CCSPC 14 Day 3 Review

You may also like...

158 Responses

  1. Jim says:

    “Turn off Fox News”

    Worth the cost of admission…

  2. Steve Wright says:

    Brodersen has grown into a formidable and respect worthy leader.
    Agree 100%

    The panel discussion actually had lots to say about not letting politics from the pulpit get in the way of reaching someone for Christ. Dave Rolph’s personal example in that regard was excellent. I wrote the same thing in that article you published here, and I hardly am ambivalent in my political opinions….so very glad to see it reinforced from that panel.

    Personally, I think the “theology” label was simply a poor label. It seems to me the idea in the two panels was to have one on the overseeing the church (emphasis on youth), specifically with no “pulpit” commentary (other than guys saying I have not changed my messages or how I give them)…and then today’s panel was about pulpit ministry 100%.

    I enjoyed the panel far more than if they had just spoken on theological issues that frankly we just about all agree on. Brian’s summary was sufficient there.

    I was wondering just what sorts of “theology” questions they actually got from that sort of audience given we are pretty monolithic in most things

  3. victorious says:

    I had to work late but had the whole office to myself listening to Brian( the one message I was anticipating). Gave me great freedom to interact with The Lord . I am in transition in more ways than one and looking forward to what The Lord has next .

  4. Babylon's Dread says:

    Turn off all American News.

  5. brian says:

    I am most likely an apostate for hoping this, because hoping is well basically wrong if not evil. But I was really hopeful for the Calvary chapel pastor meeting. I will admit I cant even listen to anything Pastor Chuck preaches it makes me want to barf, that is on me the guy did the best he could. I hope things go well and I wish them the very best and I am ashamed of that all at the same time. It really is a rather strange religion it really is.

  6. Linda Pappas says:

    Was there anything whatsoever in all that was presented covering the topic of spousal and child abuse. Hate to be a spoiler, but in the mind and hearts of those who have been harmed and then unprotected, by those who ignore, dismiss, and or cover up these things, I think this is far more important than discussing whether or not they are going to be more friendlier to other church groups outside of the brand or how they are going to go forward in coming together as an affiliation of independent CC’s.

    I mean, come on—-what in the sight of God, do you really think He cares the most about.

    Bringing this forward again, less we forget and that the Moses model must find a way to stop the abuse perpetrated against women and children.

    Excellent article and coverage on this Julie Anne.

  7. Linda Pappas says:

    To the entire leadership of CCA and its affiliates:

  8. It is funny how, when someone wants to make a point based on the left’s talking points, the mantra is “We must listen to all points.”
    But, let someone want to actually bring up the opposing point and the mantra changes to “Turn off Fox News”
    All that ever says to me is they never wanted both sides presented anyways.

  9. Michael says:


    Brodersens point wasn’t that he leans left or believes in censorship.
    It’s that a constant diet of information packaged to upset you makes you lose focus and balance.

  10. Jim says:


    The thing for me is that I don’t the Dem/Gop positions as “both sides”. They just seem to differ on what big govt should be about. My both sides are big govt vs small govt.

    Sorry everyone, this thread is about CCA. I just liked the quote because Brian clearly knows his audience.

  11. Michael says:


    I don’t see those sort of reform measures happening for a while…and here’s why.
    There is still no one in the group with the clear cut political clout to make it happen.
    Going into this conference there was a good chance it would end in a split of the movement…there was that much division among the more well known names.
    Brodersen may have flipped that on it’s head this week, but it’s still too early to tell.

    This is still a group trying to decide a lot of very basic things about it’s own identity and leadership.

  12. Michael says:


    He does know his audience and he knew that would not go over well with some of them.
    The fact that he said it anyway…and some other things he said…makes him a leader in my eyes.
    CC is as right wing Republican as can be…it was not in any way an endorsement of the “left”.

  13. Michael,
    My point is that both sides are guilty. But, it seems to be the fashion to point out only the one.
    I say good for BB, but there is a difference in what is good on a personal or church level and what is good nationally. I have some thoughts on that that I am formulating, but I am at work right now.
    Jim, i agree with you somewhat on a lot of what you are saying, but not on every issue “both sides” have. One or the other side is wrong on various issues.

  14. Michael says:

    If the comment was directed at me, my opinion is that Fox News is is beyond slanted and it’s main goal is not to inform, but to inflame.
    There are far better sources for information from a “conservative” point of view.

    Mainstream media wants to keep you upset and get the adrenaline running…so you’ll come back the next night for another fix.

    It’s hard to preach the Gospel when you’re angry all the time.

  15. Michael says:


    There would be no need to point out both sides at that conference…it’s overwhelmingly conservative.

  16. Kevin H says:

    I sit under the teaching of one of the men who was on the panel with Brodersen, the panel that took place just previous to the teaching where Brodersen gave his Fox News comment. (I have not watched any of these sessions, so the only context I have to go on is that what is spoken of here.) I regularly hear Fox News referenced, rarely any other news source, at least by name. Other news sources, when referenced (which is usually done in a generic manner), are usually spoken in a tone of how they are out to get “us” or make “us” look bad. Fox News, when referenced, is done in a neutral or positive fashion. So yes, I do think BB knew his audience. This is just one example I have given, but a pretty influential one and one that I think may be reflective of a good many.

  17. Michael says:


    Back to your point.

    The only way that I see that Calvary Chapel can add child protections is to make them part of the initial affiliate agreement.

    That will have to come out of a council directive.

    The problem will be that even if that happens, there will never be a way to enforce it beyond that initial agreement.

  18. Michael says:


    He toned down a lot for this conference…

  19. erunner says:

    Michael, I’m not real clear concerning the conference center. Is it currently being used to shelter the children? Or has that already taken place?

  20. Michael says:


    As I understand it, Brodersen was asked yesterday if he would allow it to be used as a shelter.

  21. Papias says:

    “The most interesting thing about that panel discussion was when Brodersen told the assembled pastors that he had allowed the Murrieta conference center to be a temporary shelter for the refugee children that had been moved there from the border.”

    Did BB actually say that it was his decision?

    If so, then that would imply that he has the authority to do that. I mean, kudos to him for the decision. I would be a little surprised if he made it all on his own – or if he consulted with a board of elders and in unison they made the decision. If his reasoning was bold then I am only asking if it was his call alone to make?

    “Turn off Fox News” and MSNBC… CNN…BBC…Mother Jones… Drudge….and so on…..

  22. Michael says:


    My guess is that it’s well within his sphere of authority to make that call.

  23. Papias says:

    My guess as well. So he’s NOT JUST the pastor of CCCM. He’s also the “caretaker” of the Logos building, the Murrieta site, Twin Peaks….what else?

    He’s starting to remind me of Lord Grantham from Downton Abbey: “My father gave the building and an endowment to run it. In a way, he set up his own memorial.”

  24. Michael says:


    CCCM owns those as corporate properties…as the head of the corporation, he is in charge of the properties.

  25. Rob Murphy says:

    I agree with Derek (again/still). All the shilling is quite soul – killing and nobody thinks they’re the one doing it thanks to the faux nobility of the microscopically thin veneer of camera ready cgi theatrical glue on costume compassion.

  26. I was a bit disappointed in the Q&A session. To me, the star of the who conference was Josh Turansky (sp) – this guy spoke truth everyday and asked hard questions of some people each day.

    He also read the questions that were being sent in via twitter etc and they were nothing like the questions presented to the panel. They were the questions that you wish were asked from a live mic to the panel. Josh can go in my CC Hall of Fame.

  27. I wanted follow up questions from the floor. When Brodersen said that he was asked if CC were going to change it’s end times views, become Calvinist or allow lady pastors, he said ”
    no” – which is fine.

    I wanted someone to ask “I have a lady in my church that we are going to ordain as an assistant pastor – will that in any way harm my CC affiliation??

  28. Muff Potter says:

    From the main body of the post:

    The closest to anything approaching an answer to those questions was when Brian Brodersen stated that there were no plans to change the eschatology or soteriology of the movement…and no women pastors.

    Here’s my prediction. Churches and para-church organizations that persist in refusing the full enfranchisement of women will not survive the 21st century.

  29. Papias says:

    Still a bit disappointed that they have yet to mention Saeed, even in a passing prayer request.

    “Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you were suffering.” Hebrews 13:3

  30. Xenia says:

    Here’s my prediction. Churches and para-church organizations that persist in refusing the full enfranchisement of women will not survive the 21st century.<<<

    It is my hope that religious bodies that ordain women do not survive the 21st century.

  31. I am at lunch now so let me clear some stuff up.
    I have no cable or satellite. I can watch neither FOX, CNN nor any of the other cable news networks. Even when I did have it I did not watch them.
    I prefer to get my news by reading, not sound byte.

  32. Xenia, always running widdershins. 😉

  33. Also, get news from local news.

  34. If it’s not news about me or my family, what do I care? – I don’t need to know it.

    Does it matter to me if Israel is still bombing people?
    Does it matter to me that some nut in Houston killed his family?
    Does it matter to me what Bill O’Reilly or Rachel Maddox thinks?

    I can’t do a damned thing about any of it.

  35. I don’t even care what the weather forecast says – I always dress light and have a coat and umbrella in the car.:-)

  36. Xenia says:

    Our local newspaper for Monterey/Salinas recently underwent a major downsizing, which at first I thought was further evidence of the decline of Western Civilization. Nowadays they hardly print any national or international news and are concentrating on local news, such as the local radio announcer who just got a six-year prison sentence for running a ponzi scheme. I find I actually read the paper, now. So I guess it was an improvement. Localism, that’s the political philosophy for me!

  37. Xenia says:

    Widdershins- what a great word!

  38. EyesOpenedHeartBroken says:

    I would be very interested in hearing the reasons as to why Heitzig and Stewart in your opinion are disqualified from ministry.

  39. Papias says:

    For Skip – here’s a primer:

    For Don Stewart – just Google “Don Stewart Divorce”.

    See Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Tim 3:2-13

  40. Papias says:

    Comment in moderation – too many links…. 😉

  41. PP Vet says:

    I have seen the Holy Spirit withdraw from a man and his ministry over his defiant opposition to needed change.

    I have also seen the Holy Spirit remain on a man, when I thought He should have departed.

    Therefore I am not one of those calling on Him to withdraw from certain CC pastors, or any other pastors for that matter, whom I do not happen to like, or whom I have decided are not qualified to minister.

    However it is also true that there are those from whom He has withdrawn in a personal way, but whom He allows to continue to minister.

    I can only conclude His standards are different from mine.

    So this site has done a bad job deciding who should minister.

    But a pretty good job, in my opinion, helping us all adapt ourselves to these messes.

  42. AA says:

    What is a synonym for widdershins?

  43. Muff Potter says:

    Xenia @ # 30,
    Permit me some latitude with my earlier comment. I have no doubt that your faith tradition (EO) as with other ancient traditions (and even many of the newer fundagelical sects) will not adopt a changing paradigm with regard to gender roles, and they will continue as always. So maybe ‘diminished influence’ would be a better way of saying it rather than the narrowed scope of ‘survival’.

  44. Xenia says:

    Yet it is the churches that ordain women that are diminishing.

  45. Muff,
    “will not adopt a changing paradigm with regard to gender roles,”

    I don’t know your position, but would you be for homosexual pastors? (gender roles) Every group / denomination that has gone down the “woman pastor” path has also has to face the “homosexual pastor” issue and most succumb because they cannot respond to “what is the difference?”

    This is what happens when church decisions are made as they are in the world … by what feels right.That is the way they made the decision in the ELCA on both women and homosexual clergy.

  46. Em says:

    FWIW (as I sit here waiting to see if the house will burn down)… I have no interest whatsoever in the conference under discussion here… BUT with regard to women seeing the exclusion of our gender from ordination from the role of pastor as marginalizing and insulting – behind the curve of progress even … MLD and Xenia are the right side on this controversy (she says dogmatically)
    I am a woman and I think I could have pastored a church – heaven knows, I can preach (ask my kids) – Xenia is certainly gifted to teach and she knows how to control the room I am pretty sure… but I would like to think that the woman’s role in the Body of Christ is more powerful and more subtle. It is that of ministering and doing so does not leave room for pastoring – IMHO – but as has often been noted, if there is no man to do it we’ll do it; it’s not beneath us… it is amazing how birth control has broadened our responsibilities

  47. Em says:

    #42 – answer: “clockwise”

  48. I was using it to mean “a direction that everyone else isn’t going”
    Which is sort of how I understand it.

    The Oxford dictionary says:
    In a direction contrary to the sun’s course, considered as unlucky; counterclockwise.

    It has some meanings also associated with superstitions, but I meant it as none of those.

  49. Oh BTW Xenia, my wife thinks the same as you also.
    Not every woman is chomping at the bit to have women ordained.

  50. Jean says:

    If one views the ordination of women as simply an accommodation to modern culture, then, yes, it could not logically be differentiated from other cultural norms, such as those emerging with regard to same-sex attraction. If, however, one views the ordination of women as normative in the New Testament, then there is no slippery slope or other connection to same sex marriage or ordination of practicing homosexuals.

    I can’t speak for the reasoning of any denomination which has voted to ordain women, but there are a very substantial number of well respected New Testament Scholars who interpret the New Testament as allowing women in all positions of leadership within the church. None of those scholars to my knowledge finds support in the New Testament for the marriage of homosexuals or ordination of practicing homosexuals.

    So, on the issue of women in church leadership, I tend to agree with Muff.

  51. Steve Wright says:

    allowing women in all positions of leadership within the church
    Jean, women have positions of leadership in our CC, but they are not and will not be pastors. The same is true in many other CCs

    It should be noted that women were part of the worship leaders at the pastors conference, and a woman made a presentation to the men before one of the messages. And the success of the conference was largely due to a whole lot of women, all of whom seemed to be serving with a smile, and none were “forbidden” from sitting down talking with pastors they might know from the past etc.

    Besides simply the homosexual ordination issue, my experience has been that if a church has a woman lead pastor it also tends to be a little “light” on issues like the exclusivity of Christ’s blood alone for salvation, the actuality of miracles like the virgin birth and the authority of the Bible as God’s inspired word.

  52. Xenia says:

    For me it is simple: Scripture is to be interpreted within the Tradition of the Church. That way I don’t have to bother with respected New Testament scholars.

  53. I always wonder why it sis clear and obvious that men are to be pastors, but to find women pastors you must look into the shadows of scriptures. Why weren’t Timothy or titus ever directed to go check up on the work of pastor Sally as they were sent out to check up on the work of the men.

    Why is there no letter from the Apostle Paul to pastor Sally along with Timothy and Titus? It would seem that if it were actually New Testament approved then there would be great mention of it in scripture.

    My argument does not make women pastor wrong, but it does make me think – no one questions men pastors, why do we question women pastors?

  54. Learner says:

    I’ve been telling you for years that BB is the real deal…I expect to hear that I’m also right about this when we talk :).

  55. Em says:

    forgive the digression from the topic of this thread… my pride requires me to correct myself in case anybody read my # 47 response to #42… i was wrong, i was giving an antonym

  56. Xenia says:

    All you have to do is look at the track record of groups that ordain women. The tenets of the faith begin falling away one by one and you end up with the Episcopal Church. And every step to their final apostasy was supported by the best New Testament scholars who hissed “hath God really said?

  57. Xenia says:

    Listen to a few sermons preached by the presiding bishop of the American Episcopalians, Katherine Jefferts Schori and tell me that you don’t hear hissing and don’t smell sulfur.

  58. Jean says:

    I read the article Michael linked about EO. My understanding is that the EO holds to the traditions of the church up to the Great Schism. I respect that, but that’s not for everyone.

    Saying that NT scholars are unfaithful, foolish, stupid or deceptive (which is it or is there more than one?) is unfair and unkind.

    Likewise, your statement about the Episcopal Church is unfair and unkind. I don’t have to defend all their beliefs to acknowledge that they represent millions of Christians.

  59. Xenia says:

    I will be unkind, then.

  60. Xenia says:

    The EO holds the traditions of the Church up to the present day, by the way.

  61. I get the feeling that the EO will stand for truth when many others have fallen by the wayside.
    I respect that.

  62. Steve Wright says:

    Jean, define a NT scholar. It is a meaningless term when it comes to the faith. A professing atheist is even capable of becoming a NT scholar. That is why we are at the point where one looks at the schools behind the degrees.

    The question is simple. How many NT scholars who clearly proclaim the authority of the Scriptures as the written revelation of God are also writing commentaries on the NT in support of women pastors?

    It’s the same reason (in reverse) a pastor who believes like I do about the Scriptures would never invest the time and money for a doctorate at Fuller

  63. Jean says:

    Steve, I don’t judge their salvation, but I try to be very careful about who I read and look for Christian scholars who have a high view of scripture and hold orthodox Christian beliefs.

  64. Michael says:

    “The question is simple. How many NT scholars who clearly proclaim the authority of the Scriptures as the written revelation of God are also writing commentaries on the NT in support of women pastors?”

    Gordon Fee and N.T. Wright for starters…

  65. Jean says:

    You can add to Wright and Fee, McKnight, Witherington, Bird and Keener.

  66. Ms. Alnor says:

    Speaking of NT scholars – Walter Martin would say privately that his best friend John Warwick Montgomery was the leading
    NT scholar in the world, then add” “and he’d really be great if he just got born again.”

  67. Muff Potter says:

    Jean @ # 65

    Add Gilbert Bilezikian and Katharine Bushnell too. I changed my view to egalitarianism around the turn of the century when I could no longer buy into the cast-in-concrete gender doctrine which is a mainstay of conservative mainline denominations and most fundagelical sects.
    There are three factors which changed my mind:
    1) Reason
    2) Conscience
    3) And the violence which must be done to the broader scope of Scripture in order to make an obscure verse from Paul’s letter to Timothy stand on its own as binding for all spaces and for all times in the life of the Christian Church Universal.

  68. Muff,
    And yet we see no Pastor Sally in scripture. And who was the one for centuries was a man and now the NT Wright’s have cut him you know where and have now declared him a woman? That’s a pretty tough way to ‘prove’ your point.

  69. “1) Reason”

    You may want to test the status of MANS REASON.

  70. Xenia says:

    Junia, I think it was.

  71. Babylon's Dread says:

    Alan F. Johnson, I Howard Marshal, Roger Nicole, and the inerrantist Philip Barton Payne with his monograph… One In Christ.

    The momentum is in favor of women in ministry.

  72. “The momentum is in favor of women in ministry.”

    No one has denied women in ministry – in fact the consensus is probably 100%. However, I think your comment says a lot about what a ‘ministry’ person thinks of the pastorate as the only “in ministry” position.

  73. Babylon's Dread says:


    Bullcrap the issue has always been ordained female clergy and that is what I am addressing.

  74. Jean says:

    The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon defines Junia as a female and the word as a femine form of name. It is consistent in its context to read Junia as the wife of Andronicus. If Junia was previously interpreted as a male, might that have been by those uncomfortable with a female being well known among the apostles?

  75. Choose your words more carefully.

    I find Payne’s book interesting that he would write 500 plus pages on the less than 100 Paul wrote and perhaps 20 were about clergy let alone women in clergy.

  76. “might that have been by those uncomfortable with a female being well known among the apostles?”

    Why would that be if Jesus and Paul were such advocates of “women in the ministry” and if it were actually the New Testament teaching?

  77. Xenia says:

    I actually preached on Sunday at my old Greek parish. I was asked to get up in front of the people (but not stand in the pulpit) and give a short talk on a certain topic. So I gave my little talk and sat down and Fr. J. smiled and said that was good enough to be the morning’s homily and he never preached his sermon. (That would never happen at my current parish!)

  78. Xenia says:

    From Ortho-Wiki:

    Junia is the subject of debate within the academic world concerning the implications of a female apostle leading within the early Church, that it might suggest the ordination of women. In Orthodox tradition, however, the title of apostle does not necessarily confer the kind of position that the Twelve had from Christ. Rather, especially when used in reference to the Seventy, it designates someone who served as a missionary for the Church, especially in its first generation. Apostle (from Greek apostolos) literally refers to one who is “sent out,” and its origin is in military usage. Subsequent centuries’ saints who significantly spread the Orthodox faith are often referred to as equal to the Apostles, and this title is given without reference to gender.

  79. Xenia says:

    Some female Saints who are have been given the title “Equal-to-the-Apostles”

    Mary Magdalene (1st century)
    Photine, the Samaritan Woman at the Well (1st century)
    Thekla (1st century)
    Helena of Constantinople (ca. 250 – ca. 330)
    Olga of Kiev (ca. 890 – 969)

    I think there’s more.

  80. Xenia says:

    In Orthodoxy, we consider the Number One Christian of All Time to be St. Mary, or as we call her, the Theotokos.

  81. Muff said earlier “And the violence which must be done to the broader scope of Scripture in order to make an obscure verse from Paul’s letter to Timothy stand on its own as binding for all spaces and for all times in the life of the Christian Church Universal.”

    But even if Junia is a female, the Romans passage is of greater violence if used to establish women’s ordination.

    The Lutherans have women’s ordination

  82. Babylon's Dread says:

    If Barton Payne did not have to wade through 500 years of interpretive material he might not need 500 pages.

    I was careful with my words. When people play games with me when I am actually addressing the point of conflict by conflating the matter to something we all agree on I get clarifyingly colorful

  83. Babylon's Dread says:

    I am a mite grumpy tonight folk and it is not causal to this matter… I shall bid adieu… especially since my actions will not be modified by such conversations.

  84. It’s going on all over the place, a fight for the pulpit, a fight for the urinal – what’s next, women umpires? 😉

  85. Jean says:

    MLD, you were the one who brought up Junia and you were soundly defeated. You apparently have nothing to offer except your usual sarcasm and insults.

  86. Where was I soundly defeated? – I said that Junia was once considered a man (truth, look it up) and that more modern teachers have today declared him a woman. So where was I wrong?

    But you or others have not shown a single verse where Junia, Pastor Sally or any other woman was declared a pastor of a church. We don’t seem to have these mysteries with the men in the clergy.

    As I just asked above, if Jesus and Paul we so supportive of women pastors, why is it so hard to find in the scriptures? If this is normative New Testament teaching, why doesn’t it jump out at us?

    How do you explain that?

  87. Xenia says:

    I don’t think MLD was defeated. Even my Church, which believes Junia was a woman (St. Junia, Equal-to-the-Apostles) does not believe she was the pastor of a church. She was a missionary. Everyone believes women can be missionaries.

  88. I have looked at that verse in several different translations and most seem to translate it as they were “well known to the apostles”.
    The NIV and Message seem to translate it differently, but the Message looks like they just made the verse up (it bears little resemblance to any other translation I looked at.) And ever since the NIV decided to go gender neutral I gave up on it.

    I fail to see the significance of this verse to people’s arguments.

  89. Sorry, some translate well respected or esteemed also, which still begs, why make such a big deal over one verse that people can’t seem to settle on a translation of.

  90. Jean says:

    MLD, If doctrine needing “jump out at us” is the criteria, then where do you get infant baptism? And there are other such doctrines that people hold dear.

    As a lay person, I rely on my own reading of scripture in conversation with tradition and Christian biblical scholars who I believe are faithful to the text and competent. That’s the best I can do. If your interested in the argument for women pastors, you’ve been given a substantial list of names of scholars who have written on the topic.

  91. Babylon's Dread says:

    Oh horseradish …

    -Junias is a male name that DID NOT EXIST in antiquity

    -In all ancient manuscripts and translations Junia is a woman

    -Luther’s German translation 16th Century gave Junia a man’s name.

    -In Greek New Testament composite texts from Erasmus in the Reformation era to the famous German scholar Erwin Nestle’s edition of the Greek New Testament in 1927, Junia was a woman.

    -In 1927, in the 13th edition of his composite Greek New Testament, Eberhard Nestle silenced Junia and gave birth to a new Christian man named Junias.

    -In 1998, the Jubilee Edition of Nestle-Aland and the UBS printed the same text. Junia is there, and Junias has disappeared. Junias was erased the way Junia was erased.

    See Scot McKight – Junia Is Not Alone
    See also Eldon J Epp The First Woman Apostle

    Junia likely was an eye witness to Jesus resurrection like many other women

  92. Jean says:

    Derek, you’ll have to ask MLD. He brought it up for the proposition that people are changing the gender of someone against tradition to support a false teaching. His proposition was defeated by among others Xenia’s reference to EO tradition.

  93. Babylon's Dread says:

    It was Luther who conclusively gave Junia a theological sex change. And there really is no controversy today about whether Junia was a woman. It is really clear in the texts. The matter of debate is whether to consider her an apostle. Fair debate.

    Now if we really want to parse out why Paul or even our Lord did not elevate women into more prominent roles we might ask also why they did not advocate for liberating slaves.

    I am not troubled that they did not do so but I find the matter instructive when struggling over whether to give women a place alongside men in pastoral ministry and preaching.

    The Gospel and the work of the Spirit in bringing the church into the fullness of the Gospel have taken care of the matter. The bible did not destroy slavery but the Gospel does. The Bible does more to elevate women than we usually note but the ongoing work of the Gospel has done more.

  94. I don’t care whether Junia was a woman or not, I have not been convinced the verse says she is an apostle? All the evidence I have seen, when I have looked at this before, is that she was respected by the Apostles.

    This is why we don’t take one verse and try to build a doctrine on them.
    One verse does not convince me of the doctrine of women apostleship.

    I shy away from many things that people try to use one verse to convince me on some peculiar thing.

    I understand you are struggling with this BD, just stating my understanding.

  95. And Jean, I don’t see MLD as defeated either, so don’t crow just yet.

  96. Jean,
    Infant baptism is not a standalone doctrine – it is all within the doctrine of baptism. I see nowhere in scripture where baptism is to be withheld from someone.

    ““Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” – Sounds pretty inclusive to me … and it jumps out at me too.

    So, technically, there is no such thing as infant baptism – there is only baptism.

    Yes, all these things about women pastors should jump out at you and not come from the white spaces on the pages of scripture.

  97. Jean says:

    Nobody’s building a doctrine on one verse. Just putting MLD in his place.

  98. Babylon's Dread says:


    I appreciate you. But I am not struggling with this. I am fully persuaded that Junia was an apostle in the sense of being an eye witness to Jesus and a commissioned minister of the church in at least the sense of being as Xenia states, a missionary.

    The ‘well known to the apostles’ translation is refuted in the literature that I posted but hundreds of years of assuming a thing make it true by tacit approval without examination.

    The 12 are unique and I do not oppose that idea but women are apostles as well as men in the broader sense.

    Further… I commend the other literature for examining the requisite passages.

    The Reformation opens the door to the church re-examining traditional interpretations. The Reformation magisterium is no more inerrant that the Papal one was.

    Traditions still prevail …

  99. Babylon's Dread says:

    And MLD

    NOTHING in that verse you quote mandates and proves paedobaptism, of which there is no clear example in scripture… none… every ‘household’ reference has easy explanations that do not require paedobaptism

  100. Jean says:

    Ha MLD! Now your mixing humor. You’ve got babies repenting. Very nice.

  101. Jean says:

    I’ve got to get some sleep. Good night every one.

  102. Steve Wright says:

    A couple points – I did not mean to suggest one could not find a NT scholar that believed in women ordination and the authority of Scripture. Just making a point about the idea of “scholar” in the first place needing some deeper examination. Nobody would deny that Bart Ehrman is a NT scholar, but I would not listen for five seconds on what his view is about women pastors (and I have no idea what it is either)

    I will listen to Dr. Fee all day, but in this instance I would join with the many who disagree with Fee, just as when it comes to the gifts I join with Fee against many of those same scholars.

    I just read a passage in James where it is said literally half the theologians hold one interpretation and half the other (and there are only two possibilities). So scholars do disagree…often.

    Also, I just finished teaching through Romans, which means I finished Ch 16 which means I read a lot about Junia. I have no doubt she is a woman but also the switch to a man was well before Luther ever showed up. And the issue is hardly simplistic or obvious.

    One must remember that the Greek word for apostle is used by Paul on at least two occasions as simply messenger(s) – but since our English translations chose messenger and not apostle in those places, it can be overlooked that Paul calling someone an ἀπόστολος does not mean they held the office and it certainly is a leap to assume they saw the risen Christ.

    Bottom line to me is it sure seems tenuous to use for a key verse to support a doctrine a casual greeting at the end of an epistle, especially since the same author is deliberate in his words to Timothy in the larger context of instructions for the establishing of leadership and functions in the local church.

  103. Babylon's Dread says:

    Repartee to my friend Steve,

    Yes it is simple. It was only made hard by tradition. Junia was never a man but was turned into one by those who feared losing the hedge… and then scholar just parrots scholar.

    Luther was indeed not the first but Luther’s translation to German was the definitive thing to put the matter in the common mind beyond the pen of scholars and prior to him I believe I am correct is noting that the evidence was slender for those asserting maleness.

    Otherwise we agree on the larger points you make about the use of apostle and this being insufficient.

    Nevertheless I assert the ordination of women clergy is within the purposes of God as I can discern it from scripture and reason. Some claim they do not use reason or tradition but they lie to themselves.

  104. Babylon's Dread says:

    If you posit Junia to be a male name you do not have to answer the necessary question of apostleship.

    Oh and Steve… what are you preaching now so I can catch up 🙂

  105. Steve Wright says:

    Her being a woman I think is simple. The textual argument for her being male is very, very slim, though slightly possible. Like I said, I give no thought to the possibility of her being anything other than a female…..

  106. Steve Wright says:

    Went from Romans to James…thought that would be fun. 🙂

  107. Babs,
    “NOTHING in that verse you quote mandates and proves paedobaptism, ”

    I was not making a case for paedobaptism – I thought I made that perfectly clear – I was making the case for baptism. The fact that God does the drawing and saving of infants is made perfectly clear in scripture by the example of John the B and the very words of David.

    Babies have faith and God repents babies. I love it when people say “babies don’t have faith” but babies have such a pure faith that we adults are commanded to have their faith.

    For anyone just walking in, I did not start the baptism conversation – someone else did the misdirect when they were trapped on the women pastor’s question.:-)

  108. eyesopenedheartbroken says:

    @39 Papias….

    Thank you….. I had no idea. Although the stuff with SH happened a decade ago, I wonder if he ever gave back that severance package when he came back….. and I also wonder why he and DS didn’t get the same boot to the curb that BC got….. not that I want to see BC back….. just wondering the differences in actions that warrant dismissal vs. no dismissal. The more I read, the more I understand the absolute corruption behind these big name pastors in the CC movement. Did Chuck just think these men would do the right thing the entire time? Did he not want to be bothered with it? I’m just glad everything comes out eventually and I am no longer a stepford sheep.

  109. Babylon's Dread says:

    For the record,

    MLD is playing which cup is the ball under.

    Obfuscation by theological assumption.

    But in fairness it was not a discussion of paedobaptism but it was a discussion of how one’s theological assumptions and traditions color their reading of texts.

    I have made no comment about babies and their faith. I have little interest in such things… No I have none.

  110. “…but it was a discussion of how one’s theological assumptions and traditions color their reading of texts. ”

    For some strange reason, I feel this aimed at me and those who hold this particular position – that OUR view is ruled by ‘theological assumptions’, and that OUR ‘traditions’ have colored OUR reading of the texts – but this is not how you and YOURS have arrived at YOUR position – which I am sure has come only through rugged and thorough study with clear mindedness.

  111. “OUR view” being that on the role of women in the ministry.

  112. Babylon's Dread says:

    Aimed at you indeed… It is.

    Your views of women in pastoral ministry and baptism are plainly tribal.

    My views are equally narrowed by my field of vision. I deny it NOT.

    Our use of scripture is mutually instructive. What is derived from what is stated and what we derive by reason are revealed in how we use the texts. From baptism text you derive the liberty to submit to Luther’s biblical interpretation. I would go against it. But that is not scripture it is reason informing the text and making inferences that allow your position.

    I admit that Paul was probably narrowly focused as to women in speaking ministry leadership but I deny that his parameters are definitive to limit what we can say now. I offer the matter of slave obedience as something we would agree falls short of the liberating power of the Gospel to eradicate slavery. I glean the right to think through the matter of women’s roles in the church and come to a conclusion that the Holy Spirit has anointed women to preach and teach and serve as ordained clergy.

    We should likely just disagree and thank God that neither of us has the power of coercion.

  113. “Your views of women in pastoral ministry and baptism are plainly tribal. ”

    I agree – however my tribe is the worldwide and historical Christian Church – which by far (even more than by far) holds my views on both women’s roles in the ministry and on baptism

    And your tribe would be who?

  114. My tribe would be those radical reformers and their kin that Luther loosed on the world. Unable to stuff the genie of freedom back into the bottle he is saddled with the legacy of those who say no to those in power.

    I am by nature of conscience and reason fully Lutheran in the non-sectarian sense.

  115. Papias says:

    eyesopenedheartbroken @ 109

    “Although the stuff with SH happened a decade ago, I wonder if he ever gave back that severance package when he came back..”

    You are welcome.

    And that was the SAME THING I asked about during that time as well – Where’s the severance? And if I remember correctly, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 300k m/l. That’s a princely sum of money to forget about paying back.

    Not sure who BC is – but it may be because its early.

    Why didn’t Skip get booted to the curb by Chuck? Hmmmm….I could give a couple of theories, mostly that Chuck didn’t want to do anything about it. After all, most of the time CC is not a denomination…and sometimes it is. Depends who is in trouble and for what. Depends what clique you’re in.

  116. “My tribe would be those radical reformers and their kin that Luther loosed on the world. ”

    You need to read up on your history – Luther was very much against the radical reformers.

    “who say no to those in power. ”

    Who do you know who is in power?

  117. Steve Wright says:

    On this topic, one detail I find fascinating is the very specific, clear instruction that women ARE to teach other women. Place that verse alongside the main text about not teaching men (with reference to Adam) and you seem to have a pretty clear Biblical instruction…to me.

    And CC has been very active in encouraging the women to teach the women over the years…

  118. MLD
    Surely you have an eye for nuance and know that ideas have consequences. You surely realize that Luther’s reformation opened the door for all the others who have followed in his wake of claiming that scripture informed by reason and conscience require them to dissent.

    We all know that Luther persecuted the radical reformers and hated them. Most of us know that he gave them birth. Unintended consequences shattered the church in a million pieces but Luther broke the glass.

    I have no need to read my history. I know that Luther hated many things that he caused.

    As for who I know that is in power.

    Because of the Radical Reformation and their suffering at the hands of both Catholic and Protestant churches the idea of freedom of conscience took precedence over the idea that the state could coerce faith… but again that began when Luther said no to Rome and hid under Frederick’s coat.

    I would think you understood your history better.

  119. Muff Potter says:

    Babylon’s Dread wrote @ # 113:

    “…We should likely just disagree and thank God that neither of us has the power of coercion.”

    A hearty amen! here Babs. Let each be convinced in his or her own conscience and be thankful that the laws of our land do not allow religious coercion in any fashion. Which is one reason why I look forward to Michael’s Church History and The Enlightenment post and the tension created by two world views in collision.

  120. Babylon's Dread says:


    I ask you to indulge me a little. I agree that on the face of it the words of scripture can be put forth to have women teach only women. Though I believe one must overlook a few things to limit it. Still that is the sense. Further, Paul seems to argue with rabbinical clarity about Adam and Eve … Adam first in creation Eve first in deception… inference Adam should teach Eve and not the opposite.


    Nothing is clearer than the fact that Paul advocated slavery by commanding slaves to submit and sending Onesimus back to his master. In other words Paul did nothing to free slaves and we have a good basis thereupon to advocate slave holding as long as it is humane.

    No doubt Paul made both marriage and slavery more humane and loving by his words.

    However, I doubt you would advocate for slavery… I find in that room for recasting male and female through the lens of the Gospel and the generous outpouring of the Spirit on ALL FLESH

  121. Xenia says:

    A few things.

    1. It is assumed that humanity has somehow improved or evolved past the primitive morality of the first century, that us moderns have reached some kind of advanced understanding about gender issues (O how I hate that phrase) and so it follows that whatever we think today is an improvement over what they thought then.

    2. When Americans think of slavery we automatically think of kidnapped Africans who were chained to the holds of filthy sailing vessels and the ones who survived the crossing were sold to Simon Legree. This type of slavery was indeed an abomination but it is not the same kind of slavery as they had in ancient times, as everyone knows.

    3. The fact that St. Paul references Adam and Eve settles it, as far as I’m concerned. Eve was still beguiled and human nature hasn’t changed since the Garden. We are still the daughters of Eve.

    4. I would like you all to take a good hard look at the fruit of the woman’s liberation movement in general.

    5. We all have our assignments from God. Rather than striving to take up someone else’s assignment, we should spend our time profitably working out our salvation within our own assignment.

  122. Jean says:

    That passage about Eve being deceived in interesting. Eve was deceived, not Adam. Why not? Because Adam knew God’s command and disobeyed intentionally. That is certainly no ringing endorsement of mail leadership over females.

    I suppose if we’re interpreting the Bible literally and not contextually, single men, widowers and married men without children are also disqualified from serving as overseers and deacons.

  123. Jean says:

    My #123, first sentence “is” not “in”; Fifth sentence “male” not “mail.”

  124. Babylon's Dread says:

    So Xenia,

    Make this simple for me you are advocating the kind of slavery that the Roman empire had and into which Paul spoke? Simple question. Give me a bit more on slavery.

    I also am aware that slavery continues in all kinds of forms worldwide including here.

    Further, I do NOT assume that humanity has improved but I assume that humanity IN CHRIST is not the same as without. I also assume that the church is more glorious now than when she was begun. I believe the reforming work of the Spirit is winning through.

  125. Jean,
    My point exactly – even if one were to interpret the passages literally, you have a list of what qualifies or disqualifies a man from the pastorate – you have no such list for women. Doesn’t that seem odd?

  126. Earlier the misdirect was to infant baptism – now it has moved to slavery.When the case cannot be made, us the old “look over there” tactic.

    Babs, which cup is the ball under?

    Perhaps LeBron James resigning with Cleveland will now be pointed at as the gateway to women pastors. 😉

  127. Xenia says:

    I believe the reforming work of the Spirit is winning through.<<<

    Have you looked out your window lately?

    I don't hold the view that says the world is getting better and better. I know there are Christians who believe this, maybe you are one of them.

    Slavery. Which is better: to be a drug-runner in Detroit because you have no job or to be a slave (or shall we say servant, a word the Lord also uses) in a Christian home?

  128. I am forever blessed that the first ones to announce the risen Jesus. The first eye-witnesses to the resurrection were women. Their testimony was the one that was followed by a confirming testimony. In that day it was necessary and they would not have been believed. The first human resurrection proclamation of Jesus was female.

    If a woman today gives her witness no one asks for male confirmation. Perhaps you guys would advocate such things.

  129. Steve Wright says:

    I guess the issue is whether one sees slavery as oppression, which all I am sure do.

    Then whether one sees a prohibition about women teaching men in the local assembly as also oppressive…which I guess a few people do. As outlawing abortion is seen as oppressive. As prohibiting no fault divorce is oppressive. (Two examples chosen along the lines of the world’s laws, as with slavery, with recognition that Christ’s church is run differently than the world)

    I want to add at this point the reminder that we have a woman on our Board of Directors and a couple women who serve as ushers. In addition to the many roles of service for women throughout the church.

  130. Xenia,

    I am very clear… I do not believe in the world getting better I DO indeed believe the people of God are making progress (the church is indeed improving and expanding and becoming glorious) and I realize that most people seem to preach the failure of the Gospel to do anything except retard the fire.

    Second, I see that you just advocated for slavery in a ‘Biblical’ sense … I am embarrassed to read it.

    Slavery in any form is subhuman and subGospel and defending Paul by defending the slavery seems very strange to me.

  131. Jean says:

    MLD, #126, doesn’t bother me. Paul was addressing a situation in a specific time and place – Ephesus.

    The issues of infant baptism and slavery were not introduced to hide the ball; they were introduced to demonstrate certain things about the interpretation of scripture. Those topics just scratch the surface. Between the presuppositions that we all bring to our reading of scripture and the desire of some to use the bible to delegitimize others who don’t interpret certain texts they way they do, I think everyone and the kingdom would benefit from Christians spending more time practicing their discipleship and less time defining it for other Christians.

    Jesus, Paul and the other apostles were far more concerned with what people did and how they lived than their doctrines.

  132. Steve Wright says:

    (Snippets from one of my seminary papers on slavery in the Roman Empire:)

    There were typically five ways one might become a slave within the Roman Empire. The most obvious was as a prisoner of war following a Roman victory in battle. The records indicate battles which resulted in several thousands taken captive as slaves in a solitary day. A second possibility was to be the child of slaves. Obviously, it was more cost effective for a slaveholder to encourage his slaves to reproduce, rather than continue to purchase new slaves on a regular basis. Slaves could of course be purchased in trade from others, and slaves often were those who had been captured by pirates and taken away from their homeland. Such piracy was more common in the two centuries before Christ, than in the first century, but still was known to exist during the era of the New Testament’s writing. The fifth way was through child abandonment. Unwanted children were typically left in the wild to die of exposure, but if one found such an abandoned child, he legally could bring that child to his home as a slave

    Slavery within the Roman Empire was not related in any fashion to one’s ethnicity. Anyone might be a slave. In addition, it was common for slaves to work in the same jobs as freemen. In other words, there were not certain jobs in the Empire that were solely the employment for slaves

    The legal concept behind slavery was death. Since many slaves were prisoners of war, it was argued that the losing combatants should have been put to death by their conquerors, in this case the Romans. Thus, the Romans sparing their lives did not negate the idea that these men and women should be dead. Therefore, how or why should they have any legal protections under Roman law? Likewise, in the case of the abandoned child mentioned earlier, which was a considerable factor in the total number of slaves, the child should be dead. Only the “salvation” by the one finding the child, and raising him or her as a slave, had kept that child from meeting death by exposure. Therefore, the child too, though probably born to free parents, had no legal rights as a “dead” person

    (that last part is crucial in understanding slavery in Roman times)

    William Ramsay offers an excellent closing thought:
    The development of the church…that was the present and instant duty…To seek to revolutionize the existing system of Roman society could not conduce to that end, but might on the contrary seriously imperil it, and indefinitely postpone it…when one takes a dispassionate view of the whole situation, one recognizes that the spread of Christianity produced gradually a higher atmosphere of thought in which slavery cannot live. The more fully Christianity is realized in any society, the more thoroughly will slavery be destroyed

    (So like I said, if one sees as oppressive the notion that a woman can’t teach the men in the public assembly, then one can make the comparison to the “allowance” for slavery in NT times)

  133. Jean says:

    Steve, #133, Thank you for posting that article.

  134. “Jesus, Paul and the other apostles were far more concerned with what people did and how they lived than their doctrines.”

    Well, that puts all Mormons, JWs and Jews further up the salvation line than me. I had better get to work.

  135. Jean says:

    Actually MLD, it is the people who spend all their time trying to perfect their doctrines and who define their (and others’) salvation by the power of their intellect to discern the true doctrines that are doing all the work.

    Then there are others who while firmly believing the fundamentals of the Christian faith (e.g., the Apostles Creed) spend their time in gratitude for grace, who joyfully live in obedience to their Lord and look for the image of God in their neighbors (and not the speck in their neighbor’s eye).

    We have a loving, merciful God and Savior who doesn’t expect perfection in any of us (and who knows were incapable of it anyway). He is the searcher of hearts. Let’s trust Him to deal justly, mercifully, graciously and miraculously with our fellow brothers and sisters. God doesn’t need our help; He desires our obedience.

    Feel free to place yourself in whichever camp you wish.

  136. And yet you feel the need to lecture me. Hmmm

  137. Xenia says:

    Doctrine does matter or the West would still be 100 percent Roman Catholic to this day because even under the Roman Catholic system people could (and did) spend their time in gratitude for grace and could joyfully live in obedience to the Lord and look for the image of God in their neighbors, etc.The RCC affirms the Apostle’s Creed. (They will say they wrote it in the first place.) So, Jean, was the Reformation a mistake? Shouldn’t Luther and Calvin have just spent their time “looking for the image of God in their neighbors” rather than writing all those volumes about theology?

  138. Jean says:

    Xenia, I don’t live in the world of 0 and 1. Is that how you see the world?

    MLD, Actually a good portion of this blog is spent by a variety of people lecturing you on all sorts of things. Hmmm

  139. Xenia says:

    Jean, you are the one who offered us a binary choice up in your 136.

  140. Michael says:

    For me, the Pauline argument in 1 Tim is almost airtight and it appears to be intentionally so.
    I listen to the other side, but don’t yet find the arguments compelling.

  141. Babylon's Dread says:

    The airtight argument if I take all statements the way most are taken

    1. Men are commanded to lift their hands and pray …
    2. Their anger and quarreling is redressed …( that sounds like teachers)
    3. Women are instructed to dress modestly and eschew costly things
    4. Women are permitted to learn with quiet submissiveness
    5. Paul says that HE (I) does not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over men.
    Q. Why does he stress that he does not permit it and does that make it the will of God?
    Q. What does being formed first have to do with teaching and authority? And is this his rationale or is this eternal revelation of female subjugation? And is teaching an exercise of authority? If it is then we need to restore a whole lot of authority to teachers. What is the exercise of authority? And what does it have to do with teaching?
    Q. The woman was deceived and became the transgressor so what was the man? And why does being deceived mean you can learn but not teach men?
    6. The woman is asserted to be saved through childbearing … ah now that clears everything up. We all understand perfectly now. If a woman bears children she is saved. If not… WAIT
    7. She is saved IF she continues… conditional statement in love, faith, holiness and self-control. There is a loaded gun to shoot them all with. Conditional statements about salvation always get swept into TULIP rationalism somehow.

    Now Michael. I am not as snarky as this sound. But I don’t think I Timothy is even clear much less conclusive. Of course I have ideas and convictions but they would not be considered the airtight conclusions of evangelicalism.

    Frankly all that we generally conclude with airtightness is that is women cannot teach or hold ordained office unless it is clearly sub servant to men.

    The fun thing about this blog is that it doesn’t like for men to assert too much authority either.

    But I have a serious question. What is the exact relationship between exercising authority over someone and teaching them? Seems linked in Paul … how?

  142. Babylon's Dread says:

    You see no self respecting protestant believes the teacher is in authority in the sense that the Roman church saw it. And today we just think teachers are sharing opinions and we are fascinated with variety. So I do not see what the big deal is about teaching unless we conclude that the teacher is carrying some kind of apostolic authority.

    And Paul seems to say this is HIS practice rooted in Rabbinical readings of Genesis not that it is the eternal will of God for all time.

    Let me ask my wife if I got her question right…


  143. Steve Wright says:

    I don’t think the issue of eternal salvation is at all the case with the woman and childbearing but goes back to the context of referencing Eve (and the curse).

    Saved (σῴζω) often is used in purely an earthly sense of rescue…survival. With no soteriological relationship at all.

    Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    The word concerning the authority Paul prohibits, by the way, is a hapax and rather intense word that also makes sense in light of the curse back to chapter 3 of Genesis

  144. Babs,
    See we do agree. If a pastor / teacher is just sharing his opinions from the pulpit, then it does not matter if it is a man or a woman. This is what I see in almost all denominations that have come to an official position of allowing women to be pastors.

    Their opinion? “Well this is the 21st century and no one can really take those old biblical writings seriously in a 1st century context.”

    For the ladies, when it comes to opinions, I usually like yours better … preach on.

  145. Steve Wright says:

    You see no self respecting protestant believes the teacher is in authority
    But many of us to see the office as not just teacher but pastor-teacher, and that office certainly does have an authority, and that is why the issue is not women teaching but ordaining women as pastors.

    One of the best exegetical commentaries I own was written by a woman. I did not feel guilty or hypocritical from learning from her.

    Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

  146. Neo says:

    Xenia. Post 128…..oops!

  147. Babylon's Dread says:

    Xenia still assesses the world by looking out the window… that was standard Calvary Chapel futurist pessimism …. I think we are called to assess the world by the revelation of scripture. And I take it to be entirely hopeful and assuring. I expect the church to overcome the world not vice versa.

  148. Babylon's Dread says:

    In reality the I Tim. passage raises more questions than it settles.
    Authority is THE question and all other questions come after…

  149. Steve Wright says:

    Authority is THE question and all other questions come after…
    That’s a challenge when the word used is not used anywhere else in the New Testament.

    However, I stand as I said above, with thinking that Eve was mentioned for a reason and the rest of the verses do need to be looked at through that lens, and make more sense if they are.

  150. Michael says:

    “Frankly all that we generally conclude with airtightness is that is women cannot teach or hold ordained office unless it is clearly sub servant to men.”

    Frankly, that’s about as far as I would take the passage…but it does seem to be what the passage says.

    Your questions about authority are very, very good…and worthy of thought and discussion.

  151. Xenia says:

    Dread, I am far more pessimistic than Calvary Chapel. I am expecting to see the Antichrist.

  152. PP Vet says:

    “If you’re tired of picking up after your man, don’t worry, honey, there’s another woman out there who would be glad to do it.” Joyce Meyer

    “Stand by your man.” Tammy Wynette

    “I trust her cookin’, and she trusts my drivin'”. Me

  153. PP Vet says:

    Let me explain this whole women-in-authority thing to you bozos.

    1. If there is one principle that is clear, from cover-to-cover in the Big King Jimmy, it is that woman should not have authority over men. OT-NT-PT. If you deny that, you are a blithering idiot. Shut the }#^** up.

    2. If you cannot see that there are exceptions to that principle, right there on those thin opaque gilt-edged pages, you are a blind bigot. Take a nap.

    It is not complicated.

  154. PP Vet,
    It’s on the tip of my tongue but I can’t get it all into recall … who was that woman High Priest in the OT that we made the exception for??? Dang, it’s right their but I can’t get it.

  155. CrucifiED says:

    “But that is not scripture it is reason informing the text and making inferences that allow your position.”

    As an charismatic/evangelical before, I could use about 90% of the scriptures on baptism to explain the subject. When the scripture says baptism saves you, I either left it alone or had to explain how that fit my synergistic viewpoint on the subject.

    As a Lutheran I can use 100% of the texts on baptism and none of them offend my theology. I would have to say that it took more “reason” to support my old view than it does now.

    Also, this goes way deeper than a few verses on sacraments. I have a whole Bible of scriptural support for the subject as I study justification from the original protestant viewpoint.

    Of course reason plays a part as we reason through an entire theology of our justification in Christ, but whoever tried to throw this subject at MLD as a relatable point in a discussion about female pastors was throwing punches at the wind and is lacking in their understanding of the doctrines they are criticizing.

  156. PP Vet says:

    The Levite priesthood is not a full pattern for NT church practice, as you well know.

    Deborah, Huldah, Junia, and Priscilla are the plausible “exceptions”, and it is not crystal clear that any of them had specific formal organizational authority over men.

    Authority is organic, recognition is institutional.

    Revelation is the key to authority.

    Women get revelation.

    Peter said, Where can we go? You have the word.

    To more or less quote Bob Mumford: if we are camping, and you know where the Jeep is, you are the one we will follow.

    Women get revelation.

    I am always happy to serve under a woman who administers authority in the context of her own fully realized femininity, at church, at work, or elsewhere.

    Mannish women are a perversion.

    There is a fat broad in my town who is a lovely lady and a pretty decent pastor-teacher.

    Women get revelation.

    I don’t care who is in charge if I can have the presence of God.

    Heading off to hear a woman teach. I predict I will cry a lot, because her gifting reminds me of my girlfriend who died, tragically.

  157. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    Agree turn off the news and not get sucked, into the left/right wing hate. Just presch the gospel and you will be okay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading