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

Men of the Great Assembly and Women Teaching

The Men of the Great Assembly were a group of 120 Jewish leaders who ruled Judea from shortly after the dedication of the Second Temple (516 BC) to the invasion of Judea by the Greeks under Alexander the Great (332 BC).

The formation of the Great Assembly is described in Nehemiah chapters 8, 9, and 10. Today's Israeli Parliament, called The Knesset (Hebrew for "assembly") also has 120 members, imitating the Great Assembly of Ezra's day.

Few Christians understand the significance of the Great Assembly and the effect it had on Jesus' ministry in Judea. 

1. Be deliberate in judging.
2. Educate many students.
3. Make a fence around the Torah.
Make a fence. The word pro-fane is from the Latin and it means "outside the fence." The Great Assembly interpreted the Torah and told the Jews how to live so as not to offend Yahweh. If you didn't abide by the judgments of the Great Assembly, you were a profane person. 

The spiritual descendants of the Great Assembly believed Jesus to be profane person

Jesus was to free. Jesus hung around people outside the fence. Jesus empowered women. Jesus paid little attention to religious rules of the Great Assembly. Jesus sought to transform lives from the inside out. 

The Great Assembly: The Foundation of Jewish/Christian Legalism

In 586 BC, Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple, carried away the Jews as slaves into Babylon, beginning what is called for the Jews "The Babylonian Exile." For the next seventy years (586 - 516 BC), the Jews had no Temple to worship Yahweh. 

Ezekiel the prophet saw the glory of Yahweh leaving the Temple before its destruction in 586 BC, and the glory of God never returns to Judea until the birth of Jesus:
"An angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the LORD shone around them, and the shepherds were terrified. "Do not be afraid! For behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the nations, for today, in the City of David (Bethlehem) a Savior has been born to you. He is Christ the LORD." (Luke 2:9-11). 
That's the first time the glory of the Lord appears in Judea since 586 BC.

Religion for the Jews continued, but the Spirit of God isn't present. When the second Temple is dedicated in 516 BC, the glory of Yahweh did not fill the Temple like He did at the dedication of Solomon's Temple in the 10th century BC

Any time there are attempts to be sacred without the Spirit, to prioritize rules over relationships, and to point the finger at others rather than to put the focus on oneself, religious legalism arises. 

Here's how religious legalism began among the Jews. 

In October 539 BC, the Persian army conquered Babylon and deposed the Babylonian king (see Daniel 5), Persian king Cyrus released the Jews to return to Judea and re-establish Yahweh worship in a reconstructed Temple in Jerusalem. 

Zerubbabel led the Jews in constructing the second Temple. The Jews dedicated it in 516 BC. After the Temple's dedication, the Jews struggled with Yahweh worship because the walls of the city weren't yet rebuilt. Foreigners had moved in to Judea while the Jews were in Exile. Several prominent Jews, including Daniel, remained in Babylon and didn't go back to Jerusalem. The Jews' attention was focused more on their enemies than their God. 

The Jews appealed to the Persian king for help. In response, a young Jewish scholar trained in the Persian court of Babylon, a scribe named Ezra, left Babylon in 458 BC and came to Jerusalem. 

Ezra created the Great Assembly to help the Jews interpret the Torah and apply it to their lives. Nehemiah followed shortly to rebuild the walls of the city of Jerusalem.

Ezra and Nehemiah helped the Jews build the fence. 

There were a few men who argued with Ezra, telling the scribe that it was Yahweh's desire for all nations (e.g. foreigners) to know Yahweh, and Judah was to keep the "gates open" (Zechariah 8:22-23)

But the Great Assembly prevailed. 

The religious fence was constructed. 

Rules were established to keep Jews inside the fence. Rules were established to keep others out. These rules were interpretations of the Torah by the Great Assembly. But because of Great Assembly's alleged "authority" over the Jews, these interpretations became laws.

For the next 400 years, the fence did its job. 


He was despised and rejected (Isaiah 53:3). He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him (John 1:11). All who saw Him mocked Him and sneered (Psalm 22:7). They condemned Him to death (Mark 10:33). 

He was profane. He didn't follow the rules. He was "outside the fence."

Those filled with the Spirit will often be called "profane" by the faithfully religious. 


The Modern Equivalent of the Great Assembly in Evangelicalism

Photo: Church Leaders.Com
There's within Christian evangelicalism a group of men, similar to the Great Assembly of Ezra's day, who wish to instruct Christians, churches, and all who follow Christ as to what Spirit-gifted women can or cannot do within "the assembly." 


My son Logan, a very intelligent follower of Christ who seeks to lead others to the freedom that comes from knowing Jesus, sent me an article about Christian women and "where they can teach." He asked if I had read it and if so, what do I think about it.

I had read it before. In fact, I read it three years ago

The article was re-posted on John Piper's Desiring God Ministries website this past week. 

Photo: Charisma News
All I could think of was the Great Assembly. 

There is a pretty big fence being constructed by the evangelical religious on the issue of women. 


After stating it is profane (outside the fence) for Christian women to teach in the place of "church fathers" (think Great Assembly) or to imitate the authority of a males by leading others, Mary Kassion explains how to determine whether a gifted, Spirit-filled woman is acting as a profane person in her biblical teaching. 

In 2016, John Piper published Mary's article with the title Women Teaching Men - How Far Is Too Far? - a very good fence-building title. 

This past week, John Piper republished Mary's article, with a few word changes, under the title "Where Can Women Teach? Eight Principles for Christian Churches."

At least there's progress in the titles. The 2016 title "How Far Is Too Far?" conjures up a fence. I think the modern evangelical Great Assembly is feeling the heat from Jesus' followers.

Below are some of the main fence-building efforts of John Piper and others in the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as they seek to keep out gifted, humble Christian women from teaching or leading men. 
____
"Christians gather at many other times and in many other contexts. There’s Sunday school, small groups, prayer meetings, seminars, and conferences. What’s more, Christians often gather for religious edification and instruction with people who don’t go to their church. And they listen to podcasts, watch videos, and read books. The Bible doesn’t specifically address these contexts. As a woman, how do I decide if teaching in these other religious, coed contexts is appropriate?
The way I determine if teaching in a specific religious venue to a coed audience honors male headship is by trying to determine how closely that particular situation mimics the nature, role, and function of a church father in governing and providing public doctrinal instruction for the local-church family.
In particular, I try to pin down where the venue sits on the following eight continuums. The more a teaching venue leans toward the left (the first part of each pairing), the less likely it is that the venue is an appropriate one for me to provide coed instruction. The more the speaking venue leans toward the right (the second part of each pairing), the more likely it is that I might be a helpful teacher in this context.
Context: congregational (church) ⟶ non-congregational. Is this the local church, or is it not exactly church?
Nature: exegetical ⟶ testimonial/inspirational. Am I forcefully interpreting a text of Scripture or sharing from my life and experience with biblical support?
Authority: governmental (directive) ⟶ nongovernmental (nondirective). Am I establishing the official standard for the community?
Relationship: close (personal/relational) ⟶ distant (impersonal/non-relational). Am I in a community relationship with these men? Am I seeking to mentor them?
Commitment: formal ⟶ informal. Have the listeners made a formal commitment to me or to this community?
Obligation: obligatory ⟶ voluntary. Are the listeners obliged to listen to the teaching that takes place in this context? Can they be disciplined and corrected for failing to obey?
Constancy: habitual (ongoing) ⟶ occasional. Does this happen often and repetitively or infrequently?
Maturity: sister ⟶ mother. Does my age and spiritual maturity create a situation where I am speaking as a mother would to her sons.
______

I have a headache.

Genuinely, I have a headache.

When Christians spend more time fence-building to keep people out, or to keep people from, or to keep people in, you've missed God.

You've created an institution similar to the one that ultimately rejected the mission and purpose of Jesus Christ.
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." (John 8:32). 
 A fixation on authority is a sign the Spirit has left.

New Covenant Christian leadership is based on spiritual giftedness and not sexual gender. 

125 comments:

Kate Johnson said...

yes! This! Great analogy, fence building to keep people in/out of specific roles is beyond legalism, something Jesus fought against. Thank you.

Jim Palmer said...

I believe Jesus hated fences!

ReVoLuTiOnArY TeNdEnCiEs said...

Wade though I haven’t agreed with you on some things, I have to say, I have learned and grown a lot in many other areas thanks to you. You have been a blessing to me. I enjoy reading your push back on things whether I agree with you or not. It’s always good to hear someone speaking out in a reasonable and intelligent tone.

I’m this article you wrote, “When Christians spend more time fence-building to keep people out, or to keep people from, or to keep people in, you've missed God.”
There’s some problems with that statement but I get what you mean. However I’d like to point out that the men who are seeking to “keep people out (women in this case)” are not doing so in order to perpetuate a male dominated society. No. They are doing so because they see it as biblical. They are men who love God and love others and seek to obey what they believe God has revealed to them through His Word. Thus they build a fence not because they want women out of the role of being a pastor, but because they do not see it as how God has designed the roles of mankind.
I would suggest that a “fixation on authority” (right or wrong) very well may be a sign that men are seeking to be obedient and honoring to the God who saved them and not one that reflects the departure of the Spirit.
Blessings and thank you for your ministry! May you continue love Him and teach others to follow Him.

Tamara said...

ReVoLuTiOnArY TeNdEnCiEs said...They are doing so because they see it as biblical. They are men who love God and love others and seek to obey what they believe God has revealed to them through His Word. Thus they build a fence not because they want women out of the role of being a pastor, but because they do not see it as how God has designed the roles of mankind.

The problem with this defense is that the same thing could have been said about the men (and women) who saw racial inferiority and slavery/segregation as biblical and the way "God designed the roles of mankind".

And I'm not talking about pre-Civil war either.

"A prophetic declaration is made that from Ham will descend an inferior and servile posterity…a prophetic declaration is made that from Japheth will descend the “enlarged” races. Gov’t, science, and art are and have been Japhetic so history is the indisputable record of the exact fulfillment these declarations
"
~1918 edition of the Scofield Study Bible on Genesis 10

"The Bible makes some things plain…I’m going to show you that the Bible is perfectly clear on races-just as clear as can be....
You talk about a superior race and an inferior race and all that kind of situation. Wait a minute. No race is inferior in the will of God. Get that clear. If a race is in the will of God, it is not inferior...

You cannot run over God’s plan and God’s established order without having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race...
Let me repeat that it is no accident that most of the Chinese live in China. It is not an accident that most of the Japanese live in Japan; and the Africans should have been left in Africa...Whenever we have the races mixed up in large numbers, we have troubles….
If we would just listen to the Word of God and not try to overthrow God’s established order, we would not have any trouble...

If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because he made racial separation...God made of one blood all nations, but He also drew boundary lines between races...

Many of the slave owners were godly, spiritual people….

When you run into conflict with God’s established order racially, you have trouble. You do not produce harmony. You produce destruction and trouble and this nation is in the greatest danger it has ever been in history...We are facing the greatest dangers we have ever faced, and the religious liberal are riding in now on the crest of what seems to be popular."
~ Bob Jones Sr. Easter sermon 1960

Exchange "gender" for "race" and the above (Danger! Danger! God's established order is under attack!) doesn't sound much different than what John Piper and John MacArthur and their cohort are peddling right now.

I'm sure the Kentucky church that recently made news for banning interracial marriages also see themselves as just obeying what "The Bible clearly teaches".

So, while I don't want to judge the heart and spiritual condition of another who professes Christ as Lord, I have to wonder if the general "love God and love others and seek to obey" or "godly, spiritual people" apologetic is perhaps too generous and letting them off the hook for some really bad theology.

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, maybe the SBC and the RCC (not exactly evangelicals building fences!) and the LCMS really are obeying God.

Seems I remember another time when "did God really say" came into play. We've seen the awful effects of that fall, have we not?

Maybe sometimes God just tells us "do this, don't do that" and no matter if we like it, agree with it, or think we are more woke than God Almighty we just need...to....obey without quibbling.

I for one will not listen to Beth Moore not because she is female but because of what she teaches. I do not believe God is giving her extrabiblical revelation. And having lived in casino country, I learned a bit about "tells." When a person has to frequently tell you to "trust me" I generally don't.

There are denominations that ordain women because they do not see the pastor as in authority. There are denominations that ordain women that do see the pastor in authority and believe they understand scripture better than anyone has in 2,000 years. There are denominations that don't ordain women because they want women in subjection. And there are denominations that do not ordain women because they believe the Bible says not to do so.

Instead of judging the souls of those in any of those denominations, or trying to change them to suit our fancies, seems to me the honorable thing is to figure out what you honestly believe the Bible really teaches, popular or not, and move yourself into a denomination that fits. That might be personally very costly, might mean giving up a good job or retirement benefits for some who are on staff, but much more integrity than trying to change the system to suit yourself.

linda

Christiane said...

staying in a situation and trying to improve it by being 'with' the people who are there is a trial in patience and in love, and most certainly in kindness towards the people who cannot easily leave that situation . . . the very young and the elderly, who need ministry most especially and are vulnerable to abuse from those who would take advantage

standing 'with' the vulnerable in the midst of that kind of situation is, I believe, a noble thing, a self-giving thing

sure, 'finding a better fit' would be more comfortable, but it was not Our Lord's way, no

we are who we protect, and we stand up for those under attack who are innocent, and we know we are needed there when, in order to be effective in that situation, we must be using the fruit of the Holy Spirit in order that good may come

for those who want to 'escape' a bad situation, that is understandable

but for those who stay 'with' and serve the ones who need a shepherd in the midst of a difficult situation, that is something beyond human understanding because it belongs to another kingdom indeed

Anonymous said...

Wade,

The corollaries that grow out of Complementarianism are mind-boggling. In this case, Kassion somehow concludes in the article that “I have found that as I get older, I have more freedom to instruct younger men”. This, however, seems to violate Complementarianism’s basic thesis that gender roles are absolute. Furthermore, she builds her argument on experience and not on any Biblical exception to “I permit not a woman to teach”. No wonder you have a headache.

Shawn said...

Whole argument based on very bad exegesis. The ‘fence’ that Jesus stood outside of and opposed was not the Torah, as was well taught by Ezra, but the extra-biblical regulations that came about to keep everyone from getting anywhere near the Torah and thus risking violating it. Jesus lived the Torah, lived it better than anyone else.

Ezra was described by the (inspired) text as ‘This Ezra went up from Babylon (not in Persia), and he was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all he requested because the hand of God was upon him.’ How you got him ‘trained in the Persian court’ I don’t know.

Ezra and Nehemiah taught the Torah, not the Fence. Where did you get that? What did he teach beyond the text of the Torah?

And, again, you mis-identify how the text treats those who ‘opposed’ Ezra. The text does not say ‘argue’, it says ‘stood against (עמד). And the text says absolutely nothing about them saying anything! Where in the world do you get that?

You also persist in raising their opposition to the level of primary in the text when it is one of 44 verses in that chapter and grammatically it is very much back grounded as a side comment. You are letting any sense of exegetical veracity go by the wayside to made a point that cannot be found in that text! Why?

I have noticed lately that the term ‘filled with the Spirit’ or ‘Spirit filled is popping up a lot lately. Usually it is associated with a person (often as not a woman preacher) who is a gifted speaker and thus is declared ‘Spirit Filled’ and so removed beyond the realm of criticism else those criticizing them are said to go ‘against the [Holy] Spirit.’ I have also noted that ‘Spirit Giftedness’ is associated pretty much only with speaking ability, not with any other Spiritual gift.

Gerald Polmateer said...

The most basic qualification of a leader is that the person have followers. Positions of leadership are positions that start with proven leadership in smaller ways. Those who have never called one person to follow Jesus with them will not have the boldness and experience to call and lead more.

Christiane said...

It is said in eastern Christianity
that a humble servant of God
can draw thousands to Christ.

ReVoLuTiOnArY TeNdEnCiEs said...

Respectfully, you are comparing apples to oranges. Regarding slavery, they used scripture out of context to back up their beliefs. Whereas complementarians are able to show from the entirety of Scripture, how there is a biblical argument for it.

Tamara said...

To ReVoLuTiOnArY TeNdEnCiEs: It is only because we, as a society, have reached a level of moral clarity and acknowledge slavery and racial segregation are wrong that allows you to claim slave-owners/segregationists were misinterpreting Scripture. There are far and away more "in-context" Bible verses "supporting" the institution of slavery than there are "forbidding" women to teach or have some sort of authority within the church over men.

I completely disagree that complimentarians use the entirety of Scripture. They use 3 out-of-context verses from 1 Tim., 1 Cor. and Titus. And re-interpret Genesis by moving a consequence of the fall (the hierarchy of male authority/female subordination) from chapter 3 to chapter 2 and make it part of God's original creation design.

That is, honestly, all they have and they filter all the rest of God's Word through the meaning they've attached to these out-of context partial sentences...a meaning that, sadly, seems to indicate a low view of women. They ignore or explain away Jesus' ministry and His dealing with women. They ignore or explain away that the first person He revealed Himself to as the Messiah was a woman who then "preached" to the men in her town, with no rebuke from Jesus. They ignore or explain away that He revealed Himself risen to women disciples and told them to "preach" the news to the male disciples. They ignore or explain away that His "Great Commission" in Matthew, etc. has no gender qualifiers. They ignore that women were in the upper room and filled with the Holy Spirit and were heard by the men in fulfillment of prophecy (according to Peter). They add qualifiers that are not in Scripture to the gifts/ministry lists in Romans, 1 Corinthians and Ephesians. They ignore/explain away Galatians 3:26-29. They explain away Deborah. They ignore Paul's female ministry partners/co-laborers. And on and on.

And before you take exception with my assessment "low view of women". Consider that most of this complimentartian/vital importance of women's "roles" now-a-days is coming from men who consider themselves Reformed. And then consider this from John Calvin's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:

"The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him...
Paul looks beyond this — to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex."

That sounds,sadly, much like the core belief underlying John MacArthur's words here: "It is generally then true that a man, whether he be married or single, must think of himself as someone who has been given by God a responsibility for authority in one sense or another. A woman, whether she is married or single, must recognize the fact that in general, as a woman, she must have a spirit of submission to all men.”

But to close, a quote from one more John...John Stott this time:
“The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform.”

That applies to the tradition of slavery as well as the tradition of the subordination of women to men.

Ken F said...

"Seems I remember another time when "did God really say" came into play. We've seen the awful effects of that fall, have we not?"

Hi Linda,
That verse you refer to is often badly used as a clobber verse, as if questioning an interpretation of a particular passage is the same thing as rejecting God. The problem with that question in Genesis was not really the question itself, but rather how it was addressed.

If someone is badly interpreting the Bible and making false claims about what God said, I sincerely hope that people will oppose such false teaching by asking, "Did God really say?"

Rex Ray said...

Wade,

I gave it a ‘shot’; read Nehemiah 8,9,10 in the Living and NLT, but couldn’t find the “120 Jewish leaders who ruled Judea”. I counted and got only 94.

I couldn’t add any more to the many good comments, so I’ll mention the saddest words in the Bible;

“My God, why have you forsaken me?”

(This may be the only time Jesus referred to his Father as God. I believe God could only answer him with tears because when Jesus became our sin, God couldn’t comfort sin.)

God had not revealed that his Son would be alone because Jesus told his disciples:

“The time is coming…when you will be scattered, each going his own way, leaving me alone. Yet I am not alone because my Father is with me.” (John 16:32 NLT)

https://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html

‘Sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side, piercing both the lungs and the heart, blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John 19:34).”

The link above does not explain why Jesus had a rapid heartbeat. I believe it was caused by Jesus feeling the absence of his Father and he died of a broken heart.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Tamara I am not sure what society you live but I would not call gender confusion, women's rights being mixed with transgender sports and acceptance of cutting up babies and throwing them in the trash as one I would claim as having moral clarity. Planned Parenthood as being an organization that represents women's rights to kill their babies as being representative of moral clarity but rather of Gehenna. You as a woman used a derogatory term to speak of women as insubordinate. I see no place in the Bible where such a term is used. However the Bible does address the roles of men and women. I would suggest that today we have both weak men and women who do not understand nor know their proper roles. Sometime listen to young men talk about how to treat women and then listen to young women and notice if they have any idea on how to treat a man. When I have discussed this with my wife she told me that she had never heard any of her friends talk about that but rather on how to attract a man or about the kind of person they wanted to marry. My friends talked about how to treat a woman and so did my leaders.

Tamara said...

To Gerald Polmateer - I think you need to re-read what I wrote a little more carefully.

1) I have absolutely no idea how you could have gotten the notion from anything I wrote that society's "level of moral clarity" on slavery/racial segregation (it's wrong) applied to any other area other than slavery/racial segregation. Nor do I understand why you thought it was germane to introduce gender dysmorphia and abortion into this discussion or imply I might not consider them grievous.

2) I didn't speak of women as "insubordinate". I quoted men who used the terms "inferior" and "submissive". If you find those terms derogatory, take it up with the men who said them (well, obviously, John Calvin is dead, so you can't take it up with him but feel free to go at John MacArthur. Please!).

3) There is no place in the Bible that speaks of "roles" - proper or not - related to gender or inherent DNA. Wade written several blog posts on this very subject if you care to do a search.
Our only "role", as redeemed believers, is to seek to be transformed into the image of Christ, walk in a manner worthy of our calling, etc. and that applies to both men and women. That also covers the "how young men and women treat each other". What you call "weakness", I call lack of good teaching/theological foundations (and I consider the fixation on "roles" evidence of lack of good teaching).

4) I suspect your wife and her friends only heard/talked about attracting a man or the kind of guy he should be because they were being told that their "proper role" was to be submitted to their future husband. So logically the focus was on attracting that husband so they could begin fulfilling that role. If they had learned their identity was first and foremost in Christ, that all authority had been given to Him, and what being a Christ-follower really meant (spoiler: no gender-specific roles involved at all), then if and when God brought a potential husband into their lives, marriage would have been enfolded into their "being a disciple of Christ", rather than being a goal to reach so they could start being "true Biblical women".

Christiane said...

'moral clarity'?

HERE is country with moral clarity about WELCOMING new life:

https://youtu.be/mIdxXy23DPw

Ken F said...

"(This may be the only time Jesus referred to his Father as God. I believe God could only answer him with tears because when Jesus became our sin, God couldn’t comfort sin.)"

Hi Rex,
I think that verse in Psalm 22:1 has been misused by evangelicals. The reason Jesus used the word "God" instead of "Father" is because he was quoting that verse. I have heard that the most likely reason he quoted it was to refer all around him to the whole psalm, much like one only needs to say the first line of a song to refer to the whole song. It would make sense for him to point to Psalm 22 because it so clearly describes what what really going on. The kicker is verse 24:
"For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard."

This verse is completely opposite from verse 1, which means much more was going on than abandonment. Also note the final words of the psalm: "He has performed it." This is very similar to Jesus' words "It is finished."

The early church determined that any separation of the members of the Trinity is formal heresy, and any separation of the two natures of Christ is formal heresy. The belief that the Father separated himself from the Son on the cross is an invention of the Reformation.



RB Kuter said...

Wade, as I read your post I was about to ask, "What is the Southern Baptist equivalent of The Great Assembly?" but then I followed your links and learned about The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. That was an eye-opener. I guess I should have known about that group but was ignorant and not aware. That's one of the reasons I have always followed your blog site.

It's disturbing when we have a group of power players like this who are not selected or controlled or held accountable to anyone other than themselves. I think this must have been one of the un-Godly aspects of The Great Assembly. It is frightening to consider the influence and control a group like this has upon the general body of believers from which it comes.

I am sure that all of those men and women on The Council are fine, dedicated, genuine followers of Jesus. But there appears to me to be a lack of humility in even participating in such a formation. Who do they think they are? Do they believe they are somehow ordained by God to step into such a role that is not mandated Biblically? Even if there was a post-resurrection Council in Jerusalem, was there ever a portrayal of that being subscribed by Jesus prior to His ascension?

What do they think they are doing? Do they believe they are protecting the church from going astray from God's intended path for His church? Do they not believe that individual followers of Jesus are priests in their own right and thereby have the necessary connection with God to live their lives and lead their individual groups of followers?

For me, the key is "humility", or lack of. I believe that groups like "The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" have the tendency to facilitate a "deep state" form of power and control within our Protestant denominations which is not an attractive method for humbly serving as leaders for an institution built upon the ultimate servant-leader, Jesus Christ. Being involved as a member of such a Council certainly would not impress me.

Cindy Meyers said...

Has anyone viewed this latest sermon from John Macarthur? It is in response to the firestorm touched off by his comments at the Truth Matters conference. Someone recorded it at Grace Community Church this past Sunday. See what you think!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=_m9HXjW6V-w&feature=emb_logo

Rex Ray said...

Ken F,

Yes, Psalm 22 portrays Calvary. “…They have pierced my hands and feet.” (Verse 16).

“They told him, [Thomas] we have seen the Lord! But he replied, I won’t believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands…” (John 20:25 NLT)


Also, Psalm 22:18 states: “They…threw dice for my clothing.” (NLT)

“After they had nailed him to the cross, the soldiers gambled for his clothes by throwing dice.” (Mathew 27: 35 NLT)


Ken, wonder how long it will be before Gerald Polmateer jumps us for being off topic? :)

Wade Burleson said...

Cindy,

I'm watching it now. Thanks for the link.

I may write on it next week.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Over a period of about four years I read many books and documents, spoke to many leaders and missionaries about this subject. In the process I came up with some interesting things. I have taught and preach the subject while at the same time not one person has disagreed with my findings. If anyone disagrees is has always been about ideological thoughts and not practical ministry.. I would contend that we have a weakening church in America led mostly by weak men and weak women who don't have a clue about what to do and have a model of a previous generation that has focused the church on itself and making it attractive so people will want to come flying in the door because they look so great. Revelation talks about the church at Sardis. Jesus told the apostles to make disciples. Over the years I have found few in the pew and among church leadership who are actually making disciples. If leaders are not making disciples they do not belong in that position. The Bible says they must first be tested. They must be proven leaders among some before they are given more. If they do not lead one who reproduces then they will not be able to lead more. Before I started pastoring I already had 20 years of experience in making disciples who reproduced themselves in the real world of work. The most basic qualification of church leaders is implied in that they are making disciples. If one cannot lead the home then how can that person lead the church of God. So often when I find a man who is not leading his home I find a wife who steps up and is much like a bulldog rather than the husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church. In Ephesians 5 and 6 is written out the roles of the husband, wife and children. It is all about how those people practically love one another. In the Bible it specifically address the older women who are to teach the younger women to love their husbands and the young men are to submit to the older men.

When one considers the facts that out of liberalism came rationalism and out of that came a rationalistic church. Today we have a church that is what I call DIY Christianity or self help Christianity. We have weak women and weak men which builds a weak church that does not lead and does not reach people in the community. Last century the church promoted programs and ministries that hopefully brought people into the church--the church of the holy sanctuary separated from the world where the people would be protected from the world and they could learn arm chair theology and ministry.

So of course we would have discussions about women pastors because none of them have made disciples and do not lead others in making reproducible disciples. A friend of mine read several books on making disciples in the church. Finally he called all of those pastors and not one of them are doing today what they wrote in their books. The church is always trying to find more and new and novel methods but God wants people who are seeking and knowing the God who is. So many mock God and promote their ways as though they are from God. If we can be duplicate what we think are God's ways then we have made him to be an idol. Discipleship is about calling others to follow Jesus with us. It is no more a method than putting meat in a grinder makes sausage. Some say they are committed to the methods of Jesus. They are not because they are not implementing Jesus' methods. Jesus made apostles not just disciples. Jesus picked very specific men to lead the church he had in mind. Disciples are all followers of Jesus and they are not the same as the apostles as Jesus made.

Ken F said...

Hi Rex,
I have not been following this blog for long, but it seems that one of its main characteristics is off-topic discussions. I don't think that is bad even if some don't like it.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Tamara,

One cannot do hermeneutics on the basis of an absence of something. DNA was never an issue in the Bible nor was hydrogen peroxide and flush toilets.

Leadership is not just ideological but rather practical. If someone says he can make disciples but I don't see any then his talk is worthless. Many books are written by people who write for Greek thinkers. Pastoring is not about who can do a job in the workplace but who can lead the church. It is about who leads them best in the culture. If a man does not lead his family then how can he lead the church? ( 1 Timothy 3:5)

If one has children or ever worked with children knows there is a big difference in the thinking and relational aspects of boys and girls. Men and women even see colors differently. Men and women get their identity in different ways. When one begins to study the differences it shows up in the most minutest details. Pastoring carries with itself the issue of authority with humility. Let me give an example of an actual discussion I had with a woman pastor. She said to a couple of us about the problem she was having with men not doing anything in the church she was pastoring. The other pastored smiled at me because both of us knew why. Another time when I spoke with her about the issue of homosexuality her response was one of the relational aspect and the feelings of caring and hope for the person. She had a mixed bags of thoughts and emotions because she had mixed what scripture teaches with the relational aspect. Both my wife and daughter do the same thing on tough issues like that. Both of them are very intelligent.

Regarding roles one might want to consider the household codes in Ephesians 5 and 6. Those are practical way to love one another. That does not mean one person is worth less and the other more. Leadership is not being worth more or less because of position. Jesus taught whoever was to be the greatest must be the chief servant. I would contend that when one takes a look at the spiritual gifts that the leaders in a church are of little importance compared to those who seem to be of little worth.

I don't spend much time listening to other pastors but rather studying the Bible. I know plenty of people who have gone to John MacArthur's church and have worked there who do not agree with everything he believes, but everyone of them say he is a very gracious man. It is my opinion that he does not come across that way partly because in American culture today we value truth less and less, and place a higher and higher value on how you make someone feel.

Having taught at the university I can tell people what I saw among the Christians there. Some of us among the Christian faculty estimated that about 5% of the Christian students can give reasons for their faith. I led some who grew up in Christian homes and had become atheists to begin to follow Jesus. All of them had similar complaints. When I was in seminary I met people who had never shared their faith or given their testimony at least one time. A number had graduated from Bible schools. So we have pastors and church leaders who have little or know proven leadership going to churches where they are to teach the people how to make disciples.


Strong leaders have been led by strong leaders. If we want strong male leaders then we must have them led by strong male leaders. If we want strong women leaders then we must have strong women leaders. Men and women see in others what they want and should be like in strong leaders.

Rex Ray said...

Ken F

I agree that off-topic discussions may be good. My father was told, “A lot of times your best preaching is when you get off your subject.”

The guy following your comment is so long winded with his comments, I’d wouldn’t want to be in his congregation.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Rex, how long did it take you to read what I wrote?

StillWiggling said...

Just a couple of semi-random thoughts that came into my head while reading the above comments.

One, a speaker at a conference I attended a couple of years ago told of a conversation between two pastors who had just met. Pastor 1 said, "How many people come to your church?" Pastor 2 replied, "Wrong question. The correct question would be, are we making disciples."

Two, back in the late 1960s my father was kicked off the board of elders at the rather conservative non-denominational church our family attended, on the grounds that he had demonstrated inability to lead his own family and thus was not eligible to lead the church. The situation at home was that one of my older sisters at age 14 or so was in full-blown hippie-era adolescent rebellion, and any particulars that that might bring to your mind would likely be accurate.... Our parents had to the best of their ability raised us up in the way we should go, and consistently practiced pretty strict discipline, but short of handcuffing her, duct-taping her to the wall and locking her in her room, my sister was not to be controlled. She did what she pleased, and no amount of pleading or threatening would persuade her to straighten up and fly right.

So, I ask, how was my father supposed to control her? The higher-ups in the church applied what they believed to be the letter of the law and kicked him off the board. Apparently they did not consider that she was past what many believe to be the age of accountability and thus she herself was to be held accountable for her actions, not her parents. I don't know whether my father argued the point or fought his dismissal in any way or not, but even at my tender age of 12 or so at the time I thought it terribly unfair.

Gerald Polmateer said...

StillWiggling I also heard the testimony of the son of a pastor who said it was church members whom he saw as hypocrites. At first he blamed his parents but as he got older he realized it was his own parents who consistently lived the Christian life and it was the hypocrites he saw as being one thing on Sunday and another on Monday. I was in a church that as I sought to make disciples and develop leaders the leaders began to get exposed for who they really were. So to protect themselves they refused to listen to counsel from the state leaders, a local pastor, and a church leader. Eventually I left and the church has been on a steady decline. Now they have a building they built that is emptying out. Children have many influences that come their way. Not all influences are equal.God is the final judge.

Tamara said...

Gerald Polmateer said...

"One cannot do hermeneutics on the basis of an absence of something. DNA was never an issue in the Bible..."

Well.
Whether one is male or female is determined by their immutable DNA...which is why a man doesn't get to just announce he's a woman and - voila - he is one.

I guess I could have put it more crudely and said the Bible says nothing about "proper roles" that are based on what one's genitals look like..and we could have gone from there. :-(

The rest of what you wrote...well, yes. I agree. It is important for Christians to be properly trained/discipled so they can make disciples of others. There's nothing in Scripture that limits the ability to make disciples (and you then equate that to leadership) to those with one kind of genitalia. As I already said, Jesus Christ included no gender-based qualifications or limitations in His "Great Commission".

Your reference to the house codes in Ephesians 5 & 6 brings us back to my previous point...the one you seemed to take issue with.
Those codes bring Christ into the 3 absolute power-authority relationships in the Greco-Roman world (ones in which the "subordinate" member was legally considered "property"): master and slave, paterfamilias and children (including adult children), husbands and wives.

We no longer (again having reached a level of moral clarity on this one subject) try to teach about the proper relationship between a Christian master and his/her slaves. Anyway, Wade has written excellent blog articles about Ephesians and all this as well so I don't need to repeat his scholarship...I strongly suggest you read them.

But regardless...the unique covenant relationship between a husband and wife addressed in Ephesians can not be extrapolated out to cover the relationship of all women to all men...as the quote I already posted by John MacArthur tries to do by saying all women must have a spirit of submission to all men. And Beth Moore's failure to recognize what HE believes she "must" do seems to the basis for his attack on her.

You also said: "I know plenty of people who have gone to John MacArthur's church and have worked there who do not agree with everything he believes, but everyone of them say he is a very gracious man." I've heard differently from people who have interacted with him but all that's neither here or there.

Do you personally think his (and the rest of the panel's) treatment of Beth Moore, in any way, qualified as "gracious"? It doesn't matter if he *thinks* he knows what the truth is regarding God's call upon another believer.
He's not the Potter. He's a vessel just as Beth Moore is.
Should he apologize for his ungracious and arrogant words; for claiming to say he knows the mind of God regarding another of His disciples?

Gerald Polmateer said...

Tamara try not to mix up what the world teaches and what God actually does and has done. I think you are mixing what the world is teaching today and what scripture has taught for over 2000 years. When did God change to fit our thoughts and agenda? The Bible says nothing about proper roles? What does it mean for men to love their wives as Christ loves the Church? What does it mean for wives to love their husbands by submitting to them? What does it mean for children to obey their parents? What does it mean the woman is the weaker vessel? What does it mean for the elder to be a one woman man? What does it mean an elder must be able to manage his family?

I am sure you know it wasn't much time after Jesus died that the church had deaconesses too. Certainly you must know that women baptized women and a man never did in the early church.

Just because roles are different does not means less or more important. All are important. It has nothing to do with a position or lording it over others. There is a huge difference between a pastor, and a teacher, a leader, and a shepherd. I believe that most church pastors don't have a clue how discipleship and giftedness work in the church. Therefore they are ineffective leaders.

Not long ago I read an article by a leader in the church discipleship movement and he said he did not know of one disciplemaking church. Churches are arguing over junk when they should be making disciples who make disciples. When people make disciples a lot of things are non-issues. When the wall came down in Europe the churches started fighting within two years instead of banding together like they once had.

How many churches do you know about who send their people out rather than have fields and gyms they invite the world to rather than go to the world? How many churches are discipling men and women in such a way that they begin to reach and disciple others in about two years. I meet with men now who are already making disciples that they had to reach within a two year period. Nobody gave them people to disciple.They had to pray and reach them. Last year I met a man who works with a church spreading the plan the church teaches and has never made one disciple in his entire life and he is older than I am. Recently he asked me to teach him how. I cannot think of a single time in which anyone making disciples has ever caused me a problem. It is always the arm chair theologian and ideologists who do nothing except to come up with useless thoughts and ideas.

My Bible says to focus on Jesus not Beth Moore issues. I have no idea what someone else has said and the gossip that accompanies that. I have plenty to do with the men I meet with each week in training them to make reproducible disciples. While the church is nearly apostate it is spending its time on things that matter little. If the church would get to work then maybe something outside of useless discussions might happen. If men and women were meeting with say four others personally each week teaching them how to make disciples by taking them with them in doing evangelism and teaching them how to lead others by both example and study we would see a very different church in America. Then the pastors would be those who make disciples.

Tamara said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tamara said...

Gerald Polmateer said...

Tamara try not to mix up what the world teaches and what God actually does and has done
~~~~

I'm not.
Do you understand what the word "role" means?
All those things you listed are things some people DO (or are supposed to) in certain situations...they are not a fixed, prescribed, unchanging "role" assigned to one or the other half of the human race.
You, yourself, say both husbands and wives are told to love their spouse.
So it's NOT a "proper role" that is assigned to one gender only...because you, yourself, said both wives and husbands are to love their spouse, right?
Do you get what I've been saying?
You are arguing with me by supporting what I've said.

I'm so perplexed by your reasoning...maybe I'll attribute it to being late at night and leave it there. You keep talking about discipleship which I've agreed is good and necessary and needed and commanded. So can we just agree that God desires both men and women to be disciples and make disciples and move on?

If you have no idea what someone said about Beth Moore, which was part of the article you are currently commenting on:
1) why did you enter into this discussion?
2) why mention that some people find John MacArthur gracious if you're unwilling to consider what he should do if he's been ungracious?

Thank you for the discussion. I'm not sure there is anything to add beyond this.

Rex Ray said...

Gerald Polmateer,

On Fri Nov 08, 10:43:00 PM 2019, you said, “I have plenty to do with the men I meet with each week in training them to make reproducible disciples.”

Have you heard that the other way around? I mean, people trained their pastor.

Once a pastor said, “I found a paper listing my goals to lead the church I’d given the church ten years ago. That’s the craziest paper I’ve ever written.”

His paper said he would choose a board and would lead them to make decisions that God wanted the church to accomplish. Also he would lead the church to switch from the ‘Old Texas Convention’ to the ‘New Texas Convention, and lead them to accept the BF&M 2000.

At baptisms, he stopped saying, “I have a convert…”. And he stopped saying, “My deacons…” and “My ushers…”

Ken F said...

Hi Gerald,
Have you always been in paid ministry? Have you ever had a job in the secular world working with and for women?

Gerald Polmateer said...

My Bible says to focus on Jesus not what other men say. It is really quite simple to understand the basic commands in scripture. When it says make disciples and qualifies the kind of disciples we are to make by baptizing and teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded. You don't teach boldness by being an arm chair theologian. You don't teach a trade by just teaching in a classroom. The best trades people learned by instruction and practice in the field. In the Didache is taught that a false teacher may teach the right things and not do them. The pastor is to be an example to the flock. If his example is only one of talk then others will follow that example.

Before I was in paid ministry I had been making disciples in the secular world both as employee and employer. After seminary I pastored a church that almost died and I taught the people to reach others, study their Bible, and make disciples starting with one person. It looks to me that the church is never to be about the church but about Christ. If I read right the Bible says there are a variety of gifts, a variety of ministries, and a variety of effects. Who does that not cover. What one person is left out. If the pastor is unable to see that in a church then the Spirit is limited.

Ken F said...

Hi Gerald,
Thanks for answering. My question was more about gender roles, which is why I asked you if you have experience working with and for women. For example, have you ever had a boss who was a woman?

This is an interesting statement you made: "My Bible says to focus on Jesus not what other men say." This seems to imply it is wrong to focus on what other men say. If this us true, then you are leading men into error by explaining what you believe. If what you say is true, you should only quote Bible verses and nothong else.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken, there are four men I talk with once a month and men locally I meet with each week. The men I speak with once a month are men I have known for over 40 years. We have been there for each other. Each of them are making disciples and have been doing different things and have been in different parts of the world. We are transparent with one another. We correct and encourage one another while our standard of that is scripture. One of them spent 23 in Ethiopia making disciples in churches. He was there before and after communism. His experiences on how they saw the interpretation of say salvation I believe tends to give a clearer picture of what the Bible teaches. He told me he would never talk about some of the things he saw because people here would see as someone he is not. He told me it was much like going back into the book of Acts. In that way we are transparent and focused on doing what we should be doing focused on Christ and not getting sidetracked into thinking some method or philosophy is best. What both us see is a church in America that is focused on methodology rather than the one who is central to our faith and the one who builds the house and we as his servants. I meet with young and older people each week. I tell them to try and find someone they can help and someone who helps them. I have tried to fo that and I know it has helped me in so many ways.

In answering your question about having a woman boss I have. She was great too. She was a lady who had a lot of experience working as a machinist at John Deere. The thing I always liked about her is she was very much a woman and never acted like someone she was not. She was secure as a woman and treated people with great respect. However when i saw her with her husband she was very much his wife.

In my work and in ministry I had women under me. I had to learn more about how women communicated. I also had to learn about how people from other cultures communicated and what they valued. Recently a family from Colombia stayed with my family to learn how to make disciples. Quickly I realized some differences that could have caused miscommunication. He placed how you treat people above truth. I saw how that was carried out in disciplining their children. One day I asked him what he thought the Bible taught about truth and valuing people. He realized both are important.

Unknown said...

Thanks Wade for a great article!
As far as women using the gifts God has given them, Throughout the Old and New Testaments God chose to speak through women (prophetesses) as well as men. Most of their messages were for men. It should be our goal to follow God's example and the actions and words of Jesus. The man-made fences quench His Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

"Below are some of the main fence-building efforts of John Piper and others in the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as they seek to keep out gifted, humble Christian women from teaching or leading men."

I could have been mistaken of your position but I thought it was about the mere public speaking and testifying of women in the assemblies. Many wives would indeed have problems with a woman teaching and leading their husband. Its not merely "a male" issue. The way I read many of the passages in the Bible concerning woman teachers is to allow them to lead and instruct other women and also allowing them to testimony of their faith and sharing the Gospel (sons and daughter shall prophesy)in the assemblies. Concerned that you are moving toward a Platonic theology.

Anonymous said...

Continuing from the last post, I don't believe the eight steps are a manner of legalism but rather of someone applying a rule of thumb.

I personally have some issues with the Council of Biblical Manhood, their theology is very odd in places (the application of the Trinity for example). But I distinctly remember problems that arose in the 80's when churches began to allow women in leadership and affairs started to pop up everywhere. I will give you a good example of what I mean. There is a video where Paula White talks about meeting Jonathan Cain..and it dates back their initial meeting on the airplane to 2011 WHEN HE WAS STILL MARRIED. I do think you have a point on the fixation of headship but practically and bibically boundaries and guidelines are still needed. A lot of the problems that arose in the early church occurred when other women came into the fold leading and interrupting the family systems. I still see it at times today not just history. I do believe that older women over 60 were indeed leaders. Robert Morey suggest this in his writings as well.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Unknown, there is a difference between a pastor and prophetess. God spoke through a donkey too. Does that mean a donkey should be a pastor.

Churches do ministry in a culture unless they are ideologues who do nothing except form committees.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Pondering what has been written I reflected on four women who started two churches. Each of those churches had male pastors. I think a good book to read is by Joanne Shetler "And The Word Came With Power.

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous 6:12 PM Nov. 09,

“I’m concerned you are moving toward a Platonic theology.”

With respect, I am about as far removed from Platonism as Donald Trump is from the 2020 Democratic Platform. :)

I believe Christian servant leadership is based on spiritual giftedness, not sexual gender. And, I believe that’s the standard teaching of the New Testament.

Gerald Polmateer said...

When one considers giftedness it is not evenly distributed among men and women. Among professions in society it is the same way. The feminists say women can be just like men. We are now seeing that being attempted in some things like sports.

I would contend that what we are seeing today is actually the result of weak men and weak women. A man who will not lead his family and a woman who acts like a bulldog is weak. Humility is strength and that is required for everyone. A man who will not lead his family is not humble and a woman who is a bull dog is not. Anyone who thinks they can or must lord it over others is arrogant and has no place in leadership. I cannot think of a single time anyone who was making disciples ever gave me any trouble. I have never had a woman give me must of any trouble. Any women I have known who had caused trouble stopped when I showed up. One lady I know whom I was told liked to gossip apparently stopped when I started pastoring the church. She became a women's leader later on. It is men who gave me the most trouble. Everyone of them wanted a position and recognition. If we go back to the time of the peace of Rome we see a strong leader who made several immoral things illegal. Strong leaders who work for good also create peace. Weak leaders allow chaos to happen and it continues until a strong leader comes along. Bulldogs are not strong leaders. They are bullies and are really weak people trying to masquerade as strong. It seems to me that so often when a church has had an excellent pastor for a long time they often fail to consider what would happen if a pastor who was a weak leader started pastoring there and so when that happens so does the church's decline.

My temperament is found among two percent of the men and one percent of the women. I think that alone is rather telling.

Gerald Polmateer said...

I also believe what scripture teaches about church leadership is not just ideas but written in a society where it was to be practiced and that makes it practical. I believe that a man and a woman may have the same bitterness but the man's effectiveness in some things will be more effective and in other cases the woman will be more effective. I believe that when a man leads men and woman, he will speak with a greater impact and be able to lead them better than a woman would. I think that has been shown in society and in the church in every society around the world.

Ken F said...

"My temperament is found among two percent of the men and one percent of the women. I think that alone is rather telling."

Hi Gerald,
What do you mean by this? Are you saying you are in the top 2%, bottom 2%, somewhere in the middle? Do you believe temperament is predisposed or developed by choice? Do you believe more people should have your temperament, and if so, how should one go about changing their temperament to be like yours?

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken, my temperament is one that is labelled as a natural born leader. The top two percent on a bell curve among people are the true leaders. They are those who are able to identify a problem and give a solution.

Temperament is the way people are basically created. There are those who are well developed and those who are not. Within each temperament is strengths and weaknesses.

Leaders are born and made. Leaders must be developed to be the best they are capable of becoming. As for me I never saw my dad as capable of leading in ways I have always seen. He was never able to see things I saw.

I take the position that the distribution of gifts within the body is determined by God. However the pastor who does not lead well will not lead people with a variety of gifts but rather will only lead a group of people with the gifts he values. If he leads people with a narrow variety of gifts then that church will be limited.

Ken F said...

"my temperament is one that is labelled as a natural born leader. The top two percent on a bell curve among people are the true leaders."

Hi Gerald,
Your comment reminds me of this quote:
“Power is like being a lady… if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” -Margaret Thatcher

Rex Ray said...

Ken,

…if you have to tell people how great you are, you aren’t.

GOOD ONE! I’m tired of hearing what you know who has done.

Wade,

Your joke about Trump adopting the Democratic Platform, reminds me of the guy that said, “I’m going to save a lot of money Christmas because at Thanksgiving, I’m going to bring up Politics.” :)

Come to think of it, everyone is coming to our house for Thanksgiving.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Rex Ray, my dad used to say he never saved any money when he bought something. My dad was one who lived that. I have never known anyone who could say "No" si easily to a purchase. One time I saw some pictures of the first home he lived in until age 12. It was a converted chicken coop in the middle of South Dakota. His family had moved to the west coast when he was 12. A few years ago I said to him about how his parents took a risk and moved and how much it changed their lives. I had never seen him cry before but I did then. He said poverty was like having an incurable disease you cannot do something about. His parents were some of the most hard working and generous people I have known. By the time they did they were millionaires who started with $50 and a truck. Both of my grandparents had worked in the fields to get enough money to get to their goals. Many years later I worked in some of those same fields.

About fifteen years ago I asked my grandmother if she would write me a letter about the things they did that she had mentioned over time. Sometimes when I feel like I am struggling I start reading that letter and I am quickly reminded that my problems are not struggles. She once told me she is content and doesn't want anything. She died at the age of 97. The funeral had a lot of people attending. Not many years before she died she made the decision to follow Christ. I am the first in my family to make that decision.

When I hear squabbles in the church I am inclined to tell those people to start leading people to Christ and make disciples. I believe if we did that we would see churches on fire for Jesus and other ceasing to exist.

Victorious said...

I believe that when a man leads men and woman, he will speak with a greater impact and be able to lead them better than a woman would. I think that has been shown in society and in the church in every society around the world.

Could that be because historically men have been afforded the opportunity to grow and mature in their giftings and that women have often been denied the same opportunity? I think you will agree that a male of @25 yrs. of age will most naturally speak with less impact than one of 30-40 or more years? Growth, maturity, and impact are the normal, natural results of time, opportuity and experience.

We should remember numerous women who tirelessly advocated for reform; i.e.
1) Dorothea Dix's efforts to change the practice of warehousing the mentally ill in prisons
2) Elizabeth Cady Stanton's passion in the fight for women's rights
3) Lucretia Mott was a Quaker, suffragist and abolitionist
4) Margaret Sanger left nursing to find practical methods of birth control for women
5) Carry Nation brought an awareness of the millions of women suffering at the hands of a drunken husband and co-founded the Women's Christian Temperance Union branch in Texas

....Sojourner Truth, Margaret Mead, and Harriet Tubman are also among the hundreds that could be mentioned as having an impact on both men and women. They dared to ignore the stereotype often quoted and rise to the occasion.

I believe God is encouraging women today to study the scriptures for themselves and they need not be ashamed for accurately handling the word of truth. 

Ken F said...

Hi Rex,
I've worked for some amazing leaders and others who were not so amazing. In my experience, there is an inverse correlation between a person's leadership and the claims they make about their leadership.

I'm also at a loss to name one great leader in the Bible who claimed to be a great leader or a natural born leader.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken F, Jesus was and is who he claimed to be. The men he chose as apostles led what became the church.

Ken F said...

"Jesus was and is who he claimed to be. The men he chose as apostles led what became the church."

Hi Gerald,
While I completely agree with your last comment I don't see how it addresses my comments. What is the connection?

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken F, it was an effort to address this, "I'm also at a loss to name one great leader in the Bible who claimed to be a great leader or a natural born leader."

Ken F said...

Hi Gerald
It would help me if you could show in the Bible where a great leader self-identified as a great leader. For example, where does Jesus claim to be a natural born leader, or that he is among the top two percent on a bell curve among people are the true leaders.

The question is not who are the great leaders in the Bible. Rather, the question is which of those leaders called themselves great leaders. I don't recall any of them doing that, so I am just asking for examples.

Gerald Polmateer said...

My thinking is that Jesus called himself God. He identified himself as the Messiah. He did say that to be a great leader one must be the chief servant. He did tell his disciples to come follow Him. While I don't see him as boasting but as confident in who he was. Paul said to imitate him.

Often I think we confuse humility and confidence. Why can we not be one who is humble and turn over the tax collectors tables? I think when we treat people as more important than we treat God that is when we have already made God an idol. We have humbled ourselves before men but not before God. I believe my first responsibility is to humble myself before God. He is God not man. I believe we have a church in America that now teaches we must always be nice to people first and that is humility. That is not humility before God but fear of man or wanting acceptance at any cost. What does that kind of person do with truth? How do they discipline their children? How do husbands lead their families? How do leaders in a church deal with those who are divisive and false teachers among them?

Ken F said...

Hi Gerald,
I think we might be understanding those passages about Jesus in different ways. While I agree that Jesus identifies himself as Lord, Messiah, and I AM (divinity), I don't see him saying that he is a natural leader, or a gifted leader, or that he is on the top 2% of men in terms of leadership. And I don't recall any other great leaders in the Bible talking about their leadership skills. The only leaders in the Bible that I can remember talking about their great leadership abilities are all listed as bad examples (e.g., Nebuchadnezzar before his famous humbling experience). Please let me know if I am remembering incorrectly.

I am also wondering how you came to believe that your leadership is among the top 2%. I don't see anything in the bible that describes such a standard or a means for determining whether or not a person meets such a standard. How do you know you are among the top 2% rather than, say, the bottom 2%?

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken F, the way I see it is that although Jesus and Paul never said they were a leader as they did exhort people to follow them.

About the 2% is something I studied in graduate school. That percentage is something that seems to show up a lot in other areas. For example my brother was a car mechanic. His former boss told me not long ago that he had never had an employee who could think things through so well. I see things like that as potential not realized at first, but when practiced it becomes clear what happens. As that person goes through life it is more developed. I have had things happen in my life that I have not seen anywhere else. I have one explanation. It is from God. My wife has a certain ability that I have never seen in anyone else. It is amazing how she is. It is not something she can teach or do, but it is who she is. I can watch her and have no explanation why it happens. I just know it does. Others notice it in her too. Others noticed it long before she did. I would call it giftedness from God. It is not something we can boast about or have an explanation for. It is from God. All we can do is to thank God for how he has created us as we enjoy his gift we can give to others.

Ken F said...

"My Bible says to focus on Jesus not what other men say."

"About the 2% is something I studied in graduate school."

Hi Gerald,
If I follow your logic, none of us should pay any attention to you at all because you got your ideas on leadership by what other men said (what you were taught in college) rather than what the Bible says.

Gerald Polmateer said...

This is not about logic and rationalism that so many in the church have bought into over the years. There is a huge difference between focusing on something and considering something. Considering what men say must be considered in lights of its context. It can be a lie or the truth. It can also have ulterior motives. It can also come from a lack of complete knowledge. It may also be an opinion and not as a result of research which can be challenged.

One who has studied statistics would know what a normal distribution is. Those who have done research among people would also be able to confirm or deny what I wrote. Never once has any researcher and those who are experts in statistics have ever denied what I have said.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
What was your reason for making the assertion that some unnamed statistical method places you in the top 2% of leaders? Are you suggesting that it should give your comments more weight than others here?

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken F can you point out where I said that? A normal distribution does not represent just leaders.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
You are avoiding my question by nit-picking over the question of whether you are in the top 2% of all men or all leaders. So I will repeat my question with clarification:
What was your reason for making the assertion that some unnamed statistical method places you in the top 2%? Are you suggesting that it should give your comments more weight than others here?

Gerald Polmateer said...

You are asking me to explain in a few sentences on a topic in which there probably thousands and thousands of articles and books written on these subjects. In addition there are studies and research on the subject. These things are used in almost all occupations.

Ken F said...

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
-- Albert Einstein

Gerald,
My question was very simple. If you cannot explain it simply then you don't understand what you are talking about.

It appears that you are attempting to use your natural born leadership status to give more weight to your comments. But the only thing that gives weight to any of the comments here is the fact that the writers are fellow humans who are created and loved by God. Our natural abilities, gender, race, education, experience, etc., cannot add more weight. And when we attempt to use them to add weight, we tend to diminish ourselves and others.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken F I gave you numbers. Those numbers come from studies that have been done among the population and they have been verified using statistical analysis. If you have ever worked in management or done any kind of research and statistics in almost anything you would have known about those things. Research is done all the time using human subjects.

Sometime study what a random distribution curve and what that means. Then study what each standard deviation means among the population and how that looks in practice and in particular in leadership. Businesses use that information all the time in screening people for a particular job. Today some churches do too. So the information is out there and readily accessible.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
You are avoiding my question. In my last question I did not ask you how you determined whether or not you are in the top 2%. Rather, I asked you why you think it is relevent and necessary to bring it up here? Do you think you need to mention it to add credibility to your comments? Or do you think it helps to undermine the comments of others? What is your point in telling us this about yourself?

Gerald Polmateer said...

If one studies the distribution of gifts that men and women have it is telling about what God does and has done. The gifts are not distributed the same among men and women. If one looks at the jobs women and men do they will find that there is not an equal number of men and women doing the same jobs. The percentages of those employed is different in different areas. That ought to tell us what reality is and not just some ideas. Women typically work more in serving jobs than men.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
Is English your primary language? I am wondering why you avoid answering my question. Why should I care whether or not you are a natural born leader? How does it make a difference here on this blog?

Gerald Polmateer said...

Jen F how many statistics courses have you taken? If you had taken at least one then you would know what a normal distribution and standard deviation is. Do you know the difference between qualitative and quantitative research? If you do then you would understand what I am saying.


Ken F said...

Gerald,
Why won't you say why you insist on identifying yourself as a natural born leader in the top 2%. How does that make a difference in the conversation? Does it mean you believe that your comments have more credibility than the comments from others? Or are you saying that only natural born leaders in the top 2% understand statistics? You have not explained the connection.

Gerald Polmateer said...

I gave you the answers you need to know to understand why I wrote what I did. Your failure to have an adequate knowledge of the prerequisites for understanding does not obligate me to give you answers that you will never understand until you learn those things.

Ken F said...

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- author unknown

Gerald,
It's obvious by now that you are not going to explain why you think it is necessary to tell us you are a natural born leader in the top 2%.

As for statistics, if you truly understood statistics you would not make the mistake of equating correlation with causation. If in fact "Women typically work more in serving jobs than men" it does not necessarily mean that women are better made for serving jobs than men. It could be the result of men not allowing women to work in other jobs. But this assumes that your statistics are correct. How are you certain that it is not the other way around? What are your sources? Have the results been peer reviewed? The veracity of your statistics depends on how different jobs are subjectively catalogued, as well as sample size and demographics of the people sampled (what country, what ethnicity, etc.)

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that "Women typically work more in serving jobs than men" is true. That would make women more Christlike than men because Jesus came to serve rather then be served.

Gerald Polmateer said...

which part of what I wrote earlier do you not understand?


Gerald Polmateer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gerald Polmateer said...

"I am also wondering how you came to believe that your leadership is among the top 2%. I don't see anything in the bible that describes such a standard or a means for determining whether or not a person meets such a standard. How do you know you are among the top 2% rather than, say, the bottom 2%?"

Ken F, by your responses I would assume you are not familiar with the apostles Jesus chose to train and lead the church. You have not considered what kind of men Jesus chose. You have not considered what the Bible says about all that Jesus said and did. I would assume you have not studied about kind of leaders Jesus chose in terms of who they were including their education and temperament. I would assume you have not studied Judaism during the time of Jesus. There is no doubt in my mind that we have a lot of well meaning people who do not understand what makes leaders and they are trying to make people into leaders to do a job who are not created that way. We have leaders in churches who lack the necessary wisdom and knowledge on how to select and train leaders well as Jesus did. Consider where Jesus selected his apostles and what the area was known for.

The standard Jesus told His disciples was to make disciples. He qualified the kind of disciples they were to make by baptizing, and teaching them to observe all He commanded. Baptism at that time meant you renounced the ruler as lord and took on Jesus as your Lord which meant you could have been executed. Teaching them meant teaching them by word and training.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
It sounds like you are saying the major problems in our churches would be solved if more men like you were in charge.

Ken F said...

For some fun with statistics:
https://tylervigen.com/page?page=1

Gerald Polmateer said...

The church in America is getting closer and closer to being apostate. The church is not about us but about Christ. It is not about what man writes about himself and the church man makes but about the church God builds. It is not about man being in charge but about Christ being the head. If we are not servants of Christ then we make him an idol.

When I read the Bible I see a church that is made up of a variety of gifts, a variety of ministries, and a variety of effects. It is the responsibility of those who lead to be responsible in equipping the church to do ministry. That means leaders serve the body by equipping the body to do ministry. I also see leaders who have been tested. They prove themselves by the disciples they make. Currently I meet with men whom were not having a devotional life when I met them. At this time all of them have a consistent devotional life. On the average after about two years they begin to meet with another man to help him grow. If they are married then most of the time I help them to lead their home well by loving their wife and helping her to grow and to engage her help in helping him grow so they learn to work together. Eventually I build a team of men who create a culture of discipleship and those just starting get to hear from others what they are doing. During that time I teach the married men how to lead their wife and the value of learning to lead someone who is often very different and thinks very differently. I teach them how to lead by leading them and giving them opportunities that will stretch them some.

I never give a man a position until he has called someone to follow Jesus with him first and leads him for about one year. While I meet with them I have them do homework and then we discuss it. They will go through lessons on things like prayer, being a disciple, commitment, the Word, evangelism, doctrines of the faith, obedience, serving, hermeneutics, a survey of the OT and NT, how to do Bible study and doing Bible study in a variety of literary genre. Years ago I was pastoring a church that had lost its pastor, building, and most of the people. In that church were men and women who were praying for people to come. They had more programs than people in the church. As I got to know them I realized they hardly knew their neighbors. After one year of training them it was time for them to gain boldness. I gave them a seven question paper to fill out as they asked people their opinions. Each of them were given 20 addresses they were to pray for and get to know the people. I will never forget what happened to one man. Shortly before I sent the people out one of the men began trembling. After two hours he returned a changed man. He came back excited and motor mouth. As a result he started two new groups. He then had started two new groups in which he led in teaching them to be a disciple and make disciples.

Anonymous said...

I noticed you would like to debate James White, on this. What about this new young guy out of Southeastern Baptist... Jonathan Harris? He is actually defending John MacArthur's position and saying that he is being mischaracterized as well.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Everyone should read the book "How To Lie With Statistics".

Gerald Polmateer said...

Anonymous said...

I noticed you would like to debate James White, on this.

Who is you?

Anonymous said...

Wade, stated this earlier in the posts that he would like to debate James White, Mr. Polmateer.

To Wade,
The more I think about this egalitarian perspect, and perhaps its a matter of words, that perhaps that better term is mutualism. Egalitarianism is a secular humanistic term that assumes "equal rights, privileges" and comes out of the French Revolution as a mantra. Do you not know this Mr. Burleson? Also, complementarianism in the 1980's books on family systems did not assume that roles were not flexible, in fact they were. The basis was that roles were flexible and seeking to strengthen each other. The dialectic opposing view was traditionalism which relied on strict boundaries and roles. Please don't bite into this term "egalitarianism" Mr Wade which is liberal and can be utilized and transferable within any type of family system. That is why the term is being pushed.

Anonymous said...

Wade, I would encourage you and all who made comments to watch this.....it strikes a great balance concerning the new women of Rome versus the older more traditional women of Rome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4DtGAP4vOw&t=248s

Rex Ray said...

Ken,

Thanks for getting Gerald to expose himself for what he is. That makes you in the top one percent. :)

He reminds me of the guy who showed people his badge that allowed him to go anywhere.

He ignored the advice not to cross a pasture. A bull started chasing him. The advisor yelled, “Show him your badge!”

Gerald Polmateer said...

Rex Ray, I do show my badge when I ask men to come follow Jesus or they ask me to help them grow. It is a badge of obedience of carrying out the command Jesus gave in Mt. 28:19, 20. The proof of my walk with God and leadership is found in the men whose lives have been changed and changing over the last 45 years. It is found in the men who thank me for meeting with them because their lives have changed. It is found in the families who are following Jesus because I prayed for them and sought them out. Some live down the street me. I am humbled that Gid would ever use me. If you knew where I came from you would be shocked too. I just know God is using me. The question you should be asking is who is living for Jesus Christ and making disciples because of your life?

Rex Ray said...

Gerald,

For all you’ve done, have you prophesied, cast out demons, or done miracles?

Well, you know what Jesus told those guys.

I believe why you’re irritating is because people don’t appreciate those ‘tooting their own horn’.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Rex Ray, after you have gone back and reread the things I have posted do you think it is possible you have deceived yourself to think things I never said?

Gerald Polmateer said...

Rex Ray, did you ever read this,"Ken, my temperament is one that is labelled as a natural born leader. The top two percent on a bell curve among people are the true leaders. They are those who are able to identify a problem and give a solution."

Do you know what that means?

Ken F said...

Gerald,
What is your source data for your claim of being in the top 2%? What was the methodology for assessing you fall in the top 2%?

Gerald Polmateer said...

You failed to answer the last two questions I directed toward you. Until I know that you can answer them, then having an intelligent discussion with you will not happen.

Think about the the last two questions you asked. They were not proper questions.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
I am not the one making claims about myself, you are. It sounds like you are claiming some kind of authority based on some kind of statistical method. So it is fair for us to ask you why we should believe you.

Gerald Polmateer said...

When you answer the last two questions then I think you will see your assumptions undernaeath your comments and questions. Instead it appears to me you are trying to persist in your assumptions by asking more questions based on a false premise.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
Wow. Do you realize you are using tactics used by despots and cult leaders? You entered the conversation by pointing out how much of a natural leader you are, without providing evidence, and then proceeded to insult or demand answers from everyone here who questioned you or disagreed with you. You expect answers without providing any. And you appear to require unquestioned obedience.

I have had enough experience with leaders of all types to know that I am grateful that you and I don't have a personal relationship and that I am not under your authority. I don't doubt that you are making disciples, but I wonder what kind of disciples you are making.

I suppose the dialogue between you and me has progressed about as far as it can go.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken F, you made the statement "You entered the conversation by pointing out how much of a natural leader you are, without providing evidence, and then proceeded to insult or demand answers from everyone here who questioned you or disagreed with you."

Can you quote me where I said that or even alluded to such a thing?

I wrote "Ken, my temperament is one that is labelled as a natural born leader. The top two percent on a bell curve among people are the true leaders. They are those who are able to identify a problem and give a solution."?

Do you know what those statements mean?

You also made the statement, "What is your source data for your claim of being in the top 2%? What was the methodology for assessing you fall in the top 2%?

Two percent of what?


You also asked some other questions in which the information is available in government documents and has been for a long time.








Rex Ray said...

Gerald,

I copy/paste this:

Gerald Polmateer said...I wrote "Ken, my temperament is one that is labelled as a natural born leader. The top two percent on a bell curve among people are the true leaders. They are those who are able to identify a problem and give a solution…" Wed Nov 20, 10:13:00 PM 2019

What percent on the bell curve of true leaders do you think Wade is?

You don’t know because he hasn’t told us. Maybe that should be your example and stop bragging.

Gerald Polmateer said...

If you had followed my advice then you would not have asked another question but rather realized your assumptions. Even the last question you asked about Wade exposes your ignorance of the subject and how you deceived yourself.

Rex Ray said...

Gerald,

Can you read English? You’re so wrong your funny. (I did not ask a question about Wade, but said he should be your example.)

Gerald Polmateer said...

Rex Ray, did you ever read this,"Ken, my temperament is one that is labelled as a natural born leader. The top two percent on a bell curve among people are the true leaders. They are those who are able to identify a problem and give a solution."

Rex Ray, did you write the following on Thu Nov 21, 05:32:00 AM 2019, "What percent on the bell curve of true leaders do you think Wade is?"

Quote me where I made any reference to "the bell curve of true leaders" in any post anywhere.

How is the following statement consistent with your claim about not asking a question about Wade? "You’re so wrong your funny. (I did not ask a question about Wade, but said he should be your example.)" How is that consistent with what you wrote on Thu Nov 21, 05:32:00 AM 2019, "What percent on the bell curve of true leaders do you think Wade is?"

Rex Ray said...

Gerald,

You said, “Quote me where I made any reference to "the bell curve of true leaders" in any post anywhere.”

On November 11, 02:00:00 PM 2019, you wrote:

“Ken, my temperament is one that is labelled as a natural born leader. The top two present on a bell curve among people are the TRUE LEADERS.

If I was a ‘follower of yours, I’m afraid I might end up drinking ‘Cool-Aid’. :)

Gerald Polmateer said...

If you know what a bell curve is among people then you will find the top two percent (3 sigma) of the people are leaders. Then I stated what defines a leader. I never once said I was the top two percent among leaders. There is a huge difference between a bell curve among people and a bell curve among leaders.

So if you want to understand better what I said it might be helpful if you were to study what a bell curve is or a random distribution is among people or among the population.

Ken F said...

"My Bible says to focus on Jesus not what other men say."

"the information is available in government documents"

Gerald,
Do you not see the blatant incongruity between these two quotes of yours? You say you only listen to what Jesus says, but you expect others to listen to what the government says? Nice.

You keep making unsubstantiated claims about where you fall on a certain bell curve. While it's possible that you are telling the truth about this, you refuse to tell us how this was determined. For example, were you a participant in a government or university study? Or were you assessed in some kind of standardized test with an appropriately credentialed evaluator? Or did you self-assess yourself based on something you read on the internet? Or did you just make it up? This is a fair question to ask you since you keep asserting it so frequently. But you refuse to answer. Why is that? It is either because you don't want to answer or you cannot answer, or both. And instead of answering, you accuse those who question you of being intelligent and uneducated.

I don't believe you. If what you say about your location on the bell curve were true you would be able to explain very easily how this was determined. But more importantly, if you were a true leader you would not be so condescending, arrogant, and avoidant.

Ken F said...

"If you know what a bell curve is among people then you will find the top two percent (3 sigma) of the people are leaders."

Gerald,
What is this based on? A normal distribution requires a random variable. What is the random variable for your curve? And who did the sampling? What was the sample size? What was the sampled populations If you cannot cite actual sources it means you are making it up.

Gerald Polmateer said...

You can read about several at https://www.workstyle.io/best-personality-test

If you go to a university library or have access to the databases you can do a search on the subject and find numerous tools that have been developed to measure people against an established standard. Often you can find the researchers statistical results and possibly their data.

When people do research they used established tools that are validated and estalished as statistically significant. Often researchers write about their opinion of the tool and you can read that too.

Your assumptions are numerous. It would be helpful if you read what I wrote rather than making suppositions that are not true and using those assumptions to read into what I wrote to deceive yourself and assume things I never wrote. You should know from the statistics class you took or the experimental research you did in elementary or high school the results are measured against established standards. Also the standards you used to measure the results are an established standard. There are established for almost everything we utilize in the everyday world and in research that is done.

Most likely if you have ever taken a spiritual gifts inventory then you have made use of a developed tool.

Gerald Polmateer said...

This a list of a few books I kept from my university days that might help.

"Understanding Educational Measurement" by Ernest McDaniel

"Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences" by Dennis E. Hinkle, William Wiersma, Stephen G.Jurs

"Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches" by John W. Creswell, J. David Creswell

"Handbook in Research and Evaluation: A Collection of Principles, Methods, and Strategies Useful in the Planning, Design, and Evaluation of Studies in Education and the Behavioral Sciences" by Stephen Isaac and William Michael

"How to Use SPSS: A Step-By-Step Guide to Analysis and Interpretation" by Brian C. Cronk

Ken F said...

Gerald,
Here you go again. Instead of naming the test that identified you in the top 2% you insist on lecturing me on statistics. This tactic of yours is called deflection. The reason I don't believe you is because no true leader would resort to such dysfunctional tactics. By now, I believe you are a fraud.

Gerald Polmateer said...

I don't expect you to believe me. You probably never will.

When did I ever mention one test? Again you are making an assumption.

"Instead of naming the test that identified you in the top 2% you insist on lecturing me on statistics."

The top 2% of what?

Rex Ray said...

Ken,

I don’t think Gerald is a fraud; he’s more like the rooster that crows but it’s the hen that lays the eggs.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Rex Ray, your comment reminded me of a time I wanted to make a change and some of the faculty said it couldn't be done because they had never seen it done before. However one person I knew had made the change. He had founded one of the top schools in the world. He was the only person who worked with me to help me make the change I wanted to see. What I did caught the state's attention and so some people from the state and some from a few universities asked to meet with me. They spent some time talking with the students and later met with me wanting to find out what I did and why was I successful. Later that year the state standards came out and what I gave them was most of what was published. The only person who congratulated was the same person who did was in most of them. The naysayers and critics are never found at the top where successful people are found because they fulfill the role of critic and judge like the Pharisees whom Jesus called white washed tombs.

Ken F said...

Hi Rex,
On a completely different topic, I think you might find this article interesting: https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-recognize-a-narcissist-4164528

Ken F said...

"When did I ever mention one test?"

Gerald,
This is good news - we finally agree on something.

Rex Ray said...

Ken,

Great link. I know several that dominate conversations.

After Gerald’s comment on Fri Nov 22, 08:49:00 AM 2019, I’m beginning to think he’s a ‘good guy’ that got off on the wrong foot.

Gerald Polmateer said...

I wrote "Ken, my temperament is one that is labelled as a natural born leader. The top two percent on a bell curve among people are the true leaders. They are those who are able to identify a problem and give a solution…" Wed Nov 20, 10:13:00 PM 2019

Ken F: "You entered the conversation by pointing out how much of a natural leader you are, without providing evidence, and then proceeded to insult or demand answers from everyone here who questioned you or disagreed with you." Wed Nov 20, 05:51:00 PM 2019

Where did I ever say how much of a natural born leader I am? I cannot think of a single time that I ever said anything like that. What I stated was much like someone who would state the facts of the answer to an equation or someone might say their spiritual gifts is _____. When I believed you accused me of things I never said and then tried to insult me before you asked for clarification by asking questions to clarify what I wrote that is when I felt as though you failed to try and understand what I actually wrote . It seems to me that you insulting comments were from a foundation of misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge to understand what I wrote. I can understand why you felt insulted if you misunderstood what I wrote. I hope this gives clarification to what I wrote.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
I agree that we apparently misunderstood each other. Would you be willing to clarify some points you made that I apparently misunderstood? Here they are:

1) "Where did I ever say how much of a natural born leader I am?"
It was in the statement that you made numerous times in this thread and repeated at the top of your last comment. Are you saying you have the temperament of a natural born leader even though you are not actually a natural born leader? This seems like a distinction without a difference. I don't understand how you can claim you never claimed to be a natural born leader when you so clearly stated multiple times that you have the temperament of a natural born leader.

2) "My temperament is found among two percent of the men and one percent of the women. I think that alone is rather telling."
I asked you why this is relevant. What were you attempting to communicate to us by stating this? Was it to give more weight to your comments? If it is telling, what is it attempting to tell us? Do you agree that when someone makes a truth claim it is ok for others to challenge the veracity of that claim?

3) You continued to cite general statistical concepts without demonstrating why you fall on that particular bell curve in the top 2%. I was hoping you would explain how you discovered you were on that curve rather than a different curve.

There are other points you made that I dont understand, but the ones above would be a good start.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken F, I appreciate your questions.

A bell curve of people is a curve of the random distribution of the population not a select group. When one goes to z positive three standard deviations that is where leaders are who can recognize a problem and solution. That is slightly less than two percent. The next group is only able to accomplish parts of what a top leaders can do. One might call those people middle management. That is about 13 percent. The next groups down are followers.

The numerous times using a number of different evaluation tools my temperament shows up as being a natural born leader. There are characteristics that person has without any kind of training or development. Even when I was a little kid I could see how I naturally led. Even my dad would ask for my advice on things. It was something God gave me. Since then I have been given some incredible opportunities and as a result looking back I see confirmation of who I am. That does not mean I am in the top two percent of leaders.

I made the claim about leaders because I think so many churches and businesses fail to recognize that people have strengths and weaknesses and they need to be serving or working in areas they can do. Leaders are already equipped by God in certain ways others are not. Putting a person in as an elder who is really a great deacon would be putting that person in the wrong place. A deacon is not an elder and an elder is not a deacon. Each is very different in their gifting.

If we plot a random distribution of the population then we will find 100 IQ is average. One standard deviation is 115. The second standard deviation is 130. Above 130 represents slightly less than two percent of the population.

I would not consider Einstein in the two percent of the population as leaders but among the population he would easily have been in the top two percent in intelligence.

I would say that it is very important to guide people into places of service where their are passionate about and gifted to do well.

How I found out I was in the two percent was by putting together several things. From an early age I noticed results in my leadership and seeing things others could not see. For most of my life I felt that when changes were needed I was trying to tell the blind about sight. I have also seen myself as failing to see things others see. As I began to take a serious look at how discipleship and spiritual giftedness worked together in the church I noticed there are a variety of gifts, a variety of ministries, and a variety of effects. Then I thought everyone needs to be a disciple. Everyone needs to exercise their gifts. Leaders are found in each of the gifts and so those with the gift should be leading those with the gift.

I have taken a variety of tests that were consistent in the results in showing my temperament. When I studied leadership I also realized what defined top leaders and what part of the population they were.

In conclusion I came to realize that placing people in places of service is of upmost importance. It is very importance for the success of any organization that people know how God has made them to help eliminate the guessing by each person and help guide them well so they do not get discouraged but rather encouraged and developed to serve in the ways God has made them. I see it as God has made them the way they are and it their leaders who must help guide them well.

It is my opinion that leaders would do well to evaluate the people who stay and those who leave. When they see that then can determine if they are a one size fits all church, maybe a church dominated by people who are gifted in much the same ways. If the people leaving are consistently the same then most likely they need to do something in leadership in that area.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
Thanks for the clarification - it helps quite a lot. Had you explained this earlier I would have thought differently of you. When I kept asking you for an explanation you kept citing generic un-named sources and assumed that I have no background in statistics. It led me to think you were a blowhard. My background in statistics is from an engineering and mathematics perspective while yours appears to be from a sociology perspective.

Can I ask a few follow-on questions. Unless you are talking about a multivariate distribution, the bell curve only describes a single numerical variable. When it comes to putting leadership on a bell curve, what is the variable? I know what it means to put numbers like IQ, or height, or weight, or mean income on a graph, but what is the number that determines leadership and how is it measured? It seems to me that it would have to be some kind of subjective number that rolls up a number of subjectively evaluated characteristics. It seems that results could vary widely based on what factors are considered. For example, where would leaders like Stalin, Hitler, Muhammed, David Korean, Joseph Smith, etc., fall on that curve? These men obviously had many disciples, but I don't think you would advocate putting them in charge of Christian ministries.

The other aspect of statistics that you seemed to overlook is sample size and sample population. For example, one cannot make a bell curve with a sample size of four. Likewise, it is impossible to make sample of the entire world population. So bell curves like the one you describe are based on a reasonably sized representative populations, which means there is always a margin of error. Do you have any references that describe how leadership is determined through statistical means? I am not asking for a primer on statistics. Rather, I am aking for objective, peer-reviewed evidence that leadership can be put on a bell curve.

Finally, did you mean to suggest that women are naturally made for serving jobs because that is where they fall statistically? In other words, should statistics be used to justify gender roles?

Gerald Polmateer said...

I have not ever seen leadership by itself put on a bell curve. The reading I have done is percetages of the people who have a particular temperament and particular percentages who have specific gifts.

The only thing I have seen is leadership tied to temperament as well as how leadership was defined like I mentioned earlier as well as what percentage of the people have that temperament. It has been several years since I looked up the statistics on those and so I do not remember the statistics on them.

I had found in the government documents where it showed employment by gender in a number of professions. There was a higher percentage of women than men in serving industries such as nursing. When I looked up the percentage of women who had my same temperament as mine it was one half of men. Less women than men are working in leadership roles while more women than men are working in service industries.

My opinion is the way God created men and women shows up around the world seems to be consistent. While it varies from society to society there are patterns. The patterns are as the percentage of women working grows so does the women in leadership until it reaches 50% and then as the percentage of women who work grows more the percentage in leadership declines until it reaches zero. In societies where women do all the work men do all the leading.

In the early church the men discipled the men and the women instructed women and baptized them. Women also cared for the children. So the women were essentially leaders, teachers, and caregivers for women and children. From what I can tell the pastor did not directly communicate with a woman that was done through another man to a women's leader. The pastor taught the entire church as a group but did nothing else with women. A friend of mine spent 23 years in Ethiopia and he told me it is much the same way today. All of the men sit on one side and the women on the other side. This facilitated discipleship much better in that men got to know men and women got to know women better.

Rex Ray said...

Gerald,

Have you heard the names of people that are ahead of others?

One step ahead = Thinker
Two steps ahead = Leader
Three steps ahead = Pioneer
Four steps ahead = Martyr

Ken F said...

Gerald,
If you ever remember the names of those studies on leadership I would be interested in reading some.

Is there any possibility that you were remembering temperaments being measured in a histogram rather than a bar chart? A bar or pie chart would make a lot more sense for measuring population percentages of non-continuous data. For example, things like blood type and eye color do not have numerical values, but we can estimate how common they are in a population based on statistical sampling and represent the results in a bar chart or pie chart. It would make a lot of sense to do the same with temperament types. Otherwise there would have to be some kind of numerical value assigned to temperament type, and it's not clear to me how this would be done.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Regarding the temperament tests I looked at, I don't remember much about how they were developed. It has been a long time since I looked at the data associated with them. From what I remember they gave the sample size and percentages of the sample size which had a particular temperament. If I remember right you can look up the information on Myers Briggs.

Regarding the leadership studies I do not know where those came from. That was something one of my professors lectured on and I asked some questions about the details. That was not my area of study. If you have access to some of the databases at a university and maybe even google today you might be able to find something on leadership studies.

This area was an area I was interested in but I was more like an information gatherer. I read studies and information on tools but have little knowledge of the details of their research. My areas of research were in ethics in construction and in measuring the performance of students as we changed the way students were taught.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
Good info. Thanks.

Gerald Polmateer said...

Ken F thanks for your willingness to communicate so we could make things better. I also appreciate you mentioning your background and having a knowledge of statistics. That was a huge help because then I knew the language I could use. Seldom do I communicate with anyone who knows much about statistics.

Ken F said...

Gerald,
I also thank you for working through this. It can be difficult to sort out misunderstandings and disagreements in forums such as this.