"But even now, women leaders in the secular world are the exception, not the rule. Those exceptions, though, are part of God’s judgment:"[quotes Isaiah -- "women rule over them and lead them astray" passage]
Tim Bayly at the end:
"Deborah was a woman; Deborah was a judge; Deborah led in Israel. God set Deborah as a judge over His people to lead them. There, does that do it? God sent Mary Magdalene to the Apostles to tell them about the Resurrection of our Lord. God used Priscilla and Aquila to “explain” things to Apollos. God sent the Woman at the Well into her village to tell everyone there about her Master. There are others. Shall I go on?
No one is dismissive of any of these women or their work [Except for Kay, who said Deborah didn't count]. Rather, those of us who honor Scripture do not use these historical facts of the sovereign work of God as weapons to oppose the order of creation God decreed, or the significance of that order God has commanded us to obey. These are all the exceptions that prove the rule."
He first said exceptions demonstrate God's judgment. Deborah was part of God's judgment? The Queen of Sheba was a part of God's judgment? Well -- Jesus says she will be a part of God's judgment, for when she rises, she will condemn the generation that saw Christ. But that's not what Tim is talking about . . . Priscilla was part of God's judgment? Huldah was part of God's judgment? How so?
And if they were indicative of God's judgment, and went "against that order God has commanded us to obey," why is it that Tim can say that "no one is dismissive of any of these women or their work?" And did all these exceptions disobey "that order God has commanded us to obey?"
How so?? Which is it??? I'm confused by his reasoning.
If I am an exception, how do I know whether I am a true exception whose work should not be dismissed, or whether I am disobeying "that order God has commanded us to obey," and am indicative of God's judgment as said in Isaiah?
Confusin' and confoundin', ain't it?
120 comments:
So I wrote on Bayley blog:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim wrote,
"CJ, you’re the one who calls Isaiah 3:12 a “proof text.” None of us have."
Tim, nobody had to call it a proof text, because McMillan used it as a proof text right in front of everybody. I was merely referring back to the obvious.
Likewise, I was pointing out the obvious when I cited Deborah, Priscilla, Lemuel's mother, and Mary Magdalene as women who either taught men, stood in authority over men, or both (and I forgot the woman at the well, thanks for mentioning her), and who did so with God's blessing. These are not exceptions that "prove the rule"; rather, these women and their work prove that God has no rule against women in general* holding authority or teaching men in general*.
If God did disapprove on principle of all cases of women teaching men, He would not have approved of the cases I cited, and Jesus would not have upbraided His disciples for not listening to Mary Magdalene.
Now, if you want to ignore these cases, or explain them away as "exceptions that prove the rule" (I'm still not sure what you mean by that), that is, of course, your right. I'm a woman, and so I'm not preaching to you -- all I've doing is provide Scriptural proof that God does not disapprove of every instance of women teaching or holding authority over men. Your argument is not with me, it's with Scripture, and with Him.
*(I am aware of the chapters in Genesis which you cited, and they are useful in showing God's plan for men and women, but what they show us is that a husband is to be in authority over his wife, not that all men are to be in authority over all women. Reread the chapters and verses you've quoted, with this idea in mind, and you will see what I mean.)
Oh, and if I do not post here again this weekend, have a Blessed Easter..... CJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And with that, I think I'm done. Tim is right about one thing: "There’s no one so blind as the man who refuses to see."
Tim wrote:
CJ, the "proof text" is identified by the Holy Spirit: "For Adam was created first, and then Eve.”
The Holy Spirit Himself identifies Genesis as the proof text in 1Timothy 2 where He instructs us that woman is “not to teach or exercise authority” over man "for Adam was created first, and then Eve." Also because “it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman….”
This is the doctrine of God concerning man and woman—not husband and wife. To limit its application to man only as husband and woman only as wife is perverse. The Holy Spirit is here teaching us the meaning of sex, not the meaning of marriage. Authority in marriage flows from the structure and order of sex as God created it in the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall.
You may hate this order. You may deny it. You may oppose it. You may seek to have it circumscribed and limited. You may teach your children to hate it, too. It simply doesn’t matter. This universal law has more solidity and mass than the Rock of Gibraltar. The unanimous witness of the church across the ages upholds this as the plain meaning of these texts.
May God give you grace to obey this truth so that you may come to understand and love it.
I: Self, I just checked sitemeter, and it's just you and I here. So let me talk to you, just the two of us here, a bit about this one. Any woman in any kind of position of authority where a man is to submit to her is violating the the created order, and by implication, the Word of God. There is no other inference I can take away from what Tim just said above.
To limit the application of these verses to the church and home, but not to the workforce, or civil life, is perverse. The authority of all mankind over all womankind is what is taught in the Bible, and any exception goes against the divine order.
The exceptions, Deborah, the Queen of Sheba, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth, Golda Meier, Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth Dole, my friend the doctor, are all a sign of God's judgment, according to Tim, who at the beginning of this discussion cited Isaiah, where women rule over them and the leaders lead astray as proof of this assertion (exceptions are a sign of God's judgment). All of them.
Now, of course, Tim said we know that nobody is being dismissive of these women and their work! Why, Kay who said "she [Deborah] doesn't count," doesn't count! There are no exceptions! Nobody was dismissing them! Kay's assertion doesn't count. ;-)
Besides, Deborah ect., by all being such wonderful exceptions, they prove the rule of God's created order! We know God raised them up! Nobody is dismissing them in order to claim that God's order is that all men rule over all women at all times, and any limitations on this order are perverse!
Why, it makes so much sense, that to even suggest these examples that are from Scripture limits the scope of male authority to the chruch and home is perverse!
It just makes so much sense to me I can hardly stand it!
Self responds back to me:
Lynn, do not forget about the effects of Postmodern thinking in this world. I know what you said above was tongue in cheek, but in reality, a sizeable majority of people out there reading this thread cannot see the contradiction between what Tim said about exceptions, nor would they care about the laws of identity, the laws of non-contradiction, or the excluded middle, for there is too much an emphasis on interpersonal relationships these days and much less focus on absolute truth and the foundations of proper reasoning and discourse.
You can see people drinking the Kool-aid. Kamilla, who is very active on the internet, said she's not seen one evangelical feminist who talks about their children as blessings, said she's getting impatient with these "evangelical feminists" who don't value their children as such. Joan said she's not the one making sweeping assertions about "egalitarians" not valuing children, and Kamilla came after Joan for making a false accusation against her.
There was no false accusation made against Kamilla, for Kamilla reads widely on these boards, said she saw Tim's post and is getting impatient because the evangelical feminists don't value children, presumably as much as Tim does.
Lynn, you know this is a bunch of $#!+.
I: Self, mind your language!
Self: Well, it is a load of . . . unpleasant stinky stuff. "Egalitarian" and "Evangelical Feminist" are synonymous. If they were not, Joan's statement would be false, but it isn't. And see how all these people respond to Kamilla, and go after Joan. It's scary. It's as though they have this pack mentality, and are like unreasoning animals. Besides, you have seen all the other boards, where children are cherished, where mothers are encouraged to breastfeed, co-sleep, sling, spend time with, bond with, provide gentle discipline for their little ones, and you know many of these women are "evangelical feminists"/"egalitarians." Kamilla, by saying she's not seen one example, is painting a pretty false picture of what is out there. And I haven't even touched on Radical Feminist Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, and her views on motherhood and children. Sheesh!
But back to the Postmodern climate . . . many that read Tim Bayly just walk away and say they don't like how he treats people, and they just beleive that he's wrong, because he's not nice to people. You have to avoid this error in thinking, which is to be led by impressions and emotions and gut reactions. In fact, unless it is an out and outright evasion, such as what Tim said to Light yesterday about her question, or an ad hom attack, which you have seen him do to Corrie a long time ago, it's best to not deal with perceived tone in arguments.
I: Self, but what about the insinuations and innuendo? Like, when that comment, now removed, talking about egalitarians promoting "solitary pleasures" not necrophelia, and we knew the writer was referring to perversion, so we mentioned all the patriarchal wife-spanking (some with spanking "love stories" mixed with Scripture) that are out there.
They can come back and, say, "Why, I never said that about them. How rude!
Self: That is why it's a good thing to take the discussion here and try to analyze their reasoning.
You don't need to be baited by this kind of thing. Sure, you might misread an innuendo into something, but talking egalitarians promoting "solitary pleasures" instead of necrophelia is pretty obvious.
Well, Lynn, this is getting a bit long-winded, so now that everybody knows we live in a split-level head, I think we both ought to split this scene. Thanks for refraining from posting over there on this subject. It's not worth it. Toodles.
Hi all. I've been lurking here the last few days, and I'm glad that there are others out there profoundly concerned about their Baylys. Their extreme position is enough cause for concern, but their attitudes are downright wrong and ungodly. (Please note - I am NOT saying they are not Christians.)
As some of you have asserted, I doubt it does any good to interact with them. They show time and time again they are not teachable – especially, but not limited to, when they are interacting with women. I do have some measure of hope that some of their readers will see the light (no pun intended, Light M.) and start questioning the Baylys and their rhetoric.
What gets me is that they undermine the authority that they so loudly proclaim. Some time ago, Tim’s elders, to whom he is accountable, asked him to take a months-long “sabbatical” from blogging. Well, that lasted about a week. Likewise, they seemingly have little respect for Presbyterian government. If they did, they would refrain from making their own judgments about who is and is not a Christian, and would pursue action in the church courts. Instead, they regularly Lord over people not in their own flock and even trash fellow elders in their own denomination. Their silly blog gives them no right to do so. It amounts to vigilantism, (Although, perhaps I’m guilty of this by saying so )
I wonder if we who are worried about the Baylys, and there are many of us, should gather in a commitment to pray for them in love. Maybe we could set up another website for this purpose – to chart our prayers. I believe an orchestrated effort of prayer would do much more good than trying to engage them on their blog. Any thoughts?
Color me a pervert......I have a head-ache. Does anyone have some Exedrin?
Lynn, I enjoyed listening you talk to yourself. You should do it more often. You are very right about Tim's logic or lack of it being very confusing. He sure does contradict himself, doesn't he?
And would someone for the LOVE OF PETE please answer Charley the Pilot's question? Something happened that I believe was impossible- one of them actually came very close to questioning them. I am not kidding. Go over there before it is taken down. Charley asked the same question Light did! [Chorus from Handel's Messiah: "Hallelujah!!!"]
He prefaced it by saying: "As much as I find Light's continual chafing against the clear teaching of Scripture to be heretical, I find myself having to ask a similar question."
Wow! I am speechless. One of them has actually dared to appear to be wondering the same thing as that [finger pointing to woman with the scarlet "H" on her chest, standing in the corner of the courtroom] HERETICAL WOMAN- Light Morton (make sure you throw salt over your shoulder and spit on the ground 3 times after uttering her name)
Hey, Charley, Beudreux's Butt Paste works wonders for my little guy's chafing. You can get it right down at Walmart for only $4 a tube. Oh, don't get the wrong idea. I am not trying to take authority over you and give you orders by telling you something about how to take care of your chafing. I am giving these directions in a way that will not take away from your manhood and make you feel emasculated. Let us just call it a "suggestion"? I know how horrifying it would be to be told what to do by a woman or [gasp] learn anything from a woman. Bella Legosi's face just looms up in my mind when I think of such horrors!
Honestly, can't they just be gracious? I mean, Light asked some very good and pertinent questions. Why do they have to cut her down before they hint that she might just have something to say?
Remember, I was kicked off of that blog after ONE post that agreed with the questions Light asked concerning the practical aspects of what Tim was teaching. But, I see my error. I didn't start off by cutting that Herectical Woman down.
In that discussion, Tim asserted that a woman always does things in submission to her husband and a man always does things in love for his wife even though they may look the same and do the exact same thing. He said that this is because their "sex" (huh?) determines whether they submit or love.
She gave some great genderless examples and asked them to tell her whether it was submission or love. One of them was concerning a spouse who was tired and the other spouse wanted them to go shopping with them. The spouse that was tired and wanted to stay home ended up going with the spouse that wanted to go shopping. Light asked whether that spouse went out of love or submission. They started sputtering. They couldn't answer it without knowing the gender of the spouse who decided to go shopping who would have rather stayed home and rested.
You see, in Tim's World, a woman submits and everything she does is because she is submitting and a man never submits, he sacrificially loves. But, when he is told that women frequently do things for their husbands out of love and not submission, his circuits overload and there is a major malfunction. He doesn't like hearing any truthful information that will confuse him and his theories.
Ichthus4us,
Now, why did you have to go and make me feel all convicted? :-)
You are right. We truly need to pray. In fact, the Lord is showing me that this week. I need to truly and earnestly pray more for the situations, like these, where no amount of reasoning and logic will change someone's mind. Only the Lord can do that.
Include me in.
Lynn,
Tim seems to have added something to Light's post sometime in the wee hours of the morning.
"Tim, how do you envision your worldview of "no woman ever over any man in authority" actually playing out properly in the world today?
[Note from Tim: Of course, this is no quote of me, nor does it even accurately state the Scriptural doctrine of father-rule.
And now, we head into Ms. Morton's "Look at the birdie!" evasive ploy, and as we allow her to direct our attention in another direction, we no longer are thinking about the many, many direct statements of God's Word listed above, every one of which is a divine rebuke of Ms. Light's rebellion. Dear reader, learn to recognize such tactics and to expose them. Otherwise, many will be misled. And I write this having watched and carefully read Ms. Light's scores of posts on this blog, alone.]
So, Tim isn't say that no woman should ever have authority over any man?
Can we back up this bus and go back to the whole female police officer scenario?
The Exedrin isn't working. Either is the Diet Coke. Maybe some duct tape?
They always say it is a woman's perogative to change her mind. I am thinking it is also that of a man's.
Corrie,
Sounds good. I'd love to set up a little blog that people can go to to be encouraged and reminded to pray and to record prayers. I'll have to think about how to do this. Let me know if you have thoughts.
BTW, sorry for the generic username. I think it wise I don't use my real name. But I am a woman, if that helps :)
"You see, in Tim's World, a woman submits and everything she does is because she is submitting and a man never submits, he sacrificially loves."
I can kind of see this, actually.
First, change the "man" and "woman" to husband and wife.( Many complementarians make the mistake of applying to all men and all women the principles which rightfully pertain to husbands and wives in the marriage relationship.)
Then look at it in this way:
Men have male organs, and females have female organs. Most of the time, this has no bearing on what they happen to be doing or how they relate to their fellow human beings. But when a man and a woman marry and go to procreate, the complementary nature of their bodies finds its purpose. Their bodies are different, but the act is still the act of procreation for both parties involved.
So it is with loving. A man loves his wife sacrificially, and a woman loves her husband submissively, but the act is still love, and to an outsider, it often looks the same whether the love in question is submissive or sacrificial in nature.
Note too, that a man who sacrificially loves all the women in town, or a woman who is submissive to any man who comes along, commits a type of spiritual prostitution, in giving to ALL members of the opposite sex that which is the rightful response only to one's own partner. Thus is the error of many complementarians demonstrated. All women are not to be submissive to all men, anymore that all men are to sacrificially love all women. We relate in terms of gender only to our spouses -- all others are our fellow members in the body of Christ: no more, and certainly no less.
Lynn wrote: But back to the Postmodern climate . . . many that read Tim Bayly just walk away and say they don't like how he treats people, and they just beleive that he's wrong, because he's not nice to people. You have to avoid this error in thinking, which is to be led by impressions and emotions and gut reactions. In fact, unless it is an out and outright evasion, such as what Tim said to Light yesterday about her question, or an ad hom attack, which you have seen him do to Corrie a long time ago, it's best to not deal with perceived tone in arguments."
Total agreement here.
However, It is impossible to have a 'conversation' with someone who starts with a wrong premise.
Quite frankly, Tim is being the 'emotional' one here. The proof is in his insistence on a wrong premise.
Here is the wrong premise: Tim accuses you of ignoring the 'creation order', therefore he will not engage in discussion on the clear cut events and women in scripture.
That, my friends, is an emotional response. On second thought, it is an emotional 'straw man' response.
Quite frankly, Tim is being the 'emotional' one here. The proof is in his insistence on a wrong premise."
That's a very charitable way of looking at it, Lin. I'm more judgmental -- I would have called it, "Pride", or, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with logic (or Scripture!)"
Either way, though, I agree with Corrie and Ichthus -- Tim Bayly et al in the Patriarchal movement are in need of our prayers this Holy Week.
I'll be praying for 'em too.
Ichthus4us, if you want to set up a site, I will be happy to go over to it. If you would kindly post the link here in these comments, we would appreciate it.
Thank you for your thoughts. I strongly agree with you, we need to be in prayer.
Ichthus, thank you for the reminder to pray for Tim Bayly. I have been doing so on and off for some months now, but need to become more consistent.
I just posted the following on his blog. I don't know if it will stay up, but it is my prayer that the Lord will soften his heart and his pride to hear:
Tim, as your sister in Christ, I would not be doing my duty if I did not rebuke you here. I frankly had hoped and expected better of you, as one who professes to be a Christian and teacher of God's word. Avoiding a straight answer, obfuscating, or setting down conditions that must be met before you will answer a sincere inquiry is "conduct unbecoming" of a pastor and a teacher. If you are so eager to win souls to the complementarian position, you will "catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Here, when you have a clear and obvious opportunity to "set the record straight," you fail to be the man Christ has called you to be. In fact, I fear you are doing the opposite, as evidenced by emails I have received from readers of your blog as well as buzz about you in the blogosphere.
I encourage you to humble yourself and take this entire post and thread, unedited, to your session for accountability.
Tim, during this Easter season, as we reflect on how our Lord sacrificed his life for our sins, I exhort you to meditate on what sacrificial love means. I encourage you to self sacrifice, setting aside your pride, and truly practice the servant leadership you profess to believe in. I am praying for you.
That's a very charitable way of looking at it, Lin. I'm more judgmental -- I would have called it, "Pride", or, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with logic (or Scripture!)"
Pride is the strongest emotion of all.
Ichthus said: Some time ago, Tim’s elders, to whom he is accountable, asked him to take a months-long “sabbatical” from blogging.
Why, Ichthus? Did they find it took too much time away from his duties, or because his style was representing the Kingdom so poorly?
No surprise here, but have been banned from the Bayly blog. My post rebuking Tim stayed up all of 15 minutes. Here's the email I just received from Tim.
Dear Ms. Morton,
Last night, prior to your latest post, I decided to prohibit you from posting on our blog any more. You consistently oppose the plain teaching of Scripture and David and I have no obligation to provide you a forum for your rebellion against God. The blog is an electronic publication and we are responsible for what we publish, answering to God for it.
To allow you to continue to attack the Holy Spirit's doctrine of sexuality there is contrary to our ordination vows and destructive of the church of Jesus Christ.
Please honor this request and do not write anything on our blog from this point on, under any name at all. If the Lord grants you repentance and you come to have faith concerning the Bible's teaching on father-rule, we will be happy to welcome you back.
Under His mercy,
Tim Bayly
Tim is now calling himself the Holy Spirit?
I was just Googling the Bayly Brothers and I found this. It's sophomoric, but my goodness, it's funny, in a Limbaughesque sort of way...
"To allow you to continue to attack the Holy Spirit's doctrine of sexuality there is contrary to our ordination vows and destructive of the church of Jesus Christ."
Uhhhhh, I wouldn't have use the word "cult" when referring to the Bayly blog but that word now just easily rolls off my tongue.
This whole thing is ridiculous. Tim Bayly is the pope who speaks ex-cathedra to his little kingdom and anyone who doesn't agree with him is actually an enemy of God and an anathema. His interpretation is supreme and there is no higher interpretation and any interpretation that differs with Tim's "doctrine of sexuality" (huh???) indicates a person who needs to repent.
Okay. I am almost thinking that Tim's blog is a spoof and was set up by the people who do Betty Bowers. Boy! They sure have us going, don't they!!! Those stinkers!
Could anyone point me to the chapter and verse where the Holy Spirit expounds on this doctrine of sexuality? Is it found in the Westminster Confession of Faith?
Tim, himself, admitted that women can have authority over men outside of the church. Why is he balking at Light's questions? Did he answer Charley the Pilot's questions? Or, are his devoted followers just left to flounder and flap in the wind of his bizarre doctrine with no practical application whatsoever?
How in the heck do you apply Tim Bayly's doctrine of sexuality? Tis a mystery. I think we have to be 42nd level masons and take the blood handshake before Tim will let us in on the secret of how to apply his doctrines.
"If the Lord grants you repentance and you come to have faith concerning the Bible's teaching on father-rule, we will be happy to welcome you back."
Why doesn't he just do it the easy way. Tie her up, toss her in the lake and see if she floats or sinks. If she sinks, she is innocent. End of his problems with that Heretical Woman, Light Morton. (I think that would make a great title for a book!) Are there any lakes in Indiana? If there are not, he can always load up some bricks on her chest until she confesses. That worked well for the Salem Witch trials.
So, Tim Bayly has changed the gospel. No longer is Christ crucified being preached. No longer is believing in Christ and confessing with our mouths that Jesus is Lord required. Now, one must have true faith in "father-rule" to be admitted to his cu....I mean- club.
Oh.. OK. I could have sworn for a minute that Tim called his doctrine of sexuality, the Holy Spirit's doctrine of sexuality....LOL.
CJ,
That little spoof was put up by someone (I don't know who runs that blog and I was not associated with the making of it) who watched what was done to me and Light on the Bayly blog. :-)
Corrie, you and I are on the same wavelength, apparently... I was just thinking about how similar the hubris of Bayly's behaviour is to that of the Catholics in some of their not-so-shining moments. How dare he name his own or ANY man-made doctrine, however carefully thought out, to be a doctrine of the Holy Spirit?
If it were, the Bible would spell it out. As it is, all things necessary to salvation may be found in the Bible, and frankly, Tim's doctrine isn't in there.
You are right on another count, Corrie.. Tim has crossed the line and is now engaging in cult-think, claiming that his own doctrines are divinely inspired. Doesn't he have superiors in the Presbyterian church that might be interested in this?
No, CJ, he's not calling himself the Holy Spirit. He's referring to how he claims Light treats the Bible.
I've set up a blog here.
Light, according to the Bayly blog, Tim's elders wanted him to focus on other work.
simplegifts3 said...
"No, CJ, he's not calling himself the Holy Spirit. He's referring to how he claims Light treats the Bible."
Hmm.. I didn't get that from my reading of Tim's posting.
Tim said,
"To allow you to continue to attack the Holy Spirit's doctrine of sexuality there is contrary to our ordination vows and destructive of the church of Jesus Christ."
But, the doctrine Tim is accusing Light of attacking is HIS OWN doctrine, based on his own exegeses
of a number of Scriptures, some of which are completely unrelated to one another. This doctrine may be well researched and carefully thought out, but it is still Tim Bayly's own doctrine; to call it the Holy Spirit's doctrine is to claim divine inspiration.
I don't know about Deborah being a judgment. Jael certainly was, but it's not clear that Deborah was.
As for 'the exception that proves the rule,' CJ is honest enough to admit she doesn't know what they mean by that. The funny thing is I doubt the Bayley Brothers have any idea what that means, either.
It certainly doesn't fit in this context. All they've done is say, "We declare that the biblical examples that contradict our position only prove how right we are." It makes no sense at all.
Here's another good one:
Luk 2:36 ¶ And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; Luk 2:37 And she [was] a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served [God] with fastings and prayers night and day.
Luk 2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
ANNA preached the Good News about Jesus while He was yet a boy, and she did it in the very Temple in Jerusalem, to ALL who would listen! My guess is that "all" included men as well as women.
So how is THAT a judgment on anything (other than on people who say that women are forbidden to ever teach men!)?
I'd say it's a blessing, instead.
Lynn,
I don't get that from his statement.
""To allow you to continue to attack the Holy Spirit's doctrine of sexuality there is contrary to our ordination vows and destructive of the church of Jesus Christ.""
He specifically refers to the Holy Spirit's "doctrine of sexuality" and accuses Light of attacking IT.
Isn't this called "begging the question"? It surely is a logical fallacy. He presents some doctrine of sexuality as if there really was one and then tells Light that she must repent and submit to this doctrine in order to be a member and welcomed into his inner circle.
So, where is the Holy Spirit's doctrine of sexuality to be found? In the Bible? Or is it some divinely inspired thing where the Holy Spirit directly visited Tim and gave him this doctrine. Kind of like Joseph Smith.
All I know is that the bible tells us that the Holy Spirit will reveal truth to all believers. Why is it that not all believers know about this "truth"?
I really have to detox after reading these blogs in order to read the Bible without the lens that some read their Bible through.
Bill Gothard teaches that the Sermon on the Mount is written for men because Jesus taught His disciples who were men.
Does anyone know if Tim Bayly believes that certain parts of the Bible, such as the Sermon on the Mount and other such directives for the disciples of Christ, are written specifically for men.
Such as the Great Commission and many of the "one another" verses? Or the commands to be strong and stand firm and to resist and to say no to ungodliness?
"Bill Gothard teaches that the Sermon on the Mount is written for men because Jesus taught His disciples who were men."
He WHAT? I never heard this one. This is flat out heresy, in my book. The Sermon on the Mount is for everybody: it contains the Beatitudes, and the Lord's Prayer, and a good many instructions on how to live.
Matthew 5:1 says that "his disciples came unto him: Mat 5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying..."
The verse doesn't say, "His MALE disciples came unto Him", it just says disciples, and Jesus had plenty of female disciples.
Next thing you know one of these fellows is going to start preaching that women can't be saved and recieve eternal life in their own right, but instead must be saved through their husband.
CJ,
I am not making it up. I wish I were.
I will try and find the actual quote.
He also taught that Eve ate the fruit because she wanted to be like her husband.
Didn't make that one up, either.
He also taught that if Tamar had really cried out and resisted and had her eyes open, she would have known her brother planned, along with his servant, to rape her while his servant guarded the door. After all, it is pretty shady when your father asks you to take some food to your ailing brother, isn't it?
He also taught that Abigail was wrong in what she did. That Nabal's blood is on her head and that she is responsible for his death because he died of a broken heart because his wife went against his wishes.
Now, I have to go calm down. Just remembering all of that has got me a little verklempt.
simplegifts3 said...
"No, CJ, he's not calling himself the Holy Spirit. He's referring to how he claims Light treats the Bible."
CJ:
Hmm.. I didn't get that from my reading of Tim's posting.
Tim said, "To allow you to continue to attack the Holy Spirit's doctrine of sexuality there is contrary to our ordination vows and destructive of the church of Jesus Christ."
Tim believes his doctrine is the same as what the Bible is. Therefore, when you attack Tim's doctrine, he accuses you of attacking the Bible.
There is a long way from saying something like that to saying, "I and the Father are one," or, "I am the Holy Spirit."
My belief that Jesus was raised on the third day is the Holy Spirit's doctrine. If you call yourself a Christian, and I am a leader of some kind of Bible study, and you keep challenging me about Jesus being raised from the dead, and I tell you, "I can't allow you to continue to attack the Holy Spirit's doctrine like this any more," does not mean I'm equating myself with God.
It's just that in this case, I'm right about the doctrine, and Tim's writing is self-refuting and confusing. It doesn't mean that he's making himself equal with God.
JP:
As for 'the exception that proves the rule,' CJ is honest enough to admit she doesn't know what they mean by that. The funny thing is I doubt the Bayley Brothers have any idea what that means, either.
I think the most favorable interpretation of this is actually the one that makes it the most contradictory, JP, and that interpretation is we note these women as exceptions, so because they are notable exeptions, we are doing it because we understand they are not the norm (rule).
In that segment, Tim said that nobody is dismissive of what these women did. He acknowledged they were raised by God, and indicated they were used by God for good purposes, not judgment.
And that is contradictory to his first point that these exceptions, because they were women who had some kind of leadership or teaching capacity which men heeded, as being a bad thing. Tim did cite Isaiah, where "women rule," and the leaders lead "astray." Instead of saying that a total lack of male leadership is bad, what he did was destroy the exceptions in his opening comments.
If, in his opening statements, he claimed when what is normative is nowhere to be found, it is a bad situation -- an interpretation much more in keeping with Isaiah's words, that wouldn't have caused all this uproar, but that's not what he did.
He destroyed the exceptions at the beginning, later he said nobody was being dismissive of them and their work. The first treated exceptions as negative items causing negative consequences, intended by God, and the last statements cited items that were positive and helpful in what they did.
Lynn,
I agree. He didn't say "I am the Holy Spirit". He does think very highly of himself and he does fancy himself a gatekeeper for God. One who decides who can come in and who must stay out. He bases his judgments about people by whether or not they agree with his own pet DOCTRINE. And it is only one. I don't know of any other doctrine the man teaches. He is obsessed with "father-rule" and it shows. It has clouded his vision and it has taken preeminence over every other doctrine in the Bible. Father-rule is a blip on the screen when it comes to the major doctrines of the faith. And I see no evidence for individual men to be calling themselves "patriarchs" just because they fathered a child. That is a scary thought. Fathering a child makes you a ruler? Yikes! The Bible does not call fathers "patriarchs". It does refer to *the* Fathers of the Faith as patriarchs, though. The whole "father-rule" doctrine is a head-trip and it feeds egos. Wouldn't it be nice to have a whole doctrine that bolsters your desires to be in control, in charge and the one who can order others around? But, is that the message of the Bible?
Nope. Servanthood is the message. Not "father-rule". To be consistent with the bible they should be calling themselves "bond-slaves". They have built a whole doctrine on a command TO the wife in a marriage relationship. The Bible tells her to submit. They have extrapolated from that a whole doctrine of males ruling. Doesn't make sense.
"It's just that in this case, I'm right about the doctrine, and Tim's writing is self-refuting and confusing. It doesn't mean that he's making himself equal with God."
You are right about the "self-refuting" and confusion. I am not so sure that he doesn't rank himself right up their with God. His actions speak louder than his words. He pretty much puts himself in the place of God.
"Tim believes his doctrine is the same as what the Bible is. Therefore, when you attack Tim's doctrine, he accuses you of attacking the Bible. There is a long way from saying something like that to saying, "I and the Father are one," or, "I am the Holy Spirit.""
Well... yes, I got that part.
I confess that when I said, "Tim is now calling himself the Holy Spirit?", I was being sarcastic.
I know that Tim doesn't think that he is the Holy Spirit (at least not yet, LOL.)
But surely he sees that his doctrine on sexuality is his own exegesis, however closely he believes it mirrors divine truth. I still say that what he's doing is nothing less than claiming divine inspiration for his doctrine, and I think he knows it. If he doesn't know it, someone should point it out to him. It looks to me like he is either sliding into delusion or heresy, and sometimes the two are indistinguishable -- just look at Gothard.
Corrie said,
"They have built a whole doctrine on a command TO the wife in a marriage relationship."
"I don't know of any other doctrine the man teaches. He is obsessed with "father-rule" and it shows. It has clouded his vision and it has taken preeminence over every other doctrine in the Bible."
And that's what I meant when I said that Bayly has built his castle on sand. In the New Testament, marriage (other that the Marriage of the Lamb) is seen as someting of this world, that is passing away. It's still allowed, for obvious reasons, but it's not a big deal. Bayly is carnal in his thinking -- he has focused his theology on this world, giving huge importance to something that, Paul says, is temporal: 1Cr 7:31 And they that use this world, as not abusing [it]: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
Somebody ought to go on his blog and ask him a question about salvation, or the incarnation, or the nature of the Trinity -- something to do with the Kingdom of God.
CJ, Corrie, and Light,
I have seen that blog (the cultist/hats blog) before (it is a funny read) and I think I know who put it up. I read it on Pooh's Think blog a couple of months ago. You can do a search for "hats", or cultists on his blog and find links to it. He sort of takes credit for it here:
http://poohsthink.com/?p=1029
Hope it's okay to post this. I just thought the site was funny.
Thank you for sharing all the thoughts on the complementarian/egalitarian issue. I am starting to see how being a staunch complementarian (as in 'father-rule' type) creates the kind of problems that these particular men in question, as well as others talk against. If in fact, woman were meant to complement ALL men, then of course we would have conflict between workplace and home, etc. But if the biblical model is to complement just our husbands, as the almost other half of them (because it was not good that the man be alone), or their balance, and then submitting to each other out of reverence for Christ (Colossians) then we model God's design. Could someone correct me, please, if I am mistaken? I am really going through some revising of my understanding in this issue.
Thanks, everyone.
He Is Risen!
Kathleen:
If in fact, woman were meant to complement ALL men, then of course we would have conflict between workplace and home, etc. But if the biblical model is to complement just our husbands, as the almost other half of them (because it was not good that the man be alone), or their balance, and then submitting to each other out of reverence for Christ (Colossians) then we model God's design.
I tend to agree with you, Kathleen. I would say that all mankind and all womankind do complement each other, but only as a picture of total humanity in the image of God, not with any reference to who specifically has authority over whom.
Did anybody else notice this -- those on the Bayly blog aren't coming right out and answering questions and I am referring to more than Light's.
Nobody has yet answered the question Joan posed at the beginning about "always," and/or, "never." IOW -- she asked if they were saying there is never a biblically right circumstance where a woman may be in authority over a man, or teach a man.
They have just insinuated it, claimed that it isn't in the Bible, but insinuated we know it is always wrong because necrophelia is always wrong, and we know about necrophelia by inference, too.
They hedge, dodge and weave about practically everything, claim they are being falsely accused when you can look right in that thread and see they aren't being falsely accused, say the exceptions are bad and point to God's judgment, and in the end cite the exceptions that blessed the people of God thus contradicting themselves, and the icing on this poop brownie is that they refuse to answer a reasonable question from an egalitarian who is part of their denomination.
THAT is why I won't post over there.
But . . . there is something else I've been thinking of, and Kathleen's comment is a springboard. I don't know what Tim Bayly says about wives who work outside the home for pay, but there are many other Patriarchalists who do say that this is wrong, and one of the reasons they give is that a woman then is under another authority besides her husband.
Now, I don't know if Tim Bayly has ever made this claim, so I'm not saying he's contradicting himself here, but when your teaching is that all women are to submit to all men, and never to teach them, and that the exceptions God raises up are a judgment for sin, and go against the divine order, then . . . there is nothing wrong with a woman placing herself under another authority besides her husband, because she is under all men, anyway. This idea, although I don't believe it, does kind of seem to be at odds with Jennie Chancey/Bill Gothard/Doug Phillips and what they teach, doesn't it?
Has Tim ever said this about working wives? I would doubt he has -- that's a Bill Gothard/Doug Phillips/Jennie Chancey teaching, but I did note this problem when comparing the two Patriarchal teachings here.
CJ: In the New Testament, marriage (other that the Marriage of the Lamb) is seen as someting of this world, that is passing away. It's still allowed, for obvious reasons, but it's not a big deal.
That's not true. Marriage is a very big deal in the New Testament:
Eph 5:22-33
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
(KJV)
Elders must be married, as must Deacons.
That two become one is still in effect:
1 Cor 6:15-17
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
(KJV)
Postscript to 'exception proves the rule'- this is a commonly misused phrase, and Tim has misused it again. I don't think he knows what it means, but then most people don't seem to know what it means.
The exception proves the rule actually should only be used in circumstances when the exception *proves* that there is a rule- such as 'men have special permission to leave the barracks' (see http://www.word-detective.com/070599.html).
Deborah, Anna, Priscilla, etc, do not, by their existence 'prove' that there is a rule against females in similar leadership roles.
JP:
Deborah, Anna, Priscilla, etc, do not, by their existence 'prove' that there is a rule against females in similar leadership roles.
I agree. And that is what Tim asserted in his opening remarks -- that the exceptions show God's judgment for going against divine order.
But even if "rule" means "norm" in the context of his later remarks, ie, that these women are noted as exceptions because we recognize a norm (which makes perfect sense), that still wouldn't prove there is a divine mandate against the exceptions, or that all exceptions are cases of God's judgment on mankind.
Deborah was raised to deliver and bless Israel. She was raised as a judge, sure, but not in judgment against Israel.
It's likewise begging the question to say that Deborah was raised up because there were no men God could raise up, shame on the men. You hear this kind of "reasoning" all the time and it gets old pretty fast.
Lynn,
Icing in this poop brownie??????
Bwahahahahahahaha
Brings back good memories. Those were the days!
Please warn us before you make us laugh so hard. I almost ruined my computer screen!
But surely he sees that his doctrine on sexuality is his own exegesis, however closely he believes it mirrors divine truth.
I don't think so. I think Tim and his merry band honestly think this so clear in scripture that to not see it is to usurp the authority of scripture. And you probably have some moral failings in your way too.
I still say that what he's doing is nothing less than claiming divine inspiration for his doctrine, and I think he knows it. If he doesn't know it, someone should point it out to him.
If someone did point it out to him(and people have, haven't they?), he would just blast them as being feminist of ignoring the plain meaning of scripture or something like that.
I just don't get how Tim can raise these issues to the level he does when the doctrines he's creating are totally inferred from scripture. The whole no woman in authority over man ever is never explicitly stated in scripture. They are inferring it from the "created order" or some such gobbledygook.
Not saying that you never infer things from scripture. But there should be a level of humility when you do.
If in fact, woman were meant to complement ALL men, then of course we would have conflict between workplace and home
Forget about workplace and home, what about just church and home?
But if the biblical model is to complement just our husbands, as the almost other half of them (because it was not good that the man be alone), or their balance, and then submitting to each other out of reverence for Christ (Colossians) then we model God's design.
I agree with you exactly, Kathleen.
JP, I didn't mean that marriage wasn't important at all, or that God's guidelines concerning marriage no longer apply. But since the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it no longer has the importance it once did (and certainly not the importance Bayly and his ilk acccord it), because it is part of this worldly system of things that is passing away.
Concerning marriage, Jesus said,
"The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection........For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him."
And concerning our status as regards this world, Jesus said,
Jhn 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
We are not of this world. We have died in Christ, and live again in Him, and so are dead to the world and its ordinances.
Paul says,
"Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances... "
And Paul says,
"Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Marriage -- "being fruitful and multiplying" and the old, worldly order of relationships between the sexes, (and the races, and the social classes) -- is thus now an option, not a commandment.
We are dead to all of that; as Paul says, "it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none....... for the fashion of this world passeth away.
Nonetheless, marriage remains a viable option, so that fornication may be avoided and the human race can continue; the downside is that if we do choose to marry, we are still subject to this world as touching the principles pertaining to the relationship between man and wife:
Paul wrote, 1Cr 7:1 "¶ Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. 1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Cr 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you........ But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 1Cr 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.
".....when your teaching is that all women are to submit to all men, and never to teach them, .....then . . . there is nothing wrong with a woman placing herself under another authority besides her husband, because she is under all men, anyway."
I have read that some of the opponents of working wives see it as a form of spiritual adultery, when a wife is under the authority of a man other than her own husband. But that logic tends to lead us in some interesting directions.....
If it is spiritual adultery for a wife to work for someone other than her husband, what then shall we call it when a man works for another man?
Likewise, if a woman is by nature under the authority of ALL men, is she then by nature a spiritual tart?
If we read 1 Cor. 7:25-35 we see that Paul is speaking about men and women and marriage and how it is better for one to remain single. He offers a concession: If one cannot control him/herself, then that person should get married. Then it goes on to tell us that a wife has authority over her husband and the husband has authority over his wife. This is in regards to their bodies and sex. (Contrary to what Patriarchalists teach that men are the initiators and women the responders. It seems that Paul doesn't believe that. In fact, he was exploding that myth. Sex was for the woman as much as it was for the man. So often, in patriarchalist circles. we are taught that sex is for the man and it is the duty of the woman to *submit* to sex and keep him happy so he doesn't stray. That teaching flies in the face of what scripture says. It is NOT one-sided as the patriarchalists teach.
After reviewing these scriptures, I cannot come to the conclusion that a woman's role is to be a wife and mother. The patriarchalists teaching on "the doctrine of sex" or creation order mandates that requires women to marry in order to fufill what she has been born to do. Paul tells us it is better that we should remain as he- single, so as to be totally devoted to the Lord and not encumbered by thoughts of pleasing a spouse.
There is nothing wrong with being a wife and mother but to teach that this is the role that women are to fill is to go against the whole counsel of scripture. Women find their value and their fulfillment in Christ and Him alone. If a woman never marries, she is free to be devoted to the Lord and serving Him- not to be encumbered with how she may please her earthly father and serve him.
The Patriarchalists would like us to believe that a woman's purpose is being a wife and mother or servant to her father and/or brothers but a man's role is whatever he wants it to be. It doesn't make sense.
If a woman is a wife and mother, her primary responsibility is to her husband and children. If a man is a father and husband, then his primary responsibility is to his wife and children. The Bible clearly tells us that a married man is concerned with how he may please his wife. It does not teach that a married woman is concerned with how she may please and serve her husband and a married man is concerned with how he may rule over others and take dominion of this earth for God.
They both, husband and wife, have the same purpose. Why is there such a glaring difference in practice between the husband's calling and the wife's calling when scripture tells us that both a husband and wife have the same calling?
So Tim's manmade doctrine of sexuality is not found in the pages of scripture. Until he starts preaching the truth of the whole counsel of God, he is disqualified from making judgments on others for not wholeheartedly agreeing with his doctrines based on the traditions of man.
Does anyone else see this passage as basically refuting the assertion that all women were born to be someone's helper?
I was also wondering about the doctrines that most patriarchalists don't seem to practice?
Greeting one another with a kiss.
Giving up all their money to follow Christ.
Turning the other cheek when someone slaps you. (Pacifism)
Those in leadership washing the feet of those in the congregation.
I am wondering why the "doctrine of sex" has risen to the rank of #1 in there teachings when there are so many other doctrines that teach that the first shall be last and that they are to consider others better than their selves and that they are to be a bondslave to all.
I know it is not as glamorous as teaching that men are preeminent and are rulers and get to command while women have to obey their commands. I mean, who doesn't want to be obeyed at all times and have people serve them? But, is that the doctrine of the Gospel?
On another note, where does it teach that a woman's role is to serve her husband? Not that wives don't serve their husbands but why is it taught that this is her unique duty as a wife? I can't find that teaching in my Bible.
I have had "Velvet Elvis" sitting on my night table for weeks, never getting to it. So when I saw on the Baylybog this morning that Tim Bayly was bashing it, I decided to open it up and read it as an Easter treat. I've been reading for an hour, and I think I understand why rigid Pharisees like him hate it so much. Edits included to make context flow a little better:
For him faith is ... a wall of bricks. Each of the core doctrines for him is like an individual brick that stacks on top of the others. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble It appears quite strong and rigid, but if you begin to rethink or discuss even one brick, the whole thing is in danger. ...
This is because a brick is fixed in size. It can't flex or change size, because if it does, then it can't fit into the wall. What happens then is that the wall becomes the sum total of the beliefs, and God becomes as big as the wall. But God is bigger than any wall. God is bigger than any religion. God is bigger than any worldview. God is bigger than the Christian faith. ...
The first Christians announced this way of Jesus as "the good news." That tells me the invitation is for everybody. The problem with brickianity is that walls inevitably keep people out. Often it appears as though you have to agree with all of the bricks exactly as they are or you can't join. … Jesus talks about this "in and out" a lot in his teachings. He keeps insisting that the people who assume they are in may not be in and the ones who everybody thinks are out for whatever reason may in fact be in. …
A Christian doesn't avoid the questions; a Christian embraces them. In fact, to truly pursue the living God, we have to see the need for questions. … What is tragic is faith that has no room for them. … This is why questions are so central to faith. A question by its very nature acknowledges that the person asking the question does not have all of the ansers. And because the person does not have all of the answers, they are looking outside of themselves for guidance.
Questions, no matter how shocking or blasphemous or arrogant or ignorant or raw, are rooted in humility. A humility that understands that I am not God. And there is more to know.
Wow. Has Rob Bell got Tim Bayly pegged, or what?
I am soooo thankful for my PCA pastor. He and I differ on some doctrinal points, but never have I been treated with anything other than love and respect.
"A question by its very nature acknowledges that the person asking the question does not have all of the ansers. And because the person does not have all of the answers, they are looking outside of themselves for guidance.
Questions, no matter how shocking or blasphemous or arrogant or ignorant or raw, are rooted in humility. A humility that understands that I am not God. And there is more to know. "
Light,
Very interesting. I like asking questions. I like when people ask questions. It makes me think. It deepens my faith because I have to search, sometimes, to find the answer. It refines me. It also makes me see that I don't have all the answers.
I wonder what your PCA pastor would say if you printed out some of your posts/questions that you asked Tim and then showed your pastor Tim's responses to you?
Light, that sounds like an interesting book. When I think of doctrine, however, not all bricks are created equal. There are some that just can't be pulled out of the wall, and then there are those that are much smaller, and probably are things genuine believers disagree on more than the fundamentals of the faith.
Corrie, about Paul and his recommendation for the single life, I remember in my early 20s being driven to want marriage and motherhood. I couldn't fathom what Paul was saying at all, and certainly don't understand the passage you bring up, where Paul encourages singleness, and compare that to his recommendations that younger widows remarry.
I haven't got these things figured out, but in the passages where he encourages younger widows to remarry, that is to avoid providing some kind of pension for them too early on in life, after Paul saw many of them not dealing with their support in a proper fashion.
But that one passage you mention does encourage both men and women to consider remaining unmarried, in order minister with less distraction, and it is good to note this. A saved man or woman is the Lord's first and foremost, whatever station of life they may be in is secondary to that.
Corrie said: Very interesting. I like asking questions. I like when people ask questions. It makes me think. It deepens my faith because I have to search, sometimes, to find the answer. It refines me. It also makes me see that I don't have all the answers.
I agree. I am always asking questions. One of the things I really appreciate about my pastor is that no questions are ever off limits. Questions are integral to understanding how we apply doctrine. If someone says, "No woman should ever have authority over a man, ever, even in the secular sphere," why is it so horrible to ask how to apply it in the example I gave on Tim's blog of my ranch-owning cousin. Situations like these aren't rare - they are everywhere we look. In the Bayly Bubble, however, these are unusual exceptions that we shouldn't ever have to even deal with.
I didn't ask this question as a "gotcha" question, but because I really want to know how the hyper-patriarchalists think we should remedy these situations. Nonetheles, I think Tim felt cornered. He wouldn't answer the question directly because he knew he would either have to back down from his absolute pronouncement, or come across as a heartless Pharisee. Because if he says that a woman can own a ranch and have authority over the male ranch hands, he contradicts his own rules. If he says she can't, it means that to come into compliance with his "doctrine of sexuality" the family ranch has to be sold, and the kids lose their legacy, a ranch that has been in the family since right after the Civil War.
And telling a woman that to be right with God, she has to sell her children's legacy, an honorable enterprise that has been a blessing to generations ... well, that is about as far from "the good news" as one could get. That's ALL about law, and not a bit about grace. (Not to mention this "doctrine of sexuality" is simply a power play.)
Corrie said: I wonder what your PCA pastor would say if you printed out some of your posts/questions that you asked Tim and then showed your pastor Tim's responses to you? Well, since he thinks Doug Wilson is mean-spirited and legalistic, I can pretty much guess what he would think of Tim's behavior. My pastor is so cool.(Maybe it's because he was a teenage surfer guy atheist in the 60's.) Some people wanted to do Bill Mouser's "Five Aspects" bible study a few years ago, so I brought all the problems with it to his attention. Even though my pastor is complementarian, and the bible study was about men's and women's roles, he agreed with every problem I brought up about the study and prohibited it from being taught. He was appalled at Mouser's poor handling and application of scripture. So, I can pretty much guess what his reaction to Bayly's nonsense would be.
Lynn said: Light, that sounds like an interesting book. When I think of doctrine, however, not all bricks are created equal. There are some that just can't be pulled out of the wall, and then there are those that are much smaller, and probably are things genuine believers disagree on more than the fundamentals of the faith.
I hear what you're saying. But like Bell, I think there's a better way to look at doctrine other than a brick wall. Bell uses the analogy of a trampoline, which I think works really well. The trampoline, on which we jump, is our faith, and the springs are the doctrine. Here's how he puts it (emphasis added in some spots):
When we jump, we begin to see the need for springs. The springs help make sense of these deeper realities that drive how we live every day. The springs aren't God. The springs aren't Jesus. The springs are statements and beliefs ABOUT our faith that help give words to the depth that we are experiencing in our jumping. I would call these the doctrines of the Christian faith.
They aren't the point.
They help us understand the point, but they are a means and not an end. We take them seriously, and at the same time we keep them in proper perspective.
Take, for example, the doctrine - the spring - called the Trinity. This doctrine is central to historic, orthodox Christian faith. ... This three-in-oneness understanding of God emerged in the several hundred years after Jesus' resurrection. People began to call this concept the Trinity. The word "trinity" is not found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus didn't use the word, and the writers of the rest of the Bible didn't use the word. But over time this understanding, this belief, this doctrine, has become central to how followers of Jesus have understood who God is. It is a spring, and people jumped for thousands of years without it. It was added later. We can take it out and examine it. Discuss it, probe it, question it. It is a spring.
In fact, its stretch and flex are what make it so effective. It is firmly attached to the frame and the mat, yet it has room to move. And it has brought a fuller, deeper, richer understanding of the mysterious being who is God.
Once again, the springs aren't God. They have emerged over time as people have discussed and studied and experienced and reflected on their growing understanding of who God is. Our words aren't absolutes. Only God is absolute, and God has no intention of sharing this absoluteness with anything, especially words people have come up with to talk about Him. This is something people have struggled with since the beginning: how to talk about God when God is bigger than our words, our brains, our worldviews, and our imaginations.
Me again:
So if one's doctrines are so rigid that questioning and examining them is going to cause things to crumble, we have a serious problem. If we treat doctrine like a brick wall, things will come tumbling down if we start taking out the bricks to examine them. And that's where Bayly's "doctrine of sexuality" is so misguided. Put pressure on it just a little, like asking a hard question about how it's applied in everyday life, and it shatters. It simply doesn't stand up to any kind of reasonable scrutiny, because when it is applied, it doesn't glorify God, it doesn't exhibit any kind of grace, it doesn't free anyone (Jesus came to set the captives free), and it doesn't improve anything at all.
Here is what Tim wrote, today, in response to Joan.
[Note from Tim: No, Joan, you haven't gotten it right. Here is what I actually wrote: "…God made man and woman with a certain order that involves authority and submission, and …this order applies to all of life"--not just the home and the Church. This is a statement that's quite different than the position you attribute to me--that "all men are over all women at all times." If I believed what you've written, I would never have encouraged men to submit to a female pilot or police officer.]"
Is anyone confused by this? He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.
On one hand, he says that men are in authority in all spheres and women are not because:
"God made man and woman with a certain order that involves authority and submission, and …this order applies to all of life"
And then he says that if "men are over all women" were so, then he would have never have encouraged men to submit to female police officers.
Huh?
Isn't he the same one that said it is wrong for a woman to be a police officer and that he would gnash his teeth over it because she is upsetting the creation order?
Here is his full quote:
"There can be no proper discussion of those issues that doesn’t start with the acknowledgment that God made man and woman with a certain order that involves authority and submission, and that this order applies to all of life. Any discussion that is productive, biblically, will require agreement that woman exercising authority over man is contrary to God’s creation (pre-Fall) order—and that His order is not applicable only within the safe environs of the Christian home and Church. Rather, it’s applicable verywhere man is man and woman is woman."
Women exercising authority over a man (even though it is telling him to go to a different altitude or writing out a speeding ticket) is contrary to the creation order. He says that this creation order (ie., man over woman) is applicable everywhere man is man and woman is woman.
Therefore, is he not saying, that every time you find a man and a woman (eg., a woman pulls Tims over for speeding) then the creation order (Man over Woman) is applicable.
Is he not saying, practically speaking, that all men are over all women and that no women are over any men? Even though, somehow, he allows that men should submit to female police officers.
Maybe he doesn't like the part where Joan told him that his rule is "all men over all women" because it sounds so unbiblical, but his doctrines, when lived out in real life, yield this very concept. Anywhere you find a man and a woman, you find a man who is in authority and a woman who submits.
Isn't that what he is really saying?
Remember the advice about a woman giving directions? Remember the cautions to the woman who gives such driving directions? She must give them in a way that does not take away from the man's role as ruler.
But, there are no cautions given to the man, telling him to remember that when he gives directions to women, he must do so in a way that does not give the impression that just because he is a man, he is in authority over them.
If all men are not over all women, does Tim teach that men and women (who are not married to each other and men who are not elders in the church) are equal in standing in the church?
Joan wrote: . . . "God's divine order is all men are over all women at all times, no exceptions, and the exceptions that happen mean God is judging people for violating this rule."
Tim responded:
[Note from Tim: No, Joan, you haven't gotten it right. Here is what I actually wrote: "…God made man and woman with a certain order that involves authority and submission, and …this order applies to all of life"--not just the home and the Church. This is a statement that's quite different than the position you attribute to me--that "all men are over all women at all times." If I believed what you've written, I would never have encouraged men to submit to a female pilot or police officer.]
Corrie, Joan said "God's divine order," probably meaning "order of creation," is that all men are over all women, and the "no exceptions" probably means that economic and government realms are included in this, because she did go on to talk about there being exceptions, probably meaning at that point, "particular exceptions" where a woman does have authority. It appears to me as though Joan was just overly concicely paraphrasing, not what Tim quoted of himself, but this segment from later in his post:
God’s creating Adam first, and then Eve, demonstrates that patriarchy (or whatever you want to call it (I sometimes call it “father-rule”) is universally binding on all men and women through all time. . . . women leaders in the secular world are the exception, not the rule. Those exceptions, though, are part of God’s judgment:
"The expression of their faces bears witness against them, And they display their sin like Sodom; They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves. . . . Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him. O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. The LORD arises to contend, And stands to judge the people."
Whatever, I think Joan, with perhaps a little too much brevity, was paraphrasing that segment of Tim's post. What she said seems pretty equivalent to me of what Tim's position is.
Oh, btw, I made a link in my sidebar to the prayer site for the Baylys. Please check it out, pray, and offer encouragement to the blog owner there if you are inclinded to do so.
"I am wondering why the "doctrine of sex" has risen to the rank of #1 in there teachings when there are so many other doctrines that teach that the first shall be last and that they are to consider others better than their selves and that they are to be a bondslave to all."
The church has become carnal. It's also obsessed with political power and money -- remember "prosperity preaching"?
The current preoccupation with sexual matters simply parallels the general obsession with sex in the secular world. The world is obsessed with copulation, and the church is obsessed with procreation. At least the church isn't sinning in its brand of sex-obsession, but it's still focusing on the things of this world rather that on the world to come.
I've just went back to that thread on feminism. Nobody is dealing honestly with Joan's original question: So, where does the Bible tell us that women cannot have authority over a man outside of the church/home?
The answer is, it doesn't. You have to infer this idea of women in authority is always wrong, just like we can infer that necrophelia is always wrong. Add to that snide, evil comments about egalitarians promoting "solitary pleasures" not necrophelia.
But no lines of inference were given that honestly dealt with known exceptions. The exceptions are all, categorically speaking, indications of God's judgment, according to Tim.
And that is simply not true. You have to engage in circular reasoning to say this about Deborah, or the Queen of Sheba.
At least Kamilla was trying to fact find what was said about Deborah, but she really ought to apologize to Joan for claiming Joan made a false accusation against her. Donna is again being dismissive of a leader in Israel, whose words are part of Holy Scripture, and more than in just a sense of "describing," but in words recorded and meant to be didactic. Like Lemuel's mother. Like Hannah. And Mary, even though those women did not have some kind of civil authority, like Deborah, you still have to deal with the fact that there are many examples of women being given the Word of God, and in a larger sense of more than just words in a Bible narrative.
Donna didn't get what Kay said correctly, either.
This idea (women proclaiming prophetic or teaching segments of Scripture), which hasn't yet been brought up, also mitigates Tim's original assertion that in all spheres of life men ought always to be in positions of authority over women, and that in all spheres of life, women are not to teach men.
Because of her leadership and teaching capacity, Deborah is an exception. And Tim's proposition is that exceptions are a part of divine judgment, because the created order means that in all spheres of life men are supposed to be over women. So any exception is going against God's created order, and by implication, is something bad. So the fact that Deborah was a judge in Israel, or that there was a Queen of Sheba, etc., are all bad things.
It's just one grand exercise in circular reasoning.
And whether they realize that or not, it is fundamentally dishonest.
I had posted a quote from Peter Leithart on the bayly blog and Tim gave a lenghty response in a new blog entry on Saturday and then yesterday it was completely gone. I stupidly didn't copy it but am wondering if anyone else saw it?
Karen
Karen, I saw it, and this is the first time I ever heard of women and children being expected to be loud and emotional in services, and that is a possible reason why Paul told them to learn in silence. I want to look more into this, and find out more about it. Thanks for posting it. I saw it.
Karen,
I saw the response. I didn't save it. I wonder why these keep on disappearing? Is your comment still there? Or did that disappear, too?
I don't understand the whole concept of erasing blog entries after the blog owner has responded. I can understand if the blog entry is foul and contains name-calling but it seems kind of shady to erase whole conversations as if they never happened and then just keep on talking about things.
"Finally, when and where have David or I ever spoken dismissively about Deborah or other women leaders in Scripture? Let me answer for you: Never.
Deborah was a woman; Deborah was a judge; Deborah led in Israel. God set Deborah as a judge over His people to lead them. There, does that do it? God sent Mary Magdalene to the Apostles to tell them about the Resurrection of our Lord. God used Priscilla and Aquila to “explain” things to Apollos. God sent the Woman at the Well into her village to tell everyone there about her Master. There are others. Shall I go on?
No one is dismissive of any of these women or their work. Rather, those of us who honor Scripture do not use these historical facts of the sovereign work of God as weapons to oppose the order of creation God decreed, or the significance of that order God has commanded us to obey. These are all the exceptions that prove the rule.
The man sitting next to me, who certainly knows the Bible better than I ever will know it, just reminded me that there is, in fact, one woman in the New Testament who teaches within the church. Stumped? Remember “the woman Jezebel?”
“But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols” (Revelation 2:20)"
Okay. Tim admits that Deborah was a leader. He also says that he is not dismissive of female leaders in Scripture.
So, I take this as an admission that there were women who are portrayed as leaders in Scripture? But, beyond that, I don't really know what Tim is admitting to? Does he see that God does use women in positions of leadership? Does he believe this is always a sign of judgment even though the scriptural record gives no such indication?
I also do not see that people who bring up Deborah are using her as a weapon as he posits. It seems that people who bring up Deborah and the other women have a legitimate point. Could it be that our doctrines of sexuality need a bit more work and that those doctrines do not take into the whole of scripture? Could it be that there is something MORE to those verses we selectively choose to shore up our "doctrine of sexuality"? Is our understanding lacking? Do we need to take into account the whole of scripture?
And then he brings up Jezebel and how she is teaching in the church today. :-) Does this mean that women who teach in the church are Jezebels? Was Deborah a Jezebel? After all, Israel "tolerated" a female spiritual/government leader.
But the difference seems to be that Jezebel teaches and leads ASTRAY and commits acts of immorality and eats things sacrificed to idols not that she is teaching. It is what she is teaching. Just like all the Churches in Revelation are not bad for being churches, it is what they are doing or not doing that is bad.
It is interesting that the Bible kind of says in certain places that it is okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols and then in other places says it is not okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
It seems that there might be something MORE to the seeming contradiction.
The something MORE, imho, is the eating of meat within the context of the worship to an idol. If you are eating that meat as part of the ritual, it is wrong but it is not wrong if you buy meat in the marketplace that has been sacrificed to an idol. This is what I am talking about concerning the scriptures that seem to contradict Tim's own doctrine of sexuality.
Jezebel, it appears, is an idol worshipper. And, does Tim really believe it is an actual woman? I don't know much about the end times and what the Presbyterians believe but I know they don't take that book literally. :-)
Could it be a reference to a church or false religion? The Bride of Christ is a female, so I would suppose that a false religion would also be referenced in the feminine. It seems "Jezebel" might not actually be a real woman but a false religious system. This false religious system could be led (and the vast majority of these systems ARE) by men. We wouldn't use this verse to condemn men teaching in the church just because many men are guilty of teaching heresy and leading false religious systems full of idol worship and sexual immorality, would we? Then we can't really use it the way Tim is using it, either, to prove that women who teach are the Jezebel of Rev. 2:20.
So, I don't think Tim can use the Jezebel point to prove anything. It only proves that there are certain people in the church who tolerate idol worship, sexual immorality and false teachings. It doesn't prove that it is actually a woman who is doing it.
Is it just as wrong for a male to teach things that lead people astray? Is it just as wrong for the Church to tolerate such males? How many males have led people, by their teachings, into sexual immorality? Many.
Actually, Corrie, all of these males are "female" in a sense. As you pointed oput, the Church, as the Bride of Christ, is feminine.
And speaking of "Jezebels", the Patriarchal Dominionists stand condemned by their own doctrines.
They maintain that women are to be submissive to men, especially to their husbands, and are not to usurp his position. Those who do, they call "Jezebels".
Keeping this in mind, picture a woman whose husband takes a long trip out of the country, and who leaves the family business in her hands, with instructions to hold down the fort, keep things running, and win customers and make friends and clients for the business while he's away.
Instead, this woman lets the power go to her head. She goes out and tries to expand the business by any means possible -- eliminating the competition, forming adulterous alliances with political figures, and engaging in cutthroat business practices, all with the vague idea of presenting the spoils of her conquests to Him when He returns:
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
Here is the link to Peter Leithart's remarks which Karen posted to the Bayly blog, and which were subsequently deleted. I am still trying to source some of Leithart's quotes here, and any help would be appreciated:
Silencing women
Peter J. Leithart, February 10, 2007
Rosenstock-Huessy notes that the ancient world observed a division of labor with regard to speech: "Women are expected to contribute wild, passionate, inarticulate shouts of blind feeling. Men are expected to build on this natural stratum the structure of high and articulate speech. . . . Women and children yell, weep, shake; men act and speak."
Against this background, Paul's instructions for women to be silent have a different impact than is often thought:
"When Paul asked that women be silent in church he said it at a time and within a world in which the women - Jewish and Gentile alike - were expected to utter terrible wails and yells, to be Sibyls and Bacchants, to utter passionate cries at any funeral. The modern detractors of Paul usually have not the faintest idea what they attack. Paul made formal speech accessible to women by freeing them from the burden of pre-Christian ritual in which they strewed ashes on their heads, punctured their breasts and uttered long-drawn cries for days [think of contemporary Islamic funerals]. Paul was faced with passionate people who stammered and had fits under the new dispensation of freedom, who had been obsessed by spirits and by demons of their clan or family."
Thus, Paul's instructions "laid the foundations of a new truth that women may from now on participate in the word as well as men." And Paul's instructions were heeded: "We no longer fear that we should hear hysterial cries in church. Women behave as respectably in religious gatherings as though they were men." The silence of women was a roadbloack against relapse into hysteria, and particularly the re-confinement of women to the "irrational" sphere of yells and wails. "Women keep silence," paradoxically, frees women to speak.
Donna Carlaw, who apparently thinks John Calvin's position is the one Tim staked out in his post entry, now quotes Calvin.
Calvin on Deborah:
"'But I permit not a woman to teach.' Paul is not taking from women their duty to instruct their family, but is only excluding them from the office of teaching (a munere docendi), which God has committed exclusively to men. This is a subject we have already gone into in relation to I Corinthians. If anyone challenges this ruling by citing the case of Deborah and other women of whom we are told that God at one time appointed them to govern the people, the obvious answer is that God's extraordinary acts do not annul the ordinary rules by which He wishes us to be bound. Thus, if at some time women held the office of prophets and teachers and were led to do so by God's Spirit, He who is above all law might do this, but being an extraordinary case, it does not conflict with the constant and accustomed rule."
Donna is somewhat confused. Tim said the exceptions (Deborah) are a sign of God's judgment, and the rule of women not teaching or exercising authority applies to *every* sphere of life, including the home, including government, and including the workforce.
Therefore, a woman is to never to teach a man at home, either, but Calvin just said a woman could instruct her family. And what Priscilla did in instructing Apollos, along with her husband, is fine, according to Calvin. Her instruction took place outside of the public meeting. Priscilla took him aside, and in their home they explained to Apollos the way of God more thoroughly.
But even though Tim acknowledged Priscilla, what Priscilla did still goes against what Tim said at the beginning, and he can't seem to admit his mistake. He said that women teaching men is a sign of God's judgment, and that the rule of the created order applies to all of life, not just the church and home.
In addition, NOBODY in that thread said that the exception of Deborah means that women should seek to be ordained as teaching elders in the church.
I know Joan didn't say that the example of Deborah means women can be ordained to preach in churches, so Donna seems to be arguing against a straw man.
Donna wrote on the Bayly blog:
"Compare Deborah's attitude to many women who are seeking empowerment in our day."
Oh, you mean like from my state -- women like Peggy Lehner and Diana Fessler?
No, no, she can't mean these exceptions, who are notably wives and mothers and pro-life conservatives, and not country-club Republicans, either, even though they are Republicans.
She must be referring to other women as negative examples. What do feminine negative examples prove? That there are no positive ones, or that every exception to a norm is a sign of God's judgment?
Hardly. And this is the question that isn't getting answered.
How about comparing King David's attitude to many men who are seeking empowerment in our day? I can think of many positive and negative examples.
What do masculine negative examples prove?
Nothing . . . nothing, related to this argument, anyway.
But it makes for nice chit-chat, I guess.
What Donna doesn't get is that many of these women are no more seeking "empowerment" than the males she hangs with. :-)
So, if she is going to accuse every woman who is found to be in a place of success and even authority of seeking "empowerment" then ever man who is in a place of success and authority is seeking "empowerment". In fact, how much more so than those men who constantly beat their drum about how they are first, how they have the authority, how they rule, how they are to be obeyed and respected and submitted to. If anyone is seeking empowerment, it is those who can't talk about anything else but their positions and places of power.
Anyone see Cold Case last night? It was concerning the suffragette movement. I know it was a TV show but if the hatred displayed towards those women who wanted to make the vote legal for women was HALF as much as displayed on that show, it is eye-opening. I don't know if this was true, but it depicted women being thrown into jail on trumped up prostitution charges and beaten with nightsticks for just holding meetings to talk about a woman's right to vote. We women, even the patriarchal women, take for granted all the freedoms we have as women and protections under the law because of the suffragettes.
It seems that many men felt very threatened. The show centered around a daughter of a wealthy family whose family despised the suffragettes because they were in the liquor business and the suffragettes were for prohibition. It seems that many men drank away their paychecks in the taverns and were causing their wives and children to go without food and other of life's necessities. That was their purpose to do away with alcohol. Because they were GUARDING the home (something the Bible instructs women to do!!!) from destructive influences. The show didn't cover this; this is something I read a while back about the movement. I started researching it because Doug Wilson wrote an article whining about how women had stolen dark beer away from men.
"Let me be clear, here: I am not saying that Christian men should rebel against authority when, contrary to God’s Creation order, it is exercised by woman. If a female police officer pulls me over and tickets me, I’ll respect and submit to her, not because she has a gun and a radio, but because she has been placed over me by God, bearing the sword in His behalf.
Still, I will recognize that her authority is contrary to God’s creation order in the matter of sexuality, and it will grieve me causing me, like Lot, to gnash my teeth. And this is how every biblical Christian should view the exercise of authority by woman over man no matter where it occurs. As the Holy Spirit said, woman is not to teach or exercise authority over man because Adam was created first, and then Eve."
Let us just go back to his original statement.
First he states that he will submit to a female police officer (female authority) because she has been put over him BY GOD to bear the sword in His behalf.
Then he says that her authority is contrary to God's creation order in the matter of sexuality. I am not sure what creation order has to do with this subject because it does not concern all men and all women. And if all men do not have authority over all women then this is moot point. When the Bible refers back to Adam being created first and then Eve, it is in the context of the church and the church alone and the formal worship in the church.
And all men everywhere should gnash their teeth wherever they see a woman having authority over a man. Then he goes on to quote a verse talking about women teaching men in the church.
A female police officer is not teaching the man anything. She is enforcing the Law of the land.
Not only does he contradict himself when he says that men are to submit to the female authority that God put over them but that very same authority put over them by God, Himself, is a perversion of the creation order but then he goes on to rip verses concerning the formal worship IN THE CHURCH and foist them upon situations outside of the church. The verses he uses to shore up his conclusions are verse specifically speaking about the conduct of women withIN the church, not outside of the church.
What about the female owner of the ranch who has male employees? What about the female business owner who has male employees? What about the female mistress of the house who has a male gardener? pool man? groundskeeper? Should these men all gnash their teeth at the woman who employs them?
Doesn't make any sense. And saying these things doesn't make me a feminist or someone who rejects the "doctrine of sexuality". It just makes me someone who cares about the right handling of scripture and the proper application.
I would love for someone to point out where anything I have said in this post is wrong without resorting to weird conversations, unknown to me, that are going on with others or ad hominem attacks.
More interesting thoughts by Peter Leithart on women contributing to theology, yet along with this his belief that the church leadership should be men. Not saying I agree with every jot and tittle of this link, but it strikes me as much more in line with a biblical perspective than Tim's entry:
www.leithart.com/archives/001552.php
Lynn, this is from the Leithart link you provided:
"To put it in extreme terms: Modern science developed by a human race with one half of its brain tied behind its back.
Something of the same can be said for the development of Christian theology, which was also pursued for most of a millennium is a world without women. Christians, who believe in fundamental sexual difference, have even more reason than some feminists to regard this purely male theological practice with suspicion. It's no accident that two of the greatest and most innovative of modern theologians, von Balthasar and Barth, had close associations with women theologians. No doubt most theology will continue to be written be men, and I believe Scripture requires that the church be ruled by men. But women's contribution to theology is essential to the healthy future development of the church. As evangelicals become more attuned to the Scriptural teaching on sexual difference and the proper role of men and women in family and church, we must avoid the errors of the past. We cannot afford the mistake of attempting to renew theology or the church in another world without women."
I couldn't agree more. Essentially he is right, the patriarchalists have approached theology with one-half of its (the Church) brain tied behind Her back because they shut out women from the process. We women have the same measure of the Holy Spirit therefore we have the same ability to discern scripture and interpret it. When you refuse to listen to women in the church and yes, even learn from them since the same Holy Spirit is in them as it is in men, then the church is missing out. Just because you learn something from a woman, doesn't mean she has authority over you. That is just plain silly. Really, we need to just get over ourselves and our own puffy self-importance. It is nothing more than pride.
Also, just because a woman learns something from a man does not mean he has authority over her.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Just like Liethart believes, I also believe that leadership in the church is male. I do not believe the scripture teaches that women can have authoritative (elders, teaching elders) positions in the church. I do not believe that every person who gets up and teaches a thing or two about the Bible to be a person who possesses church authority, either. I go to Sunday School classes with male teachers and they are not an authority. They are merely a facilitator. Unless they are an elder, they are like every Joe Schmo and Jill Schmo in the church.
I am not using some alleged "loophole" so I can "empower" myself by seeking leadership in the church while I eschew my responsibilities in the home. I am a woman (can't you hear me roar!? LOL!), a wife and a mother and a child of God. I do NOT want to be a man nor do I want to act like a man. I want to be who God created me to be. But, most of all, I want to possess the fruit of the Spirit and above all, I want to LOVE....truly love.
POPPYCOCK!!!! ISHKABIBBLE!!! FIDDLESTICKS!!!! AND CRAZY MONKEY-TALK!!!! ;-) That is what most of the accusations amount to because nothing to the contrary will make some people believe that what I am saying is what I really believe because I do not agree with them on every jot and tittle of their manmade doctrine born from manmade tradition.
Leithart is right about the scientific world. I see it as a Catch-22. So often, on the CCC list, they banter about how men are the major contributors to science and math and that proves men are more intelligent than women in these areas. But, what they are forgetting is that women have been SHUT OUT of these fields, they have been FORSAKEN an education for most of history (because men thought it a waste of time to educate a woman) and they have not had the opportunity to develop their skills until very recently. Even female writers had to write under male pseudonymns in order to pulbish books.
"Christians, who believe in fundamental sexual difference, have even more reason than some feminists to regard this purely male theological practice with suspicion."
....and what a lot of Patriarchal types are forgetting is that our souls are asexual -- neither male nor female -- see Galatians 3:28.
C.S. Lewis writes that being sexless is not the same as being genderless, so there may be a middle ground here, but sexual essentialism is an ancient idea, going back to the Greeks. So, is it Biblical or is it Gnostic?
CJ, what do you mean by "sexual essentialism"?
"Christians, who believe in fundamental sexual difference, have even more reason than some feminists to regard this purely male theological practice with suspicion."
This just strikes me. I wonder what made him write this sentence? What he fully means by it? I do agree. I do view this purely male theological practice with suspicion.
Sexual essentialism, as best I understand it, means that our souls or spirits are either male or female in essence (it sort of echoes the idea of the "Divine Feminine", etc.)
But this is not scriptural: our spirits, as Galatians points out, are neither male nor female; and as Jesus Himself pointed out, our spirits are like the angels, and neither marry nor are given in marriage.
Some also call this idea "gender essentialism", which is not quite the same thing, and which, correctly understood, is not directly contrary to scripture. C.S. Lewis supports this idea in some of his writings, and I tend to support it myself. Sex and gender ARE two different things, in that only a physical being may have a sex. Gender, however, is an abstract quality. We know that both spirits and non-personal entities can have gender, since Jesus refers to God the Father as "Father", and since the Bible says that the Church is of feminine gender.
But, this is getting too technical for me -- I majored in English communications,not Philosophy.
Lynn, could you help us out here?
Sorry, CJ, but I can't. I know that sex and gender are two different things. I remember in Perelandra, by CS Lewis, that the planetary angels were devoid of sex, but were not genderless, and somewhere in that trilogy Lewis fancied there were 5 or 7 genders. I think he said that when the angels from all the planets came down and empowered Merlin to destroy the N.I.C.E..
I don't know much more than what you said -- that in heaven there is no marriage or giving in marriage, but we will be like the angels in heaven.
This topic has really had me thinking about God and patriarchy. Anything that rises above God and His Cross can become an idol, no matter how "good" it can be. So, I've been wondering about all the silent witnesses over the millenia of quite ignoble people (christian wives - married to unbelieving husbands; the martyred women - some with child - during the reformation and even now as we speak, etc.). Their witness by the Spirit of God in their lives (Mrs. Prest was a martyr for Christ in Foxe's book/martyrs) speaks volumes.
I don't like to use subjective, personal experiences, but in this case, I will. My husband completed 4 1/2 years of Greek at a well-known Bible college on the West coast. He graduated with a degree in Theology in 1993. We had 3 children during his schooling and for the most part, I stayed home caring for them. He worked full to part-time, and even had ministerial positions in churches we attended. I knew Jesus was God, but my faith depended on my works - I didn't understand Grace at all. Neither did my husband. Our marriage suffered badly, and I doubted either of our salvation. I had been turned off from church after so much conflict and stayed away for 3 years, only to find the Doctrines of Grace from reading online/Bible (It is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves - it is a gift) and I fell on my face in worship of God. He saved me and I was changed forever. I tried sharing with my husband the difference in my understanding and he wasn't interested in the Grace message. Then, one night he came home and told me he had been living a lie. He thought he could go along/pretend, putting on a church identity and confessed to me his many sins (which only affected our marriage). In spite of my hurt and anger, something URGED me to PREACH the Gospel to my husband, a man who was a puddle on the floor, and he was released from such bondage that moment. He welcomed my teaching/instructing him from then on all that I had learned about Christ's salvation for His Church and the deeper reformed doctrines I had started to become familiar with. That was over 3 years ago and he is a completely different man now. He now leads us, prays and seeks after God's Word with understanding. We regularly read scripture and reformed writings together and He keeps many routes of accountability with Elders/men weekly. He has shared this testimony in public/with family, and at our baptism. God can use women how/whenever He wants. It is His Word that is the Authority that needs to be focused on, not positions of power on this earth. I agree in the congregations, the Bible is clear, the positions are for men. Teaching is done by the Holy Spirit in each person.
Kathleen --
THANKS FOR SHARING THIS!!!
I think I will place it front and center in a blog entry, and I will link to this segment of the blog when I copy it there.
I don't know how many times I've heard about men coming to Christ because of their wives, or coming to Christ because a woman evangelized them, but THIS INVOLVES TEACHING MEN SOMETHING.
And according to Tim Bayly, when you did that, you violated the creation order, and this is a sign of judgment, according to Tim Bayly's understanding and application of Isaiah.
Tim Bayly's teaching at that point is unbiblical! You were used by God to BLESS your husband and bring him to Christ and true salvation.
And that AIN'T a sign of God's JUDGMENT! It's a sign of God's UNMERITED FAVOR toward your husband!
Again, thanks for sharing.
Hmmmm... Lynn, I just thought of something.
I wonder...would it be possible for something to be a judgement from God and a blessing, at the same time?
Maybe, but not in the context of that Isaiah passage Tim quoted.
He used that passage to claim
whenever women teach and lead men, in any sphere of life, they are exceptions which means God is judging people for their sin. Any woman with any authority is a sign of God's displeasure with what people are doing, and is in violation of the created order.
You can't make that case with a wife who leads her husband to Christ. God does not judge us for our sins when He places us in Christ, and in this case He used a woman to bring this man into God's favor.
Lynn said: God does not judge us for our sins when He places us in Christ, and in this case He used a woman to bring this man into God's favor.
ISTM it would be the same with a woman preaching or pastoring as well.
Well, actually, Lynn, what I was thinking is that a thing doesn't have to be a sin for it to be a judgment on someone else: a virtuous action which brings a blessing to one person may well refect badly on somebody else.
Case in point:
A man assaults a woman on the street. There is a policeman nearby, who does nothing, but a passerby intervenes and drives off the attacker.
Now, what has taken place here?
1.) The passerby committed a virtuous act.
2.) The lady being attacked was blessed by it.
3.) The act was non-normative, in that it was the duty of the policeman, not the civilian, to intervene.
4.) The virtuous act is by its very nature a reproach to the policeman, who was derelict in his duty and made it necessary for the civilian to rescue the woman.
Thus a person can do God's will by performing virtuous deeds which should technically have been done by someone else, and it is not a sin -- quite the contrary!--; in so doing he blesses the recipient of those deeds, all the while bringing reproach upon the person who should have done them in the first place.
I believe that this is the point which the Bayly Bros. should have "gotten", but fell short of grasping in their doctrine of the non-normative situation.
Does this apply to female policemen or airline pilots? Of course not! Policemen and airline pilots aren't even exercising their own authority -- they are agents of the state or the airline, and it doesn't matter what sex they are. Same goes for judges, politicians, etc, in a democracy: the authority they exercise is not their own, rather, they are servants of the people and the Constitution.
Does this keep a wife from telling her husband (or anyone else) about Jesus?
OF COURSE NOT!
In Christ there is no male or female, and we are all duty-bound to spread the gospel. This includes women. It is my opinion that God in His wisdom knew that some men would naysay this sooner or later, and this is why He set the precedent for women spreading the Good News Himself, by both sending an angel and by appearing "in person", first to the women, and by having the women be the first to go tell the men that He had risen (which did bring a reproach to the men, not because a woman told them, but because they didn't believe her, and so were "upbraided" for it!)
CJ:
It is my opinion that God in His wisdom knew that some men would naysay this sooner or later, and this is why He set the precedent for women spreading the Good News Himself, by both sending an angel and by appearing "in person", first to the women, and by having the women be the first to go tell the men that He had risen . . .
I have a hunch, and I'm glad you said "opinion," that Deborah, Huldah, the Queen of Sheba, Anna, Priscilla, and other women are mentioned in the Bible as well for this reason.
I think this way about Mary worship, too, and what Jesus said to the woman who said, "blessed is she who bore you!"
It was a total redirection of focus, for Jesus, to include all who hear the Word of God and obey it, and not focusing only on His mother.
Has anyone noticed what a beating the "sincere and loving" folks at the Bayly blog are giving Kathryn? All because she's not swallowing their beliefs whole. She dared to tell these "sincere and loving" people that, despite the Baylys' post title (where a comment on another post was singled out), she has no intention of anyone "leading [her] home." Now I don't doubt that HER comment was entirely sincere! I wouldn't want any of that bunch to presume to lead ME "home," either. She merely showed, biblically, why there were holes the size of Montana in their patchwork of prooftexted patriarchy. How DARE she?!
The double standard over there is laughable.
I saw Kathryn's comments, Maggie. Some of them I agreed with, and some I did not agree with, but I would not want the Baylys "leading me home" on gender issues, either. Although there are many areas of agreement I have with them, their teaching on what is biblical complementarianism is not one of them.
I like how everyone is excusing away Kamilla's comments about the teaching concerning women throughout history. But then Donna makes a comment about how she wonders if egals think men are human.
Boatloads of historical documents showing the prevailing attitude towards women throughout history.
Compared to
[crickets] NOTHING written by an egalitarian feminist concerning men being "less" than human or less worthy of being educated or less capable of reason or less like God or you fill in the blank.
So, it just proves to me how dishonest some of these people will be just to further their agenda. They can't even be honest. They deny history and then they make up their own history.
Reminds me of the people who try and paint slavery as a wonderful thing for the African people and those who try and make the Holocaust into something less atrocious.
They are just their own propaganda machines churning out only the information that will support their manmade systems.
It would be nice if just one patriarchal type was honest and admitted to Kamilla that she is right and that it is understandable why some women have a problem with what what taught regarding women.
I wonder if Kamilla has a problem with her friends who see nothing wrong with denying truth or putting a "nice" spin on it.
Naaahhhh, those dead guys didn't really say that about women. They really meant............
Are they the only ones with the gift of interpretation?
"I wonder if Kamilla has a problem with her friends who see nothing wrong with denying truth or putting a "nice" spin on it."
Apparently not, and the truth is always a little different when it pertains to one of them. Doug Wilson is part of their little clique, after all, and they don't seem to have a problem with him.
Get a load of what I just found....
"Reminds me of the people who try and paint slavery as a wonderful thing for the African people and those who try and make the Holocaust into something less atrocious."
Well, these fellows are followers of Rushdoony, after all, and they're doing exactly what he did.
Rushdoony wrote,
"For example, the white man is being systematically indoctrinated into believing that he is guilty of enslaving and abusing the Negro. Granted that some Negroes were mistreated as slaves, the fact still remains that nowhere in all history or in the world today has the Negro been better off. The life expectancy of the Negro increased when he was transported to America. He was not taken from freedom into slavery, but from a vicious slavery to degenerate chiefs to a generally benevolent slavery in the United States. There is not the slightest evidence that any American Negro had ever lived in a "free society" in Africa; even the idea did not exist in Africa. The move from Africa to America was a vast increase of freedom for the Negro, materially and spiritually as well as personally. "
And concerning the Holocaust, he wrote,
"The false witness born during World War II with respect to Germany is especially notable and revealing. The charge is repeatedly made that six million innocent Jews were slain by the Nazis, and the figure--and even larger figures--is now entrenched in the history books. Poncins, in summarizing the studies of the French Socialist, Paul Rassinier, himself a prisoner in Buchenwald, states: Rassinier reached the conclusion that the number of Jews who died after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 and this figure, he tells us, has finally been accepted as valid by the Centre Mondial de Documentation Juive Contemporaine. Likewise he notes that Paul Hilberg, in his study of the same problem, reached a total of 896,292 victims.
Very many of these people died of epidemics; many were executed. We will return to this matter again....
Let us examine again the mass murders of World War II, and the background of false witness during World War I and later. Life had become so cheap and meaningless to these heads of state and their camp followers that a murder or two meant nothing. Likewise, a generation schooled to violence in motion pictures, radio, literature, and press could not be expected to react to a murder or two. The result was a desperately twisted mentality which could only appreciate evil as evil on a massive scale. Did the Nazis actually execute many thousands, tens, or hundred thousands of Jews? Men to whom such murders were nothing had to blow up the figure to millions. Did the doctor perform a number of experiments on living men and women? A few sterilized women and a few castrated men and their horrified tears and grief are not enough to stir the sick and jaded tastes of modern man: make him guilty of performing 17,000 such operations. The evils were all too real: even greater is the evil of bearing false witness concerning them, because that false witness will produce an even more vicious reality in the next upheaval. Men are now "reconciled" to a world where millions are murdered, or are said to be murdered. What will be required in the way of action and propaganda next time?"
If the teacher is thus, can we expect anything less (or MORE) of his students?
Yikes, CJ. That article is disturbing. Plagarism, endorsing slavery and protecting pedophiles and covering up their dirty deeds from those who should know?
And then to read what he wrote in his book about pedophiles needing the death penalty? Why not Sitler? Why was he worthy of mercy? Why didn't he recommend the death penalty when he wrote the judge?
Yes, it is disturbing. In my opinion, everyone should be accounted as being worthy of mercy (mainly because none of us are), even and perhaps especially someone like Sitler; in and of itself, it speaks well of Wilson, that he should take a forgiving attitude towards a repentent sinner.
But, that he would cover up the deeds of a pedophile, rather than warning the parents, smacks of dishonesty, and is truly worrisome; you have to wonder why Wilson would do such a thing.
Maybe Wilson has been preaching God's judgment rather than His mercy for so long, that he feared what his flock would do to Sitler had they discovered what he had done. Wilson might have had a case of stoning on his hands, and what would THAT have done for the public image of the Reconstructionist movement?
CJ:
"But, that he would cover up the deeds of a pedophile, rather than warning the parents, smacks of dishonesty, and is truly worrisome; you have to wonder why Wilson would do such a thing."
We discussed this case on the off-topic list of the Gothard discussion board. I remember someone trying to defend Wilson there, and it surprised me. He accused us of "not liking Wilson" because we said it was horrible about a pedophile being in the church midst (including boarding with families) and that all the parents were not warned -- for many long months. I was shocked that the accusation of "you don't like him that is why you are saying this" came from this person, but thankfully he was answered well. Someone said if Wilson thinks these criminals deserve the death penalty, you would think he would also want to find out the total extent of the damage and warn the parents to check for things that might have happened.
People do these irrational type of defenses because they like their pet teachers and men they admire, because they are defending those "in their circle," because they are afraid of repercussions, because of a lot of reasons. Victims and people who complain are often turned around to be the problem causers.
If you join the Gothard_discussion list you can read similar stories about covering up wicked, illegal acts, and in the evangelical church. I can only hope that more and more of these things will be exposed, and especially so since what I am reading of some in the Reformed community who are becoming more and more like Roman Catholicism in their views of church authority.
We should never place our trust in man, and that includes church leadesrhip. The source of our authority is not church leadesrhip. The source of our authority is the same source of authority church leadership has, and when they deviate from that source, they are illegitimate.
CJ,
I think you are right about the mercy angle. Maybe he was afraid that his teachings on the death penalty and judgment would be applied in his midst? Or maybe he was just afraid that if he told his congregation they would have something to say about it and hold him accountable for doing something about it? Or maybe he was afraid that people would leave because it would burst some utopian bubbles?
Lynn,
What really angers me is that the father of one of the girls who had been violated was told that he could be church disciplined for not protecting his daughter. Typical- blame the victim mentality.
These sorts of situations are not to be kept quiet by the powers that be. They are to be brought before the church. We are not little children. We should know this type of information so that WE AS PARENTS can take the steps necessary to protect OUR OWN children.
Lynn or anyone,
I just read this on another forum:
"I just don't get the fascination with feminism, but to each his or
her own. It's a free country. I wonder if feminism gives women a cop
out. No matter what the problem is, feminism will find a way to make
some man or men in general the source of the problem. It keeps women
from having to ever really analyze their own behaviour.
IOW, it tends to keep even Christian women from spiritual maturity."
Now, this particular person says this stuff all of the time. I am not very familiar with "feminism" and I don't even know which definition she is using but is the above true? I mean, is feminism all about blaming everything on a man and refusing to take personal responsibility?
If it is, then I guess Adam was the first feminist. :-)
If feminism is the practice of blaming everything bad on men.
Then masculinism is the practice of blaming everything bad on women (what this person is deeply entrenched in).
I don't want either of these two systems.
But, I don't think this person is being honest about feminism. What exactly is feminism?
I would think Adam was the first "masculinist," not the first "feminist," but I agree with you, I don't want either system. I haven't checked what forum you are referring to, but I know to whom you refer.
The problem with all this blame gaming is it is so nebulous you can't really say, this is wrong or right. There were and are some Radical Feminists who are big time into male bashing and power trips. But before there were Radical Feminists, there were just feminists who wanted to right what they perceived to be injustices.
There are feminists who are simply concerned about oppression and injustice. There are pro-life feminists. There are Patriarchalists and anti-feminists who are into power tripping and blaming the feminists for all the problems in the world, as you said.
This gets old fast. I'd rather just look at a specific problem, such as what you shared on the GDL recently, and analyze how specific problems are handled, and comment from there, rather than these nebulous all-encompassing speculations.
I did use the word "boys' club mentality" when speaking about your situation, but the shoe fit. They said you were complaining because you were a woman, and a certain kind of woman at that. They tried to make light of horrific problems and sweep them under a rug. They wanted to keep this hush-hush. They wanted to circle the wagons and protect their own, which didn't include you and yours. The man who was responsible was caved to, and you were branded.
So, yes, the shoe fit there, but I think each case must be considered one by one, and we need to be careful when we speak in these generalities.
To answer your question, no, I certainly would not say all feminists are into avoiding personal repsonsibility or are into blaming men for everything.
To all onlookers, this whole thing started when this particular commenter, who shall remain nameless at this juncture, a long time ago, way overreacted to the remark that men are more violent than women are, and immediately started accusing the women who said that for not being responsible for their own sin, and that they were claiming that men are more sinful than women are, because they said men are more violent than women are, generally speaking.
Strangely enough, on the CCC forum, when she brought this topic up again, a man at the time said, sure, men are bigger and stronger and if you want violence, then you want the men, 'cause they just are more capable of doing it bigger and "badder." That was most certainly the gist of what he said. This commenter did not start in on him the way she started in on the women around her.
She has since gone on and on and on about how she is being persecuted and maligned and on and on and on ad nauseum, but those of us who saw where this started know better.
PS - Think, "continual internet skunk fit" and that about sums this whole thing up.
I agree, Lynn, with taking each problem case by case. Wherever I see oppression and injustice, I am going to talk about it. It doesn't matter if it is a woman or a man. I don't see the female sex as being less sinful. I am very strong about people taking personal responsibilty for their own actions and stop blaming others and sloughing off what they do on others.
Also, if you remember, this conversation about violence really took off when I shared a very personal testimony. My testimony was very much like those shared at pro-life rallies. In fact, it was no different. I merely listed some facts about the situation I was in at the young age of 16. I was not blaming anyone. Just the facts about the various participants. I fully accepted responsibility and I, alone, suffered with the guilt, trauma and aftermath when the others walked away with a clear conscience. I knew full well that when I became a Christian that Jesus was the only answer for the burden of shame and guilt I carried around for so many years. I NEVER ONCE BLAMED WHAT I HAD DONE ON ANYONE ELSE. I FULLY ACCEPTED WHAT I HAD DONE, REPENTED OF IT, CONFESSED MY SIN TO THE LORD AND HE FORGAVE ME OF IT AND CLEANSED ME OF ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
And, then, this long-ago forgiven sin that I had been completely healed from was used as a weapon against me.
And I will also point out, that when the same people encouraged you to do the same thing a second time, you very bravely told them to get lost. I'm not sure if you were saved at that point, but you very clearly understood that you were not going that route again, ever. And then you were saved, if you weren't already by that time. But this shows that your eyes were open and theirs were not.
The blood of Jesus is what cleanses us from all sin, and the unsaved don't know what they are doing -- both men and women are all under the deceitfulness of sin.
Hi Lynn,
You are right. I did refuse the second time. I was not saved at this time. The situation involved the very same "players" as the first situation. I was the only one who had suffered guilt and self-condemnation and the physical problems resulting. I know how much I have been forgiven for. I do NOT take that for granted. I also had a bit more experiential wisdom then I did when I was 3 years younger. I was VERY naive and I was very scared. What 16 year old isn't?
What this accuser of the brethren did was to try and take a situation that a very young and very frightened girl went through and make her responsible for having the life experiences and reasoning power of an adult woman.
My testimony was no different than the dozens of testimonies I have read online at crisis pregnancy centers or heard at pro-life events. The only difference is that the brave women who share their experience publicly are not excoriated for sharing their stories. Also, their stories are not used as weapons, twisted around to hurt, and hunted down around the internet and falsely maligned to anyone who will listen.
Talk about the remedy to feminist gossip? Ha! I second that advice given by Churchill.
I found this on the CCC-forum this morning:
"Here's a good antidote for feminist internet gossip:
* When asked why he was not stung by a vicious attack from a fellow
Member of Parliament, Winston Churchill repied, "If I respected him,
I would care about his opinion. But I don't, so I don't."
Great quote. I love it. But, I would be careful before I used it. Pot--->Kettle--->Meet Black....
Oh, that was Mike McMillan who said that. He claims to be a missionary. So does that woman who keeps accusing you of not taking responsibility for your sin that happened when you were unsaved, and who keeps taking dig after dig after dig. Both of them claim to be missionaries. Scary thought, isn't it? Missionaries are people who try to reach the unsaved with the gospel, in case you can't get that from the way both of them talk on the CCC-forum. Here's a little conversation from the past, just to refresh your memory of why I was kicked off that board:
Corrie:
"There are many, many posts praising Dr. Laura and her advice concerning relationships, even though she is not a Christian, she is divorced, she is not really a doctor and she posed nude for some pictures while cheating on her first husband that are now all over
the internet (be careful! those pictures are easily accessible on any number of sites when putting in "Dr. Laura" for a search."
Lynn:
"Thanks, Corrie. Thanks to the search feature, I was able to read through all of them.
The difference in those posts compared to the present ones is those posts were focused more on the content of what she was communicating, compared to what the poster believed to be biblical. In addition, even though she is an immoral, unsaved woman who has been shown to be a hypocrite, her books were recommended for reading.
These present posts do not focus so much on what the celebs are communicating nearly as much. Instead, we are being treated to all the down sides of these people, the fact that they are unsaved, why bother listening to them who has the time (whereas
before there were recommendations to read Dr. Laura's book)."
[This is perfectly true. I was reading so much raunchy gossip and judgment of the unsaved on that board at that time it was sickening. I just was much more measured in what I said back then.]
Next post, from Mike:
<<These present posts do not focus so much on what the celebs are communicating nearly as much. Instead, we are being treated to all the down sides of these people, the fact that they are unsaved>>
Mike McMillan:
"I have a very hard time reconciling the way you describe yourself ideologically and the way you come across in your posts. I have tried hard to do that, but these little unnecessary jabs here and there: tracking old posts, keeping score on the most ridiculous things, leave me with the inevitable conclusion that you do not really identify with us very well, and are more of a subversive combatant than a comrade. This is not anywhere near the first time this has happened. You even argue about unimportant things like the above just to make us look like hypocrites. Do you do this with your brothers in the flesh or in Christ?"
Back in the here and now:
Corrie made a point and I agreed with it. My implied point was that it wasn't good and upright to run people down in order to trash their ideas. Their ideas can stand or fall apart from the state of regeneration of the parties putting forth the ideas, and apart from their personal character. It is the CCC-forum who at that point was trashing people right and left, not I. I was simply pointing it out.
I've heard they told the egal who was kicked off just before they kicked of msmacaddict she should take up pole dancing.
SHAME ON THEM!!!! Claiming such high moral ground for themselves, and sneering like godless jesters at someone who didn't even bring that topic up.
If *I* had written a post like that, it would have been rejected, and rightly so!
SHAME ON THEM!!!!
Moving on . . .
I think it would have been better to say, I disagree with Oprah because . . . or I disagree with Dr. Phil because, instead of going after their character.
The point is NOT unimportant. The tone of a conversation, when it slides into denigration of people, is not a good climate where ideas can be rationally discussed and truth can be discerned.
What I brought up IS important. The fact that I do think the list in general was being hyporcitical here is NOT a sin for me to THINK, and it is NOT a sin for me to EXPRESS, so . . .
My thanks to them for kicking me off the board for pointing out their hypocritical double standards.
PSS - the reason Corrie mentioned those items about Dr. Laura was not to tell people to not listen to her -- it's just that Dr. Laura is unsaved and has had a worse lifestyle than the people those on the CCC-forum were trashing at the time -- Dr. Phil and Oprah. But they had praised Dr. Laura for her books. But when it came time to talk about Dr. Phil and Oprah, it wasn't their ideas as much as their characters that were being run down the toilet.
That's why Corrie said in essence, "You talk about Dr. Laura well because you talk about what she writes about, but when it comes time to talk about these other people you run down their characters instead of discussing their ideas."
" You even argue about unimportant things like the above just to make us look like hypocrites."
ROFLOL!!! This is so funny.
It is okay for them to argue about the "unimportant things" but when someone else talks about those very same "unimportant things" that they have just brought up, it is bad? LOL And, then the comment about making them look like hypocrites? That is priceless. Just priceless.
How can one make you look like a hypocrite? All Lynn and I did was take their very same arguments and use them consistently across the board.
No, I think it was that they were exposed as hypocrites and they didn't like it at all.
" I think it was that they were exposed as hypocrites and they didn't like it at all."
ROFL!!
The emperor has no clothes... and the poor thing must be getting pretty chilly by now.
Well, Tim put up a new entry on this issue. It looks like Calvin agrees with Tim and with Knox.
Calvin thinks that women rulers are against nature and that they are God's judgment. He said that even God, in rare cases, will raise up a woman like Deborah who was "endowed" (wow! what a word to use, John!) with a manly and heroic spirit. (What manly traits did Deborah possess? A beard? Hairy legs and armpits? Male pattern baldness? I didn't think bravery and heroism were manly traits?) I wonder what a "manly spirit" is? Didn't she call herself the mother of her people? I don't ever remember her having a "manly" spirit. She had a godly way in how she approached things but "spirit" is neither manly or feminine.
Calvin sees governments such as Deborah's as "abuse" and that all men should "deplore" it. I am sure that the act of deploring includes gnashing of teeth.
I don't understand. But, then again, I am not hung up on obeying authority. I don't care which sex the police officer is that pulls me over, I just know that I am in trouble and that I probably deserve it. I'll be gnashing my teeth over my own sin that caused me to get pulled over and not over whether or not it was a woman who had to write the ticket. Oh, what little egos people must have when it upsets them that a woman is the one writing them out a ticket!
Maybe it is easier for me since I am just a peon and I am not grasping for my own power and for people to acknowledge the power I grabbed for myself. I don't need to be FIRST and as a servant to the Lord Most High, I try and make myself last in everything.
The whole "Monstrous Regiment of Women" is a joke. Did anyone see the trailers for that new film?
Just take a look at the hundreds upon hundreds of horrible, wicked and disgusting leaders we have had throughout history. I bet we have had many more bad leaders than good ones. And John Knox was driven to distraction because a female sat on the throne? I wonder if he felt as strongly when King Henry was killing off all of his wives?
I just don't see where
male leadership=good.
Female leadership=bad.
It just doesn't add up.
They bring out the examples of some females who were bad rulers to prove that females governing nations is a bad thing.
Well, what is good for the goose, right?
You know what makes me gnash my teeth? Hitler. Stalin. Mussolini. Jim Jones. David Koresh. Attila the Hun. Nero. I could go on and on and on.
Does that prove that male leadership is bad? Do the above examples show God's judgment on nations?
Maybe Tim ought to be gnashing his teeth at the corrupt police officers and government officials and judges instead of taking out his aggression and frustration on a female just doing her job.
Calvin didn't get everything right. One thing about this "common judgment of mankind" thing is if that is your only argument (everybody deplores it, the church through the centuries has believed this, etc.), then what is the difference between that and argumentum ad populum?
I don't agree with Calvin on everything he teaches, and this is one of them.
I remember once on the CCC forum, one of the men, I think it was Michael Marlowe, said that no theologian has taught other than the Bible teaches women are more easily deceived than men are.
I happened to find that indeed many theologians did write this way, but then I found John Calvin did not believe this, and wrote that I Timothy 2 just meant the source of the transression was through Eve, not that she was more easily deceived.
I did have a good time telling Mr. Marlowe that Calvin was one of the theologians who didn't believe that doctrine.
How interesting! They've got new posts up now praising both "Dr." Laura and a German news personality-turned-author. The former is being lauded for saying how easy marriage is, that it's not hard at all. The latter has written two books now that denounce feminism and, specifically, careers for women.
I think that's REALLY choice for "Dr." Laura to say how easy marriage is. And I don't have a lot of respect for a German woman who equates the philosophy that women have the same human rights as men--feminism--with fascism, after pursuing major career success herself.
At least that bunch is predictable. They'll praise just about anything by just about anybody, as long as it's trashing feminism and feminists...or giving easy comp-friendly answers about the complex relationship called marriage.
"Christians are, even today, at the forefront of the effort to end modern-day slavery, human trafficking and sexual slavery. Many of them leave comfortable places of privilege, like Baroness Caroline Cox (the former deputy speaker of the British House of Lords), to risk their lives freeing the captive slaves. Cox's own government has told her, "If you get caught, we've never heard of you", and yet she persists at great personal risk."
Hmmm....The above quote was posted on the Bayly blog by a supporter of everything Bayly.
Sounds like a female leader to me? On the one hand they can praise her and on the other hand run her down as a judgment from God and her very existence in a place of governmental power is considered abusive. Do I hear gnashing at the mere mention of this Caroline Cox? What a brazen feminazi. Daring to serve as the speaker of the house of Lords and then give it all up and go on the frontline to rescue sex slaves! The audacity! She should be at home where she belongs. Don't you know this is a man's world and that is a man's job?
And a woman who possesses bravery and heroism? No WAY!!! She must have been "ENDOWED" with a male spirit. Females just don't have those manly qualities. Just look at nature. The females hunt and fiercely protect their young. Do we see that in human females? Just look at real life. A woman wouldn't think twice about giving up her life for her family. But, we are told that bravery is a manly trait.
"Just look at nature. The females hunt and fiercely protect their young. Do we see that in human females?"
Mountain lions are monogamous,and mate for life, and I'd like to see the fellow who could force a she-puma into a burka.
Carolyn Cox goes against that order God has commanded us to obey. She is an exception that proves the rule. She is a part of God's judgment, because she is a woman who was in a position of authority (women rule over them, and the leaders lead astray).
No one is being dismissve of Carolyn Cox and her work! NO ONE! And we will not use her as a weapon to oppose the order of creation, even though she is an exception to that order. For her it is OK, even though she is going against the created order!
Ya hear me?
;-)
Corrie, it seems you really struck a nerve with "supporter of everything Bayly." I don't think that's an unreasonable assessment, given that the individual in question says zilch when the Baylys lie, malign, and besmirch the character of anyone they please, and never disagrees with then on any of their many obvious misrepresentations and distortions of the Bible and the faith.
But I'm sure she doesn't support ABSOLUTELY everything about them! ;)
Wow, Maggie, I remember making that comment but I don't know why it should strike a nerve. If they don't agree with "everything Bayly" maybe they should disagree once in a while and hold them accountable when they make such outlandish statements?
Can you point me to where this nerve was struck?
It got referred to in the "What Is Feminism?" comments, on 4/20/07. She's waving it like a banner, apparently to garner sympathy that someone would dare to say accurately that she appears to support just about everything the Baylys say.
We're supposed to see the falacy of that immediately because they belong to different denominations. ;) (To me, that makes her constant agreement with the boys that much more remarkable.)
And yes, I'm still praying for them all, fervently. It doesn't mean that I don't see the humor of such strange bedfellow alliances. Reminds me of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Apparently, if two people hate feminists enough, they can sweep any of their other disagreements under the rug. That IS the patriarchalists' first commandment, after all: "Thou Shalt Hate Feminists with All Thy Heart and Soul and Mind and Strength."
Maggie,
Well, I just don't get it. I don't get it at all.
I am not really acquainted with the Anglican faith but I think it is like the Church of England and kind of like the Catholic faith? I grew up Catholic and was Catholic until my twenties.
I just don't see how reasonable, intelligent people can hang around that blog for very long. It is toxic and nasty.
John Stackhouse commented and told Tim that he had known his father and their parents were friends and he had even had dinner with Tim's dad. It was very congenial and it was nice of John to give Tim some very positive feedback concerning his father.
Well, the two ladies jumped on him and then Tim tells him they can have no fellowship. Only one person called one of the ladies on her rude behavior.
I don't agree with all of John's conclusions (I haven't read his book) but treating a fellow Christian like that is not Christlike.
They act like there can be no difference of opinion on this issue. What about baptism? What about the Lord's supper? Aren't those bigger issues? Why don't they separate over those issues?
I saw that and couldn't believe it. Not only does Tim repudiate Stackhouse's hand of fellowship, he has to go and put up a whole blog post tearing down his work. He reminds me of a dog peeing to mark his territory.
Tim is forgetting Romans 12:18:
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."
But the really sad thing, Light, is that Bayly came right out and said he doesn't have to live in peace with Stackhouse, because (according to Bayly's warped, self-important judgment), Stackhouse isn't orthodox and you only have to have peace with those you apparently consider orthodox enough to suit you.
In other words, you can falsely accuse anyone of anything you like in order to weasel out of being at peace with them.
Yes, Corrie, it is indeed a nasty, toxic place. So many unbelievers think that's how all Christians are, because they're the ones shouting the hate the loudest, so they want nothing to do with the Christian faith.
Some of our brothers and sisters in Christ make it mighty difficult to show a skeptical world that we're NOT all like that.
I do wish they weren't so proud of their hatred, though. It would be a whole lot more honest to say, "Yes, I know it's not reasonable and it's not what Jesus requires of me, but I just can't/won't love (fill in the blank group of people)."
I don't know . . . I've just read that exchange and Stackhose did come out swinging with his "tone" comment, and Tim provided a good reply worthy of consideration, and it was something that Stackhouse could have replied to, and explained further what he meant by "tone." It was the other commenters, not Tim, that turned me off, and I mean turned my stomach, almost.
The junk from the Baylys about not having to be at peace with Stackhouse, along with the other comments being tolerated and even encouraged, bothered me just as much as the grossly nastier comments.
For all the talk about being authorities on their blog, they put up with pretty much everything anyone says, as long as they're being agreed with. And no matter how reasonably and even respectfully they're challenged, any challengers will get both their faith and their intelligence denied by both the blog owners and the supportive commenters. It happens without fail.
"And no matter how reasonably and even respectfully they're challenged, any challengers will get both their faith and their intelligence denied by both the blog owners and the supportive commenters. It happens without fail."
Maggie, I agree with you on this, and if that is what Stackhouse meant by tone, I agree with him. His problem was he was too vague, and Tim gave him some quotes from his father for comparison in tone. But those quotes from his father, which indeed are similar to some things Tim says, probably weren't representing the "tone" Stackhouse was referring to.
I bet he was referring to what you are saying, things like calling Corrie a dishonest feminist, refusing to answer anything Light has to bring up, etc..
Speaking about being a real man........
I still think about the cheap shot leveled at Mr. Frank James about how he hides behind his wife's skirt and all Frank would have to do is tell the Bayly Bros. that his wife will make it hard for him at home if he goes against her evil feminist plot to take over the PCA or PCUSA and they will understand.
Do you all remember that? Frank James never defended himself. I think that was a below the belt punch and it was dirty fighting. But, Frank showed himself to be a true gentleman and a real manly man by not justifying their nonsense with a response.
And then someone had to remind them that Frank's brother was lost on the moutain during their Carolyn Custis James bashing session and that they should be praying for him and the family.
I am not quite sure if this is the kind of "love" I want to model? I am not quite sure this is the kind of love the Bible is speaking about. I am not quite sure that they wouldn't be sneering at Jesus for being too wussified if we were on the earth at the time Jesus was teaching His disciples.
Well, Corrie, I suspect that if they HAD been among the Lord's followers, they'd sure as shootin' have been right there at the front of the line telling the women their witness to the Lord's resurrection was an "idle tale." He can't be risen unless a MAN bears witness. And I suspect they would have been among the head-hangers as the Lord "upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart."
Love? No, Corrie, I hardly think I'd look to the Baylys for any examples on that "greatest of the things that remain." Nor for faith or hope, for that matter. Truly, has there been ANYthing on that blog that demonstrates a mature understanding of any of the three? I have yet to see it.
Since folks are counting, I thought I'd up the comment tally to a nice round number.
:D
Post a Comment