Dallas, Westminster, and the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation: the beat goes on...

(by Tim) My Dad used to say that Christian organizations are like people--they have their infancy, their youth, their middle age, and their dotage. And he recommended that organizations nearing old age learn to recognize the signs, and go out of business when that time arrives. Today, the most trustworthy sign of the arrival of a Christian organization's dotage is their rejection of Scripture's command that woman not exercise authority over man.

From its infancy in these United States, my father led InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on many levels, serving as editor of His, publisher of InterVarsity Press, director of the eastern region, and for about a quarter century, a member of InterVarsity's board of directors. Shortly before his death, Dad resigned from the board, and since then IV has gone deeper into its dotage.

Wheaton College--it's faculty, not its student body--is halfway down the path. Campus Crusade and Navigators are not nearly as far down the path as IVCF or Wheaton. The past few years, it's become evident Dallas Theological Seminary continues to commit herself to the path and is making fast progress. This report just in...

from Worth Drake:

I do not know if you are aware or not but Dallas recently had a woman (Dr. Sue Edwards) speak in chapel. In this message she revealed what she believed about women's roles in ministry. She said that a woman could do anything a man can do except be a senior pastor or elder and stated this was the position of Dallas as well. This greatly concerns me... (H)er message was recorded on April 18, 2007 and is titled, "The Benefits of Mixed Ministries."

Like DTS, Columbia International University and Seminary seems committed to the path.

There are encouraging and discouraging signs at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (note that Carolyn Custis James has been invited to address CCEF's annual 2007 conference), Covenant College (search the page for "Covenant College"), and Covenant Seminary.

Those of us who love these institutions and their heritage should pray and work for their protection. As one example, here's a letter sent recently to my friend, Peter Lillback, who is president of Westminster-Philadelphia:

August 2, 2007

Rev. Dr. Peter Lillback, President
Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)

Dear Peter,

This letter is in reference to this item which appeared in the June 6, 2007 edition of the byFaithOnline newsletter of the Presbyterian Church in America:

2007 Women in the Word Conference Westminster Theological Seminary

Women of Westminster Seminary will sponsor its second annual Women in the Word: A Workshop October 19-20, 2007, at the Glenside, Pennsylvania campus. This program is designed to help develop biblically skillful, theologically discerning women Bible teachers. Dr. Karen Jobes, a Westminster Ph.D. graduate, will be the plenary speaker. Registration for the event includes dinner and lunch. Enrollment is by application only (June 30 deadline) and is limited. Here's the brochure.

My wife is an alumnus of Westmont where Dr. Karen Jobes formerly taught. Further, Wheaton is our home town, so we know its ecclesiastical culture. More particularly, we know of churches in the Wheaton area that are reformed and yet continue to hold to biblical sexuality.

Instead of those churches, though, Karen Jobes and her husband go to the EPC church that left the OPC a few years ago to the end that they could violate Scripture, putting women in leadership over men. From their web page giving the congregation's history, Immanuel Presbyterian Church names this distinctive: "active encouragement of women in leadership".

Why then have the Women of Westminster invited Dr. Karen Jobes to exercise teaching authority within your community? Or maybe more to the point, why have you and the other members of Westminster's administration and faculty given this woman your imprimatur? But there's more...

Last year Carolyn Custis James was your speaker. The evidence of her (rejection of) Scripture's doctrine of sexuality is clear. For instance, Ms. James was invited to address Christians for Biblical Equality's annual conference a few years ago and CBE continues to offer her books in their online store. Yet CBE could not express themselves more clearly concerning their opposition to Scripture's doctrine of sexuality. This is their raison d'etre/

So again, what has been done about this by Westminster's administration and faculty? Is it that, while you and other leaders at Westminster are personally opposed, you think such matters ought not to be legislated?

* * *

I'm sure there's no need to remind you that it is the essence of your duty to exercise the authority resident in the office of the presidency for the good of the institution and the souls it serves. Do you realize what such a seemingly-insignificant thing as Carolyn Custis James and Karen Jobes speaking under your aegis communicates to the lovers of God's Word and truth, not to mention lovers of Calvin and Machen and our Lord Jesus Christ?

Having worked with you on a PCA General Assembly advisory committee which you chaired, I appeal to our past relationship in exhorting you to exercise your office of president of Westminster Theological Seminary that makes it clear to all watching that there are things that matter even more than institutional stability and relational tranquility.

God's truth has never ceased being attacked, and Ministers of the Word and Sacrament have never had their commission to guard the good deposit revoked. All that has changed is who among the prophets is having his tomb decorated and who is being killed.

May God give you faith for the work to which you have been called.

Warmly in Christ,

Timothy B. Bayly

As items of concern come to the attention of our readers, you may want to write similar letters to the presidents, faculty, and board members of these institutions, exhorting them to guard the good deposit that has been passed on to them.

But also, let's remember it's the Church of the Living God--not evangelical parachurch ministries or reformed publishers and seminaries--that is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Comments

[Carmon Friedrich]

Tim, Can you give a mailing address for sending a letter to Dr. Lilliback? I suppose it's available somewhere, but it would be easier if you told us the best way to make sure it gets to the right place :-). I heard Dr. Lilliback speak on George Washington this summer and enjoyed his talk very much. I am sorry to see the decline in all these institutions and ministries. I am an optimist and don't like to think that the decline is inevitable. Perhaps some consider that it goes without saying, but praying for those who lead these organizations is probably helpful, too, along with the exhorting. They are facing many pressures to conform and they need strength and courage from God to stand against that onslaught.

[Pete Gaines]

That's nothing, Tim! I hear some of these newfangled churches are even ordaining colored folks now! My lands! What is this world coming to?

[David Gray]

>That's nothing, Tim! I hear some of these newfangled churches are even ordaining colored folks now! My lands! What is this world coming to?

"Colored folks" as you call them, have been ordained for 2000 years. No orthodox Christian has ever ordained a woman. And until fairly recently even heretics didn't pursue that notion. One would have to be exceptionally ignorant of church history/theology to equate color and sex.

[Tim Bayly]

Dear Carmon, Here's the address: Rev. Dr. Peter Lillback, Westminster Theological Seminary, P.O. Box 27009, Philadelphia, PA 19118

Dear Pete, I'm weary of the conceit of the modern. God the Father, Maker of all things, was before time began, and He's changeless. Does that make Him behind-the-times or stupid? No, it makes Him perpetually current and infinitely wise.

I'm not bothering arguing your stated point because the conceit behind it is the real error. So let me prescribe this antidote: Begin to read and think with the presumption that men who have gone before you are not fools, and that it's likely they loved mercy and justice and truth much more than you and your friends do. And if you find that you're addiction to large thoughts about yourself and your own time and small thoughts about dead men and the past, G. K. Chesterton might be able to kick-start your engine. Herewith some ether to provide the first explosions of self-doubt in your mind.

"My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday." -G. K. Chesterton

"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." -G. K. Chesterton

"It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad. Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death." -G. K. Chesterton

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

Tim, I hate to criticize (well...I actually probably love it too much, but I'm still reluctant in some cases!), but it seems to me that your arguments against these women speaking at Westminster are more guilt-by-association than anything else. Would it not be better to present evidence from their actual writings to address their errors?

[Carmon Friedrich]

Thanks, Tim. Dear Valerie (who is my friend!), are you saying that there is not a problem with inviting a woman to speak to women associated with the seminary about how to be "Women in the Word" who has taken the position that women ought to be allowed to be elders and pastors? What if that venerable and historically orthodox institution, founded by a man who bravely fought against theological liberalism, invited a man to train pastors who denied the deity of Christ and who promoted universalism in his writings (I hope this hasn't happened! It's just a "what if.") Would complaining about inviting speakers who teach those heresies also be guilt by association, or would it be a valid concern? Doesn't such an invitation seem to confer an imprimatur on the invitee?

The Baylys have quoted Mrs. James's writings quite extensively in the past, so her positions are very clear and clearly unorthodox. To welcome her and Dr. Jobe as speakers does give the appearance of condoning what they teach. Of course, we all will have some disagreements and don't need to see eye-to-eye perfectly to learn from one another, but the issue of "gender" in the church has become such an important indicator of the basic beliefs in biblical inerrancy that these teachers hold. If you ask many of them point blank if they believe the Bible is inerrant, they will tell you (with smooth, politician-like demeanor) that it is "inspired," but inerrancy is not cool any more. Dr. Machen would be very disappointed that the battles he fought are not only forgotten, but instead of fighting for the truth today, we are encouraged to unite in a big group hug. (I don't mean that's what you are suggesting, Valerie, just that it's a common response to those who have concerns over these issues in the church.)

Love to my friend!
Carmon

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

Dear Valerie (who is my friend!), are you saying that there is not a problem with inviting a woman to speak to women associated with the seminary about how to be "Women in the Word" who has taken the position that women ought to be allowed to be elders and pastors?

Nope, not saying that. Saying rather that I think Tim could have done a better job proving it. Mrs. Jobes' church actively teaches X, but bad as that looks, it's not the same as Mrs. Jobes actually teaching X. Tim and David may have quoted bad teaching from Mrs. James in the past, but in this particular letter, Tim has only said that CBE likes her. The evidence presented in this letter is a red flag, to be sure, but it is not red-handedness. If the letter had said, "Dear Dr. Lillback, There's something fishy about the company these ladies keep. Have you checked their credentials and their doctrine closely enough?" that'd be more in keeping with the evidence.

Feminism and loosey-goosey hermeneutics? Nobody hates 'em better'n I does. But I think we can do a better job of proving that someone is guilty of those crimes. We're in the right battle; we need to be sure we're using the right weapons and wielding them properly.

Love back atcha, dear Carmon...and to the purveyors of this here fine blog!

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

Sigh...I tried to put that first paragraph in italics to show it was a quote. Silly software that doesn't allow code!

[Tim Bayly]

Esteemed Valerie,

Dr. Jobes is well-known among evangelical scholars. Thus, in a letter to Dr. Lillback, I assume things I wouldn't were I making the case for concern on the blog. President Lillback and faculty members at WTS who are committed to Scripture's teaching on sexuality know (or have decided not to know) Dr. Jobes’ commitments. As for guilt-by-association, I'm for it when those associations are membership in the church in the Wheaton area that exists to confess the feminist gospel (which is no gospel) and membership on the Committee for Bible Translation which gave us the denial of plenary verbal inspiration known as Today’s New International Version. Dr. Jobes chose her church home and thereby made a confessional statement within the Wheaton milieu. She also chose to produce a feminist mistranslation of God’s Word, using principles condemned by my PCA general assembly and the Southern Baptist Covention. I take her confession at face value and believe that WTS should not commend her to the women of Westminster.

As for Mrs. Frank (Carolyn Custis) James, in my estimation it would be entirely sufficient to leave it at her making common cause with Christians for Biblical Equality, speaking at their national conference, for her to be barred from sitting in teaching authority over the women I’m called by God to shepherd. Again, CBE is a confessional organization that unabashedly proclaims that they exist to oppose the biblical doctrine of sexuality. Please go to their web site and read the links provided many times on this blog.

But then, very much beyond her making common cause with rebels against God's Word, she herself has made things clear in what she has said. I've written extensively on this as is evident by the subject index entry titled "Carolyn Custis James” and I can't imagine a man called to guard the good deposit allowing her access to the souls he shepherds.

Really, though, this post was not intended to prove these women’s commitments, but rather to exhort readers to get busy and exercise the influence they’ve been cultivating for such a moment as this.

Let’s remember that the Apostle Paul publicly opposed the Apostle Peter when he saw which group of brothers Peter chose to associate with.

Affectionately,

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Tim,

I appreciate your effort to draw attention of these men, and far be it from me to criticize you, but i have two little quibbles.

First, the EP Church was never part of the OP Church.

[NOTE FROM TIM: What on earth? Where did I say it was? I wrote "church," not "denomination." I'm quite familiar with the history of the origin of the denomination called the EPC. That has nothing at all to do with anything I wrote above. Dr. Jobes' ****church**** left the OPC for the EPC, not her denomination. And it happened before she was a member. That's why I quoted her church's web site.]

Hence, their leaving it in order to break Scripture's dictates about women's roles is pure fiction. As a denomination, they made a direct move from the PCUSA after the merger in 1983. (Not to be too pokey, but these folks left that Church quite a bit ahead of you, and you put up with a lot more unfaithfulness over that time than they deigned to.)

[NOTE FROM TIM: I'd love to hear more from you on this subject, Trey; maybe you could write a post on it on your own blog?]

So, even while the EP Church does have women elders and even a couple of women pastors (i grant you, this is absolutely wrong), this was simply a continuation of the modus operandus they were used to in the PCUSA; but their problems with the PCUSA were mainly fixed on the radical and open abandonment of Trinitarian and Christological truth, which, at the time, was being increasingly questioned and allowed to be abandoned.

[NOTE FROM TIM: The correct abbreviation is PC(USA).]

Second, while i share your concern over and hatred for feminism, you seem to be playing directly into their hands by the rhetoric and the broad way you speak against women's involvement in the Church.

[NOTE FROM TIM: I speak nothing of the sort. Please don't misrepresent my writing here on this blog.]

When i read Scripture, there are two things that God's Word is unanimously clear that women cannot and should not do: teach men and lead men. Now, of course, you and i will likely always disagree about the issue of women as deacons (i affirm them as specifically Scriptural, whereas you don't),

[NOTE FROM TIM: Once again, you are in error. I have always supported women deacons.]

but even beyond that, while i am in absolute agreement that women should not be elders or ministers (i'm a three-office guy), you seem, in the way you come across, to be saying that men should be doing everything in the Church and women nothing.

[NOTE FROM TIM: Words utterly fail me. Please see my most recent blog post for my response to this utter nonsense.]

I know (at least i hope i know) that that's not what you're saying, but it's easy for fools like Pete Gaines above be given a hearing he might not ordinarily get since you seem to be taking away what Scripture explicitly does give women by way of service in the Kingdom. Again, by that, i'm not meaning diaconal roles, but only the ability to serve and be recognized as serving in the Church.

[NOTE FROM TIM: Yes, Trey, that's precisely what I've been trying to say all along. Women should rarely serve, and absolutely never have their service recognized in the church. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. NOT.]

Especially with your criticism of the phrase "women can do anything men can do, but...", it seems like you are explicitly saying women *CAN'T* do *ANYTHING* that men can do.

[NOTE FROM TIM: Again, you have falsely reported my position. I have never "explicitly" said "women *CAN'T* do *ANYTHING* that men can do." For instance, I've seen both women and men eat, sit in pews, and go into the washroom. Even drive cars ...well. Aaaargh!]

This might be a good opportunity for you to say explicitly what you believe women *SHOULD* be able to do in the Church. I say that they can do anything that does not violate those two principles (leading men and teaching men), but you seem to be saying more than that. Am i misreading?

[NOTE FROM TIM: Let me count the ways...]

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Correcting myself: the EPC was formed in 81, not in 83, but it was certainly from the PCUSA (Northern Church) in light of the overt heretical teachings allowed in the Church and in view of the impending merger with the PCUS (Southern Church).

[Fr. Bill]

Trey,

First, your analysis above is, I take it, dealing with style and not substance.

A couple of quibbles of my own on your analysis:

1. Can you supply us with a quote or two from Pr. Bayly's comments? I read Pr. Bayly's comments on egalitarianism and I didn't ever get a whiff of the idea you say "seems" to be there.

2. Can you provide me with references in Scripture, particularly the New Testament, especially the Pastoral Epistles, that spell out exactly what activities women are supposed to be doing to serve the Church and to advance the Kingdom of Christ? Of course, Pr. Bayly thinks that such Apostolic directives are there. I'm wondering if you are thinking of the same ones Paul and Peter were thinking about, the ones which Pr. Bayly and fellows like me think about when the topic of women's service to the Church comes up for discussion.

As to the whole question of syle vs. substance, I'd point to the past 30 to 40 years of evangelical pastoring and academics as a cowardly exercise in shilly-shallying and question-begging on the part of those who would claim to be "traditional" or "complementarian."

I have read their apologia for decades now, and they all share this feature: they begin with elaborate, obsequious, and shameful concessions to religious feminists, about how the Church in the past has been so hateful toward its women, so oppressive of their talents and gifts, so wasteful of God's graces in them.

To turn your analysis around by 180 degress, these ostensibly traditionalist or complementarian apologists have played directly into the hands of the religious feminists by their self-abasing rhetoric and the broad way they have conceded the feminists' condemnation of the Church toward its women.

And, then, these mealy-mouthed and groveling complementarians insist that men, somehow or the other, are still heads of their marriages, families, and congregations!

Such panty-waisted complementarians hope to redeem their claim that men are leaders by subterfuges such as this:

"REMEMBER -- the men are supposed to be SERVANT LEADERS [hand-wringing all round] who would NEVER, EVER think of actually leading someone else, but only COACHING, EMPOWERING, MODELING, and FACILITATING the agendas of those whom they purport to lead."

The feminists' case is utterly coherent; and, granting their premises, entirely credible. Male leadership, according to them, is intrinsically bad, and so it is mandatory in the interests of advancing the kingdom to rid the church of patriarchy.

The complementarian apologetic of the past 30 to 40 years (with rare and almost invisible exceptions) has been utterly incoherent, its yeas amounting to nays, its nays so muted as to be inaudible.

[Stephen Baker]

Trey,

If you do a search on this blog of the terms "Titus 2" or "Titus 2 women," you will find Tim's views on this. As a pastor who works with Tim at Church of the Good Shepherd, I can't tell you how many times he talks about the rich and essential work that women have in the Church.

[Fr. Bill]

Trey,

Sorry, brother. You set up so many inviting targets! A slap-happy, gunslinging, communion-wine sipping, hierachy-loving, crypto-monarchist, bellsy-smellsy, culturally-neanderthal, Anglican priest simply cannot help himself. Lord have mercy!

You wrote: "I say that [women] can do anything that does not violate those two principles (leading men and teaching men) ..."

Here you do not quite give away the farm, but only 90 percent of it.

What is wrong with preaching, teaching, affirming, and defending the idea that women should do precisely what the Scripture says is theirs to do BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN, and to do all this with faithfulness and fruitfulness BEFORE we even ask the question about what else they might be permitted (within the boundaries set by Scripture) to do?

[Kamilla]

"panty-waisted complementarians"

Hahaha - I'm going to have to remember that one. Of course we both know the egalitarians think they haven't been panty-waisted enough (shall we say?).

Well, I've known for a long time not to put you or our hosts here in *that* camp!

Kamilla

[Pastor Trey Austin]

Bill and Stephen,

Well, i'm glad i have given only 90% of the farm away! Actually, i don't think i give away anything. I do agree that there is nothing wrong with helping teach and lead women to do what the holy Apostle says that they are specifically to be about, but that doesn't answer the question of what, beyond that, women MAY do. I'm assuming that what women should and may do in the Church isn't limited to the explicit statements in Titus 2. Certainly, Bill, of all people, shouldn't think to adopt a strict regulative principle on women's roles when he won't adopt a similar principle concerning worship. Well, my principle for women's work in the Church is precisely what yours is for worship, Bill: whatever is explicit is required, but whatever is not forbidden is permitted. That's why i point out what is explicitly forbidden women--only that is what they may not do as women in the Church.

I have no explicit statement from Tim or David denying anything in particular. The whole point of my using the word "seem" is to give an impression that i have gotten--a possible implication in what they have explicitly said. As i said, i trust and hope that i'm not right about that, but it's certainly not without the realm of possibility that Tim and/or David would hold that women may only do in the Church what is explicitly given to them as roles (e.g., Titus 2, as Stephen mentioned). My point is simply that's not the outer limit of what women may do in the Church; that is the lowest level of what they *MUST* do. Otherwise, whatever is not forbidden them by the silent/submissive rule is perfectly permissible.

[Pastor Trey Austin]

This whole talk of "panty" stuff reminds me of when i was a child and my mother (God love her!), simply by convention as a woman, implicitly taught me that all underwear were "panties." It wasn't until i was in the third grade that i leanred the hard lesson that grammar-school boys are not very understanding when you call your underwear panties!

BTW, can someone tell me what a "panty-waist" is? I think i know what "panty-waste" is (i kept and taught little kiddies long enough to know that the don't always "clean up" as well as they could when visiting the commode), but i can't figure out if a "panty-waist" is someone's mid-section over which their underwear is pulled beyond normal limits, or whether the panties themselves have a section some might call a "waist"? :-)

[Tim Bayly]

>Am i misreading?

Yes. It's the particular church Dr. Jobes chose to affiliate with that left the OPC--not the denomination.

Then again, with deacons: I've explicitly endorsed women deacons on this blog and in print--"Table Talk" magazine, as a matter of fact. And recommended a book that makes the argument for them from Scripture and church history. What I've opposed is the churches that defy our PCA Book of Church Order on this issue. Also those who argue that male and female deacons hold the same office and share the same responsibilities. Nowhere in Scripture or church history is this supported. So there should be two boards, deacons and deaconesses, with two largely distinct sets of responsibilities. That way--can you guess what is coming here?--women will not be put in a position of exercising authority over men.

This was the structure and practice of the church where David and I grew up and it worked quite well. But this is most decidedly not what the churches defying the PCA's Constitution are promoting.

Then, about your own perceptions of the phrase "a woman can do anything a non-ordained man can do," I've written enough about that already, so if I haven't convinced you yet (assuming you've read what I've written), I rest my case.

Lest your misconstruing of my own convictions and practice mislead others, though, here’s a link to a prior post (April 28, 2005) that shows how our own congregation handles these matters . It's a sad day when the repeated assertion that it is against God's created order for woman to exercise authority over man leads him to come to the conclusion that this means "that men should be doing everything in the Church and women nothing."

But for the record, this from a January 23, 2007 post as a good summary of our concerns:

* * *

Well, any simpleton can see what's happened, and therefore what's coming.

What's happened? Well, for many years, now, evangelicals have lived in an increasingly egalitarian and feminist culture, and that culture has won us over--all that's left is the mop-up operation. Few of us would be willing to preach or listen to the sermons of past centuries our fathers in the faith preached concerning male authority or female deference and submission. And structurally, our practice bears no resemblance to the church's historical practice.

Denominationally, some of us are still forced to toe the line: we don't yet ordain women to the pastorate or eldership, but we've taken every other step we can. We have women leading our corporate worship, administering the Lord's Supper, preaching in our pulpits, teaching mixed-sex adult Sunday school classes, leading mixed-sex small groups, serving as commissioned deacons, serving on our national theological study committees, preaching at our conferences, serving as regional directors in our parachurch and mission organizations... Need I go on?

Yes, we have our Pharisaical righteousness in each place we're fiddling around the edge. Women preaching in our pulpits are the exception--not the rule--and they do so under the authority and review of the elders board. Our women deacons are not ordained--they're only commissioned. We've limited the Sunday school classes led by women to one quarter of our offerings each term. Women lead our call to worship and prayer of confession, but never our pastoral prayer. Women administer the Lord's Supper, but our senior pastor is a man and he's the one who hands the trays to the women before they go out into the congregation. The woman on the study committee has special expertise in the subject under review, and she's not a full voting member. Our conference isn't a church meeting, our speakers aren't really preaching, and we don't have any authority over those who attend. Our organization is parachurch--not church--so we have no need to submit to Scripture's prohibition of women exercising authority over men.

At this point, some readers are likely hung up on one or more of the particulars I've cited and are asking themselves, "Is it really wrong to have women deacons?" "Why shouldn't women lead in prayer during corporate worship?" "If women shouldn't be regional directors of mission agencies, should they be running for president?" Or, "If it's wrong for women to preach in morning worship, is it also wrong for them to serve as professors in Christian colleges and seminaries?"

Although these are important questions, such examples are only meant to be representative of the sea-change the evangelical church has embraced. We will differ over which of the above practices are within the proper boundaries of Scripture, but we must not differ in acknowledging that, taken as a whole, these practices are not a reformation returning us to the doctrine of Scripture, but rather a revolution leading us away from Scripture...
* * *