august 26 podcast: patriarchy/patriocentricity two, part ten ~ Jon Zens and What’s with Paul and Women, part one

This was very good!!! I am really looking forward to the next podcast on this topic

I’m really looking forward to reading this book. If I can’t win it, I’m going run straight out and buy it.

I’m really glad he brought up the authority issue re: 1 Cor. 7. When I’ve used that passage in dialogue, I’m dismissed because ‘it’s just talking about sex.’ But I’ve come to the same conclusions the author has. I hope that next week John talks more about this.

Church history is a bloody mess. And includes transubstantiation, slavery, church/state magistrates and God war shield and much more heresy, bad behavior and error (especially in translation!)

When any Bible teacher/preacher’s appeal to “church history” to defend any view my Berean radar goes off.

Karen,

The willingness to tinker with and redefine the Trinity for the sake of this agenda is, in my opinion, one of the single most disturbing aspects of this whole discussion. I’m considering this, from the Wikipedia entry on Trinity:

“Since the 1980s, some evangelical theologians have come to the conclusion that the members of the Trinity may be economically unequal while remaining ontologically equal. This theory was put forward by George W. Knight III in his 1977 book The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women, states that the Son of God is eternally subordinated in authority to God the Father.[91] This conclusion was used to support the main thesis of his book: that women are permanently subordinated in authority to their husbands in the home and to male leaders in the church, despite being ontologically equal. Subscribers to this theory insist that the Father has the role of giving commands and the Son has the role of obeying them.”

“If they are going to abandon the “traditional” views of slavery then they must also abandon their views of women. Its pretty simple”

Yes! Because they use the same hermeneutic.

Which is why 1 Tim 2, where authenteo is used once in the whole of scripture, has had to be translated so badly. (In the Vulgate it is dominate which is a sin for any believer to do)

If women are never to teach or “lead” men (whatever lead means these days) then why is there NO prohibition in all the OT against such a thing? Which means that a NEW law for women came into effect AFTER the Cross. We know that cannot be true.

I have read both of Giles’ books. And I appreciate that Giles is clearly refuting, using scholarship, the rewriting of history done by the Patriarchists when it comes to the Trinity. It is astonishing to see how so many of our well known Christian scholars are editing statements and writings by early church writers. You have to check everything these days!

I really enjoyed this podcast and I so appreciate the work Zens has done on not only this topic but also on the clergy/laity myth.

Oh dear, I loved this podcast so much I keep thinking of things Zens points out that are so important. He is so right when he makes the case that current patriarchy is a RESPONSE to culture. We usually hear the opposite. That anyone who disagrees with them is in alignment with our corrupt culture.

In effect, the patriarchs are twisting scripture to fit their cultural premise.

Zens makes the case in this podcast. Patriarchy was a response to the correction of women’s rights. All civic movements tend to go too far but in time tend to correct themselves.

When Patriarchists tell me I am a feminist, I want to know which kind they are referring to. Do we go back to the feminist who lobbied for the right to vote? Or the ones who lobbied for equal pay? Or, are we talking about bra burners who are curiously in short supply these days. )

Thanks for another great podcast, Karen and Jon. So many thoughts swirling around in my head I hardly know where to start…

I’ve read many, many books on this subject and, like Karen, I’ve never heard anyone discuss mutual submission in this context or way. Very interesting.

I also thought the earlier point about the fact that too many people simply dismiss the overwhelming number of “pro women” sections in Scripture and focus only on a select few was very accurate. This is one of the things that David and I have come back to time and time again as we’ve studied this. There are just too many examples of women functioning in significant ways to simply dismiss them as unusual or out of the norm. And Jesus giving the message of the resurrection first to a woman in an incredibly powerful statement. IIRC (and someone please do correct me if I’m remembering this incorrectly!), a woman was considered so unworthy she couldn’t even testify in a court of law. And yet Jesus made a woman the first witness of the resurrection!

One last thought… I believe the treatment and position of women is a major stumbling block today in the sharing of the Gospel.

Really looking forward to reading the book and the next podcast!

thatmom,

I can take overlook of the masculinist view of gender because that is not necessarily salvic. But when they start redefining Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts, that…I will fight. It goes to the heart of WHO Jesus Christ is eternity past and future OUTSIDE the Incarnation.

It is serious heresy. And how prevalent is it? The Systematic Thelogy book used in most seminaries is Grudem’s and it teaches ESS. Our young seminarians are being taught this heresy as truth. Future pastors.

What is astonishing is that those promoting this are well known and loved celebrity teachers! And it is very big in many reformed circles.

It is time that all of us start becoming theologians. As Jon said, it takes time and it is not easy. But when we realize that we cannot always trust commentaries or well known teachers/professors, we have only one choice: Return to Christ. He told us He was sending us the BEST TEACHER. The Holy Spirit. Test everything. Paul commended the Bereans.

If one looks at the cults, they have all tampered with the Trinity in some way. Mainly with Jesus Christ. And they will tell you they are Christians.

The ESS heresy is confusing because they always start out saying that Jesus Christ is equal in essence within the Trinity. But then they spend the next hour teaching that He really isn’t. All false teaching mixes truth with error and can be hard to spot unless we really know Christ and are educated about His Word.

If some are confused about this ESS heresy, I would recommend Cheryl Schatz’ DVD but I also recommend studying on your own. Cheryl recognized this ESS heresy early on because she has a ministry to the cults.

http://www.mmoutreach.org/trinity.htm

“While you and I would agree on this, I believe many within the patriocentric paradigm would disagree. It is part of their “grand sweep of revelation” that is “presuppositional” and MUST be believed and taught.
”

I agree with this because the pats have elevated it to a primary salvic issue. Some comps have not…yet, but CBMW is well on it’s way to doing so. And most of the CBMW contributors teach ESS.

Emily,

The ESS folks argue that what they are teaching is NOT the Arian heresy. Thankfully Giles wrote his book to point out how it is a variation of the Arian heresy. They claim that we who do not buy into their ESS are teaching Theism. It is going to be a nasty fight.

They claim they are not Arian because they proclaim Jesus IS of the same essence (substance) as the Father. They claim Jesus IS equal.

Then they go on to explain how Jesus is subordinate to God for all eternity past and future. As if Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts, does not have the same will as the Father outside Incarnation.

(Bruce Ware claims that the Trinity does not sing in “harmony”. If you listen close, you will see much of the same teaching they use to claim specific roles for women yet they are equal to men. It really is quite clever what they are doing and millions are falling for it. They map this to the Trinity. They use the exact same arguments they use to explain where women in the Body stand in relation to men)

I would love for them to explain John 5:18 to me. And to show me where God is continuously referred to as Father in the OT. The only way this heresy can be believed is if they leave out the OT. Just take a look at Isaiah 9 which says this about Jesus Christ:
6(P) For to us a child is born,
to us(Q) a son is given;
(R) and the government shall be(S) upon[d] his shoulder,
and his name shall be called[e]
Wonderful(T) Counselor,(U) Mighty God,
(V) Everlasting(W) Father, Prince of(X) Peace.

Everlasting Father? Mighty God?

Methinks Satan is delighted.

These ideas are all new to me, and I would love to be put in the drawing for this book. I must say, when I believed in the Patriarchy view of marriage, I often felt less than a child.

“So it’s a variant of Arianism. That’s interesting. Thanks for making that distinction, I appreciate that! I can’t wait to read Giles’ book.
”

Emily, I don’t think I would have caught this (it is so subtle) except from listening and watching Bruce Ware teach so much. He makes a point each time to declare that Jesus IS of equal essence but then spends the next 45 min talking about Jesus’ different roles in obeying the Father for eternity past and future, in effect, communicating that Jesus is LESSOR than God while claiming He is equal!

(This is EXACTLY what they do to women!)

This is NOT the Jesus, The Lord of Hosts, I was taught about growing up in the same SBC so I decided to study up on this. Then I found Giles’ book and then Cheryl Schatz’ DVD series on this topic that reinforced what concerned me so much about what they are doing to our Precious Savior!

He must be glorified and magnified!

Thanks for these podcasts, Karen. There’s so much to think about.

Great podcast, Karen. Fascination points about I Cor 7 and the mutual submission that must occur. My thinking about these issues quite often comes to this point: “Actions speak louder than words”. Yes, we can read Paul’s words in I Cor 11, 14 and I Tim. 2, but what about the deeds and positions of others throughout scriptures. What about the way Christ treated women. Actions and positions show no condemnation of women in leadership positions throughout Scripture, and it’s truly intellectually dishonest to look at all these examples and wipe them out or explain them away because of two more direct phrases.

And Lydia, interesting point about Joanna wife of Chuza in Luke 8. That never popped out at me before. I always focus on the fact those women were there doing things for Christ, but never that Joanna wasn’t “home” doing the “helpmeet” thing. Again, deeds, not words. If it was wrong, no one said anything about it.

For anyone interested in a thorough debunking of the complementarian mantra, “Equal in being, unequal in function” – and why it really means women are not equal – I heartily recommend the book “Good News for Women” by Rebecca Merrill Groothius.

Karen, you’re right about Moody. That’s in the book, too. Also the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

Now that you guys are bringing up Moody, I have to say. I’m a junior philosophical theology major at Moody, and this has recently been a huge topic of discussion here among the student body. (Don’t tell my prof, but I’m actually sitting in my Monday night hermeneutics class right now! Lol.)

First, if this tells you anything, I am a female theology major, which is a major that is dominated by males by a ratio of about 1:10. I have my theories for why this is, but suffice it to say that I think women are grossly under-represented in the study of theology here, and it’s not because they’re not interested in theology or are incapable of doing it.

At any rate, it’s my personal opinion that although most of the faculty—and I say most because there are some faculty surely that do buy into the legalistic patriarchal views of women—have a very balanced and biblical view of the roles of Christian mena dn women. However, I am said to say that I cannot at all with confidence say the same thing about the student body as a whole. Again, I qualify this with the phrase “in my experience,” but I really do feel that the student body as a general rule is disturbingly biased.

For example, this past Founders Week, there was a big controversy over the messages from Nancy Leigh DeMoss and Janet Parshall. I didn’t know about Nancy Leigh DeMoss’s questionable patriocentric connections at the time, but I’ve always found her a bit dry anyway so I confess I wasn’t paying a great deal of attention—and I certainly wasn’t paying attention enough to notice that she spoke not from a pulpit, but rather from a standard music stand. In retrospect I remember her being introduced in Moody Church as Nancy Leigh DeMoss, “under the authority of the church,” whatever that means. At any rate, later in the week Janet Parshall spoke, and though I missed her message because I had to work, I saw my Twitter feed light up with tweets from Moody students about the audacity and unbiblical actions of Janet Parshall, because SHE HAD THE NERVE TO SPEAK FROM A PULPIT and not a music stand. Students were irate because Parshall was apparently showing a lack of “submissiveness” to her given authority (in this case, I’m not sure what that authority would be) by speaking from a pulpit.

I’m sorry to say that things have probably changed a bit here at Moody since the 1920s. In fact, I have never heard of Moody sending out female pastors until now. It’s definitely not something we talk about. This is one of the reasons I am so passionate about this issue, because I have met so many girls here, friends of mine, who believe unbiblical things about themselves and are hurting themselves and others because of it.

Eek! Karen, please fix the italics!

Continuing from the book:

“The third phase – the bid for full institutional respectability – completes the marginalization of women. As participants in the movement desire acceptance by other, respectable denominations, most of which do not sanction female leadership, women are increasingly excluded from positions of responsibility.

In this chapter we will examine this pattern within the broad sweep of church history and within the history of evangelicalism itself. The presence of this pattern carries significant weight in the contemporary debate over women in ministry. Men have indeed dominated church structures through much of Christian history. Yet if male dominance is linked historically to institutionalization and the bid for cultural respectability, then the traditional practice of the church is not necessarily an indication of God’s will but may well be the result of sociological and cultural forces. And if female involvement emerges among renewal movements, only to be replaced by male leadership as revival gives way to institutionalization, then the contemporary call for a mutuality of men and women in ministry may be a manifestation of the Spirit’s renewing work in the church today.”

Ok, one last thing! One book that is very readable and written by a charismatic author is “10 Lies the Church Tells Women: How the Bible has been misused to keep women in spiritual bondage” by J. Lee Grady. The ten lies are:

God created women as inferior beings, destined to serve their husbands
Women are not equipped to assume leadership roles in the church
Women must not teach or preach to men in a church setting
A woman shoukd view her husband as the “priest of the home”
A man needs to “cover” a woman in her ministry activities
Women who exhibit strong leadership qualities pose a serious danger to the church
Women are more easily deceived than men
Women can’t be fulfilled or spiritually effective without a husband and children
Women shouldn’t work outside the home
Women must obediently submit to their husbands in all situations

Reads like a patriocentricity manifesto, doesn’t it?

Re: the CRC… I’m not going to lie. There are things about the CRC that make me uncomfortable. But there are things about other churches and denominations that make me uncomfortable too. You have to pick your battles and decide which “problems” you can live with.

Re: the homosexual/women church… I think that is a scare tactic people use to shut down discussion. The women’s issue and the homosexual issue are NOT the same thing and allowing women freedom to use their gifts is not the same as opening the door to homosexuals in leadership. The assumption that if you open the doors to women exercising their gifts that you will have to do the same in the other arena is false.

Our membership is currently in one CRC church, but we have moved to a different congregation and need to transfer our membership. Just joining the CRC was a big step for me. We had to make the decision to baptize Caroline even though she had already been dedicated in a Baptist church. But we made the jump. However, the CRC church we joined does not allow women to be deacons or elders. The church we have moved to has women functioning as deacons, but not elders (although it has been discussed and the church is apparently split pretty evenly on this). They have women who teach. A woman is the chair of the council.

But what I love and appreciate about the congregation we are in now is that EVERY age and gender is thoroughly integrated into the services and work of the church. They have a children’s sermon. They have elderly women reading the Scripture. They have senior citizens leading worship. They have young people playing instruments. They have middle aged men and women praying. It very much is a gathering of the body of Christ and it’s very refreshing. I want Caroline to grow up seeing godly women exercising their gifts, not seeing women sit in a service where the cannot participate fully or even speak because they are deemed less, more easily deceived, dependent on a man to interceded for them, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij9i5pO9zew&feature=related

Here’s a video of John Piper explaining the pulpit thing. I don’t find his reasons compelling at all, but at least you can see where he’s coming from. I just don’t get the whole pulpit obsession thing. Though I guess that explains why all the Moodys were so upset, we love John Piper here. I love John Piper too, and respect him as a very wise man of God…just not with regards to his views of “biblical” gender roles.