Radio Debate with the Pastor of IBC

On Monday I wrote about Irving Bible Church (IBC) and their elders’ recent decision to allow a woman to fill their pulpit. On Monday evening, I debated IBC’s pastor Andy McQuitty on the topic. The discussion occurred on my good friend Barry Creamer’s radio program “Live from Criswell.”

If you are interested in hearing the discussion, you can listen to it below or download it here.

[audio:http://barrycreamer.com/audio/broadcasts/LFC-2008_08_25.mp3]

I think you’ll find that this discussion leaves much to be desired in one very important sense. There just wasn’t enough time to talk about everything that needed to be talked about. But that’s just the nature of the beast in a one-hour radio program. In any case, I was grateful for the opportunity to address this very important issue on the air with Barry and Andy.

126 Responses to Radio Debate with the Pastor of IBC

  1. Sue August 27, 2008 at 3:28 am #

    Denny,

    1. What is the evidence for a positive meaning for authenteo? This remains undeclared although you insisted that it exists. There is a negative use for didaskein.

    2. You state that the Artemis cult had not seeped into the cult? Was there a hermetic seal between the common practices of Ephesus and the new converts to the church?

  2. Sue August 27, 2008 at 3:29 am #

    Scratch #2 try again.

    2. You state that the Artemis cult had not seeped into the church? Was there a hermetic seal between the common practices of Ephesus and the new converts to the church?

  3. kathy August 27, 2008 at 4:50 am #

    Hi Denny,

    I have some questions:

    1. How can chronological ordering = hierarchal ordering logicaly?

    2. How can we be sure that Paul was not allowing all women from teaching all men for all time when he intentionaly shifts from plural ‘women’ in vv9 & 10 to ‘a woman’ in v.11 and then ends the paragraph on ‘a woman’ and ‘a man’ that is in a context of false teachers with ‘she’ will be saved if ‘they’?

    3. When Paul gave commands of the Lord he said ‘the Lord’s command’ so how can what Paul says introduced with ‘I’ be equal to a universal prohibiton from/of God or the Lord? Are not all universal prohibions given by God directly but this would be an exception when viewed as a universal prohibition?

    4. How can we know that Paul is speaking about head relations when he never talks about head relations in the 1 Tim 2 passage or it’s context? When he talks about kephale he directly uses kephale like in Eph 5 and 1 Co 11 so how do we know it is correct to import an idea of ‘headship’ (to put comp style) into this text?

    5. Since Paul mentions Adam’s being created first, and then Eve, a chronological order that is, and if this is why man has headship of woman (or husband of wife) then how come where Paul does actualy use the word kephale in 1 Co 11 he talks about the woman coming From the man BUT NOT After him that is, how come when he actualy uses the word kephale in 1 Co 11 Paul does not speak of Adam being created first and then Eve chronologicaly? Also how come when he uses kephale in Ehp 5 he talks about the woman again coming out of man at the end of the passage but as the mystery of Christ and the church?

  4. kathy August 27, 2008 at 4:55 am #

    The last statement of question #5 should have been ‘Also how come when Paul uses kephale in Eph 5 he talks AGAIN about the woman coming from the man at the ned of the passage but as the mystery of Christ and the church, and there too leaves out, just as he did in 1 Co 11, the chronological order of man and woman’s creation?’

  5. Branden August 27, 2008 at 9:58 am #

    This may be more apt here, so Denny post as you will.

    I am a former member of IBC. I believe it is a church that does have a heart for God. I tend to agree with what David has posted.

    To be honest on my view, I am a complement. I did not leave IBC due to this issue. I moved and where I now live, Denton Bible is the closest bible church. Though I think I probably disagree with Russ and Steve Hayes (guys posting here that have been involved with IBC ministerially) I think they are men that love God and I have respect for them, though I may disagree with their views. They are good men with good hearts for their Lord, of that there is no doubt. Howdy fellas.

    Back to what David posted. I too felt there were some more liberal movement in IBC that made me uncomfortable even before I left. I think that having women preach at IBC might in fact increase attendance at IBC, not reduce it. Not because I think it is the right path, but I think it is the most world welcomed path. I believe there is a strong movement in the church in the direction of feminisation and feminism pushed forth by the post modern world view that surrounds us.

    Also to be clear, initially what attracted to me to IBC was that the Bible was taught expositional. In the years of my attendance, it has moved away from this. I liked a bigger church, but at the same time, I don’t like the Saddleback Corporate Church Model.

    I imagine that those that leave IBC over this subject will do so without declaring it. In fact, if asked directly, I bet they would be reluctant to state that the women’s role issue would be why they did. To do so would be most, for a lack of a better term, un-politically correct. The implications, though not intended, make one look like at least a heel if not a woman-hater (in the extreme).

    David Says:
    August 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
    I have read through the many responses on this issue so I felt compelled to throw in my two cents.

    My wife and I, along with our two children, have attended Irving Bible Church over the last 10 years. Over the last 2-3 years, we have noticed the church, as a whole, has taken a more ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ turn in its tone and its teachings. Although my wife and I became concerned with the direction IBC began to take, we pressed on, relying on the Lord to direct our decision to stay. The female pastor thing pretty much solidified our position on the church. Not so much the issue itself, but the method by which Andy announced to the congregation that ‘next week we will have our first female PASTOR delivering the message!’ There was a tremendous roar of approval from about 25% of those in attendance. Then Andy began to tell a story about a man that used to complain to him, as he put it, after almost every sermon about the message or the reverence of the church….etc.. He basically told the man to like it or leave it. The MAJORITY of the congregation laughed in approval over that one. It was plain to me right then and there, that the elders do have a plan, a vision, and a direction for IBC that we, as a family, should not be a part of. They have their vision and if you don’t like it, you can always leave. Thats what I took from the message that day. Well, we are leaving.

  6. Phil August 27, 2008 at 10:13 am #

    If we are going to be absolutely literal in our reading of Paul, and not engage in any sort of trajectory hermeneutic, than why do men let women teach in the church at all?

    Why shouldn’t women be told that they are to be “silent” in the church, not teach AT ALL (not even to other women, to youth, or to children — so long as they are in church), and if they do have a question or comment they are to wait until they are home and then address those questions and comments to their husbands?

    Wouldn’t that be the most faithful, literal interpretation of the scriptures?

    Mind you, I don’t think the above is what Paul was calling for at all. I do note, however, that complementarians are not nearly as literal in their reading of Paul on this subject as they would like others to think.

  7. Don August 27, 2008 at 10:38 am #

    A few points on the radio “debate”.

    1. It was very chopped up due to time constraints being invoked many times. This means it ends up being similar to sound bites trying to score points.

    2. Denny seemed to cut in on Andy a few times. I thought this was not fully respectful of Andy. I did not see the reverse so much.

    3. It was a bit of a tag team on Andy, so I thought Andy did very well considering.

    4. Given such a complex subject, this was not such a good forum to discuss these issues. But sometimes something is better than nothing.

  8. Don August 27, 2008 at 11:04 am #

    Some comments on the things discussed in the debate.

    1. The inspired word of God that we have today is in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. As a translation involves interpretation and cannot help this as it involves word choices, using any specific translation can skew the discussion. It is a form of “stacking the deck” to choose one’s favorite translation and not be discussing the Greek text in this puzzling case.

    2. Disdaskein (to teach) is used in both a positive and negative sense in the NT. Authentein as it is not used and is much more problematical, but at the least it had a negative sense. Ben Witherington points out there are at least 3 possible meanings for 1 Tim 2:12 only one of which results in permanent limitations on women.

    3. Given these uncertainties, it seems clear to me that some people are choosing to interpret this verse in one way or another based on other factors. When this is the case, there should be graciousness for others who interpret it differently.

  9. Benjamin A August 27, 2008 at 11:52 am #

    Early in the program Pastor Andy equates Priscilla and Aquila’s instructing Apollos to biblical instruction in the church. He said Pricilla shouldn’t teach Apollos if 1 Tim. 2:12 were true.

    There is however a fundamental difference between Priscilla and Aquila instructing Apollos and a woman teaching/exercising authority over men in a church context. I will assume the best and chalk that up as Pastor Andy misspeaking.

    Also, Pastor Andy made a significant issue of Priscilla’s name being mentioned first in Acts 18:26 as if to make her the dominate teacher; but the text simply says “they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” This was something “they” did together. This was not a church context. In no way was she violating 1 Tim. 2:12. I would also point out that in Acts 18:2 that Aquila’s name comes before Priscilla’s name which indicates that they were each named first at least once in the same chapter (I know, that was deep…).

  10. Russ August 27, 2008 at 12:22 pm #

    Benjamin…

    Can you define ‘church context’ particularly in the context of the state of the church in Acts 28?

    Denny…

    As I mentioned on the other thread, Andy was not in any way prepared for a debate format and had no idea you were even going to be on the show. I’ll bet you knew he was going to be! It reminded me very much of what happened to Francis Beckwith in an earlier interview on a similar show. He was told that he was being invited on to share his thoughts and help listeners understand his decision to convert to the RCC but instead was grilled. His surprise and hurt was evident. I guess this is the way these types of shows work sometimes. Anyway, in light of such I thought Andy did a super job. Heck, I thought he did a super job regardless!

  11. Russ August 27, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    Denny…

    I thought the comment about Mrs. Criswell’s class at First Baptist Dallas was interesting. Do you see that as different than what happened at IBC last Sunday? If so, please explain.

  12. Adam Omelianchuk August 27, 2008 at 12:45 pm #

    Benjamin A,

    Why does the public/private issue matter when men are considered to be the “spiritual leaders” of women via male headship (1 Cor 11)? It seems to me that Prisca was exercising spiritual authority over a man no matter what way you look at it, and that it is a violation of the created differences between men and women in the complementarian system.

  13. Don August 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm #

    I think there is a fundamental question that needs to be asked:

    1. Is truth truth because it is truth or because it is spoken by a male?

    2. If a female would say the same thing that a male would say, how can it be wrong for a female to say it and right for a male to say it?

    Yes there are a few (very few) puzzling verses that have lots of debate as to their meaning. Just from 30,000 feet, one can see that this means the verses are not super clear. That is, faithful people can have different understandings of some verses and the challenge in this case is to maintain the unity of the Spirit, when there is no unity of the faith, per Ephesians 4.

    In other words, if Gamaliel the Jew can recommend a wait-and-see attitude in regard to the Jewish sect of the Way in the NT, why cannot we do this to our brothers and sisters that are in Christ?

  14. John August 27, 2008 at 1:25 pm #

    Not a very good defense of Priscilla and Aquilla from Denny.

    “Authentein” is not clear and based upon the evidence it is probably negative. However, you constantly claim it is positive based upon your presuppositions and a bad study and article by Kostenberger.

    “Saved through child bearing” is not clear at all.

    Denny, you really acted like a jerk when the pastor mentions the occult. You use background material and sometimes it’s not as simple as it just “being in the text.” This is why people just don’t want to talk to you guys about this when they disagree. By it not “being in the text” doesn’t strengthen your point at all and doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    The call-in guy uses a slippery-slope argument, and they are wrong about 99% of the time.

    You’re not consistent with your interpretation of 1 Tim, I have yet to see a complementarian who is.

    You don’t seem to understand “trajectory hermeneutics” at all. Just what do you say about slavery anyways? You’ve always dodged this question or directed somebody to some article that they can’t find.

    If the issue is not if women are gifted or capable, then there is no spirit behind the law and your case is pointless. Creation order doesn’t mean anything and Phyllis Trible has proven that wrong based upon Genesis. The same can be said of Adam “naming” Eve. This are things that hold no exegetical weight and you just use to back up your point.

    “No evidence” is strong language regarding cultic practice and you have “no evidence” about that. 1 Tim wasn’t written in a vacuum and it certainly wasn’t written with 21 century USA in mind. I’m sure you’re not consistent in your approach to something not being “explicitly” in the text. Just because it’s not explicit doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    Admit it Denny, this issue is not as clear as you would like it to be and all sides strive to be “biblical.” Please stop acting like it’s the end of the world and the worst thing ever. It’s not a “cancer” or a “virus” and some need to grow up and realize what’s more important.

  15. Sue August 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm #

    The cult of Artemis is talked about in Acts. To think that it had no connection to people coming into the church in Ephesus is rather odd.

    Here is the only occurrence of the verb authenteo previous to the NT use.

    ἐν μηδενὶ ἀντιλογία7
    γενηθῆ(ναι) ἐξέστην. καὶ ἐμοῦ8
    αὐθεντηκότος πρὸς αὐτὸν
    περιποιῆσαι Καλατύτει
    40 τῶι ναυτικῶι ἐπὶ τῷ
    αὐτῶι φόρωι ἐν τῆι ὥραι
    ἐπεχώρησεν. τὴν δὲ
    μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξηκολου-
    θηκυῖαν ὕβριν μετα-
    45 πε[μ]φ̣θ̣εὶς ὑπὸ ωοῦ ὁ
    [Καλατ]ύτις ἐξηγή-
    [σατό μ]οι ἀκεραίως.

    It clearly has little to do with having legal or attributed authority.

  16. jb August 27, 2008 at 2:36 pm #

    Ah, Mrs. Criswell’s class at First Baptist.
    There’s a long, interesting history that has many complexities. But I kinda suspect based upon some written and oral histories; FBD might have been better served if Mrs. C had NOT been allowed to teach. So I’m not sure she’s a good argument for the egalitarian team.

  17. Russ August 27, 2008 at 2:46 pm #

    jb…

    I am not concerned about the effectiveness of Mrs. Criswell, or whether that situation is a good argument or not. I’m just trying to get a bead on whether IBC is doing anything fundamentally different in practice than FBD.

    Denny?

  18. Kathy August 27, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    ‘1. Is truth truth because it is truth or because it is spoken by a male?’

    This is a great question.

    I would also ask in relation to the question, does the truth only matter when taught by a man?

  19. Kathy August 27, 2008 at 2:54 pm #

    John said:

    ‘You’re not consistent with your interpretation of 1 Tim, I have yet to see a complementarian who is.’

    John, can you further explain for me because I am interested in what you mean.

    Thanks

  20. Kathy August 27, 2008 at 2:56 pm #

    John said:
    ‘If the issue is not if women are gifted or capable, then there is no spirit behind the law and your case is pointless.’

    Could you further expand on this for me for my benefit?

  21. Moz August 27, 2008 at 3:06 pm #

    Russ,

    You raise a good question about Mrs. Criswell, and this seems to be the inconsistency Andy spoke about in the interview/debate/intervention. I dissagree with IBC’s allowing a woman to preach, but at least they have the integrity to hold a consistent posittion. I hope someone address your question.

  22. Don August 27, 2008 at 3:10 pm #

    I do not think it is appropriate to say a pastor “acted like a jerk” in this case.

    I think it is correct to see the cultural context for every book of the Bible and for 1 Tim, Artemis is relevant; this cult can be expected to have taught things that are not appropriate for believers.

    My personal take is that this is why Paul is using some unusual words and phrases in 1 Tim, my hypothesis is that Paul is showing how to use the words in a correct way for believers, but using the very words that the new believers that were formerly pagan used in a wrong way. That is, he is redeeming their words by example. Timothy would have caught such as well as the Ephesian church, but today we get to scratch our heads some.

  23. Benjamin A August 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    John said, “You don’t seem to understand “trajectory hermeneutics” at all. Just what do you say about slavery anyways? You’ve always dodged this question or directed somebody to some article that they can’t find.

    John, were you able to look over the context of 1 Corinthians 7:21 as a solution to the slavery issue without the use of trajectory; Paul wrote, “Where you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if YOU ARE ABLE also to become free, rather DO THAT.”

    As I’ve already mentioned, ‘You will need to read it all in context of course, but Paul clearly is saying to a brother of sister in Christ, who were saved (called) while in slavery (1) to not worry about being a slave (see v.22 for Paul’s reasoning) or (2) if your able to get out of being a slave (become free) to do that over not worrying about being someone’s slave. Free yourself if you are able to do so.’

    It seems this is the answer for the slavery question. Pastor Andy also brings up the slavery issue as a major point in discerning the proper use of the said trajectory hermeneutic. It seems that 1 Corinthians 7:21 really silences that issue all together. If I’m missing something here please help me out. Thanks John.

  24. Brian (Another) August 27, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    Kathy (#17)/Don (#12):

    No, truth is truth. Did anyone say otherwise? That question seems to allude to reasoning behind scripture (i.e. why are things commanded). We don’t know all of the reasons that Scripture ordains the order it does.

    And, regarding Traj. Herm. (which, as I read it seems to be the very clear reasoning (support?) behind IBF, but perhaps I’m not understanding their statement correctly or reading too much into it), what has Denny misrepresented wrt TH (I like acronyms)? I think Pastor Nelson’s comments and others’ concerns with this approach is the obvious slide into syncretism. Hence the stressed importance of these issues and some of the stark language.

    From my personal reading, I would take John’s (#13) statement of ”1 Tim wasn’t written in a vacuum and it certainly wasn’t written with 21 century USA in mind.” very dangerous. Without belaboring the point, to me (and I have been known to be misguided and (gasp) wrong at times), that is a direct attack on the inspiration. While the writer (Paul) didn’t know about the IC engine, computer chips or music by Toby Keith, the author was God and I do believe whole heartedly that he “understood” 21st cen. USA, given that He is the author of all history. Additionally, day to day lives perhaps are different, but are the issues faced by the church in 21st century really different? That same statement seems like it would be complete acquiescing for whatever makes things palatable. Don’t like the idea of divorce? Well, the early century Jews/Christians just didn’t understand how well our courts can provide for the mother. Don’t like the idea that we should stay faithful? Well, the early cen. J/C didn’t understand genetics and how I’m predisposed to it. The arguments go on and on. Doesn’t mean we ignore the culture aspect, but that’s beyond a simple “accounting”, I think.

    Also, I cannot listen (sad), so some of this could be a direct result of the broadcast, I just don’t know it.

  25. Benjamin A August 27, 2008 at 3:40 pm #

    Russ, post #10

    Apollos was teaching in the synagogue, and in attendance that day was Priscilla and Aquila. After hearing Apollos teach they realized he could use some more instruction concerning “the way of God”. So “they took him ASIDE and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” This was in no way a public teaching for the benefit of the those in attendance that day, but was for Apollos and his continued education; this wasn’t a case where Priscilla and Aquila (who wasn’t just carrying his wife’s prayer cloth); got up front and were teaching the assembly in the synagogue. They did this on the side, probably in private.

    Now, look at the context of 1 Tim. 2:12 all the way to chapter 3 verse 15 and we find that all this instruction has a purpose; “SO THAT you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” Women are not to teach/exercise authority over men in the context of the church.

    So, clearly Priscilla and Aquila were not in violation of 1 Tim. 2:12 in any way. Priscilla was not teaching or exercising authority over Apollos “in the household of God, which is the church…”.

  26. Don August 27, 2008 at 3:47 pm #

    Ben A.,

    I hope you know that the way the translation you are using translates 1 Tim 2:12 is not the only way to translate it. This is crucial for the debate to understand that what you have is simply one possibility, but there are others.

  27. Russ August 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm #

    Benjamin…

    Thanks for the answer.

    However, I do not follow the logic regarding your line between what constitutes “in the context of the church” and what isn’t, particularly from a Protestant/Evangelical standpoint.

  28. John August 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    Not a very good defense of Priscilla and Aquilla from Denny.

    “Authentein” is not clear and based upon the evidence it is probably negative. However, you constantly claim it is positive based upon your presuppositions and a bad study and article by Kostenberger.

    “Saved through child bearing” is not clear at all.

    Denny, you really acted like a jerk when the pastor mentions the occult. You use background material and sometimes it’s not as simple as it just “being in the text.” This is why people just don’t want to talk to you guys about this when they disagree. By it not “being in the text” doesn’t strengthen your point at all and doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    The call-in guy uses a slippery-slope argument, and they are wrong about 99% of the time.

    You’re not consistent with your interpretation of 1 Tim, I have yet to see a complementarian who is.

    You don’t seem to understand “trajectory hermeneutics” at all. Just what do you say about slavery anyways? You’ve always dodged this question or directed somebody to some article that they can’t find.

    If the issue is not if women are gifted or capable, then there is no spirit behind the law and your case is pointless. Creation order doesn’t mean anything and Phyllis Trible has proven that wrong based upon Genesis. The same can be said of Adam “naming” Eve. These are things that hold no exegetical weight and you just use to back up your point.

    “No evidence” is strong language regarding cultic practice and you have “no evidence” about that. 1 Tim wasn’t written in a vacuum and it certainly wasn’t written with 21 century USA in mind. I’m sure you’re not consistent in your approach to something not being “explicitly” in the text. Just because it’s not explicit doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    Admit it Denny, this issue is not as clear as you would like it to be and all sides strive to be “biblical.” Please stop acting like it’s the end of the world and the worst thing ever. It’s not a “cancer” or a “virus” and some need to grow up and realize what’s more important.

  29. John August 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm #

    oops, sorry, didn’t mean to post the same thing twice

  30. Sue August 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm #

    Denny,

    If you argued on some other basis that a woman should not preach it might have been more enlightening. But you stood on 1 Tim. 2:12.

    However, you directly stated something to Andy about authenteo having a positive meaning, when you are certainly aware that there is no evidence to support this. So, not only did you obfuscate, but you knowingly obfuscated. Secondary literature cannot be made to carry the same load as primary evidence.

    You must have looked Andy in the face and said something that you know lacks factual support.

  31. Moz August 27, 2008 at 5:24 pm #

    If an egalitarian believes men and women have the same roles, then Andy isn’t an egalitarian. He excludes the office of elder to men. Is this right? So what catagory do we have for such folks who restrict the office of elder to men but allow women to teach? It seems misguided to lump folks like Andy with others who think all gender distinctions are off in the local church.

  32. Brian (Another) August 27, 2008 at 6:02 pm #

    Egametarian?

  33. John August 27, 2008 at 6:19 pm #

    “If the issue is not if women are gifted or capable, then there is no spirit behind the law and your case is pointless.”

    Kathy, by this I mean that if there is no spirit behind the law, then the law is pointless. You can substitute “spirit” for “meaning.” If there is no meaning behind prohibiting women from teaching men as a universal principle, then it is pointless. In Paul’s context I think it had spirit behind it due to many reasons (patriarchal society, historical context of Ephesus, false religions, attitude of women in that context, other reasons unknown to us), but 2000 years later to claim that, “yes, women are capable and gifted in these areas, but I’m just being biblical and therefore a woman cannot teach a man” is creating a law with no spirit. For surely today a woman teaching or preaching would not be a hindrance to the Gospel in most American contexts (it would actually help, IMO). Therefore, a law with no spirit is a pointless law. I would just like to ask Denny and his crew just what type of hindrance to the Gospel and what drawback they have with women teaching men. What’s the big deal, in our contexts? If they just claim something like “We’re just being biblical” then there is no spirit behind their claims. There is spirit behind commands to love your enemy, to not kill, to not steal, but in many of our contexts, I do not believe there is spirit behind a rule that says a woman cannot teach a man.

    “You’re not consistent with your interpretation of 1 Tim, I have yet to see a complementarian who is.”

    I say this because not one complementarian I know allows a woman to be completely silent (not saying a word) in church. They let women sing (which is not remaining silent), some may let women pray, some may let women read Scripture, some let them share testimonies about what God is doing in their lives…you catch my drift. If we’re going to be “literal,” then don’t let the women say one single little word in church in the presence of other men! Not even asking questions, she has to remain silent! I also say they’re inconsistent because I have yet to see in any of their theological propositions that all women who have kids are saved…which is what the text seems to be saying about women after this prohibition.

    So they take this seemingly “literal” (but not really, as I have just demonstrated), but then they ignore texts that tell women to wear head coverings, prohibit them from braiding their hair or wearing jewelry, greet one another with a holy kiss, etc.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the major inconsistencies going on here on their side. They take one disputed verse and lift it to a universal level.

  34. Moz August 27, 2008 at 6:22 pm #

    One more question:

    If Paul were addressing something specific to Ephesus and the issue of cult worship, why does he say “I do not permit”? Wouldn’t we expect him to say “you should not permit” since it is Timothy who is living and ministering in Ephesus?

    It just seems like the complimentarian interpretation makes more sense.

    But clearly you can be egalitarian and have a high view of scripture.

  35. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 27, 2008 at 8:36 pm #

    John: “Denny, you really acted like a jerk when the pastor mentions the occult.”

    Sue: “However, you directly stated something to Andy about authenteo having a positive meaning, when you are certainly aware that there is no evidence to support this. So, not only did you obfuscate, but you knowingly obfuscated. Secondary literature cannot be made to carry the same load as primary evidence.

    You must have looked Andy in the face and said something that you know lacks factual support.”

    (1) Denny can certainly defend himself, if he chooses to.

    (2) I have long observed that egalitarians often complain that complementarians are uncivil or uncharitable. Yet here we see egalitarians being uncivil and uncharitable, do we not?

    Is this not egalitarian hypocrisy?

  36. Don August 27, 2008 at 9:04 pm #

    I am egal and wrote above the “jerk” comment was uncalled for.

    On Sue’s comment, she had discussed the evidence on authentein with Denny before this. As far as I know, her points have not been refuted, they are Greek documentary evidence. It would be good to know the current status of the discussion.

  37. Denny Burk August 27, 2008 at 11:16 pm #

    Don,

    I’ve answered Sue innumerable times on this blog about AUTHENTEIN. In short, the studies of Baldwin and Kostenberger deal directly with the primary source material and together make a compelling case for a positive meaning for AUTHENTEIN.

    If you are interested to see two careful scholars dealing very closely with Greek primary sources, then read the essays of Baldwin and Kostenberger in this volume: Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. I should warn you, however, that both of these studies are technical and require the reader to have a grasp of Greek.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  38. Sue August 28, 2008 at 12:35 am #

    Denny,

    On Justin’s blog on July 30, 2008 Dr. Kostenberger wrote,

    Baldwin’s study shows that authentein was an exceedingly rare word in NT times that occurs in the NT only in 1 Tim 2:12 and elsewhere only once or twice prior to the writing of 1 Timothy.

    Why once or twice?

    Because Baldwin’s study included the Philodemus fragment as the primary piece of evidence for “to have authority.” I have made this fragment available in Greek on my blog and no one since then has seriously suggested that it be used as evidence.

    The other piece of evidence is BGU 1208 which I supplied earlier in this thread.

    I have been assured by yourself, I think, that later occurrences should not be included as evidence, although personally I believe that the Tetrabiblos and Hippolytus texts are relevant.

    Dr. Kostenberger continues with this,

    The first word linked by the Greek coordinating conjunction oude (“or”) is the word “teach,” didaskein, which is frequently used in the Pastoral Epistles and virtually always has a positive connotation, referring to the instruction of the congregation by the pastors and elders of the church (e.g. 1 Tim 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2).

    He says, “virtually always.” However, didaskein is used with a negative connotation in Titus 1:11, that is, specifically in one of the pastoral epistles.

    You can access these two occurrences of authenteo here.

  39. Sue August 28, 2008 at 12:36 am #

    I should add that the occurrence in BGU 1208 was classified with “compel” in Baldwin’s study. It was not considered an example of “to have authority.”

  40. Mclarko August 28, 2008 at 3:16 am #

    Denny,
    I can relate to David’s “repost” in #5. The liberalism has been seeping in to the leadership at IBC for years. I’m surprised that the female preaching issue wasn’t the first mile marker passed. I first started attending IBC in 1997, and it now bears no resemblance. I used to disagree rarely with Andy, but more often with Steve Roese. Now, I find an increasing number of places where Andy and I part ways. I don’t know who or what in

    It sounds like Andy was more prepared for a debate than the congregation he dropped the bomb on.

    On the radio show, Barry said a couple times, “Is this the best thing that ever happened? Should Christ just come back now?” Doesn’t Barry know that he has returned? The Anointed One is here. His name is Barack Obama. Just watch his speech tomorrow as he takes his rightful place above the Greek gods (complete with togas and Parthenon architecture).

  41. Brian (Another) August 28, 2008 at 9:10 am #

    Given that I am not a Greek NT Scholar, I have a question that jumps to mind. You cite one example of a negative connotation. Does a single instance constitute a refutation of “nearly always”? And perhaps it is used in that manner several other times negatively elsewhere, but his statement wasn’t “always”. He had the modifier “nearly” attached to it, indicating something short of a superlative.

  42. Don August 28, 2008 at 9:23 am #

    The point is that disdaskein is used with both a positive and negative connotation in the NT. Authentein certainly has a negative connotation and might have a positive one.

    Paul’s verb “permit” is in the present tense, this means it is possible to be understood as a present but not necessarily continuing injunction, as in “I am not now permitting…”.

    Paul is known to use generic terms when he is referring to individuals but does not want to name them, this may be the case here.

    With so much uncertainty, how can anyone claim to be certain about what 1 Tim 2:12 means? How can anyone claim the injunction is clear? Who can claim to be inside Paul’s or Timothy’s head today and know for sure?

    There are just too many ways it can be understood by FAITHFUL people to make that claim about clarity and it should be withdrawn by Grudem and co. for the sake of intellectual honesty. The honest thing to say is that what he claims it to mean is A possible translation, but that there are other possibilities.

  43. Steve Hayes August 28, 2008 at 10:46 am #

    The worst part about this “debate” was when the guy called in and angrily chided Andy for not taking the Bible literally, citing that this is the same thing that happens when people accept homosexuality. It just kills me when people say things like this. What we heard from Andy, agree with him or not, was an extremely intelligent and kind-hearted man with a love for the Bible. The fact that there are about 200 responses to this blog over the last couple of days about this issue only proves that this is a difficult passage, so why in the world would someone equate Andy and IBC with the kind of careless and wreckless people who accept homosexuality as Biblically OK?

    You see, rather than engage in the conversation and seek the truth, there are a lot of people who just want to think that IBC and Andy McQuitty are a bunch of liberals who’s next move will be to ordain a gay person. Oh, the horror!! Problem is, that’s not true!

    Even Denny and Barry seem confounded by Andy and IBC. They found in Andy a Pastor-theologian, just like they hope their students will become. But Andy kind of broke their mold. You can almost hear them thinking, “He’s intelligent and has a lot of common sense. What happened to him with this whole women thing?” Well, it could be that what happened to him is that he studied and came to a different conclusion. Period. He didn’t become gay or throw out the authority of the Bible. He just came to a different conclusion, and he can back it up with the best of them.

    People like Andy McQuitty confound the religious establishment. Sounds kind of like Jesus, doesn’t it?

  44. Don August 28, 2008 at 10:58 am #

    I call this the “bogeyman” argument. If you do X, then the bogeyman will come and get you, where the bogeyman is something feared.

    This is a fear tactic, plain and simple, and does not belong in discussions about exegesis. Actually, when someone uses it, my take is that if they think they need to use it, their actual arguments cannot be that strong.

  45. Brian (Another) August 28, 2008 at 11:29 am #

    I would say that the IBF’s usage of traj. Herm is the concern (if I understand IBF’s statement, that is). Statements like:

    “1 Tim wasn’t written in a vacuum and it certainly wasn’t written with 21 century USA in mind.”

    are what are scary. James Kushiner had a quote in another post here:

    “If what gives you your identity is ‘not being confused with Fundamentalism,’ and Fundamentalism is defined as whatever society calls Fundamentalism, your identity will drift in order to keep up with the latest sensitivities.”

    That is what happens.

    That said, Steve, you are exactly correct. Pastor McQuitty hasn’t compromised his other views and it is unfair (and poor argumentation) to attack based on something that hasn’t happened. (on an aside, history thus far has taught us that is the direction. History, however, does not make the future)

  46. Brian (Another) August 28, 2008 at 11:41 am #

    Don (#42), Sue was addressing Dr. Kostenberger saying “nearly always”. Her refutation (or allusion to refutation) was that Dr. Kostenberger is wrong to say that

    the word “teach,” didaskein, which is frequently used in the Pastoral Epistles and virtually always has a positive connotation.

    Perhaps she intended to broadly mean that it can be taken both ways, but her statement was phrased in a manner to imply refutation of the statement.

    I don’t know why Grudem suddenly came up (other than Sue’s attachment (counter argument) wise). Dr. Grudem et al see the flow of the text with the letter and the remainder of the instruction as clear (in addition to flowing with other scripture as a tight group). There are other concerns outside of the singular passage as well, hence their continued stance.

  47. jeremy August 28, 2008 at 11:44 am #

    Who is this Barry guy? Wow. He needs to learn how to interview.

    In my opinion, Pastor Andy gets the win.

  48. jeremy August 28, 2008 at 11:51 am #

    also, why does Barry interrupt Andy with his music leading into the commercial?
    Barry first asks Denny, then turns to Andy and plays the intro commercial music. Did ya’ll notice that.

    Andy, the poor guy, did not ever get to talk because Barry drowned him out with his commercial music.

  49. jeremy August 28, 2008 at 11:53 am #

    And Barry interrupts Denny too.

  50. Sue August 28, 2008 at 12:24 pm #

    I am missing something.

    When Dr. Kostenberger says “virtually always” doesn’t that give the impression that there is no important counter evidence? Why wouldn’t he be open and say clearly, “80% of the time, in the pastoral epistles, didasko has a positive connotation and 20% of the time it has a negative connotation.” Then the readers could judge for themselves how relevant this was.

    On authentein, the same, why not admit that there is only one piece of evidence before the NT and it appears so far to have a negative connotation.

    Why are these things referred to so vaguely, as if it is too technical to supply actual numbers?

    Please point out if I have misrepresented Dr. Köstenberger. However, I do believe that something of so much importance to half the population of the world is worthy of careful exegesis, and not just “virtually always” or “once or twice.”

  51. Russ August 28, 2008 at 12:32 pm #

    I think it’s about time to move on from these threads, but before I do… two thoughts…

    1. With all due respect to Denny, this issue is not easy for any number of reasons, and the passages in question are not ‘clear’ unless you you are going to interpret them and thus every other passage of Scripture in a concrete way, which of course is great folly and would lead to all sorts of problems. This IS an issue where Godly, honest, knowledgeable theologians and other thinkers do disagree. I’m fine with that, and IBC is fine with that

    I am not fine with a great deal of the rhetoric and tactics employed by leaders like Tommy Nelson and others.

    And I am always amused when ‘reformed’ teachers like Dr. Nelson appeal to the argument of ‘this is what the Church has always held to historically.’ I can assure you that Tommy does not consider that a valid argument on any number of other theological stances of his tradition that only PART of the Church has held to for a relatively short time. I hope readers, Protestant and otherwise, can appreciate the irony.

    2. I never got an answer from Denny on the Mrs. Criswell class at FB Dallas. I suspect that there has been much discussion of that over the years (or however long that has been going on). I bring this up because the context of the readers and those who regularly contribute to this blog is very different than the context of the project of dealing with this issue at Irving Bible. We aren’t always throwing around words like complementarian and egalitarian or having these types of theological arguments. We were just trying to figure out how to be consistent and have integrity in our policy and practice.

    We chose to strive for that integrity in a particular direction. I don’t think IBC is there yet. I don’t think Denton Bible is either. They lean a different way to be sure, but until they require women to take off all their jewelry, unbraid their hair and remain COMPLETELY silent ‘in church’ they are not being consistent. In striving for consistency we had no stomach for going in that direction at Irving Bible. Does Denton Bible? Does First Baptist Dallas? If so, I respect that. I can even respect a willingness to be inconsistent as we figure this stuff out. Just be honest about it.

    No one here need be characterized as the carrier off a virus. 😉

    The discussion here has been good and think has helped to make these points.

    Thanks, Denny.

  52. Sue August 28, 2008 at 1:19 pm #

    Does this mean that primary evidence is not allowable in court?

  53. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm #

    Don: “I am egal and wrote above the “jerk” comment was uncalled for.

    Thanks Don for noting the uncivility and uncharitableness of egalitarian John’s remark.

  54. John August 28, 2008 at 2:31 pm #

    Thanks TUAD for continuing to prove your unChristian character

  55. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 28, 2008 at 2:36 pm #

    #36: “I have long observed that egalitarians often complain that complementarians are uncivil or uncharitable. Yet here we see egalitarians being uncivil and uncharitable, do we not?

    Is this not egalitarian hypocrisy?”

    John: “Thanks TUAD for continuing to prove your unChristian character.”

    Thanks John for proving and demonstrating egalitarian hypocrisy.

  56. John August 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    Thanks TUAD for continuing to prove, yet again, your unChristian character. I have never seen Christ’s in any of your posts, and probably never will.

  57. John August 28, 2008 at 2:51 pm #

    *Christ

  58. S. M. Hutchens August 28, 2008 at 4:17 pm #

    There seems to be a good deal of ambiguity in this situation. If I understand correctly, the woman preacher was introduced as “Pastor,” which among Protestants normally refers to an office that requires presbyterial (elder’s) ordination; but someone has said this is a church where only men are ordained as elders. It is difficult to tell in what capacity this woman was speaking–although the manner in which she was apparently introduced to the congregation bears the marks of an intention to overthrow a custom–to introduce a novelty.

    Whether a woman is teaching in the manner prohibited by St. Paul is often a matter of spiritual discernment, so that of two woman addressing the church in very nearly the same set of external circumstances, one might be judged not to be transgressing the apostolic rule, and another might be regarded quite differently. But one begins at whether or not the rule is acknowledged as such. Where there is disagreement on this, a parting of the ways has occurred, and there can be no agreement on individual cases.

    If indeed we have here the intentional introduction of a novelty, where a woman is now bearing the title of Pastor in a place where it was earlier not done because it was thought to be unbiblical, those who are doing it are not simply involved with a matter that can be addressed in the exegesis of a few New Testament passages within the theological context of post-fundamentalist Evangelicalism. Rather, they have put themselves in a place where they must answer to the whole Church for what they are doing. Women “pastors” are not a part of the Christian tradition, unless that tradition was wrong, or has undergone a deeply significant change in the last generation.

    I see no alteration in the tradition, only the introduction of egalitarianism into the theology of the Evangelical churches.

  59. Don August 28, 2008 at 4:46 pm #

    Paul did not prohibit women from being elders, altho a few verses have been interpreted by some to think that is what he did. But that is the choice SOME are making to interpret a few verses in a specific way to restrict women, when there are alternatives that are at least as feasible.

  60. Brian (Another) August 28, 2008 at 6:05 pm #

    Just to enter the fray again, Don (#56), what scriptural alternative is there to male (only) eldership?

  61. Don August 28, 2008 at 6:29 pm #

    Brian,
    I see the NT as having a plurality of elders for each congregation. This is because each elder can easily have different visions and all are valid, a pastor will not see things the same as an evangelist, for example.

    So the alternative to all male elders is having elders plural of either gender, based on being gifted with a leadership ministry gift and recognized by a congregation as having same. Of course, they should meet the character qualities in Titus and 1 Tim.

    As much as is feasible, it is expected a congregation should reflect the diversity of the surrounding people across all dividing lines; and as much as feasible, it is expected that the elder team should reflect the diversity of the congregation, but it depends on recognized gifting.

  62. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 28, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    Don,

    I’m a bit unclear on something. I don’t know if you represent the majority of egalitarians in your argument that there is no office for elder or pastor in the Bible, but let’s suppose that you do.

    And let’s further suppose that complementarians believe that the office of elder or pastor is in the Bible.

    Therefore, why do egalitarians want women placed into an office which they regard as being unscriptural?

    At least complementarians are theologically and logically consistent. They believe that the office of elder or pastor is biblically based, and furthermore, that Scripture specifies men only for those few offices.

  63. Don August 28, 2008 at 7:32 pm #

    I am egal, but I only speak for myself based on my own understanding. I read both sides and sometimes disagree with a egal writer and agree with a non-egal writer. This is the way these things work sometimes.

    If an office does not exist, I cannot be wanting to put anyone (male or female) in it, can I?

    I am not sure what is so hard to understand, there are elders, but no office of an elder. The elders are people who have been gifted by the Holy Spirit with a leadership ministry gift (one or more of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, or teacher) and in exercising these gifts and demonstrating the character qualities in Titus and 1 Tim, a congregation recognizes them as their leaders.

  64. Kathy August 28, 2008 at 7:33 pm #

    ‘Rather, they have put themselves in a place where they must answer to the whole Church for what they are doing.’

    Women (members of the body) included?

  65. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 28, 2008 at 7:48 pm #

    Don: “I am not sure what is so hard to understand, there are elders, but no office of an elder.

    Here’s not an uncommon understanding of the plurality of elders leading a local church:

    “The elder is a leader in the Christian church. It is a divinely appointed office that is held by men who are able to teach sound doctrine, refute error, be of good reputation, having believing children, who manage their households well, etc.”

    From: The elder in the church.

    In comparison, your statement that there are elders, but no office of an elder seems disjointed and incoherent.

  66. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 28, 2008 at 7:50 pm #

    Don: “I read both sides and sometimes disagree with a egal writer and agree with a non-egal writer.

    Could you provide some examples?

  67. Don August 28, 2008 at 8:32 pm #

    On office, I cannot find that work associated with elder, EXCEPT as an add on in the KJV and some other translations. As we are not to add nor subtract from the word of God, I do not accept the add on as I do not see it as even implied.

    If you can find it in the Greek, please show me.

    Here are 2 examples of non-egal writers where I agree with SOMETHING in what they wrote:

    1. On Eph 5:21 Grudem points out that one-to-another (allelon) has 2 possible meanings: (A) everyone to everyone and (B) some to others. I thought this was a good insight.

    2. On 1 Tim 2:12, some non-egals point out that the neither/nor construction is either positive/positive or negative/negative in terms of the actions connotations, at least in the other examples we have in the NT. This does not PROVE that 1 Tim 2:12 might not be negative/positive or positive/negative, but it gives a strong hint that those are much less likely. The point is trying to figure out any clues about authentein, even whether it is negative or positive.

    Unfortunately for deciding things, didaskein is used in the NT with both negative and positive connotations, so this does not settle things. But it was a good insight, nonetheless.

  68. S. M. Hutchens August 28, 2008 at 10:49 pm #

    Women included. But not heretics.

  69. Sue August 28, 2008 at 10:59 pm #

    I agree that it has to be positive-positive or negative-negative. It can’t be mixed.

    I have made all the evidence for authentein available in Unicode text on my blog. There is no need to wonder what it means. See comment #39 at the end. Given that authentein probably has a negative meaning, one could start over and rebuild a hermeneutic to exclude women on some other basis. No doubt the early church fathers would offer some insights.

    It is the unnecessary denial of the clear meaning of authentein that irks me so much.

  70. Don August 29, 2008 at 4:25 am #

    Yes, if the connotations are negative/negative then it is something that a woman should not do because no one should do it.

    Given that this is a valid possible interpretation with what we know today, it goes too far to claim that 1 Tim 2:12 is clear in the OTHER direction of positive/positive.

  71. Kathy August 29, 2008 at 6:39 am #

    ‘Women included. But not heretics.’

    How do you define heretic?

  72. Kathy August 29, 2008 at 6:45 am #

    ‘Women “pastors” are not a part of the Christian tradition, unless that tradition was wrong, or has undergone a deeply significant change in the last generation.’

    ‘I see no alteration in the tradition,’

    I certainly do, going from women are inferior to they are eqaul but different is wuite an alteration.

    What was a part of christian tradition was that women were considered inferior to men. Perhaps when there was departure from this on an individual basis of gatherings, the whole church should have been sought? Or only is it now, that women in ministry is taking strides in the church as a whole, that all the sudden, there is fear?

  73. Mike Gendron August 29, 2008 at 7:34 am #

    Denny, you did a great job reproving and correcting McQuitty with the authority of God’s word. Although this decision to have a woman preach was seriously wrong, there was a greater offense to the Gospel that occurred three years ago at this church. It was then that Andy McQuitty, pastor of Irving Bible Church publicly stated that both John Paul II and Mother Teresa are most assuredly in heaven. In the May 2005 issue of the church’s monthly magazine Chatter, he featured a 11″ by 14″ picture of these two Roman Catholics, who stand condemned for preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). In the accompanying article, McQuitty described the rift that occurred between Roman Catholics and Protestants 500 years ago as “theological pettiness.” He said, “it is just plain silly to write each other off as far as true Christianity is concerned. We’ll have plenty of time in Heaven to figure out who was right about Purgatory and Mary.” McQuitty wrote that he can’t see why both faiths can’t cooperate “in building the Kingdom of our common Lord Jesus Christ.” He described John Paul as “a Man of God, not a man of this world, who became popular by testifying to the unpopular truths of Jesus Christ.” According to McQuitty, the pope was “a great man whom all Christians should admire, thank and emulate.” Finally he wrote, “I confess as a protestant pastor that my spiritual life and faith has been enriched by this Catholic pope who taught me that being a hero isn’t about success or power.”

    Evidently Irving Bible Church (IBC) had a few discerning souls who confronted McQuitty and prompted Him to send out this public e-mail. “A few of you have raised concerns, most of which can be boiled down to this question: ‘Is IBC becoming Roman Catholic?’ To which the answer is, ‘No way, Jose.'” He wrote: “I understand where the question comes from, though. The introduction at IBC of certain elements such as candles and liturgies and communion wafers and the reference to communion as the “Eucharist”, combined with the recent death of Pope John Paul II and the attendant recognition that his life received here, has caused some (particularly those who were raised Catholic and had a less than happy experience) to bristle.” This pastor has demonstrated a frightening lack of discernment and an unwillingness to be corrected by Scripture. A pastor without spiritual discernment cannot protect his congregation from Satan’s continuous attacks on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  74. Steve Hayes August 29, 2008 at 7:55 am #

    Oh brother! Let’s all dogpile Pastor Andy. The guy’s practically walking his congregation to hell. He also likes golf. He talks about it from the pulpit. What a heretic. I heard he once played a couple of rounds with the Pope!

    Way to be, Mike. I knew you’d find a way to bring the whole “catholic” thing into this. A bit obsessed, arent we? For those of you following along, this thread is about Women in Ministry. The catholic bashing thread happened several months ago. Please try to keep up.

    Sorry, it’s early, and I’m really getting sick of all this. Just imagine what would have happened if the late Mother Teresa had filled the pulpit at IBC! I’m going back to bed.

  75. Russ August 29, 2008 at 8:32 am #

    S.M. Hutchins…

    A point of clarification. The title of Pastor has been attached to particular women at IBC for years, and we have had women on our ‘pastoral team’ at IBC for years. This is not only true of IBC but many other Evangelical Bible Churches with nary a peep of protest. There is a clear distinction at IBC, at least practically speaking, between Elders and Pastors. This distinction may well be more structural than theological, and somewhat artificial if the New Testament church is the model, but nevertheless it is so.

    As to the argument of what the Church’s tradition is or answering to the ‘whole Church'” and the use of the term ‘heretic’ I remain amused. As I wrote in my post #52:

    And I am always amused when ‘reformed’ teachers like Dr. Nelson appeal to the argument of ‘this is what the Church has always held to historically.’ I can assure you that Tommy does not consider that a valid argument on any number of other theological stances of his tradition that only PART of the Church has held to for a relatively short time. I hope readers, Protestant and otherwise, can appreciate the irony.

    And that leads me to…

    Mike Gendron (post #75)?!

    You have got to be kidding me! I laughed out loud. It looks like you cut and pasted your post out of that dreadful and uncharitable discussion on the old IBC forum 3 years ago!

    Nelson and Hutchins want IBC to repent of doing something new and appeal to Mother Church, or at least her Tradition!

    Gendron wants us despise Her!

    Meanwhile, having moved on from IBC several months ago to work in a camping ministry, our family worships happily at Hope Lutheran Church here in Westcliffe, CO. Life is good in Lutheran Land. Come on in boys, the water is fine. 😉

    I guess I lied about #52 being my last post.

  76. Don August 29, 2008 at 9:19 am #

    The church tradition card, if it is going to be played, should be played in a consistent fashion, the temptation is to play it cafeteria style, picking and choosing when to play it.

    If a protestant sincerely believes that church tradition gets it right, why do they not become RCC or EOC? It must be because they think that those traditions went wrong somewhere. Was the first error infant baptism? Or was it celibate clergy? Or was it the concept of clergy itself?

    The tradition card is simply not all that it is cracked up to be.

  77. aj August 29, 2008 at 9:27 am #

    Well, this is the first time in my life that I have ever responded to a blog post. As a 12-year IBC’er along with our family, we have been observing for the last few years the shift in teaching at IBC. Pastor Andy is a gifted teacher of God’s Word, and that along with the heart and soul of our church is the reason that we have been members for almost that long. IBC has stretched us to serve in ways we never had. The people at IBC are loving and unselfish, but this change to an egalitarian/feminist/liberal church has been gradual. We have questioned a lot these last few years, but like one of the posts above have continued to go to IBC because we believed in the heart of the church. I feel somewhat betrayed by this change and particularly since the elders adapted the addendum to our beliefs about women in the church. It is certainly not politically correct to challenge this and a liberal point of view is always easier to argue as the world will jump on your bandwagon. I have spent the last few weeks studying about the movement of the evangelical church to bring myself up to speed. All of this high-level terminology is hard to understand, and I in my ignorance was not aware of the “emergent” church. It has been informational, yet disappointing that IBC has jumped on the “world bandwagon” and I will say these changes have been quite subtle to even regular attendees and servers in the church. Another commented that the staff did not care if you like it or not…that is clear, and like them, our family will leave the church quietly in our political incorrectness. There will be more attendees than there have been because we are no longer digging deep into God’s Word and stepping on toes in the process. We are saddened by this change, but thankfully, there are options with churches who continue to choose to teach God’s Word as it is written in the Bible 2000 years ago. Like Rob Bell’s church a few years ago, this change was orchestrated and manipulated and a few of us feel deceived.

  78. Russ August 29, 2008 at 9:55 am #

    Amen, Don. My point exactly.

    I do think that one can, in practice, decide that one tradition is right and another is wrong. For instance, Lutherans would say that the Church was always right about baptismal regeneration and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist… but wrong on other things.

    Yet, having gone down the road to such picking and choosing, one then cannot use the Tradition card in and of itself to back any particular doctrine. And furthermore, in the spirit of reform, one must always be open to any tradition being shown in need of reform.

    As you said… where did tradition go wrong?

    If the tradition of infant baptism is wrong (Lutherans would say it isn’t), then why not the tradition of male only clergy?

  79. Don August 29, 2008 at 10:09 am #

    If the Scriptures are REALLY sufficient for faith and practice (as I believe and as the Scriptures teach) then tradition should be considered, but as Jesus said,

    Mat 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

    That is, tradition needs to evaluated in the light of Scripture and one should know that it is possible for tradition to negate Scripture, and when it does, tradition has to go.

  80. Lydia August 29, 2008 at 10:11 am #

    “‘1. Is truth truth because it is truth or because it is spoken by a male?’”

    Good point.

    Another question: Does the authority come from the truth of the Word or the person speaking?

  81. Mary August 29, 2008 at 10:57 am #

    I gather from a prior post (#11) that:

    1) Pastor Andy was not informed ahead of time that Denny would be joining him on the radio show and he would, therefore, be expected to debate him

    2) Denny, on the other hand, knew he would be joining Andy on the broadcast, and was therefore able to prepare ahead of time to for the ensusing debate.

    Am I correct in this? If so, it seems to be that the radio affair was not conducted in a very fair or sportsmanlike manner.

    My 2 cents worth.

  82. Benjamin A August 29, 2008 at 11:10 am #

    Russ,

    From your post #28: “However, I do not follow the logic regarding your line between what constitutes “in the context of the church” and what isn’t, particularly from a Protestant/Evangelical standpoint.”

    Sorry for not being clear enough the first time. “in the context of the church” means when the ‘church’ (the people) are gathered corporately for instruction and encouragement from scripture; this is what Apollos was doing for the assymbly gathered in the synagogue when Aquila and Priscilla, being present on that occasion discerned that he needed some additional information regarding Christian dogma.

    I’m saying the 1Tim. 2:1-3:16 context is dealing with “in the church context” stuff in that 1 Tim. 3:15 says “so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God…”. So 1 Tim. 2:12 is stating Paul’s prohibition of women teaching men in that specific context; in that context they “are to remain quiet”, which if taken wooden literally would imply what you have been objecting to (comps. not being consistent); however, it’s not saying women are to never open their mouths in that context; remaining quite is in direct reference to their prohibition of publically instructing/teaching men when the church is gathered for corporate worship. [By the way, most comps. I know do not employ a wooden literal interpretative principle; when Jesus said, “I am the door” we are not thinking that Jesus is a literal door. You could give us a little more credit don’t you think??]

    So 1 Tim. 2:9, seen in the ‘context of the church’ is simply understood as Paul not wanting women showing up for worship dressed immodestly. He saying, ‘Women, don’t show up for worship dressed in such a way as to show off your looks; your beautiful hair; your beautiful jewelry; rather, dress modestly and discreetly; demonstrate your beauty by means of your good works, which would be proper for women making a claim to godliness’. I fail to understand why that passage causes so much confusion.

    This is why 1 Tim. 3:1-7 requires that male leadership meet some requirements. These men are called “overseer” (episkopos); which clearly indicates that they are the ones ‘exercising authority’ as the “overseer” within the ‘church of the living God’. It’s clear that God’s desire is for men to lead in the gathered church context.

    So, again, when Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos ASIDE, they were simply having a conversation with him (if Starbucks had been around, this conversation probably would have occurred there over a cup of joe); their instruction of Apollos was something they did together, THEY both helped out brother Apollos. The 1 Tim. 2:12 in the context of the church gathered for biblical instruction prohibition was not violated by Priscilla in Acts 18.

    Hope that helps clarify my understanding of “in the context of the church” distinction. Thanks Russ.

  83. Don August 29, 2008 at 11:22 am #

    1 Tim 3 mentions character qualities that can be met by either gender. The pronoun (tis) in 1 Tim 3:1 is generic, implying either gender.

    If authentein in 1 Tim 2:12 is negative, it is something no one should do. And it has been shown that it is possible to be negative.

    If Paul is referring to a specific woman in 1 Tim 2:12, then it is not a general prohibition.

    Paul is using the present tense in 1 Tim 2:12, this means it is not required to understand this as a permanent prohibition, esp. as it is part of an inclusio with the previous verse on making sure (the, a) woman is taught. The implication is that after being taught, things MIGHT be different.

  84. Benjamin A August 29, 2008 at 11:32 am #

    1 Tim. 3:2 “of one wife a husband…”; yes ’tis’ is generic so v.2 qualifies the maleness of the generic ’tis’

    1 Tim. 3:11 “women likewise…”; in distinction from the previous verses 3:1-10 that were talking of men (of one wife a husband); so yes character qualities apply to both men and women

    1 Tim. 3:12 “deacons let be of one wife husbands…”; back to men again.

  85. Don August 29, 2008 at 12:13 pm #

    The second qualification: “Faithful spouse” (3:2)
    The second qualification in the list deals with the
    overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that
    this qualification means that whether one is a husband or
    a wife it is important to be a “faithful spouse.” It requires
    that an overseer, if married, be faithful and be “a one-spouse
    kind of person.”

    According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French
    Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this
    Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish
    and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman
    or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way
    characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”

    When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase
    was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where
    Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him
    myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.
    Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2
    surprising because modern versions of the Bible
    translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” –
    making this qualification appear to be restricted to men
    only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is
    about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is
    not saying that oversight is “for men only.”

    Pages 87-88
    Think Again about Church Leaders by Bruce C. E. Fleming
    ——
    One can see that the idiomatic meaning of “mias gunaikos andra” should be understood as “faithful spouse” as Phoebe was at least a diakonos in Rom 16:1 and a diakonos has the same requirement of being a faithful spouse.

    Of course, some masculinist translations do not show that Phoebe was a diakonos, so you may need to look at it in the Greek.

  86. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    Don,

    I’m a bit confused. You argue that there’s no such thing as an “office” for elder or pastor in the Bible. Yet you are arguing with Benjamin A about the qualifications for the office position of elder in 1 Timothy.

    This is rather incoherent. Can you clarify?

  87. Don August 29, 2008 at 12:42 pm #

    It is not incoherent at all.

    There is no use of the word “office” in any ref. to elder, overseer or shepherd, that I can find anyway, in the Greek NT.

    As I keep saying, my understanding is that to be an elder, (A) a person is given a leadership gift and is (B) then endorsed as an elder by a congregation. As part of that endorsement process, there is due diligence about character qualities per 1 Tim and Titus.

    Similar for a deacon/diakonos. The main difference between a elder and a deacon is that a deacon is not expected to be able to teach, they might, and in any case they might later become an elder.

  88. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 1:23 pm #

    Don,

    Here’s an excerpt from a longish article published yesterday which occasionally touches upon the issue of “office”:

    “The late Dr. Gordon Clark wrote the following: “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.””

    From: The PCA and Female Deaconesses (I)

    I commend this article to everybody.

  89. Don August 29, 2008 at 2:02 pm #

    I can assure you that churches that have women elders have at least as valid an understanding of Scripture as those who do not.

    Each group gets to decide for themselves, there is no Magisterium for protestants the last I looked.

    If one disagrees with another church on non-salvation issues, seek to keep the unity of the Spirit until there is a unity of the faith.

  90. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 2:08 pm #

    Don: “I can assure you that churches that have women elders have at least as valid an understanding of Scripture as those who do not.”

    Pardon me for refusing your sincere assurances.

    The Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ, to name a few, have women pastors and they do not, IMHO, have “at least as valid an understanding of Scripture as those who do not.”

  91. Don August 29, 2008 at 2:14 pm #

    I did not mean all churches, that would be too broad a claim. But that there are some. And I am referring to Bible-believing churches.

    One can have a correct doctrine for a bad reason. One should get rid of the bad reasons regardless.

  92. Benjamin A August 29, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    Don,

    You find the best translation of 1Tim. 3:2 to have “a faithful spouse”;

    Now take the time to look at many translations (which represent a multitude of Greek scholars on translation committees) and notice how the weight of scholarship is not in your preferred translation. You are free to believe what you want, you just need to know you’re on a limb that most others are not standing on.

    I submit that the best translation and meaning of Paul in context is “of one wife a husband”; or simply “husband of one wife”.

    The preponderance of evidence is irrefutable:

    1 Timothy 3:2

    2 The overseer then must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, sober, discreet, decorous, hospitable, apt to teach;
    DARBY

    2 The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
    ASV

    2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
    AV 1873

    2 Oportet ergo episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, unius uxoris virum, sobrium, prudentem, ornatum, pudicum, hospitalem, doctorem,
    VGCLEM

    2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
    ESV

    2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
    ESV NT Rev. Int.

    2 An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,
    HCSB

    2 Therefore, an elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, stable, sensible, respectable, a lover of strangers, and teachable.
    ISV

    2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
    KJV

    2 But there are preconditions: A leader must be well-thought-of, committed to his wife, cool and collected, accessible, and hospitable. He must know what he’s talking about,
    The Message

    2 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,
    NET

    2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
    NASB95

    2 An overseer must not give people a reason to criticize him, and he must have only one wife. He must be self-controlled, wise, respected by others, ready to welcome guests, and able to teach.
    NCV

    2 A leader must be free from blame. He must be faithful to his wife. In anything he does, he must not go too far. He must control himself. He must be worthy of respect. He must welcome people into his home. He must be able to teach.
    NIrV

    2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
    NIV

    2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
    NKJV

    2 So an elder must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach.
    NLT

    2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,
    NRSV

    1 This is a trustworthy word. If a certain one is seeking the office of an overseer, he passionately desires a good work. It is necessary in the nature of the case, therefore, that the overseer be irreproachable, a one-wife kind of a man [that is, married only once], calm, dispassionate and circumspect, sober-minded, one whose life is in accord with the position he holds and which is an adornment to it, hospitable, a skilled teacher, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious but sweetly reasonable, being satisfied with less than his due, not contentious, not a lover of money, presiding over his own household in a beautiful manner, holding children within the sphere of implicit obedience, doing so with the strictest regard to propriety. Indeed, if a person does not know how to preside over his own household, how is it possible that he take care of God’s assembly? [He must] not [be] a new convert, lest having his mind blinded by pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover, it is a necessity in the nature of the case for him also to be having an excellent testimony from those on the outside, lest he fall into reproach and into the snare of the devil.
    WUESTNT

    2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,
    NRSV NT Rev. Int.

    2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
    RSV

    2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
    TNIV

    2 it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
    YLT

  93. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 3:38 pm #

    Benjamin: “The preponderance of evidence is irrefutable:…”

    Indeed it is. And has been for a very long time.

    But “irrefutable” has never stopped egalitarians from disregarding Scripture.

  94. Kathy August 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm #

    ‘The preponderance of evidence is irrefutable:’

    At what point is the line drawn that translation is ‘evidence?’ Translation is NOT the inspired word, it is well, rather, translation.

  95. Kathy August 29, 2008 at 3:54 pm #

    And let us all agree to note that in translations are poor interpretations. What are scholars now inspired like Paul was? Are translations the inspired word, and infalliable? I don’t think so.

  96. Benjamin A August 29, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    Kathy,

    True. However, words have meaning, even Greek words. As mentioned, Don has chosen a translation that most all of the translation committees (Greek scholars) have rejected in favor of the meaning most consistent with the Greek words and context of 1 Tim. 3. That is irrefutable. Now, you may not like that evidence, and chose to believe differently, and that you are free to do.

  97. Don August 29, 2008 at 4:08 pm #

    The evidence for “faithful spouse” was recently found at Ephesus and documented in a French scholarly Bible, the TOB. The lexicons have not been updated yet, but I have no doubt they will be, as it is simply what a lexicon does, gather the evidence on word usage.

    It is to be understood that all except the most recent translations would even know about it and masculinist translations like the ESV would choose not to translate it as an idiom.

    The question is whether one wishes to accept the evidence of the French scholar or the English scholar who contacted him.

    I cannot force anyone to accept the evidence, but I accept the evidence. And I think it is important to let women be elders.

    As I pointed out in the previous post the same requirement is for deacons and Phoebe was a deacon, so understanding the phrase idiomatically makes all Scripture consistent.

  98. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm #

    I cannot force anyone to accept God’s Instruction, but I accept God’s Instruction.

    And I think it is important to obey God’s Instruction whereby He has ordered the office of church elder to be men alone, and that He has divinely ordered men to take a headship role in the family home.

    As the late Dr. Gordon Clark said: “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.”

  99. Don August 29, 2008 at 4:24 pm #

    Sola Scriptura

  100. Don August 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm #

    TUAD,

    You CHOOSE to interpret the Bible to restrict women, go in peace to the church of your choice that does that. You believe that is the consistent witness of Scripture.

    I CHOOSE to interpret the Bible to not restrict women, so I will go in peace to my church that does not restrict them. I believe that is the consistent witness of Scripture.

    We disagree. Such is the price paid for not having a Magisterium and I am glad I do not have one.

  101. Sue August 29, 2008 at 4:38 pm #

    “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.”

    What happened 2000 years ago, is that Christ became the high priest and all believers are priests in God’s kingdom. The gifts of prophecy and teaching are still with us and women as well as men have these gifts and have always had these gifts.

    I am rather concerned that Denny does not explain how he was able to tell Andy that authentein had a positive connotation in the NT. Denny now has the proof on his blog that it doesn’t. Of course, the proof is technical and requires a good reading ability in Greek. But the evidence is posted here.

    Denny is now responsible for lining up his arguments with the evidence as it is demonstrated from the primary texts. Come to think of it, I posted this same evidence in the past.

  102. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    I rejoice that God in His Infinite Goodness does not restrict the wonderful ministry gifts that He gives to women and men to use for His Glory. But in His Infinite Wisdom for Divine Ordering He has chosen to place boundaries on who can serve in a few specific offices in His Church. And He has deigned to assign headship roles to men in the family.

    Amen.

    Colossians 3:18 “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

    P.S. When a wife doesn’t even submit to the Lord, how can she submit to her husband?

  103. Don August 29, 2008 at 4:50 pm #

    Go to a church that has offices, TUAD, if that is your wish.

    But are you claiming to be an infallible interpreter?

    For the record, I do not.

  104. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 5:04 pm #

    Don,

    Are you accusing me of making the claim that I am an infallible interpreter?

  105. Don August 29, 2008 at 5:09 pm #

    We differ on our interpretation of some verses. These verses are not about salvation. I do not agree with your interpretation and you do not agree with mine.

    At that point we go in peace, probably to different churches.

    However, I do not accept your pronouncements. It reminds me of something the RCC would claim and I do not accept their pronouncements either. Hence my question.

  106. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm #

    And I do not accept your pronouncements. It reminds me of something that revisionist LibProts and Emergers would claim and I do not accept their pronouncements either.

    Hence, let us separate in peace.

  107. Benjamin A August 29, 2008 at 5:22 pm #

    Don,

    1. Provide some links to this “new” evidence. I’m sure there must be some scholarly peer reviews written about this discovery.

    2. Your new translation doesn’t fit the context in that 1 Tim. 3:11 says, “women likewise…” clearly indicating that the previous verses 3:1-10 have male (husband of one wife) overseers in mind. You want me to believe that Paul is saying, ‘Ok men or women, who ever aspires to being an overseer, you must meet these character qualification…”. Then verse 11, “Oh yea, and to you women again, you women also must be of good character…”.

    It’s totally redundant. It doesn’t fit the context at all. Thus the reason almost every translation renders 3:2 as “husband of one wife” or something like that.

    Let’s assume for the sake of the dialogue that the Greek wording in question here can mean what you have stated when placed on grave stones; in that context it may connote that idea. Great. Last I checked, Paul’s use of the wording in question isn’t on tombstones, but in an entirely different context. You seem reasonably educated and should know that language in context is what’s key. We are not dealing with a hapax legomenon here that requires looking for word usage outside the New Testament to evaluate its usage in a variety of context to narrow its meaning. This you should know.

  108. Russ August 29, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    TUAD and Don…

    Sola Scriptura seems to be failing you guys…

    Maybe you DO need a Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. 😉

    Only half kidding.

  109. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm #

    Maybe you DO need a Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.

    Russ, a Magisterium and Sacred Tradition would be useless with Don. He’d ignore Magisterial teachings anyway.

    I’m not kidding.

  110. Russ August 29, 2008 at 5:33 pm #

    TUAD…

    Wow.

    Well… this has been fun.

  111. Don August 29, 2008 at 5:34 pm #

    I gave the English ref. It is Bruce Fleming’s “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered”. Wipf and Stock publishers has it.

    The original (French) ref. is the TOB Edition Integrale available from amazon.fr.

    1 Tim 3:11 about wives or women is tied to deacons, not elders, this section starts with 1 Tim 3:8, the section on elders is 1 Tim 3:1-7.

  112. Don August 29, 2008 at 5:36 pm #

    I do not accept that there IS a Magisterium, all of us are simply doing the best each of us can.

  113. Lydia August 29, 2008 at 5:40 pm #

    “Russ, a Magisterium and Sacred Tradition would be useless with Don. He’d ignore Magisterial teachings anyway.

    I’m not kidding.”

    Doing just that got Servetus burned

    As to 1 Tim 3:1

    Does the word ‘anyone’ mean anyone? The word is tis:

    an enclitic indefinite pronoun;

    some or any person or object:–a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all),
    certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some
    (man, -body, – thing, -what), (+ that no-)thing, what(-soever), X wherewith,
    whom(-soever), whose(-soever).

    I ask this because the interpretation some are giving here would mean a single man could not serve as elder. Not even Paul himself would qualify according to your definition.

    Could it be Paul was referring to those with polygamous marriages?

  114. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 5:56 pm #

    Lydia: “Could it be Paul was referring to those with polygamous marriages?”

    Imagine that. Scripture excluding or restricting those with polygamous marriages from serving in the office of elder.

    How discriminatory. How exclusive. So restrictive.

    Or how about Scripture excluding or restricting young teen-agers from serving in the office of elder? Divine Scripture is so discriminatory. So exclusive. So restrictive.

    Where’s the loving inclusion and equality of all persons? Scripture is just so restrictive. All people are gifted in some manner or degree, and therefore all people must be allowed to serve in the office of elder if they so choose.

    (Sarcasm off.)

  115. Don August 29, 2008 at 6:24 pm #

    Character qualities make sense to be a filter for elders, as they are to be examples.

    However, using race, wealth, gender, etc. as a filter do not make much sense, IMO. This is yet another reason to make the egal choice of interpretation when one can, because the egal intepretation makes more sense, is more just, and gives more freedom.

  116. Kathy August 29, 2008 at 6:51 pm #

    ‘and that He has divinely ordered men to take a headship role in the family home.’

    Uh, can you explain to me how the children can be the body of the husband (like the wife IS). In other words in the Eph 5 passage how do you fit children into the head/body metaphor. And also, Jesus Christ has no children, he has a bride, we are God’s children and so Christ is not head of any so how can the husband be the head as Christ is head of the church when it is claimed that the husbnad is the head of the home? Please exlain this one to me. And finaly I’d like to know how a special relationship between the husband and wife is taken away by adding children into the picture.

  117. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 7:08 pm #

    I humbly suggest you pray for wisdom and a contrite and humble heart to receive that divine wisdom.

  118. Don August 29, 2008 at 7:09 pm #

    In Eph 5 Paul is using a head/body metaphor of unity, as in one flesh. The idea of a “headship role” is a man-made concept as far as I can tell, that term is certainly not in the Bible.

  119. Kathy August 29, 2008 at 7:14 pm #

    Imagine that. Scripture excluding or restricting those with polygamous marriages from serving in the office of elder.’

    People are not born with polygamous skin but people are born male or female, so you are comparing apples to brocoli. Christ had only 1 bride. Point is how does ‘be faithful to your spouses sound’? (Well you know how it could go, just go get another…) That’s pretty odd. It’s implied that polygamous men are not qualified IMO in the idiomatic phrase. I think the phrase being understood as idiomatic makes more sense while at the same time it makes a restriction on men in polygamous marriages.

  120. Kathy August 29, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    ‘I humbly suggest you pray for wisdom and a contrite and humble heart to receive that divine wisdom.’

    Wife = child = therefore children are included?

    Seriously, it would be honest dialouge for you to answer my questions.

  121. Truth Unites.. and Divides August 29, 2008 at 7:22 pm #

    “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 1:13)

    Thankfully, complementarians have faithfully followed the pattern of sound words that Apostle Paul exhorts biblically obedient Christians to uphold.

    Thank you. Pax.

  122. Lydia August 29, 2008 at 7:56 pm #

    “Where’s the loving inclusion and equality of all persons? Scripture is just so restrictive. All people are gifted in some manner or degree, and therefore all people must be allowed to serve in the office of elder if they so choose.

    (Sarcasm off.)”

    I agree with Don. I think it would be horrible chaos to have allowed those with polygamous marriages to serve in such a function in the Body of Christ. I do not see how that would apply to a single man, a woman or even a slave.

  123. Dewey September 2, 2008 at 8:12 pm #

    I find it very hard to believe that with all of the Biblical instruction that Andy has recieved, he is hanging this issue on the responses given in IBC’s 24 page treatis.

    Saying nothing more than Eve received her instructions second-hand, without noting FROM WHOM she recieved her instruction is a very serious omission to the topic at hand. God instructed Adam, and it was Adam’s responsibility to instruct his wife in God’s will. From the beginning, God created a hierarchy for instruction. It was this hierarchy that led to the society in which Moses lived. From Adam through his decendants, it was held that the male was responsible for instruction. If we are to believe that the patriarcal society, and not God’s order, influenced Moses in recording Genesis, then we must hold that society bares more enfluence on the author than the Holy Spirit. At least the Elder’s at IBC did throw in that “Their differences – expressed in different perspectives, ROLES and RESPONSIBILITIES -would bring about God’s ideal plan (emphasis added).

    It is also very interesting to note that IBC cites the exceptions, and not the rule, to God’s ideal leadership of His People. God’s People needed leadership, and clearly the vast majority of time, this leadership came from men, continuing the ideal establish at creation. It was only when men failed to take leadership did God bring forth a woman to lead. Once again, this was the exception. Once men stepped forward and assumed their responsibilities, women ceased in this role.

    The remainder of the treatis is really a lot of smoke and mirrors, with little relevance to whether or not a woman should serve as a Pastor over adult men in God’s ideal plan.

    However, there is one glaring issue that must be addressed. Repeatedly, Andy and the elder’s paper throws up this issue of literal translation. Specifically, I Corinthians 11:3-12. They insist that since versus 4-10 cannot be taken literally, then I Corinthians 14:32-36 (and I Timothy 2:12) cannot be taken literally. And yet, they answer this issue themselve (editorial error?) whenthey state, “Paul made it clear that when a woman prophesied ‘with her hair cover’ – RECOGNIZING THE ORDER OF CREATION AND THE MALE LEADERSHIP GOD SET OVER THE CHURCH…” Put simply, verses 4-7 are restatements of verse 3, with ‘head covered’ being a symbol of putting someone in their unintended postition between the person and God. In other words, God to Christ to man to woman.

    Of course, we can also argue that for every example of leadership by a woman in the NT Church, the authors also cite several examples of woman causing disturbances…

  124. Don September 8, 2008 at 11:18 am #

    Where exactly is the explicit reference to male leadership at creation? Gen 3 does not count at that is the fall, there the woman is WARNED about what to expect from being married to the deliberate sinner who blamed her for his sin.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Irving Bible Church & Women Preachers « amazing grey city - August 27, 2008

    […] For you dedicated readers, I thought I’d let you know that I called in to the show to speak my mind…about 45 minutes into the program. You can listen or download here: Radio Debate with the Pastor of IBC […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes