Comments on: Shaming the head - 3 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/ This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled "Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?" This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women's ministry. Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:22:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Cheryl http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-791 Cheryl Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:18:03 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-791 "H" my friend, I had to chuckle with what you wrote. Yes, I have been told before by many that I am "special" but I never believed it because I am only "simple". It was always amazing to me that others didn't see the simplicity I saw until I pointed it out to them and then they got it (praise the Lord!) So while I was surprised that others didn't naturally see all the simple things that I saw, I shrugged it off as one of life's mysteries and perhaps that "common" sense must not always be as "common" as I supposed. So the chuckle I got, was that this "brilliant" woman had to look up the word obfuscation in dictionary.com. Ah, yes, I get your point! May I add that there are those who are "brilliant" in book knowledge but oh-so-muddled in their thinking ability to really understand beyond their traditional "security blanket" of male superiority (now called male "headship"). They seem to honestly be blinded regarding the transforming of the term "head" into "headship" (also known as taking authority over another human being to conform them to your own image) and how this takes away the ability for another human being to mature into the image of Christ that God has ordained for her to "grow up" into. When I read Grudem's books and I listen to CBMW's tapes and DVDs on all the things that I am not allowed to do merely because I am a woman, it saps my strength and I see rules and regulations that keep women as "children". I listen and read because I must see both sides in order to provide a proper defense, but I can only take so much at one time or I begin to feel like I am in prison, shackled and chained to the wall. There is nothing in their material that makes me see freedom in Christ for me to serve the body of Christ without forcing me to be prejudiced against men and that is so sad. I love my brothers in Christ and my gifts belong to them too. “H” my friend, I had to chuckle with what you wrote. Yes, I have been told before by many that I am “special” but I never believed it because I am only “simple”. It was always amazing to me that others didn’t see the simplicity I saw until I pointed it out to them and then they got it (praise the Lord!) So while I was surprised that others didn’t naturally see all the simple things that I saw, I shrugged it off as one of life’s mysteries and perhaps that “common” sense must not always be as “common” as I supposed. So the chuckle I got, was that this “brilliant” woman had to look up the word obfuscation in dictionary.com. Ah, yes, I get your point! May I add that there are those who are “brilliant” in book knowledge but oh-so-muddled in their thinking ability to really understand beyond their traditional “security blanket” of male superiority (now called male “headship”). They seem to honestly be blinded regarding the transforming of the term “head” into “headship” (also known as taking authority over another human being to conform them to your own image) and how this takes away the ability for another human being to mature into the image of Christ that God has ordained for her to “grow up” into.

When I read Grudem’s books and I listen to CBMW’s tapes and DVDs on all the things that I am not allowed to do merely because I am a woman, it saps my strength and I see rules and regulations that keep women as “children”. I listen and read because I must see both sides in order to provide a proper defense, but I can only take so much at one time or I begin to feel like I am in prison, shackled and chained to the wall. There is nothing in their material that makes me see freedom in Christ for me to serve the body of Christ without forcing me to be prejudiced against men and that is so sad. I love my brothers in Christ and my gifts belong to them too.

]]> By: hannibal.lecture http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-790 hannibal.lecture Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:38:41 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-790 Cheryl, One of the hallmarks of brilliance is the ability to simplify the complex which you have done admirably. So my previous post is not just kind words, but a genuine and honest assessment. There are many pretenders out here, those who rely on obfuscation, bamboozlement and fear, fear of going against the Bible (1 Timothy 2:12). This site of yours is a Godsend to many who struggle with this fear. And Justa Berean? Love your blog! Full of common sense, which is God-given too. Here's the link to Grudem's book "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" http://www.efbt100.com/evangelical_feminism.pdf It's rather lengthy and tries to argue that gender-based patriarchal hierarchy is mandated from the beginning. But as you've stated, when you search the scriptures, it just ain't there. Respectfully, H. Cheryl, One of the hallmarks of brilliance is the ability to simplify the complex which you have done admirably. So my previous post is not just kind words, but a genuine and honest assessment. There are many pretenders out here, those who rely on obfuscation, bamboozlement and fear, fear of going against the Bible (1 Timothy 2:12). This site of yours is a Godsend to many who struggle with this fear. And Justa Berean? Love your blog! Full of common sense, which is God-given too. Here’s the link to Grudem’s book “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” http://www.efbt100.com/evangelical_feminism.pdf
It’s rather lengthy and tries to argue that gender-based patriarchal hierarchy is mandated from the beginning. But as you’ve stated, when you search the scriptures, it just ain’t there.
Respectfully,
H.

]]> By: Justa Berean http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-789 Justa Berean Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:11:11 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-789 It is interesting that the gender hierarchalists arguments have been claiming origination of so much of their ideas in the Garden of Eden and creation. Problem is that when the studious go back and look for it, it is not there — just like the story of the king with no clothes parading through the streets and his loyal subjects telling him how beautiful his (absent) clothes are. And when those with their eyes open point out the absence, they then say we are arguing from silence. ??? Go figure. It is interesting that the gender hierarchalists arguments have been claiming origination of so much of their ideas in the Garden of Eden and creation. Problem is that when the studious go back and look for it, it is not there — just like the story of the king with no clothes parading through the streets and his loyal subjects telling him how beautiful his (absent) clothes are.

And when those with their eyes open point out the absence, they then say we are arguing from silence.

???

Go figure.

]]> By: Cheryl http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-788 Cheryl Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:32:13 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-788 "H", Your point is well taken. If we continue to lift scriptures from their context, then we are left with following a new "law" to the letter - are men lifting their hands in prayer as Paul "required" (1 Timothy 2:8)? Are women to be silenced completely in church not even saying "hello" or singing (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35)? My point continues to be that God has given us his commandments multiple times and in multiple ways so that we understand what his laws are so that we do not sin against him. If men are required to lift "holy" hands when they pray, then are they sinning if they don't lift those hands? This "command" is never repeated in scripture, just like the "command" for "a woman" to not teach "a man". We make a mockery of God's law by making universal rules that God has never sanctioned. We also imprison godly Christian women in a fear-induced set of man-made rules that force her to question whether doing her good works before God has become a sin merely by the presence of a man in the room. When I think about all the men that I have personally helped set free from the mind control of the Jehovah's Witnesses, I wonder if my good works would have been rendered useless if I had been forced to stand at the door of my home and turn away the men? There was no one else doing the work in my city and if the men were turned away, they would have not been reached. Is that what God wanted me to do? Where does the Bible ever command women to refuse to teach men? Would that make women sexist? The Bible never tells me to stop my ministry if a man walks in the room, and such a practice would only help Satan's kingdom not God's. I too believe that there are many brilliant women out there whom God is pleased to use in the church. I thank you for your kind words! I do not consider myself one of the brilliant ones. God has somehow gifted me with seeing the simple things that others have missed. I pray that God will continue to grant me tenacity to push forward no matter how I am treated. “H”,

Your point is well taken. If we continue to lift scriptures from their context, then we are left with following a new “law” to the letter - are men lifting their hands in prayer as Paul “required” (1 Timothy 2:8)? Are women to be silenced completely in church not even saying “hello” or singing (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35)?

My point continues to be that God has given us his commandments multiple times and in multiple ways so that we understand what his laws are so that we do not sin against him. If men are required to lift “holy” hands when they pray, then are they sinning if they don’t lift those hands? This “command” is never repeated in scripture, just like the “command” for “a woman” to not teach “a man”. We make a mockery of God’s law by making universal rules that God has never sanctioned. We also imprison godly Christian women in a fear-induced set of man-made rules that force her to question whether doing her good works before God has become a sin merely by the presence of a man in the room.

When I think about all the men that I have personally helped set free from the mind control of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I wonder if my good works would have been rendered useless if I had been forced to stand at the door of my home and turn away the men? There was no one else doing the work in my city and if the men were turned away, they would have not been reached. Is that what God wanted me to do? Where does the Bible ever command women to refuse to teach men? Would that make women sexist? The Bible never tells me to stop my ministry if a man walks in the room, and such a practice would only help Satan’s kingdom not God’s.

I too believe that there are many brilliant women out there whom God is pleased to use in the church. I thank you for your kind words! I do not consider myself one of the brilliant ones. God has somehow gifted me with seeing the simple things that others have missed. I pray that God will continue to grant me tenacity to push forward no matter how I am treated.

]]> By: hannibal.lecture http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-787 hannibal.lecture Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:42:29 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-787 Cheryl, You have nothing whatsoever to "repent" of with regards to teaching from the Bible. There will always be men who feel they cannot learn anything from a "woman". They will always feel threatened that their patriarchal manhood and power are at an end. And that's what this controversy is really all about; power and control. Yours is the same struggle fought by Luther centuries ago, except this time it's not the holy see in Rome, it's the ecclesiastical protestant hierarchy. My how history repeats itself! As I've stated before, if the Pauline letters are to be taken as a new "Mosaic" code which must be followed to the letter, then we're all in trouble. But if not, the church will be made richer by the contributions of brilliant and Godly women such as yourself. Respectfully, H. Cheryl, You have nothing whatsoever to “repent” of with regards to teaching from the Bible. There will always be men who feel they cannot learn anything from a “woman”. They will always feel threatened that their patriarchal manhood and power are at an end. And that’s what this controversy is really all about;
power and control. Yours is the same struggle fought by Luther centuries ago, except this time it’s not the holy see in Rome, it’s the ecclesiastical protestant hierarchy. My how history repeats itself! As I’ve stated before, if the Pauline letters are to be taken as a new “Mosaic” code which must be followed to the letter, then we’re all in trouble. But if not, the church will be made richer by the contributions of brilliant and Godly women such as yourself.
Respectfully,
H.

]]> By: Cheryl http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-782 Cheryl Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:09:14 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-782 <p>Lin,</p> <p>I think I have the answer for you. Tonight I was watching a DVD that I had purchased from CBMW. It was a talk by Russell Moore and the DVD isn't dated which year it was done. In the Q & A section Russell is asked about why Christian women don't wear head coverings. He gave the answer that the covering of the head shows that one is in submission. However, he said that in our culture the headcovering no longer signifies that women are in submission to their husband so we have a new sign. Women are to have a visible sign that they are coming under the authority of their husband and that sign is the taking of his name. </p> <p>The problem that Mr. Moore has in his answer is that there is nothing in historical sources that show that the head covering was a sign of submission. John Lightfoot in his commentary said that the head covering was a sign of modesty and a sign of shame but there is no evidence at all that it was a sign of submission. So Mr. Moore has his work cut out for him to try to prove that the head covering symbolized submission. I would like to see his evidence.</p> <p>The second problem that he has is that CBMW says that this sign of authority (the head covering) is a sign from the creation of man and woman and if this is the case, then they have no legal reason for changing it merely because culture has changed. Do we change God's ways merely because the world changes their ways? No, I don't think so. Also Moore has a problem because the woman's taking of the man's name symbolizes that the two are now one not that the husband has authority over the woman. I guess this is the way they try to explain away the everlasting sign of the head covering, but I for one don't buy it. Where in history do we find the head covering being explained that we can now do away with it because God has given us a new sign? How can we as humans change God's everlasting sign? We really can't no matter how Russell Moore tries to explain away God's "sign". It is only when we really understand what the head covering symbolized in the culture of the time of the New Testament (and it was never a sign of submission) can we truly understand why Christian women no longer wear the head covering. Paul's words are very freeing for women and these words have been misunderstood for centuries.</p> Lin,

I think I have the answer for you. Tonight I was watching a DVD that I had purchased from CBMW. It was a talk by Russell Moore and the DVD isn’t dated which year it was done. In the Q & A section Russell is asked about why Christian women don’t wear head coverings. He gave the answer that the covering of the head shows that one is in submission. However, he said that in our culture the headcovering no longer signifies that women are in submission to their husband so we have a new sign. Women are to have a visible sign that they are coming under the authority of their husband and that sign is the taking of his name.

The problem that Mr. Moore has in his answer is that there is nothing in historical sources that show that the head covering was a sign of submission. John Lightfoot in his commentary said that the head covering was a sign of modesty and a sign of shame but there is no evidence at all that it was a sign of submission. So Mr. Moore has his work cut out for him to try to prove that the head covering symbolized submission. I would like to see his evidence.

The second problem that he has is that CBMW says that this sign of authority (the head covering) is a sign from the creation of man and woman and if this is the case, then they have no legal reason for changing it merely because culture has changed. Do we change God’s ways merely because the world changes their ways? No, I don’t think so. Also Moore has a problem because the woman’s taking of the man’s name symbolizes that the two are now one not that the husband has authority over the woman. I guess this is the way they try to explain away the everlasting sign of the head covering, but I for one don’t buy it. Where in history do we find the head covering being explained that we can now do away with it because God has given us a new sign? How can we as humans change God’s everlasting sign? We really can’t no matter how Russell Moore tries to explain away God’s “sign”. It is only when we really understand what the head covering symbolized in the culture of the time of the New Testament (and it was never a sign of submission) can we truly understand why Christian women no longer wear the head covering. Paul’s words are very freeing for women and these words have been misunderstood for centuries.

]]> By: Justa Berean http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-779 Justa Berean Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:12:43 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-779 One out they have given themselves is that the woman is to do whatever the husband says. If he says he doesn't want wife to veil, then she is off the hook. Thus, there is evidence that the husband interprets Scripture for the wife. Since the husband is the authority in the marriage he is responsible if he's wrong. She is off the hook because she obeyed. Course, they seldom if ever consider the Scripture about Annanias and Sapphira, which blows some of their teaching about male responsibility out of the water. Actually, it also crashes their teachings about Adam as responsible because he's the male. Ultimately, this is not complementary teaching, it is patriarchal or gender hierarchy. As one man just pointed out to me, complementary is a gentle term that is used by gender hierarchalists to cover up a much harsher agenda. One out they have given themselves is that the woman is to do whatever the husband says. If he says he doesn’t want wife to veil, then she is off the hook. Thus, there is evidence that the husband interprets Scripture for the wife. Since the husband is the authority in the marriage he is responsible if he’s wrong. She is off the hook because she obeyed.

Course, they seldom if ever consider the Scripture about Annanias and Sapphira, which blows some of their teaching about male responsibility out of the water. Actually, it also crashes their teachings about Adam as responsible because he’s the male.

Ultimately, this is not complementary teaching, it is patriarchal or gender hierarchy. As one man just pointed out to me, complementary is a gentle term that is used by gender hierarchalists to cover up a much harsher agenda.

]]> By: Lin http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-778 Lin Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:47:21 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-778 I have to go to the obvious for an explanation on this verse. If the complimentarians are correct, why aren't the women who hold that view covering right now in church? This has never made sense to me. Does anyone know what their explanation is for that? I have to go to the obvious for an explanation on this verse. If the complimentarians are correct, why aren’t the women who hold that view covering right now in church?

This has never made sense to me. Does anyone know what their explanation is for that?

]]> By: Cheryl http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-774 Cheryl Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:51:58 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-774 Justa Berean, You can hear the audio at my post below. Audio #6 is the quote where Moore says that egalitarians are shaking their fists in the face of authority and it is a spiritual warfare issue and lives are at stake (therefore we must repent) and the gospel is at stake (therefore we must believe the complementarian gospel). http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/03/24/should-cbmw-fight-egalitarians/ Justa Berean,

You can hear the audio at my post below. Audio #6 is the quote where Moore says that egalitarians are shaking their fists in the face of authority and it is a spiritual warfare issue and lives are at stake (therefore we must repent) and the gospel is at stake (therefore we must believe the complementarian gospel).
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/03/24/should-cbmw-fight-egalitarians/

]]> By: Justa Berean http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-773 Justa Berean Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:40:03 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/#comment-773 Well done Cheryl. Now I will have to go back and slowly analyze that section again. Is this something new about Grudem and Moore that they are calling women who teach Scripture publically, to repent of sin? Can someone point me to where they say this? Well done Cheryl. Now I will have to go back and slowly analyze that section again.

Is this something new about Grudem and Moore that they are calling women who teach Scripture publically, to repent of sin? Can someone point me to where they say this?

]]>