Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) and evangelical feminism...

>The "church" has not always been right. Ask Luther...... You would appear to be unfamiliar with Luther. He viewed himself as being in continuity with the historical church and thought the deviations he combatted to be relatively recent in nature. And even there he found it no small thing to think that even a relatively short period of error had to be resisted. Now certain sorts of evangelicals think nothing of discarding 2000 years of consensus (Church Fathers, medieval Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Reformers). Such people are not to be trusted in these matters.

>David, those past and present teachers of the church who proclaim the Biblical truth of mutuality and egalitarianism are often slapped down by the contemptuous insult that they are not "faithful Christians, earnestly seeking the Lord's counsel." They, too, would like to be treated with the respect due them as a brother or sister in Christ. 1. There are no "past" teachers who taught egalitarianism. 2. How does "Light" judge who is or is not a "brother or sister in Christ"?

Leigh writes: "Tim, I do not understand how you can repeatedly assert that your view of women is the plain teaching of scripture. Scholars like Roger Nicole, Ken Bailey, Richard Foster, Stanley Grenz, Gilbert Bilezikian, and John Stott would disagree with your interpretation. Faithful Christians, earnestly seeking the Lord's counsel on this topic, have studied the scriptures and have come away with a different understanding. Leigh, it has nothing to do with "my view." It is the Word of God written, plain for all of good conscience to see--and loved by countless generations of godly men and women. But now, in the past thirty or forty years, a small group of influential men and women have spoken perverse things, not sparing the flock, and have used this divisive false doctrine to draw away disciples to themselves. Until they came along, the church was universally united in this doctrine. The practice of the doctrine was often sinful on both sides, men and women, but no one lied about the meaning of Scripture. But these men and women are shameless. So now, we have deceptive and divisive men and women who are seeking to devour the flock and they have drawn many, many souls away from God's precious truth. They are savage wolves with seared consciences who will not spare the flock and the question is now, as always, what will the shepherds of God's flock do about it? The Apostle Paul commands us: "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:28-30). Will shepherds obey the command of the Holy Spirit and guard the flock God has placed under their care, or will they cave, assuaging their consciences by observing that their opponents are eminent among the apostles? We shepherds--those of us set apart by the laying on of hands and prayer to serve the church as pastors and elders--have a choice: we can stand and fight these wolves, or we can flee. We can be faithful shepherds or show ourselves hirelings. Which is it? Are you shocked that I would put it this way? Let's remember that I'm a pastor and none of this is hypothetical. Souls are at stake. But many today think there are no more wolves to be fought; thankfully, they've all been dealt a death blow by the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Athanasius, Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Machen, and their work for us has produced peace, peace... Others might be a little more sophisticated, saying "Oh no, there are still wolves. But they're in Hollywood or Princeton or those nasty liberal, mainline churches--certainly not among eminent, card-carrying evangelical inerrantists." This is always the scandal of the Church. False shepherds arise, not from an ashram in India, but "from among (our) own selves." They are our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, pastors, and elders; they are our own seminary's president and favorite professor. And when we see them given over to hypocrisy (as the Apostle Paul saw the Apostle Peter given over to "hypocrisy" in the matter of table-fellowship with the Gentiles), we must choose between God and man. It's tough, but Jesus warned us "a man's enemies will be the members of his household." There are many today, just as in the time of Christ, who "nullify the Word of God for the sake of their traditions." And those men, like the scribes and Pharisees, have the most stellar religious credentials. But unless they repent, they will receive the same condemnations that Jesus gave the religious nullifiers of His Word in His Own time. Read the Gospels; they're full of Jesus' condemnations of these religious leaders. In fact, I'd suggest that, on Palm Sunday evening, every one of our readers do what our church did for many years as our sermon at Palm Sunday evening worship: read the entire story of the final week of Jesus' life, from the Triumphal Entry, to the Cleansing of the Temple, all the way to the Crucifixion, Death, and Burial of our Lord. If you've ever wondered how Jesus could receive the adulation of the crowds as He entered Jerusalem, but one week later have the crowds crying out, Crucify him!" reading Matthew 21 (Palm Sunday) through 27 (Christ's burial) should clarify everything. Before Roger Nicole had done his very recent and tragic about-face on the authority of the husband in the home, he professed at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. When I was a student there, I took all my systematic theology from him, as well as his seminar on the Atonement. I love Dr. Nicole, and out of my love for him I've personally warned him of the coming Day when he will give an answer for the destruction of souls his promotion of false doctrine has caused, and continues to cause. Yes, there's no one better on the doctrine of Scripture. Dr. Nicole is indeed "Mr. Inerrancy." When Dr. Ramsey Michaels was removed from his teaching position at Gordon-Conwell and Robert Gundry was removed from the Evangelical Theological Society, I defended Dr. Nicole's central role in both these matters. He had courage. He stood. He guarded the good deposit. But, as my father used to say, "We need less talk about the doctrine of Scripture and more about the authority of Scripture." Amen to that. Now the time has come for me to show my love and respect for Dr. Nicole by exposing his own false teaching. Anything less would be for me to despise him, to despise the souls under his and my care, and to despise the Lord Who called me to guard His flock. When David and I were at Gordon-Conwell, we had as our professors the cream of evangelicalism's eminent feminists, including Roger Nicole, David Scholer, and Gordon Fee. All their arguments are well-summarized by this exchange I had with Dr. Fee one afternoon. One-on-one, we were discussing 1Timothy 2:13 and I asked him, "What does Paul mean when he says, 'For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve?'" Dr. Fee responded, "I don't know." "Oh come on, Dr. Fee; what does Paul mean?" I persisted. Again, he said, "I don't know, Tim." "But Dr. Fee, you're a professor of New Testament exegesis specializing in the Pauline literature. And I'm a student who has paid tuition for you to teach me. You don't have the right simply to say, 'I don't know.' What does Paul mean, Dr. Fee?" He responded (and all of this is a direct quote), "Oh, Paul was just being rabbinical there." "That's right, Dr. Fee, just throw Scripture out," I said. "Why do you do that, Dr. Fee?" This may not be the best argument Dr. Fee has come up with, but here he is at his greatest sincerity. This is the entire group of purportedly "evangelical" feminists all rolled up in a ball and speaking with one voice. Together they simply deny the plain meaning of the Word of God. They are not sincere. They are not honest. They are not faithful to God in this matter. And so, it is to honor them, our Lord, the souls under our care, and our own calling, to silence them. May God grant each of us repentance whenever we depart from His Truth. And may those men called by God to shepherd His flock join in opposing the wolves who have no intention of sparing the flock. It may be that Dr. Nicole has repented of his promotion of feminism. It may be that Dr. Fee no longer dismisses the precious statement of the Holy Spirit, "Adam was created first, and then Eve" by saying "Paul was just being rabbinical there." It may be that your report of these other men you've listed in your comment is false, and that none of them now attack the Word of God's plain command that woman is not be allowed to exercise authority over man. If so, praise God! But if, as you report, they oppose God's Word in the matter of the meaning and purpose and order of sexuality, they must be called to repentance. And such calls are not hatred or indifference, but true love for them. King David listened to Nathan and repented. The Apostle Peter was confronted by the Apostle Paul over whether or not he continued to sit with the Gentiles. Evidently he repented. Why not eminent evangelical scholars, too? Luther's first thesis was to point out that the life of a Christian is a life of repentance. Does this hold even for eminent Bible scholars?

Tim, I appreciate the time you took to answer. I better understand your position. You said that "souls were at stake." Do you mean that one's understanding of this particular issue is a doctrinal essential? I understand the issue and the many arguments from both sides. Now, I am trying to understand why this issue seems to have been elevated to an "essential" by complementarians. Donna, Thank you for your suggestion. I will read the articles.

Have these sisters been reading Betty Friedan and Marilyn French by any chance? Have they been taking women's studies at one of our fine universities? Hmmm. The plot thickens... Do they think that the army of women missionaries who have children, raise a family, all the while supporting their husbands in their ministry are not on the front lines of the battle? Oh, well...silly me...

Melanie, Tim will not label this issue one of "gender roles", and for good reason. Also, I think you miss the point of his particular (peculiar?) choice of words. Our sex is a biological fact, we are all male or female. God has an order for sexuality, for example, in that a woman is not to have authority over a man, and that husbands are the heads of their wives. When you speak of gender roles, you give up the fight. Gender (masculine or feminine) is a societal construct, and it is subjective. While I am 100% male, I may be more or less masculine than another man. Roles, unlike God's order, are things that can be put on or taken off, at the discretion of the wearer. God does not ask me to merely assume a masculine role, but to live consistently with his order for sexuality. Words matter. We need to choose words that communicate the nature of God's truth. Many of the words and phrases of the sophisticated in our culture are designed to undermine God's truth. Tim would say it better (if he were not on a blogging pseudo-sabbatical), but I'm confident that this approximates his thinking. "I don't think that the practical points of encouragement are in disagreement with complementarianism." I hope that you recognize that since this is at RTS, it is absolutely necessary that it appear consistent with complementarianism. You strike me as somewhat naive here, and perhaps willfully so.

Melanie, Let's assume that everything they talk about seems right and good (which I doubt, but we'll assume it). Ask yourself this: Why does it take a founder of CBE to tell you it? Why would a seminary invite, of all people, her? It's a topic that maybe, just maybe, could be subtly used to agitate on things near and dear to a CBE founder's heart, to lay the groundwork to press further (because that's how infiltrations occur, one 'incident' at a time while the orthodox slumber). Even if the fox is fed, why make a bed for her in the henhouse?

Jack's Pipe, I suppose one reason might be that there aren't folks who hold to CBMW's statement addressing these same matters. Your point seems very ad hominem in this regard. It seems that the question you pose to me is one you need to answer: Why would it take someone from CBE to say these things? It seems that CBMW people must also be saying these things and pursuing action and involvement in addressing them. Moreover, you seem to be accusing Synergy of venturing down a slippery slope. But this seems misguided. Caring about matters of injustice (such as sex trafficking) does not need to be a veil for importing views about marriage and family. We can't write off what's being said because of what's not being said. We must be discerning, but we can't let being discerning lead to the kind of fencing that prevents us from making the invisible kingdom visible. If the orthodox aren't slumbering (and it seems that they're not), then why can't we seek to learn from and work alongside those with whom we disagree? "Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you." (Luke 9:49-50).

Joel, If CCJ and her cohorts are able to stop or slow sex trafficking, that would be tremendous. But if they were to use sex trafficking as a ruse to undermine God's word, that would be a different thing altogether. We don't make the church smaller by insisting on the plain teaching of scripture. We make the church small when we declare that obedience is optional.

Eric, No doubt, but why would you accuse them of doing so? What this blog lacks is any recognition that this issue is not as clear as we would like it to be. You have to admit that Roger Nicole has been one of the 20th century's most prominent defenders of inerrancy. He told me today that his article on "The Nature of Inerrancy" is the most important thing he has ever written. He is a supporter of CBE. Now you may say, "he is disobeying the plain teaching of Scripture!" Maybe so, but to paint everyone who disagrees with you on how plain this issue as undermining Scripture is irresponsible. Where do the ecumenical creeds deal with this issue? Where do the Reformed Confessions deal with it? Where does Westminster deal with it? That's not to say that it is an unimportant issue or one that we cannot take a stance on, but when taking a stance, do we really need to impute evil motives (like wanting to undermine the word of God...about the most evil motive anyone can have) to those who see things differently? Why not have a discussion on the issue? Why not deal with the Scripture texts in question? Doesn't sola Scriptura require us to makes sure that our doctrinal stances are not based simply on our ecclesial culture but on the word of God? Part of Biblical wisdom is recognizing that we cannot hold to all doctrinal matters with equal certainty. That does not leave us in postmodern relativism. It leaves us in reality. To villainize someone is a lazy way of allowing ourselves to not have to listen to them. Yet to do so puts us in jeopardy of misinterpreting the very Word of God we are seeking to honor and uphold.

>Where do the ecumenical creeds deal with this issue? Where do the Reformed Confessions deal with it? Where does Westminster deal with it? They do not deal with it because nobody was so foolish as to raise it as an issue. The creeds do not deal with homosexuality either. Westminster does not deal with necrophilia or feminism. They weren't active issues.

>I ought not to say such things without time and willingness to justify and answer objections. That doesn't follow

>You're right. So then, how should one deal with it? Submit to the authority of scripture and the historic understanding of the church. >What makes it foolish? Failure to do the above. >I may even agree with you. I hope so. >Are those you disagree with foolish? Sometimes. >Jesus warns about calling people fools (Matthew 5:22), so it's a serious charge. Who called anyone a fool? Bless me, what do they teach them at these schools. >On what basis are you making that value judgment? See the first item. > Are you searching the Scriptures on this matter? Cute.

By the way, David, you questioned my intelligence or at least my education. Is that how you respond to people who question you? I asked you genuine questions...you responded to those questions with curt one sentence answers designed to make yourself look good and me look foolish. Responding to a question about searching the Scriptures with "cute" is really condescending.

I've been following the debate for quite a while and am finally ready to add my two cents: Sisters, please be man - and woman - enough to just SAY where you want the train to go. Sheepish subtlety is worse than honest disagreement. The Synergy people certainly didn't sit there, wringing their hands in despair because they really, really wanted somebody lecturing on violence, and much to their chagrin couldn't find anybody from the CBMW related circles... Furthermore, the CBE-founder and "trailblazer", Alice Matthews will, I'm sure, speak on something other than gender violence, and the problem is not that nobody else could possibly lecture about "women on the frontlines". (I've heard many good speakers at other women's conferences over the years): it's that Synergy doesn''t want someone else. Nobody invites someone like Alice Matthews and cheerfully advertizes her as a trailblazer when the only reason for getting her in is that, unfortunately, there are no complementarians around... come on. How nave do you think we are? So, sister (Melanie), could we please just take that as granted? That in itself is not even bewildering or a surprise, though: it's that the strategy of bringing in feminists through the backdoor is dishonest, both on the intellectual and on the personal level. Those realizing that, but still trying to cover it up here should be careful with bemoaning that "this conversation is not going anywhere": Put your cards on the table, and it will go somewhere. Also, the point of complementarianism is not simply to advocate women's (part-time?) calling as wives and mothers, as Melanie implies. Sorry, the bar is not that low, the brand-label "not in disagreement with complementarianism" that was thrown around above is not as easily given. At least Joel is more straightforward, rightly asserting that the ecumenical creeds don't address the issue, but being silent on why they do so: because everybody assumed the issue to be painfully clear, from scripture and from nature. Imagine walking up to the Westminster divines, saying "you're all male, what's going on? Wouldn't a shot of Biblical equality be exciting?" They would kick you out, and rightly so; the silence of the creeds doesn't help your position, but ours. And can we please leave out no-brainer questions like "why not have a discussion on the issue... why don't we search the scriptures"? Well, guess what we're doing. Nobody is taking unity for granted here, don't worry about that. And, Melanie, reading between the lines, I guess that you DON'T see the convictions and activities of Mrs. Matthews and the sisterhood as an equivalent to somebody casting out demons who is not on the Jesus team; to the contrary, you seem to view them as much more desireable for the church than weirdos claiming the Lord's authority, don't you? Again, please do say what you want. Leaving as much as possible unsaid is not an honest strategy. Let a woman in skirts, not pants, tell you that.

correction, seminary-sponsored event.

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. And yes, I'm using ´man´ biblically, like the OT 'adam,' so it includes woman.

Elizabeth, Thank you for the interaction. You nail me on a couple points. I suppose I'm hoping this train will take us to an ability to work alongside those with whom we disagree. I'm not trying to push anyone here to embrace CBE's priorities or theology. But it seems like this is such a divisive issue that hosts of this blog keep coming back to it in ways that don't seem much better than slandering of the people involved. Perhaps that's the nature of the medium, though. It gives folks the opportunity to say personal things about people they don't know personally--and in a place where those things will be read widely. I assume that behind all these posts that seem to take CCJ's quotes out of context and accuse people of motives that no one but God can know (I checked out the "about whom we've already said enough" link provided), Scripture is being considered. But that's not what's being communicated here, and that's what frustrates me. And you're right, Alice Matthews will speak on something other than gender violence. I only ever said that Diana Langberg would speak on gender violence, and somewhere in this thread that got confused. Alice Matthews is speaking on how God empowers his people and how we may understand his word. Yet, there will also be a speaker (Lillian Barger) who will be addressing how to engage the feminist culture. This seems to be another point of frustration for me with this blog--there're many nasty things to be said about people who hold divergent views, but they're certainly not said in ways that your opponents would ever be able to hear what you're saying. It seems mostly polemical. Synergy is looking to engage and discuss cultural feminism. Whether or not they could be called feminists themselves, I don't know. That's a label that I think each person must choose for him/herself because of how loaded it is. Even if someone has sympathies with what might be known as a feminist agenda, that does not mean he/she will be trying to always persuade people to his/her side on those issues. Again, this comes down to assumption of motives--which neither you nor I can come to a conclusion on here. As far as my use of the verses in Luke 9, I wasn't trying to draw an exact parallel between first century weirdos, as you say, casting out demons and Dr. Matthews. Rather, the point of those verses seems to be giving us a test to apply to others--anyone who is seeking to do Jesus' work ought to be welcomed. In 11:23, we're given a test to apply to ourselves: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." It seems like this blog is using the latter as a judgment against others, whereas it is a judgment against them. This is why I introduced the topic of sex trafficking at all. I'm sure that could've seemed like a red herring, but I suppose this just all comes back to my frustration that we're letting charged theological differences pit us against each other in ways that could very well preclude making the invisible kingdom visible. There is no neutrality in the advancement of the kingdom of God so we need to welcome those who are seeking to do the Lord's work, even if we would consider them misguided. Also, I know the complementarian position has much more to say than the words "wife" and "mother"--so let the rest be said. The way that CCJ and the CBE position are critiqued makes it hard to hear much more. Where is the bar set for women in the church and in ministry? Again, thank you for the thoughtful interaction. If I've missed anything you said, please let me know.

For what it's worth, I'd suggest taking the time to (re-)read Mary Kassian's "The Feminist Gospel," where she demonstrates the feminist presuppositions in much of the Christian Church and--to my mind--a certain segment of the PCA. This is a very worthwhile read. Shamelessly, I would suggest that you try my new posting at my blog site about whether the phrases "Christian Feminism" or "Christian Feminist" should even be used in the Church. Rather than spending our time on what women can, can't, should, or shouldn't be doing (I totally disagree with the notion that in the church a woman can do anything an unordained man can do), we should be focusing our efforts on training the men to be effective leaders at home, in the Church, and in society. Rattlesnake 6

So if your pastor became a cross-dresser and defended that, would you gladly continue to attend church there? I was just reading North's book on the fall of the old Presbyterian church, and he fingers one key moment as the point when the old school "engaged" the modernists at Union Seminary by starting a journal w/them and "engaging" them in discussion on higher criticism. What did this serve to do? Legitimize it. Feminism doesn't need to be engaged within the church, it needs to be removed from it. The church isn't a democracy. I agree that avoidance is an issue, except that what's being avoided is discipline.

Above please read, 'you'd have to accuse them of deep perdition...' as 'you'd have to accuse them of deep sedition....' Knew that didn't sound like, but couldn't tell why right away...hm. Well, cheers.

Drive-by poster. Conservative evangelical seminary-trained mid-life married male mostly complementarian in family ministry. Not Reformed by reason of biblical conviction. I was drawn to this discussion only because I knew Alice Mathews 20+ years ago in seminary. She was "progressive" back then, too. Didn't really agree with her views, but appreciated her as a person. But that's beside my point I feel a bit like the atheist with the new book "I Sold My Soul On Ebay" who gives a non-believer's-eye-view of the church. In this case, I'm an outside to the Reformed enclave, and would normally steer well clear of this kind of discussion, but I felt compelled to comment. David, Jack's Pipe, and Eric...you do not give complementarianism or Reformedism a good face. You come across as dogmatic, unreasonable, and sometimes even mean-spirited. Whatever good points you make are often clouded by your attitudes. Sorry guys, but the Spirit of Christ often seems missing from your words and attitudes, at least to me. Melanie, on the other hand, Reformed and probably somewhat of a moderate on the gender issues, comes across as reasonable, thoughtful, irenic, and gentle-spirited (she was not treated like the lady she appears to be). I was, frankly, challenged and persuaded by much of what she had to say. I might change my mind if I heard some of her biblical views on specific verses, but I would definitely want to hear her thoughts. She is obviously gifted as a thinker and, yes, teacher. Whether or not I would agree with her, I would learn from her. Conspiracy theories aside, I would say the same about Alice Matthews. I've been a CBMW complementarian for a long time, but I sense the Spirit doing some adjusting of my views. I'm not talking about dismissing Scriptures that clearly teach, to me, that church leadership (elders) is gender-specific. However, I'm no longer convinced that Scripture limits women's roles as strictly as the old complementarian model has been interpreted. Melanie is a great example of that to me. But so is my wife, who writes books on traditional motherhood, but speaks internationally to women and men, while homeschooling a houseful of great kids. Like Melanie, she is articulate, insightful, and convicting. She strongly supports the idea of submitting to loving leadership at home and in the church, but that should not limit her gifts and calling. I have an older daughter who is deeply spiritual and articulate. I grow in my faith from her insights, so why shouldn't other men be blessed by her gifts? That's all I wanted to say. Just thought I'd chime in.

oops, Eph 5... Mr. Gaffe strikes again.

To assert that I have reached my conclusions on scripture through prayerful study and a humble, teachable spirit, but anyone who reaches a different conclusion clearly has an agenda and a bias, and is in rebellion, is the ultimate in arrogance. To claim that people who assert the inerrancy of scripture yet reach different conclusions than oneself, are reprobate and denying the clear teaching of scripture, is the height of arrogance. 1st Peter 3:15: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" I see very little respect here from certain posters towards their brothers and sisters in Christ.

"To assert that I have reached my conclusions on scripture through prayerful study and a humble, teachable spirit, but anyone who reaches a different conclusion clearly has an agenda and a bias, and is in rebellion, is the ultimate in arrogance." This is another example of the spirit of the age. If someone comes to a conclusion about something sincerely, then it doesn't matter what the conclusion is. To the people who held the error of the Nicolaitans, Christ's response wasn't "well at least you came to this sincerely, let's debate irenically." It was: "Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth." Similarly, Paul's rebuke of Peter and many other examples. "To claim that people who assert the inerrancy of scripture yet reach different conclusions than oneself, are reprobate and denying the clear teaching of scripture, is the height of arrogance." No one has been called reprobate. "Inerrancy" is one good indicator of orthodoxy, but not the only one. If you are denying the clear teaching of Scripture, then you are denying the clear teaching of Scripture. There's a reason why elders are tasked to guard the good deposit, and given the authority to discipline.