Karen – I agree that there are other things in Voddie’s message and life that may be cause for disassociation in some people’s mind. But I don’t think any of those things are bothersome to very many people in the SBC.

However, my experience with the SBC (mainly through my SBC-affiliated church) would incline me to accept Voddie’s observations.

The SBC is going through a serious, albeit somewhat quiet, civil war regarding the Doctrines of Grace. Many pastors who hold to Calvinistic theology have been removed from positions of authority or from seminary/college classrooms.

Not only is Voddie outspokenly Calvinistic, but he has preached at John Piper’s conferences and Piper is practically the anti-Christ to these virulently anti-Calvinistic leaders in the SBC.

Richard,

Voddie came under strong criticism after his appearance on CNN after rejecting Sarah Palin. I happen to know that the repercussions of that were strongly felt in Louisville, Southern Baptist Calvinism central, not because of Calvinism but because of the election. Claiming that the criticism of his “patriocentric voodoo” as Karen would call was due to his Calvinistic beliefs is disingenuous.

For example:
If Voddie’s name does not appear in any of my workshop materials or the presentation anywhere, how can he in any good conscience claim that my workshop was a reaction to his book and his church?

I didn’t even so much as see a quote from his book and I never read an article on his website until several months after the workshop presentation.

If he’s grasping at the straw of my presentation where he is not even mentioned, how much of the rest of that article is twisted to make him sound like a Calvinist martyr?

John Piper is another fine example who has written lovely and profound Calvinist works, but when it comes to patriocentricity and the pagan patriarchy of the Roman paterfamilias that he tries to sell as Biblical Christianity, he takes that criticism not because of the Doctrines of Grace. He’s criticized because he’s pushing an agenda that is not clearly supported in the Word of God and then claims that his gender teachings are not intramural issues but are essential doctrine. The writings of Bob K McGreggor Wright, originally published in the late ’80s are an excellent example of this. He also applauds Piper’s work concerning Calvinism but rejects his eisegesis concerning his gender arguments.

That’s not to say that there’s not tension in the SBC regarding these matters, but why is it then that Calvinists like Hershael York strong arm other Calvinists who oppose the Louisville agenda and Baptist Identity? I don’t think that’s over Calvinism at all. It’s about the sacerdotalism and the resistance to sacerdotalism. It’s the attempts to take the loosely affiliated SBC, joined by the Baptist Faith and Message statement, and turn it into a group that is ruled by a top-down leadership. Voddie’s all about that. It just so happens that most of the people with most of the power who have this interest happen to be Calvinist. If this were about Calvinism, Al Mohler would be posting the same kinds of things on his blog. But it’s just business as usual for him, because he supported the candidate that the SBC endorsed. He didn’t think that, like McAtee, that Palin would be our “federal federal head.”

Richard,

I’m curious as to where pastors and teachers are being removed. I honestly would like to know to temper what I do know about the things that have taken place at Southern Seminary. I have friends that went there in the ’80s that watched professors get sent packing because they were considered to be too liberal. As one friend said to me, at least they were true Trinitarians, as they now have been replaced with Calvinists there who have just some outright wrong doctrines concerning the Trinity in particular. They rule with an iron fist there, from what I understand from so many who have written to me. You think like they think and tow the party line, or you suffer. They’re very intolerant. Very authoritarian.

Where are the other places where it works the other way? I honestly would like to know. I need to know. We all do. But I know only of the opposite.

I don’t think that this new move has to do with these doctrines related to God’s sovereignty. Both Paige Patterson and Al Mohler alike preach these doctrines concerning gender and strive to get women off the mission field and out of teaching positions (where they had no administrative/supervisory duties). Have you read what took place with the changing of the Faith and Message statement?

And I think of how Wade Burleson, a Calvinist, fought and fought these trends when he was on the Intl Missions Board and how people are still pursuing him. Wade fought to keep women in the mission field and he was vilified, too. I think if you say his name too loud in Louisville, the nearby windows start to break.

Who are the Wade Burlesons who are non-Calvinists and where can we read their sagas?

Cindy – I don’t have a wide knowledge of these things, only a personal knowledge. In other words, I have not read about these things, I have lived them. I think the real is much more valid than the theoretical.

The president of Liberty Seminary told me personally that I represent a faction that is more dangerous than radical Islam because I am a five-point Calvinist. I have four personal friends whose jobs were terminated at Liberty University during the 2007 school year because of their stand on Calvinism. Paige Patterson fired two assistant pastors at his church the year before he died because they had made public statements in support of a man who proclaimed himself to be a “4-point Calvinist.” The webmaster at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Mark Devers church) told me of death threats that were sent to that church by other SBC pastors. Johnny Hunt described my pastor (a 3-pointer) as a “blatantly heretical nonbeliever” due to his Calvinistic leanings. When my church split about six years ago because the pastor was accused of unethical financial dealings, Jerry Falwell publicly stated that the reason for the failure of this church was that the pastor had become a Calvinist. This year’s Southern Baptist Convention featured an extensive squad of shouting leaflet distributors at all of the doors pressing the point that Al Mohler must not be considered for the presidency of the SBC because of his Calvinism.

Those are a handful of the myriad experiences I have personally had with the anti-Calvinist forces in the SBC. I have mild disagreements with Voddie about some FIC issues and some gender-related things. And I disagreed strongly with his statements about Gov. Palin. But I accept fully his view of what’s happening in the SBC and am not likely to change my acceptance of that based on the thoughts of folks outside of the SBC.

It’s not ALL about patriocentricity. There are a few other issues out there if you take the time to look.

“Paige Patterson fired two assistant pastors at his church the year before he died because they had made public statements in support of a man who proclaimed himself to be a “4-point Calvinist.”

Paige Patterson is alive and running SWBTS into the ground as we speak.

By the way, Adrian Rogers called Calvinism the doctrine of devils and supported Mohler for president of SBTS. )

Richard, with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, just let me say that YOU, a man, may have no problem under Voddie…but it sounds like legalistic pharisetical prison to me,,,a mere stupid woman whose only purpose on earth is to seek the ‘will’ of her husband/priest… More extra biblical teaching on roles, rules and formulas for Christian women.

Sorry – I meant to say Adrian Rogers, not Paige Patterson. The man who is Adrian Rogers’ replacement has also wasted his time coming to my blog to chide me about some of my views on music (rather than spending his time dealing with the considerable problems of his very large church). I don’t know if his appearance on my blog had anything to do with my stand on Calvinism, but my only knowledge of his church is its anti-Calvinistic teaching from the pulpit.

“Sorry – I meant to say Adrian Rogers, not Paige Patterson. The man who is Adrian Rogers’ replacement has also wasted his time coming to my blog to chide me about some of my views on music (rather than spending his time dealing with the considerable problems of his very large church). I don’t know if his appearance on my blog had anything to do with my stand on Calvinism, but my only knowledge of his church is its anti-Calvinistic teaching from the pulpit.”

You have got to be kidding me! BTW: Gaines , the pastor who replaced Rogers, allowed a confessed pedophile minister of prayer to stay on his staff a few years back….until it was made public and he was forced to make him resign. Evidently, he does not think too much of qualifications for elders in scripture. There is a blog dedicated to the bizarre preaching and doctrines of Gaines.

Richard, I think the really big fear with Calvinism within the SBC is based more on fear of losing congregational polity. Many well known Calvinists are very hierarchical and tend to lean toward a few men making all the decisions for the Body where many SBC churches believe that all ‘believers’ are ministers. Not all churches beleieve that anymore, I know. In the past 30 years, we have seen more and more SBC churches take on the mantle of a few running the whole show and those in the pews are spectators.

If Voddie is being ‘marginalized’ it is because of his fringe teachings that are extra biblical. That is not rejecting him as a person. It is rejecting his teaching which is extra biblical. When I say that, I mean the teaching he has chosen to be the most vocal about is not the pure gospel but many rules and roles for people which are extra biblical. I think it behooves us all to look at all teaching and ask one simple question: Does this person’s teaching elevate them in power over others? If it does, we do need to question their ‘goals’. Paul described himself as a bondservant. There is to be no lording it over others in the Body.

Voddie chose to go on TV and imply that a vote for Palin was sin. It is perfectly right to reject that view and question why someone as educated as Voddie holds that view. I question his view about women, daughters, etc.

His blog post that Karen wrote about here was bizarre. Why include Cindy? She made no reference to him in her presentation. She directly quoted those she spoke about. The bottomline is that Voddie is Patriarchal and thinks those who do not subscribe to his view of Patriarchy are in sin. But, he also believes those who are not inviting him to speak are doing it because of Calvinism ignoring the fact that he went on national TV and spoke about Palin the way he did. He may want to consider Mohlers speaking schedule, or Piper’s or Driscolls, or Ware’s or Moore’s who supported Palin. And who speak to mixed audiences (Calvin and Free Willers) all the time.

His blaming Calvinism is a strawman.

Julie, I agree with you from a general point of view about SBTS and have many friends there. But there is some heresy coming out of SBTS from a few well placed and influential professors who are teaching the eternal subordination of Jesus Christ within the Trinity in eternity past and future.

Cindy made a good point above about us not wanting to believe negative things about our heros.

It is ok if you don’t believe me. Most do not. It is very subtle and one must be vigilant to catch it. Cheryl Schatz did a DVD dedicated to this subject and only used audio quotes from SBTS’s Bruce Ware and Denny Burke teaching on this subject. If you believe it is a waste of time to pray to Jesus, because He is a lesser Deity, you may agree with Bruce Ware and Denny Burke.

SBTS’s Russell Moore is also calling for less complimentarian and more Patriarchy.

“Thanks for giving me a bit of a pass on my earlier exaggerated comments, which I believe fell victim to the concept of in vino veritas.”

Richard, You are my brother and get a pass, of course! (me too, right?) Except that now I have to go look that last part up. (sigh)

Vino is wine, right? )

Lin – In Vino Veritas “In wine there is truth.” It means, essentially, that a small amount of wine tends to lower a person’s inhibitions and it tends to free his tongue to say what is truly in his heart, without spin and without a covering mask of political correctness (or the conservative religious version thereof).

Cindy – I agree that abuse of power is not attractive from any side. My experience, probably because I’m one of those who you described in your comment who holds Calvinism to be “the Gospel,” is that the vitriol and abuse of power is much more prominent on the Arminian or lack o’ theological depth side.

I don’t think it is a good thing for us to sweep differences under the rug when the Bible clearly states doctrine. I don’t see any room for discussion or debate regarding such things as the depravity of man, unconditional election, the definite atonement of Christ for his people, effectual grace, or God’s preservation of his saints. I find these things simply dripping from every page of scripture and must view those who reject it as either lacking in scholarship or intentionally opposing the revealed word of God. So I tend to not see the dismissal of anti-Calvinists as an abuse of power, but rather as discretion and good judgment.

I admit that I am an all-or-nothing type of person and I see in shades of solid black and solid white. It makes life much easier with the simple exception of trying to get along with others. Oh well.

Richard wrote: My experience, probably because I’m one of those who you described in your comment who holds Calvinism to be “the Gospel,” is that the vitriol and abuse of power is much more prominent on the Arminian or lack o’ theological depth side.

Richard, Calvinism is a perspective and is thus a construct of man in his attempt to understand the Gospel. So is Arminianism and Pelagianism and any other -ism in between. Each is a perspective that represents the Word of God and falls within the pale of orthodoxy. Each perspective has it’s positive and its negative aspects. It is an intramural issue, and as Augustine said, in matters of non-essentials, we should have liberty. LIBERTY, not exclusion. We are called to lovingly bear one another’s differences of perspective and personal conviction. When either perspective is placed on the same footing as the Gospel (above the level of conviction and as TRUTH rather than an understanding of it), the sovereignty of God is denied. Arminians do so by placing man in too high a ranking in comparison to God’s sovereignty. Calvinists assume the place of God when they become fixated on limited atonement (forgetting their own depravity outside of Christ’s mercy), the often fit matters of the mystery of God’s perspective into the confines of the box of human understanding, assuming to be able to share God’s perspective. Both demonstrate human hubris. Neither is the Gospel itself, but it represents man’s comprehension of God.

Based upon our personalities and the marvellous diversities in which God has created us, each person makes sense of the world in a different way. The mathematician who has more of an affinity for analytical matters probably gets much more out of the Calvinistic perspective. The artist and those skilled in relationships and the subtle nuances of relating to people probably relates better to God from some perspective that is not full blown Calvinism. How gracious is God to present the Gospel in such a way so as to relate it to both of these types of people? This is why we have synoptic Gospels, because each one had a specific target audience. I love Matthew and John the most, and Mark and Luke appeal more to others. I believe the same is true of this debate.

One has to trust the Holy Spirit to do His work in the lives of others. We are all on different stages in our transformation into the image of God’s son. I’ve heard Sproul say (and I don’t know if he originated the phrase or not) that when we first get saved, we are Arminian. When we study a little longer, we get semi-pelagian. And when we mature, whether we realize it or not, we accept Calvinism. By saying that only Calvinism represents truth (and it may be truth on a deeper level), you are ostracising untold numbers of believers that love God with their whole being for the sake of your own, albeit limited perspective. You are not the Holy Spirit who tenderly changes us, doing all things in love.

We are to contend for our beliefs with meekness and patience, and the process approves us. Both perspectives, when approached with grace, respect, and “one-anothering” fosters and deepens the faith of all, both in the process of the challenge and in the quest for greater truth. We make one another think about what our own perspective does not appreciate. That does not mean that those who are not “digging deep” on your side of the fence are not digging deep at all. You can contend with all passion for the truth, but we must love one another in the process. And no one has said that we should sweep differences away. The differences enrich us all and teach us how to love one another as God stretches our hearts like Jesus told the man with the withered hand to stretch his own tough, contracted skin.

If we feel strife, bitterness or such when we are contending for rock-solid truth, that frustration tells us something about our own hearts. Defining terms in only black and white in regard to something as mind-boggling complex and diverse as human understanding tells us much about our own focus. If we are contending for God’s truth and we believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in the heart and mind of the committed believer and finishes the good work that God began, why should we feel personally offended? Chances are that we are feeling our own unhealed wounds. (All or nothing reasoning is classified as a defense mechanism, and this is what small children who lack discernment do.) God is more likely pushing us toward our own healing and is likely not asking us to separate from our own flesh. He’s teaching us how to stretch, how to trust him with the heart of another and how to love.

We need to be just as focused on loving our brethren (with whom we share the Love of Christ’s Word and His character and the church) as we are on contending for the truth. One without the other is empty, just like faith without works. We are not called to be the Holy Spirit in the hearts of others, and we have to learn to be patient with His work in us as well as His work in others. We are not all that we were and not all that we will be.

That does not mean and need not imply in any way that there wont be disagreements. But if our foundation and our security is really in truth, why should it bother us when we differ on matters within the pale? It’s our job to state our apologia, but it is the work of the Lord to change the other person’s understanding. It is by staying grounded in the True Vine of the Gospel and not in the tenets of perspective on any matter that keeps us rooted and grounded in love, the love that we are given freely by the Lord, while we were yet sinners. We need to model that kind of love, not to dismiss sin but to learn forbearance of one another’s differences which James says comes through suffering, the trying of our faith. God is using these things to teach us his character, and never stops until we draw our last breath.

Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, and when He could have prayed anything else, He prayed for us to be one like He and the Father were one. We read how the early church gathered and were of one mind and one accord. That was not uniformity but true unity. God worked that through the fruit of love via the Spirit and not through uniformity — the working of what man wants. Men want uniformity based on the outward things. God calls us to faith in him and to love for one another. That is the key to our unity.

Yes, Lin, from those words you can clearly tell that I want all women dressed in burqhas and sweeping up after me. And throwing rose petals in my path, please.

There’s never any excuse for celebrating the parts of the bible we like, and ignoring the parts we don’t like. It’s also not allowable to point the finger at Vision Forum kooks, as if Vision Forum’s kookiness means that egalitarianism is true. Vision Forum is kooky, and egalitarianism is wrong, both at the same time.

We also never have the right to ignore context in order to misapply Bible texts — taking verses that clearly address equality in redemption (such as Galatians 3:28) and forcing them onto matters of church governance.

The Bible teaches that men and women are equal in some ways, and that men are over women in other ways. Men and women are equally made in God’s image, equally dead spiritually speaking, equally in need of redemption, equally redeemed by the shed blood of Christ, we come to God the same way (by faith alone), we come to God directly by means of Christ (women don’t come to God through Christ via their fathers or husbands), we’re all sons of God through faith in Christ, and have Christian women access to the same spiritual gifts, including teaching and administration gifts, that men do.

It also teaches, just as authoritatively, that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man/or husbands, and man/husbands is the head of woman/wives (1 Cor. 11:3). The fact that God is the head of Christ proves that “head” doesn’t mean “source” there, since God is not the source of Christ (unless you a heretic, and say that the second Person of the Trinity depends on the first Person of the Trinity for His deity). “Head” means “ruler” or “overseer.” God is over Christ; Christ is over Christian men; Christian men are over Christian women in authority. This is a generalization.

That was why Christian men, in their cultural setting, were forbidden to wear anything on their heads while praying or prophesying, while women were required to wear a symbol of submission (a head-covering, 11:4-7). This was a universal rule among all Christian churches, not a just local command (11:16).

We accept Genesis 1-3 as historical. Womankind was created out of Adam, which means God gave him priority, and Eve was created for Adam’s help (1 Cor. 11:8-9). Both of these are fixed historical events which don’t change with the times. A consistent creationist has to be some degree of complementarian.

Women were not allowed to speak in tongues or prophesy in the Lord’s Day meeting (1 Cor. 14:34, in light of the preceding context). They could receive the gift of prophesy (which wasn’t the gift of preaching, btw), but there were limits on where and when they could exercise it that weren’t on the men.

Adam was created first, and Eve was the one deceived; therefore, women should not exercise an on-going Bible teaching ministry to men, or rule over a man (i.e., be pastors or elders). 1 Timothy 2:12-14. This is different from Priscilla interacting with Apollos as a sister in the Lord. She wasn’t acting from a position of authorized pastoral authority.

God ordained that men head up 100% of the covenants He cut with people — Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, and Christ. Israel’s priesthood was limited to men. Pastor/ eldering is similarly limited to men only.

Egalitarianism rejects God’s Word on all this. But some man;s evil or obnoxious actions from one’s past should never be the determining factor in one’s theology. And the Scripture doesn’t change its contents to validate the prevailing tenor of our times.

Pastor Brooks,

I must agreeably disagree on the point of an hierarchical Trinity. (I’m not egal, BTW but read broadly. I remembered the Wright reference because it is so unique, and we had a discussion about other issues in that article, but I was impressed with his graciousness.) I don’t agree with many of the applications that Giles makes in his books that deal with the Trinity, but I agree with the material that deals directly with the Trinity.

Please note that I think many egal arguments go too far, and I take a conservative stance. But I think it is an intramural issue and not an abundantly clear and essential matter. Though I don’t think that a conservative interpretation supports women pastors and elders which is why I consider myself a comp. And my only marriage vow to my dh was that I would submit to him as unto the Lord. I’m not out on a male rebellion tour. Some women pastors may be on one, but I generally stay out of those venues.

If you’re advocating an economic Trinity, the “house rules” if you will, in Greek, then I understand the Trinity in those same terms. It’s a functional relationship that does not have implications for authority so that the Son of God has less authority than the Father. (I’m wondering if you’re a social trinitarian?) But if you are working back to a Covenant of Redemption thesis, I respectfully disagree.

I’d also be curious to hear what you do think about the OT priesthood as a standard now. Sounds like a question hinting at Covenant Theology and whether the NT church finds it original continuous identity in Abraham or in the the Upper Room.

Do you strongly follow Covenant Theology might be a more telling question (as these things all touch on that one)?

Forgive the spelling mistakes as I am in a hurry.

et me add something here…I do not think comps are evil even though read into scripture what is not there too many times and seem to need a rule book to follow for ‘roles’.

I also do not think women should have authority over men. In the Body of Christ, the only authority is Jesus Christ and His Word. We are simply messengers and instruments that He uses and if we are truly saved, we are gifted by the Holy Spirit to edify the Body. All believers are ministers as we are a Holy Priesthood with Jesus as our one and ONLY HIgh Priest..

The only human authorities in scripture are the civil authorities. God was working within a Patriarchal culture and Jesus Christ turned it all on it’s head. ( pun intended) Jesus said that we are not to lord it over as the Gentiles do. There are tons of ’servant’ passages we tend to overlook when we are thinking of our ‘position’ in the church or the Body.

Think about it. If we really teach that elders are our authority and we must obey them (Hebrews passage does NOT teach this but teaches us to be ‘persuaded’ by them) then those who did not follow Jim JOnes would have been in sin. WE are to individually discern through the Word and be careful for false teachers, wolves and hirlings.

A blanket command to obey elders is quite dangerous and why we see so many fake Christian cults.

There are no ‘offices’ in scripture. That word was added in, too. There are functions. Example: Elders are the spiritually mature and as overseers they care for our souls and the correct teaching of the Word. (Not adding to it to elevate them over others)

(In Acts, the word for ‘appointing’ elders means ‘handstretching’ as in voting)

I would think a REAL elder would look much like what Matthew 5 describes as blessed. That is not a prestigious description at all!

Too much of comp teaching is to elevate men. It has become a snare for power, influence and even money.

Christians are servants. We are to be humble and not seek position but to serve and sacrifice for one another. Men and women believers together.

“1. 1 Corinthians 11 describes an economic subordination within the Trinity. The Father holds authority over the Son. Christ taught the same, particularly in several of His discourses in John. I think Paul intended to talk about men and women in general, in chapter 11; Ephesians 5 is more specifically about husbands and wives. But a generalization allows for lawful exceptions, like Deborah. It wasn’t a sin against the law of God for Deborah to be a civil judge. ”

1 Corin 11 is about headcoverings. You are doing a Bruce Ware here and making it about something much more than it is.

Eph 5 is aobut mutual submission between beleivers and how that looks in marriage. (can’t ignore verse 21. It does NOT exlude husbands if they are believers, too)

You would also have to ignore all the ‘one anothers’ all through scripture. As they are all about mutuality.

“2. Should someone say that “head” [kephale] means “source”, e.g., “head-waters”, rather than “overseer”, that person plunges immediately into anti-Trinitarian heresy.”

“Kephale’ is a metaphor and communicates ‘unity’. Here is what I believe about the Trinity:

There is ONE TRUE God in three persons

God is God
Jesus is God
The Holy Spirit is God

They have a united will. There is no chain of commnd within the Trinity because there does not need to be one. Too many verses from Jesus as Incarnate Son are teleported to eternity past and future. But it does help to do that in order to teach earthly heirarchies. But it does lessen Jesus Christ for eternity past and future. Not a good thing.

“The Father is not the source of the Son. There’s no ontological subordination within the Trinity, only an economic subordination. Christ is autotheos, God-in-Himself, as are the other two members of the Trinity. Christ doesn’t have less authority than the Father; but He doesn’t have authority over the Father. The Son, the Father, and the Spirit have equal authority over all created things. But the Father has authority over the Son and the Spirit. So if Cindy is asking whether there are different degrees of authority internally within the Trinity, as opposed to the Trinity’s external authority over everyone and everything else, then the answer is yes. Jesus said (in John 5, I think), that He does perfectly whatever the father shows Him that he (the father) is doing, so that, whenever Christ acted, such as healing that man, that was God acting, and vice-versa. there was perfect synchronicity, which is why Jesus could say, “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.” But the Father sent Christ to us; Christ didn’t authorize and send Himself. That’s why 1 Peter called Christ the Chosen, which was a title of divine authorization.”

1Corin 11 is communicating ‘unity’ in Kephale as in Head/Body metaphor.. Jesus is the ‘begotten’ Son. As Incarnate Son, He does come from God. He is 100% God and 100% Man.

Being “sent” does not mean authority over. IF your wife sends you to the store, she is not your authority because of that.

Here is an example…the Pharisees were angry with Jesus because he made himself equal with the father. John 5:18
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Being ’sent’ does not mean unequal or subbordinate no more than being a ‘Son’ made Him unequal. The Pharisees understood this but we don’t.

Phil 2 is instructive here because Jesus ‘humbled’ Himself. Left the Glory of Heaven and made HIMSELF of no reputation. How could He do that if subordinate before Incarnation”

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

“3. There are parallels between the OT priesthood and the NT pastorate, but you would need to go through the NT bit by bit and pick them out. It’s clear that the OT priesthood was fulfilled and abolished in the Person and cross of Christ. His priesthood is of the line of Melchizedek, which puts Him outside the Aaronic system completely. I think the connections between the OT priest and the NT pastor are moral. For instance, I resonate as a pastor with the Lord’s admonition in Malachi that a priest’s lips should “preserve knowledge.” I mean, as opposed to ceremonial; obviously we don’t need to be descendants of Aaron, or wear jeweled breastplates. But it is significant that, in all of God’s covenants, the representative who stands for everyone in that covenant, including the women, is always a man. ”

What ‘pastorates’ in the NT? Can you name them, please? If you are referring to the 12 Apostles they map to the 12 Tribes. Me thinks you are reading into it what you want to see.

It would be like me saying that because God chose to allow slavery and did not command it was a sin that it is ok. God was working within a sinful Patriarchal culture that was living out the consequences for sin in Gen 3.

“4. It’s possible that 1 Timothy 2 is describing the office and activities of an elder, since Paul goes right on to discuss the qualifications of an elder (3:1ff). Elders have to be men, among other qualifications. But that implies, I believe, that women shouldn’t “elder” men — in other words, the practical functions of an elder are not allowed, even if a woman isn’t titled “elder” or “pastor”. It would be interesting to write Joni Tada, considering she’s quite Reformed in her theology, and in light of the fact that John MacArthur is her pastor, and ask her about this. I might do that, because I’m curious about it. ”

1 Tim 1 and 2 is talking about false teachers. He even begins by describing himself and what he was formally…

12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

The goes on to talk about Hy and Al. then he talks about the ONE (the Greek is singular here) woman who ‘authenteo’ a man. Probably her husband (Gune and Aner). She is a false teacher but Paul is commanding Timothy to “Let her learn” in quietness. Authenteo is used no where else in the NT. Research on it comes up with murder, domineering, Lording it over, etc. We have evidence of Chryostem (sp?)teaching that a husband should not authenteo his wife. So we know it is a very bad thing and neither men or women should do it to others.

This is a very hard verse because if we interpret it YOUR way, then I am saved by a WORK. Childbearing. That cannot be true as it would negate the free gift. There has to be a local context we are missing. It could have to do with the fertility cult in the Temple of Artemis (One of the wonders of the
World right there in Ephesus) that taught that Eve was formed first and if women did certain things they woudl not die in childbirth. That was a real fear back then.

Saved in childbearing could be a play on words meaning ’saved’ as in birth of Messiah. Or it could mean that even if she died in childbirth she would be saved if she beleived the correct Gospel.

But to turn this verse into a WORK of salvation or even sanctification as so many do is heinous and does violence to what our Lord did on the Cross. Please do not do that.

Actually there is no ‘office’ for anyone but no where does Paul make it clear that an elder has to be a man. While I have no problem with that…a very close study makes it clear we have read into it. The Greek is tic which means ANYONE. Where we read into it is ‘husband of one wife’. We do not know if that means no polygamists can be elders or divorced, etc. There is even some evidence this phrase means ‘Faithful Spouse’ as was on some headstones.

I don’t want to give you a coronary but we know from scholarship (even though many want to hide it) that Junia, a woman. was an apostle (little a) and mentioned by one of the early church fathers as such.

“Women ought not be presented or commissioned as preachers to men. But if men choose to sit in on a Christian women’s event because they’re interested, or buy a book, or listen to a CD or radio broadcast, that’s their own business. But I don’t think women ought to get up behind a lectern and exposit the Scripture to a mixed audience, with that as the intention. So perhaps intentionality plays a role here.”

There were no lecterns that we know of in the early church. You are trying to tell me that Phoebe was only a mail carrier and that Lydia had a church in her home but dared not teach men even though she was the first convert in that part of the world?

At what age should a boy/man stop being taught the word by their mom’s? Or do mom’s get a pass? Timothy only heard the word from his Grandmother and mother as a boy. Is there somewhere in scripture, even in the OT, that gives me an age that men can no longer sit under teaching of a woman?

I really think you are sincere. And I think you are sincerely misguided. You cannot even hear the arrogance of what you said in the last paragraph. Because you have a Greek view of the ‘pastorate’ you cannot see that the early church was not structured like we see today. In Corinthians we see Paul telling them to have several speak and the others judge. That includes prophesying and tongues. What we do not know, ironically, is who were the ‘pastors’ or even elders of all the NT churches. And if the structure were so all important…chain of command…why didn’t Paul write ALL letters to elders only?

“Lin., what does this saying mean: “An assertion, even a loud one, doesn’t prove anything”?”

Was I ‘loud’? But it is true that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

But remember, you called me and many of your brothers and sisters in Christ, evil….. first. A definite smear of your fellow believers who love and follow after Christ.

I do not see a personal ’smear’ at the beginning of my comment. I only pointed out that your interpretation of 1 Corin 11 is exactly like Bruce Ware’s and much has to be read into it to get your conclusions.

I did say that your last paragraph was arrogant. But, I do not think you actually mean to be arrogant. I don’t think you can hear yourself or see past your exhalted postion over others. This teaching is a snare for many and I think it would be hard for me, too, if I were a man.

But, this is a great way to divert away from content. of the discussion. You are safe because you never have to learn anything from a Christian sister in Christ. It perpetuates the cycle.

But you declared that a ’symbol of’ in 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that a woman is under the authority of a man. Those words are not in the Greek. They were added in by translators. This was a huge clue for me about your comments and as a teacher of the Word, you should be concerned.

Gal 4:16

Regarding the Trinity, man tends to forget that man is not the standard against which all things are weighed. We are much lesser creatures which undeniably do not share God’s vantage in matters regarding space, time or even the ability to see God as He is. Moses, whose hair turned white from looking only at God’s wake and He removed His tangible presence from him, could not bear the weight of the full presence of God just to cast his eyes upon Him, let alone evaluate how the Persons of the Godhead related. It is a mystery, and a marvellous, wonderful one at that. We see through a glass darkly and will not see God as He is until that day our mortal coils are changed and rise (one way or the other) to meet Him in the air.

Not that I am Barthian in terms of my Christianity, I do appreciate his analogy of being observations. If an artist creates a replica of himself, the work of art is never and can never be greater than the creator. (The “Rock From Which We Were Hewn” casts images of that on that argument.) We are not greater than others, and we are certainly not greater than our Master, our Creator. How presumptuous is it to got to one’s Creator, and using the Van Tillian imagery, crawl up onto God’s lap like the children we are to slap him in the face with our hubris? We are the sheep of his pasture, not fellow shepherds who stand high above the sheep with broad and infinitely unbridled perspective. Another secular work that demonstrates the implications of perspective (and also gender and authoritarianism in the process) is Edwin A. Abbott’s “Flatland” (which is now available in 2 film versions). How does a one dimensional being even begin to comprehend something outside of it’s realm of existence in a two dimensional world, let a alone a three dimensional object? It has no vantage, unless the greater force in terms of perspective intervenes on their behalf. (If you’ve never seen something or heard of something, how do you first conceive of it, let alone evaluate it? It is impossible.

So is it not presumptuous to say that man can even begin to evaluate what when on in the mind of any being with whom he does not share a common perspective. Some saw the Face of Jesus, and we have the words of a Shepherd to His sheep speaking of mysteries, which by definition are partially hidden from us. We’re given types and shadows so that we might begin to understand and have faith in that which is unseen, not through our own intellect, but through the revealing of the Holy Spirit of Himself and the Word of God to us.

So how is it that man can even begin to know the inter-workings of the specifics of these matters regarding the Divine Three, other than through what we are explicitly told in the Word of God? With all do respect and acknowledging the areas where we share agreement, Pastor Brooks presents his own view of the ETERNAL relationship between and among the Persons of the Godhead with a sense that his view is the only rational, reasonable and true perspective. It is one of social trinitarianism which simply means that when considering the mystery of the Trinity, one focuses more on the distinctions between the Divine Persons rather than the unity that they share. This PERSPECTIVE has it’s pitfalls when it is not balanced with the wisdom of who man truly is in his relationship to God, including tritheism, varied degrees of Arianism and what has recently been called “unitarianism of either the First or Second Person of the Godhead” (meaning that one makes either the Father — the 1st Person of the Godhead as a FUNCTIONAL or ECONOMIC descriptor — or the Son who is the 2nd Person of the Godhead THE pre-eminent figure Who is representative of the whole). The Eastern Orthodox Church holds to a perspective called the filoque (the controversy that split them from the RCC), wherein (for the sake of simplification) the Son and Spirit proceed from the Father, but it is not in the sense that the Son and Spirit are not of equal authority. What Each does is distinct and functional (economic), but it does not imply authority. It is more akin to the understanding of “kephale” as origin versus a ruler. (Like taking out the trash… If dad, mom, son or daughter carries the trash out of the house and to the curb, it doesn’t necessarily imply authority or even role.)

Regarding this view, Moreland and Craig in “Philisophical Basis for a Christian Worldview” say (and be forewarned that IVP published it) on page 586: Without begging the question in favor of social trinitarianism, it can safely be said that on no reasonable understanding of “person” can a person be equated with a relation.

The other perspective is anti-social Trinitarianism which seeks to preserve and focuses upon the unity of God wherein aspects like authority are not divided. For this reason, Augustine argued that we should not even use the term “person” in regard to the Divine Three because it remakes God into man’s image by shoving him into a box that we presume to comprehend in fullness. It is not God’s qualities that add up to make Him God. His being and His qualities/attributes are not separate components that can be removed from His identity. So you cannot pull authority or will out from the rest of Who God is and What He is which the social trinitarians do (which is why they fall into Arianism, actually a form of Freewillism). Anti-social Trinitarians also have their potential pitfalls when their view is not also tempered by the due consideration of the unique qualities of the Father, Son and Spirit. They can fall into Unitarianism and Modalism.

So we can hold either view which is merely a vantage (as is Calvinism or Arminianism), but we cannot insist that only our vantage is valid because God is incomprehensible to us in our mortal flesh. One day we will have a more clear perspective, but until we do, we can neither fully comprehend nor assert with any legitimate authority that either view is absolute or the exclusive truth. Our contending for either view keeps us balanced as our iron sharpens iron.

Of this we can be sure of and should agree:

God is God and we are not.

Pardon me, perspicuous.

“Have you (I know Kathleen has) seen
Barna’s book Pagan Christianity that examines all the practices in the modern church, showing their historical roots? Fascinating and certainly eye-opening”

Yes, I read it a while back. It is a great historical look at the church and traditions that are of men.

I once read Acts 17x in a row and each time I had a different perspective I was looking for while the church was being built. One time it was to highlighted the Holy Spirit at work. What an eye opener. So much of the silliness that man has brought into the ‘Body’ vanishes when you do that.

“Pardon me, perspicuous.”

No problem! You must be cringing at all my misspellings. Did I even spell misspelling right? )

““My Father is greater than I.” or Christ through Paul said, “God is the head over Christ, Christ is the head over man, and man is the head over woman.” If God says, “X” about Himself, from that point on I can no longer say, “X is too mysterious to understand.” ,”

Jesus only said that because He was still in His humbled form on this earth. Jesus told His disciples that they should be rejoicing because He is going back to the Father and will then resume His equality and fully glory as the true God. The context of this passage clearly shows us that Jesus is NOT saying that the Father is greater as in any sort of rank or divinity or authority.

The problem is that people think they know what Scripture teaches but really do not understand it at all. Even the Pharisees, who knew Scripture inside and out, did not understand it. It is a stumbling block and a rock of offense. It is not going to be discerned correctly if we approach it with preconceived notions about what we want it or think it should say.

Also, the very fact that you added in “over” into the Scriptures shows your bias about headship and what you think it means.

It does not say that God is head OVER Christ. Wording it this way is misleading, imho. And when I started really studying the Word for myself, I saw how many times people added little words to the word of God in order to shore up their own particular belief system.

Another good example is when people say that the Bible teaches that womEN are MORE EASILY deceived. Never says that nor does it come close to intimating that. It says that the woMAN (Eve) was deceived.

Another one is where people say that the man was given the commandment to take dominion and to subdue when it was BOTH Adam and Eve with no distinction that was given that command.

Another place is right in 1 Cor 11 where people claim that woman was made for man and totally skip the NEVERTHELESS which is the great balancing act and Paul’s blow to the Corinthians’ wrong idea about men and women. The first woman was made for the first man BUT/NEVERTHELESS since that time every man has come from a woman and all things come from God.

Paul was refuting their argument not agreeing with them. He found one tiny point of agreement and used that to drive a truck of truth through. That is a wonderful debate tactic. Look for a chink the opponent’s armor and drive it home in that spot.

These are things that cause people to be swayed a certain way in a very subtle manner.

It says that the head of every man (plural) is Christ, the head of woman (singular) is man (singular), and the head of Christ is God.

I think, by your addition of “over”, you believe “head” to mean “authority” and the addition of the word “over” certainly strengthens your position in the eyes of others.

But, are you quite certain you are understanding this passage in the way God would have you to? Is this passage really that perspicuous? I don’t think so as evidenced by the multitudes of different interpretations that are out there.

Deut. 29:29 talks about the secret things belonging to God. I think there are many things we will not fully comprehend or even know until we see Him face to face.

I know this is probably off the topic but these are the things that highlight where the patriocentrists have derailed and gone off the tracks in their doctrine.

To get back to the original discussion on this post, I don’t think Baucham’s association with the patriarchy or with those who espouse aberrant Trinitarian views are the reason for his reduction in speaking engagements. With all due respect to those who have been negatively impacted by the teachings of the patriocentrists, this teaching is hardly even hitting the radar screen in conservative Evangelical circles. 10 out of 10 people who I speak to about these things have never heard of the patriarchy and totally reject the teachings as I explain them. This is not the issue that it seems to be if you hang out on web sites that discuss this issue.

I think home-schoolers have been hit harder with this than most because it has somehow infected the home school conference circuit. And I think it is something that must be rejected vocally and fought as we are able to do so because it is hitting the younger generation and sucking them in unawares. So we need to make the older generation aware of this new attack on younger folks (home school parents, especially).

But I think we all need to realize that it’s not nearly as big an issue in the general public as we might be led to think it is.

I would venture to guess that you could choose a hundred SBC churches at random across the nation and discuss the patriarchy with the members of the congregation and less than 5 of them would have any knowledge at all of the patriarchy and would quickly be able to identify the problems in their teaching.

But if you chose a hundred SBC churches at random and discussed Calvinism with them all 100 would know that Calvinism is a huge issue in the SBC. I think that most of them would have firmly rooted inaccurate stereotypes related to Calvinism and would be very vocal in their opposition to it. So I think Baucham’s original assertion is much closer to the truth than we’re admitting here.

I think it’s unfortunate that he called out Cindy by name and with some strong and unnecessary language. And I think it would be good for folks to pursue ongoing dialog with him about his more radical views that may be interfering with his ability to share the gospel. But I think it must be done with a realization that his involvement in the Daughters video is probably not known by more than a handful of Christians nationwide and probably doesn’t impact his speaking engagements negatively at all.

Richard,

When he was found to be in error, something he would not even consider until a person of authority stepped in to validate what I’d said, why didn’t he apologize for that? He’d sent me many emails. Why did he not even email me to say that he’d responded on line, and why didn’t he simply say “I’m sorry, Cindy. I was wrong and you were right. I offended you and had every good reason to believe that I knew the truth but was mistaken. I didn’t mean to harm you.” ???

He was only willing to apologize to me when he thought I was wrong and he thought he was right. When it was discovered that he was in error, he responded with a mean smack to me online, and the emails stopped coming. He had a simple out, a real apology, and he could not take it. I would have gladly forgiven him of that, despite our different beliefs. I never expected an apology from him to begin with. Just because I’m not a pushover does not mean that I’m unforgiving. He and I do share disgust of many aspects of patriarchy, and he’s right about that. If he made an apology, I would be happy to have praised him for it online. But he responded with cruelty and pride.

There may be aspects of his message that are valuable, but in my own dealings with him thus far, he has not demonstrated integrity or accountability. I think he was only willing to admit to the technical aspects of the truth online because someone with much authority validated the truth. If he’d been interested in being a loving Christian who sought unity, he would have offered me the specific apology that I’d asked for in my first email to him, something he completely ignored.

It’s really very sad to me. I would have loved to have counted him as someone with whom I could have discussed these matters with. If he fails to make good on his word to “talk” as he put it in one of his many fairly long emails to me that talked about the FIC, then he demonstrates that he never really cared about anything other than being right. How disappointed I am. I didn’t set out to prove Baucham as anything other than virtuous, much of which came from your own attestation that he was so, Richard. How is it that I am to trust in his virtue now?

I’m sorry. I’ll hang out with my own folks from now on.

I think you’d all find a blog article I wrote today (12/4/08) on Patriarchalist Movement of interest.

I’ve had the privilege to study with a rabbi and some other conservative Jews along the way, and I found myself asking all of them about this subject at some point. No Jew that I ever talked with believes that God is male only but transcends gender. Maurice Lamm also writes about this in his book “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage.” So not even the patriarchal Jews see this in the Talmud or in the Tanach.

They believe and are taught that God created Adam both male and female. God then chose drew the feminine out of Adam, separating those traits from him (that he contained when he was created). Even one of the Yeshivite traditions that studies language says that the Hebrew language contains the hidden message that God drew the “fire” out of man and put it into woman. She is man’s fire of life. Ish is man and Isha is woman. The sound of “Ah” is associated with both fire and life, seen as the outbreathing of life from God, the sound of which is like exhaling. It is the “Ah” sound that God adds to the names of Abram and Sarai when the fullness of time comes for them to conceive Isaac. God breathed the “Ah” into them, reflected in their changed names, which soon followed with a baby named “laughter.”

But my point is that even the patriarchal Jews of old did not believe that woman was any kind of derivative, and if you read the text in Genesis with no preconceived notions or agendas, this is what the even the Jews believe the text says.

Why would Christians seek to redefine this? Only through a hierarchical and power motivated interpretation of male headship (presupposition) based not solely upon what God has commanded but through a redefinition of the ontology (essence) of woman.

We teach it because it’s Biblical. Jesus said that the Father was greater than him, the Father sent him, and Christ did whatever the Father told him to do. Christ was subordinate to the Father.

The rabbis’ opinion is only as good as their exegesis of the Scriptures. Their being Jewish doesn’t grant their opinions any validity, or their interpretations any credibility.