Redeemer explains its ordination of women: a big, but innocent, mistake...

"...this action is revelatory of underlying commitments. After all, it’s precisely here that Redeemer has staked her position against the PCA. This is the point where Redeemer, like the EPC, is opposed to the Word of God."

(David) Redeemer Manhattan has begun responding to criticism arising from the ordination of a woman deacon in a Redeemer worship service last May.

An email explanation from Senior Pastor Keller—since made public on the GreenBaggins blog—found its way into my email box a week ago. Yesterday I learned via a comment on this site that Redeemer Pastor Scott Sauls, the man who presides over the ordination of women in the recently-discovered YouTube video of the service, emailed an apology to his presbytery for this departure from the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order

Tim Keller’s explanation can be found here, Scott Sauls’ letter is posted  here. (Incidentally, the response Bob Mattes got from Tim Keller is boiler plate. A week earlier, I received a copy of the same text sent by Tim Keller to another man.)

Tim Keller’s explanation can be summarized:

1) The ordination service was an anomaly. Redeemer doesn’t usually ordain deaconesses or ask its congregation to vow submission to them.

2) The presiding pastor is a newer member of the Redeemer staff.

3) Cut the guy some slack. Every pastor makes mistakes in leading worship.

4) The minister at the center of the action apologized.

5) Those who posted the video acted uncharitably.

Sauls’ explanation adds the following personal observations:

1) Wow, I can’t believe I did that…. Sauls says that upon viewing the video in which he ordains women to office and leads the congregation to vow obedience to those officers, “My own response was, ‘Oh my goodness, how could I have missed that detail?’“

2) I was confused about which denomination I was in…. Sauls writes, “(T)his was my first Deaconess commissioning at Redeemer. It had been five years since I had attended a PCA General Assembly, as I had left the PCA to plant and pastor a church in the EPC, where we did ordain Deaconesses. So up to the time I commissioned the Redeemer Deaconess, for almost five years my own practice had been according to EPC polity, not PCA polity.”

3) My bad. I forgot to do it Pastor Keller’s way.... Sauls writes, “Very unintentionally, I did not modify the vows as Redeemer pastors customarily do for a Deaconess commissioning... if anyone you talk to about this wishes to understand Redeemer’s actual practice with respect to Deacons and Deaconesses, please encourage them to read Tim’s article which is posted at the By Faith Online website.”

In the midst of this concerted effort to minimize Pastor Saul’s offense, the following needs to be said.

First, Pastor Sauls is no downy-cheeked youngster. He graduated from college in 1990 and from Covenant Seminary in 1996—which puts him probably past the age of forty in May of 2009 when he led this service. According to Sauls’ LinkedInprofile, prior to his 2007 call to Redeemer, he had planted and served as senior pastor of two churches, one in the PCA, a second in the EPC; he now serves as “Senior Director of Community Formation and Preaching Pastor” at Redeemer.

Second, far from possessing little acquaintance with PCA diaconal teaching and practice, Sauls oversees Redeemer’s diaconal ministries and supervises Redeemer’s Diaconate Director Jenny Chang. It was Pastor Sauls who explained Redeemer’s dismissal of Pastor Mark Robinson in a congregational letter earlier this year in which he wrote, “ I write to inform you that a decision has been made that Mark’s role at Redeemer is not the best fit ideologically and ecclesially, and that it is best that we part ways in terms of Mark’s employment.” Sauls’ reference to “ecclesial” differences is a direct reference to Pastor Robinson’s refusal to toe the Redeemer line in regard to women deacons, one of the stated reasons for his dismissal.

Keller and Sauls portray the man leading worship in the video as, essentially, an innocent neophyte. Nonsense. He’s a seasoned pastor who participated in the dismissal of a fellow Redeemer pastor for issues directly related to Redeemer’s stance on women deacons just months prior to the service in question.

Third, Keller and Sauls are right: all of us make mistakes in worship. But there are mistakes, and there are mistakes. It’s one thing for a PCA pastor to forget the questions of parents at a baptism. It’s another to neglect to fence the table in accord with the requirements of the BCO. It’s another altogether to lead the congregation in praying to Mary. The first is an innocent error involving no violation of God’s Word and a motiveless violation of the BCO. The second is likely a willful rejection of one of the few mandatory portions of the BCO, though perhaps no violation of Scripture. The third is a direct violation of Scripture itself. Ordaining women to church-wide office and requiring the men of the church to vow submission to those officers is that kind of mistake. It’s not the violation of polity that Sauls suggests but violation of the Word of God. Denominations are divided and created over such disobedience—denominations such as the CRC and the URC, the PCA and the EPC.

Let’s be clear on the unbiblical nature of this ordination: when Reformed luminaries such as B.B. Warfield and John Calvin express support for an ecclesiastical office of deaconess, never in a million years did they envision men of the church vowing submission to such deaconesses. Yet this was precisely the nature of Sauls’ “mistake.” The very fact that Sauls says he “forgot” PCA practice in calling the congregation to vow submission to women suggests he fails to honor Scripture at this point. Note that he freely admits ordaining women and calling men to vow obedience to those women when he served in the EPC. It’s not an issue of obedience to him, it’s a matter of keeping the rules of the game straight: we play soccer in the PCA, not football. In football you use your hands. In soccer you don’t.

Fourth, there’s an obvious distinction between forgetting something in worship (which Keller describes Sauls as having done) and doing something forbidden in worship. It’s easy to omit a portion of a wedding: turn two pages instead of one and you’re past the statement of intent and on to the vows. But require man to vow obedience to woman? Can that ever be the mistake of a pastor committed to the authority of Scripture in the Western world today? Is the honoring of God’s Creation order and the Biblical command that woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man simply a question of which service and which sanctuary and which denomination a man serves in this or that month? No. Rather, this action is revelatory of underlying commitments.

After all, it’s precisely here that Redeemer has staked her position against the PCA. This is the point where Redeemer, like the EPC, is opposed to the Word of God.

Fifth, Tim Keller notes that Sauls apologized for his mistake. In the interest of accuracy, when did he apologize and to whom? Where is the record of this apology? Did the apology precede or follow public discovery of the video? Was the apology as public as the act apologized for?

Sixth, and a vital point considering Keller’s and Sauls’ protestations that this was an unusual form for the installation of Redeemer deaconesses, who in the congregation objected to this ordination ceremony?

Certainly in most PCA churches such an ordination would produce a firestorm of complaints. How many complaints were received at Redeemer from members who attended this service? If this ceremony differed in obvious ways from a typical Redeemer ordination/installation of deacons, surely members of the congregation noted the fact in complaints to Redeemer leadership.

The truth, as several Redeemer members have stated privately, is that in its central features, this unisex installation service would strike most Redeemer members as boringly normal. Most Redeemer members remain totally unaware of any distinction between the ordination of male and the non-ordination of female deacons at Redeemer.

Comments

[Aaron Root]

"[T]his action is revelatory of underlying commitments." Exactly.

I'm actually not sure which is the more distressing: Redeemer's whole pattern w/r/t women in the diaconate, or the way in which they appear to be sweeping this incident under the rug. "Hey, our guy 'apologized' for his 'mistake,' didn't he? Our bad!" One wonders if they are confident that they have little to fear from their presbytery (or GA), figuring this will suffice to still the storm.

[Kamilla]

What good is an apology without a public correction of the "error"? Unless Redeemer's leadership have released the men from their vow of obedience, any apology is meaningless.

It amounts to an, "Oops, I'm sorry I got caught" apology.

Kamilla

[David Talcott]

In Pastor Saul's letter he writes:

"if anyone you talk to about this wishes to understand Redeemer's actual practice with respect to Deacons and Deaconesses, please encourage them to read Tim's article which is posted at the By Faith Online website."

Remarkable. If you want to understand our actual practice, don't look at the video of our actual practice. Instead, look at this article we wrote. From it you can learn our actual practice better than you could from actually observing the practice.

[Mark Chambers]

>2) I was confused about which denomination I was in….

Let's fix that.

2) I was confused about which religion I was in.....

[Eric Rasmusen]

"I had left the PCA to plant and pastor a church in the EPC, where we did ordain Deaconesses. So up to the time I commissioned the Redeemer Deaconess, for almost five years my own practice had been according to EPC polity, not PCA polity.”

Why didn't the PCA discipline him for this? Can a PCA elder really go off and help a church in a different denomination do things contrary to PCA doctrine? Are those occasional PCA elders who convert to Romanism or Eastern Orthodoxy still eligible to vote in Presbytery meetings and be called by PCA churches?

[Eric Rasmusen]

Somehow this story hit me as the worst thing I've yet heard about Redeemer and Tim Keller, which makes me sad since I've heard good sermons of his. What's bad is that this goes beyond stretching the rules to try to accommodate the sensitivities of Manhattanites. Rather, this indicates an unwillingness to tell the truth. I would much rather the two pastors had said, "Yes, the ordination broke the rules, and on purpose, but he won't do it again," than the implausible "He didn't know what he was doing, and he only did it this once."

[PCA Friend]

I think we owe it in charity and the good name of the esteemed Pastor to accept his explanation.

The explanation of what happened does, however, need further information so its context and amends can be understood.

Specifically:

1)Did the officer's training of this person use the "correct" vows, that is the different ones said to be used for 'deaconess'? (If not, on whose authority were the vows changed)

2)Did the candidate in the video, any of the other officers in the room, or any members of the congregation witnessing this misrepresentation immediately report this? (If not, why not)

3)After the mistake was discovered, was the improper ceremony nullified and the proper ceremony (the one intended, the one with the correct vows) then performed?

4)If this ceremony was performed by itself, separate from other ordinations that day, why was the congregation led to vow…”DO YOU, THE MEMBERS OF REDEEMER, ACKNOWLEDGE AND RECEIVE ‘DEB,’ AND THE OTHER 17 DEACONS, DEACONESSES AND THE NEW ELDERS…”

(context explained here would really help as it appears from the congregation vow that this is the tail end of a ceremony in which all 17 of these officers were inducted all together, at the end of the same ceremony...if that were the case, the deacon and elder candidates [to be ordained] would surely have recognized the mistake)

And this may be the most important clarification,

5)Are the nature of holy vows, and the doctrine of ordination being systematically taught to the congregation and particularly to officer candidates?

[Tim Bayly]

Actually, the most important clarification is whether the nature and Biblical doctrine of sexuality are being systematically taught to the congregation, and particularly to officer candidates? This has never been a polity matter. Polity simply is the face of underlying doctrine.

As we've said before, if Tim Keller's mantra, "a woman can do anything an unordained man can do," is a faithful summary of Adam being created first, then Eve; the PCA has no raison d'être.

The EPC and CRC would do just fine.

[Reformed Pastor]

From another blog a lot like this one. Perhaps we should examine our own hearts here?

"Since we have heard from both TEs Keller and Sauls on this, I believe that it’s time to end this thread. I know that many have more to say on the issue of deaconesses, myself included. However, this video has no part in that discussion.

If we cannot believe our brother elders who have accepted full responsibility for the mistake and apologized fully, then our continued focus on the video says more about our hearts than theirs. I humbly ask each of us to examine our hearts and motives if we will not put this video to rest. How are we bringing glory to God if we do not move on?"

[Patrick Hart]

Respectfully we bring Glory to God when we hold his word and character in high view....i.e. calling all men to repent and conform to his word especially in regards to Gods sexual design that isn't expressed boldly but rather side stepped continually. Even more that we hold leaders in every congregation accountable in this manner as they have watch and care over others souls and will give an account to God on behalf of them. I just can't fathom how a man who has been in the pastorate fir so long and gauranteed knows the explicit teaching of scripture could make an "innocent" mistake like this.

[PCA Friend]

Reformed Pastor
"If we cannot believe our brother elders who have accepted full responsibility for the mistake and apologized fully, then our continued focus on the video says more about our hearts than theirs. I humbly ask each of us to examine our hearts and motives if we will not put this video to rest. How are we bringing glory to God if we do not move on?"

I can certainly understand the sentiment here, particularly in regard to the ninth commandment and protecting a good name, and respecting one in authority.

And presuming truthfulness of these brothers, and accepting their apologies.

But there is more to this- God has brought this to light. It's not a coincidence.

What we are seeing is part of a process of repentance. And we know, biblically, repentance is not merely a case of apologizing and moving on.

God put this in the public realm and it has affected more people.

To whom much is given, much is required. This is particularly true of officers.

Biblical repentance involves confessing, forsaking and making restitution and reconciliation as much as is in the power of that person.

It seems that acceptance of the explanation would be benefited by further information so it can better be understood in its context, e.g.

1) Was the officer's training class for this person taught also with the wrong vows (that would involve another wrong)

2) Was the candidate here not aware of the nature of ordination as the church whose doctrine she vows to confesses?

3) Did not any of the other officers or any person in the congregation report this misrepresentation before it was brought forward to outsiders via You Tube? If not, why not?

4) Since this person's ceremony was not validly done, has an amended ceremony been held. Is the congregation aware of that?

(I do not understand vows wrongly taken by a congregation to submit someone not ordained to be a mere 'technicality'- not practically, and not before God.)

Further clarification of the context and its amends will aid in defending the good name of our neighbor here.

The holy vows of ordination are not a promise to never make a mistake.

But they do involve publically vowing that one receives a polity in good faith, confesses it, and will follow it as a matter of belief of the heart. They also involve the way one conducts themselves, even when one makes a mistake, and deals with its consequences.

[bikebubba]

One would think that a senior pastor might inquire about the stands associate pastors would take in their interview on such issues....so that there would be no confusion over "it was OK here", because it would be a heartfelt stand, not simply a matter of policy.

Pretty sad.....

[Mahoney]

"If this ceremony differed in obvious ways"

Why didn't anyone think the ceremony strange is the biggest question. All around their explanation doesn't make sense.

Uncharitable that the video was put on youtube, repeatedly? Alternately that "dreadful advantage of being able only to be punished in eternity."

[Reformed Pastor]

If we agree that women should not be ordained to authority in the PCA (as we do), don’t we need to ask ourselves what to do with Romans 16:1? If the beloved apostle himself commends “Phoebe the diakonos (deaconess!) at Cenchera,” can we rightly chastise Redeemer or anyone else for using an exact transliteration of this word in reference to their non-ordained, commissioned women who do works of mercy? I shudder to think that the apostle himself might be subject to censure in my own denomination.

If Jesus would go out of his way to forgive Peter for denying him three times, what does this say about my duty toward men who have duly apologized for their error? Are Keller and Sauls more guilty than Peter, such that they should be treated with greater impunity?

Even if we disagree with Redeemer on some of their practices (as many of us do), are we requiring of these men more than the Bible itself?

[PCA Friend]

Reformed Pastor said,
"If we agree that women should not be ordained to authority in the PCA (as we do), don’t we need to ask ourselves what to do with Romans 16:1? If the beloved apostle himself commends “Phoebe the diakonos (deaconess!) at Cenchera,”

Being a respected servant in the church, male or female, does not have to do with usurping authority, or upholding ones vows publicly confessing and agreeing to uphold a polity (of church governance through deacons and elders qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1).

Reformed Pastor said,
"If Jesus would go out of his way to forgive Peter for denying him three times, what does this say about my duty toward men who have duly apologized for their error? Are Keller and Sauls more guilty than Peter, such that they should be treated with greater impunity?"

Yes, this is about forgiveness. But it is also about repentance, making things right to those offended and repairing the harm done, both toward man and toward God.

It's also about having the context of information so that the wrong being repented of can be completely repented of- and all wrongs forgiven.

Reformed Pastor said,
"Even if we disagree with Redeemer on some of their practices (as many of us do), are we requiring of these men more than the Bible itself?"

God requires repentance- confession, forsaking and making restitution. He does not suffer vows lightly taken. He does not take lightly wrongs by those given much authority- particularly those called to lead his church.

To understand the repentance that occurred, God's people need to know:

1)Was an amended ceremony done later with corrected vows and without vow by the congregation to submit
2)Was the mistaken ceremony and its amends explained to the congregation in light of the churches professed doctrine of ordination and installation of officers
3)Was this officer trained in classes with the elders, with mistaken vows before that ceremony. If so, has that occurred in other cases and has it been corrected?

We live in a generation that imagines that repentance is merely confessing regret.

As we know, that is not what God requires, particularly of church leaders.

[Mark Chambers]

Once upon a time a wolf drifted into a flock of sheep. After having wrecked some havoc he was caught by a wolf hound. Wait a minute, cried the wolf, you're not one of the wolf hounds I recognize, you're supposed to be over in that other flock over there. I'm obviously in the wrong place. I must have forgotten where I was. This is not how I usually operate. Honest, I thought I was over there, you know, where there are no sheep dogs.

The sheep dog listened and when the wolf was done speaking he killed the wolf.

Over there in the other flock the sheep, not realizing that they too had been spared,talked about the cruelty of sheep dog.

All wolves are liars. All sheep are gullible. That's why there are wolf hounds.

[Tim Bayly]

Dear Reformed Pastor,

It's one thing for someone to argue in favor of forgiving and forgetting a sin he is opposed to that hurt him, personally. It's something else entirely when someone argues in favor of forgiving and forgetting something he doesn't think a sin at all and never really minded.

You describe Scott Sauls' ordination of a woman as being what "the beloved apostle" Paul commended, saying those bringing it into the light are only "chastis(ing) Redeemer" for what the Apostle Paul did, himself. And then you lament that "the apostle (Paul) himself might be subject to censure in (our) denomination."

This is not to forgive and forget, but rather to connive at sin.

The Apostle Paul forbid woman teaching or exercising authority over man. This is the issue. This is the heart of the matter. This is why we oppose women teaching or exercising authority over men at Redeemer.

This is why we oppose Mrs. Tim Keller teaching men in her "Women in the Church" seminar. This is why we oppose Redeemer's habit of placing women in authority over men as they lead small groups. This is why we oppose their habit of placing women in authority over those men who do lead small groups. This is why we oppose their habit of placing women in authority over men as they--the women that is--direct ministries of the church. This is why we oppose their habit of placing women in authority, making them officers over the church. This is why we oppose their habit of placing women in authority over male officers evidenced by the head of all their deacons, male and female, being a woman, herself: Director of the Diaconate Jenny Chang.

So the liturgy commanding the men of Redeemer to vow obedience to their newly-elected woman officer is just the logical result of their practice. They were caught in nothing other than the crime of not being sufficiently vigilant in walking their razor-thin wire, publicly. You have no heart for the battle so you see things simply as a matter of kindness, mercy, and forgiveness. But then, you think the Apostle Paul believed in women officers teaching and exercising authority over men.

The Apostle Paul did no such thing, nor did any church in New Testament times. Shall I repeat it once more?

Woman is not allowed to teach or exercise authority over man because Adam was created first, then Eve; and because it was not Adam, but Eve who was deceived.

True, Redeemer would claim that none of their women teach or exercise authority over men. But actually, they do. And that's why it was the most natural mistake in the world for their pastor to demand the men of the congregation vow obedience to their latest woman officer.

It occurred to me that, if the Apostle Paul were to be censured by the PCA, it's likely it would be caused by his censoriousness, his deficiency in preaching sufficiently copious amounts of grace, his proclamation of the coming judgment of believers, and of course his direct statement that he was not called to baptize. For a (sad) hoot, try to imagine Redeemer hiring the Apostle Paul to replace Tim Keller as he comes to retirement.

Yes, the PCA would censure the Apostle Paul; no question about it. And he would go next door and start in again where he had just left off at First Presbyterian Church.

Love,

PS: If you comment again, please dignify us with your real name.

[Kevin Donald H.]

"Woman is not allowed to teach or exercise authority over man because Adam was created first, then Eve; and because it was not Adam, but Eve who was deceived."

Yes, Eve was deceived. Adam, however, sinned willfully and in full rebellion. I guess that's why he gets to be the boss.

[Stephen Baker]

Kevin,

You are trivializing God's Word.

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Timothy 2:12-14).

[bikebubba]

For the record, I see Phoebe's description in Romans 16:1 as not "diakonos," but "diakonon" in Zodhiates interlinear, which would merely be "servantess", as one would expect from 1 Tim. 3: 12's requirement that a deacon be the "husband of one wife" or "man of one woman" more literally.

[Fr. Bill]

Kevin,

It is the Apostle Paul who (as God's mouth, as Pr. Baker points out) deems Adam's priority in creation to dispose the question concerning woman's ruling or teaching men. Your jest tells us that you do not understand why Paul finds Adam's priority dispositive.

Perhaps you should go back to Genesis 1-3 and puzzle it out. It's not ~that~ hard, after all. Give it a go. You might surprise yourself.

[An LCMS friend of the PCA]

Having read Keller's explanation, and the Bayly's analysis, I do take Keller at his word that he does not consciously intend to place women in authority over men, but I also agree with the Baylys that Keller's congregation is not being deliberate or careful enough to avoid real error.

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but Pastor Bayly, perhaps a letter from you to pastor Keller, somewhat like this, would be called for:

"Dear brother Keller,

I thank God for your teaching the cross to people in New York City. Your work glorifies God.

However, because of your missionary context, you face dangers that many PCA churches never have to worry about. The culture around your congregation is soaked in egalitarianism; so much so, that it indeed poses a danger to your own spirit and your leadership.

Please consider these dangers carefully and take extra precautions to protect your congregation against them. If you are truly convicted (as you state), that women do not have authority over men in God's church, then make your conviction known boldly to your own congregation, so that they will not assume too much.

Every cultural context has unique dangers, as your preaching so ably recognizes. Take care that you attend to the dangers right around you. If you do not, your hard work will be compromised.

In Christ,
brother Bayly"

[Craig French]

"(T)his was my first Deaconess commissioning at Redeemer. It had been five years since I had attended a PCA General Assembly, as I had left the PCA to plant and pastor a church in the EPC, where we did ordain Deaconesses. So up to the time I commissioned the Redeemer Deaconess, for almost five years my own practice had been according to EPC polity, not PCA polity."

Apparently he didn't read the heading to BCO 24-6 from which he was reading:
"Ordination and Installation"

Seeing that he chose the PCA BCO, and not the EPC to read from...I imagine he wasn't quite as confused as he conveys. After all, it's probably not very good EPC polity to use PCA polity. Am I right?

EPC's BCO when it comes to ordination:
http://www.epc.org/mediafiles/epc-book-of-order-2009-2010.pdf

[Dave]

“Kevin,
You are trivializing God's Word.
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Timothy 2:12-14).”

I love the discussion that is going on! I too believe that we should not trivialise the Word of God. I believe this passionately! I also do not believe that it should be used incorrectly, which leads me to ask why verse 15 was not quoted above? We can only understand verses 12-14 if we also look at verse 15.

Note Paul says, “But I do not allow a woman (singular) to teach or exercise authority over a man (singular)”. We cannot interpret these singular references to men in general or women in general because of verse 15. Verse 15 says, Yet she (singular) will be saved through the childbearing – if they (plural) continue in...”

The ‘she’ in verse 15 must be the singular woman referred to in verse 12. It cannot be a reference to Eve, as she cannot do anything now to be saved in the future! The ‘they’, I would assume, is the singular woman and the singular man from verse 12 – possibly a husband and wife.

We know from the context of 1 Tim that Paul is dealing with some false teachers. One would appear to be a woman who was authoritatively teaching a man, possibly a husband and wife...though we do not know for sure. I am sure Paul knew!

Why does Paul refer to Adam and Eve? Because Eve, being created second did not witness the creation as Adam witnessed it. As a result she was deceived. Paul’s point in verse 11 is that a woman should be allowed to learn, so that she will not be deceived. Otherwise it does seem silly to penalise the woman for her deception when the man sins knowing more!

I am sure this comment will be met with resistance, but I pray that it might be considered fairly!

Dave

[Tim Bayly]

>>I am sure this comment will be met with resistance, but I pray that it might be considered fairly!

Considered fairly, and found silly. That's why 2,000 years of Christians have never used singulars and plurals to obscure or defy the plain meaning of the text. My Dad used to say all the great heresies started with one man alone with a Bible.

Dear Brother, submit yourself to the great cloud of witnesses who left a wonderful record of their faith with respect to the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Woman as woman is not to teach or exercise authority over man as man becuase Adam as Adam was created before Eve as Eve and it was not Adam as Adam who was deceived, but Eve as Eve.

For this reason, man as man is burdened with leadership and woman as woman is privileged to leave it to man. What a joy for woman. What a terror for man.

Loving God's Truth,

[Mark Chambers]

1Tim 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a MAN desires the position of a bishop, HE desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules HIS own house well, having HIS children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a MAN does not know how to rule his own house, how will HE take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride HE fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover HE must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest HE fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1Tim. 3:8   Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, THEIR WIVES must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the HUSBANDS of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1Cor. 14:34   The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

[Dave]

Tim,

Thanks for your reply and I appreciate your willingness to refer to me as a "dear brother"!

I would have hoped that if someone was going to interact with what I wrote it would have been not from history but from the BIble. There was a great cloud of witnesses for just short of two thousand years to the supposed biblical notion of slavery. I assume you do not wish me to submit to them! ;-)

No, Adam was not decieved, which leads me not to trivialise God's written word, but genuinely ask, why then is Adam who knowingly rebelled and had to be driven out of the garden the example to us of a teacher and one who should have authority.

Further to this, nowhere does Paul or anyone else in the NT give authority (the type mentioned by Paul in 1 Tim 2) to any man or woman.

Finally, Paul does not command a woman not to teach or have authority, but rather says that he does not permit it. The word translated as permit is different to 'command', but is usually used when and where there is already a command. I ask you then, where is the 'command' from God that women will not teach that 1 Tim 2 is refering to?

Please do not simply dismiss my perspective. These are valid questions that surely deserve a thoughtful response!

God's blessings

Dave

[Craig French]

Dave,
Mark shared Scriptures that are of pertinence. Look those over using your grid and see if your points make sense of the verses, or muddy them.

Your second comment is incredibly muddled. Initially, you argued that Paul was only addressing one wife and one husband...the assumption being that *she* was not to have authority over her husband. NOW you're acquiescing that this is a *general* rule of *Paul's*, but that it is not a command from God.

Just 'cause you got two sides to your mouth doesn't mean you have to speak from both.

You ask: "I ask you then, where is the 'command' from God that women will not teach that 1 Tim 2 is refering to?"

I respond (and no, I'm not Tim...I'm sorry): Paul appeals to the order of Creation...and Who created? God. How doe we know God created? God's Word...His revelation. How do we know the order God created Adam and Eve? God's Word. By appealing to Creation, Paul is appealing to God's Word.

Is this where you back-track to the side that said Paul was only addressing one woman and one man?

[Tim Bayly]

Dear David,

You're on thin ice, here, so please tread cautiously. Your words border on deception concerning the meaning of God's Word, and in an area where the whole world commends you for your avid misleading. Please be quiet, sir, or I shall need to command it.

Fearing God and loving your soul,

[Dave]

Thanks Mark for the quotes! I really am thankful for you pointing us in this direction as I believe that scripture should shape who we are and what we do.

I think you will find in the 1 Tim 3:1-12 quote, MAN, HE, HIS, HIS, HE, HE and HE (as found within your quote)are not there in the original. Yes it does refer to husbands having only one wife, but Paul need not include ‘wife of one husband’ because unlike men in that culture women never had more than one spouse!

“THEIR WIVES” in verse 11 can also be translated to be “WOMEN” i.e. deacons were women also (though I accept that this can be translated either way).

1 Cor 14:34 is interesting in light of 1 Cor 11:5 where Paul expects that women will pray and/or prophesy. The answer to this conflict probably lies in the word translated as ‘keep silent’ which means to hold one’s peace or ‘keep secret’. It would appear Paul wanted them to keep their questions to themselves until they got home. Obviously in light of 1 Cor 11:5 it is not a request that they not contribute!

Mark, I appreciate your willingness to challenge me from scripture. I prefer this to simply being asked to submit to man’s interpretation of scripture!

Craig, I will respond to you next!

[Dave]

Sorry Tim, I did not see your post before I posted my last comment. I am very sorry that you feel this way. In fairness I will respond to Craig. I would appreciate it if you allow me to post that response as this would be only fair.

Any thing posted beneth that I will not respond to, so you can 'shoot it down' all you like! I typed what is below before I read your comment Tim...perhaps I had misread the spirit of the conversation!

Thanks for the contact Craig. You guys are very happy to interact which I am very appreciative of! I have not had much of a chance at looking at other stuff on the blog yet, but what I have seen I have really enjoyed!

I have since responded to Mark’s references and do not see them as having muddied my grid. ;-)
I think I must need to clarify my second comment as I was not speaking from both sides of my mouth! I believe Paul was only speaking regarding a situation concerning one woman. Although some might say I am being picky with singulars etc, this, as you say is God’s word and I accept all of God’s word including the grammar!

Regarding my second comment, it has been claimed by one commenter that 1 Tim 2:12 is a command. This was picked up again by another commenter. Yet, the language Paul uses is not that it is a command, but something he has not permitted. This is very different. Not only that, but if what Paul says is indeed in reference to a command (something I do not believe is the case)– where is the command? The situation in Ephaseus, as best I can work out from what is written (I am not Timothy or Paul) is that there was a woman who was ruling over and indoctrinating a man (possibly her husband) and claiming that there was a command to do so. Of course there is no such command, and Paul states this “I do not permit” i.e. there is no command. For you to say that Paul is saying there is a command “women are not to teach”, then the challenge is on you to find the command.

You said, “Paul appeals to the order of Creation...and Who created? God. How doe we know God created? God's Word...His revelation. How do we know the order God created Adam and Eve? God's Word. By appealing to Creation, Paul is appealing to God's Word.”

Now I fully agree with who created, (God), and how we know, (God’s word). I am even happy to say we know the order of creation (through God’s word). I have two problems with what you are claiming though.

1 – This is not a command for a woman not to teach. Scripture always gives a second witness (often more) to any universal command e.g. do not murder! Where is the command in scripture, “A woman shall not teach”?

2 – What does created order prove? That pigs are more important than men? After all they were created first! Even the idea of the importance of first born is undermined in scripture with God often lifting up even the last born! So, is Paul appealing to the order of creation for the reason you claim, or is it because he is wanting to give a reason as to why women SHOULD be instructed. After all, at the time women culturally were not supposed to learn. Since you brought up the creation account though, I believe the reason we are given the details of how Adam and Eve were created was partly to emphasise the unity between the two. One became two who then become one flesh. We were not told so that their differences could be made something of (but that is my understanding of it).

Finally you asked, “Is this where you back-track to the side that said Paul was only addressing one woman and one man?”
Answer – Nup!!
Thanks for your time Craig!

[Mark Chambers]

>Mark, I appreciate your willingness to challenge me from scripture. I prefer this to simply being asked to submit to man’s interpretation of scripture!

LOL

I am sure you mean just any man's interpretation Dave, for surely you don't mean to exclude your own. That was not a question.

[Kamilla]

"I would appreciate it if you allow me to post that response as this would be only fair."

At this point, I can't help but think how terribly, terribly unfair Jesus must have been not to give the money-changers in the Temple a chance to "interact". How horrible was it for him to just toss them out with a whip?

Kamilla

[Craig French]

Dave,
Exclamation points not withstanding, it's clear you can't be reasoned with...proof is in the fact you won't listen to God's Word. If Paul appeals to God's Word when it comes to submission (Adam was created first then Eve), and you decide by the "same" logic a pig is more significant than man, then you are fundamentally opposed to God's Word. Worse yet, you're actually mocking it.

[Dave]

I did say, “Any thing posted beneath that I will not respond to, so you can 'shoot it down' all you like!” By “shoot it down”, I was hoping that there would be some interaction with the Biblical argument I presented, but instead people have simply tried to shoot me down. As I have been misunderstood and misrepresented I feel the need to respond, as I believe Kamilla, would be only fair! ;-)

Mark, you said, “I am sure you mean just any man's interpretation Dave, for surely you don't mean to exclude your own”. I thought it was clear that I was referring to Tim expecting me to submit to 2000 years of a Biblical interpretation WITHOUT providing me with an explanation of how it is an interpretation from scripture. There was not a single Biblical reference/argument from Tim. At least you gave me some passages, even though you quoted incorrectly and out of context. From there at least we could discuss together what they meant. This was my point. Naturally I accept there are different interpretations, I even accept that my interpretation is often wrong and I love to be corrected and guided in truth by scripture.

Kamilla, it is great to see you refer to Scripture, but I am unclear on the relevance. I thought it was polite when someone raises a point in a discussion to be allowed to respond. Not sure what this has to do with Jesus and the money-changers.

Craig, I was not mocking God’s word. I was questioning the interpretation of God’s word. If you can provide me with a passage of scripture that says clearly that the order of creation determines a mans authority over a woman, then I will certainly concede this point. Accusing me of mocking the Bible does not address the issue, nor is it what I was doing. If you look at 1 Tim 2:13-14 there is no mention of hierarchy between Adam and Eve, nor is there in the creation accounts in Genesis. My point merely highlighted the absurd nature of the claim of created order that was made. Having said that I am very open to hearing from you how you understand 1 Tim 2:12-15 and why.

Finally, Tim, I have put off responding to something you said because I had hoped for a fair and reasonable debate, but I can see my chances of that are slim.

You said, “Please be quiet, sir, or I shall need to command it.” I accept the fact that you have the ability to remove my comments, but in regards to having authority to command me to be quiet, this I am sure you do not have. You said, “That's why 2,000 years of Christians have never used singulars and plurals to obscure or defy the plain meaning of the text.” I ask you, are the singulars and plurals important? Do you consider them to be important? Do you think for Timothy as he read them that they were not a part of the plain reading for him? Were they important to Paul when he wrote it? Were they important to the Holy Spirit who inspired them? I would encourage you Tim to submit yourself to scripture, “in an area where the whole world commends you for your avid misleading.” Luke 22:24-26.

Your Brother,
Dave

[Andrew Dionne]

For those who love the Word of God and are desirous to glorify God by conforming their lives to what it teaches, Dave should stand as an example of a man who only pays lip service to submission to the Word. His constant refrain that we must reason biblically and his call for biblical arguments and exegesis seem pious, but don't be confused...Dave doesn't like what the Word says and uses arguments and exegesis to reject it's clear teaching. In this regard, he mimics Satan's question, "Has God really said...".

Scripture is clear with regard to sexuality and one can either accept it or reject it, with or without "sophisticated" arguments. We must constantly be on guard to fight the temptation to use exegesis to justify sin and rebellion. Dave, rather than having his guard up, has given into temptation.

Believe the Word and love what it teaches...particularly at the points where it flies in the face of our wicked and perverse generation.

[Tim Bayly]

Dear readers,

I'd hoped Dave would not continue to promote rebellion against God here on Baylyblog. Asking him to cease and desist didn't work, so I just sent him an e-mail commanding him to cease and desist. Here on Baylyblog, at least.

Sadly, he's a pastor and his sheep will continue to be led into rebellion by him. Please pray for them, and him.

Love,

[Kevin Cassidy]

If permissible, Pastor Bayly, I'll take on a few of Dave's arguments.

History - While agreeing that history alone isn't enough to engender our support of a particular position or action, when the significant weight of historical understanding of a Biblical passage or view is put forward, there has to be overwhelming, convincing reason to disagree with it. In short: Historical understanding can not be dismissed with "I want to go to the Bible". So have thousands of theologians, who make up the historical understanding.

Grammar - Attempting to prove Biblical arguments from English-translation grammar is extremely hazardous. This is particularly true in this case. Maintaining consistency of position of this "he was only talking to a single person" would lead to a theology that is much, much more limited and erroneous than that accepted by any Christian community today. People have utilized the single-meaning-many-or-all method of speech for a very long time. This argument does not have merit when discussing 1 Timothy 2.

Technical arguments - Dave's reading of 1Cor 11:5 in light of 1Cor 14:34 is incorrect in that 1Cor 11:5 does not say it is in church, and thus does not necessarily provide the contradiction he proposes.

[Bike Bubba]

This whole thread suggests an interesting question; is the question of male headship best decided by prooftexting, or do we really need to go further and point out how God's descriptions of Himself are always male, the Church generally as female, and so on? I've been convicted--even in generally prooftexting-friendly churches that I attend and have been a member of--that at times we need to make the point even more obvious than the proof texts would indicate.

Might be a fun thread, if our gracious host could be persuaded.

[Kamilla]

Bike Bubba,

I've always found it amuzing that those who hold to what the church has *always* taught are the ones accused of prooftexting -- while the religious feminists are left with a word here, a word there. They don't even have prooftexts, they have "proofwords" (I'd like to use an exclamation mark here, but I think we've already seen enough of those in this thread).

I think you're pointing us in the right direction - the case against the religious feminists is writ so large, as GKC has said, it's hard to know where to start.

Kamilla

[Tim Bayly]

Have at it, friends. Just too busy to take it on myself, just now.

Love,

[Dave]

As you all keep talking about me, I thought I would join in...

Andrew, you said, “Dave doesn't like what the Word says and uses arguments and exegesis to reject it's clear teaching”. On the contrary I love the Word of God, please do not judge me or my motives. My arguments come from a desire to see God’s word proclaimed clearly.

You also said, “Believe the Word and love what it teaches...particularly at the points where it flies in the face of our wicked and perverse generation.” Amen brother, I completely agree.

Tim, you said, “Sadly, he's a pastor and his sheep will continue to be led into rebellion by him. Please pray for them, and him.” We appreciate the prayer. Yes, I am a Minister in a church in the Presbyterian church of Australia.

Kevin – I agree, history is not enough. In fact, it glimmers very dimly next to the Word of God which shines clearly for all time.

You also said, “This is particularly true in this case. Maintaining consistency of position of this "he was only talking to a single person" would lead to a theology that is much, much more limited and erroneous than that accepted by any Christian community today.” If Paul was talking about more than one woman, then who is the ‘she’ in verse 15. It cannot be Eve, so who is it?

Kevin also said, “Technical arguments - Dave's reading of 1Cor 11:5 in light of 1Cor 14:34 is incorrect in that 1Cor 11:5 does not say it is in church, and thus does not necessarily provide the contradiction he proposes.” But this contradicts the previous point made by you. So what you are saying is that you get to choose who each passage is aimed at? How about we let grammar and context decide? Is Paul in 1 Cor 11 talking about head coverings in the home, the market place or in church? Is Paul writing a letter to a church to be shared with the people in the church? If Paul did not want them to prophesy in church, why did he not mention it in 1 Cor 11. Why did the prophet Joel not mention it?

Bikebubba and Kamilla, I would like to see any argument from you guys, big or little. Please do not forget how this thread came to talk about 1 Tim 2. It was not me who brought it up. Tim used it over and over again in the one comment, and it was stated that 1 Tim 2 was very much the beginning and the end of this issue by you people. Now you want to suggest that I am trying to go down this path? Truth is I am happy to talk about it however – as long as we can use the Bible.

Kamilla, you said, “it's hard to know where to start.” Is that why you seem to always talk about starting, but never do?

Kamilla, this is for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kevin Cassidy]

Dave - We may agree (and I like the turn of phrase) that history glimmers dimly next to the Word of God. In that same manner, however, my very own Biblical comprehension (and I hope you would agree, yours), compared to the weight of the theological giants of ages past, also glimmers dimly. In a loosely related quote from G.K. Chesterton: "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 that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around."

Dave, I must tell you that I am concerned about your way of misusing the text of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Many on this blog already see this and no doubt have seen it before, but I will attempt (in the following post) to correct the reading of Paul's intent, as far as I have been able to read it in English translations.

[Kevin Cassidy]

Dave, I can admit that, prior to Christ calling me to Him in love, that I was liberally part of this world, in all the ways that entails. There is much I've had to unlearn and ways of thinking I've had to unpack and that I am still having to surrender at the throne. A very hard thing that I admit I am still struggling upon is the position Paul describes of women in his letters.

That said, I can not find an English version of the text of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that could possibly be used to come to the exegesis you are attempting. "A woman", "the woman", and "she" are clearly meaning the "general you" format of speech that refers to many/all of the class of people referred to in that particular singular. In Spanish this is the "vosotros" form, and the closest English has is "y'all" (can you tell I'm in Texas?). There may be some discussion about whether Paul's letter should be read to mean only the women of the church at Corinth, though I think there are many here that could better explain why that is not the case. But trying to make it sound like Paul was referring to a single woman instead of a general group of women is not correct English, much less proper Biblical exegesis.

I hope this can also explain why my technical argument still stands. My previous point that you referred to (and is explained above) has to do with correct use of language, the technical argument regarding 1Cor 11:5 has to do with (as you agreed is important) different context of the text. My statements therefore do not contradict, and the verses mentioned therefore still do not necessarily provide the contradiction you propose.

With due respect, and in hopes that we can honor Christ alone,

[Bike Bubba]

Dave, my response to your isogesis is simple; the text of the Scriptures, when taken as a whole, does not support it in the least. The Church is the Bride of Christ and submits to her, a picture shown in the Old Testament as "Virgin Israel" is betrothed to the Lord. When viewed in this light--an image common to a great number of the prophets--one cannot sustain an egalitarian view of Paul's writings. As our gracious host put it well, God's Word is hopelessly patriarchal.

[Mark]

The indefinite article "a" or "an" refers to *any* member within a class. After beginning a paragraph with the indefinite article, all future references to the noun to which the article related must agree in number. Therefore, "a woman" must be followed by "such woman," "she" "her." Your question, Dave, really only relates to why Paul begins by saying "a woman." I agree that there is a way of making an indefinite article relate to one member of a class (the class in this case being women in general). To do so, you have to modify the construction so as to make clear that you are referring to a particular member of the undefined class, as in "she is a woman." This was not done, because it was not Paul's intent to restrict the prohibition to a particular woman. Hope that helps.

[Dave]

Kevin, I am very grateful for your two posts and the way that you have tried to answer my Biblical reasoning from the Bible. Thank you.

I know that on the whole I am not welcome here and I do not want to keep ‘annoying’ people. So as a result I would love to agree to disagree and walk away. There were some very small comments that I wanted to make as I believe they are important enough to highlight.

1 – I have not been arguing from English versions, but from the Greek. There is only a couple of translations that translate the grammar properly, one being “A Literal Translation of the Bible” by Jay P Green, Sr. You claim to have a technical argument relying on the correct use of language, and yet you are working from translations, not the Greek.

2 – ‘Y’all’ is certainly not an Australian term...but I had a friend from Texas so I do recognise it. Perhaps this point was not that important.

3 – If the ‘she’ (singular) in verse 15 was intended as a general reference to women then Paul would not have used the singular. Paul is very good with his grammar. Greek grammar is more precise than English and simply put, I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the correct grammar. The same can be said for the singulars in verse 12.

Please understand that I am simply speaking the truth in which I am convicted. I understand others do not agree with me, and I respect their right to do so. I pray that God will lead each and every one of us further into his truth. Thankyou Kevin for not making further assumptions regarding my motivations as some have done.

I am not ignoring the two comments following Kevin, I only just saw them now.

Dave

[Dave]

Bike Bubba, I understand you point, I believe, and also agree with you fully that Israel is seen as betrothed to God, and obviously I would agree that the NT is full of the wedding imagery with the church as the bride of Christ. I appreciate your argument, I think it has much merit, but I have a couple of observations.

As with every metaphor we need to consider where it begins and where it ends. It illustrates to us God’s love for his people, the willingness of Jesus to die for his people. I think we all recognise these as good characteristics of marriage relationship, and I am sure, if we were prooftexting, Ephesians 5 would be mentioned here, as this is very much Paul’s point. There must, however, be a point at which the metaphor ends. For example, God is God and his people are humans. So, in a marriage are women human and men God, or are men human and women less than human? Do you see the issue? The marriage imagery of God and his people is not between two equal parties. We cannot transfer the whole thing over, otherwise it ceases to become a metaphor or imagery and we have tried to apply it literally.

Now I am not suggesting that you or anyone else is trying to say women are less than human or men are gods, but many hierarchalists/complementarians claim that there is a fundamental difference between men and women which is hierarchy, one being greater than the other in some way. Some like to say they are equal in value but different in function, and yet this is only playing with words. If a woman cannot teach a man, if she is less intelligent (easily deceived) then she is fundamentally deficient i.e. less than.

This, I believe, is taking the imagery too far. This, I hope you appreciate, is hard to explain briefly.

Mark, there is no indefinite article in 1 Tim 2:12, and 15. Effectively, because of verse 15 and the reference to ‘she’ verse 12 must be translated as “a woman” singular, or more accurately in light of verse 15, “the woman”. If Eve was alive at the time of Paul writing, logically verse 15 would have to refer to Eve (the Eve, not an Eve), but this does not make sense, as I explained earlier.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue from scripture. Thank you.

[Tim Bayly]

Dave,

You are anything but a sincere seeker after truth. You hate the truth. Hate it, sir. But you couldn't make a living as a pastor if you said as much, hence your posture of loving God's Word, honoring it's true meaning, having reasonable disagreements with other men you love who see things a different way, and so on to the point of vomiting.

No heretic has ever said "I am a heretic!" Every single last one of them has claimed he alone is the keeper of the true meaning of God's Word always hidden from the church until he came along. Two thousand years of Church doctrine wrong? That's nothing to the heretic. He alone has finally had the private revelation of the Holy Spirit into the true meaning of singulars and plurals of Greek and Hebrew and dreams and ink blots and signs and love and mercy and grace and... Well, you get the point.

Every heretic has won his battle the minute he's been allowed into churches and seminaries and magazines and books and blogs to make his wicked, devious, damnable case.

You seem so very reasonable.

You are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

May God bring you to repentance or expose you to your presbytery and flock so they'll remove you from your pulpit.

For the third time, you are not to post on this blog. Your words are heretical and you destroy God's sheep. Silence, sir. It is my brother's and my calling to guard the good deposit from evil men who arise among us seeking to distort the truth and devour the sheep. Today, you are that man and you may not continue, here.

In Christ's love,

[Mark Chambers]

>For example, God is God and his people are humans. So, in a marriage are women human and men God, or are men human and women less than human? Do you see the issue?

I see your confusion/deception. An appropriate analogy would be the Trinity. Full ontological coincidence between Father and Son, but a voluntary submission to the authority of the one on the part of the other.

[Dave]

Tim, I have never claimed to be the only true keeper of God's word. I used to be a complementarian and after studying Greek for three years and being a Pastor for another three years was shown the truth of these verses from the Greek.

Tim, I do not appear to be breaking any guidelines or 'rules' on your blog (or any rules I have seen on any other blog). You have labelled me a heretic, been rude and a bully, and you acuse me of being a wolf in sheeps clothing. What does your behaviour say about you Tim?

I would prefer not to go into a discussion about the trinity, but as you brought it up, how does the "voluntary submission" to another represent any hierarchy. Submission by definition is not reliant on hierarchy. Subordination, however, is. The Son is not subordinate to the Father, if he was he would in some way be less than God. Instead he submits to the Father, because he is as much God as the Father is. To go back to Eph 5, we should submit to one another. This does not reflect hierarchy, but a Spirit of servanthood.

[Tim Bayly]

David,

You are not allowed to comment here. This is the third time I have said it.

In love,

[Dave]

Tim, from your very first sentence in your very first response to me you have attempted to ridicule me. While people continue to slander me on this thread I will continue to comment. I tried to deal with this issue privately with you via email and you simply stated that I was sinning in public and was therefore rebuked in public. I serve a greater master than you Tim, who encourages me to love and embrace the truth.

[Mark]

Dave,

I’m not a Greek scholar. However, the fact that every major English translation of the Bible translates 1 Timothy 2:12 as “a woman,” including translations that are “contemporary” and avowedly egalitarian, suggests to me that the onus is on you to demonstrate that the word “woman” in the Greek should be translated “that woman” or “the woman.” I think the answer at the end of the day will be that in cases in the Greek where only the word “woman” is used, with no further contextual limitation where it is obvious a particular woman is in view, the meaning is “a woman.” Can you show from the Greek that the contrary is true—that where only the word “woman” is used, with no further contextual limitation, that “that woman” is the assumed meaning?

Your suggestion that the contextual limitation is found in verse 15 in the word “she” is incorrect for the reasons in my prior post. Again, “a woman” *is* singular—the singular indefinite. People talk like this, Dave, without having to refer to a particular woman. When the singular is used in this way, future references, as in the “she” of verse 15, also have to be singular.

Here’s how I understand the flow of the passage. Verse 12 lays out a general prohibition. Verses 13-14 provide reasons for the prohibition, which include an recognition that Adam was to be the leader of Eve (Eve was created after Adam to be his helpmate) as well as an explicit statement that Eve was deceived—owing perhaps in part to her nature or lack of Adam’s leadership or lack of Eve’s deference to Adam’s leadership. (I know you contest that these are valid reasons—I’m not discussing that point right now.) Verse 15 connects to verse 12 in that it provides the means by which women may escape (be “saved” from) the ruin that befell Eve—by embracing God’s design for woman in childbearing, rather than steering their own course as Eve did. This, I believe is a very plausible, though culturally unacceptable, explanation of the passage. We are not called to sit in judgment on God’s word, but to submit to it. The she/they distinction is somewhat difficult in verse 15, although this is a problem for all views. Setting off the “they” clause after a hyphen, as in the NIV, is probably how it should be read to emphasize that the “they” clause is a summary and therefore somewhat disjointed from the sentence. It doesn’t make sense to try to say that “she” is Eve. It also seems to stretch the limits to say the some particular woman Paul was addressing was going to be saved through childbirth. I find your explanation very tenuous. I’d like to hear other views, especially on verses 13-14.

[Bike Bubba]

Dave, yes, you've taken the analogy so far. Now this means exactly what about my analogy, besides the fact that you've taken it where it does not go?

And per 1 Timothy 2:12,the fallacy you're following is simply by assuming that a noun referred to with the indefinite article has a definite identity. Your argument, more or less, is contradicted by the very grammar you try to use to establish it.

Along these lines, if I said "I do not permit a child to drive my car," would we say "well, he must be thinking about a particularly unruly child that would not be so allowed"? Of course not. Rather, we note that the grammar indicates that the writer is suggesting that children in general are not to drive cars. It is not part of the nature of a child to be able to handle two to three tons of metal safely.

In the same way, Paul is saying something very profound; that the very nature of a woman is to be formed from Adam for the express purpose of being his help-meet.

And so we find ourselves back at my starting point; the Scriptures, from the very creation of man and woman, describe a God-given relationship between man and woman mirrored by the leadership of the church to her leaders, and the headship of Christ over the church. You mess with it here, you mess with it in all of those other places.

In doing so, you pay a horrific price, the worst of which is paid by the women the egalitarians claim to help.

[Mark Chambers]

Dave is not interested in arguments. Dave is interested in molding Scripture around his own cultural mores. There is no benefit in debating with him as the arguments he presented are old and available to any one bright enough to use google. The counter arguments are all there as well but Dave’s mind is made up and he is not to be confused by facts.

Dave is not a product of the Word but of the world, a product of the reigning culture. Dave finds it impossible to believe that the Author of Scripture (Himself immutable) could speak in terms accessible and unchanging across the ages. Dave rejects the order of creation. Dave rejects the familial, governmental, and covenantal typology of the old testament. Dave rejects the patriarchal structure of that culture as antiquated and invalid. It was that way then, but that was then and this is now. God couldn’t possibly mean to continue on that way! He was surely just condescending to the troglodyte mentality of the men of that age. But now modern men are able to listen to reason. We, after all, are not cavemen. We don’t think that way these enlightened days and so the sure Word of Christ must be adapted to fit Dave’s cultural values.

Dave is cutting edge. Click on his name and peruse his church’s website. Geared toward the emotionally driven modern mind it reads more like an advertisement for a day care center. Come play with us. It will, however, raise your awareness about “all that Jesus has to offer you.” Of course we all need to know what’s in it for us don’t we? I and me are valid personal pronouns evidently.

Ah Australia. The land of the outback; the land of men and crocodiles. I can appreciate Mick Dundee. Don’t have much use for Helen Reddy though. I wonder if Joshua and Caleb held hands and sang Kumbaya all the way through Canaan?

It isn’t too difficult to understand why the enlightened think women stand well in the pulpit. It’s become an androgynous zone and the men are already wearing skirts. It does present a problem though. How ever will we tell them apart?

Isa 3:12 O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths.

[Tim Bayly]

>>and you simply stated that I was sinning in public and was therefore rebuked in public.

Actully, I said more than that. I said that my brother David could second-guess me if he wanted and I'd be happy to defer to his judgment. But he hasn't second-guessed me, as you know, and you continue to refuse my requests, commands, prohibitions, redirections... You're incorridgible, which might have something to do with your rebellion against God and the authority of His Word, also.

Anyhow, now for the fourth time, you are ordered not to comment here again. And no, that's not conditional to others not responding, correcting your heresy. It's unconditional. You are not to comment here again.

Love,

[Mark Chambers]

>Now I am not suggesting that you or anyone else is trying to say women are less than human

What you're doing, by your use of terms such "many" and "some" is identifying that position with the men and women here. State a position, assume its applicability and then argue as if it was relevant to the present parties. It is either ignorant or deceptive.

>many [see?] hierarchalists/complementarians claim that there is a fundamental difference between men and women which is hierarchy, one being greater than the other in some way.

Baloney. Men are women are ontologically equal. The difference is, as in the Trinity, one of submission to a God ordained pattern of authority.

>Some [the mystical some] like to say they are equal in value but different in function,

Who said that here? Whom are you addressing? Well not any one really, just everyone in general and anyone who'll listen to your errant presumptions. You've got a point to make and particulars be damned.

>and yet this is only playing with words.

Oh now that is rich. You accusing others of playing with words?

>If a woman cannot teach a man, if she is less intelligent (easily deceived)

Oops, non sequitur Dave. Deception, in this case, is an ethical issue not a matter of acumen. And the word "easily" which you use, isn't in Scripture. Just that she was deceived. Eve was tempted and carried away by her own lust. Lots of intelligent people are Dave. Do you add to the Words of Scripture in this issue alone or is this a pattern that infects all of your reasonings?

>then she is fundamentally deficient i.e. less than.

Well Dave exactly what is your premise? That Eve is not to teach or that she is less intelligent. Or do you assume that the one is the other? If you think the former requires the latter we have a non sequitur. If you think the latter synonymous with the former then we have a fallacy of category. In either case you've given us a conclusion that is fallacious being neither valid or sound.

Sorry Dave

[Dave]

Mark and Bike Bubba, if I can use Bike Bubba’s illustration to clarify. There are issues with using English examples to explain the Greek as the Greek contains more info than the English, but... if I said, “"I do not permit a child (singular – NOT plural) to drive my car," would we say "well, he must be thinking about a particularly unruly child that would not be so allowed"? Yes we would, because he has SPECIFIED singular when he had the choice of specifying plural.

Further to this, what would we conclude from, “"I do not permit ‘the’ (‘a’ no longer makes sense in English) child (singular) to drive my car, she is a dangerous driver". That ‘a child’ is a specific child. This is an accurate example of including verse 15 in the equation. As you said Mark, the ‘she’ cannot be Eve.

Please do not just take it from me, I was shown this by people who are greater Greek scholars than me. Talk to someone who is a Greek scholar and get their opinion, comp or not. See what they say.

Bike Bubba, yes I took the analogy too far. The point is, have you taken it too far? This is why we must always look at the overarching themes AND the proof texts. We therefore come back to points such as the created order in Genesis and are left to determine whether or not there is a hierarchy explicit or read in through tradition. That is for each of us to decide as we look at the relevant texts, something I assume we do not want to do now. Perhaps we agree to disagree?

Perhaps we could leave the conversation here? I appreciate, once again, the interaction with scripture.

Dave

[Tim Bayly]

Yoohoo Dave. No more commenting. As in no. No more. Commenting. No more commenting. None. Now. Regardless.

For the fifth time.

Love,

[Bike Bubba]

Dave, your comment on 1 Timothy 2:12 makes absolutely no sense in light of verses 8-15, which make it pretty clear that Paul is talking about men in general and women in general by linking his argument with the creation and his general desire for the church--that men would lift up holy hands in prayer without wrath and doubting, and that the women would learn in modesty, learning in submission and embracing the wonderful God-given role of motherhood.

Sorry. You're taking things completely out of context, and ignoring basic grammar to boot, while ignoring the entire witness of the rest of the Scriptures on the subject of masculinity and femininity.

[Dave]

Mark, if you believe men and women are equal in value and do not believe what “the mystical some” believe, fine, we agree which I guess means you agree with my point. I did not know if you or anyone here believed the things I stated which is why I worded it the way I did. I could have worded it the way you have worded statements regarding what you CLAIM I do and do not believe, but I chose not to. E.g., “Dave rejects the order of creation. Dave rejects the familial, governmental, and covenantal typology of the old testament”. I never stated a rejection of these things implied or explicit.

Mark, you said, “. There is no benefit in debating with him as the arguments he presented are old and available to any one bright enough to use google. The counter arguments are all there as well but Dave’s mind is made up and he is not to be confused by facts.”

Funny I though I was the only one with this view of scripture from what people have said earlier.

Bike Bubba, the meaning needs to be consistent with the grammar and the context. Woudl you agree? I am not ignoring basic Greek grammar. I am outlining it.

Tim, you have stated that I am a heretic. I’m sure it would be helpful for everyone here, including me for you to specifically highlight what I have said that makes me a heretic. Not sure how they do things over your way, but in Australia we have an inquiry before we label people like this.

I think it might be 6 times, not 5, but I have not been counting.

[Nathan Bayly]

A while back, I was preparing a sermon and my father gave me some advise. At the time, I knew his words were sound, but reading this has turned them into concrete in my mind.

What he told me was this:

"If your main point has to be made from the Greek, you've already lost."

As I've read this thread, two things have come to mind relating to the heresy being spewed forth.

The first is a headache.

The second is the character of God--specifically, His fatherhood.

You heap absurdity upon absurdity by inferring that as THE Father, God would let His children crawl around in the darkness for 2000 years concerning an issue so pivotal, only to reveal the true meaning of His inspired Word in 2009, through a dude parked out in the Never Never with three years of Geek under his belt. Absurdity.

And please, don't respond to this. That would be disobedience.

On another note... Amen Andrew. I praise the Lord that He has placed me underneath your teaching and training. And, I appreciate that you're easy to understand. Every little bit helps when you have a headache. ;)

[Kamilla]

Tim,

I don't know if I should post this publicly - but I want to say it publicly at the risk of encouraging further rebellion from a certain quarter.

I am so very thankful that you and your brother take your calls seriously - that you view this blog as an extension of your pastoral office. You allow public comment and when a commenter looks to be leading folks astray, you warn him. And you warn your sheep away from the wolf.

It's so easy not to take folks like this man and his rebellion seriously because they appear to be oh, so very nice and pleasant and just wish to innocently dialogue. But I can't help thinking of Little Red Riding Hood and how big those teeth were. No can I help wanting to ask how fair it is to allow anyone (from an innocent lurker to an avid correspondent) to be led astray. There are some things that are so seriously heretical that you just don't give them the credence they would gain by discussing them "fairly".

Thank you - and know that I hold you and Mary Lee and David and Cheryl in my prayers.

Your sister,

Kamilla

P.S. Yeah, Nathan!

[David Gray]

>I am so very thankful that you and your brother take your calls seriously - that you view this blog as an extension of your pastoral office.

Amen and amen...