A Prophet In His Own Town…

• • 52 Comments

Since I do not wish to ascribe personalities, I won't put a name to the quote, but I do have some thoughts

(no, I will not comment on that blog; there is a reason that has been explained privately. Commenters here are free comment here or there [although there appears to be more freedom for accusations there]. I have also disabled the requirement to enter a name and email address in order to comment - although a name would be nice so there is no need to worry about me using a private email for public reasons or that I might sell it to Russian spam companies. My email IS on the side bar, so I am available for private discussion.

There is also the fact that this post is 5(five) pages long in a Word doc. Very long for a com-box. I will make the same offer - it a poster at the comp-egal blog would like to post it as a "guest blogger", feel free)

Anyway...the quote:

One problem is that this is not a secondary issue to one relatively small group of people: those women God is calling to the kinds of ministry Packer thinks should be closed to women, who receive that calling in churches that agree with Packer. They literally have to choose between obeying their churches and obeying God. And when their churches are teaching them that they aren't hearing correctly from God in the first place, it's got to be a highly difficult dilemma, one which few people (including Packer) could begin to comprehend.

So yes, for most of us, this isn't a super-important issue. But for some of our sisters, it's a matter of spiritual life and death.

This is not so much a commentary on this particular quote, but more or less rambling with my thoughts (so there is no intent [please repeat after me: NO INTENT] to twist words.

I have three personal stories:

First: Two years ago this month, the church I was currently a member of had two guest speakers. Now this is a Christian Reformed Church, the main doctrines are out there for all to see...this is an important point.

The guest speakers were a husband and wife team (no, the problem was not that one of the speakers was a woman). They called themselves "apostle" and "prophet", they were (are) Charismatic, Pentecostal, Third Wave AND Word-Faith. They also have language on their website that is reflective of "Oneness-Apostolic" (They do not believe in the Trinity, but rather "modalism").

I raised concerns and was told "it's a one-time thing". Except that it wasn't. There has been a continuing stream of guest speakers, conferences, workshops, etc. that feature Word-Faith, faith healers, Pentecostals - some Oneness, some Trinitarians, some simply don't say.

I had to take a choice. Do I stay and fight that which I believe to be false doctrine?

Or do I abide by the commitment that I had made when I joined the church: to live under the leadership of the elders?

There IS a direct correlation to the above quote: And when their churches are teaching them that they aren't hearing correctly from God in the first place, it's got to be a highly difficult dilemma, one which few people (including Packer) could begin to comprehend.

For me, in that place, meant that obeying God would mean speaking the truth. The "apostle" and "prophet" were non-Trinitarians, affiliated with a Oneness organization that could loosely be called a denomination.

I spoke out again when it was made public that the church was sending the youth group TO THAT CHURCH to do work after Hurricane Katrina. To work IN that church, to STAY in that church, to WORSHIP in that church. It wasn't long before I was known as the "mom who wanted to wreck our spring break trip".

I really had three choices:

  • stay and fight
  • stay and shut up
  • leave

I chose to leave because to stay and fight would be divisive and to stay and shut up would be counter to my conviction.

Second:

This part of my life actually came first. I had spent my entire life in Arminian churches (although not calling them by that name). I was currently in an Arminian church and had been challenged to at least take a look at Reformed Theology. The more I read, the more I fought. The more I fought, the more I realized it was my pride and my flesh that made me fight. The more I focused on killing the pride and my flesh, the more comfortable I became with Reformed Theology.

Then came the breaking point. I was talking to my kids about when they were saved. My son remembered all of it (I was there). My daughter asked, "Do you mean the first time or all the rest of the times?"

YIKES! Yes, we were in a church that taught insecurity.

The same three choices:

  • stay and fight
  • stay and shut up
  • leave

Again, when I joined that church I had made a public commitment, on the stage, before God and man. Part of that commitment was that I believed the doctrine that the church taught.

What to do when you no longer believe that? I began looking for another church that was in line with what I believe.

Third: (this is not MY story, although I was there to hear and see it)

My sister's husband was a youth pastor for a small church in the thumb of Michigan. The day he resigned to go to be an associate pastor of a church in another state, he spoke from the pulpit. His words were something like (but not a direct quote):

I have come to realize that it is very difficult for a man to be a pastor in the town he grew up in. There is too much known, too much familiarity, too little authority and respect.

and then he quoted Scripture:

"Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." (Matthew 13:57, NIV)

With the pastors I have known, very few have pastored the church they had been a member in (my father-in-law was one; and that didn't last long. The Nazarene church was another, but that pastor had been a pastor in another city and was in Grand Rapids to finish his doctorate; he had only been there a short time when the previous pastor left and he was asked to step in - so this was not a case where he had been a long term member or had grown up there).

SO: To a young woman who feels called to be a senior pastor in the church where she currently is (a church that she knows well does not believe as she does) I would say:

You have three choices:

  • stay and fight
  • stay and shut up
  • leave

1) when you became a member, did you make a commitment to submit to the board of elders and to the doctrines of the church? If so, then are you willing to break your commitment (and most likely cause strife in the church) in order to fill your own personal desire?

If you ARE willing to break that commitment, are you willing to have one of YOUR congregation, a few years down the road, stand up and say that they don't like what you are teaching and they are willing to fight. They will refuse to submit to your leadership, they will refuse to submit to the board. Does this young woman want to look at the possibility of a congregation member treating HER and HER board with the same lack of submission that she is willing to treat hers current pastor and her current board?

2) If you are truly that convicted that God is calling you to be a head pastor, you will be very unhappy with the shutting up option. I know that I was.

3) Why the church that you are in? Is a "comfort zone" thing? (For my brother-in-law, it was) A new pastor has an opportunity to find a new life, a new "place", a place where it cannot be said, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."

To this young woman (or any person, male or female, young or old): It is NOT a matter or "spiritual life or death" to look for a church that shares your beliefs. Many of us have done it and become stronger (not dead) for having examined ourselves (and our beliefs) and churches (and/or denominations) in order to find a truly good fit.

To undergo this examinition:

  1. either strengthens a person's conviction or changes it
  2. keeps him or her with a clear conscience because he or she has been able to keep a commitment (and Scriptural instruction) to submit to the church's elders
  3. gets him or her out of his or her comfort zone.

In my opinion, this is a growth process, not a death process. I have that opinion because I have lived it. Twice that I have told of in this post.
Besides these things, there are a few other (practical) questions:

  • Have you been to seminary?
  • Do you intend to go to seminary?
  • If not, does your current church ordain ANYBODY who has not attended seminary?
  • If you do intend to go to seminary, which one?
  • Does that seminary accept women who want to be head pastors?
  • If not, do you intend to fight with that leadership also?
  • If so, will you end up ordained in the denomination of that seminary, or your current church?
  • If you will end up ordained in the denomination of that seminary, would it be a better choice to stay in a denomination where you are credentials?
  • If you want to be ordained in the denomination of your current church, will there even be an opening for head pastor when you are done with seminary?
  • If not, are you going to ask the current head pastor to step down so that you can step in?
  • If you are NOT called by that church to be head pastor, are you willing to accept the possibility that there is a character or maturity issue that they may see, or will you blame it on gender (youth/too well known)?

These questions are questions that men have to answer as well. I know a man who left his church to go to seminary, only to find that the church he grew up in ... already had a head pastor.

Share Button

52 thoughts on “A Prophet In His Own Town…”

  1. Anon

    The Anglican church of Canada has ordained women since 1976. The minister of an Anglican church could hypothetically come from Sydney Australia where women are not ordained. The Anglican church assumes that a minister from Australia knows that women are ordained in Canada. Nobody asks if he believes women can be ordained.

    At first, the minister carries on the tradition of having women trainees, and allowing older women missionaries to speak on Sundays. Some women in the congregation are professors in a seminary. Over time, slowly there appears a pattern. No more women trainees, no more women speaking, women are exhorted to unilateral submission. The question of abuse is ignored. The minister is incredibly sympathetic to abused women, he just had no idea that he knew any.

    This minister when questioned about the submission of women, quotes his favourite word study from CBMW. The CBMW has more authority over his beliefs than the Anglican church of Canada does. This minister does not read the word study and judge it, he simply believes it because he trusts CBMW, because Dr. Packer has endorsed what they teach.

  2.

    That's fine. My belief is that if he accepts a position in a church, he should abide by the accepted doctrine.

    Do you have any thoughts about THIS post?

  3. Anon

    This situation is my major concern in life.

    The problem is that some people, for a variety of reasons, feel that certain beliefs demand an extraordinary cost from women and should be fought. So they feel convicted to stay and fight, especially when beliefs tighten up.

    However, it is much easier to simply leave.

  4.

    So, what you are saying (regardless of the words written by others, in other places) is that there can be no truce.

    There can be no "this is my conviction, this is yours; let us practice in peace."

    Regardless of the word that deny comparing slavery and Biblical submission by wives, there is yet another comparison:

    From the egalitarian perspective the principles behind this debate are the same and so it should be handled in the same way. That is, there should be no truce until those who promote the unbiblical teaching of complementarianism change their position, or at least stop promoting it and allow themselves to be marginalised. I doubt if they would be pursued by egalitarians if they quietly practised male headship in the home and without making a big fuss of it only appointed men to leadership positions in their own churches. But there can be no truce while unbiblical teachings are being promulgated.

    If you want to wonder WHY we speak out, it is that (by the words on comp-egal, BY AN EGAL...is that there "can be no truce" - by your words (stay and fight) and by his (there can be no truce).

    There can be no truce because YOU all do not want one.

  5. Anon

    I personally believe that the sub ordination of women and the subordination of a people are in some ways analogous. However, I want to be kind about saying this because some people who believe in the subordination of women are kind people.

    Some slave owners fed their slaves well and taught them to read. Then they wondered why the slaves ran away and served the evil British govt and some died fighting for the British and some starved to death as free men. Some of the slave owners were kinder people than some of the British. I want to acknowledge that some C's are kind people. However, that doesn't change the issue of how we should treat others.

    Since in terms of Biblical interpretation I have not met one writer who proves his point without misquoting Greek. I know longer believe it can be done.

    I do think that I have to strive for kindness but not necessarily for a truce.

  6.

    Well...that is the truth.

    Perhaps there are more who are hesitant to openly compare the Godly submission of women to slavery.

    It would be nice if more were open about how they truly felt.

    About the whole "truce" thing as well.

  7. Anon

    Well, everyone is an individual. I don't complain to you that other C's don't defend their view from scripture.

    I do think that you try to, but if I show you how that scripture has been contorted by translators you don't often acknowledge what I say. However, I assume you notice it and file it for later reference.

    Another interesting point I noticed on submission is that in 2 Macc. 13:23 the king submitted to the Judeans and the word was submit in Greek. In Latin it was translated with subditus esse. However, in English it was translated as "yield." The dictionary definition of yield is similar to submit, but I don't know of one person who would say that a husband should not yield to his wife. So, in fact, our thoughts on this matter our very bound by our English framework. Of course, there can be mutual submission in Greek.

    There is not one verse in the Bible which says that a man has authority over his wife. Where is it?

  8.

    There is also not one verse in the Bible that directly teaches the Trinity, do you deny that also?

    No, of course not. But it is deduced from Scripture.

    Just as I can say, "a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ." Why?

    Because he is her head, as Christ is the head of the church.

    It does not matter what "head" means - it is the reason that the church submits to Christ and it is the reason wives should follow her example.

    How DO you think the church should submit to Christ? As a non-authoritative non-leader?

  10.

    I will continue to post relevant material on my own blog for a while. Here is a quote from the CBE blog - a comment by Mary.

    Power is the most prized commodity in the world’s way of doing things. Why NOT behave like the world?

    Well, because we have an example of something radically different: The only true Authority, Jesus Christ, emptying himself and freely accepting death on a cross for our sinful sakes. Really…how DARE we claim that we ought to be authorities over one another?

    Elsewhere just today, the false assumption was expressed that egalitarians will only submit to Christ as a non-authority non-leader. No, we submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, who gave himself up for us. We don’t submit to Christ because he’s our Authority and Leader, we submit to him because he gave himself freely for us. We submit out of love and gratitude, which is what we ought to do for one another (and we ought to behave in such a way that others find it easy to love and be grateful to us).

    This is not complicated, IMO. It all, always, comes back to a simple but radical concept: the one who would be greatest is to be servant of all. IMO, we ought to aspire to that (and only that) kind of greatness.

    I think Clement was saying the same thing. Because Christ died for us, we submit to each other.

  11.

    Wow...I made CBE.

    I guess that I can honestly say from my heart that I intend to submit to my husband as the church submits to Christ...and I mean that as Christ is the authority over the church, He is the role model for servant leadership for husbands.

    I asked repeatedly just how those who embrace marital anarchy DO think the church submits to Christ (and have not received an answer that I'm aware of).

    It seems that while Bill Clinton said, "That depends on what your definition of what "is" is..." you all are beginning to sound as if your line is going to be "that depends on what your definition of "as" is."

    If marital anarchists submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ...and their husbands are non-authoritative non-leaders, where does that leave Christ and the church?

    I don't suppose that at this point it would work to quote CBMW again:

    I have to affirm at the outset that people can mean different things by mutual submission. There is a sense of the phrase mutual submission that is different from an egalitarian view and that does not nullify the husband’s authority within marriage. If mutual submission means being considerate of one another, and caring for one another’s needs, and being thoughtful of one another, and sacrificing for one another, then of course I would agree that mutual submission is a good thing. (…)

    In previous generations some people did speak about “mutual submission,” but never in the sense in which egalitarians today understand it. In his study of the history of the interpretation of Ephesians 5:21, Daniel Doriani has demonstrated that a number of earlier writers thought there was a kind of “mutual submission” taught in the verse, but that such “submission” took very different forms for those in authority and for those under authority. They took it to mean that those in authority should govern wisely and with sacrificial concern for those under their authority.

    Marital anarchists are beginning to say that "as" doesn't mean "identical", just as complementarians have been saying ALL ALONG that the submission to the needs of the other marriage partner are not identical and do not rule out headship and servant leadership.

    I stand by my logic.

    Complementarians strive to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ and to marital anarchists, the husband is a non-authority non-leader.

    Which is it?

  12. Anon

    Some people don't think life is all about authority. It has to do with the scriptures. The scriptures tell people to submit but they never tell anyone to exercize authority over someone else. That's just how the scriptures are.

    Clement certainly taught that Christians had to obey their earthly employers, ie the general in the army. He did not mention marriage one way or another. I think he would have said to be loyal and faithful and the strong support the weak and the weak respect the strong - whoever you are.

    Its not anarchy but if it makes you feel better to call me a name - go ahead.

  13. Glenn

    I do notice that there are many complaints about Comps ignoring comments, but then egals continue to avoid answering the simplest of questions.
    It is proved over and over that Comps have no relation to slavery, CBMW does not advocate or support abuse, slavery or dictatorial behaviour and what happens? certain egals continue to insinuate, claim or state otherwise.
    Comps are the ones supposedly ignoring evidence that supports egal and yet it is egals who continue to propagate the same old tired and untrue statements regarding CBMW, Comps in general, etc.

    To state the above is then labelled 'ad hominem' attacks. If replying to a certain person, and out of politeness use their name so it is clear to whom one is replying, that is also labelled a personal attack.

    All theologians who do not support/teach egal are dismissed as unfit for their jobs and seriously lacking in expertise. Oh yes, and they are inferior in their understanding of Greek no matter how well qualified they happen to be.

    I am personally not egal because in the over 21 years I have been investigating the issue (and reading materials from both sides) I have never found egal reasoning to match with the entirety of Biblical teaching.

    I know that Anon (read Suzanne) will completely disagree and state the same about Comp, but that still leaves the ever unanswered questions that egals have never answered or have never answered with convincing answers.

    ie - "How DO you think the church should submit to Christ? As a non-authoritative non-leader?"

    "Why did Christ select only men as Apostles"

  14.

    How DO you think the church should submit to Christ? As a non-authoritative non-leader?”

    If you read my personal blog, I am trying to put up some passages to demonstrate the meaning of submission in Greek. I have really just gotten started. I don't think I am avoiding any questions. In the meantime, the website posted by Marilyn has some excellent articles which clarify why E's feel as they do about certain things.

    Oh yes, and they are inferior in their understanding of Greek no matter how well qualified they happen to be.

    I do know one man who is very good with linguistic material and I have corresponded with him at length. I am not free to share his name. He disagrees with me, naturally, but will only say about other C's that the Greek is not so certain as they think. He stays out of the "gender wars."

    I didn't mean such blanket disrespect, but really some of them outdo themselves in extending to the Greek what is not there.

  15. Leigh Ann

    Ellen, I agree with your conclusions. My husband and I have talked about these very options regarding some issues that we might have with our church. Thanks for putting it all out there so clearly.

  16.

    The man who I asked questions about this was an instructor of ancient languages at a secular university. At a secular university, there are no doctrinal axes to grind.

    Sue said, "Its not anarchy but if it makes you feel better to call me a name - go ahead.

    I have made the point that neither is Godly leadership "dictatorial", but it apparently makes the egals "feel better" to apply it to Godly men.

    I hope that I am making a point (although at this point I despair)

  17. Sue

    The man who I asked questions about this was an instructor of ancient languages at a secular university. At a secular university, there are no doctrinal axes to grind.

    What does the "this" refer to in this statement?

  18.

    "this" (for the current conversation) is Eph. 5 and the other "submission of the wife" passages.

    Also I asked about infant baptism, predestination, and eschatology.

    It was a very good summer.

  19. Sue

    The man who I asked questions about this was an instructor of ancient languages at a secular university. At a secular university, there are no doctrinal axes to grind.

    “this” (for the current conversation) is Eph. 5 and the other “submission of the wife” passages.

    Also I asked about infant baptism, predestination, and eschatology

    What man?

    Which ancient languages?

    What degree did he have?

    What university does he teach at?

    What question did you ask with regard to Eph. 5?

    What answer did he give?

    Does he, himself, not have any doctrinal biases?

  20.

    I honestly do not remember his name; it's been several years and he's moved on. He was (I believe) a full professor and he studied (and taught) Greek and Latin. He also did private tutoring for the local home school association.

    The university is Grand Valley State University.

    I asked him (this was a conversation that spanned several weeks so I might not remember very accurately) a vague "what is the scoop"? He said that there are enough possible ways of translating many passages (including the other topics that I've mentioned) that a person would have to look at the totality of Scripture.

    While he was(is) and egalitarian and Arminian, he told me that there was enough doubt in his mind that he wouldn't give me a definitive answer.

    It is interesting...it was very nearly a Calvinist that made me go back to Arminianism (and an Arminian that stopped me) and primarily egalitarians that helped me figure out that I believe that Godly leadership in a marriage is God's plan.

  21. Sue

    Do you think that he specialized in Hellenistic Greek? And Hebrew? That is the full complement.

    Somehow I am struggling to find relevance. However, your right, there is significant doubt about many things. That is why I am puzzled that C's are so sure of themselves. My view is that all things being equal on the interpretational front, E is a kinder, more Christ like way to live, and attempts to fill the sum of the law.

  22.

    I think it's because if Christ and the church are "complementary" and if Christ and the church are role models for husbands and wives then it is the complementarian role models that fit best.

    Godly leadership IS kind. Godly husbands love their wives the way that Christ loves His own bride, they would give their lives, they treat their wives as the weaker vessel and as co-heirs in Christ. (Yes, I know that egalitarians say the same thing. The point I am making is that leadership does NOT rule out love, does NOT rule out kindness, does NOT rule out being Christ-like)

    Christ-like leadership on the part of a husband rules out indifference; it demands care-taking. It rules out violence; it demands gentle shepherding. It rules out dictatorship; it demands loving guidance.

    How is this not the "sum of the law"?

  23. Sue

    I carefully said "kinder," not that C couldn't be kind.

    The example of Christ on earth was that he took the role of a servant. This was his deliberate example and role model to humans. He is also omniscient, humans are not. So .... the kinder husband does not lead his wife in child raising but they raise their children together, because the E husband acknowledges that the wife may spend more time with the child and may be more aware of the child's needs. Then the E husband allows himself to be lead and he learns to anticipate the needs of the child from listening to his wife. Of course, a C husband can do this, but then he is behainv like an E.

    If a husband is 100% Christ-like, then really it doesn't matter much either way.

    Considering single women, the C belief restricts and establishes an authority structure built on gender, and not on scholarship, training or sprituality. There is no benefit to single women in C.

    I am waiting for David L to post about how the C belief can liberate a single woman.

  24. Sue

    I guess what I am trying to say is that if husband and wife were perfect then the marriage of C's and E's might not look any different. However, single women still have to be restricted.

    So, Biblical interpretation being equal, and (IF) marriages are equal, (with both having access to having goals and tasks) then why not E so single women could also function as equals?

  25.

    For me (God willing) I will not be single forever. I will not (will not be a wife to a man who refuses to lead his family in the way that Christ leads His bride.

    That being said, I look at the history of the way God has historically related to His people (Old Testament) and the rest of the translating being equal, it is my belief that having men in head leadership positions is the right thing. If I am convicted, that is what I will do.

    As for being restricted, I'm going to list Grudem's (partial) list of positions that he believes a woman can fill.

    I guess I don't feel limited because I feel very strongly that ministering to women and children (and teens) is a right, worthy, and honorable ministry to have.

    (this will be a very long comment):

    9. Permanent leader of a fellowship group meeting in a home (both men and women members)

    10. Committee chairman (or "chairperson") (explanation: this item and the following two have some kind of authority in the church, but it is less than the authority over the whole congregation which Paul has in mind in 1 Cor. 14:33-36, 1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Tim. 3, and Titus 1)

    11. Director of Christian Education

    12. Sunday School Superintendent

    13. Missionary responsibilities: many administrative and organizational responsibilities in missionary work in other countries

    14. Moderating a Bible discussion in a home Bible study group

    15. Choir director

    16. Leading singing on Sunday morning (note: this could be listed between 8 and 9 above, depending on how a church understands the degree of authority over the assembled congregation that is involved)

    17. Deacon (in churches where this does not involve governing authority over the entire congregation)

    18. Administrative assistant to senior pastor

    19. Church treasurer

    20. Church secretary

    21. Member of advisory council to regional governing authority

    22. Meeting periodically with church governing board to give counsel and advice

    23. Regular conversations between elders and their wives over matters coming before the elder board (with understanding that confidentiality is preserved)

    24. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling one man)

    25. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling a couple together)

    26. *Professional counselor (one woman counseling another woman)

    27. Speaking in congregational business meetings

    28. Voting in congregational business meetings (Explanation: each person voting has some influence over the whole congregation, but it is significantly less than the governing authority held personally by elders or a senior pastor, and does not seem to be what Paul has in view in 1 Tim. 2. By analogy, an 18-year old American can vote for the President of the United States, but cannot be President of the United States, and the authority residing in the office of President far exceeds the authority of any individual voter.)

    6. Occasional preaching (teaching the Bible) to the whole church on Sunday mornings

    7. Occasional Bible teaching at less formal meetings of the whole church (such as Sunday evening or at a mid-week service)

    8. Bible teaching to an adult Sunday school class (both men and women members)

    9. Bible teaching at a home Bible study (both men and women members)

    10. Bible teaching to a college age Sunday school class

    11. Bible teaching to a high school Sunday school class

    12. Writing a book on Bible doctrines (Explanation: I have put four examples of writing activities here on the list because the author of a book has some kind of teaching authority, but it is different from the teaching authority over the assembled congregation that Paul prohibits in 1 Tim. 2. The teaching relationship of an author to a reader is much more like the one-to-one kind of teaching that Priscilla and Aquila did when they explained the way of God more accurately to Apollos in Acts 18:26. In fact, with a book the element of direct personal interaction is almost entirely absent. Moreover, the book comes not only from the author but also with input from the editors and publisher.)

    13. Writing or editing a study Bible

    14. Writing a commentary on a book of the Bible

    15. Writing notes in a study Bible

    16. Writing or editing a study Bible intended primarily for women

    17. Bible teaching to a women's Sunday school class

    18. Bible teaching to a women's Bible study group during the week

    19. Bible teaching to a junior high Sunday school class

    20. Teaching as a Bible professor on a secular university campus. (Explanation: I have put this here on the list because I see this task as essentially a combination of evangelism and teaching about the Bible as literature, mainly to non-Christians. Even though there may be Christians in some classes, the professor has no church-authorized authority or doctrinal endorsement, as there would be with a Bible teacher in a church or a professor in a Christian college or seminary.)

    21. Evangelistic speaking to large groups of non-Christians (for example, an evangelistic rally on a college campus)

    22. Working as an evangelistic missionary in other cultures

    23. Moderating a discussion in a small group Bible study (men and women members)

    24. Reading Scripture aloud on Sunday morning

    25. Reading Scripture to other, less formal meetings of the church

    26. Giving a personal testimony before the congregation (a story of how God has worked in one's own or others' lives)

    27. Participating in a discussion in a home Bible study (men and women members)

    28. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling one man)

    29. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling a married couple)

    30. *Professional counseling (one woman counseling a woman)

    31. Teaching children's Sunday school class

    32. Teaching Vacation Bible School

    33. Singing a solo on Sunday morning (a form of teaching, since it often has Biblical content and exhortation)

    34. Singing to the congregation as a member of the choir

    35. Singing hymns with the congregation (in this activity, sometimes we "teach" and exhort one another in some sense: Col. 3:16)

    2. Being licensed to perform some ministerial functions within a denomination

    3. Paid member of pastoral staff (such as youth worker, music director, counselor, Christian Education director)

    4. Paid member of administrative church staff (church secretary or treasurer, for example)

    5. Performing a baptism (in churches where this is not exclusively the role of clergy or elders)

    6. Helping to serve the Lord's Supper (in churches where this is not exclusively the role of clergy or elders)

    7. Giving announcements at the Sunday morning service

    8. Taking the offering

    9. Public reading of Scripture

    10. Public prayer

    11. Prophesying in public (according to 1 Cor. 11:5 and 14:29, where this is not understood as having authority equal to scripture or Bible teaching)

    12. Singing a solo on Sunday mornings

    13. Giving a personal testimony in church

    14. Giving a prayer request in church

    15. Being a member of a "prayer team" that will pray for people individually after the service.

    16. Welcoming people at the door (a greeter)

    17. Editing church newsletter

    18. Singing in the choir

    19. Singing of hymns with congregation on Sunday morning

    20. Participating in the responsive reading of Scripture on Sunday morning

  26.

    For me (God willing) I will not be single forever.

    Rub it in, Ellen. Are you saying it is a gospel for the lucky? This is what I meant by E being kinder. It does not promote the married above the unmarried. It does not make a woman want to vaunt her relationship to a man before others.

    Do you look at single women through history and judge them on the basis of whether they were married or not. Have you decided that they did not trust God enough? More than half of women our age are single so Christianity is only for the minority, the privileged.

    Next, If you build a foundation on the OT you are stuck explaining away slavery, monarchy, polygamy, the hereditary priesthood and so on.

    Third, what your list tells me is that every single woman missionary who came to BC and spent her week traveling from home to home ministering to the farm women and then went into town and preached the gospel on Sundays is in violation of God's will.

    Your list tells me clearly that you have opted to base your faith on the authority of maleness, rather than the authority of the word. You do not ask it the person who wrote the list is versed in the word? Have you seen the evidence on my blog? I will not trust those who do not do their basic homework.

  27.

    I have rejected C for many very serious and valid reasons. You have not given me any reason to reconsider it.

    However, you have tried, you have kept up the conversation, which is more than most people are willing to do. Thank you.

  28.

    Sue.

    If I don't have the gift of being single, I don't want to be single. If you think that makes me "judgmental", it says as much about you as it does me.

    The egalitarian sister-in-law that I love dearly (that I have referenced before) has never been married and is one of the two 50 year old virgins that I know (the other is another dear friend). I don't judge them at all for being single: that is there gift, it is not mine.

    What that list tells me that even the most conservative complementarian has a pretty extensive list of ministries that a woman can easily take part in! Are you so blinded by the very few things that we believe a woman should not do, that it is impossible for you to see all of the possibilities?

    As for explaining away the Old Testament, why would I want to? Is not ALL Scripture profitable? What other parts are useless to you? Is there a hereditary priesthood? No, but what can it teach us?

    Is there a need for polygamy today? No (although I have known a plural family and I hesitate to call it "sin") But what can it teach us?

    Slavery? What can it teach us?

    I will be blunt. I believe that God has ordained leadership (be it in home or church) because humans are like sheep. There are very few times when there is a leadership vacuum and when there is, somebody generally steps up to fill it.

    You may be an exception.

    I was going to write more about leadership vacuums in regards to venues set up for opposite sides to "discuss" such matters. Unless a leader truly leads, somebody will. And many times, that "somebody" is not a good thing.

    It is the same in classrooms. If the teacher does not lead, there is a bully who will.

    That is why I do not have an issue with authority. Throughout Scripture, God's people had leaders. It is only in today's culture that the world (and parts of the church) has decided that leaders and authority are bad things.

    I am truly sorry for all that you have been through. It is sin and it remains sin.

    Again, it has been the egalitarians that are the most "passionate" about it (with a couple of exceptions, including you) that have led me to believe that leadership is not only good, it is necessary.

  29.

    If I don’t have the gift of being single, I don’t want to be single. If you think that makes me “judgmental”, it says as much about you as it does me.

    Ellen, you wrote,

    For me (God willing) I will not be single forever.

    Try to maintain basic cohesion from one comment to the next! You actually think that the single women you know are single because they have the gift of being single? First, the "gift of being single" is an imaginary construct of the NLT and does not exist in other Bible translations. Next, it insults every single person on earth who wanted to get married and wasn't able to.

    Frankly this is one of the most hard-hearted things that I have ever read. I now think that C teaching hardens the heart.

    What that list tells me that even the most conservative complementarian has a pretty extensive list of ministries that a woman can easily take part in! Are you so blinded by the very few things that we believe a woman should not do, that it is impossible for you to see all of the possibilities?

    You don't answer my questions about women missionaries and why they should not preach. You don't even acknowledge it.

    Is there a need for polygamy today?

    Is there a need for male authority today?

    I believe that God has ordained leadership (be it in home or church) because humans are like sheep.

    You don't for one split second believe that men are less sheep like than woman. Do you?

    I agree that egalitarians do not have anything over complementarians manners-wise. However, I find the C belief to have a tendency to create unbearable misery for some women - IMO. They go from an abusive marriage to an irrelevant and invisible singlehood .

    And, to top it all off, this is "okay" because they have the gift of singleness. They are living out their fulfillment!

    This is like saying that people in other countries don't really feel their poverty or lack of freedom as much as we would in their situation.

    I am guessing that some women want to be C because they want to marry a certain C man. And then, in order to justify C beliefs, they have to prove that it is better.

    But, we should think first of how our testimony will impact others. Will it lead them into sin? Will modeling such faith in maleness lead another woman to live in sin or suffering?

    We are called to be tenderhearted.

  30.

    If you are correct, then any woman who wishes to marry someday and verbalizes that wish is hard hearted? That is what you are saying.

    Again...abuse is sin. You were sinned against.
    Complementarianism is not sin.

    I am guessing that some women simply do not like authority, so they want to marry a wimpy man. And then, in order to justify E beliefs, they have to prove that it is better - so you see, that can run both ways.

    As for missionaries - I believe that the goal of most missionaries is to go, preach, bring them in and then raise up leaders and preachers in the native population who will preach after them. If those missionaries are women, then they do not (at least in the long run) have that spiritual authority. It is never said that women cannot take the gospel.

    Even Grudem and Piper (who just MAY NOT be monsters if you give their words half a chance - I do not depend on Grudem's research, but CBMW has had the words to say what I had believed long before I had heard of Grudem OR CBMW) say

    We do not wish to impede the great cause of world evangelization by quibbling over which of the hundreds of roles might correspond so closely to pastor/elder as to be inappropriate for a woman to fill. It is manifest to us that women are fellow workers in the gospel and should strive side by side with men (Philippians 4:3; Romans 16:3,12). For the sake of finishing the Great Commission in our day, we are willing to risk some less-than-ideal role assignments.

    As for men and women as sheep...in my experience I have known considerably more sheep-like women than I have known sheep-like men. That is just my experience.

    As for testimony, I have said before that if I marry again, I want people to look at my marriage and see Christ's relationship to His bride reflected (through a glass darkly). I do not think that is a bad thing.

  31.

    You did not verbalize that you "desired" to marry. You verbalized that you "would not be single - DV."

    This was in response to my question,

    then why not E, so single women could also function as equals?

    It appears that you are saying that the plight of single women is irrelevant to you. You don't really care f they are treated as equals, you know they are not. That is good for you. You don't really need to think about it and you don't need to have feelings for them because they have the gift of singleness. That is how it reads.

    As for missionaries - I believe that the goal of most missionaries is to go, preach, bring them in and then raise up leaders and preachers in the native population who will preach after them. If those missionaries are women, then they do not (at least in the long run) have that spiritual authority. It is never said that women cannot take the gospel.

    The farmers were just that - farmers. The missionaries were theologically trained women. They were licensed to preach in the small pioneer churches that the communities had built to attract pastors. Not enough men came. The farmers respected the women. However, as the area became more built up, men did come and then women who had established ministries were told to leave. The farmers were upset.

    This is one example. I want to know what makes it "not sin" for those women to preach then, and sin for women today to preach in the same church?

    I am so glad that the great P&G, who stand in for God, can bend to accept women sometimes, although they are less than ideal. "God sure doesn't want women, but we will allow them to do some things if we men are not around."

    As for men and women as sheep…in my experience I have known considerably more sheep-like women than I have known sheep-like men. That is just my experience.

    How can a sheep judge a matter like that?

    I do not depend on Grudem’s research, but CBMW has had the words to say what I had believed long before I had heard of Grudem OR CBMW) say

    CBMW did not exist before P&G. Whoever listens to one word of CBMW is chewing on the grass of their exegesis. I can't help it - people want to be sheep. That is for sure.

  32.

    Sue, I think that no matter what I say, it will be wrong. I cannot "win" with you because you have made up your mind.

    As for farmers vs. theologians. My dad was a farmer, as was his dad, and HIS dad. I grew up in the church that my father and grandfather (both farmers, mind you) built with their own hands.

    Both of them (my grandpa is passed away) are two of the most devout men I have ever known and my dad is a gentle, loving and mature Christ I have ever known.

    Some of the most arrogant people I have known have been theologians.

    Just that - farmers. Men who are hard-working, God fearing.

    Your bias shows. Not men vs. women, but educated vs. not. Neither one has the market on Christianity and sometimes I think that the more educated one is, the more pride you have to fight to get to the basics.

    DO NOT DENIGRATE FARMERS (just that) on my blog. Please.

  33.

    Oh, wow. I had no intention of dengrating formers. It never crossed my mind. My point was that the men were not "natives." They were not of a different race. They built the church, they asked for a pastor. No pastor came but there was a strong women's mission group made up of independently wealthy single women who came from England and spent their life riding or driving jeeps all over the north. The reason shy they were wealthy is because the church would not pay them because they were women. So only the ones who could support themselves came. They lived a very rough life.

    The person who told me the story was a well educated farmer and his daughter is a close friend of mine. Her husband is a professor. The farmer, his daughter and son-in-las do not go to church because of the way the church has treated women, in their experience.

    The point of the story was that it was a pioneer farming community and not a cross cultural mission.

    Some of the most arrogant people I have known have been theologians.

    And amen to that.

    Okay, I did not know that the word farmer had the potential of being a denigration. I had no idea this was a possible interpretation. Are farmers often made fun of in the states? I have never heard of that?

    I guess I stepped in pooh. I wasn't expecting it.

  34.

    Bingo. Just like me and wanting to be married some day.

    Yes. When I grew up, there was very much an "us and them". The farmers and the townies.

  35.

    What I am trying to say is that nobody minds women training the natives. But the farmers were responsible people, they asked for a pastor. They appreciated the women when the women came. They were in charge of accepting the women as preachers. But the women did preach to men of their own race. So the question is, what would the great P&G say to that? Would they say that this was okat but less than ideal. These women sacrificed a great deal and they were loved. But, they will always be called "less than ideal."

  36.

    Bingo. Just like me and wanting to be married some day.

    But you don't seem to care about how bad the C belief might be for single women.

    Yes. When I grew up, there was very much an “us and them”. The farmers and the townies.

    I am more involved in issues of racism, so I am more sensitive to things like that.

    I don't think farmers are adversely affected by C or E, in general, but single women are dishonoured by C.

  37.

    Half the women our age are single and you can't think of even one way that C is better than E for single women. But no worries, because if all works out, you will be married.

    Hey, you think I am made of stone? 😉 Maybe I could find a farmer like Beatrix Potter. And that is not a denigration. Its a good movie - "Miss Potter." Have you seen it?

  38.

    Frankly, Sue, being single doesn't have much of a bearing. Considering the number of men that are called to pastorate or elder, there are a large number of men out there who have the same opportunities as women. When you consider the vast number of ministries that are open to women, why would being single or not even make a difference? I can still lead the choir (and have as both single and married), I can still lead a women's Bible study (and have as both single and married), I can still teach junior church (and have as both single and married).

    I guess that there are large numbers of women out there who would like to be married some day. I think that I will be content either way, but yes, I would like to be married again.

    I guess I don't see an advantage (ministry wise) between being married or not (whether egalitarian or complementarian). I understand that there are two offices of ministry that are not open to women in complementarian churches...that is minuscule compared to the opportunities.

  39.

    Frankly, Sue, being single doesn’t have much of a bearing. Considering the number of men that are called to pastorate or elder, there are a large number of men out there who have the same opportunities as women.

    Because the men and women I trained with are all theologians and professors and pastors. So, that is what I learned.

    I can still lead the choir

    I am tone deaf, and if I had a dollar for every time I was asked to play the piano ... just makes me sick. They wanted me for what I was worst at!

    I can still lead a women’s Bible study

    I have ...

    I can still teach junior church

    I have ...

    I also appreciate spending a little time once in while being treated as an equal by those that I trained with.

    What I am saying is that you have held up some Christ-like paragon of a lover as compensation for accepting male authority. And I am saying, what if one never does meet this Christ-like lover, but just has an ordinary single life.

    What is the advantage to being C for anybody, and especially for single women, who are restricted even if most of them aren't aware of it.

    Why not just be E and then just do whatever you think God is telling you and not consult P&G at all. How would that be?

  40.

    There really is no gift of singleness in the Bible - the translator just dreamed it up. Curiously the CBMW seem to think it is actually in the Bible. This is what happens when you do your theology based on translations,or Greek as you think it is, and not how it really is.

    Imagine this verse from the CBMW website - it isn't in the Bible either,

    Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex,

  41. Charity

    We do not wish to impede the great cause of world evangelization by quibbling over which of the hundreds of roles might correspond so closely to pastor/elder as to be inappropriate for a woman to fill. It is manifest to us that women are fellow workers in the gospel and should strive side by side with men (Philippians 4:3; Romans 16:3,12). For the sake of finishing the Great Commission in our day, we are willing to risk some less-than-ideal role assignments.

    I'm not sure that this is the original part of the book I dipped into, but it was a paragraph very similar to this one, that first made be doubt the "rightness" of male precedence.

    To me it just didn't seem right to say in effect, well it's ok in countries that are of lesser status than our own. (I'm trying here to find sensitive language, but it's something that I feel very strongly about.) I had no idea that this had also happened in Canada - thank you for sharing those examples, Sue.

  42.

    You know what's funny...you all want us to use CBMW as the "flagship" of E, since they are the one that coined the phrase. One E said that the comp-egal blog was set up to discuss the "flagships" of the doctrine and that we (paraphrase) should only be willing to discuss what CBMW teaches (but when I asked for which "flagship" represented E I don't recall an answer) because individual beliefs varied. I was told that if I didn't walk in lockstep with CBMW that I shouldn't call myself a C.

    And when we DO use CBMW as a resource, when we DO quote them extensively...you all act as if we're setting them up as the be all and end all and as if we are setting them up as God and that we should just do like we believe and not refer to them.

    PLEASE...make up your (collective) mind.

  44.

    Charity, it is sad that you assume racism.

    To me it just didn’t seem right to say in effect, well it’s ok in countries that are of lesser status than our own. (I’m trying here to find sensitive language, but it’s something that I feel very strongly about.) I had no idea that this had also happened in Canada - thank you for sharing those examples, Sue.

    Maybe, because it happens in places other than places that have people who (YOU impose the belief) have a lesser status...maybe CBMW doesn't believe they have a lower status. You are now bringing charges of racism in as well. Does that not bother you that you choose to do that?

    Why not just be E and then just do whatever you think God is telling you and not consult P&G at all. How would that be?

    Because (collective) YOU keep admonishing that it is CBMW who is the "flagship" and it is those beliefs we need to refer to.

    And I am saying, what if one never does meet this Christ-like lover, but just has an ordinary single life.

    I wrote about that a while ago (please don't say that I'm "resorting to untruths" - i.e. call me a liar) It is what I believe and I am convinced from the whole counsel of God of the rightness of gender roles.

  45.

    Ellen,

    I don't know of any CBE material that I disagree with. It could be there.

    P&G were founders of CBMW. The book RBMW was sponsored by CBMW. The ESV and the ststement of concern and the kephale study are all relatied.

    CBMW is considered soft patriarchy. They have women on the board, they are responsive to people writing in. I think the ID of C with CBMW is fair. Maybe not everyone remembers the history and knows how interconnected it all is.

    It has been a standard practice that those who do not allow women to teach men, do allow women to teach men of a different race, or men who live in a different country. I know of examples of a woman who taught in a seminary in Europe, then converted to E, and she moved to a third world country and taught in a seminary there. And the CBMW celebrated her faithfulness in giving up her position of having authority over men. Get it, men of her own race. These are facts.

    I think if you don't want to be associated with CBMW then you should just say that you are "traditional" in your view towards women in the church and not use the term complementarian. As far as I know the CBMW coined it. I could check on that.

    You haven't resented any reasons why being C is better than being E for a single woman. So, if we agree that Biblical interpretation can go either way, I feel that E is somewhat safer for married women, given that women are all married to human males, and much better all around for single women. They share equal function and status with men. They can just talk to men as equals, without there being an authority difference. They can also follow the goals of their males classmates, and stay within their collegial group. They can do the kinds of things that God gifted them to do and not cover these things up.

    What I am trying to say is that there are not any C beliefs that are based on good exegesis. Traditional practices had a different, hugely different exegesis. That is important to realize. C is a very recent set of beliefs, restricted to a certain movement.

  46.

    Too many typos! The woman converted to C not E. Then went as a missionary.

    You haven't presented reasons, not "resented" reasons. I have to go.

  47. Charity

    Ellen, I am sensitive to issues of racism for good reason. People can be totally unconscious of the racism in their attitudes and practices. I'm sure that whoever wrote the bit I quoted was. Sue is quite right to say that it does happen though. I'm sorry that you don't like that insight.

  48. Sue

    Ellen,

    My comment earlier this morning was a little rushed. For example, I need to take this back.

    What I am trying to say is that there are not any C beliefs that are based on good exegesis.

    Naturally, as Christians we share many beliefs.

  49. Sue

    Um,

    What I am trying to say is that there are not any C beliefs that are based on good exegesis.

    I didn't mean this. I meant beliefs that are unique to the C platform, beliefs that differentiate it from traditional doctrine.

    I thought I came back and made this correction some time earlier. However, I may have posted it accidentally in another thread.

    Sorry about that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments links could be nofollow free.