines of the Word of Faith movement. Hypnotherapy is essentially the Pentecostal movement that I grew up within in the Assemblies of God with Jesus extracted.

I was also blessed to have been permitted to refuse regression therapy. The theory that I learned has helped me understand the thought reform process and cultic dynamic on a more objective level. Given my Pentecostal upbringing, it was a great blessing to understand the scientific aspects of much of what I experienced growing up.

I'm also grateful, for I learned many techniques that allow me to help manage my own chronic pain without medication through simple, progressive relaxation.

Robert said...

For those who read Lin's comment above, here is a link to the paper she referenced, a paper delivered at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in 2005, and which was published in a subsequent edition of JETS.

http://henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf

http://www.henryinstitute.org/commentary_read.php?cid=149

The readers can see for themselves whether or not Lin's quote was taken out of context (as she didn't provide a link), and whether or not the two conclusions she draws from the quote are even alluded to in the paper.

Lucy, Yes, Christian patriarchy is man-centered, as is all of Christian theology, depending on which Man of which you speak (Eph 1:9-10).

Anonymous said...

Warning to patriarchs, this comment written by a woman.

Who are the "us" that "patriarchy scares"? Obviously not many of the commenters! It certainly scares a lot of women.

TV has been full of pictures of the women taken from the Fundamentalist LDS compound in Texas in their pioneer-woman-style clothes. An interviewee spoke of how they are required to dress and wear their hair and other restrictions. Obviously this is an extreme, but the idea is there. Patriarchy, in their beliefs ans in older times included multiple wives for men. Do the Baptist believers in this want to return to this idea as well? (Of course, then they couldn't be pastors or deacons, but I guess they could still teach in seminaries, or could they?) There are several things that would commend this practice, especially to men (there are a few benefits to women as well, though they are strongly outweighed by the disadvantages), but I will not list them for fear of offending delicate minds with some of them. Those less easily offended can probably think of them on your own.

Genesis 1:27 says both male and female were created in God's image. Did Jesus only come to save males? He sent women to be the first to proclaim his resurrection. I guess the male disciples were only being good patriarchs when they didn't believe the women's message.

Either women are human or not. All else follows from that idea. If women are fully human then egalitarian is the norm. If women are lesser creatures (like people not of the white race were considered to be in earlier times) then a lot of things that are presently practiced even by complementarians are wrong.

If you are a male reader who has read this comment, thank you.

Susie

NativeVermonter said...

…there has been a new, virulent strain of Calvinist out there that would say to the lost that they should get what they deserve and offer no evangelism to them. Limited atonement is seen largely as some kind of an excuse to hate the lost…

Cindy could you maybe use a bigger brush to paint us with? I’m afraid whatever your experiences have been with those who claim to follow the Doctrines of His Marvelous Grace have left you rather embittered (no offense to Mr. Obama). And such verbiage hardly lends to taking your other points more seriously.

Lin said...

Robert, thanks for providing the link. I simply forgot to put it in.

Taken out of context? That is his context. To him, the Gospel revolves around male headship. This is simply ONE example of Moore's teaching on this subject.

I agree with Lucy. Patriarchy is "man" (little m) centered. And not Christ centered.

Anonymous said...

I can think of some things about patriarchy that really scare me. Or at least some things about Doug Phillips' version of patriarchy are big time scary. There's a very dark and creepy side to it, including daddy shaving contests. Major "icky" factor about all that.

Anonymous said...

"If women are fully human then egalitarian is the norm. If women are lesser creatures (like people not of the white race were considered to be in earlier times) then a lot of things that are presently practiced even by complementarians are wrong."

Susie, the teaching goes like this and it sounds eerily close to 'separate but equal':

Women are totally 'equal' to men but 'different' in roles (which means UNequal). Somewhere in the NT is a list of specific condoned roles for women but no one can point them out to me. As a matter of fact, quite a bit of scriptural examples of women prophesying in front of men has to be ignored to have these beliefs.

Mr. Ware tells us this belief is correct because women are not made in the direct image of God but in the INdirect image. We are a 'derivative' of man. Eve is responsible for sin that enter the world and seduced Adam into sinning. So, ALL women for ALL time are more easily deceieved for all time.

This kind of begs the question that most false teaching has come through men throughout history.

Patriarchy is simply an excuse to elevate themselves and lord it over others. It has NOTHING to do with the NC. It is pride based with a captial P and has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ who told us not to lord it over others...repeatedly.

Nevermind the fact that the word 'Head' can be debated as meaning 'authority over' in that passage from now until Jesus comes back. It is not conclusive that was the intended meaning at all. If it were why use a word like Kephale? Why not use a word that is quite clear such as Arch or exousia? As a matter of fact, 'Source' or 'Origin' fits very nicely into those passages.

Every cult has to have someone to lord it over. In this case, it is simply twisting scripture to have a group to lord it over.

It amazes me that with the whole of scripture and the Gospel message this is what these men focus on as the most important thing in Christedom.

Lucy

b. woodward said...

Cindy,

I am a man, and I read your comment. I think you are a person of value to God, to your family, and your church. Thanks for posting your thoughts and I hope my follow-up is helpful in your walk with Jesus and life among other Christians.

As a complementarian, I don't accept your dichotomy that men and women are either 1)both human and therefore equal in role or else 2)not equal in role and therefore not equally human. Any completementarian or patriachist who suggests the later is in sin.

We see that humans can be BOTH 1) equal in humanity and 2) unequal in authority in the parent-child relationship. God commands sons to obey their mothers, yet this doesn't make children less-than-human!! Would egalitarians suggest then that children are equal in authority to their parents?? Why then is there so much flak over restating what the Scriptures say that "wives should submit to their husbands" without also rejecting "children obey your parents?"

Well, there is a reason for this: the sins of fathers and husbands. Men who subjugate, violate, manipulate and dehumanize women are evident in our society and even in our churches. But this is NEVER what the mainstream complementarians advocate (Grudem, Piper, Mahaney, Ware). Instead the goal is Eph 5: "husbands love your wives AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH." To equate complementarianism with the Fundy LDS church is terribly offensive because the vision is (personally and for the church) to see self-sacrificial, servant-loving, COMPLETELY FAITHFUL husbands of one wife - NOT polygimistic, raping, beating men shown leading the F-LDS church.

My two conclusions: 1) hatred towards the violence against women is just as natural, if not MORE, to complementarianism as it is to egalitarianism, and 2) complementarianism finds that women are just as human as men.


PS - I know nothing about Doug Phillips or the VF so he's not included in my consideration of complementarianism.

Cindy said...

Cindy could you maybe use a bigger brush to paint us with? I’m afraid whatever your experiences have been with those who claim to follow the Doctrines of His Marvelous Grace have left you rather embittered (no offense to Mr. Obama). And such verbiage hardly lends to taking your other points more seriously.

Native Vermonter,

I did not state that these comments applied to all Calvinists or all Reformed but those who violate Scripture by showing distain and discrimination, etc. We are called to bless those who curse us and show kindness and compassion to all. The "virluent strain" of those who take election and turn it into Karma are like those who believe we should stone wayward teens and those like Wilson who believe that we should not show love and ministry to the children of the heathen. And what of angels unawares?

Does that make sense to you? I was commenting about those people who delight in death and destruction and discipline and revenge, not the believer that walks in the Spirit, bearing the fruit of the Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Cindy could you maybe use a bigger brush to paint us with? I’m afraid whatever your experiences have been with those who claim to follow the Doctrines of His Marvelous Grace have left you rather embittered (no offense to Mr. Obama). And such verbiage hardly lends to taking your other points more seriously.

Fri Apr 18, 12:39:00 PM 2008

native,

How is it painting with a broad brush to point out a 'strain' of Calvinism that believes in imprecatory prayers and teaches this doctrine? It exists. Check it out. Check out the teachings of Doug Wilson and RC Sproul, Jr. There is some creepy stuff out there and we should point it out.

A lot of people screamed when "Ligonier Tales" was quoted where RC Sproul, Jr. referred to the rich woman who put up the funding for Ligoneir as a 'white witch'. Not once but several times in his 'memoirs', Ligoneir Tales.

Why were they so upset that RC Sproul, Jr. was quoted verbatim? He put this memoir online. (He took it down when Ligoneir filed a lawsuit against a blogger).

That is what you are doing here. You are accusing Cindy instead of checking out the teaching which is an insult to the Doctrines of His wonderful Grace. It is there. She is simply quoting it.

Check it out before you impugn her character.

Lucy

Anonymous said...

Understood Cindy, and from one Calvinist to one who is not . . .

I agree.

Anonymous said...

Lucy, just so people don't think you're making this stuff up, here's a link to RC Sproul Jr's Ligonier Tales. Just another dark example of the dark side of the patriarchy thing.

Cindy said...

b woodward wrote: As a complementarian, I don't accept your dichotomy that men and women are either 1)both human and therefore equal in role or else 2)not equal in role and therefore not equally human. Any completementarian or patriachist who suggests the later is in sin.

This is not my dichotomy but the directly from the teachings of some of the complementarians. It is, certainly not all, but some of the complementarians that state that women are of lesser essence than man and not able to fully bear the Word of God effectively because of a lesser essence. I'm not the one that makes all these assumptions and comments about roles. This comes from Bruce Ware and others.

My problem with the specific concepts where patriocentrists and some complementarians overlap are those which relegate women to a lesser type of humanity that can only be realized through a man, a teaching straight from Ware and others like John MacArthur.

I take issue when the Trinity is compromised in order to support some of these gender issues or when women are denied the priesthood of the believer.

I don't deny male headship, nor do I resist submission to my husband as my single weding vow to him was to submit myself unto him as unto the Lord! But I submit out of great love and in faithfulness to my vow to him and not out of fear or some authoritarian directive because I am a lesser creature.

Anonymous said...

Warning! comment by woman.

Lucy, it seems Jesus said his followers were not to lord it over others. Of course he had the audacity to send women to proclaim his resurrection to the male disciples so maybe what he said doesn't count. That certainly wasn't a proper thing to do in a time when women were not accepted as witnesses in court.

As for the question of why these men focus on subordination of women as the most important thing, maybe it's like you said, they want someone to lord it over. I think the Bible teaches humility - for everyone - but that's no fun. Maybe they can't feel good about themselves unless they can feel superior to someone else. Women make a handy target.

Susie

Doug said...

Wade,
Thank you once again for an informative posting. This post illustrates to me why blogging (i.e. free and unfettered speech) is so important. Very few SBC'ers would ever know of this academic arguement if it were not for bloggers like yourself who are willing to "tell the rest of the story", although some don't want to hear it unless it lines up with their preconcieved convictions.

I have often wondered why their seems to be almost a "mania" (or "phopia") from some about women in ministry. It never made any sense to me, even if you agree with the BFM2000. Now I have a clearer understanding of their arguement. It is only when we understand another's reasoning that we can have an intelligent debate (instead of simple name-calling).

Although I referred to this as an "academic arguement", it has very real consquences for us personally (especially women), for our ministiries and witness in the world. We in the SBC had better sit up and listen, or one day, our headquarters will be moving to a "compound in Waco"!!

ALSO, I was shocked your assertion that Dorothy Patterson believed that "abstinence from any artifical birth control is 'God's Plan' for women." I had to read the link for myself (risking the chance of being taught by a woman!). It was not easy reading. I felt it could have been signed by the Pope! Is she really teaching this to the women in one of our seminaries?!

Tom from Indiana said...

Twenty to thirty years ago when someone delivered an address at, for instance, a Christian Life Commission conference or a seminary sponsored conference those who objected to the content of the address tended to call for the heads of the conference organizers. As far as I can recall, though, the conference organizers did not censor the printed address or withhold it from the public.

Now, it seems, the proper response is to withhold or censor the address of Cindy Kunsman or the sermon of one like Dwight McKissic and hold no one other than the speaker responsible without allowing that individual's voice to be heard.

I don't think either of those responses is ideal. It seems to me, if you don't want to provide a platform for someone's view, you shouldn't invite them. But if you do invite them, their address ought to be a matter of public record.

But then again, I think a free press is a good idea as well.

Kelli said...

Can someone please fill me in on Gary DeMar (American Vision)? Is he part of the Patriarchy movement too? I ask because we just found out that he's speaking at an upcoming R.C. Sproul, Jr. Highlands Study Center conference. We've really enjoyed Gary's ministry and can't figure out why he'd associate himself with a nut like Sproul. We'd hate to have to drop our support for American Vision. I'm just hoping that Gary has been too busy to have the time to check all this out himself. Has anybody tried to warn Gary?

NativeVermonter said...

Lucy to John: "Check it out before you impugn her character."

If that's how it came out then I do indeed apologize. In regards to the ligonier stuff, no one is immune to the fight with sin...regardless of your theology. And it's good that these things are pointed out because any of us can fall at any moment and it only makes us humble at the Cross.

thatmom said...

One doesn't have to go too far down the patriocentric path to find evidence of Cindy's assertions of Calivinist Karma.

Take, for example, Doug Phillips' newest promotion, the 200 Year Multi-Generational Vision for Families. Here is a list of the 7 prayers for families:

Prayer #1: That the Lord would save the souls of all of our children early in life, and that none would be lost.

Prayer #2: That our children would be faithful covenant-keepers with the God of their fathers.

Prayer #3: That God would send blessed, well-suited, Christ-loving spouses to our progeny, and that there would be no divorce for 200 years.

Prayer #4: That our children would continue to home educate their own children, following the Biblical/Hebrew model for discipleship.

Prayer #5: That God would bless the wombs of our daughters and daughters-in-law, with a multitude of covenant-keeping children, who will be mighty in the land.

Prayer #6: That God would bless and make fruitful the dominion labors of the family in all of its generations.

Prayer #7: That our children will honor their fathers and mothers, and be faithful to the godly and applicable visions their fathers give to them.

When I read those, my initial reaction is positive. Would would oppose these? But when you see what is missing, it tells you all you need to know about his views of the lost. Where is there any mention of caring for the widows and orphans, what the Bible tells us is "pure and undefiled religion?" Where do they mention the great commission? What about training our children in obedience to the one anothers of Scripture? Where is there any mention whatsoever of world missions?

Then if you peruse the VF books, you soon learn that the paradigm is very clearly defined and that anyone functioning outside of an Americanized, patriocentric worldview is "non-normative" and as such isn't too useful within the 200 year plan.

For the record, I am a tired and true t-point Calvinist and have a heart for missions and mercy ministries.

thatmom said...

Oops, that should have read 5-point Calvinist.....I hope no one thought there was some brand new label for Calvinists being tossed about!

Anonymous said...

kelli,

Gary DeMar is just about as "nutty" as S.C. Sproul, jr.
He knows what he is doing.

Anonymous said...

In regards to the ligonier stuff, no one is immune to the fight with sin...regardless of your theology. And it's good that these things are pointed out because any of us can fall at any moment and it only makes us humble at the Cross.

Fri Apr 18, 02:19:00 PM 2008

native, We are talking about 'professional Christians' who make their living teaching others, selling books, conferences and literature to promote certain extra biblical beliefs even when their orthopraxy does not fit their orthodoxy.

My question to you is: When does the 'falling' level off by these professional 'clergy' and we see public repentance? They are most certainly holding others accountable except themselves.

Which is why it is dangerous to put biblical authority into titles conferred by men. Jesus Christ is our authority.

Lucy

Jack said...

"The advance of feminism and the marginalization of men are beginning to manifest in unexpected places. Several articles have appeared recently focusing on the American University. The prestigious Chronicle of Higher Education in its January 26, 2007, edition ran a story on "The New Gender Divide."

Nearly sixty percent of college and university students in America are now female.

One can rejoice in this availability of education for members of the fairer sex without missing the obvious: In a few years men will increasingly be underrepresented among the intelligentsia and will gradually cede leadership in many areas to women. And most of these women ascending to these new roles will maintain major focus on a career and not on the family and the children. As one woman remarked:

"Bearing a new liberated identity, many women have devoted themselves to ambitious busyness everywhere but in the home. They are enmeshed in overwhelming voluntarism to achieve accolades and recognition in the community, or they are surrogate wives and mothers dedicated to hatching professional pursuits that promise power and pocketbook. Instead of encouraging adolescents to cut the apron strings of mother and venture out into society, we are begging mothers not to cut the apron strings on their babies and catapult them prematurely into a menacing world! Mom and hot apple pie have been replaced by institutional day care centers and cold apple turnovers at McDonald's!

Women have been liberated right out of the genuine freedom they enjoyed for centuries to oversee the home, rear the children, and pursue personal creativity; they have been brainwashed to believe that the absence of a titled, payroll occupation enslaves a woman to failure, boredom, and imprisonment within the confines of home. Though feminism speaks of liberation, self-fulfillment, personal rights, and breaking down barriers, these phrases inevitably mean the opposite. In fact, the opposite is true because a salaried job and titled position can inhibit a woman's natural nesting instinct and maternity by inverting her priorities so that failures almost inevitably come in the rearing of her own children and the building of an earthly shelter for those whom she loves most. The mundane accompanies every task, however high paying or prestigious the job, so that escape from boredom is not inevitable just because your workplace is not at home. And where is the time for personal creativity when you are in essence working two jobs – one at home and one away."

-Dr Paige Patterson's Remarks to The World Congress of Families IV, Warsaw, Poland, 13 May 2007

PS: The "woman" he quoted in his speech -according to his footnotes- is Dorothy Patterson.

NativeVermonter said...

Lu... (Since you seem unable to type my full name.)

You ask a question I cannot answer so why do you even ask? You seem to have a nack for trying to stir things up, well I won't be playing your game.

Good day madam.

Cindy said...

b. woodward said...
Cindy,

I am a man, and I read your comment. I think you are a person of value to God, to your family, and your church. Thanks for posting your thoughts and I hope my follow-up is helpful in your walk with Jesus and life among other Christians.


B Woodward,

I neglected to thank you for your kindness.



And Native Vermonter,

Thanks for coming back with a softer word. I endeavor to be careful when I stand, lest I fall.

Someone said something earlier about being off or incorrect. I agree with Pastor Wade about us all being flawed and inaccurate. But the whole goal is to end up in a better place and making progress as we press on to the things before us.

Depending how you define things, I suppose we are all a bit heretical at the start of the journey, but the whole goal of the Christian life is to work our Salvation with fear and trembling. We are at enmity with God in our flesh. But I hope to grow in understanding and I hope that we, as Christians, end up with a lot less heresy and a lot less of us by the time we reach our heavenly home. We are all in process.

Part of what makes patriarchy so troubling is that those who follow it do so often because they believe that they are honoring God in the highest and best possible way. I'm familiar with it all because I was there. Oh, to live on a nice sized plot of acreage and a modest home with some chickens and a nice garden. Oh, to be sufficient. And who does not want to honor and do the best possible thing for their children?

But we get off balance and leaders get off balance and teachings can turn into endeavors where the end justifies the means. Sometimes we forget what the end is in favor of the means. That's where I think much of this comes from. The best laid plans of patriarchs and men.

It's all by Grace.

Anonymous said...

Lu... (Since you seem unable to type my full name.)

You ask a question I cannot answer so why do you even ask? You seem to have a nack for trying to stir things up, well I won't be playing your game.

Good day madam.

Fri Apr 18, 03:34:00 PM 2008

Well, nativevermonter is a lot to type! But, I don't mind 'Lu' at all.

Madam? Yikes. :o)

So, now I am like Wade...stirring the pot. It is stirring the pot to ask questions that make us think about such things as earthly power vs the power of the Holy Spirit?

No, you cannot answer the question I proposed. No one can seem to tell me why we should follow titles conferred by men as our 'authorities' in the Body instead of Jesus Christ. No one seems to want to give up the earthly power once they have it. :o)

Lu

Anonymous said...

It is the world of Atwood's Handmaid's Tale.

DG in FW

Kelli said...

"Gary DeMar is just about as "nutty" as S.C. Sproul, jr.
He knows what he is doing."

I can't say as I agree that Gary DeMar is "nutty" but maybe you know some things about him that we don't. We've used some of his books (God and Government, etc.) as home school curriculum, and we've heard him speak at a couple conferences and liked what we heard. I don't see how he couldn't know that Sproul is defrocked from the ministry and is still "pastoring" like nothing ever happened. That by itself should be more than enough for Gary to steer clear of Sproul. I have to admit I'm confused by that. We know that Gary is a member of a PCA church (we are too) so you'd think he'd have some respect for Presbyterian church court discipline. That link to Sproul's Ligonier Tales also leads to a "Drinking With R.C. Sproul Jr." site. I know it's satire but it's still very disturbing. How could Gary not know these things? We may have to rethink our support for American Vision.

Anonymous said...

It's absolutely insane that you try to connect Paige Patterson to the Biblical Council for Manhood blah blah and yet who is the director of the the Biblical Council for Manhood/Womanhood and what school is he currently in charge of something called "Family Ministry"? It ain't Southwestern. But then you Calvinist are all in bed together and your interest is not in standing up for the women of the SBC but in taking down Paige Patterson. If you truly cared about women you'd be exposing the Founders and Southern Seminary for their views and beliefs regarding a women's proper place.

Anonymous said...

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/cross_examination/southern_baptist_seminary_to_c.aspx


Look at this link - Vision Forum wasn't all giddy about Paige Patterson and Southwestern Seminary. This is why many of us think the only thing coming out of Enid is "let's take down Paige" and not "we're concerned about the women" the real threat to women in the SBC is not Paige and Dorothy Patterson - they would look liberal is anyone had the guts to expose Southern Seminary and the Founders real views on women - but nobody's has the guts or the inclination.

Anonymous said...

"It's absolutely insane that you try to connect Paige Patterson to the Biblical Council for Manhood blah blah and yet who is the director of the the Biblical Council for Manhood/Womanhood and what school is he currently in charge of something called "Family Ministry"? It ain't Southwestern."

http://www.cbmw.org/Council-Members

Go to the above link and check out who is one of the council members for CBMW: Dorothy Patterson.

Anonymous said...

If you truly cared about women you'd be exposing the Founders and Southern Seminary for their views and beliefs regarding a women's proper place.

Fri Apr 18, 05:18:00 PM 2008

Anon, you need to read the post closer: Both Bruce Ware and Russell Moore are on the faculty of SBTS.

Jack said...

Members of The Biblical Council on Manhood & Womanhood:

Daniel L. Akin, Ph.D.
President
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, NC

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D.
President
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, KY

Dorothy Patterson, D.Min., Dr. Theol.
Homemaker; Adjunct Faculty
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fort Worth, TX

Although their website lists her as “homemaker/adjunct faculty” Dorothy Patterson is frequently referred to a “First Lady” and a Professor of Theology & Women’s Studies on the SWBTS site.

Several other faculty members from SBC seminaries are also currently on the council.

John Fariss said...

Just a quick word: I read Wade's post and went to quite a few of the links, as well as some that various comentators left. And I am pretty well speechless.

One, I may not have the IQ of an Einstein, but I'm no intellectual slouch either. My undergraduate degree was in Physics (classical mechanics, electricity & magnetism, yes even quantum physics) with a math minor (1 1/2 years of calculus, differential equations, etc), then I went through SEBTS with a "B" average and later earned a D.Min., where the lowest grade I got was one single "B" (a few things there were pass-fail/finished rather than graded), but I got lost trying to follow the reasoning of these folks in dominion theology and patriarchy. Which suggests one of two possible things: either it is beyond my intellectual capabilities, or there is so much gobble-d-gook they are spreading around that it is nothing but--I'll say organic fertilizer, with a lot of big words thrown about to make it look convincing to those who assume that a degree after one's name and a claim to "consevative, Bible theology" is enough to prove anything. I don't think it is my lack of ability.

Second, there is a lot of anger on several of those web sites that were linked, especially those involving Sproul and Phillips. Now the presence of anger does not necessarily mean a lack of truthfulness, and I am not implying it does. It speaks of passion, but sometimes passion makes one "go overboard" in responses and reactions. So I guess what I am saying is that I am unsure what to make of all this. Someone used the phrase "patriocentric voodoo," and it certainly sounds like it. When I read of things like this, I fear that we as Baptists are on the brink of becomming the 21st Century equivilent of the Amish: a quaint tourist attraction, admirable in some ways, but having little or no impact on American culture. And we lack the tourish attraction qualities of the Amish!

Cindy said...

I used to be a supporter of American Vision, from back before Bill Clinton first got elected... But if you go to my website (www.undermuchgrace.com and look at the "stop supporting" button), you can read just one of the letters that I wrote to American Vision about their progressive inclusion of Doug Phillips and Company.

I have 15 or more books that Gary DeMar has written, someone who got saved out of college and started working as a janitor at Coral Ridge Ministries. There was once a day where I would not have critically reviewed what he wrote because I trusted him so much, but then we had Y2K and Rushdoony went on to glory, and Christian Reconstruction dramatically shifted from what I would call "responsible citizenship" to "lets take over and set up a theocracy" or something of that flavor. (Can I get an Amen or and award for that run-on sentence?) Looking back at old issues of American Vision's publications (Biblical Worldview), I can see this shift in the articles there too. One of the questions I have asked myself many times is whether there was always a "theocracy" flavor to Christian Reconstruction, or whether I just had wool over my eyes and saw only what I wanted to see. (I've found a 2003 article that I still can't believe that Gary wrote, and it seems to me like they forgot to print the last page about how we enjoy freedom of religion...)

In 2004, American Vision restructured itself and they hired a young buck named "Brandon Vallorani" as the "executive VP." I sat by Brandon at an Am Vis fund raising dinner in 2006, and he was young and green, green, green. He had worked for awhile at "Answers in Genesis" with Ken Ham, and he thought the world of Doug Phillips. He remembered our name and address from the San Antonio area on their mailing list, and his eyes lit up as said "You must have gone to Doug Phillips' church." The poor kid (I'd say mid-twenties) practically fell off of his chair when I said Doug was cultic. He insisted on knowing what my husband had to say, and he was much profoundly "less kind" in his response to young Brandon.

So Brandon expressed to me his great admiration for Doug and ran down the list of typical defenses against my message, an opinion he solicited that evening. It ended in what I would call an ad hominem discounting of me. I since had a long discussion with Carol DeMar who was absolutely a joy, and in later months, an Am Vision board member where I discussed my great disappointment that they seemed to feature more and more Phillips material in their publication every month. Now it seems that, from the last straggling mag we've received before getting dropped from their mailings, they feature FEDERAL Vision related advertisements (New St. Andrews College) as well as pages and pages of Vision Forum items and Answers in Genesis ads. I believe that this is Brandon's influence, a zealous young man who wants desperately to serve God, and one who looks up to Doug Phillips as a "visionary" if not demi-god. I can say things like that because I once did the same thing with other Christian celebrities.

So how far Gary DeMar is from center and how much he has swung from what I used to think was a plumb line that was fixed on the Gospel, I don't know. It would probably break my heart if I did. I think Brandon brings in funding and this allows Gary to focus on doing what he really loves without the day-to-day hassles of running the organization, so Gary DeMar might not be inclined to change their present course.

Bob Cleveland said...

To be simple, the scariest thing I've seen about Patriarchy is the would-be Patriarchs.

thatmom said...

John Fariss,

I would like to suggest that you listen to at least the first one in my podcast series on patriocentricity where I attempted to give a brief overview of where I believe patriocentricity to have been birthed, its excesses, and its main players, especially within the homeschooling movement. I tried to be calm and fair. I have no ax to grind with this movement, only the desire to warn others of the harm that can come, especially to children who are raised to place the paradigm above relationships. My guests and I tried very hard to look at the issues through the lenses of Scripture.

Here is a link:
www.thatmompodcast.com

You will find the series on patriarchy running in September and October of 2007.

I am also in the process of researching and preparing a 2nd series that will include the effects this movement is having on the local church and the connections to the modern kinist movement.

For Sale By Owner said...

Lin,

I want to make it clear that I indeed owe you an apology. In my search through everything I had on Bruce Ware, I was never able to find the quote you continued to credit to Dr. Ware, nor the audio you claimed existed. It is now clear that you were correct and it did indeed exist.

So again, I say that I am sorry that I asserted that you spoke falsely of Bruce Ware.

Having said that, I do want to make it clear that I disagree with his emphasis here. I understand his logic and to some extent, I see how what he says makes sense, but I do not think that is the emphasis made in the passage and I think making application to such is problematic.

Further, I don't think he or others on the Reformed side of the SBC who agree with him make application in nearly the extreme way that is feared by many on this blog. And I completely reject (as would he) the idea that his view has any detrimental effect to the doctrine of The Priesthood of All Believers, especially given that priesthood has absolutely nothing to do with authority in the local Church or in the home. In fact, priesthood has nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection of local Church interpretation of Scripture. Priesthood has to do with one's personal relationship with Christ, specifically as it relates to the atoning work of Christ and his or her ability to interact directly with God though the Holy Spirit (specifically in prayer and meditation).

So, again I apologize, but hope you will see that your applicationa of Ware's views is not his own.

D.R. Randle

Lin said...

DR, Thanks for the apology. You may want to continue your research. :o)

"The Priesthood of All Believers, especially given that priesthood has absolutely nothing to do with authority in the local Church or in the home. In fact, priesthood has nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection of local Church interpretation of Scripture. Priesthood has to do with one's personal relationship with Christ, specifically as it relates to the atoning work of Christ and his or her ability to interact directly with God though the Holy Spirit (specifically in prayer and meditation)."

I will admit I am not the sharpest crayola in the box but I am having a hard time understanding how the Priesthood of Believer only applies to prayer and meditation.

So, it does not work for me (or has no application), as a woman, when I am at church or home and are under man's authority?

Can I be in the Priesthood when prayerfully studying scripture? Or must I take my authority's interpretation and not what the Holy Spirit illuminates to me?

It is all so complicated for women! :o)

For Sale By Owner said...

Lin,

Again, Priesthood has nothing to do with one's interpretation of Scripture. Priesthood speaks of our ability to communicate and commune with God. We don't each have individual interpretations of Scripture. All Scripture has one true interpretation and no Scripture can ever mean what it has never before meant. Thus, Scripture is meant to be interpreted corporately, not merely individually. In fact, the Bible seems clear that all of us are to be under the authority of our local elders/teachers. Now that doesn't mean we should neglect the Word of God and only accept what is taught, but it does mean that God has given certain individuals in the Church the gift of teaching, discernment, etc. and that those elders are the ones to whom we are to take our concerns and to whom we should submit, regardless of whether we are a man or a woman.

You see Lin, you force Ware and other Complimentarians to apply their views to interpretation (misappropriating is an application of the Priesthood of All Believers), yet you neglect to take into consideration the Bible's teachings on submission to the Church authorities. When Christ established the Church, He did not set it up to be without structure or without accountability. He inspired Paul, through the Holy Spirit, to clearly articulate to the Church the channels of authority that should be employed. As a Complimentarian, I believe that the main one of those channels is the relationship of the male elders to the entire rest of the Church (both male and female), and secondarily, the husband to the wife (as a continual sign of Christ and the Church).

But that doesn't mean I think my wife is incapable of understanding Scripture apart from what I tell her (nor should I dictate interpretation to her - and I am certain Ware doesn't feel this way either), or that she is not free to disagree with my interpretation on specific passages unrelated to core Orthodoxy (disagreeing with Orthodoxy is a matter far beyond the marriage relationship and goes to the level of Church discipline - which would be true whether we were speaking of my wife or of myself).

I hope you see this distinction and it clears up our disagreement here.

Anonymous said...

To "For sale by Owner"
I'm not sure I see your distinction.

If your wife studies the Scripture and decides she differs with you on a particular interpretation it's ok. But what if the issue of interpretation she decides she disagrees with you on is male headship, either in the church or the home? Is that part of "core orthodoxy"?

It seems to be for some men who absolutely think you can't be a Christian if you believe women are fully human. (Does that leave Jesus out? He certainly treated women like human beings, in contrast to the culture of his day.)

Susie

robert prince said...

I agree with what Cindy said in her lecture, and I'm not surprised by the persecution she has faced. However, I'm puzzled why this line is drawn at senior pastor when it's questionable if such an office existed in the NT. It seems to me that Patterson et al. are more consistent in that they basically say women shouldn't be teaching men in any way about theology or the Bible. To me, the only consistent positions are that women shouldn't be allowed to teach men at all about theology or the Bible, or women should be allowed to be senior pastors. I think Paige is right in saying that a woman teaching men in seminary is basically the same as women serving as senior pastors.

Pamela said...

There is a church I know of here. The pastor used to be SBC but left because of what he felt was hostility towards the charismatic experience. I would visit the church at times a few years back. I quit when I saw what is referred to on this entry as patriarchy. I was absolutely horrified and totally confused. One thing I noticed about this church was that there were few singles. As a single gal that is one thing I look for because it is harder to fellowship with married people, mainly because of schedules and jealous spouses. After watching and getting to know the people there I realized why there were no singles there, especially single women. The only thing that a woman could do by herself was to go to the bathroom. Pretty much everything else was filtered through men. I may visit there on a rare occasion but I pretty much stopped hanging out there. The pastor hinted at times that he would love me to join there. That will never happen. I will not choose to go to prison.


As far as Eve causing all sin, I find it interesting that the punishment did not come from God until Adam ate the fruit. Adam could have said NO since God told him not to eat. He did not. I guess some would say that this proves the stupidity of patriarchy since God did not punish mankind when Eve at the fruit.

I am not a child but full grown and have my own walk with God. I can read the Bible, pray to God the Father through God the Son (Jesus) and hear His voice. I NEVER call up a man and ask him about my walk with Christ and never will. I will not have a man present me before MY FATHER when I die. I will be there by myself. My debate here is NOT whether a woman can be a pastor or not nor with the order in the home. This is strictly dealing with a grown woman being treated as such. This madness states that women are never mature or capable enough to do anything but must have the oversight of men.

I find this laughable.

Cindy said...

Robert Prince wrote: However, I'm puzzled why this line is drawn at senior pastor when it's questionable if such an office existed in the NT.

Hi Mr. Prince,

From my study of the original language, I find the passage about women not teaching man to be talking about one woman in particular: a specific woman who was teaching false doctrine who is then admonished to go home and study under her own husband to learn sound doctrine. The pronouns change in that passage and this is not well reflected in the English. It is true that when I started studying Greek, I was very disappointed to find that the original language often opened up more controversies than it clarified, based on what school of translation to which you deferred. But in this passage, even with my basic study of the original language is very clear to me: the text discusses one woman in particular and that this was not a directive for the whole body.

In regard to the Scriptures that discuss the qualifications of an elder or a shepherd, that represents a different argument to me. The language is clear, and I find the egalitarian arguments to be somewhat of appeals to ignorance and arguments from silence which might be cogent in some cases but are not what I would call "conservative." I don't think, based upon where I am now in my understanding, that the text in either English or Greek supports a woman shepherd.

So when I (personally) consider the applicability of the shepherd verses applying to seminary professors, I take issue with this. A professor that is not in a role of governance or shepherding should be able to function as a teacher, so long as she wasn't acting as a shepherd, such as governing a department in the capacity of a dean or department head. So, I think that one could make a case that a department head or dean qualifies as a shepherd/elder/pastor, but if a woman's primary responsibities were teaching only, I don't see how this equates to the level of pastor or elder.

Now, this does concern how one exegetes those passages, and this is based upon my own formal study and interpretation, based on the school of translation of my professor... So people may disagree on these points, certainly. I was quite disappointed to realize that the original language actually opened up more controversy than it solved. But I have respect for others, their convictions and interpretations, so long as they are equally respectful of the positions and interpretations of others that are within the pale of orthodoxy.

Cindy said...

pamela wrote: I NEVER call up a man and ask him about my walk with Christ and never will. I will not have a man present me before MY FATHER when I die.

Right after I concluded the formal lecture Q&A which was attended by many young seminary students, I was shocked at how many came up to me and asked questions about a "correct view of complementarianism." Several young men asked how it was that I believed that they would not stand before God (I assume at the Bema Seat) to give an account and to intercede for their wives. I was incredulous.

I was not talking to people who were in the formal patriarchy movement, as I would anticipate this response. THESE WERE BAPTIST SEMINARY STUDENTS! Where and how and by whom were they taught that they would stand before God as an intercessor for their wives? It grieves me to think about this and the three young men who asked these earnest questions of me. And I don't know how any believer in Christ could actually think that as a creature that is unable to sanctify themself would presume that they could sanctify or intercede for another human being, female or otherwise. This experience, for me, really demonstrated the insidious and subtle effect of these teachings, because that kind of reasoning makes sense if one believes that woman is ontologically, or by essence, lesser than man.

God have mercy on us all for our hubris.

Anonymous said...

That is a mouthful by Doug Phillips....he has some totally unrealistic expectations! From the Christian women I have talked to many would like to get married but can't find a good guy. Did you know that under the age of 25, over half of the males in the country don't see anything worng on on-line pornography? Yet there have been four new "gentlemen's club" established in Fort Worth in the last year...Mr. Burleson, it is clear that the SBC is being steered toward the wrong battles. Mansoul is being invaded (a John Bunyan term) and we mmessing around with this issue?

Pamela said...

WHAT???? Some men really believe that they will present their wives to God the Father??????? I just came up with that analogy. I have no words for that NONSENSE. How can anyone that needs the blood of Jesus think they are worthty to present anyone else to the Lord??????????????????

IMHO going to seminary does not equate to having knowledge of the word. That is not a requirement to know the Lord. Cindy, your example and many I saw when I attended Bible school prove my point.

Have mercy, Lord. Please help us. We are in a mess.

Cindy said...

Pamela wrote;How can anyone that needs the blood of Jesus think they are worthty to present anyone else to the Lord??????????????????

Pamela,

This is why I say that the patriocentrists seek to be "uber-Adam." Someone commented earlier that I was in error by suggesting that there was anything wrong with "uber-Adam" because Christ is our "uber-Adam." But it isn't Christ that they seek -- they desire the role themselves. Christ is, in terms of this type of thing -- sanctification of their wives and daughters -- Christ is just a catalyst to get regenerate man back to Eden where these guys can "get the Covenant of Works right" this time around.

That's what I see so this is my thesis. People don't have to agree with it, and I provided plenty of evidence and sources to consider in order to evaluate what I presented. BUT, for those who disagree with me, how do you explain that these Baptist seminary students thought that they would intercede for their wives? They didn't get that from me! I hope that they didn't learn that at the seminary, either. But these young men who are clearly, earnestly dedicated to the study of the Word and honoring God learned it somewhere. I think it came from the complementarian evangelists who have stretched beyond what we know clearly in the Word -- those who are affiliated with SBTS and SWBTS. Sad but true.

Pamela said...

I sincerely ask this. I have been reading this blog almost from its inception. I have heard the terms 'ccomplementarian' and 'egalitarian' in recent months. They appear to identify conflicting schools of thought on doctrine. I thought by reading on I would get a clue about what those theories are. If someone would define the terms I would appreciate it.

This is so laughable and at the same time really sad. Why a person would want to claim to take responsibility for another person's faulty life is beyond me. Thank God that responsibility was not given to any person.

Kelly Reed said...

Rather than focus on the accusations and insinuations, let me ask a couple of questions.

Has this Patriocentric teaching had an influence to a degree on some parts of the SBC?

I believe the answer is "Yes". Some people have been sitting under such teaching for so long that it is normative.

The next question is, do we want this teaching to become Normative and Representative for all of the SBC?

What do you think?

Wayne Smith said...

Fred Jenkins
Life-long Southern Baptist
Florida
SAID:
Frankly, reading some of the Identity people, I'm not sure I want to be a part. I was watching the news the other day and I saw the women in the patriarchal cult in Texas. They looked odd. They all talked the same, looked the same, and acted the same. They had a peculiar identity caused by inbreeding.

Fred, I do believe the Baptist Identity People want their Women to be like Stepford wives.

In His Name
Wayne

Only By His Grace said...

Cindy,

Just read your first comment.

As this fiasco in San Angelo, Texas is going on with the Mormon Fundamentalist, I notice that the girls are usually married at thirteen and pregnant by fourteen with the idea of having as many children as possible as soon as possible.

As a refugee from that group stated, "You can do anything to me that you wish to do and I will fight until I die; but when you threaten to harm my children, I will do anything you want me to do (from "Today Show" c4/10/08)."

Our church ministers to women from the Women's Shelter that are hiding with VPOs from very violent spouses. It is no uncommon event to find that the last straw for these women leaving abusive situations takes place when their husbands begin using the threat of violence on the children to keep control of these women.

I find the addiction to power is stronger than the addiction to sex, drugs and alcohol.

Phil in Norman

Cindy said...

Hi Phil in Norman,

If you listened to the YouTube video section that discusses "militant fecundity," you can hear groans and gasps coming from the crowd, all throughtout that part of the workshop. It truly is disturbing, and those in patriarchy will say that aversion to this demonstrates that the critics hate family and children.

I have friends and have met women who wean their infants as soon as possible in order to conceive again as soon as possible in order to have as many babies as they can. I didn't mention this in the talk, as there was just so much to be said... But I think that this is very telling about the significance of the importance of large families to the patriocentrists and about the great lengths that the followers will go to in order to conceive again as soon as humanly possible.

I believe that God designed the system to allow women to heal from childbirth by inhibiting conception while caring for a baby or infant. I was also taught as a nurse that the ideal nutrition for an infant up until one year of age was by the breast. Women who intentionally wean their infants very early in order to become fertile immediately, IMO, get it wrong. It demonstrates the imbalance in the whole mentality.

It also sends the message loud and clear: quantity is "more godly" than quality when it comes to the size of one's family. This need not be the case in a large family, but it is certainly the message conveyed in some patriocentric circles.

thatmom said...

It has been interesting to read the various comments here over the past 24 hours. Some of us have been evaluating the patriocentric views for so long that what seems totally believable to us is so absurd to others. It helps me to be reminded that some of these views ARE so far out there that they cannot seem to be believable.

One of the keys to understanding the patriocentrists’ views of women is that they tend to confuse the words “calling” “purpose” and “role” and use them interchangeably so as to create more confusion. I do not believe this is accidental. Because there are layers to these teachings and because they are loathe to actually define words in ways that are consistent, the voodoo can be spread around without detection. Then, when clarification is requested, they simply refuse to answer you or you are labeled an “androgynous white-washed feminist” or some such nonsense.

Let me briefly explain a couple things that I think might be helpful.

I coined the phrase “patriocentric” because, in this paradigm, all things evolve around the father in the household, whether you are the wife, the daughter or even a son. Only a father has a calling from the Lord and the rest of the family, especially unmarried daughters and wife, are there to fulfill the calling of the father. For example, if a young woman is gifted in math, she should look at that gifting from God in a way that will she will use it to advance her father’s ministry and dominion and in preparation for advancing her husband’s ministry and dominion. If she has brothers, she is also allowed to help him. (There is no consideration whatsoever that the Lord might be calling that young woman to some ministry that would involve her skills and abilities for His service alone.) In fact, the word “helpmeet” has been used by the Botkin sisters in their book, So Much More, published by Vision Forum, to describe the role of unmarried daughters to their fathers. Questioning their use of this word in their book on both of my blogs caused such a stir that they ended up denying that they said it when any person with any logic skills whatsoever can read their book and see that that is exactly what they are saying.

Then, you learn from other authors within the patriocentric camp, such as Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald, in their VF published book, Passionate Housewives, Desperate for God, that women are given one calling, one purpose, and one role, that of wife and mother. There is no room for God to use other women in other ways and if He has, it is “non-normative” or “outside the prescriptive will of God.” See http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/searching-for-the-missing-pink-link/
I believe the Scriptures both teach and demonstrate that all believers, men and women alike, have the same purpose, to glorify God. Each believer then has different callings and those can change throughout life. I also believe that a calling presupposes that you have been gifted in particular ways by the Lord that make your calling undeniable. It is something that you just cannot NOT do.

A role is yet something else. Stacy and Jennie insist that all women are called to have the same role. Yet I believe that cannot be true if you really understand what a role actually is. I like to use the example of my “role” as mother of the groom, which I have performed twice now and will most likely do again in the future. It is something that I was given to do specifically for a certain period of time and it is certainly not permanent. Women who are mothers, of course, will always be mothers, but that role will change. I will not always be the mother of teenagers. Women who are single are in the role of single women, which has its own attributes. But when they marry, that role changes. As I age, I become an older woman and if I am faithful, if I am ever widowed, my role becomes that of “widow in deed.”

By lumping these three things together and equating a temporary role with God’s eternal purposes, it lays quite a trip on someone. Can you see how a woman can be manipulated into the patriocentric agenda?

One more interesting note: Last November and December, Stacy McDonald offered to be interviewed on a podcast with me regarding her book. Though I would not offer her the air time, I did open my blog to her to “clear up any misunderstandings” regarding her views of women within the patriocentric movement, since she told me she would like to do that. I gave my readers the opportunity to submit questions. I assembled them and posted them in a series of blog threads. To this day, not one of those questions has been answered either privately in e-mail on the blog. Instead, the pejoratives toward those of us who are conservative, Bible-believers have continued. When there are no answers, all that is left is name-calling.

Only By His Grace said...

Wade,

Played golf Tuesday in the wind storm, hit a couple high fades (okay, they were slices) that never came down. If you find a couple Pro V1s from Norman up there in Enid, they are mine and I want them back. They cost too much to give away. I will check your bag out the next time I see you.

Phil.

Anonymous said...

"...This censorship function works to repress new questions in order to prevent the emergence of unwanted insight. This happens not only to an individual in isolation but more especially to communities as a whole. Within a given community, different clusters of people are implicitly defined by patterns of relationship to each other...The powerful tendency of such group bias is to exclude some fruitful ideas and to mutilate others by compromise...The only remedy is conversion."
--Elizabeth Johnson

robert prince said...

Cindy,

If you haven't yet, I strongly recommend you read the late Stan Grenz' "Women in the Church." He did a great job exploring the issue from a conservative Christian perspective.

As you know, the primary passage used in this controversy in relation to women teaching, etc., is 1 Timothy 2:9ff. I haven't heard the approach that Paul was speaking about one particular woman. I'm not sure that the Greek bears that out, but I give you the benefit of a doubt. Plus his example of Adam and Eve and women being saved through childbirth makes it appear that he's referrng to women as a category rather than a specific woman.

However, our interpretations are similar in that I believe the apostle's main concern was false teaching. Women were finding newfound freedom in Christ in a partriarchal Roman world and were engaging in teaching. The problem was that women had practically no education. Jewish women weren't even taught to read the law. Another factor is that in the Greek verse 12 actually says "I am not permitting." That may open the door to the interpretation that Paul didn't intend this to be timeless counsel.

As you also know, the NT uses three words to describe church offices: episcopos (overseer, bishop), prebuteros (elder), and diaconos (deacon). We know these were church offices but we have only a fuzzy idea of how they functioned. To say that these officers were always male would be an argument from silence, because other than saying that the episcopos and the diaconos should have only one wife (1 Tim. 3:2), we don't know for certain that these officers were always male. Early Christian art from the first and second centuries depict women performing ministerial functions like administering the Lord's Supper, baptizing, and teaching. Also, outside the chapel of St. Zeno in Rome there's an inscription denoting a woman in the mosiac as "Episcopa Thedora." There's considerable debate over what "husband of one wife" actually means, as traditionally this passage has been used to bar divorced men from serving as a pastor or deacon. It also seems possible if not likely yet another office is mentioned in that chapter, the guniakos of v. 11.

If you look at the scripture references used for the BFM 2000 article on the church that limits the office of senior pastor to men, the only really applicable passage is this 1 Timothy 2 passage because 1 Peter 5 refers to husbands and wives. What 1 Peter 5 is doing there I have no idea, unless it's implying that women are to submit to men in all contexts, including at church.

So given than we don't really know if our office of senior pastor accurately corresponds to anything the early church had (my personal opinion is that churches were governed by groups of elders and they probably had a chief elder, but that chief elder may not have preached or taught at all), it seems really odd to draw the line at that office. It seems much more consistent to allow women to serve in all offices or to ban them from any position in which they teach men.

If a seminary is an extension of the church, and I believe it is, and if a woman is teaching the word of God to men who are going to be preaching and teaching the word to congregations, then she is in an important position of church authority. You speak of the shepherding concept as being important to you, but neither episcopos nor presbuteros nor diaconos means "shepherd" though episcopos is close.

I applaud what you're doing. I just ask you to consider following your stance to its logical conclusion and affirm that women should serve in whatever church offices God calls them to and gifts them for. The broader teaching of the NT is that ministry is a matter of calling, not a matter of race (Jew or Greek), social status (slave or free), or sex (male and female).

Rick said...

But have you not seen this video in which Dr. Patterson repudiates his patriarchal views?

Justa Believer said...

It is astounding how far people will go in redefining basic Christian doctrine (like Priesthood of the believer) to support their concepts of male/female relationships. So now the Priesthood is only about prayer and meditation?? How about a priest being one who has direct, individual access to and relationship with God, and thus one who hears God speak and passes His Word on to others, who ministers to the needs of God's people, and who is an instrument and vehicle of His atoning grace to others?

More and more I see how these issues of women in the church and home come back to the warped concept of "authority" that has prevailed for most of Christian history, and how far people (men) are willing to go in re-defining the teachings of Scripture to retain their positions of power over others. That is not the Spirit of Christ.

Cindy said...

Mr Prince,

I must thank you profusely for your kindness and graciousness. I will read the book you mention.

I guess that I am confused as to why this is a matter of concern, given the context of why the whole "complementarian" issue came up, either in the workshop I gave or here, really. I only mentioned my personal view (one that I believe is an intramural one with the fine details of the gender debate falling under Romans 14 and meat sacrificed to idols) because a student at the seminary commented that I was "so opposed to complementarianism" or some such statement on the video. So I included my personal view only to demonstrate that I was not "hyper-egalitiarian" in response to this. The whole gender issue was not a big issue for me and with fear and trembling, where I am now in my process of sanctification, I have full confidence towards God. I also avoided the discussion of doctrine and did not get into the hard issues of Trinity because many do not believe that it is the station of a woman to be able to discuss doctrine.

All that said, my main concern and mission in giving that workshop was to outline the beliefs of the patriocentrics and highlight the obvious errors, offering avenues of further investigation to those interested. Really, as stated in this blog article, I am most concerned with the view that women are of lesser essence than men so that they are diminished beings in terms of their standing with God. That leads to the scapegoating that is seen in the view that sin originated with Eve and entered mankind through Eve, very much a Romanist view and contrary to Paul's teachings. But of paramount concern for me is the wholesale discounting of Christ's authority as God's bellhop who cannot even hear or answer prayer because Ware teaches that Jesus does not have authority to do so.

So that's my germane concern. I respect the beliefs of others and I respect the work of the Word and Spirit in them, as we are all in different points along the way. I didn't take on the topic over concerns about the gender debate but rather over this idolatry of family and over the abusive behaviors of the group apart from gender issues in the name of Reformed Theology. I am also concerned over the exclusivity and the cursing that is pronounced over those who leave these groups, as I myself was told that I would get cancer, my husband would lose his job, terrible things would happen, etc, because I left my group without the corrupt leadership's blessing.

But I thank you for these resources. I certainly have not arrived, am teachable and want more than anything to bring all honor to the Name of the Lord through my conduct.

I do disagree with you though as I do not see a seminary (a teaching organization) and seminary teachers who teach only within their field of expertise in the same way that I see a local body with pastors/elders in a "ruling" or administrative capacity. I don't see a semniary professor as responsible for governing a body or participating in church discipline.

God bless you and thank you again for so graciously addressing this.

Paul Newland said...

Eph. 5:25-26 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."

This passage is commonly quoted by the Patriarchs. What they do though is put the entire emphasis on the last verse, and in many cases ONLY quote the last verse and say that "It's the man's role to wash his wife in the water of the Word" inferring that a wife is sanctified primarily by her husband's "washing her in the water of the Word." IOW without her husband sanctifying her she's largely incapable of being sanctified at all. Her husband is a necessary intermediary. The husband needs no intermediary and can go directly to God but a wife is in every way inferior, including spriritually inferior. Doug Phillips heavily promotes this doctrine and you'll find numerous references to it on the Vision Forum web site. R.C. Sproul Jr. does the exact same thing. From what I've seen it's commonplace among Patriarchalists. To me this seems like such an abuse of scripture. Isn't it clear from the context of the passage that it is Jesus that sanctifies each of us? Certainly by being salt and light we can be used as God's instruments in facilitating the work of God's sanctification in one another, and 1Cor. 7:14 shows it, though not in the way that any Patriarchalist would ever want to discuss. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." So why is the work of sanctification as taught by the Patriarchalists all so one-sided, man to woman only? To me this is just one of many examples of what is so wrong with Patriarchy. They're eager to rip verses out of their context to arrive at a predetermined outcome. It's a blatant perversion of holy scripture by chauvenistic men bent on treating women as so grossly inferior in every respect that apart from their sanctifying work their wives are unfit for Christ's Kingdom. Phillips and Sproul and others of their ilk claim to be Reformed. So whatever happened to the Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of all believers? How did the women suddenly get left out of that?

For Sale By Owner said...

Justa Believer,

I am surprised how far one goes to directly ignore what is written by another commenter and assert he believes otherwise.

You said, "So now the Priesthood is only about prayer and meditation?? How about a priest being one who has direct, individual access to and relationship with God, and thus one who hears God speak and passes His Word on to others, who ministers to the needs of God's people, and who is an instrument and vehicle of His atoning grace to others?"


Read again what I actually said:
And I completely reject (as would he) the idea that his view has any detrimental effect to the doctrine of The Priesthood of All Believers, especially given that priesthood has absolutely nothing to do with authority in the local Church or in the home. In fact, priesthood has nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection of local Church interpretation of Scripture. Priesthood has to do with one's personal relationship with Christ, specifically as it relates to the atoning work of Christ and his or her ability to interact directly with God though the Holy Spirit (specifically in prayer and meditation)."

What I said is a far cry from what you assert. For a better understanding of how the Priesthood of All Believers doesn't have to do with individualized interpretations of Scripture, see Timothy George's article, "The Priesthood of All Believers and the Quest for Theological Integrity".

Here's one snippet:
Of course, Luther did believe that all Christians had direct access to God without recourse to "the tin gods and buffoons of this world, the pope with his priests." But for Luther the Priesthood of all believers did not mean, "I am my own Priest." It meant rather: in the community of saints, God has so tempered the body that we are all priests to each other. We stand before God and intercede for one another, we proclaim God's Word to one another and celebrate His presence among us in worship, praise and fellowship. Moreover, our priestly ministry does not terminate upon ourselves. It propels us into the world in service and witness. It constrains us to "show forth the praises of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light" (I Pet. 2:9)...Priesthood of believers, then, has more to do with the Christian's service than with his or her status.

robert prince said...

Cindy,

I did divert from the main topic, but I believe the BFM 2000 and its statements on the role of wives in marriage and the role of women in the church is part of the broader suppression of women that your lecture identifies.

Lin said...

"Again, Priesthood has nothing to do with one's interpretation of Scripture. Priesthood speaks of our ability to communicate and commune with God. We don't each have individual interpretations of Scripture. All Scripture has one true interpretation and no Scripture can ever mean what it has never before meant. Thus, Scripture is meant to be interpreted corporately, not merely individually. “

This is quite confusing. How is it then that within the SBC, Patterson and Mohler do not interpret scripture the same in terms of the Doctrines of Grace?


“In fact, the Bible seems clear that all of us are to be under the authority of our local elders/teachers. Now that doesn't mean we should neglect the Word of God and only accept what is taught, but it does mean that God has given certain individuals in the Church the gift of teaching, discernment, etc. and that those elders are the ones to whom we are to take our concerns and to whom we should submit, regardless of whether we are a man or a woman."

This sound so good but in practice it can be quite another thing and means we should prayerfully consider what it really means.

When we look at the NT, we do not see this formality that is presented these days…this institutionalization of both worship and ‘offices’.

For example, what if my ‘authority’ in the church exhibits immoral behavior but is not disciplined by anyone else in authority or with a title conferred by men? Is he still my authority? What if he twists scripture by saying that for example, 1 Tim 3 is only ‘guidelines’ for elders and not meant to be followed exactly to make excuses for the immoral behavior. Is he still my authority I should submit to?

What if his name was Jim Jones and he said I had to move to Guyana and drink some kool-aid? :O)

Perhaps the reason is because Jesus Christ is the authority. And the ONLY authority elder/pastor/person within the Body has is by the power of the Holy Spirit…truth from the Word. It is not simply a title conferred by men.

"You see Lin, you force Ware and other Complimentarians to apply their views to interpretation (misappropriating is an application of the Priesthood of All Believers), yet you neglect to take into consideration the Bible's teachings on submission to the Church authorities. When Christ established the Church, He did not set it up to be without structure or without accountability. He inspired Paul, through the Holy Spirit, to clearly articulate to the Church the channels of authority that should be employed."

I certainly cannot force anyone...I'm a gal, remember? :o)
But let’s look closer. The NT church was quite informal. Where do we see one guy speaking from a pulpit every Sunday? We don’t even see special buildings for church but meeting in people’s homes. I mean, if we are going to be strict about interpretations, then we must look at the real model for church. What about the model in 1 Corin? Let us also be honest that we have men conferring titles on other men.

Are you saying that the elders/pastors are accountable to Jesus Christ within the Body but the others are accountable to the guys with titles?

Another question: Who disciplines the authorities if they don’t hold each other accountable? We are seeing this become a huge problem in churches. Even in the SBC where we have some who harbored sexual predators yet are not held accountable. Where is inerrancy in some of our CR churches?

“As a Complimentarian, I believe that the main one of those channels is the relationship of the male elders to the entire rest of the Church (both male and female), and secondarily, the husband to the wife (as a continual sign of Christ and the Church).”

This is also confusing. A friend of mine pointed this out to me:

“I take this to mean that he believes that elders are to be the authority for the members of a congregation ("elder-rule"), rather than all members being equally under the authority of Christ ("congregationally governed"). But if that's the case, how could the husband-wife relationship picture the relationship of Christ to the church (as stated in Ephesians)? If Christ does not relate as an authority directly to the church members, but does so through the intermediate authority of elders, then the husband-wife relationship (which has no intermediate authority) is not a proper picture.
The more biblical model of accountability in the church is that the elders, as servants to the body, are accountable to the congregation. Elders are to be shepherds, teachers, and overseers of the spiritual needs (the souls) of the members of the church, not the "bosses" who "rule" the church. Why is this not obvious to people who know Christ and the gospel??”

I think he raises some interesting points.

“But that doesn't mean I think my wife is incapable of understanding Scripture apart from what I tell her (nor should I dictate interpretation to her - and I am certain Ware doesn't feel this way either), or that she is not free to disagree with my interpretation on specific passages unrelated to core Orthodoxy (disagreeing with Orthodoxy is a matter far beyond the marriage relationship and goes to the level of Church discipline - which would be true whether we were speaking of my wife or of myself).”

I am glad you do not dictate interpretation to her. But I am confused about Ware. If women are made in the 'indirect' Image of God…a derivative…then this presupposes that the materials God used to create us has a bearing on the Image of God. So, if woman is created from man... then she is ‘indirect’ Image of God.

As if ‘dirt’ ….is where the ‘Direct Image of God’ comes from for men. :o)

“I hope you see this distinction and it clears up our disagreement here.”

Do you mean you hope I agree with you? If so, then the answer is no. But we can certainly agree to disagree. :o)

I apologize to everyone for the length of this comment. There is a lot I did NOT say. :o)

Bart Barber said...

Wayne Smith,

You said: "I do believe the Baptist Identity People want their Women to be like Stepford wives."

Coupl'a questions about that, brother:

1. Do you consider me to be among the "Baptist Identity People"?

2. If not, could you identify who the "Baptist Identity People" are?

3. If yes to #1, do you consider my wife to be like a Stepford wife?

4. I no to #3, can you identify a "Stepford wife" to a "Baptist Identity Person"?

5. If yes to #3, can you identify how a person with a Masters of Science in Education, packing just now to go to a national Disaster Relief Roundtable as the leader in her ministry area for the state of Texas, a better shot with a pistol than I am, and with the good sense I lack to stay out of this blogging business...how that person at all resembles a "Stepford wife"?

6. And finally, if no either to #5 or to the four preceding, will you refrain from speaking when you have no idea what you are talking about?

Justa Believer said...

FSBO,
Thanks for your attempt at clarification. I did not miss your other comments on the priesthood of the believer. I do not deny the corporate nature of the priesthood nor the fact that Scripture is not a matter of individual private interpretation. I affirm with you that the Bible always only means what it has always meant.

But I was focusing on the implications of your statement that the priesthood is specifically about relating to God through prayer and meditation. Your use of "specifically" sounded to me like you viewed those as the overriding aspects of the priesthood. So I was pointing out that priesthood involves much more than that (which lines up with your later quote from Luther).

Lin had already made the same challenge as I did to your statement about the nature of the priesthood. She clearly took your words to mean that you were saying that prayer and meditation are what the priesthood is really all about. And since your response to her did not engage or attempt clarification on that point, I hope you can see why I continued to believe that was what you intended to convey. I concede that you did not say that the priesthood is "only" about those things, but I'm still not quite sure whether or not you think that's the main thing. I am pretty sure, however, that you are attempting to claim that the priesthood does not place all believers on the same level when it comes to the issue of "authority".

Setting aside misunderstandings from parsing of words, I think the basic point of our disagreement is that you assert some sort concept of hierarchical authority in the church and in marriage. You claim that the gender distinctions being made by some theologians do not impinge on the doctrine of the priesthood because the priesthood isn't really relevant to authority issues. My claim is the opposite -- the idea that all believers (men and women) are equally priests before God is central to the notion of authority. Our equal access to God in Christ, and our equal responsibility before Him, grants us equal authority and responsibility before him in all things. ALL believers are seated with Christ in heavenly places, blessed by Him with every spiritual blessing, joint heirs with Him, and share in His rule and reign. There is no special class or group within the church who is to rule over other believers -- our only ruler is Christ. This is part of what is implied by the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer as taught in the Bible, Regardless of that the Pope or the Reformers or anyone else says.

I apologize if the wording of my previous post was too harsh -- I suppose I was reacting to the condescension you demonstrated to Lin in your response to her. Now that you've demonstrated that same attitude toward me, I see that it is apparently just part of your style and not something I should concern myself with too much.

Be blessed.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Barber, It could very well be that you give your wife 'persmission' to be all these thing and demonstrate her abilities such as Paige Patterson does with Dorothy.

A few questions:

1. Is your wife allowed to answer doctrinal questions if a man asks her.

2. If your wife taught a bible class to women and a man came in, could she continue teaching?

3. At what age would boys have to be in order for your wife to considered in sin for teaching them?

4. It looks like your wife works a la, Dorothy Patterson style. Are your children in day care, with a sitter or latch key kids? (Russell Moore would not approve of her working away from home)

5. Is your wife allowed to witness to men she meets as she goes about her business? If yes, is she allowed to quote scripture to them as that could be considered 'teaching' a man.


Forget guns and degrees, sir. Many women could match that. These, and many more, are the questions that are coming up in 'Baptist Identity'.

Lucy

Bart Barber said...

Lucy,

Never does it cease to amaze me the way that "pro-woman" advocates will gleefully bludgeon or belittle women who aspire to anything other than rank feminism.

Anonymous said...

Never does it cease to amaze me the way that "pro-woman" advocates will gleefully bludgeon or belittle women who aspire to anything other than rank feminism.

Sun Apr 20, 12:17:00 AM 2008

Name calling is much easier than answering questions. You guys are getting good at it because you have so much practice :O)


By the way, aren't you 'pro woman'? I am sure your wife hopes so. :o)

Anonymous said...

My wife never went on any birth control either and she is almost too old for kids now. Doug Phillips needs to read some of George Mueller's writing concerning faith and providence. Georege Mueller stated concerning his faith that he never forced his level of faith on issues of God's providence on others because he knew that Christians had varying levels of faith. His view is about as bad as the word of faith teachers, they'll do little to lift a finger to help you and they'd rather point it at you.

Only By His Grace said...

BTW Cindy,

I did not say it, but you are a blessing.

Thank you,
Phil in Norman.

For Sale By Owner said...

Lin,

In reference to my point about the emphasis of the Priesthood of All Believers and the idea that Scripture has only one right interpretation, you said,

"This is quite confusing. How is it then that within the SBC, Patterson and Mohler do not interpret scripture the same in terms of the Doctrines of Grace?"

Well, one is right and one is wrong. They can't both be right. But since differing on these aspects is a tertiary issue, then both can exist in the same church and even husband and wife can disagree on these things. It is only essentials and secondary issues (such as mode of baptism - and that really only for Baptists, Evan Free's have no problem with diversity among that view) in which agreement is necessary within a church body.

I think you are making this harder than it really is to emphasize your point. And I think all your questions speak to that point.

You further say that the Biblical teaching on elders sounds good, but apparently you think it's kind of flawed in application. Then you say, "When we look at the NT, we do not see this formality that is presented these days…this institutionalization of both worship and ‘offices’."

Well I disagree and I think 1 Timothy, Acts, and Titus prove you wrong. First, 1 Timothy 3:1 is correctly translated by the NASB, "if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do." The emphasis is clearly on a set office within the Church. Secondly, in Acts, we have in passages like chapters 6 and 15, where organization was vital to the church. Third, in Titus, Paul instructs Titus to "set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you." Appointing suggests structure and this was clearly Paul's purpose statement to Titus noting priority of the act to Titus' ministry.

I just don't get how you can read those passages and suggest there was no formal order. Seems like that is exactly what the apostles were trying to bring about in the Early Churches.

Now you begin a barrage of questions, most of which merely distract rather than bring clarity to Scripture. In all of those cases you cited, clearly the situation is not the norm and in each Scripture isn't heeded properly. Thus, you take men's sin and use it to negate God's command. Let's look at a few:

"For example, what if my ‘authority’ in the church exhibits immoral behavior but is not disciplined by anyone else in authority or with a title conferred by men?"

First, "my authority" is a pejorative and not helpful. Second, who are you talking about? Your husband? Elders in the Church? If the Church isn't acting Biblically, leave it. Period. This is clearly an unBiblical church.

"What if he twists scripture by saying that for example, 1 Tims 3 is only ‘guidelines’ for elders and not meant to be followed exactly to make excuses for the immoral behavior? Is he still my authority I should submit to?"

Again, who are you speaking of here? Your husband? Then go to the Church. The Church? Then leave it. It's acting unBiblically. That's doesn't mean the commands of God are poor, but rather that sinful men have been led astray. The same could be done by ignoring other commands of Scripture.

You said, "Perhaps the reason is because Jesus Christ is the authority. And the ONLY authority elder/pastor/person within the Body has is by the power of the Holy Spirit…truth from the Word. It is not simply a title conferred by men."

Jesus through the Holy Spirit, though Scripture, set up structures of authority in the Church. To ignore them is to sin against Christ, thus He isn't being your authority either, is He?

You simply cannot ignore Scriptures such as these:

Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Paul speaking to the elders at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 - Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

1 Peter 5:1-5 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.


I just don't see how you can look at all those passages and not see that there is clearly a hierarchal structure in the Church. I think you assume we are talking about a heavy-handed structure, but in reality that is not how we function in our churches. But explaining that to you is frustrating and you simply will not believe us, nor really try to understand what we are saying. Which is why you ask questions like this:

"Are you saying that the elders/pastors are accountable to Jesus Christ within the Body but the others are accountable to the guys with titles?"

Absolutely NOT! That is not what I am saying. But I am beginning to think you really don't care to listen to what I am saying. You seem to have made up your mind that you know how we function and it is unBiblical and not worth understanding or considering. And that is very frustrating.

Now your friend said,
“I take this to mean that he believes that elders are to be the authority for the members of a congregation ("elder-rule"), rather than all members being equally under the authority of Christ ("congregationally governed").

Nope, your friend misunderstands me. All are under the authority of Christ. Scripture indicates that elders serve for the good of their people. They have been divinely appointed to serve and bear greater responsibility. Note this passage:

James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

You simply must have structure in the Church. Otherwise it is chaos. Christ instituted structure through the roles of elder and deacon. Thus they have authority, but ultimate authority rests with Christ. I honestly think this is pretty clear. I don't see how you guys miss this.


He continues: "But if that's the case, how could the husband-wife relationship picture the relationship of Christ to the church (as stated in Ephesians)? If Christ does not relate as an authority directly to the church members, but does so through the intermediate authority of elders, then the husband-wife relationship (which has no intermediate authority) is not a proper picture."

Again your friend misunderstands. I was not trying to suggest that the authority of elders supercedes that of husbands to wives, but both husbands and wives are accountable to Christ and to their Church. What if the wife is mistreated? She has an advocate in the elders to whom her husband should submit. This is how Biblical marriage counseling should work. If the husband cheats, if he harms her, or if he is not fulfilling his duty as spiritual leader, then the wife can go to the elders.


The more biblical model of accountability in the church is that the elders, as servants to the body, are accountable to the congregation. Elders are to be shepherds, teachers, and overseers of the spiritual needs (the souls) of the members of the church, not the "bosses" who "rule" the church. Why is this not obvious to people who know Christ and the gospel??”

AMEN! I agree wholeheartedly. That's what I have been saying all along!


And that's my point about clarifying. I had hoped you understood me, but it is clear you don't. And I honestly think you are not trying to, nor are you trying to understand Ware or Russell Moore or others. I think you have your mind made up and will not listen to differing views or consider any other possibilities. But I sincerely hope you prove me wrong.

For Sale By Owner said...

Justa,

First, I am thankful for your first paragraph. We have a good foundation of agreement to start from.

You said, "But I was focusing on the implications of your statement that the priesthood is specifically about relating to God through prayer and meditation. Your use of "specifically" sounded to me like you viewed those as the overriding aspects of the priesthood."

That was not my intention. Look at my statement again:
"Priesthood has to do with one's personal relationship with Christ, specifically as it relates to the atoning work of Christ and his or her ability to interact directly with God though the Holy Spirit (specifically in prayer and meditation)."

I noted two applications of the Priesthood of All Believers. First, it "has to do with one's personal relationship with Christ, specifically as it relates to the atoning work of Christ." That's what I see as primary. Secondarily, it relates to "his or her ability to interact directly with God though the Holy Spirit." By that I mean specifically in prayer and meditation. Do you see what I am saying here now?

On the other hand interpretation of Scripture is done using tools, experiences, thoughts, and teachings of others. Unlike in the atoning work of Christ or in prayer, we are not alone with God, hearing from only the Holy Spirit. We hear our experiences, our presuppositions, and the teachings in the past, which can often lead us to error in the name of the Holy Spirit, when in reality, the Holy Spirit didn't lead us to a particular interpretation - we led ourselves there.

Lin had already made the same challenge as I did . . . And since your response to her did not engage or attempt clarification on that point, I hope you can see why I continued to believe that was what you intended to convey.

I am not trying to be rude here, but I honestly think you guys were keying in on what you wanted to key in on and were not trying to understand what I was saying, especially since you asked me about the atoning work of Christ, when I had clearly mentioned it above.

I concede that you did not say that the priesthood is "only" about those things, but I'm still not quite sure whether or not you think that's the main thing.

I hope you see what I mean now.

I am pretty sure, however, that you are attempting to claim that the priesthood does not place all believers on the same level when it comes to the issue of "authority".

That's true to some extent. In our local Churches we don't all have the same authority. And we see that clearly in how the Early Churches functioned and in how Scripture (see my comment above for relevant passages) seems to speak about elders and overseers. That's not to say I disagree with congregational polity, but congregationalism doesn't imply equal authority, but rather a congregational (as a group, not individuals) authority. For example, in Acts 6, when the 7 are chosen, verse 5 reads, "the statement found approval with the whole congregation. So the congregation has authority as a unit.

...I think the basic point of our disagreement is that you assert some sort concept of hierarchical authority in the church and in marriage. You claim that the gender distinctions being made by some theologians do not impinge on the doctrine of the priesthood because the priesthood isn't really relevant to authority issues.

Let me say that up to this point I agree. I do think gender distinctions and church structure do not impose upon the Priesthood of All Believers (and apparently the Reformers felt the same way as they moved quickly to assign elders in the Churches and seemed to have not problems with what we call Complimentarianism today).

My claim is the opposite -- the idea that all believers (men and women) are equally priests before God is central to the notion of authority.

Here, either we are speaking past each other or I think you misunderstand the Priesthood of All Believers. Again, it is not about authority in the Church or in the home, it is about one's personal relationship to God and the atoning work of Christ. Never does the Bible claim that we are all to be elders, yet those Scriptures above all point to elders having authority in the Church, especially Hebrews 13:17.

Our equal access to God in Christ, and our equal responsibility before Him, grants us equal authority and responsibility before him in all things.

What do you mean by equal authority? Authority over what? Ourselves? Sure. The Church? No. We are called to submit to the leadership of the elders. How do you reconcile your view and clear Biblical teaching on the role of elders in Hebrews 13, 1 Timothy 5, and 1 Peter 5?

ALL believers are seated with Christ in heavenly places, blessed by Him with every spiritual blessing, joint heirs with Him, and share in His rule and reign.

AMEN!

There is no special class or group within the church who is to rule over other believers -- our only ruler is Christ.

I didn't say a special class, but there are clearly elders called to lead. I just don't see how you get around this in Scripture.

This is part of what is implied by the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer as taught in the Bible, Regardless of that the Pope or the Reformers or anyone else says.

You have to square your belief with the Biblical teaching on elders and so far you haven't done that. What the doctrine implies to you doesn't seem to be consistent with Scripture and this is a problem.

I apologize if the wording of my previous post was too harsh -- I suppose I was reacting to the condescension you demonstrated to Lin in your response to her. Now that you've demonstrated that same attitude toward me, I see that it is apparently just part of your style and not something I should concern myself with too much.

First of all, I have no problem with anyone's tone. I have thick skin. My problem is when tone and sarcasm distract from what is being discussed and very often that occurs. Ad hominem attacks seem to be contagious around here and that is completely frustrating. As to how people read my comments, I do have a "matter-of-fact" style of writing. It comes from a natural penchant to debate. But, I think it's easier for people to attack my character than to attack my positions, thus I am told I am arrogant, pompous, and other things. In the end, it's just a distraction. I am here to present and defend Biblical truth, not to stroke other's egos. That might sound harsh or arrogant, but it communicates how seriously I take Scripture and right belief. I would rather someone harshly criticize my position than hem-and-haw me into nonsense. I recongnize that's not always the best way of dealing with everyone, but in this format you will never make anyone happy when you criticize their words. Thus, it's better to be honest and straighforward than beat around the bush and never communicate your point.

But thanks for trying to understand my position and my style. That is indeed refreshing.

Cindy said...

Dear Pastor Wade,

Looking back over all these comments, I realized something you said in a comment early on that I missed before:

I am aware at Cindy's statements regarding Reformed theology, and though I believe in the doctrines of grace myself, I have no objection to Cindy articulating her views. She is more than entitled to her opinion and I respect it and am not threatened by them. I would be more than happy to fellowship with her as a sister in Christ, and were she in our area, we would love for she and her husband to be a part of our church, even though she vehemently disagrees with my soteriology.


Where do I vehemently disagree with your soteriology, specifically? (That scares me a bit since I think of the connotations of some of the aberrant Christian groups, particularly when soteriology is then connected with vehemence.)

I am fine with TULIP as long as it's used as a means of theoretically understanding the scheme of things and not as an apologetic that some use "against" evangelism. Raised in a dispensational background, I have great affection for these doctrines as well. I believe that both views are valid in many respects, and based upon how a person and their particular brain makes sense of the world, I think that a person will prefer one view or the other. They are perspectives, and we don't all share the same one, both through our experience and through our unique personalities and foibles. In some ways, I'm waiting until the end of the story to see who has it right! I view the differences in conviction about the gender debate in much the same way, and I believe that this keeps me teachable, always willing to consider, in terms of ever greater and deeper understanding, just what exactly the Truth of the Word and the highest meaning of it translates into in my life. And I'd be disappointed if I thought that I did have it all figured out at 41 years, since I would have no more of the adventure of growth taking place. Crow is not a fun thing to eat, and I'm not inclined to think that as God's child, I have figured out all of these complex issues about Him. I endeavor to learn of him, remaining teachable. The basics are the main, critical things however, and concerning those, we have great duty to and responsibility for them. My concerns about patriarchy concern these very basic and fundamental doctrines of the Biblical Protestant Christian faith.

We certainly understand the elect to be a fact that Paul discusses at length, and I believe that my steps have been ordered, so I rejoice! (Though, we may each have a different "take" on election.) I grew up with a very arminian concept of God's providence -- that if I wasn't on the corner at Fifth and Main at 10AM on a given day to witness to someone and got sidetracked, that my missing the mark could likely result in that person never hearing the Gospel and could possibly go to hell. I gained much balance in this from reading some of the Reformed literature, and now I understand that I have been created unto good works, prepared in advance for me to do. He girds me with strength and, through miracles which are beyond me, makes my way perfect through His grace and His Spirit. I have always felt (though did not have the theology behind it) that God looked down in the muck and mire, saw me and decided to give me beauty for ashes for some reason beyond me, as there is no goodness or merit in me apart from Him. As many people seem to preach, God didn't get a bargain when I experienced new birth in Him. And I am inclined that given the history of my Romans 7 style "doing that which I really don't want to do" through my falible flesh, I find a great deal of merit in the idea that God woke up my heart. Now, what the specifics are as to how that all works, I will wait for the Lord to tell me in Glory when I am finally changed and like Him when I can see Him as He is. How the mechanics of it work aren't of as great a significance if we are to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom and make disciples of the nations. We are called to share the Message of Jesus, and I am not so fixated on the theology of who (or Who) exaclty chooses whom (or Whom). Whatever theological view makes sense to the individual believer is fine with me, and I have great empathy for both views, having held to both a Dispensational and a Reformed/Calvinist view at different times in my life. The Gospel itself is of the greatest siginficance, and whether or not that fits neatly in a box of Theology is not so critically important to me. I do have the sense that God has had me and has held on to me during a season of youthful rebellion in my life, refusing to let me go. Whether that corresponds to a particular theology does not matter so much to me as the Saving Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and his unmeritied favor that rescued me from destruction. He gets all the Glory!

I worship with Dispensationalists and I worship with Calvinists (5 point or otherwise), though I believe that if my views fit in any box, they fall closer to New Covenant Theology than anything else. We are members of one another and are all growing as we (hopefully) come into greater unity of the faith. The details and the intramurals will work themselves out if we stay rooted and grounded in the clear teachings of the Word of God.

I don't see how that's all stands in vehement disagreement with any born-again believer's Soteriology. (At least not from my perspective.) I know that I am saved by grace through faith, by no merit of my own. I believe that the sanctification process works not through my human performance from the outside, affecting holiness in my inward man, but rather a miracle of the Holy Spirit and the Word that is God's divine miracle. Nothing that I do saves or sanctifies me. (I'm not a Romanist, in other words, a major characteristic of patriocentricity -- a term that distinguishes from the true definition of patriarchy without the connotations of the extra-Biblical movement).

My all-time favorite Bible verse is Roman's 8:29 - "For whom did He foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of His Son that he might be the firstborn of many brethren." Despite my humanity and the constant pull of the sin nature while I am in this flesh, God takes my life and somehow works my flawed humanity into something that communicates the Gospel and brings others to Him through His Light in me.

So I just wanted to "protest" the "vehement" modifier you used! ;o) About the only thing I am vehement about is this abusive behavior in the Name of Christ and what looks to me like irresponsible or lack of sound hermeneutics concerning these issues that touch on gender and especially the Trinity. I'm respectful and gracious in terms of specifics of Theology within the pale of orthodoxy, but I am tough on the basics.

Alright,

Back to Regular Programing and have a blessed day of worship, everyone.

Cindy said...

Phil in Norman,

Hugs and a holy kiss to you. Thank you for this encouragement.

(I used to live in Norman, you know! I also have dear friends, a Doctor Phil who lives in Techumseh who helped found the CareNet pregnancy center there near OU. My time there predated CareNet, so I worked with Birthright that was then on E Main Street. It is a place and time dear to my heart!)

Cindy said...

anonymous wrote: My wife never went on any birth control either and she is almost too old for kids now.

Anonymous,

This is much the case with me, and during a time when I took steriods for a few years for an extended health problem, I was too sick to have opportunity to conceive anyway. I might have considered contraception if I was well enough because steriods (necessary to preserve my life) harm babies in utero.

With health and other serious health issues with my husband, we've had years of mere survival, but the patriocentics don't offer grace to people who are not picture perfect. I have been told that some of these health issues are judgement and that we should have adopted, even while we were in poor health and in survival mode for several years.

It is just assumed that I am a feminist and have been told that I hate children even though my friends find this laughable.

This is the type of discrimination that takes place in these Family Integrated Churches.

Cindy said...

Bart Barber wrote: rank feminism

Sir,

Could you please define the term with objective qualifiers? There are a host of subjective definitions out there, and I wanted to discern exactly what you meant.

Cindy said...

Robert Prince wrote: I did divert from the main topic, but I believe the BFM 2000 and its statements on the role of wives in marriage and the role of women in the church is part of the broader suppression of women that your lecture identifies.

Do I take this to mean that you are saying

- I could have been more specific in the lecture and cited more SBC examples (beyond the names of SBTS and their professors) and still been accurate (not misinformed, making unwarranted statements as EMNR directly stated)?

- There is a problem with the inappropriate suppression of women in the SBC, and this is connected in some way to the BF&M 2000


When I started really digging to find the roots of the patriocentric teachings, I knew nothing about the issues in the SBC concerning gender. Because the evangelists of the patriocentric movement quoted these sources, I found my way to Russell Moore first, but the most contemporary source of the ideas specific to gender and women lead me to Bruce Ware. From there, I can see threads to Grudem and George Knight, III in his 1977 book, but the most specific, well-reasoned and extensive apologetics concerning women and Trinity come from Ware, IMO.

So this SBC stuff is all new news to me, even new to me since March 7the when I gave the talk.

So could you clarify? Did I correctly discern your statement? You seem to be saying that I was not in error by noting these SBC affiliated sources and could have made even more definitive, specific statements and been accurate.

(I'd love to hear anybody else chime in as well!)

Bart Barber said...

Anonymous,

Since my five questions are still hanging out in the wind unanswered, I hardly find myself under obligation to answer the questions thrown my direction solely to avoid responding to my questions.

But, I have liberty to do that which I am not obliged to do, and I will be glad to reply to the questions.

1. We've never discussed it.
2. We've never discussed it.
3. We've never discussed it.
4. Tracy does not work outside the home.
5. Absolutely, she does and can.


Cindy,

'Twas not my desire to engage you in a debate. I am solely taking issue with the linking of "Stepford wives" to the "Baptist Identity People." Only for rare and egregious circumstances do I comment around here any more, and the slanderous characterization of my own wife and many other wives whom I have grown to appreciate is a circumstance that rises above the threshold. Your post does not.

Therefore, I hope that you will not take offense at my refusal to engage you. I am merely trying to limit my participation in the comment stream—allegorically speaking, I'm trying to see whether I can find a long enough stick and stretch out from the bank far enough to retrieve the valuable item I dropped without wading all of the way into the stagnant, festering swamp. It may prove to be a futile exercise in the end, but I am inclined to make the attempt anyway.

Besides, surely you do not desire to codify a definition of which women are "Stepford"-ish enough such that it is appropriate to bludgeon or belittle them! Whatever I mean by "rank feminism" in my above comment, is it not wrong to brand and disparage those women who, by their own exegetical prowess and of their own volition, happen to find (as have the vast majority of exegetes in Christian history) divergent roles for men and women advocated and encouraged in the Bible?

Pamela said...

For all that believe that women are full fledge human beings created in God's image that are allow to think for themselves and express an opinion, please read on. If not skip my comments please:)

I would also like the definition of rank feminism also. From what I have read throughout this blog from its inception it appears that the definition of a feminist is a woman that does not fit the wife stay at home model. That pretty much leaves out women that are not married for whatever reason. At least no other explanation for women that do not fit the model is expressed other than she is a man-hating feminist. How judgmental is that. My comments are not judging anyone. This is what i have heard from pulpits throughout my walk with Christ (34 years).

The condemnation of women that are not married or do not have children in the body of Christ as a whole is pretty disgusting. I don't care how people try and twist the scriptures you will NEVER see that in the Bible. I have no contempt for women who have married and are stay-at-home wives. I also do not see where there are any that are supposedly 'pro-woman' that have expressed that on this blog. I read that they are not happy with that being expressed as the only option for being a good godly woman. It shows the contempt that many in the body have for those that do not fit the mold.

I am as much of a Christian as a married one woman with children. I have an awesome walk with the Lord by myself and if I never marry it will be an awesome walk with the Lord. Regardless of what deluded and deceived preachers say, I will be by myself when I move to heaven. The only qualification I have to stand in His presence is the shed blood of Christi completely wiping my sin clean from any record.

And church leaders wonder why Christians are leaving the church (NOT CHRIST) in droves. Not all of them have turned on Christ. They are reading their Bibles and seeing the opposite of what it says in the churches in their area. If churches preach this mess they will continue to shrink. People that can read their Bibles will not stay in jail. They will escape.

Anonymous said...

Pamela has said what causes many of us to speak against the ideas of male dominance in its various forms that are taught as part of the Gospel message. These ideas are driving many women (and maybe some men as well) away from Jesus and the church.

If, as she said, these women are Chrstians turning away from the institutional church it is bad enough.

But there are many who are not Christian and turn away thinking that such beliefs are part of Jesus' message and they want no part of a faith that tells them they are inferior. (Just as I wonder how any woman can be a Muslim or a Mormon because of such beliefs - though, in the case of Islam at least there are those who say much of the anti-woman ideas are not part of it.)

This may be the real damage these ideas cause - turning women away from Jesus, the one who treated them as human beings in a repressive culture.

I concede it may attract some men, but they are being attracted to a false gospel, one that teaches among other things, that it is right for some to lord it over others (an attitude Jesus spoke against). So again that is wrong.

Susie

robert prince said...

Cindy,

IMO the BFM 2000 reflects the suppression of women in its statement on marriage and family in that it codifies an authority/submission model of marriage versus a partnership model. I believe you can make a case from scripture for both these models, but the BFM 2000 gives no recognition to the partnership model. You may not be aware of the fact that Dorothy Patterson and I think Al Mohler were on the committee that put the BFM 2000 together. Mrs. Patterson is one of your strand links.

Furthermore, the article on the church limits the office of senior pastor to men, though that is a debatable local church matter. The passages cited in the article suggest that just as the man is in authority in the home, men should be in authority at church.

Another strand you might check into is Bill Gothard's Institute on Youth Conflicts. He has been hugely influential in promoting patriocentric views among Baptists and other groups.

Tom Parker said...

Bart Barber:

You get angry when someone uses the term "stepford wives" and then you use the term "rank feminism." You felt attacked with the first term and how does attacking others with the second term help? I just don't get it how divided we are as Christians.

Wade Burleson said...

Cindy,

Good point. I should have chosen better wording. You yourself expressed to me appreciation for reformed teaching that you experienced in a church you attended, saying it grounded you and helped you over come some of the word of faith influence you had experienced in your formative years as a Christian.

I realize that my words make it sound you 'vehemently disagree' with my soteriology. My point was that it makes no difference to me if people disagree with me, even vehemently, in terms of my fellowship with them around the person of Jesus Christ. But you correctly point out that my wording makes it sound like you do disagree with me, but you do not. But . . . my point stands - EVEN IF YOU DID . . I would love to have you a part of our church.

I believe that the church thrives on diversity and harmony in the midst of disagreement, not uniformity and demands for conformity.

In His Grace,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Bart Barber,

Tom Parker makes a keen observation when he addresses you and says:

You get angry when someone uses the term "stepford wives" and then you use the term "rank feminism." You felt attacked with the first term and how does attacking others with the second term help?

I would be the first to step to the plate to say I do not believe in any form or fashion your wife is a 'Stepford Wife,' but I'm not sure Wayne was addressing you in the first place.

However, when you pull out the 'rank feminism' vocabulary to use against Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Southern Baptists who simply wish that women be treated with the same respect, consideration and equality as men, then any compassion felt for your predicament is lost because the same spirit exhibited in the original comment that caused you offense is exhibited in your comment.

Just as you are concerned that the SBC is sliding into 'liberalism' and wish to prevent it, Wayne is concerned that the SBC is sliding into 'legalism' and wishes to prevent it.

The best avenue for all is to discuss, debate and address the issues and refrain from ad hominem (literally 'attack the person') language

Anonymous said...

Whatever I mean by "rank feminism" in my above comment, is it not wrong to brand and disparage those women who, by their own exegetical prowess and of their own volition, happen to find (as have the vast majority of exegetes in Christian history) divergent roles for men and women advocated and encouraged in the Bible?

Sun Apr 20, 08:23:00 AM 2008

What you may not realize is that you are referring to many stay at home moms as 'rank feminists' because they do not agree with intepretations of proof texts about women within the Body of Christ.

Yet there are many who would refuse to fellowship with such women and even silence their witness and deny their gifts within the Body.

Where ARE these divergent and specific roles in scripture?

By the way, many of us feel the same way about YOUR blog and some of your associates' blogs, so we can feel your pain. But your initial comments here always come off arrogant and belittling. I do not know if that is intentional or not.

Wade is always gracious to his detractors and never arrogant although he has been accused of worse simply for disagreeing with the powers that be. Incredible.

Lucy

bryan riley said...

Did you see this quote in the press by a "religious scholar" about the recent focus on the Fundamentalist LDS church? CNN wrote this:

Walsh said he also studies the mainstream Mormon church, which renounced polygamy a century ago and has no ties to the FLDS. He said without the polygamy aspect, the FLDS would resemble the Baptist or Catholic religions.

Lin said...

Me:"This is quite confusing. How is it then that within the SBC, Patterson and Mohler do not interpret scripture the same in terms of the Doctrines of Grace?"

DR: Well, one is right and one is wrong. They can't both be right. But since differing on these aspects is a tertiary issue, then both can exist in the same church and even husband and wife can disagree on these things. It is only essentials and secondary issues (such as mode of baptism - and that really only for Baptists, Evan Free's have no problem with diversity among that view) in which agreement is necessary within a church body.”

I agree which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why the teaching that we should have more Patriarchy (Moore) in the SBC. Why couldn’t Klouda teach men Hebrew? Why are they making a primary doctrine out of this secondary issue? I would think that how we are saved would be more of a primary doctrine than women’s roles where there is enough scholarship to question the proof texts and agree to disagree with love and fellowship.

Why are SBC leaders developing a whole new religion (specific gender roles, eternal subordination of the Trinity) around this secondary issue?

I know the answer to this question, btw. It is obvious. It is aobut power and control.

DR“You further say that the Biblical teaching on elders sounds good, but apparently you think it's kind of flawed in application. Then you say, "When we look at the NT, we do not see this formality that is presented these days…this institutionalization of both worship and ‘offices’."

DR: "Well I disagree and I think 1 Timothy, Acts, and Titus prove you wrong. First, 1 Timothy 3:1 is correctly translated by the NASB, "if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do." The emphasis is clearly on a set office within the Church."

Me: Ok, then name all the senior pastors, jr pastors, elders and deacons of all the churches in the NT. Since it is so important, I am sure they are all listed in there, right? And of course, all the letters would have been addressed to only them, right?

You are taking a 'function' of servanthood within the Body and making it into a earthly priesthood of a special 'class' of christians. And elder is simply someone mature in the faith who lives out the Beatitudes and cares for souls. They have NO earthy power. Only the power of the Holy Spirit if they are real elders.


DR “First, "my authority" is a pejorative and not helpful. Second, who are you talking about? Your husband? Elders in the Church? If the Church isn't acting Biblically, leave it. Period. This is clearly an unBiblical church.”

ME: But, wait, DR. If I am to heed Hebrews 13:17 as you quote in your comment, then I am to OBEY my ‘leaders’ and submit to them. It does not say, if they are Biblical or not. What if the leader says I am in sin to leave? It happens.

So, perhaps we are reading into scripture what is not there about authority and ignoring the Priesthood of the Believer as it was intended in scripture. You can’t have it both ways. I contend that we have faulty translations about ‘obeying’ our leaders and most do not understand that as part of the priesthood with ‘anointing’ they must seek discernment, wisdom and truth through the Holy Spirit and not just follow men.

I can understand why the KJ translators chose the most authoritarian words they could find in the Greek for Hebrews 13:17. They labored under an authoritarian king who came into power from another country, had a Catholic mother and needed to communicate total submission to earthly rulers.

You can put down my questions and imply they are silly but we really are seeing a elevation of titles in the SBC that is not displayed in the NT church. We are seeing cult of personality in too many of our pastors and leaders and too much lording it over others. And it is coming from their teaching and our seminaries.

Me"What if he twists scripture by saying that for example, 1 Tims 3 is only ‘guidelines’ for elders and not meant to be followed exactly to make excuses for the immoral behavior? Is he still my authority I should submit to?"

DR:“Again, who are you speaking of here? Your husband? Then go to the Church. The Church? Then leave it. It's acting unBiblically. That's doesn't mean the commands of God are poor, but rather that sinful men have been led astray. The same could be done by ignoring other commands of Scripture.”

No, actually, I was speaking of the pastor of BBC who recently was invited to speak at both SWBTS and Criswell Chapels. You still think what he taught was unbiblical? Who is holding him accountable? No one.

DR:“Jesus through the Holy Spirit, though Scripture, set up structures of authority in the Church. To ignore them is to sin against Christ, thus He isn't being your authority either, is He?”

Me: Wait. So you are saying that I must leave the church if it is unbiblical yet now you say, I am disobeying Jesus as my authority if I ignore the fact that He set up the authorities in the church. Perhaps this is the part of the Priesthood you don’t seem to want to acknowledge because you are now debating against yourself.

DR: “You simply cannot ignore Scriptures such as these:

Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

Me: I don’t ignore them at all. I simply believe you have a wrong definition of what an elder is. You see it at someone with earthly authority and power. I see it as someone who is mature in the faith who ONLY has the power of the Holy Spirit and NO earthly power. (Like Paul, Peter and Jesus) An elder is someone who lives out the Beatitudes in life…someone that one would joyfully and willingly follow because of their humility and love. They would NEVER lord it over. They contend for the truth but would never be contentious, condescending or arrogant.

DR: “I just don't see how you can look at all those passages and not see that there is clearly a hierarchal structure in the Church.”

Me: It is not hierarchical in the worldly sense. It is functional for the edification of the Body. Jesus Christ is the boss of the church. God is NO respecter of persons. There is no clergy/laity distinction in the NT. We are all ‘clergy’ but gifted differently.

DR:“You simply must have structure in the Church. Otherwise it is chaos. Christ instituted structure through the roles of elder and deacon. Thus they have authority, but ultimate authority rests with Christ. I honestly think this is pretty clear. I don't see how you guys miss this.”

Me: Are you speaking of structure as you see in most churches or structure as we see Paul teach in 1 Corin where several speak and others judge what they say? Also, where we see most of the Body participating in worship and not just as spectators in pews.

DR:“What if the wife is mistreated? She has an advocate in the elders to whom her husband should submit. This is how Biblical marriage counseling should work. If the husband cheats, if he harms her, or if he is not fulfilling his duty as spiritual leader, then the wife can go to the elders.”

ME: I hate to state the obvious but we know that Paige Patterson told a woman to go back to her abusive husband and expect it to get worse. He is blessed she was not killed and held liable legally as a pastoral counselor. Again, this sounds good on paper but in practice we find we have very few really godly elders out there who live out the Beatitudes and are servants who only care for souls.

Since we are talking past one another, let us agree to disagree. But let us agree that Paul commended the Bereans for checking every word he told them. Seems they understood the Holy Priesthood without realizing it!

Justa Believer said...

FSBO,
Perhaps I made too many assumptions about your positions based on extrapolations from my own experiences. I suspect we agree on more than we disagree, but do have some key differences on our views of authority, submission, church structure, etc.

I don't deny that there are specific functions within the church and that with those functions come both responsibility and an appropriate deference from other members of the body. But I don't think the passages you quoted demonstrate hierarchical authority, but rather spiritual service based on spiritual gifts and maturity, characterized by caring for the spiritual needs of others in the body. My submission to those functioning as spiritual leaders within a congregation is on the basis of their greater wisdom in the things of God than my own, not on the basis of some institutional structure or position.

I believe that people tend to read into the passage you mentioned our centuries of church culture that promotes a clergy/laity distinction that is simply not part of God's design. Are we talking past each other? Maybe -- if so, I trust it is because we each have different points to make. But I desire to stand for biblical truth, just as you do, and I don't think the church has had it right concerning authority within the church and the home for nearly 2,000 years.

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

I want to thank you for this: Of all the people terribly concerned about the meaning of the term "rank feminism" (a label that I did not paste upon anyone, but rather only specified who was NOT a rank feminist), you seem to be the only person other than me in this thread in the least concerned about the term "Stepford wives."

Telling....very telling.

For Sale By Owner said...

Lin,

Before we agree to disagree, let me address a few points (your words in italics, sometimes shortened for length):

I agree which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why the teaching that we should have more Patriarchy (Moore) in the SBC. Why couldn’t Klouda teach men Hebrew? Why are they making a primary doctrine out of this secondary issue? . . .

I never said I agreed with the Klouda decision, but I do respect the right of seminary Presidents and Trustees to make those decisions. I could elaborate, but that's a different discussion.

Why are SBC leaders developing a whole new religion (specific gender roles, eternal subordination of the Trinity) around this secondary issue?

Those views have a history rooted in Church teaching - nothing new under the sun. And labeling them a new religion might be provocative, but far from reality.

I know the answer to this question, btw. It is obvious. It is aobut power and control.

These sorts of statements reveal why I don't think you are trying to listen to the other side.

Me: Ok, then name all the senior pastors, jr pastors, elders and deacons of all the churches in the NT. Since it is so important, I am sure they are all listed in there, right? And of course, all the letters would have been addressed to only them, right?

First, you are forcing the Holy Spirit to inform you of your error in your way, not His. Instead of listening clearly to Scripture, you seem to tell the Holy Spirit you need more info. That's not the way to interpret Scripture or do Systematic Theology.

But as for your questions, there are plenty of references to the elders in the churches. Many scholars believe those mentioned specifically by Paul in letters are elders. Additionally, your point about the elders not being named actually speaks to my point about it not being about individuals, but rather the office. Also, very early on in the Church there were meetings with elders, Church councils, and writings by elders of churches which were circulated throughout the communities. We know men of like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alex., Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, because they were elders and leaders of the Churches (and their writings were well respected and heeded). Thus, it seems apparent from church history that individual elders were much more important to the Church than you are willing to acknowledge.

You are taking a 'function' of servanthood within the Body and making it into a earthly priesthood of a special 'class' of christians. And elder is simply someone mature in the faith who lives out the Beatitudes and cares for souls. They have NO earthy power. Only the power of the Holy Spirit if they are real elders.

First, you still haven't proved that Priesthood has anything to do with authority in the Church. Just continuing to say something won't make it true. And "they have NO earthly authority"? Wow, I guess I can just throw out those texts I mentioned earlier? What does the author of Hebrews mean when he says, "obey"? Obey spiritually? It appears you are ignoring some texts and picking and choosing what you want to believe.

ME: But, wait, DR. If I am to heed Hebrews 13:17 as you quote in your comment, then I am to OBEY my ‘leaders’ and submit to them. It does not say, if they are Biblical or not. What if the leader says I am in sin to leave? It happens.

Are you saying if we don't like a verse we can find a reason not to heed it and then we can ignore it? Do you really think we can just toss out that clear teaching of Scripture because it may be abused? I could give you a list of Scriptures that clearly state what we are called to do, yet, if abused, cause much distress to the Church. Doesn't mean we can ignore them.

So, perhaps we are reading into scripture what is not there about authority and ignoring the Priesthood of the Believer as it was intended in scripture. You can’t have it both ways. I contend that we have faulty translations about ‘obeying’ our leaders and most do not understand that as part of the priesthood with ‘anointing’ they must seek discernment, wisdom and truth through the Holy Spirit and not just follow men.

You may very well be reading into Scripture what is not there. But you still haven't proven Priesthood has to do with authority in the local church and now you suggest our translations are faulty without giving evidence. I suggest you present some scholarly evidence to back this up other than your perceptions. Is this the way you think the Holy Spirit teaches people to interpret Scripture? Your perceptions about how a verse is translated are enough to reinterpret it?

I can understand why the KJ translators chose the most authoritarian words they could find in the Greek for Hebrews 13:17...

Yea, but can you explain it in the NIV, NASB, and other modern translations?

We are seeing cult of personality in too many of our pastors and leaders and too much lording it over others...

Doesn't mean we can ignore Scripture's clear teachings.

No, actually, I was speaking of the pastor of BBC who recently was invited to speak at both SWBTS and Criswell Chapels.

Umm...not familiar with this case. What is BBC? And where can I get the audio?

Me: Wait. So you are saying that I must leave the church if it is unbiblical yet now you say, I am disobeying Jesus as my authority if I ignore the fact that He set up the authorities in the church. Perhaps this is the part of the Priesthood you don’t seem to want to acknowledge because you are now debating against yourself.

Twisting my words does not an argument make. If the church leadership is acting in a clearly unBiblical manner, then leave it. Go seek to be under the authority of elders who are being Biblical. But again, you keep inserting Priesthood when it has nothing to do with it.

I simply believe you have a wrong definition of what an elder is. You see it at someone with earthly authority and power. I see it as someone who is mature in the faith who ONLY has the power of the Holy Spirit and NO earthly power. (Like Paul, Peter and Jesus)

So, these men had no earthly power? Really? Jesus? (Matthew 28:18 - enough said) Paul, who used his apostolic standing to call the Churches to act in certain ways? And about whose Peter called Scripture? And Peter, who clearly made decisions for the Church, as recorded in Acts and also wrote as if giving commands to the Church? Lin, you are clearly only reading what you want to in the text.

They would NEVER lord it over.

Never said they would. That's where the submission part comes in - what you seem to have a big problem with.

Me: It is not hierarchical in the worldly sense. It is functional for the edification of the Body. Jesus Christ is the boss of the church. God is NO respecter of persons. There is no clergy/laity distinction in the NT. We are all ‘clergy’ but gifted differently.

Here we completely agree! I think a good portions of elders in a church should be the laymen. So, AMEN!

ME: I hate to state the obvious but we know that Paige Patterson told a woman to go back to her abusive husband and expect it to get worse. He is blessed she was not killed and held liable legally as a pastoral counselor. Again, this sounds good on paper but in practice we find we have very few really godly elders out there who live out the Beatitudes and are servants who only care for souls.

First, of all "we" aren't sure all that was involved in that situation. But, if we assume your version is correct then he was clearly wrong. But I have seen this work properly and have seen marriages saved because of it. So, maybe your experience is just too limited to negate Scripture in favor of exceptions.

In conclusion Lin, I again think you have your mind up and it doesn't look like you are really trying to defend your view through Scripture, but rather by skepticism and deconstructionism. The last post where we got into Scripture you failed to respond. So let's end this now. I don't care to debate our opinions - only what Scripture says. I do sincerely hope that you one day see this modeled appropriately and it is a life-changing experience for you. I know it was for me.

believer333 said...

“Nearly sixty percent of college and university students in America are now female.”

Not in Christian universities. But I would be happy if it were so. Education is a positive thing for anything one chooses to do in their lives. Women are overdue for a good education.

“One can rejoice in this availability of education for members of the fairer sex without missing the obvious: In a few years men will increasingly be underrepresented among the intelligentsia and will gradually cede leadership in many areas to women.”

Same thing they said when black Americans started attending college in droves. Fear mongering. It didn’t happen then either.

“Women have been liberated right out of the genuine freedom they enjoyed for centuries to oversee the home, rear the children, and pursue personal creativity;”

Not many women will fall for that line today. The ONLY freedom such women had WAS to oversee the home and bear and raise children. They had NO other liberties… no voting, no rights regarding what was done to and with their children, no rights in divorce, no rights NOT to do what their husbands demanded, no voting rights, no educational rights…. Etc.

I don’t care who said the above, it’s bad stuff and we should expose those who teach it…

Tom Parker said...

Bart Barber:

There was no need for you to use the term "rank feminism" in any usage. It is inflammatory.

Wayne Smith said...

Bart,
In reference to my comment, which was addressed to , Fred, I do believe the Baptist Identity People want their Women to be like Stepford wives.

Bart,
If the shoe fits (Baptist Identity People), wear it.

I find it very Odd that any of the Bible Scholars Listed in the Believers Study Bible would want to QUENCH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

The Holy Spirit that comes, on a Man or Woman is the same Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ regardless of ones SEX. Now you may disagree with what I believe to be the Truth of my Bible. I don’t want to be a stumbling block or Quench the Holy Spirit. We have so much LEGALISM in the SBC and it is very SHAMEFUL. I believe in The Priesthood of the Believer as stated in the Bible, not, The Priesthood of the Believers.



Title: The Believers Study Bible
Author:

5:19 The phrase “Do not quench the Spirit” may be rendered “stop quenching the Spirit,” suggesting the cessation of an action which is in progress. This verse addresses the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in one’s private life as well as in
the assembly of believers. The present tense of the command exhorts them to stop bringing the working of the Holy Spirit to a halt. It is encouraging to note that God gave them repeated opportunities to be used by His Spirit (see also 4:8).
The metaphor “quench” suggests that the activity of the Spirit conveys a warmth, even a fire within a fellowship. When the Spirit’s fire is not quenched, one will find a Christian, a fellowship, characterized by the positive aspects of 5:12-26.
In His Name
Wayne

Lin said...

DR, I agree with Justa believers last comment about the scripture verses you cited. I do not think they mean earthly heirarchies at all. I maintain that elders, etc are functions within the Body who care for souls, are filled with the Holy Spirit living out the Beatitudes and only have the 'power' of the Holy Spirit.

You have accused me before of getting quotes and information wrong. I am getting used to it. :o)

I am sorry about the long exchange with you before. We have done this before and it seems quite futile. I will leave you to think whatever you wish about me.

Grace and Peace to you.

Tom Parker said...

DR:

Your long answers or comments do not in themselves make what you say right.

ezekiel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Susie:

'Either women are human or not. All else follows from that idea. If women are fully human then egalitarian is the norm. If women are lesser creatures (like people not of the white race were considered to be in earlier times) then a lot of things that are presently practiced even by complementarians are wrong.'

That IS exactly it Susie! The issue comes down to the treatment of women in regards to their humanity.

ezekiel said...

This whole discussion is about patriarchs and the power, control, authority they wish to exert on women, the absurd idea that man will intercede for women at the judgement seat of Christ and the whole argument of authority in the church held by elders and rulers all makes me think of one thing.

Nicolaitans

thatmom said...

I would like to make a comment about the term "Stepford wives."

First,let me say that I have been a Christian for 44 years and have been married to the same man for 33 years. I have homeschooled our 6 children for 23 years and basically have spent most of my life living the same life that patriocentrists are promoting. i share these facts, lest you think I am belittling stay-at-home mothers.

However, I do think the term Stepford Wives isn't necessarily the wrong term to describe what I have seen within the patriarch wives' movement. Did any of you see the new version of this movie. All through the film, a certain way of life, a perfect way of life is the goal. Supposedly the men are programming their wives to fulfill the perfect role of wife and homemaker via a remote control. Then when you get to the end, you discover that the head an is actually a robot and that his wife is the one who is controlling everything. You see her holding the head of her robot husband in her arms lamenting "all I wanted was a perfect world."

For a long time I have felt that the patriocentric movement has women behind the scenes desiring the perfect world, a Christian version of Stepford. If you go to some homeschooling conferences, you will see Doug Phillips surrounded by a bevy of homeschooling moms clamoring to talk with him. They are the ones making the Vision Forum purchases. If you take a good look at the catalogs, they are designed with women and moms in mind.

This is not a perfect analogy but I think that it also isn't necessarily wrong to suggest there are Stepford Wife parallels.

For Sale By Owner said...

Tom,

Agreed, as long as recognize the same thing about your short, pithy responses.


Lin and Justa,

I am not naive enough to believe that any of us are going to change the others' opinions. I do hope that my comments have shown to you and others that our beliefs are not as far out in left field as some have suggested on this blog. I think I have made a legitimate argument for authority in the local church.

And with that, I wish you all the best.

Tom Parker said...

DR:

Does you wife work outside of the home? If she does how does this fit with the idea of some in the SBC that the wife should stay at home?

Cindy said...

Pastor Wade,

I have no doubt that I would enjoy worshiping with you and will do so if I ever have the opportunity! I am winsome in regard to these differences within Christianity, but I suspect that we are more alike than we are different in our beliefs. I appreciate your comment and your warm, respective and repectful reception of me more than I can say. May God bless you abundantly for so graciously receiving me (and may God equally bless those who have not)!

cameron coyle said...

I walked out of the church house this morning and gazed up at what had to be the bluest sky I've ever seen. I commented to a friend, "Man, that's a beautiful sky." He looked up and said, "Sure is. I've never seen it so red before."

How can two people look at the same thing and see something so different?

Cindy said...

How can two people look at the same thing and see something so different?

Easy...

Presupposition and worldview.

Analytical, sequential, details oriented folks prefer hierarchy and linear connection, preferring Left Cerebral Hemisphere function.

Spontaneous, artistic, intuitive oriented folks prefer holistic and global connection, preferring Right Cerebral Hemisphere function.

They appreciate different things about the world and make sense of things in a very different way. Bruce Ware looks at God and sees the primary, defining characteristic of the Trinity in the authority-submission relationship between the Father and the Son. I look at the Trinity and find the most primary, defining characteristic of the Trinity to be the fluid, organic loving relationship of care and sacrifice and provision. We are different parts of the same Body yet are still members of one another.

But I think we run into the problem that when the differences in perspective emerge, we see the eye saying to the hand, "We have no need of thee, you who compromise the Word of God because you don't see it the way that I do.

I suspect that this is the case. When you start with the assumtion that there is a hierarchy within the Trinity, as Bruce Ware says, you "see through Trinitarian lenses or glasses" and every Scripture takes on new meaning. And I can't see a blooming thing through those lenses, because my brain does not work that way and presuppositions about making sense of the world and the Gospel are so different that the hierarchicalist (a more appropriate term than the official "complementarians" prefer, I think, but one the comps don't like because it carries a negative connotation).

And I could be wrong, for from my vantage, the sky is a pale grey right now with a tinge of orange white where the sun has begun to peek over my horizon.

Lin said...

"I think I have made a legitimate argument for authority in the local church."

My point is that we cannot serve two masters and do not have 'priests' so some must have the idea of 'authority' wrong. They do not understand it really means 'servant' and has NO earthly power. Jesus Christ has the authority. the others are 'functions' and are to 'serve' others.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with some of the assumptions about the Stepford Wives. I think it could be true in some circumstances, but I think it's about the woman's desires. What woman doesn't want to raise godly children who obey their parents as the books portray? Particularly, young moms who are insecure in their abilities. It's only after we raise children and have the "been-there-done-that" type of confidence that we realize it was a blessing we didn't get what we thought we wanted. I do think the few that are into this Stepford Wives type of thinking think they want some type of Christianized world that resembles The Giver.

I never once thought I was buying into perfection, or some type of Stepford Wife type of living. It was my own desires that fueled my need to buy all this stuff I am giving away, not my husbands. I was so busy struggling to raise the children God sent me I was fortunate to come online or read a book. I will say I gleaned a lot from my readings, but I am the type who can disagree and still find something useful.

I run a large woman's list and the truth is in many cases it's the women (this is why it was mentioned previously that women swoon around Mr. Philip's for his teachings), not the men, who think that these authors are truthful about their ever-obedient children and it's their own desires that thrusts them forward into buying books they believe will give them the roadmap to pure, modesty and obedient children.

If you look at the beautiful Vision Forum catalog you can see it seems made to appeal to women. So many of the products and the set up of the magazines and their Victorian set ups, costume get ups, and tea party gigs are all set up in an almost fairy tale fashion (great PR) to get mom interested in spending more money to buy into the dream.

Another thing that bothers me is their two newest books from the Botkin sisters and Desperate Housewifes are more of the same dream-like stuff I shared above. The women are faceless, so you can just dream and place your own face or your daughter's. Like some mental paperdoll.

This is only part of the reason I believe it's often women financing the movement, not the men. To be honest most of the men I have dealt with seem to be quite happy to let a woman run everything as long as it seems as if they are in control. Are some of them just letting their husbands think they are in control?

Blessings!

For Sale By Owner said...

Tom,

Yes. She does work. Currently full-time as an ICU nurse until we begin have children (which is hopefully very soon). As for fitting within what others in the SBC think, thankfully, I don't answer to them, but to the Bible. If you want to ask me about how it squares with the Bible, well then I would be glad to answer that.


Lin,

I've noticed that you have almost never used any Scripture, nor attempted to prove your point about the Priesthood having to do with authority (or even that OT priests were "masters" - seriously?). As I have stated before, assuming a point is true is not the same as proving it (that's a presupposition and as I have challenged your presupposition, you have failed to defend it - only continued to restate it). I appreciate your opinion, but unfortunately, you still have explained how "obey" doesn't mean "obey." So, I'll reiterate that I think I have made a solid BIBLICAL argument for my position.

Tom Parker said...

DR:

If your wife will stay home with your children after they are born; do you feel that is what the Bible demands of her?

CJ said...

"When you start with the assumtion that there is a hierarchy within the Trinity, as Bruce Ware says, you "see through Trinitarian lenses or glasses" and every Scripture takes on new meaning."

I would change that just a little, LOL.

According to orthodox Christianity as set forth by the First Council of Nicaea, when you start with the assumtion that there is a hierarchy within the Trinity, you see through heretical lenses or glasses, and every Scripture takes on new meaning because your basic undestanding of the Godhead is flawed.
Just sayin'.

For Sale By Owner said...

Tom,

First, my wife and I are convinced by Scripture that her main role should be the home. Scripturally, here's why:

1) We take 1 Timothy 2:15 and 1 Timothy 5:14 to mean that wives should focus on household duties, as it is a means of avoiding Satanic influence in their life.

For more on this see the excellent article, "Saved Through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan's Deception"by Andreas J. Köstenberger.

2) We look at Titus 2:3-5 and see that clearly women are encouraged to be "workers at home." And we believe that working outside of the home will eventually interfere with and possibly counteract her greater work in the home.

3) We see clear distinctions between the roles of men and women, beginning in Genesis and continuing the NT. These roles are for men to lead and to work. We also see a great burden placed on parents to raise children. Thus, we believe this works together for God's purpose for men to work outside the home and women to work inside of it.


Now, having said that, my wife will work part-time outside of the home (one day a week) for many different reasons. We believe this is not in opposition to Scripture, specifically because of the teachings we see in Proverbs 31 regarding how Godly wives are involved in the marketplace. My wife will also be fulfilling her call to serve others since she is a nurse.


So Tom, that's how we view our lives within the framework of Scripture - both Biblical and fulfilling, functioning within our roles and yet not supressing our God-given desires.

Anonymous said...

In other words, Tom. DR thinks Phoebe, the traveling business woman, was in sin.

DR, you are a hoot. I bet your wife works full time right now as an RN in Memphis and you sell 'stocks' for Edwards on commission which makes her the current breadwinner with the health insurance. That is usually the case with guys like you.

Cindy said...

Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy gets a break and she's out doing the Lord's work in caring for the sick, but nurses like me get labeled "feminist" and those who have capitulated to humanism?

I have turned down at least 15 dream jobs in nursing because they would have competed with the kids and the family life for them that I planned to have. But I get labeld. Why is that? I'm even working for my husband now when he has work available, and working from our home.

Karen Campbell (thatmom) wrote a few posts back that we live lifestyles that are nearly identical to that of those who believe that a woman's only place is in the home. (How is it that people believe that I know enough about this mess to give a talk on it?) But we are both called names, too many to be listed. Why is that?

CJ said...

"Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy gets a break and she's out doing the Lord's work in caring for the sick, but nurses like me get labeled "feminist" and those who have capitulated to humanism?"

Good question.

And here's ANOTHER good question -- how come, back in the pre-feminist eras that the patriarchs idyllize, people thought that schoolteaching and nursing were perfectly acceptable activities for unmarried women and for women whose children were of school-age?

Of course, in "good old days" idolized by the Patriarchs, nobody had ever heard of the homeschooling fad either, and ALL children were expected to attend school -- in fact, one reason that immigrants came to this country in the late 1800's was the opportunity for free education for their children.
Once her children were old enough to attend school, many women back then worked for a few hours each day as grocery store clerks, waitresses, domestics, etc. Nobody thought that there was anything wrong with that, and nobody preached against it.

It wasn't until the 1980's and the advent of the New Religion that this suddenly became problematic, and we suddenly started hearing sermons about how Titus 2:3-5 and other verses meant that women were forbidden to work outside the home -- before that nobody interpreted those verses that way.
Funny how the Bible changed its meaning overnight -- or maybe all those preachers from the time of Christ until the 1980's just missed the true meaning of Titus 2:3-5 somehow. :P

Cindy said...

I just wanted to clarify something that was not readily apparent to some in my last comment...

I do not have children, but my husband and I planned and structured our married life so that I could be a full-time, homeschooling mom. So when I say that I turned down full-time jobs, this was to resist anything that might pull me away from motherhood, including what kind of houses we've bought on our trek around the country.

But I do not have children and did not claim to have children, but merely stated that I have always planned to have them. In the meantime, I've lived a life very much like the kind that the patriocentrists live, without the Little House on the Prairie attire and without the headcoverings.

Just to clarify so that I don't read on some kinist website that I am an dishonest...

Cindy said...

CJ,

I appreciate your comment.

CJ said...

"Just to clarify so that I don't read on some kinist website that I am an dishonest..."

LOL... it will probably happen anyway, though.

When it comes to calling good evil and evil good, and totally inverting the facts to support their opinions, there's nothing quite like a kinist.

Lin said...

"Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy gets a break and she's out doing the Lord's work in caring for the sick, but nurses like me get labeled "feminist" and those who have capitulated to humanism?"


Because it is different when they do it? :o)

For Sale By Owner said...

Cindy,

In all honesty, I think many of you lump all Complimentarians (and use the pejorative of "Patriarchal" to describe us) into one category and find the most extreme examples of us to point to as normative.

As I have said from the outset, I don't think many of those critical of Complimentarianism) understand the positions and applications of those of us who hold to it.

Critics (including those who post here) continue to paint us with broad strokes when in fact, there is much diversity in how we live out our beliefs. I first posted on this subject out of a desire to set forth a Biblical case for our positions and to defend my brothers and sisters in Christ who I felt were being libeled unfairly. But I am beginning to see how fruitless this is, because it seems my views are treated with the same distain and unfairness that the other side claims we handle their views with.

Finally, I have never publicly or privately criticized a woman for generally working outside of the home, and most Complimentarians I know personally do not either. For us it is a matter rightly ordered priorities, not lists of "Do Not's".

What we criticize is a position that does not take into account the priorities of male and female roles in the home and church and the lack of attempt to order the home and church in that manner.

Cindy said...

FSBO,

I didn't realize that I had classified you as a patriarchalist. I was not referring to you when I wrote that but of the messages that I have received from those within the patriocentric circles. Now if you are a Dougite (a follower of Vision Forum) or a follower of the Federal Vision and Doug Wilson, then the association might be valid.

If you read that into what I wrote, I apologize as I got the impression that you were a complementarian and were not necessarily expressing issues that you had with me when you made the statement. And as far as me lumping people in with complementarians and painting with broad brushes, since I ascribe to what constitutes a complimentarian view, I would be painting myself.

Again, I was referring to the population of concern as detailed in this blog post and the specific population that I addressed in the lecture that provided the subject for this blog post. I didn't realize that we were engaged in a dialoge about your esteem for me or mine for you. Are you patriocentric or did you just put yourself in the path of my supposed broad brush stroke?

For Sale By Owner said...

Cindy,

I was referring to this comment, in which you seemed to call me the "patriarchal guy":

Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy gets a break and she's out doing the Lord's work in caring for the sick, but nurses like me get labeled "feminist" and those who have capitulated to humanism?


As for whether I am patriarchal, I really don't like using that label because it's been used as a pejorative, nor do I want to distance myself from the likes of Bruce Ware and Russell Moore, both of whom I respect greatly and wish more on this blog could meet in person (they are certainly two of the most gracious men I have ever met in my life). Now there are some I certainly would distance myself from such as the Kinists (as would those two men), and at times Tim Bayly.

My problem is that too often in this thread and elsewhere on this blog, sincere men of God have been unfairly criticized simply by slapping upon them the label of patriarchal. And often the criticism have been in the form of "he believes A, which will inevitably lead to C", when no consideration is given to the possibility that B is a viable option. Also, many jump to conclude the C application without the clear articulation of such an application by those they are criticizing. It is criticism by speculation.

Examples of this are criticisms that Complimentarians believe that women are not equal or not fully human and that it is a rejection of the Priesthood of All Believers, none of which is true.

I hope you see my frustration and understand my assertion that this is unfair criticism. Even so, I appreciate your willingness to engage me with an irenic spirit.

Cindy said...

For Sale By Owner,

Ah, I see your confusion. I did not mean you specifically, but rather was recalling the patriarchal wives that get a double standard (also so typical in spiritually abusive situations). It was nothing personal and I did not think of that way, though my language would reflect that. I understand. It's all arbitrary, depending who you are, in my experience. But I would suspect that a Doug Phillips follower would be quick to give you a pass and quick to sell me down the river because you would be considered "more normative" than I would because of my outspokenness.

You do bring up an interesting point, however. Why do people automatically assume that because I disagree with someone's teachings that I believe they are "bad" or "unkind" or have problems with behavior or are ungracious? I'm sure these men are fine gentlemen and I generally refer to them in such ways when I am not in an academic mode of discussion. (Like a textbook is known by it's author -- say Schaeffer, for example -- I will refer to these men by their last name's only and is not a show of disrespect or disregard. This is an academic tradition.) But I am amazed that I get accused of maligining these men's characters for calling out their teachings. I've said nothing personally about anyone.

But can someone explain to me how being a nice guy and a fine example of a Christian somehow facilitates the rubber stamping of their aberrant teachings? And if I disagree with these gentlemen, why does that mean that I believe that they are not nice guys and fine examples of a Christian? We are talking about exegesis here, not their demeanors.

And I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The world is full of the history of those who denied what they were doing and what they meant. It started in the Garden of Eden with "Ye shall not surely die." "When I said that, I didn't really mean that." I don't buy it. These fine, Christian gentlemen can say until they are blue in the face that they believe women are equal and yet different in a complementary fashion and say that Jesus is not lesser than the Father, but what they explain says exactly that. You can believe their disclaimers, or you can evaluate what they are saying. If they have to make the disclaimers over and over, why do you think that is?

You said "Examples of this are criticisms that Complimentarians believe that women are not equal or not fully human and that it is a rejection of the Priesthood of All Believers, none of which is true."

I think that you are very, very wrong in that statement. I admire the respect and love that you have for the people who make these claims, but I believe that they are deceptive or kidding themselves in making the claims. Their message says otherwise. The Father as "supreme" does make Jesus lesser than the Father because Ware goes on to teach that Jesus does not have the authority to answer prayer. That is not equal in power, something the church fathers did not support. And they can say indirect does not mean lesser, but by definition of the metaphysical and ontological disciplines, their claims are also illogical and incongruent.

I'm sure that they believe that Jesus is equal to the Father and that women are equal to men, but their message is highly contradictory and this assertion is a huge logical fallacy of post hoc ergo proper hoc. Their intent and their hearts of loving intent do not match their teaching, and the teaching is NOT clear from the Word of God and violates solid hermeneutical principle.

And this does not mean that I would not find them kind and humble as you describe them. Apples and oranges.

Anonymous said...

"As for whether I am patriarchal, I really don't like using that label because it's been used as a pejorative, nor do I want to distance myself from the likes of Bruce Ware and Russell Moore, both of whom I respect greatly and wish more on this blog could meet in person (they are certainly two of the most gracious men I have ever met in my life). "

You don't like the 'term' but do like the stance? Russell Moore does not have a problem with the term all all. He is promoting it.

Lucy

CJ said...

"....Ware goes on to teach that Jesus does not have the authority to answer prayer." !!!!???!!!!

Good heavens -- Ware has been teetering on the edge for a while now, but if the above statement is true, he has finally fallen in and is now swimming in the deep end of the heresy pool.

Cindy said...

CJ,

That statement is absolutely true and is hinted at in Ware's book. Cheryl Schatz who is developing and nearly ready to film a video on the Subordinationism in Trinity corresponded with Bruce Ware over these matters in private email. For those interested, look at the Trinity tag on her site. It's appalling. Based on her correspondence, she sent me a refutation of what someone suggested about praying only to the Father on the Part VII of VII of the videos on YouTube. If you go to my blog or if you click on the "more info" section on the YouTube info to the Right of the video on their website, you can read what she sent to me in response.

Note: I don't agree with everything that Cheryl Schatz finds to be true about the gender issue. But, her advocacy for the correct interpretation of Scripture in this area is commendable. I can't believe that so few people, Cheryl among them, note the blatant problems with Ware's Trinitarian teachings.

Tom Parker said...

DR:

Thanks to your response to my question. As you begin your pastorate will you share these views with your congregation?

For Sale By Owner said...

Tom,

Yes, I have no problem communicating my positions with those in my congregation.

Tom Parker said...

DR:

I found this comment by you interesting-"We take 1 Timothy 2:15 and 1 Timothy 5:14 to mean that wives should focus on household duties, as it is a means of avoiding Satanic influence in their life."

Please elaborate.

Anonymous said...

found this comment by you interesting-"We take 1 Timothy 2:15 and 1 Timothy 5:14 to mean that wives should focus on household duties, as it is a means of avoiding Satanic influence in their life."

Please elaborate.

Wed Apr 23, 09:14:00 AM 2008


Tom, it means that ALL women for ALL time are easily deceived and will only be saved if they stay in their 'role'. Of course, scripture is not specific about the 'role'. And I guess Phoebe and Mary M were in sin. Lydia, too. I mean, who did she think she was starting a church in her home!

See, Paul was not speaking about problems in the Ephesian church, he was speaking about ALL women for ALL time. We just have to ignore all the other passages concerning women in scripture who did not get Paul's memo.

See, ONLY women have a 'work' to be saved. Didn't you know that there are pink and blue hermeneutics?

Lu

Tom Parker said...

LU:

Lu:

Thanks for the explanation. I would really like to know his new churches reaction to such thoughts on women especially the women who work outside of the home.

Lord Save Us! said...

Thatmom said, "For a long time I have felt that the patriocentric movement has women behind the scenes desiring the perfect world, a Christian version of Stepford. If you go to some homeschooling conferences, you will see Doug Phillips surrounded by a bevy of homeschooling moms clamoring to talk with him. They are the ones making the Vision Forum purchases. If you take a good look at the catalogs, they are designed with women and moms in mind."

Yes! I'm stunned that more people don't see the absurdity of all this. It's a few men who are serving as the public spokesmen of Patriarchy and profiting handsomely from it (Phillips, Sproul, etc.). The so called leaders of Patriarchy do have to be men because it is, after all, supposedly about men being the leaders of their homes and women submitting to their husbands. But strangely enough the vast majority of patrons are women. You don't find many men sitting down to read a Vision Forum catalog, let alone ordering any of the overpriced junky toys for their kids or overpriced books and CDs and DVDs for their wives. No, it's the wives who do that.

Why would any self-respecting self-assured loving and godly wife and mother get drawn into this? They don't. It's another kind of woman who gets sucked in. What's the appeal for their getting sucked in? Image. It's all about image. Image and PRIDE.

This is "Christmas Letter Syndrome" on steroids. You know how once a year your "friends" that you never hear from but once a year have to send you a Christmas letter that drones on and on about how perfect their family is, all their great accomplishments, how there is perfect peace and harmony in their home, etc? It's Life In Perfect. Then they close with, "Oh, and a hat tip to God for sending his son Jesus to save us from our sins."

That's the Patriarchy movement -- Christmas Letter Syndrome on steroids. "Look at me. Aren't I something special? I've got a full quiver of kids that I home school and we're all just as perfect as a picture. I sew all my girls dresses (we ALWAYS wear dresses, even if it's just to go clean the toilets), and I buy matching outfits for all my boys, including my husband. Any time we go out we make sure our clothing matches. I even pick out a matching outfit for my husband. He pretty much does whatever I tell him. Not that I wear the pants in the family or anything like that (How silly that anyone would accuse me of that! I ALWAYS wear dresses!). I would never coerce or manipulate or be controlling because, as we all know, a Christian wife submits to her husband. I even prove my submission by wearing a little napkin thingy on my head to church. We call it a head covering. It's a message to everyone in church that says, 'See, I submit to my husband'. I even make my little girls wear napkin thingies."

Honestly, the things I have seen done by "Prairie Muffins" (a term coined by RC Sproul Jr to describe the wives of Patriarchs) are absurd. It's not biblical submission. It's an act. It's prideful Phariseeism. I've been in the some of these Patriarchy/Prairie Muffin homes, and even a few of their "family integrated churches" and it's the most revolting and phony display of "Christianity" I've ever seen. Lord save us!

Anonymous said...

In all this talk about women being the keepers at home meaning they have to BE at home and not work outside the home (a la Vision Forum's Scott Brown - who, btw, has taught guest-taught classes at SEBTS), I'm wondering why the Greek is chosen to be interpreted that way.

Cannot "oikouros" simply mean that the wife is overseeing the care for her home? Making sure everything is running in an orderly fashion? Does she have to be present to do that?

What about men receiving the instruction in Deut. 6 "You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up."

They certainly don't interpret that to mean that all men need to have home businesses so that they are 100% available at all times for their sons do they?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the SBC is serving two masters. Who is Lord here the MAN (patriarch) or God? I love God and I love men but I do not love reform theology. Ghandi said "I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians. They are nothing like your Christ.

Colleen said...

I figured Doug Phillips must be a misogynist, but I didn't realize how much he hates women until now. He thinks so little of women that he's fine with it if they die because they have a tubal pregnancy. He says that women with an ectopic pregancy can't "biblically" seek medical attention. They should just be willing to die. See Doug Phillips Poses Threat To Lives Of Home Schooling Moms

emsolideogloria said...

Ware's comments are also perfectly clear in this article on CBMW's website. I just wrote an email asking my complementarian pastor what he thinks of women being 2nd class image-bearers in Ware's apprehension of the Genesis and I Corinthians passages.

Thank you very much, Pastor Wade, for standing up to those whose paradigm for the gospel is hierarchy.

Anonymous said...

All this talk of women preaching the Gospel: I'm sorry, but, for me, the greatest sermons by Christians were the acts of martyrdom by the early Christisns. Many who witnessed these people die for their faith in Christ, came to believe in Him also.

It is known that many of these early martyrs were women. Strange, at that time, no one said to them: you cannot preach about Lord Jesus to mankind. Many of these women preached powerful sermons from their pulpits: Roman crosses.

Sorry, gentlemen, it's too late to say it should not, or cannot be done. Women of the early Church, in their martyrdom, were great messengers of the faith.