ABC News Lands at Southern Seminary

Last week, “ABC World News Tonight” showed up on the campus of Southern Seminary to talk to students about gender roles vis a vis the candidacy of Governor Sarah Palin. They interviewed three of our students: Phillip Bethancourt, Courtney Tarter, and Toby Jennings. I could not be prouder of how they represented the school and the truth of the Bible in their brief appearance. Our president, Dr. Albert Mohler, is interviewed as well.

One particular part of the report is worthy of note. The interviewer was fascinated by the idea that our students could support a woman as president but not as pastor. He was especially interested in Ms. Tarter’s opinion, the lone female of the group. That interest is what led to this exchange:

ABC Reporter: So never in the deepest recesses of your mind have you ever thought, “This is unfair. These guys get to do it [be a pastor], but I can’t.”

Ms. Tarter: Oh, of course I’ve said it in the deep recesses of my mind . . . because I’m a sinner.

Of course, Ms. Tarter is simply reflecting the fact that the Bible speaks unambiguously to the issue of gender roles in the home and in the church. To depart from that which the Bible clearly teaches is sin, and Ms. Tarter confesses what is true for all of us. When we act or desire things in contradiction to the Bible, we sin. For Christians this definition is uncontroversial, but I have a feeling that this reporter might disagree.

In any case, I think the question of having a female as vice-president will be a moot point at the close of this election-cycle. Senator Obama leads in key battleground states, and it looks like the McCain-Palin ticket is headed for defeat. I’ll have more to say on this topic later. For now, go watch Southern Seminary students on “ABC World News Tonight.”

(From left to right: Phillip Bethancourt, Courtney Tarter, and Toby Jennings)

106 Responses to ABC News Lands at Southern Seminary

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides September 30, 2008 at 8:34 am #

    God bless Courtney Tarter!!!

    I love her response to a goading question:

    Ms. Tarter: “Oh, of course I’ve said it in the deep recesses of my mind . . . because I’m a sinner.”

  2. John September 30, 2008 at 8:43 am #

    I think it’s too early to claim defeat now Denny. I personally am pessimistic about Obama and think there are just too many people uncomfortable with an African American president who has all these nasty rumors around him.

    I would say though, the Sarah Palin ticket isn’t looking quite as good now to everybody after the hype has died down for a couple of weeks (anybody see Tina Fey as Palin? She’s incredible!).

    As to this issue about gender, I’m still baffled by it. Actually, what worries me more is the reputation Southern is getting for being so political and right-wing. Even when the news introduced you it seemed to kind of imply how political you guys were. I guess you can thank Mr. Mohler for that, nearly every single radio show is does is about something political.

  3. Steve Hayes September 30, 2008 at 9:12 am #

    Oh brother! This thread is going to give me tired head. I couldn’t be more exhausted by this subject as it relates to this blog. Let the flood gates open. I’m going somewhere else.

  4. Don September 30, 2008 at 9:32 am #

    It was interesting to interview 3 students and an SBC woman pastor.

    I believe that the woman student WOULD be sinning if she were to be a pastor, as she could not do it in faith, due to the teaching she has accepted.

    If she would study more and reject that teaching, then she could do it in faith, like the SBC woman pastor.

    Every paper that CBMW puts out on the “women” questions repudiates their claims about the teachings being clear.

  5. Denny Burk September 30, 2008 at 9:38 am #

    Steve,

    I feel your pain. . . really. To some extent this topic is driven by items in the news. I will change the subject soon . . . hopefully!

    Thanks,
    Denny

  6. Nathan September 30, 2008 at 9:39 am #

    However, ABC’s cutting off Ms. Tarter right after her admission that she is a sinner is indicative of how the media wants to blur this issue.

    For Christians, our worldview understands what Ms. Tarter was inferring.

    Unfortunately, that cannot be said for the rest of the country that heard her response and some may take her answer in the wrong way.

    It is a shame that she was not allowed to elaborate on that answer, especially considering the broadcast focused more on the Woman Pastor than on why Southern Seminary could hold to Palin being Vice-President or President, but not pastor.

  7. Luke Britt September 30, 2008 at 10:09 am #

    Is there a dress code at SBTS? Do you have to look like a bookworm to study theology? The bowtie set it off!

  8. Don September 30, 2008 at 10:26 am #

    On Mohler’s point that the woman pastor is arguing with Paul, this is not correct.

    The woman pastor is arguing with Mohler’s INTERPRETATION of what Paul wrote. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

    It was presumptuous for Mohler to word it as he did, I sure hope Mohler is not claiming the ability to interpret infallibly.

  9. Darius September 30, 2008 at 11:09 am #

    No, he’s probably just claiming the ability to honestly read a text.

  10. Lydia September 30, 2008 at 11:13 am #

    “They interviewed three of our students: Phillip Bethancourt, Courtney Tarter, and Toby Jennings.”

    Do these studends also WORK for SBTS. Are they employees who recieve a paycheck?

  11. Darius September 30, 2008 at 11:25 am #

    Why do you ask, Lydia? Don’t you believe that a woman can honestly come to the conclusion that God actually meant what He said (via Paul) in the Bible?

  12. Don September 30, 2008 at 11:41 am #

    I believe Paul meant what he wrote, I just disagree that it means a woman cannot be a pastor. That a woman should not be a pastor is the interpretive CHOICE the non-egals are making, it is by no means required to make that interpretation.

  13. Lydia September 30, 2008 at 12:09 pm #

    “Why do you ask, Lydia? Don’t you believe that a woman can honestly come to the conclusion that God actually meant what He said (via Paul) in the Bible?”

    To be totally honest, if they are also employees of SBTS, it should have been mentioned. Why not choose students at random who do NOT work there and depend on a paycheck.

    Perhaps we could ask Paul Debudsman why one has to be careful what they say when they are on the payroll of SBTS. They might just get fired.

    Why not just be honest about them being employees, too, unless SBTS carefully selected those who could speak.

  14. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 12:16 pm #

    Don: “That a woman should not be a pastor is the interpretive CHOICE the non-egals are making, it is by no means required to make that interpretation.

    Let’s modify slightly to illustrate the depth of Don’s intellectual reasoning:

    “To claim that Jesus historically and physically resurrected from the dead is the interpretive CHOICE the biblical Christians are making, it is by no means required to make that interpretation.”

  15. Don September 30, 2008 at 12:31 pm #

    TUAD gets it wrong.

    That Jesus rose bodily is the consistent explicit Biblical witness across the NT and I accept that.

    The women cannot be pastors is one interpretation of a few puzzling verses by non-egals. This is nowhere explicit.

  16. Wesley September 30, 2008 at 12:47 pm #

    “No, he’s probably just claiming the ability to honestly read a text.”

    Absolute belief in perspicuity
    + Myth of individual objectivity
    —————————————-
    = Presumption of personal infallibility

  17. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 12:52 pm #

    Don: “That Jesus rose bodily is the consistent explicit Biblical witness across the NT and I accept that.

    Likewise, male headship in the home and in the church is the consistent explicit Biblical witness across the NT and I accept that.

  18. Wesley September 30, 2008 at 1:02 pm #

    I never claimed infallibility in spelling 🙂

    above:
    perspicuity = perpescuity

    (I am however blaming the auto spell checker!)

  19. Don September 30, 2008 at 1:03 pm #

    TUAD, it cannot be as you claim, as the term headship is nowhere found in the Bible.

    Now if you wish to discuss the interpretation of kephale/head, that is possible.

    I agree that a husband is called the head of his wife, as a metaphor, and I accept this. The question is what does the metaphor mean. All these discussions are about interpretation.

  20. John September 30, 2008 at 1:05 pm #

    I would like to hear the answer as to what spirit there is behind the comps claiming women can’t be pastors in the church. I’m looking for more than a “Because that’s what the Bible says” answer. There has to be spirit behind the law, and I am unsure as to what that spirit is when others argue for it. Obviously, there is spirit behind something like “Don’t murder” or “love your enemies,” but what spirit is there behind women not being able to be leaders? God would not give the command just for the sake of it and not giving reasons. I only bring this up because I have consistently seen remarks like “Women are capable of doing this” and “Women are gifted to do this” but always followed by a “but the Bible says…”

    What spirit is there behind the law?

  21. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 1:30 pm #

    Don: “TUAD, it cannot be as you claim, as the term headship is nowhere found in the Bible.”

    An anti-trinitarian could likewise argue and say: “TUAD, it cannot be as you claim, as the term trinity is nowhere found in the Bible.”

  22. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm #

    John: “What spirit is there behind the law?

    The Holy Spirit.

  23. Joshua September 30, 2008 at 1:35 pm #

    Dude Toby’s bowtie rocks! Don’t hate on the bowtie!

  24. John September 30, 2008 at 1:35 pm #

    As usual, I ask an honest question and TUAD gives a short, pithy, smart-alec remark that causes everybody to roll their eyes.

    You’re hopeless

  25. Darius September 30, 2008 at 1:49 pm #

    It’s disconcerting, John, that just “because the Bible tells you so” that you won’t accept it. God doesn’t have to give us a reason for any of His commands, we are only to obey. That you put your own human understanding above His law is very dangerous.

  26. jamie steele September 30, 2008 at 2:06 pm #

    Don,
    If God wanted women Pastors why not mention one in 66 books of the Bible.

  27. John September 30, 2008 at 2:16 pm #

    Darius,

    I’m suggesting that God will not give us a command or law without any type of spirit behind it. He doesn’t seem to give laws with the attitude of “I’m gonna tell them to do this just for the heck of it, we’ll see what happens and what they do with it.”

    I didn’t say anything about accepting it or putting my understanding above his law. I’m saying that God tells us to do things and not to do things for a reason, and I’m wanting to know the reason behind comps suggesting that women can’t be leaders or teach other men.

    It’s an honest question I seek to have answered. I didn’t ask it to get a fundamentalist response and have someone tell me that basically “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it, and I won’t ask any questions about it.”

    Can someone please answer the question?

  28. Brian (Another) September 30, 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    John:

    I think you meant to say the answer was glib, not pithy. But to answer, that is where comps go to Genesis and the created order. But what you are asking is to peer into the mind of God. Which, for some things seems easy (see do not divorce, fornication, pray continually, etc.), but, I would say, we perhaps never fully understand, outside of the fact that it is pleasing to the Lord. All that said, Darius’ response, I think, speaks more to the heart of TUAD’s comment. So perhaps you were correct in saying a pithy response.

    Joshua:

    Have you seen SNL’s skit with Al Fraken playing Al Gore explaining “that’s why I wear….the bow tie.” It always cracks me up.

  29. Ferg September 30, 2008 at 2:26 pm #

    Man,
    Why does there appear to be such arrogance around this topic?
    It’s so sad.
    We’re right, you’re definitely wrong.
    What happened to ‘this is what I believe the Lord has led me to theologically, however I respect your heart and I pray that we can come to know the truth in unity (NOT devision)’.

    No one here can claim to have perfect theology, and the guys who judge others for having ‘wrong’ theology better have a perfect set of beliefs or the one true judge of all will have some serious words to say to them.
    Can anyone here not see that they may be wrong/misguided in some aspects of their theology?
    This question is not asked to all as I have seen humility from some, unfortunately it’s not from the majority.

  30. Lydia September 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm #

    “I would like to hear the answer as to what spirit there is behind the comps claiming women can’t be pastors in the church. I’m looking for more than a “Because that’s what the Bible says” answer. There has to be spirit behind the law, and I am unsure as to what that spirit is when others argue for it.”

    John, Bingo.

  31. Lydia September 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm #

    Another question to ask. No where in the OT are women told they cannot teach men. Even McArthur has admitted this. Yet, they say it is not allowed in the NT even though Paul in 1 Corin 11 implies that women are teaching EVERYONE in the Body the question is whether to veil or not while doing so. And we see women prophesying at Pentecost(Prophesying as defined by the Puritans) and much more including Phoebe as a real bonafide deacon and Patroness, Lydia starting the first church in Europe. All of Romans 16, etc..

    So what is the ‘spirit’ behind their interpretations? Especially since the NT teaches only servanthood. Not authority over others. Hmmm.

  32. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm #

    “You [Satan] said in your heart,
    “I will ascend to heaven;
    I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
    I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
    on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

    I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.”

    From Isaiah 14:13-14.

    There has to be spirit behind the egalitarians, and I am unsure as to what that spirit is when revisionists argue for egalitarianism.”

  33. Ferg September 30, 2008 at 2:51 pm #

    TUAD,
    you really need to be very careful with the stones you throw.

    Do you have perfect theology?

  34. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 3:08 pm #

    Ferg,

    Are you accusing me of making the claim that I have perfect theology?

    You really need to be very careful with the stones of accusations that you throw.

  35. Brian (Another) September 30, 2008 at 3:10 pm #

    Lydia:

    Agreed about the bible teaching servanthood (though, the word servanthood isn’t found in the bible, so I would assume that Don would attack that with the same ferocity as using the word headship, right?). The bible also teaches authority. It does not, however, teach superiority. I think that something that is at the fundamental root is the concept of superiority. A preacher is not superior to his congregation. A priest was not superior to Israel. A mother is not superior to a father. But they are all roles. The fact that that a mother can give birth to a child does not make her superior to the father (OK, except in the whole pain department ;-). In the same manner, to claim that a pastor (minister, priest, preacher, etc.) is superior is not biblical. But it is a duty, a role, a work, a responsibility while we are here that is given to men. It is not superiority, pastors serve their congregation. The lead their congregation, but they are not superior. They teach their congregation, but they are not superior. In the same manner women have the responsibility of nurturing a child through conception is the same way men are called to teach the congregations is the same way some are called to go to Africa for missions while others are called to be missionaries in their neighborhood is the same as a husband is called to lead his family. None of these impart superiority.

    I think that Christopher put it well when he quoted Dr. Stuart Scott:

    I love what Dr. Stuart Scott, author of “The Exemplary Husband,” says to husbands when they too eagerly bring up the subject of Christian wives submitting to their husbands– “That’s true, and I’m glad you brought up the subject of submission. Let talk about submission– *your* submission to Jesus Christ!” Scott is a complementarian, but he knows that some Christian husbands are too quick to bring up the subject of wifely submission, when the husbands themselves aren’t even living out the command to love their wives self-sacrificially, as Christ loved the church!

  36. Ferg September 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm #

    TUAD,
    No, I asked a simple question. Do you think you have perfect theology?

  37. John September 30, 2008 at 3:16 pm #

    TUAD,

    Isaiah 14 is not about Satan, it’s about the king of Babylon.

    Sorry to burst that little theological bubble for you, but that’s a myth far too many people believe. Even John Calvin said whoever believes it’s Satan is ignorant.

    Next time you use a proof-text, make sure you know what’s it’s talking about first.

  38. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    – Ferg, Are you accusing me of making the claim that I have perfect theology?

    – No, I asked a simple question.

    Since you agree that I haven’t made the claim, there’s your answer.

  39. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm #

    There has to be spirit behind the egalitarians, and I am unsure as to what that spirit is when revisionists argue for egalitarianism.

    Can someone please identify the spirit behind the egalitarians?

  40. Ferg September 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm #

    Do you like talking in riddles??
    IF you know that you don’t have perfect theology, then you must be aware that some of your thinking about the bible is wrong. Therefore, do you not think you should be a bit slower in being so condemning of others theological stances?

  41. Don September 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm #

    Pastor is not a role, it is a ministry. There is a difference.

    I want to use terms found in the Bible, as it aids in having a better chance to be Biblical. As you use terms not found in the Bible, it increases the risk to go off course.

    So I prefer to talk about a husband being a kephale/head of his wife, but using the term headship assumes an answer to the question about what kephale means, in other words, it bypasses something that needs to be discussed.

  42. Don September 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm #

    The point is we claim the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice, so we do not need to make up any more terms beyond the Bible, making up new terms is a way to deny that truth.

  43. Don September 30, 2008 at 3:44 pm #

    I believe the Holy Spirit has led me to become egal.

  44. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm #

    Ferg,

    Did Apostle Paul have perfect theology? Do you think he should have been slower in condemning others’ false teaching?

  45. Brian (Another) September 30, 2008 at 3:59 pm #

    Don:

    Actually, I agree with the statement of the bible being sufficient for faith and practice, but you’ve made arguments that the first thing we need to understand is Aristotelian writings, hence we need to understand God’s word through the lens of man. Though that’s a discussion that’s already been had.

  46. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    Don: “I believe the Holy Spirit has led me to become egal.”

    I believe the unchanging Holy Spirit has led the Church (from its inception and throughout the centuries) to be faithfully obedient to Scripture as biblical complementarians.

    As the late Dr. Gordon Clark wrote: “The Protestant Reformation, for all its opposition to Romanism, never questioned the practice of ordaining men only. Now, if this practice has continued from the time of Abraham down to 1960 or thereabouts, those who are innovators surely must bear the burden of proof. The Westminster Confession indeed says, ‘All Synods…may err, and many have erred.’ Therefore it is theoretically possible that the Reformed Presbyterian Church is in error. But when the agreement is worldwide over 4,000 years, it is, I repeat, extremely improbable. Therefore a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate the ordination of women.”

  47. Kathy September 30, 2008 at 4:04 pm #

    ‘God doesn’t have to give us a reason for any of His commands, we are only to obey. That you put your own human understanding above His law is very dangerous.’

    God’s commands are NEVER framed with a man’s words, i.e., ‘I (Paul) do not allow at this time…’? That is Paul’s command NOT God’s.

  48. Kathy September 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm #

    What spirit is behind the stopping of the teaching of biblical doctrine?

  49. Don September 30, 2008 at 4:13 pm #

    Those who call themselves comps have devised mostly new ways of interpreting Scripture to restrict women, they are NOT the same arguments as the ECF or the early prots, as all these saw women as inferior, but that will not fly today.

  50. Don September 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm #

    Brian (Another),

    What I claim it is that in some cases it is mandatory to know the cultural context of some verses, not knowing the cultural context in these cases results in taking these verses OUT of context.

  51. Ferg September 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm #

    TUAD,
    just answer my question. Comparing you and Paul is a bit of a stretch for me. Considering you are not writing the infallible word of God, and some of your theology is wrong do you not think you should be a bit slower in being so condemning of others theological stances?

  52. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 4:21 pm #

    Those who call themselves egals have devised mostly new ways of interpreting Scripture to avoid Scripture’s teachings, they are NOT the same hermeneutical arguments as the ECF or the early prots, as all these saw loving obedience and submission to God and His Word as critical, but that will not fly today with the revisionist egalitarians.

  53. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 4:22 pm #

    Ferg,

    Just answer my question. Did Apostle Paul have perfect theology? Do you think he should have been slower in condemning others’ false teaching?

  54. Ferg September 30, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    TUAD,
    at least your persistent in your petulance.
    I won’t even go down the “I asked first road” as you will probably have some snide answer in return as you tend to do.

    I do not know if Paul had perfect theology. I doubt it. I do know that his writing in scripture is perfect as it is the written word of God. So I wouldn’t doubt that.
    I don’t know if Paul should have been slower in condemning others false teaching. It’s all relative. He may not say the same to me and you now as he did back then. Just because Paul had a certain temperament does not mean we should.
    David rejoiced by smashing babies heads off rocks….is that a good thing to do?

    Do you not see my point a little bit? At least be cordial in your response please. All I ask is do you not see that you may be a bit quick in casting judgement? I know you’ve been challenged on this many times before but I ask with sincerity do you not think you may be a bit harsh in your criticisms?

  55. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 4:52 pm #

    He [Pastor Tommy Nelson] said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    I state with sincerity that I find Pastor Tommy Nelson to be loving in his criticism of egalitarianism.

  56. Ferg September 30, 2008 at 5:01 pm #

    I have a million questions I’d like to ask you TUAD but I don’t think you will allow me to get into true dialogue with you.

    I still think you are avoiding answering my question(s) which is a shame but thanks for your sincerity.

  57. Brian (Another) September 30, 2008 at 5:27 pm #

    Ferg:

    The answer to the earlier question (or questions?) is (from a complementarian*) that the egalitarian view is seen as being dismissive of text in the bible. The text is there, it isn’t a question of what is said. That is why complementarians see the egalitarian view as so dangerous. Ask most complementarians (can’t speak for all) and they would likely agree in one form or another in a theological triage of sorts. To quote Mohler, first there are crucial doctrines, “Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.”

    Second level can be disagreed upon, but create significant boundaries between believers. See baptism, for instance (or mens’/womens’ roles).

    Third would be the disagreements, but can essentially exist without issue in the same congregation (see eschatology).

    The disagreement of complementarians’ views vs. egalitarians’ views is (obviously) squarely in the second tier at a minimum. But the issue is that complementarians see an egalitarian reading of the scripture as dismissive or putting it more into human hands (or, there are many other attacks egalitarians foist as well). That is seen as a clear attack on the authority of scripture, hence that suddenly carries a weightier consideration (we’re no longer talking about whether or not to server communion wine). Additionally, these views don’t just affect small groups or some fellowship, it affects every aspect of our lives. So a discussion, while centered around pastors, it is a foundational to the Christian walk. Hence why there is such a combination of beliefs and (too often too much) emotion.

    * – I think from the egalitarian view, complementarians read the text as patriarchal (i.e. seen as a man-made condition). I am merely speaking as to why it might be important from a complementarian view. I would defer to an egalitarian to respond fully for their view, though.

  58. John September 30, 2008 at 5:30 pm #

    TUAD,

    You’re a joke bro. You honestly think you’re honoring Christ and standing up for “truth” when you act like this. You have the maturity of a 5 year old and you need to grow up and start acting like Christ. You act anti-Christ, and I don’t know how many rebukes you need from people on both sides of the debate before you realize it and repent.

  59. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 5:34 pm #

    John,

    Your insults and name-calling is honoring Christ?

  60. Brian (Another) September 30, 2008 at 5:36 pm #

    Don:

    Does:

    I believe that the woman student WOULD be sinning if she were to be a pastor, as she could not do it in faith, due to the teaching she has accepted.

    Mean that a sincere Buddhist who believes the teachings he or she accepts is not sinning? Or, rather, if I am in a church that teaches me that I can sleep with whomever I please, whenever I please and I accept it, I am not in sin? I think I know the answer to the question. It just seems that over and over a man-centric ethic presides for you (text is understood culture first, sin is understood teaching first, etc.). I would agree with Darius (though he was speaking of another commenter) in putting a human understanding above God’s law (or written word).

  61. Don September 30, 2008 at 5:41 pm #

    As an egal, I see non-egals reading WAY too much into the text; they come to some Bible text with their blue-tinted worldview of males on top and discover things they THINK means that males are on top, when it is just their blue tint.

    And to what end? To restrict women? What kind of end is that?

    And restricting women has real world effects, it is not just mostly theoretical. And then we get some non-egals saying egal is from satan (see TUAD’s quotes), which is a very divisive statement. So I have that as a concern. Yes, there are things to divide over the Mormon idea of God or the JW idea of Jesus means I cannot fellowship with them. But I can disagree with Catholics over communion but still worship God with them.

  62. Ferg September 30, 2008 at 5:41 pm #

    Brian (another),
    Thank you so much for that. I genuinely appreciate the response.
    This is where I take heart in issues like this, that someone cares to respond in a loving manner, even though we may not see the same issue in the same light through scripture.
    I really want to learn in all aspects of my thoughts on my faith, but it can be difficult when I come across arrogance and pride in the form of “wisdom and righteousness”.
    Most of us are earnest in our pursuit of holiness and it’s hard when people knock you for what you believe is right.

    I think some of us need to immerse this scripture into our hearts.

    Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

  63. Don September 30, 2008 at 5:48 pm #

    Brian (Another),

    If that is why you think I am saying, Yikes! I can see your concern, but that was not what I was saying.

    Yes, the sin lists in the NT are valid lists of sins. I was not talking about those.

    But a text out of context can become a pretext for almost anything. Ripping a verse from its pericope can alter its meaning, as that is the immediate context. Transporting a verse written in the 1st century directly into the 21st century can alter its meaning, as the one doing this might not even realize it.

    God inspired the text, but it is always the “nut behind the wheel” (namely us) that have to interpret it and can do a poor job or a good job.

  64. John September 30, 2008 at 5:50 pm #

    Alas, TUAD, always redirecting his own fault and sin and blaming it on others.

    Specks and logs anybody?

    Check box “Yes!”

  65. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 6:11 pm #

    John,

    Do your insults and name-calling honor Christ?

  66. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 6:14 pm #

    “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph. 5:11).

    Denny Burk’s blog posts and journal articles: Exposing the unfruitful works of revisionist egalitarianism.

  67. Don September 30, 2008 at 6:25 pm #

    1Th 5:5 For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.

  68. Scott September 30, 2008 at 6:44 pm #

    Who was it that said TUAD drained their life force?

    Seriously TUAD. The fact that you compared yourself to Paul is laughable if not sad. Please understand that your interpretation is not the only one on this matter. And, please understand the difference between this issue & the resurrection.

  69. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 6:44 pm #

    On this particular issue, the children of light are those who uphold and affirm The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

  70. Don September 30, 2008 at 6:49 pm #

    The children of light are the believers in Jesus.

  71. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 6:54 pm #

    The children of light are the believers in Jesus.

    Thanks Don. That’s an excellent statement about Bible-believing complementarians.

  72. Don September 30, 2008 at 7:02 pm #

    I believe BBC are my brothers in Christ. What say ye of BBE?

  73. John Inman September 30, 2008 at 8:45 pm #

    Was there more leading up to the question about Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Were they asking do you have a problem with a woman being a conservative woman being a heartbeat away from the presidency or Sarah Palin specifically?

    They all seemed to give an quick “yes” to the question.

  74. Scott September 30, 2008 at 10:04 pm #

    TUAD,

    You’ve absolutely strained any credibility you have left remaining.

    I tend to think Paul’s sharpest critiques are directed toward those, who like yourself, can’t distinguish between salvation in Christ & salvation in a specific denominational/theological grid.

  75. Lydia September 30, 2008 at 10:38 pm #

    “The bible also teaches authority.”

    Yes, Civil authority. Parental authority.

    ” It does not, however, teach superiority. I think that something that is at the fundamental root is the concept of superiority. A preacher is not superior to his congregation. A priest was not superior to Israel. A mother is not superior to a father. But they are all roles.”

    That is impossible. There is no ‘pretending’ to be something by a true Christian. We are not acting out ‘roles’. We each have gifts that we share for the edification of the Body. We are to BE Christians. Abide in Christ.

    “The fact that that a mother can give birth to a child does not make her superior to the father (OK, except in the whole pain department ;-). In the same manner, to claim that a pastor (minister, priest, preacher, etc.) is superior is not biblical. But it is a duty, a role, a work, a responsibility while we are here that is given to men.”

    Isn’t preaching prophesying? How is a pastor different from an elder? But again, there are no roles. Only spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit to each believer to function in the Body. (BTW: Scripture teaches that we have ONE teacher so we had ALL better be Bereans..even lowly women…or they may end up drinking kool aid in Guyana)

    ” It is not superiority, pastors serve their congregation. The lead their congregation, but they are not superior.”

    Does Rod Parsely know this? :o)

    ” They teach their congregation, but they are not superior. In the same manner women have the responsibility of nurturing a child through conception is the same way men are called to teach the congregations is the same way some are called to go to Africa for missions while others are called to be missionaries in their neighborhood is the same as a husband is called to lead his family. None of these impart superiority.”

    But you are wrong. Your doctrine does make men superior. you just ignore that part. You interpret scripture to make it so… when other passages negate the ones you proof text! You need to admit you do that because it benefits you. I have nothing to gain by interpreting it differently. I cannot Lord it over men by being mutually submissive to all in the Body as Eph 5 teaches. I cannot Lord it over when I interpret scripture that we are all ministers in the Holy Priesthood and have anointing. (1 John and 1 Peter)

    I do not have authority when I teach men. Only the WORD has authority. I am a mere vessel. An instrument. And I had better be dividing it rightly because when I teach I will be judged accordingly. If I think I have authority over others because I teach them, then I have a serious ego and pride problem. I am to be a servant of the Lord and to fellow believers

    ““That’s true, and I’m glad you brought up the subject of submission. Let talk about submission– *your* submission to Jesus Christ!””

    We are ALL to submit to Jesus Christ. God told Eve that she would turn AWAY from Him and turn TOWARD her husband and he would rule over her. You guys teach that as a commandment when it is really sin.

    ” Scott is a complementarian, but he knows that some Christian husbands are too quick to bring up the subject of wifely submission, when the husbands themselves aren’t even living out the command to love their wives self-sacrificially, as Christ loved the church!”

    Jesus tore the veil in two on the Cross. Women do not have an earthly authority within the Body and in Christian marriage. To even hint at such is usurping the authority of Christ in a female believers life and is dangerous ground.

    Why would Jesus leave a depraved sinner in authority over another depraved sinner in the Body? He did not. He is our High Priest and did away with the Levite priesthood. He left each of us, who are truly saved, with the Holy Spirit. We are to love one another and mutually submit to one another. We are all to seek HIM with all our hearts.

    The hand cannot say to the eye, I have no need of you.

  76. Lydia September 30, 2008 at 10:45 pm #

    “You’re a joke bro. You honestly think you’re honoring Christ and standing up for “truth” when you act like this. You have the maturity of a 5 year old and you need to grow up and start acting like Christ. You act anti-Christ, and I don’t know how many rebukes you need from people on both sides of the debate before you realize it and repent.”

    He was rebuked in the big leagues over at Pulpit Mag in a certain thread but it went right over his head.

  77. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 10:48 pm #

    Scott: “Please understand that your interpretation is not the only one on this matter.”

    Of course. There’s the singularly correct interpretation and practice of biblical complementarianism, and then there’s the rest.

    And your point is?

  78. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 11:11 pm #

    Don was rebuked in the big leagues over at Touchstone on this thread, and Lydia is too afraid to comment over there about her egalitarianism because she knows she’ll be rebuked just like Don was.

  79. John September 30, 2008 at 11:22 pm #

    Typical TUAD and typical human nature, blame somebody else when they’re called out and redirect attention.

    I see not one ounce of Christian character in you sir.

  80. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 11:25 pm #

    John: “I see not one ounce of Christian character in you sir.”

    John, this statement reveals your Christian character.

  81. Scott September 30, 2008 at 11:34 pm #

    What is Touchstones? And what makes it the “big leagues?” TUAD, step outside of your small circle and embrace a much bigger world. There are more Christians in the world, past and present, than you seem to realize. And guess what, a lot of them disagree with you!

    If you really, really believe the compl position defines the faith, then I honestly pity you. Jesus did indeed die in vain.

  82. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 30, 2008 at 11:55 pm #

    Scott,

    If you really, really believe that I made the claim that the complementarian position defines the faith, then I honestly pity you. Your education would then seem to be in vain since your reasoning skills are serving you poorly.

  83. Truth Unites.. and Divides October 1, 2008 at 12:29 am #

    Scott: “There are more Christians in the world, past and present, than you seem to realize. And guess what, a lot of them disagree with you!”

    Guess what, Scott. A lot more of them agree with Scripture (and by extension, me) than disagree, and conversely, a lot more of them disagree with you than agree with you!!!

    As the late Dr. Gordon Clark wrote: “The Protestant Reformation, for all its opposition to Romanism, never questioned the practice of ordaining men only. Now, if this practice has continued from the time of Abraham down to 1960 or thereabouts, those who are innovators surely must bear the burden of proof. The Westminster Confession indeed says, ‘All Synods…may err, and many have erred.’ Therefore it is theoretically possible that the Reformed Presbyterian Church is in error. But when the agreement is worldwide over 4,000 years, it is, I repeat, extremely improbable. Therefore a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate the ordination of women.”

  84. Sue October 1, 2008 at 12:39 am #

    And somehow, condoning slavery for 3,860 years is not a mountainous burden of proof.

  85. Scott October 1, 2008 at 2:25 am #

    TUAD,

    My reasoning skills are perfectly fine on this TUAD. Don’t try to take some hypothetical high road. I’m calling out your passive-aggressive tendencies. You continually call egalitarians heretics and cancers.

    Evidence:

    #39 – insinuates egals lack the spirit
    #52 – egals do not follow biblical teaching & do not lovingly submit to the spirit
    #66 – egals produce unfruitful works
    #69 – only comps are “children of light”

    Need I go on? Understand why I’ll engage you on this. Don’t retreat when others fight back.

  86. Brian (Another) October 1, 2008 at 9:52 am #

    Lydia:

    Regarding superiority, I’m not choosing to ignore it, I’m choosing not to see my pastor as superior to me, yet I submit to him. I’m choosing not to see my elders as superior to me, yet I submit to them. I do not seek superiority over my wife. I serve my wife. I put her needs before mine. She lovingly submits to me in our marriage. I am not superior to her, either, though. You may attach a title of “superiority”, but, in the same manner you say I ignore it, you are choosing to apply a label that fits only in your construction. It seems in one breath we submit to one another but then a sentence later say submission equals superiority for the other. I know it’s difficult to see that from your perspective. There isn’t anything I can do but explain my position. I think you would probably say the same, too.

    BTW, to state that other passages negate you are making a claim of contradiction in the bible. I believe in infallibility of the scriptures without contradictions. Also, though, the passages do not negate. And you are correct, we don’t Lord it over. Neither do we ignore it. There is far more in that, but I have already written far too much.

    Don’t know who Rod Parsely is.

    And, since you end on the eye to the hand, you are spot on. The hand submits to the head.

  87. Truth Unites.. and Divides October 1, 2008 at 9:59 am #

    My reasoning skills are perfectly fine on this TUAD.

    Cough, cough.

    I did not compare myself to Apostle Paul. Nor did I claim that complementarianism defines the faith. For you to erroneously declare that I did clearly demonstrates that your reasoning skills are deficient.

    You continually call egalitarians heretics and cancers.

    Wrong. I did not use the word heretic or heresy on this thread. Pastor Tommy Nelson is the one who made the diagnosis of egalitarianism being a deadly cancer.

    #39 – Reasonable response to John’s query about the spirit behind complementarians’ affirming, upholding, and obeying God’s Word.

    #52 – Reasonable response to Don’s comment in #49.

    #66 – An observation about Denny Burk’s choice to contend in this doctrinal issue.

    #69 – A reasonable response to Don’s comment in #67.

    Need I go on?

    You’ve already taken your pants down around your ankles. Don’t you think that’s enough?

    Don’t retreat when others fight back.

    Interesting that you think I’m retreating.

    However, please do note this. When arguments for egalitarianism are shown to be lacking, egalitarians then resort to ad hominem attacks as if that bolsters their case. Then when their ad hominem attacks are rebuffed, they scream like angry, crazed banshees.

    Even though tiresome, such behavior is understandable.

  88. Don October 1, 2008 at 10:17 am #

    I also believe the Bible is without contradictions also, as it was inspired by one Spirit. But a question arises when there are APPARENT contradictions. The solution is that when this happens this shows the need to dig deeper.

    The deeper I dig the more egal I become.

  89. Truth Unites.. and Divides October 1, 2008 at 10:39 am #

    The deeper I dig the more egal I become.

    ‘Nuff said.

  90. Kathy October 1, 2008 at 11:11 am #

    ‘And, since you end on the eye to the hand, you are spot on. The hand submits to the head.’

    When Paul talks about the eye, hand, feet, head, do you think then that Christ is a member, ‘the head’ of his own body? In Eph 5, Paul talks about the head (Christ)/body (church) metaphor and ALSO at the end of the passage says that we are all members of Christ’s body (which is made up of eye, feet, head, hand etc).

  91. Brian (Another) October 1, 2008 at 11:20 am #

    TUAD:

    Just stop.

    BK

  92. Kathy October 1, 2008 at 11:22 am #

    Am curious to know how comps would respond to believers, male and female being members, as either a head, feet, eye, hand, etc of the body? Can it be imagined? A female being a memebr of the body as a head, a male an eye? Paul doesn’t say that males are only memebers as a head while females the feet or hand.

  93. Don October 1, 2008 at 11:48 am #

    Watch out for mixing metaphors. Both metaphors use body parts, but that does not mean the 2 metaphors are to be understood together, they are not.

  94. Scott October 1, 2008 at 1:44 pm #

    TUAD,

    “You’ve already taken your pants down around your ankles. Don’t you think that’s enough?”

    Be a man TUAD instead of acting like a 12-year old playing on the computer when mom’s out running errands. Comments like the one above have absolutely no business on this blog or any other. If you ascribe to the faith you claim, despite our differences, then you need to stop inciting those who disagree with you. I will fight for my beliefs but I will not fight you in a needless verbal exchange that does nothing to build up character. Attack my views! Go at my exegesis. But do not resort to name calling or immature taunting. “Pants around my ankles.” Are you kidding?

    I’m up for a board vote to block TUAD if this junk keeps up. Denny, I have no problem with the comp position, and certainly no problem with what you post. I enjoy the debate. But, can we do something about the needless name calling and vicious rhetoric? It contributes absolutely nothing to further the discussion and detracts from an otherwise outstanding blog.

  95. John October 1, 2008 at 1:52 pm #

    got my vote

  96. Ferg October 1, 2008 at 5:06 pm #

    well put Scott.

  97. Lydia October 1, 2008 at 6:40 pm #

    “She lovingly submits to me in our marriage.”

    You have the CBMW adjectives down pat. (wink)

    ” I am not superior to her, either, though.”

    Good for you. I think that is great you think that way. is she allowed to teach you scripture?

    “BTW, to state that other passages negate you are making a claim of contradiction in the bible. ”

    Not at all. I claim YOUR interpretation is infallible and contradicts other scriptures.

    “I believe in infallibility of the scriptures without contradictions.”

    Me too. And my interpretation does not contradict other passages where woman are prophesying and leaders within the Body.

    ” Also, though, the passages do not negate. And you are correct, we don’t Lord it over. Neither do we ignore it. There is far more in that, but I have already written far too much.”

    By denying women equal spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit, you are lording it over because of a faulty interpretation. I fear for you all.

    “Don’t know who Rod Parsely is.”

    Another celebrity pastor on TV. Part of the long chain of celebrity Christians who have made ministry a career path.

    “And, since you end on the eye to the hand, you are spot on. The hand submits to the head.”

    Kathy nailed you on this one. This is part of your faulty interpretation. It is really sad.

  98. Adam Omelianchuk October 1, 2008 at 6:54 pm #

    How exactly is Touchstone the “big leagues?” compared to here? Is http://www.dennyburk.com little league stuff? That’s pretty insulting, especially when the proprietor of this blog is the editor of CBMW’s journal!

  99. Brian (Another) October 2, 2008 at 11:12 am #

    Lydia (and Kathy):

    Just to go back to the body comparison, I was keying off of the comparison Kathy made. I was wrong to take it to mean something I shouldn’t. Sorry about getting it wrong there, my bad.

    I suppose to clarify, in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul refers to the body of believers as just that, a body. None are more important than the others. In Christ alone we have our value and we all have equal value as such. So regardless of your service, it is service to the body of Christ. All are equal, though. Some are called to go to foreign lands, others remain in their home. Some are called to bear children, others are not. Some are called to be elders, some are called to be church planters, etc. All are equal, but not all are called, able or even willing to do anything.

    Regarding Ephesians 5, Christ is called the head of the church. He guides, leads, directs, etc. In the same manner, Paul compares a husband as well.

    I (incorrectly) combined the two (I agree with Don, that I have to be careful on mixing there), going to a one flesh union concept. But those should remain distinct representations. Again, sorry about that.

  100. Brian (Another) October 2, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    Lydia:

    Me too. And my interpretation does not contradict other passages where woman are prophesying and leaders within the Body.

    Neither does a complementarian view. It’s faulty logic to say that if there is an example in the bible that goes against a command, it must mean the command is nullified.

    By denying women equal spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit, you are lording it over because of a faulty interpretation. I fear for you all.

    I understand your view of what is stated. And you are correct that if we have a faulty interpretation we are sinning. I hope that with the fear comes prayer for me (well, for all complementarians). And that isn’t being a snide remark, I truly ask you to pray for me.

    That said, a complementarian view does not deny equal spiritual gifts. A complementarian view does see that we don’t get to define when and where we get to use our gifts. God guides us to use them. Where God has spoken on something, we stay with the word (see speaking in tongues), even if it’s not the way we want. When God has put a physical limitation, we don’t try to change the limitation (see childbirth). And on.

  101. Don October 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    Brian (Another) wrote: “Regarding Ephesians 5, Christ is called the head of the church. He guides, leads, directs, etc. In the same manner, Paul compares a husband as well.”

    Please check out what actions Christ does as head, ALL of them are serving functions, NONE are leading functions. It is beyond Scriptural warrant to add in leading function when they are not being discussed in the passage in question.

  102. Don October 2, 2008 at 1:02 pm #

    Brian (Another):

    Of course we are to respect Scriptural limits on the use of gifts. All is to be done in order.

    The question is that there are a few verses that MIGHT limit women, but they do not need to be understood that way.

  103. James October 2, 2008 at 10:45 pm #

    I come from a complementarian background, but I’m really torn on this issue, as I have very close friends on both sides, and scholars who I respect greatly on both sides. I have a couple of questions for you all who probably know more about all of this than I do. Is it true that the believers throughout church history have been primarily complementarian? How have most of the saints who have gone before us interpreted some of the key texts regarding this issue? Also, for those who are egalitarian…how would you define femininity and masculinity? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

  104. Truth Unites... and Divides October 3, 2008 at 8:55 am #

    James: “Is it true that the believers throughout church history have been primarily complementarian?”

    Yes.

    As the late Dr. Gordon Clark wrote: “The Protestant Reformation, for all its opposition to Romanism, never questioned the practice of ordaining men only. Now, if this practice has continued from the time of Abraham down to 1960 or thereabouts, those who are innovators surely must bear the burden of proof. The Westminster Confession indeed says, ‘All Synods…may err, and many have erred.’ Therefore it is theoretically possible that the Reformed Presbyterian Church is in error. But when the agreement is worldwide over 4,000 years, it is, I repeat, extremely improbable. Therefore a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate the ordination of women.”

    How have most of the saints who have gone before us interpreted some of the key texts regarding this issue?

    See what Dr. Clark wrote above. Church historical practice is based on what and how the saints have interpreted the key texts regardng this issue.

    Roman Catholic Church: No priestesses.

    Eastern Orthodox Church: No priestesses.

    Protestant Churches: Generally, no women pastors/elders for centuries after the Reformation.

  105. Don October 3, 2008 at 9:52 am #

    James,

    I am egal and will try to address your questions. Up until quite recently, the reason that women could not be leaders was that it was clear that they were inferior. It is actually quite shocking to read the ECF, Aquinas, and prot reformers on this. Some things they wrote are incredibly sexist.

    Almost all the arguments put forward by CBMW are actually quite new, because the inferior argument simply will not fly today.

    Femininity is what is done by females and masculinity is what is done by males. The genders are to complement each other, but marriage is a partnership, not a hierarchy. There are some physical attributes that only females have, such as the ability to bear and birth kids, and to breast feed them; and some physical attributes that only males have, such as the ability to impregnate a female. Such physical differences can influence how each gender typically behaves, but these are generalizations.

  106. Lydia October 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm #

    “James: “Is it true that the believers throughout church history have been primarily complementarian?”

    Yes.”

    No. They were Patriarchist who believed that women were inferior. That ‘started’ changing around the early 1900’s and by the 70’s would not fly as doctrine anymore. We see CBMW coming out with the Danvers statement in the 1980’s completely repudiating the doctrine that women were inferior. However, NOW there are only inferior to men in ‘role’. In effect, they responded to the culture.

    You can drive Mac trucks through the holes in the Danvers Statement. McGregor Wright wrote a response in 1991 that is brilliant and shows the inconsistencies and false teaching in that statement. It is a ‘cultural’ document in that it responds to the culture.

    We are seeing the fallout right now with their inconsistency on Palin since she is a professing Christian woman. If her husband is her ‘head’ (authority, as they define the word Kephale) in all things then, in effect, HE will be VP. Not her.

    Christians do not have ‘realms’. If Palin is a Christian then she is a Christian as the VP and the CBMW ‘roles’ apply there, too, since they use ‘creation order’ as their proof of inherent male hierarchies. UNLESS they are giving Palin a pass which they tend to do. (They gave Mrs. Criswell a pass on teaching men saying she was under her husband’s authority even though he was not in the room!) They have painted themselves in a corner on this one big time.

    Piper even wrote a piece for CBMW awhile back about women in the workplace who had men reporting to them. Here is what he wrote:

    “A drill sergeant is the essence of directive leadership. On the other hand non-directive leadership is much closer to entreaty and suggestion. A good example of non-directive leadership is when Abigail talked David out of killing Nabal (1 Samuel 25:23-35). She was totally successful in guiding David’s behavior but did it in a very non-directive way.

    My principle then is this: To the degree that a woman’s leadership of man is personal it needs to be non-directive. And to the degree that it is directive it needs to be impersonal. To the degree that a woman consistently offers directive, personal leadership to a man, to that degree will his God-given manhood – his sense of responsibility in the relationship – be compromised. What’s at stake every time a man and a woman relate to each other is not merely competence (that is very naive), but also whether God-given manhood and womanhood are affirmed in the dynamics of the relationship.

    http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Sermons/Affirming-the-Goodness-of-Manhood-and-Womanhood-in-All-of-Life

    Perhaps you can explain to me how a woman CEO or even VP can have anything other than a ‘personal and directive’ relationship with her male direct reports? How does that dimish the male direct report’s ‘responsiblity’ in that relationship since he is responsible to her as his boss?

    How can Palin do her job if she follows this teaching from CBMW? She can’t. She can only use ‘suggestion’ and ‘entreaty’ as VP to her direct male reports.

    I am wondering if CBMW is going to change their teaching on this subject. They tend to do that often. Adding to their Talmud over there. :o)

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes