Anyone who teaches something they do not believe themselves is teaching a lie. They should not do this. However, this is very different from teaching what one believes. In this case the question is whether one is deceived or not about what one believes. And there are many ways to be deceived, one obvious example is to interpret Scripture on the new covenant in a way that gives an advantage to a group of which I am a member; this is what kings did and what slaveholders did. I claim that it is also possibly what non-egals do.

I do not think others who claim salvation and belief in the Bible are heretics. We may differ on many things, but my understanding is that I am to accept those who call on the name of the Lord as brothers and sisters UNLESS they are in unrepentent persistent sin.

I am available for further discussion if desired.

Thanks for speaking up for me!

Ferg:

I traditionally, also, hold to phrases such as misguided or proud. I think when it began its usage here, it was a show of importance more than anything else (i.e. this is an issue that was deemed more than just a rites or rituals or similar views (again, to refer to Dr. Mohler, tier 3 disagreements)). I do firmly hold to the dangers about which Grudem, Dr. Ware, etc. warn regarding biblical authority and egalitarianism. In the same manner, you (and other egals) hold firmly to the dangers of someone applying comp teaching in a manner that is sinful (e.g. abuse, etc.). So…..

You are spot on about the disagreement. 1700 posts don’t solve it. I don’t think it’s something that will ever be “solved”. There’s not much of a compromise between them. Not to say there can’t be mutual respect, but I think the way the 1700 posts went is the way it will go (well, there were some unkind things said, so, those excluded). It’s highly charged with emotion, so it can easily erupt into a lessening or ignoring of respect. But I hope it’s not something we ignore (again, the importance highlighted). Well, have a superb day.

My concern lies with the increased stridency of the pat movement. It is actually fairly easy for folks to cooperate in reasonable comp/egal settings. The agreement to disagree rarely takes on “heretical” dimensions.

S. M. Hutchens has lowered the bar, so to speak…and in so doing not only alienates the faithful, but invites damning secular critique of the body of Christ. Hutchens can bring it at Touchstone, but if the plan is to chuck such bombs outside of the Touchstone community…it is going to get very ugly, very quickly.

I have often found TUAD’s quotes to be helpful, as this one was.

Deborah was both a political and spiritual leader, and as such it seems that the plain meaning is that a woman could be a leader in the church.

Where does the scripture plainly teach that a women may not be elder in a NT church?

I do believe that a woman can be a leader as Deborah was. I do not believe that a woman should be an elder in an NT church – because I believe Scripture plainly teaches so.

I’ve called you out for quote-harping before, so I should also express when I feel you get it right – and that quote was relevant and helpful, my friend. Thanks.

Ferg, apology accepted.

Sue: “I am shocked at the way Hutchens speaks of Rev. Donna Hailson, claiming a common faith one year and calling egalitarians all heretics the next.”

I am NOT shocked at all at how badly Sue misconstrues Dr. Hutchens, particularly given how I’ve seen her misrepresent and distort Dr. Grudem, Dr. Ware, et al in past blog threads.

Let’s let Dr. Hutchens’ words speak for themselves:

“Which brings me to the Reverend Donna Hailson, of whose divine call to her office I am clearly skeptical, and who is the most visibly upset with me of any of the respondents. … If you asked the Baptists who raised me why they didn’t—and still don’t—have female pastors, the firm and considered answer would be that it is unbiblical.

…

One readily grants, and is thankful for, our shared confession, but in the eyes of such as we, egalitarian Christianity is based on an error in doctrine, therefore contains a virus we would be unwilling to spread by the actions and processes that accompany united efforts in evangelization and church renewal. Those who share my convictions do not think it a small problem—a matter upon which disagreement may be placed to the side—but a mortally dangerous one that reaches quickly to the very heart of the doctrine of God, and is in high likelihood the principal heresy against which the Western Church of our own age is called to struggle. We are not assured that egalitarians mean what we do when they as evangelists preach “Christ,” for we see their defective anthropology as entailing a defective Christology as well.

…

We know her [Hailson] as a courageous advocate for the parts of the faith we profess to hold in common, and have no intention of “vilifying” such as she, unless one equates the firm and well-elaborated refusal to accept her theology of the ministry as vilification. This, and the additional charge that denial of the pastorate to women silences or denigrates them is feminist rhetoric that must be played to some other gallery than Touchstone’s.

There are, as I indicated in my critique, things we can do together. On the other hand, we have every intention of calling the egalitarians wrong, and insisting it is the innovations they have imposed upon the churches that have made the new and stratospherically high barriers to fellowship for which they wish to blame us.”

Read it all at The Divide That Is There, S. M. Hutchens on Egalitarian Christianity.

I am sorry if I seemed to assume what you believe. I do know those who believe that women have a different role in the different eras.

Why do you not believe that a woman can be the leader as Deborah was?