"Peace, peace" where there is no peace...

As a fellow pastor, I want to express appreciation for your clear statements on this issue. I believe this battle is going to be won or lost by pastors in local churches who faithfully teach and train their flocks to follow the whole counsel of God, even when it isn't socially approved. Thanks for doing this on this issue.

As a woman who has been influenced by these false teachings more than I had realized, and maybe even more than I wish to admit, I want to thank you for saying what you just said. Yes, many are being destroyed by these teachings.

At the considerable risk of soundling like a broken record, I offer yet again the trajectory of the Episcopal Church as something broadly evangelical Protestantism is now following. The Episcopal Church in the Sixties is about where broadly evangelical Protestantism is today: its institutions well leavened with egalitarians, its local leadership enthralled with trendiness in theology, being "edgy" (they didn't call it that back then; probably "groovy" was the term; I forget). There were some denominational features of the moment when the scales tipped decisively toward the feminists that won't be repeated among evangelicals. From that point to the point where the Episcopal Church is certifiably apostate has taken about 50 years to traverse. Today, the evangelical institutions are where the Episcopal institutiions were 50 years ago. Egalitarians' moment of victory will be harder to discern, since it will be a piece-meal victory in denomination after denomination, seminary after seminary, publishing house after publishing house. Grudem's latest book pretty well convinces me that the conflict between orthodoxy and egalitarianism is well into its end-game. And, I don't think it will take evangelicalism the 40 years it took the Episcopals to rot to the core. As I said, the denominational brakes are missing within evangelicalism generally, even within denominations such as the PCA. As my Presbyterian brothers are beginning to understand, the occasion for discipline has been around for a while, and no discipline results (on an institutional level). So, I am frankly pessimistic as far as the near term goes, particularly with respect to the institutions (seminaries, publishing houses, media, mission agencies). Orthodox evangelicals (of whatever stripe--Presbyterian, Baptist, independents, charismatics, Anglicans) are now where the old Fundamentalists were at the beginning of the Twentieth Century: out-maneuvered by those saluting the Spirit of the Age. It took about 30 years for the old Fundies to replant their institutions. God grant that it does not take as long for the orthodox to do the same in the 21st Century. It doesn't need to take that long, so long as they realize where they are in the flow of history, and what is required of them to preserve the good deposit for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

I just read Roger Nicole's paper on egalitarianism, and he backs it up with scripture. Seems like his position is the plain teaching of scipture, not the divisive false doctrine. Besides, Gen 3:16 is obviously an error in translation.

David W., It seems to be kind of a problem if seminaries are feeding pastors to PCA churches and there is no denominational control over them other than refraining from ordaining their pastors. Similarly, official inaction against the James'. Puzzled by it, but perhaps there are goings on I'm unaware of.

>David Gray, are you saying that Christian tradition carries more authority then scripture? Are you a Roman Catholic? That is obtuse. For 2000 years all Christians have understood scripture's plain teaching on the matter. Now Roger Nicole has discovered that no Christian before the last couple of decades understood scripture. But he does. That only appeals to those who want a fig leaf for their rebellion.

Please allow me to clarify the context of my remark as quoted by Tim Bayly at the beginning of this blog. I was not trying to argue either side of this debate. I was simply noting that for many, the position is not so "plain." I assume that by "plain" ("plain teaching of scripture"), Tim means "obvious." My use of the "Big Names" was not to argue their position, but to show that so many differing opinions on this issue draws me to the conclusion that, in this particular debate, scripture is not "plain" or "obvious"...if that is indeed what you mean by "plain." Obviously, it is obvious to you. But, obviously, a different interpretation is obvious to others.

Leigh; I would ask you to please read Tim's post again. Try focus on the fact that this thrust of false doctrine has taken place extremely recently in the history of the church and theologians. Scripture has not become "less plain" in the last 30-40 years than it was the preceding 2000 years. So tell me where the variant lies? Is it in the scriptures and the church the last 2000 years, or the new teachers of feminist doctrine? Discern what culture it is you live in and have grown up in. Now then, ask yourself if it is coincidence the leaven of feminist doctrine has arisen in this same time frame?

""I was not trying to argue either side of this debate. I was simply noting that for many, the position is not so "plain."" Arianism had many adherents too. Modernism too. Were those heretical? Maybe they should have been allowed to remain in the big tent. Methinks you do have a dog in this hunt.

Seems that you are absoultely right that the Big Name argument is quite popular on this blog, only its not quite so clear who the Big Names are. My comment was that Nicole backs up his opinion with solid Biblical references, something that no one here actually does that I can tell. At least not in this thread. For how many thousand years did Jews believe that Gentiles were unclean? But the Holy Spirit spoke to Peter and to Paul. For how many thousands of years did people justify slavery and racial inequality with the "plain" truth of the Bible? Growth and change are products of the Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly shows through the preponderance of scripture that where God's Kingdom is flourishing, women are treated with equality. And the majority of believers today, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, are being led into that truth.

Tim, I'm a bit late for this blogstorm, but let me give a physicist's perspective. Suppose we were debating the existence of miracles, and I said Elijah's fire from heaven was proof of miracles, and you said "No, it was a freak lightning stroke." Well, yes, perhaps freak lightning strokes are easier to believe in than violation of the laws of nature, but one should at least know what is implied in the word "freak". That is, the stroke came at a specified place and time, and what exactly was the probability of that spot having that lightning at that moment? In other words, miracles are not just "violations of the law of nature", but also "violations of the probabilities of nature". One can believe in miracles without ever contradicting a "law of nature", not that an all-powerful God couldn't also break laws of nature, but it seems more personal that He break laws of probability. You and I break laws of probability every day when we purposefully do something which wouldn't happen randomly on its own. Like write in this blog. That's the characteristic of living things, they show non-random behavior with purpose. So violating the laws of probability is a defining characteristic of persons, and therefore seems to be the most convincing way for God to act miraculously in our lives. Now let me transpose that argument into this discussion of Biblical truth and the plain teaching of scripture vis a vis feminism. The Bible, we are told, is the book of Special Revelation that sits upon the wider book of General Revelation. In that sense, it is a fact, no more nor less an empirical reality as the laws of gravity. Then when we are given a new direction, a new doctrine, it is like a new observation of nature, a miracle. So the question becomes, is it more likely that God will break the rules of grammar to redirect our understanding of scripture, or that He will achieve the redirection through a series of improbable events? Tim you like to use the traditions of the church to argue that this novel interpretation is a deviation from received doctrine. But there have been many such "deviations" from received doctrine, as the church has wrestled with heresies and modern innovations for two millennia. Not everything that happens today can be transposed into the first century, or even into the first 3 centuries. Nor does such an approach seem to include the Holy Spirit who "will lead us into all truth". We need a more sophisticated tool than "deviation from tradition". Jesus gave us one, "by their fruits you shall know them". And the NT writers used this criteria many times to weed out heresy, as we read about false teachers in 2 Peter, Jude, 3 John, Galatians etc. False teaching was always connected to various failings of the flesh, which aroused some of the most vitriolic condemnations found in the entire Bible. So to reiterate, we have more sophisticated tools at our disposal than "perspicuity", "literal meaning" and "received doctrine". We also have space-time. What is the temporal trajectory of such teaching? Is it favored by the orthodox or the heterodox? Is it associated with peace or dissension, with godliness or worldliness, with the holy or the profane? "But if it is of God," said Gamaliel, "you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" We are not wiser than God or perhaps even Gamaliel, nor should we quench the Spirit. Like Gamaliel, we can apply some old-fashioned scientific observation to the debate, and the conclusions can only become clearer. It is now 20 years or so into the evangelical feminism debate. Surely we have some data! Why aren't we using it?

Dear Leigh, Yes, all thinks alike are not equally clear in Scripture. For instance, I believe in infant baptism while freely acknowledging its Scriptural support is of an implicit, not explicit, nature. Also, there are other doctrines more perspicuous than sexuality. But for now, I'll leave it at that. My previous point stands: that "Adam was created first, and then Eve" is perspicuous no matter how many men with terminal degrees say it isn't. And because I weary of the slander that David and I fail to provide specific Scriptural arguments and references on this blog, here I paste in a few of the many tens of thousands of words we've written on this subject, all of them immediately accessible by clicking on "Feminism" in our subject index slightly down the left side of the page. From the post, "Sexuality: Scripture's Clarity and Simplicity." * * * God created Adam and Eve "in His Own Image" thereby revealing their essential equality in bearing His image: >Genesis 1:26-28; Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." This is a part of the truth that is the basis of the Apostle Paul's statement concerning the community of saints: >There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28, NAS95). But there are other truths that must be brought forward also in this debate. They are as follows: First, God created Eve after Adam (order of creation): >For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:13, NAS95). Second, God created Eve for Adam (purpose of creation): >Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:18-23, NAS95). Third, God Created Eve from Adam (his body was used): >For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. (1 Corinthians 11:8, NAS95). Fourth, Adam named Eve just as he named the animals: >Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:19, 22-23, NAS95). Fifth, in Adam we all died; not in Eve. Nowhere does Scripture lay the blame for the Fall at Eve's door. The order of creation establishes timeless principles for the relationships between men and women which we often are reminded of in discussions of biblical manhood and womanhood today, but here is one of those principles which too often is passed over by the Church. God, walking in the Garden in the cool of the day, inquires of Adam "Where are you?" When Adam responds by explaining that he and Eve found themselves naked and hid, it is notable that God directs His follow-up question again to Adam asking him: >"Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Genesis 3:11, NAS95). It was Adam, not Eve, who was required to explain the tragic alienation from God they both had suffered, and this despite Eve having been the one deceived, the first one to sin, and the one who enticed her husband to follow her into that sin. This is neither a small or unimportant aspect of the Genesis account: it was Adam whom God first held responsible for the Fall despite Adam being the second sinner in the Garden. It is because of the sin of Adam--not Eve--that the race of Adam remains under the curse of judgement and death down to this present day. >Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14, NAS95). Some years back my father noted that, despite efforts to neuter the language of our Faith, he had yet to hear anyone propose that the Church become a 'he' or Satan become a 'she.' Similarly, it seems ironic that feminists do not object to the essential inequality between the sexes revealed by this portion of the Biblical account of the Fall. Shouldn't Eve be recognized as the leader in the Garden? Shouldn't Eve have been penalized more severely since it was she who took the lead in the sin of the Garden? Aren't we being patronizing when we attribute the cosmic penalties of the Fall to Adam's account? Perhaps feminists fail to argue the issue because this particular point happens to be one where they rather like the clear meaning of God's Word. There's no question but that the Bible is quite specific on this issue... as the New England Primer (one of the most widely used textbooks in the early history of the United States) succinctly sums it up: >In Adam's fall We sinned all. God's Word makes clear that because God made Eve for Adam and placed her under his authority, it was Adam whom God called to account for the Fall. Adam was the patriarch of his home and his race. (This is not to say that Eve escaped personal accountability; in Genesis 3 we read that God also placed Eve under a curse- the punishment that even today brings suffering to all women in childbirth. So too the serpent and his descendents suffer under God's judgment.) Yet it is through Adam alone that death comes to all men, it is because of Adam's sin that all creation groans awaiting its release from the corruption of sin (Romans 8:22,23), and it is in Adam that we all die: >For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22, NAS95). God has named the human race 'adam,' and this name reinforces what the whole account of the creation of Adam and Eve reveals-that the first woman was made after and for the first man and that for all time this structure is to be mirrored in the lives of God's people by their living together under patriarchy, not matriarchy or egalitarian utopianism. Further, this name also makes clear that every woman or man ever to live has been born under the curse of a God-decreed solidarity with the First Adam, our federal head, and that only those who come under the Head of the Second Adam can be saved. When we leave the Genesis account and move into the New Testament epistles, we see that the Apostle Paul prohibits the exercise of authority over men by women by saying "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, for Adam was created first, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2:12a, NAS95). Thus Scripture demonstrates that the principles enumerated for us in these first three chapters of the Bible are timeless boundaries for all mankind. We are dealing here, then, with an order of creation which is timeless in it's principles and application. This is a perfect example of the analogy of faith, Scripture interpreting Scripture. With this simple statement ("I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, for Adam was created first, then Eve" [1Timothy 2:12]) Paul explicitly affirms what is implicit throughout God's Word, that the order of creation establishes patriarchy as God's pattern for leadership in human relationships. Addressing the matter of propriety in prayer, the Apostle Paul again emphasizes this order: >"For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake" (1 Corinthians 11:8,9, NAS95).

This morning my husband asked, " So did Anna sleep through the night last night?" This delights me! Why? Because I'm thankful for the work he does to provide for our family. I'm thrilled that he doesn't hear the baby when she wakes up at night - that's my job. This little anecdote is just one examle of the way that a husband and wife complement one another. Now, don't be concerned. My husband does plenty of careful, loving fathering to our daughters, but what I'm saying is that as women, we can delight to provide tender care for our newborn babes. We get to be a picture to our families of the tender care of our Father in heaven. (He does give us that word-picture of himself). The push for equality does two devastating things. First and foremost, it tears away at a beautiful doctrinal truth. The husband IS head of the wife as Christ IS the head of the church. Being under headship is wonderfully glorious. To be able to entrust myself to my husband and to the leadership of our church is a blessed place to be. As wives delight in living in this place, we present to the world and to the angels who see us a picture of what it means for the church to be in submission to her Lord. Why would she want to switch places? Second, the pursuit of equality robs women of the glory of being different. We are not the same. Physically, emotionally, we are different from men in good and bad ways. That is why we complement one another. Adam needed a counterpart. Man alone was not able to present a clear enough picture of what his Creator is like. Neither was woman alone. We need one another, and together we are able to see a shadow of the beauty of our God. And now, I take up my waking baby, leaving the blog world behind to go delight in being a mama.

One last thing, lest the infamous "That's fine for you" comment should surface. It's not about me. It's not about you. It's not about any particular individual. "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church." Eph. 5:32

"Actually, the Westminster divines pack a punch against egalitarianism, but only in the Scripture proofs. The first man to point out where gets the prize" Uncle. Where is it? (Posting here because the posting wouldn't work for some reason in the thread where you had this before.)