The husband as king over the wife

The husband as king over the wife

In part two of this discussion we asked whether God has ordained that a woman must have a priest in the home to represent her to God and God to her. Today we continue our discussion about whether a husband is to have the position of king over his wife in their marriage. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) supports the claim that the husband is to be king over his wife and this view is taught in an on-line book on their web site. The book is called “Building Strong Families” by Dennis Rainey (Dennis is on CBMW’s board of reference) and we are focusing on chapter 4 of this book called “The Husband as Prophet, Priest and King” this chapter authored by Bob Lepine.

Mr. Lepine admits that the teaching about the husband as King has been abused by many well-meaning Bible teachers. Because of this he says that we need to “proceed with caution”. Although a king is thought to be someone who wields power and enjoys privilege and position, Lepine says that the husband needs to go beyond that to be the kind of kingly husband his wife ultimately wants and needs him to be. Lepine then focuses on the king as a warrior and a representative of “his wife and his family in the culture”.

I personally found this part of the chapter to be the most alarming. This patriarchal teaching about the husband as “representative” of his wife and family is lived out by a group called Vision Forum and their leader Doug Phillips. Taking the husband as “representative” teaching to a position of “law”, Doug Phillips teaches that “God does not allow women to vote”. Quoting from Mr. Phillips:

“In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.”

So if the husband is “federal head” then he makes all the decisions and she is forbidden by God to vote. Do you see the problem here? This type of “federal head” concept of the husband as King and representative of the family taken to its logical conclusion makes the husband’s rule in his family virtually unchallenged by anyone. Who then can decide if the husband is being unkind to his wife?

Going back to chapter 4 of “Building Strong Families” Lepine suggests that there will be attacks on the husband’s way of leadership from all kinds of directions. He says that “(attacks) will come from friends and coworkers who, thinking themselves to be wise, have become as fools (Rom. 1:22)” Under the heading Know your enemy Lepine also identifies the wife as someone who will attack the man’s leadership. He says:

There will also be attacks from your closest ally, your wife. While her spirit will welcome the leadership, protection, and provision of a wise king, her flesh will war against her spirit and will seek to thwart your authority. Over time, there will be showdowns as you wrestle with whether to compromise and gain her approval or to stand fast and face her wrath. There will be times when you’ll have to decide whether to serve her or to serve God.”

The advice then is for the husband to stand against his wife. When a wife doesn’t want her husband to vote for her as her “representative” and she doesn’t want his leadership, the husband is to take control of his kingdom and stand up to her anger. He is to lead whether she wants him to take control or not.

Is this really what scripture says? Does the Bible ever tell a husband to take control of his wife or to have a showdown with her wrestling her to force her to a place of submission?

The Bible never once instructs the husband to “lead” his wife. The Bible also never once tells him that he is to be her king or her priest or her prophet. The position of her King is already taken. Jesus is her King and her High Priest and her Prophet. The husband is never granted a place to usurp Jesus’ role. The husband’s role in the marriage is to take the initiative to bond with his wife so that they can have a one-flesh union. In Genesis we find Adam identifying his wife as flesh of his flesh.

Gen 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

In Genesis 2:24, the Bible says “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” For what reason? The reason is because she was taken out of him and he is to initiate a joining of himself with her to be that one flesh union again.

When a husband loves his wife and treats her tenderly and with affection and he sacrifices himself for her, a woman will respond willingly to that kind of love. That is why a husband is not to take authority over her but he is instead to love her and this will bring her willingness to submit to his love.

Right now I am hard at work on our new DVD on the Trinity but when I get a chance to do another post, I would like to respond to some of the questions that were posted on my original 2006 blog article about the husband as priest of the home. There were questions about the wife obeying the husband that I didn’t get to at the time so it should be interesting.

145 thoughts on “The husband as king over the wife

  1. Personally I think it is very silly for a complementarian wife to have the right to vote. She is required to vote for whoever her husband tells her to vote for so that man gets two votes and his wife gets none. This way complementarian men get twice as many votes as egalitarian or single men. In fact, I think that a wife who vows to obey her husband in the marriage ceremony should sign a paper forfeiting her voting rights as long as she remains married. That would make women think twice about vowing to obey.

  2. Sue,
    I have never thought of it that way….that complementarian men get two votes. That sounds like one of those things that makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmm……..

  3. Cheyrl,

    My wife has a simple question for people who misquote the scriptures by saying “the two shall become one.” She simply asks “which one?”

    Of course the scriptures say “become one flesh” which is far different. Any interpersonal relationship where one is required to give over control of mind, [thoughts] will, [choices] or emotions [feelings] is more cultic than it is Christian. [Think Jim Jones.]

  4. Cheryl,

    Forgive the typo…and especially in a “name.” That’s almost “unforgivable” but I do plead early in the morning and quicker mind than fingers fingers. 🙂

  5. “a group called Vision Forum and their leader Doug Phillips”

    The most alarming thing about Doug Phillips and others like him is that there are still people who actually think he is a voice for God and is promoting “God’s will.” I have counseled dozens of women who have been subjected to horrible abuse by their husbands and fathers all in the name of “submission.”

    The Lord can and does heal the wounds, but many carry the “scars of reminder” for the remainder of their lives.

  6. Pastor Darlene,
    Thank you for affirming the hurtful “fruit” of this doctrine by your own experience with those who have been the victims of this teaching. I have heard many horror stories myself and it makes me cringe when I hear how much control is willingly given by those who have been convinced that this is God’s way.

  7. “My wife has a simple question for people who misquote the scriptures by saying “the two shall become one.” She simply asks “which one?” ”

    I have not stopped chuckling over this one!

  8. The church has already fallen a great distance when it can read “husband as prophet, priest, king” and not bat an eye. This is just horrible.

    The progression (really, regression) I’m seeing in so-called complementarianism is the same as any other subversive group in history: allow them to voice their opinion, accept their beliefs as optional, their beliefs become dominant, and finally their beliefs become law. They started with “servant leadership” and are now into “king”; what used to be “complementary” is now “unilateral”; in place of “joyful submission” we have “obedience as to God”.

    Of course, they see us as the subversives, since history has been on their side. Never mind that it was never God’s will, it’s all about domination over half the human race. Man does want to be prophet, priest, and king— and then God.

  9. Hi David,
    I am doing a Matthew 18 work with Matt. On the audio show that you linked to above Matt is not responding well to correction. I have the audio files from December where Matt bore false witness against me on his radio program. My Pastor emailed Matt today as a witness to the false testimony and calling Matt to publicly repent of what he said, and all that Matt did on today’s Faith and Reason show (incidentally it is the audio link that you gave above), was continue to berate me as a heretic and claim that he has not slandered me. I had hoped that he would be humble enough to be willing to be corrected but as you can hear, he is not. He is just so angry with women bible teachers who teach the bible with authority and I appear to be his main target for his anger and frustration. The next step will be bringing in more witnesses who can call him to account. I am not sure yet who it is that he might respect. Any thoughts? I have all the audio clips to prove his false testimony about me and I have sent them to Matt too so he knows why he is being called to account. I am hoping that Matt will be willing to repent publicly in the same forum that he slandered my good name.

  10. I really doubt he’d listen, even to someone he’d respect, and he’d never respect anyone who would disagree with his misogyny.

    I’m slowly learning to let God fight for my honor, while I fight for his. If people won’t listen to God now, they surely will at the judgment, and their “reward” will be sealed by then. Slick is proud of his genetics, his “ministry”, his following, his position. Pride goes before a fall, and that will happen in God’s timing.

  11. “…he’d never respect anyone who would disagree with his misogyny.”

    Paula, truer words were never spoken.

    Cheryl, I think at some point you just shake the dust off your feet and just move on. I don’t mean move on from your teaching. I just mean move on and keep teaching what you’re teaching and don’t worry about Matt.

    Of course, this is from the guy who brought it up! But i didnt realize all the things you posted in #12. if it were me, I would focus more energy in more fertile soil.

  12. I should have added that Mt. 18 is difficult to follow in cyberspace. This whole thing is already in front of “the whole congregation”, and what happens if he refuses to listen? Who will “throw him out”? The wolves are guarding the sheep so to speak, and they would sooner throw us out.

    This same refusal to listen and hostility toward dissenters is seen in people like Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, and many others. Apostate leaders in “churchianity” will be the true believers’ worst enemy during the coming Tribulation, as they were from about the 5th century through the Reformation.

  13. David,

    “Cheryl, I think at some point you just shake the dust off your feet and just move on. “

    Great words of wisdom….but until that point I have a need to be biblical and to confront my brother’s sin against me. So here is where we are at…I have the documented evidence that on Matt’s Dec 12, 2007 radio show that he slandered me by accusing me of a specific heresy which is unfounded and untrue. I also have the documented evidence from our second debate that he was told at that time that I didn’t believe what he was trying to accuse me of.

    My Pastor has listened to all the audio tapes and he wrote a letter to Matt to confirm that Matt has misrepresented my beliefs and this is a slander that needs to be repented of.

    In the meantime God has worked this out for good. What Matt meant for evil, God meant for good, praise the name of the Lord Jesus! Yesterday I was contacted by the radio station that hosts Matt’s radio program. Here in Canada there is a requirement that if you slander someone publicly they get equal time to present their case and rebut the slander. Matt has been speaking against me publicly since September when we had our radio debate. So here is what the radio station has agreed to do – they are giving me free air time for 4 consecutive weeks in February where they are going to play the audio of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVDs. The DVDs are 3.5 hours of teaching verse by verse on all the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue. So while Matt is desperately trying to stop women in ministry, his very actions have brought about a public playing of the DVDs that he considers “dangerous” to the church. Matt hates my DVDs so much that he had all reference to the DVDs removed from the audio that he posted on his web site from the second debate I had with him in September. But God is good! He knows how to frustrate the plans of those who try to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”.

    So for those of you who don’t have a copy of my DVD, you will be able to hear it on the “My family radio” station 790 KSPD Boise Idaho. http://www.myfamilyradio.com/cms/index.php I will let you know the exact times and day when I get that information.

  14. Cheryl,
    Guys like Matt Slick do not repent of anything.
    They are like the Talmudic Rabbis who know, and can pronounce on any question that might arise from scripture, right down to the last cumin and anise seed. The likelihood is high that in addition to thanking God that he is pre-destined to watch unregenerate wretches like me burn in hell, he probably thanks Him that he wasn’t born a woman too.

  15. [quote]Matt has been speaking against me publicly since September when we had our radio debate. So here is what the radio station has agreed to do – they are giving me free air time for 4 consecutive weeks in February where they are going to play the audio of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVDs. The DVDs are 3.5 hours of teaching verse by verse on all the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue. So while Matt is desperately trying to stop women in ministry, his very actions have brought about a public playing of the DVDs that he considers “dangerous” to the church. Matt hates my DVDs so much that he had all reference to the DVDs removed from the audio that he posted on his web site from the second debate I had with him in September. But God is good! He knows how to frustrate the plans of those who try to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”.[/quote]

    I’m speechlees………………………:):):)

  16. Cheryl, did the station say what time they will air your DVD program? I am wondering if they will pre-empt Matt’s own program to do so, or air your rebuttal at another time.

  17. Light,
    I wasn’t told yet what time it will air. The thought was that it would be on the weekend either sometime before or after Matt’s show. When they finalize the time, I am supposed to get an email back so I will post it on this blog when I know. I do not think that they will take Matt’s time but they are providing me with my own free time. I hope they advertise so that everyone knows about it. Perhaps someone who posts on Matt’s blog can let people know that there is going to be a rebuttal in the form of the airing of the DVD set. I do not think that Matt knows about this yet so he should be (pleasantly??) surprised. I haven’t told him.

    Thanks for asking!

  18. Just as I was answering this, I noticed an email come through from the radio station. They are asking for some audio promotion from me as they want to promote the DVDs ahead of time to get more listeners. Praise the Lord!

  19. Cheryl, that is encouraging news. I just said a prayer for your audio promotion, that it will reach the right ears!

  20. Cheryl:
    The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) supports the claim that the husband is to be king over his wife and this view is taught in an on-line book on their web site. >>>>>

    Cheryl, have you invited the CBMW folks to your blog to clarify what they really believe? You are grossly misrepresenting the complementarian position, especially as presented by the CBMW. It would be only fair to invite a representative of that organization equal time on your blog to present their views, right?

    That would only be fair.

  21. Donna,
    I have tried to get CBMW to dialog for 2 years ever since I gave them a preview copy of my DVD. They are unwilling to dialog.

    As far as the quote about the husband as king, the chapter speaks for itself. The quotes were taken from the chapter on the husband being the prophet, priest and king. CBMW gives this on-line book prominence on their web site and I have seen no note of caution that this very strong view of the husband’s authority over the wife is not appropriate. The author of the book is on CBMW’s board of reference. Perhaps if you would like to argue with Mr. Lepine who wrote the chapter or Mr. Rainey who included it in his book, you can take it up with them.

  22. Let’s not bring the “misrepresentation” charge here. I’ve seen it done elsewhere and no matter how much clear evidence is presented by us, they still make the claim. In order to back up the claim, they’d have to cite wording from the document in question which indicates it, rather than simply assert it.

    Another issue is when they (I refer to pro-CBMW people who cite misrepresentation) say for example, “Yes, that document says the husband has authority over his wife, but this document says he has to be godly and kind”. The problem there is that the quality of rule isn’t the issue, but the fact of rule. If CBMW says the man rules over the woman, qualifying the character of such rule does not make it better. In fact, when pressed to answer whether a husband who does not rule kindly is still in charge, they have either been silent or evasive. If CBWM were not teaching male rule, they’d need no such disclaimers anyway.

    I’ve seen attempts to have “dialog” with CBMW supporters, and so far they have failed. The CBWMs insist upon equal representation in egalitarian venues, but never allow such fairness in their own. They insist on having control of the vocabulary and topics of the discussion, making restrictions on egals, but do not permit such restrictions on themselves. This is exactly in keeping with the teaching that men have no restrictions in the church or home, but feel qualified to define such restrictions for women, even though the Bible never gives them that right.

    I say we need more egal-only venues, or the word won’t get out.

  23. Paula,
    Yes, you are right in that I have seen this kind of thing before. It is easy to claim misrepresentation and then fail to show how that misrepresentation has been done. The first thing I did notice was that Donna gave no example of where I misrepresented the material I was quoting from. The fact is that I have given the link to the actual chapter of the book in question and I encourage people to go and read the material for themselves. If CBMW would like us to believe that the book greatly misrepresents their position, then perhaps they would want to take the offending material off their site instead of promoting a book written by one of their own and giving it prominence on their site. I am sure that Donna could lobby CBMW to remove the book and then I could adjust this article to read “a book that CBMW formerly endorsed on their site”.

  24. In addition, I always find it interesting that the proponents of male dominance want equal time to explain and qualify their beliefs but refuse to give such to those who oppose their stance.

  25. Egalitarianism is so simple: everybody “esteem[s] others as better than yourself”, serve means serve, and equal means equal. But male supremacism has to have disclaimers to explain what limits a “king” has, where the line is between a boy and a man, and Pharisaical nonsense like whether a woman giving directions to a man is “authoritative”. That’s why there is no consensus on it, and why people keep claiming “misrepresentation”, and why egals are always having to deal with “well, that’s not what I personally believe so I don’t have to defend that teaching”.

    If the Bible’s statements clearly supported male rule, then there’d be no room for so many variations in male-centric theology, or any need to figure out what to do with men who are abusive, especially when it is their own theology that is often cited as giving men this right. Of course they issue disclaimers about men needing to be kind, but they never can agree among themselves on the definition of abuse, or whether a truly subservient wife has the right to complain. There are too many stories of pastors telling abused women to just take it joyfully, even to the point of death, and using standard CBMW-type theology to justify it.

    Yes, we can indeed lay much blame for such things on CBMW. They give legitimacy to male supremacy, and people trust them. Their teachings have consequences, including the silencing of women’s spiritual gifts and the turning of many from the gospel because it is alleged that God created all women as the inferiors of all men. Jesus said that Sodom and Gomorrah would stand up in the last days and condemn towns that had rejected him, and I believe the world will likewise stand up and condemn the silencing and suppression of women as taught by CBMW.

  26. To esteem others better than yourself, would be a true complementary belief. I think a more accurate term to describe a belief of male dominance could be “male supremist” or “hierarchalist” .

  27. But the comps have males not esteeming females as better than themselves. And yes, I prefer the terms “male supremacist”, “hierarchialist” (no spelling of which the dictionary says is right!), or “subordinationist”.

  28. …. and “subjugationist”. Thanks Paula, I should have looked those words up in the dictionary before typing.

  29. Matt’s hatred has backfired and his radio show program is now showing your DVD!! I LOVE it! AAAughh! (sorry, is that vindictive of me? :P)

  30. Jennifer,
    I agree but I certainly don’t think it is vindictive. God has a way of turning evil into something that is good. I am still waiting to hear back from the radio station when the date has been chosen for the airing, but I am confident that God will get the glory and what was meant for evil will be used for God’s glory. Praise the Lord!

  31. Hello Cheryl,

    You hang in there and God will indeed lead you by His Holy Spirit. Be strong and don’t worry to much, God will give you the right words to speak in that very hour. Take care

  32. It’s a shame that there are so many lonely and bitter people in this place. So much deception here! I am deeply sorry that so many of you have been hurt so badly. You cannot find the answer to your confusion through evangelical feminism. The answer is in Jesus, and in Him alone. Don’t forsake basic, Biblical Chistianity for the lies of the enemy. Don’t be weakwilled women …. and men.

    Blessings!

    HPK

  33. Happy Promise Keeper,

    Your judgment call is very unkind. These are the words of someone who is not offering refreshing water, but bitter water.

    The answer is in Jesus not in patriarchy. Those who are strong will follow him and him alone. This is what is taught here. The doctrine of Jesus and the freedom he gives instead of the doctrines of men.

    Perhaps you can have a look around the blog and read a little more than just one post.

  34. Hi, Cheryl. Thank you for your response. Actually, the misunderstanding and misapplication of the complementarian belief is what is unkind here. Egalitarianism is not taught nor was it modeled in Scripture. It takes an extreme twisting of the Word to buy into the egalitarian belief.

    Here is an example of that extremism, as quoted by Paula …..

    “Yes, we can indeed lay much blame for such things on CBMW. They give legitimacy to male supremacy, and people trust them. Their teachings have consequences, including the silencing of women’s spiritual gifts and the turning of many from the gospel because it is alleged that God created all women as the inferiors of all men. Jesus said that Sodom and Gomorrah would stand up in the last days and condemn towns that had rejected him, and I believe the world will likewise stand up and condemn the silencing and suppression of women as taught by CBMW.”

    I challenge any of you here to quote anything from CBMW to prove that women are being somehow “suppressed” and “the turning away of many from the gospel” is caused by CBMW. Please use Scripture to support your opinion, or in the interest of honesty, just come right out and say that your opinion is just that ….. an opinion. Please be aware that I am fully prepared to respond to any argument that sets itself up against the Word of God, though. I will not allow anyone to manipulate the Word to accomodate the agenda here. I do this in Christ’s love.

  35. Happy Promise Keeper,

    Just type in CBMW on this blog and see where their teachings have been refuted. Also see my youtube video clips where CBMW teaching is refuted http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=%22cheryl+schatz%22&aq=f

    Bruce Ware says that women are not created in the direct image of God but are an indirect image. There is so much unbiblical stuff that it isn’t even possible to begin to post here. Just look through this blog. I will be going through CBMW’s book on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on many of my future posts as well so you are welcome to stick around and comment. Just be respectful knowing that we are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Once you have looked through the arguments that I present on my blog, you are welcome to show me where I have “manipulated the Word of God”. CBMW requested a copy of my DVD set in 2006 and they were unable and unwilling to refute it. If you think you are able, then you are welcome to do so.

    It is a godly thing to break down arguments that come against the knowledge of God and the Word of God. This is what we do on this blog regarding patriarchal teaching.

    Blessings,
    Cheryl

  36. “Egalitarianism is not taught nor was it modeled in Scripture. It takes an extreme twisting of the Word to buy into the egalitarian belief”

    LOL Sure it isn’t. Actually, the complimentarian view of constant human hierarcy is what’s biased and not taught. Are you aware that those who force either women or men to step under another person almost always lower Christ in order to do so? Wayne Grudem is wicked enough to not only lower Christ, but claim that when God acts as helper to us, He is acting subordinate! Are you aware that Bruce Ware claims that unsubmissive wives invite abuse and that we should not even pray to Jesus? That’s what these people are like: obsessed with authority. Ware happily preaches about how it’s Godly to practice heavy authority over others, completely unaware that this is NOT what God’s Word says. Christ clearly says that raising up princes among us is not His plan; fellowship is. Christian authority comes from sharing God’s Word, not trying to build human hierarchy over others. The word pastor is rarely used anywhere at all in the Bible; instead, “preaching” is exhorted quite often, with no limits on gender whatsoever. As for husband being king over the wife, I rather fear you have no problem with that disgusting doctrine either. Your challenge here, all blustery and indignant, is rather amusing. I’m happy you decided to stick around. Become learned in what is truly God’s Word.

  37. “CBMW requested a copy of my DVD set in 2006 and they were unable and unwilling to refute it”

    Really? OMG, Cheryl, that is AWESOME! They didn’t even try, but I guess that’s fairly common. It shows their agenda.

    There are some mighty good people in CBMW, like John Piper and Susan Hunt. But others, like Grudem and especially Ware, are just so unBiblical it’s tragic.

  38. Yes, I believe it does show their agenda. Since they did not refute the exegesis in the DVDs they had to pay for them. The set they requested were agreed to be received free for review purposes. At least they were honest enough to pay for them in the end.

  39. Perhaps I should not have said that it shows a bad agenda on their part, when they couldn’t refute the DVD. It may have just been honesty: they knew they were beaten. But if they know that, how can they keep up this repression?

  40. I have no idea what they are doing. They will not engage. The last email I got from them said it would be the last email I got. I think it is a head in the sand way of dealing with things. If they do not publicly acknowledge the arguments, they don’t have to give any kind of refutation. I was very surprised at this attitude.

  41. I guess their attitude is simply this: ignore the truth and keep spreading the patrio nonsense. Immerse ourselves in our great masculinity. If we just don’t answer the woman who knows more than us, she’ll go away. Sorry dearies, she won’t.

  42. Jennifer,
    I’m an egalitarian but I dont think I would call Wayne Grudem wicked. I think he is a fine man of God and an excellent theologian. I just disagree with him on this view.

    dm

  43. davidbmc,

    The pictures are automatically randomly generated for anyone who doesn’t already have a gravatar account with their own uploaded picture or graphic. Just count yourself lucky it didn’t assign you a pink smile 🙂

    If you would like to change this, just go to http://en.gravatar.com/ and sign up to load your own picture or funny graphic and your angry face will be replaced with whatever you put up there.

  44. David, I called Grudem wicked for his deliberate lowering of God, not because of complimentarianism. I have actually tried to give him the benefit of the doubt repeatedly, but neither his motives nor his scholarship are good. He is not a fine man of God at all, regardless of whether he is generally wicked, and a theologian is the last thing in the world he resembles. I also know that Ware, who is truly corrupt, fine-tuned his unbiblical agenda while under Grudem’s tutelage.

  45. ‘I challenge any of you here to quote anything from CBMW to prove that women are being somehow “suppressed” and “the turning away of many from the gospel” is caused by CBMW.’

    I’ll hit you up on one, someone else can take two.

    Women are suppressed when they are taught that thier kind is not given the role to teach doctrine in the church. Humans gifted by God can do that, but not women we are told by CBMW leaders and followers and they base this belief on a biased interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

  46. So far, all I have seen is opinion and conjecture ….. along with the usual character assasinations which point to desperation. No Scripture, which is very telling. Some of you see it as a kind of “defeat” for CBMW to not respond to Cheryl’s DVD’s in exactly the way she demanded of them. Sorry, but an organization as large as CBMW simply does not have the time or resources to respond to every inquiry. Their ministry is very broad, as compared to sites such as this with only one basic thrust. If you check their site thoroughly, you will see many refutations offered to many different people who have questioned them or written articles promoting feminist theology. I wouldn’t take it as a slight that CBMW didn’t act exactly the way some here would have desired. Can you imagine the way they must be flooded with inquiries from feminist theologians/egalitarians??? How can they possibly respond to them all? Simply put, they can’t. No one with such a far reaching ministry could ….. and it is unrealistic and perhaps a bit prideful to expect them to drop everything and automatically respond to every single inquiry. Do you think the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association responds to every contact? Any large ministry? I would think not, as common sense would dictate. Your answers lie in simply reading at CBMW as they refute the egalitarian error.

    Pinklight, God created men and women equal in value and personhood but different as far as the roles in church and home. This is modeled throughout the Scriptures. The ONLY times we see women elevated to authoritarian roles over men in Scripture was when men abdicated their God-given roles and judgement fell. This was mainly in the Old Testament. It was considered a dishonor for women to assume roles they were not designed for and usually we see those women TAKING the role instead of being APPOINTED to the role. It is the same today.

    If women were to simply humble themselves and follow what they CAN do in Scripture, they would have no time to assume roles they CANNOT assume through the Word. Really, I see this issue as more of a failing of men than I do any “divine” raising up of women. When men fail or abdicate, women must necessarily rise up. What we are seeing in today’s church are too many males but not enough men.

  47. The Bible shows a clear difference between giftedness and authorization. Spiritual giftedness in a Christian woman does not confer upon her authority to lead and teach men, with the only caveat being when men abdicate and then women step up and lead out of necessity. We see this principle shown in the OT but the Apostle Paul laid the clear foundation for it in the Pauline Epistles. Jesus also never permitted women to usurp the authority of His disciples. I have seen some egalitarians go so far as to denigrate Paul’s teachings and blaspheme the Word by claiming that Paul “did not have the same authority or annointing that Jesus had and therefore his words cannot be considered divine or as pertinent as Jesus’s”. This is in clear violation of even the most basic Biblical foundations.

    2 Tim. 3:14-17
    14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Paul’s testimony says, “For I would have you know that the gospel which was preached by me, is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). This is an emphatic statement which insists that Paul’s message is completely divine in nature. He received it as a direct revelation from Christ, not as a tradition handed down from the past.

    If we say that we believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, then we must also accept the authority of those whom He sent. We must accept and believe the entire New Testament as our final rule of faith and practice, or else we call in question the authority of the apostles and even the authority of our Lord Jesus. We can’t have it both ways. We must conclude that Paul’s teachings were every bit as authoritative as those of Jesus, as well as the other founding FATHERS of the faith.

  48. Please show me where Jesus appointed any female Disciples.
    Please show me where a female was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot.
    Please show me where a female was permitted to be an Apostle. (Note: If you try and use Junias I can easily refute it).

  49. Happy Promise Keeper,

    You said:

    Some of you see it as a kind of “defeat” for CBMW to not respond to Cheryl’s DVD’s in exactly the way she demanded of them. Sorry, but an organization as large as CBMW simply does not have the time or resources to respond to every inquiry.

    You apparently fail to understand. CBMW gave me permission to use quotes from their material and they knew that I would be refuting them. They requested a review copy so that they could provide a review of the refutation. They received their free copy but were unable to provide a refutation so I asked for the DVDs back. Instead they paid me for them so they were no longer “review” DVDs. This has nothing to do with just emails. It has to do with a refutation of their view that they were aware of and a review copy that they asked for.

    I will get to the rest of your comments later.

  50. Happt Promise Keeper,

    ‘I challenge any of you here to quote anything from CBMW to prove that women are being somehow “suppressed” and “the turning away of many from the gospel” is caused by CBMW.’

    The above is what I responded to. I did not have to provide a quote because we all know that CBMW holds the belief that women are not to teach men in the church. I claimed that women are suppressed under this teaching. I contrasted being human with being a woman, since to teach would be a human function, something that a woman could do. Then I gave reason for why this belief is held by CBMW and followers being a biased interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

    Now IF the belief that women are not to teach men in church is false, then we can conclude that women have been held back not because of the truth of scripture, but because of false teaching and under false teaching they have been suppressed from something that God never prohibited them from doing.

    So how do we know if it is a false teaching? Well, it’s NOT possible for anyone to be able to PROVE that Paul stopped all women from teaching in 1 Tim 2. How can 1/2 the church body JUSTIFIABLY be held back from doing something that cannot even be proven to be true from scripture through Paul? What we have is definately OPPRESSION since it is belief that people use to hold back women and not scriptural FACT. This is not opinion. This is the way it is. It is a fact that no one can prove that Paul stopped more than 1 woman from teaching in 1 Tim 2.

    So let me make sure that I understand you correctly. You think that women should be held back from teaching men in the church when you yourself cannot even prove that Paul prohibited them from doing so? If this is true then you are the one with opinion, and you are the one who needs to justify the oppression of women.

  51. Hmm. Happy keeper, all I’ve seen is condescension bordering on snideness and Scripture abuse. You seriously believe that women are restricted from preaching God’s Holy Word because of their gender?? What’s hilarious to me is that comps can never agree why, or even how much women are limited: some claim they’re only limited from teaching men the Bible in church. Others believe women can’t teach men about God anywhere, while still others believe that women may NEVER teach men ANYTHING. It’s almost humorous, really, as is your defense of the CBMW, and especially your comparison of it to Billy Graham’s group. I’m sorry, hon, there’s NO comparison between the two in size, giftedness, humility, purpose, popularity, or importance. I also noticed that wile you called my observations of Ware and Grudem character assinations. you didn’t contradict them. You can’t contradict direct quotes.

    “If women were to simply humble themselves and follow what they CAN do in Scripture, they would have no time to assume roles they CANNOT assume through the Word.”

    THAT is just pathetic. If only women would humble themselves and keep their mouths shut, the comps whine, the churches (i.e., men) would be SO much happier. The note of desperation in comps is always to tell men that they’re being emasculated and victimized if the women don’t shut up. You people never see the harm to womanhood of putting a gag order on women, yet wail until your faces are blue if men don’t have supremacy in EVERYTHING. You said we haven’t used Scripture? It is in Scripture that Christ said it was not good to raise princes among ourselves. It was in Scripture that the word “preach” is used more than the word “pastor”, which comps have tried to wield into a position of spiritual king. It was in Scripture that God spoke of Adam and Eve as being equal, of one flesh, made to rule the world. It is NOT accurate or Scriptural to say that women are equal, yet try to limit them in the spreading of God’s Word in ANY way. It is in Scripture that God warned Eve she’d prefer her husband over God, and that he would sinfully rule her. Some comps say this was a command to Eve, which is cute, in a disgusting sort of way. Firstly, even most comps try to claim that they don’t believe men should rule over their wives. And secondly, it was clearly not a command, but a warning. If it was a command, God would have said “Eve, desire your husband” or “Adam, rule over her”, but indeed, God’s prediction came true: we have “godly” men trying to rule women and women seeking more to please these men by shutting up than God, by speaking up and serving Him. If you understood that a pastor in a church is meant to be one of many shepherds, instead of spiritual king of the flock, perhaps you wouldn’t be so frightened of emasculating men by taking such “holy hierarchy” away from them.

    ” I have seen some egalitarians go so far as to denigrate Paul’s teachings and blaspheme the Word by claiming that Paul “did not have the same authority or annointing that Jesus had and therefore his words cannot be considered divine or as pertinent as Jesus’s”. ”

    Oh my, you’re not used to REALLY scholarly egals, are you? Welcome to the eagle’s nest. And btw, if you think THAT’S bad, the lowering of Paul’s authority, how about the lowering of Christ’s authority? You know, what Wayne Grudem did? I didn’t see you getting into a huff over that. Seems to me just another comp who doesn’t have their priorities quite right.

  52. Jesus had many female disciples, Mary and Martha are examples.

    The 12 mapped to the 12 Patriarchs, so there needed to be 12 and they needed to be men. When James died it is not recorded that he was replaced and I think the 12 were unique.

    Junia was an apostle. It is only by denying the claims of some ECF AND denying the primary meaning of the Greek that non-egals claim the verse does not teach what it does. This verse by itself destroys the non-egal church leaders claim, so they have to find a way to deny it or repent.

  53. “Please show me where Jesus appointed any female Disciples.
    Please show me where a female was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot.”

    LOL That’s the biggets laugh of all. We’re supposed to believe in complimentarianism if we can’t prove that were any female disciples? Who the devil cares whether there were or not? There weren’t any Gentile disciples either, does that mean only Jews can be priests?

  54. Once again, no Scripture and mere conjecture and opinion and emotions. This is what I usually run into on these feminist theologian/egalitarian sites. I had hoped this one would have been better ….. so far I am very disappointed. I will be shaking the dust off my feet very quickly here if you can’t do better.

    Cheryl, unfortunately for you ….. CBMW owes you no further contacts. The same pertains to any of us here, including me. I wouldn’t feel badly at all if I submitted something to CBMW without a response. It’s the nature of the media beast, Cheryl, to rarely get a response to an inquiry …… especially from such a broad (pardon the pun, no harm intended!) ministry with so many facets. Have you thought that perhaps they know they would be wasting their time responding to one with such a narrow agenda? Why should they waste valuable staff time and assets to respond to just one person? They have no obligation to you, sister.

    Don, nice try but you have offered a weak response to my questions. You simply must face the fact that had Jesus wanted ANY females in positions of church authority ….. and with the large number of females within His circle to choose from …. He surely would have appointed at least one of them as a Church Father. He did not. Nor did He offer ANY teachings whatsoever that would have permitted it. He also didn’t model the appointing of females to church authority. Nor did Paul. Nor did Peter. Nor did Timothy. Nor did any of the founding FATHERS of the faith. It simply isn’t in the Word, brother. Nada! Conversely, the preponderance of Scripture conclusively proves that females were not in positions of church or family authority over men ….. again, the only caveat being some OT references where men abdicated and women were permitted some ministrations of leadership. The NT has no references to female authority in this regard. It DOES contain numerous references prohibiting it!

    Your comment about Junias …… which is the most accurate translation …. not the feminine Junia …. simply can’t hold water. Here is a balanced look at the Junia issue ……… http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/A-Female-Apostle

    There is wide disagreement among even the most noted theologians as to whether or not this person was a Junia or a Junias. That fact alone should give us just cause to NOT use this person as an approval of female authority in the church or family. It’s not that we throw it out. We can’t, because it is inspired Scripture. However, we should NEVER base a complete doctrinal/theological stance upon only one obscure verse. If we do so, we open ourselves up to error ….. as the fems and egals have done ….. and we close ourselves up to the full counsel of the Word. We deny what in theological circles is know as “The Principle of the Preponderance of Scripture”. The Bible taken as a whole entity. So, we must then take this Junia issue and apply The Principle to it.

    This, then, takes us back to my original three questions ….. which no one here except for Don has attempted to tackle ….. and he did it in error.

    Please show me where Jesus appointed any female Disciples.
    Please show me where a female was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot.
    Please show me where a female was permitted to be an Apostle.

  55. Sorry, I made a boo-boo. Junia is the most logical translation of the name, taking into account The Principle of the Preponderance of Scripture. The feminine Junias is, IMO, the wrong application.

  56. Mary sat at Jesus’ feet, which is rabbinic idiom for being a disciple. There were many others.

    A male replaced Judas. This was a one-time event. The 12 were all male to map to the 12 patriarchs of Israel, so there needed to be 12 and they needed to be male.

    Women were not taught Torah by rabbis other than Jesus. One needs to learn before one can teach and Jesus’ ministry was around 3.5 years. Jesus was radically egal for his 3.5 years of ministry.

    I agree that one does not base doctrine on one verse. The primary meaning of the Greek is that Junia was an apostle and so say the ECF who commented on this verse. So the male hierarchicalists have to read against the primary meaning and against the testimony of the ECF.

    Phoebe was a diakonos and a prostatis. Many churches met in the homes of women, where the home owner would be the assumed leader in that culture and so not need to be stated, unless it was different.

  57. Junia is the most logical translation of the name, taking into account The Principle of the Preponderance of Scripture. The feminine Junias is, IMO, the wrong application.

    I assume that you mean that Junias is the most logical translation. This is the masculine form. Or do you mean Junia, feminine?

    David Jones cites Origen and Epiphanius as evidence for Junias. However, we know that the masculine Junias appeared in one 12th century manuscript of a Latin translation of Origen and Epiphanius thought that Priscilla was a man also.

    Not that it matters to me, but I dislike the implication that citations like this are useful.

  58. Jennifer …… to sue your own term of endearment …… Hi, Hon!!!!

    No, you are mischaracterizing me when you broadly state, “You seriously believe that women are restricted from preaching God’s Holy Word because of their gender??”

    No, Jennifer, I will simply share with you what the whole context of the Word states that women can do …. and SHOULD be doing ….. instead of seeking to usurp male authority in church and family. It is my contention that if our ladies would focus on the things they CAN and SHOULD do, they simply wouldn’t have time to fixate on things they CAN’T do.

    I Tim. 2:11-15

    11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But womenwill be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

    I Tim. 5: 9-16
    9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
    11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
    16If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

    Titus 1:5-9

    5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

    Titus 2:3-5

    3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

    Jennifer, please show me how a woman can possibly qualify as an elder/bishop/overseer/pastor??? You can’t, at least without a faulty exegesis of the Bible. We know from The Principle that women may not teach men in the church or home nor have authority over men in the church and home.

    Other than these two categories — that is, (1) teaching the man and (2) having authority over the man — the New Testament reveals an extensive record of godly women ministering in a wide variety of spiritual gifts, ministries, and activities, for example —

    • Prayer ministries of many kinds

    • Prophecy, and by association, other gifts of the Spirit

    • Older women teaching younger women

    • Financial support of ministries

    • Service ministries

    • Help ministries

    • “Working very hard in the Lord”

    • Witnessing

    • Good works

    • Helping the poor

    • Hospitality

    • Assisting her husband in sharing the Lord and His truths with people

    • Being “mothers” to many in the church

    • Being loving, godly wives

    • Raising their children in the Christian faith

    • Teaching other children, for example, in Sunday School

    • Testifying

    • Specific applications of these many opportunities actually open the door to an almost limitless variety of specific ministry activities for women, consistent with the Scriptural principles shared in this study.

    Again, I ask the question. If women would spend their time doing what they CAN and SHOULD be doing, how could they possibly have the time to invest in things they CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be doing???

  59. Happy Promise Keeper,

    This blog is filled with material on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which is the only scripture in the bible that even could be taken to “suggest” that women are not to teach men. I simply do not have time to restate things that have already been stated here very clearly. I suggest that you move off of this one post and look up the answers for yourself instead of just saying that the scriptures have not been answered. It really does not look good for you otherwise. It makes it look like you are only interested in throwing grenades and leaving without a consideration for truth or the answers that have been provided. I greatly value dialog and respectful attitudes towards fellow Christians. Those who do not respect fellow Christians and who are not interested in a position other than their own that is set in stone and not up for testing should probably just stay in their own “role” and not try to educate. Others who truly do love the body of Christ, even those who do not believe as we do, will always be welcomed here with open arms. I would recommend that you read the page at the top called “Disclaimer” to understand the rules and either respect this space and this community or find a place where you can be respectful and loving.

    As far as CBMW I never claimed that I was just anyone who emailed this group. I have clearly presented the truth that CBMW participated with me in agreeing to quotes taken from their literature and they participated in requesting a “review” copy of my DVD. If they weren’t interested in refuting a well thought-out argument that refuted their arguments from a position of respect and love, then they should not have agreed to a review copy of the DVD. Agreeing to review the DVD and then refusing to do so does not come across as honest or respectful. Since you have danced around the facts, it is clear that you are not open to dialog just as they are not open to dialog with me.

    Jesus is the one with the authority and if he decides to have a special group of 12 male apostles, that is perfectly fine with me. He also distributes the gifts and if he distributes the gift of pastor to a woman, that is just fine with me. Take it up with Him.

  60. “I will simply share with you what the whole context of the Word states that women can do …. and SHOULD be doing ….. instead of seeking to usurp male authority in church and family”

    Lord, how pathetic. There it is again: it’s all about male authority. Men don’t HAVE authority over women and there is NO human hierarchy in the church!! You can’t grasp this, can you? Males MUST have authority and that’s what you prefer to believe in, instead of people sharing equally in fellowship. This doctrine really is pitiful and obsessed with authority. Maybe if men concentrated more on God being the only Priest and King and treated their sisters with respect, they wouldn’t have time to listen to Satan tickle their ears with promises of power and fill their hearts with greedy lust for hierarchy?

    I noticed you ignored all my other points, perhaps because you couldn’t refute them? Once again, the ridiculous claim that we haven’t used Scripture. Once again: It is in Scripture that Christ said it was not good to raise princes among ourselves. It was in Scripture that the word “preach” is used more than the word “pastor”, which comps have tried to wield into a position of spiritual king. It was in Scripture that God spoke of Adam and Eve as being equal, of one flesh, made to rule the world. It is NOT accurate or Scriptural to say that women are equal, yet try to limit them in the spreading of God’s Word in ANY way. It is in Scripture that God warned Eve she’d prefer her husband over God, and that he would sinfully rule her. Are you having trouble finding these verses, Happy? Can you not comprehend that there are at least six other threads on this site discussing Timothy? Scroll up the page and look on the right, to “Categories”. They’re all right there, nice and simple. It would give me great satisfaction to see you try and tackle them, rather than threatening to run away like a pompous child.

  61. I simply don’t have time to hop and skip from one Forum on Timothy to the other. Badgering me to do so won’t cut it. Cheryl, you are incorrectly assuming I haven’t investigated your agenda. I have, as my time has permitted. You are in error, sister. I do believe you are well meaning. I do believe you have a seeking heart. I also must be direct and tell you there is deception in your teaching. I’m not going to use my valuable time to go through your teachings and nitpick them to death. I don’t have to ….. and I won’t be goaded into it. You seem to think you are somehow “owed” a response from CBMW on your terms and within your timeframe. They owe you nothing. You were blessed to have some correspondence from them to begin with, Cheryl. I would advise you to let the issue die and let go of your resentment. Turn it over to the Lord and let it go.

  62. HPK,

    Just because you choose to read the Bible in a male preference hierarchy way does not mean that is the best way to read it, actually reading personal advantages into the Bible is one of the worst ways.

  63. Happy Promise Keeper,

    Cheryl, you are incorrectly assuming I haven’t investigated your agenda.

    I am not assuming anything. I can see where you have been. This is why I made the comment.

    You are in error, sister. I do believe you are well meaning. I do believe you have a seeking heart. I also must be direct and tell you there is deception in your teaching. I’m not going to use my valuable time to go through your teachings and nitpick them to death.

    When I tell someone their belief is in error, I lovingly take the time to show them where their belief is wrong. Take my latest post for example.

    You may think that your “valuable” time is more valuable than mine. That is your opinion and you have the right to it. I would suggest then that you stick to forums where you can show people you have a Christlike love instead of saying there is deception and then refusing to give specifics on the posts where I teach such so-called “deception”.

    You also will not be given permission to judge my heart. I have no resentment and your attacks are unwarranted, unfair, unkind and not Christ-like. Again, go where you can show a Christ-like love and if you find no such place, then perhaps you might want to check your own heart. I think this is very wise advise.

  64. Phoebe is a very obscure Bible character, mentioned only once in Romans 16:1-2. Even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders / bishops / deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders / bishops / deacons.

    If you purport to raise up Phoebe as some example of a teacher over men, Scripture simply doesn’t support it. Egals try vainly to elevate certain female Bible characters to positions they never had. Junia/Junias and Phoebe are prime examples.

    God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching men or having spiritual authority over them. This logically would include women serving as pastors / preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with how God has gifted them.

  65. How about you try one Timothy Forum, then? Or are you just here to blow steam and a lot of bluff? Nah, couldn’t be that.

    Your presumptions about Cheryl and her situation with the CBMW are remarkably ignorant. They are the ones blessed to have any dealings with her, not the other way around. They wanted to refute her teachings, they failed, and now so have you.

    “I simply don’t have time to hop and skip from one Forum on Timothy to the other”

    But you think she has time to repeat every refuting statement she’s ever made for your convenience? It seems that you’ve parked your butt here and expect us to respond in YOUR timeframe and your terms.

    “I’m not going to use my valuable time to go through your teachings and nitpick them to death”

    Nah, you’ll just use our valuable time to try and blow crud down our throats while threatening to dismantle our beliefs- and never actually doing so. Thank you for the empty condescension; you comp fellas really do think you’re bigger than your britches. And a little friendly note: the only resentment here has been yours. You blustered your way here, peered down your eyeglass at us, and threatened to prove us wrong. Cheryl has been polite; you haven’t. She’s been gentle in her honesty; you’ve been arrogant. I suggest you take the sock out of your pants, the cotton out of your ears, and try dealing with matters like a real man, actually LISTENING to the other side. I don’t mind people coming here and disagreeing, but I do mind arrogance and I do mind empty threats. Don’t bother wasting our time by threatening to fuss over and nitpick our beliefs if you have no intention of actually doing so.

  66. I guess Deborah and Huldah and roasting in hell, then, for daring to teach men. So will my poor pastor’s wife for leading our Bible study.

  67. HPK,

    Again you show your ignorance of what I teach. If you refuse to actually read what I have written and instead want to refute what you think my position is, then you are a very unwise person who speaks before he hears. In the years that I have had this blog, I have only mentioned Phoebe once. Check out the search feature on this blog. My argument is from the hard passages of scripture. If you want to argue about Phoebe, perhaps you might want to go to a blog that posts on Phoebe.

    I will be restricting your ability to post here if you will not actually read what I have written and respond to my arguments. There are plenty of other places that allow those who refuse to address the actual arguments.

  68. Cheryl, my refutation of the Phoebe argument was directed towards Don. He opened the door, I simply responded. Your point should be made to your brother Don, not me. Something tells me you won’t be lowering the hammer on him, though …….

  69. The context of Phoebe being a diakonos is exactly church. A diakonos is to be a “mias gunaikos andres” or faithful spouse, so this shows a woman can be an elder also.

  70. HPK is using a flawed translation that neglects to properly translate some terms as they would have been understood in the 1st century. The solution is for him to get a better translation.

  71. HPK,

    You are in my “space”. You do not have the right to come here and be disrespectful to me. You have the complete right to refute my teachings if you so wish. I welcome that. But you will not be allowed to judge my motives nor do you have the right to call my teaching deception without showing me what is deceptive and where my error is.

    Since you appear to be one who is not respectful of the authority that I have on my own blog, I have you on permanent moderation. If you choose to read what I have written and you would like to refute my material, go ahead. This blog is for discussion of the hard passages of scripture regarding the women’s issue. It is for discussion on my material of my DVDs. I also allow respectful dialog on the area of women in ministry to those who are willing to show Christian love and respect for fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The fact that I have not completely blocked you from responding is grace in action.

    Go ahead and read my blog. Respond to what I have presented as my view and refute it if you are able. Enjoy!

  72. Apparently HPK has decided not to take me up on my offer as he believes the “Holy Spirit” has told him not to visit this site again. While I cannot judge his motives as I cannot see his heart, the actions are consistent with what CBMW has done.

    I trust that the community here will understand that correcting error in a respectful and loving way is what we are called to do as Christians for our own Christian brothers and sisters in Christ who are being misled. We will continue to do that here on this blog, God willing. It would have been nice to see the same attitude coming from our brother in Christ instead of throwing grenades and running away. This is the very thing that I want to protect this community from because it isn’t the way of the Master.

  73. Interesting exchange, there 🙂

    I imagine your blog is scary for people like HPK, Cheryl. Threatens their “status quo”. If he really paid attention to what you are teaching, he might find out that the Bible doesn’t REALLY justify him being king over his wife. Little does he know that “the TRUTH shall set you FREE” and “he who loses his life will FIND IT”.

  74. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words.

    I pulled this quote out of one of HPK’s posts. I was looking for the fruit that followed from this poster since this is what he believed must come through men alone. Unfortunately the posts that I didn’t allow through from this poster were not a good example of such spiritual leadership. Mocking name calling is not appropriate.

    Scripture gives us the standard:

    2 Timothy 2:23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
    2 Timothy 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
    2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
    2 Timothy 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

    I trust the Holy Spirit will work on his heart so that he eventually will meet the standard that God sets.

  75. Huh. Another cowardly comp runs out. Honestly, that line about the Holy Spirit is especially funny. I couldn’t believe his arrogance! Men like that practically need to wear spiritual protective sports cups when they talk to those who don’t buy their “men rule” schlock.

  76. I’ve read alot of comments on this post and I will just say this:

    The Holy Spirit is always telling me to come to this site and learn and He has me check out everything and the Teachings by Cheryl are the Truth….according to Gods word and how he has laid it out! It’s not adding or taking away from the text but letting the Text and the Bible as a whole speak for itself. Going back to the Org. Language it was written in, helps. Also prayer and the Spirit is first and formost!

    That rude comment about “Just drop it”. No/Nay, the truth needs to come out once and for all, error needs to be dealt with! The Holy Spirit is working harder then every these days and doesn’t take a day off or sweep it under the rug!

    Just sweep it under the rug that’s what people would like. Well the 1950’s are over and the false images of “family life” need to be replaced with the real ones. Which is Biblical equality that’s what God wants! I have to ask then how are we different from the Pagans and the way they do things. The pagans want Hiarch., Just was all for Biblical Equality, Jesus said in the book of Matt:

    Matthew 20:25-28 (New King James Version)
    25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.
    26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.
    27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—
    28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

  77. Michael,

    Amen! The issue of hierarchy is one that Jesus dealt with and his words that show what the attitude is to be as leaders is key. Leadership is servanthood with care, love and compassion. Those who are looking for a position of ruling over others are following the way of the world not the Way of the Master.

  78. #62 Happy Promise Keeper said:

    The Bible shows a clear difference between giftedness and authorization. Spiritual giftedness in a Christian woman does not confer upon her authority to lead and teach men, with the only caveat being when men abdicate and then women step up and lead out of necessity.

    While this is stated very confidently, there is no such scripture that restricts women regarding the Holy Spirit’s “authorization” to use the gifts he gives. 1 Peter 4 gives authorization for all who have received a gift to use it in service without restriction.

    1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
    1 Peter 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

    Paul also concurs in 1 Corinthians 14 that all are allowed to prophesy so that all may learn. There is no restriction on women’s prophesying or the use of their gifts. It is also a contradiction to say that women are not allowed to lead or teach unless men abdicate their “role”. If women are not allowed to teach in the assembly, then men’s failure to do what they are told could not possibility remove the restrictions on a woman. The fact is that God gives gifts to those who are then responsible to use their gifts for the common good. Those who withhold the use of their gifts for the benefit of the body will be judged for that. Our mandate is to serve the body with all the gifts and ability that God has given us. When we listen to men who speak contrary to the word of God, we are not following God by faith, but following mere men.

    he only caveat being when men abdicate and then women step up and lead out of necessity. We see this principle shown in the OT but the Apostle Paul laid the clear foundation for it in the Pauline Epistles.

    There is nothing in the OT scriptures that says that God called women because men abdicated their “roles”. This is something that has to be read into scripture because it is not there.

    Jesus also never permitted women to usurp the authority of His disciples.

    This is just plain silly. Where was there an “authority” given to all of Jesus’ men disciples that women tried to “usurp” and Jesus did not permit them? Jesus made it clear that his followers were on an equal plain and none of them was to lord it over the others.

    I have seen some egalitarians go so far as to denigrate Paul’s teachings and blaspheme the Word by claiming that Paul “did not have the same authority or annointing that Jesus had and therefore his words cannot be considered divine or as pertinent as Jesus’s”. This is in clear violation of even the most basic Biblical foundations.

    This sounds blasphemous to me. Paul certainly wrote the words of God and what he wrote is completely inspired. However Paul did not have the “same authority” that Jesus had because Paul was not the Son of God. What Happy Promise Keeper here has written is one of the most unbelievable things for a Christian to write making Paul in the same category with the same authority as the Creator of the Universe. This is very bad theology.

    Paul’s testimony says, “For I would have you know that the gospel which was preached by me, is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). This is an emphatic statement which insists that Paul’s message is completely divine in nature. He received it as a direct revelation from Christ, not as a tradition handed down from the past.

    It is once again apparently that Happy Promise Keeper has not read the material in this blog. I have consistently taught that Paul’s words written in scripture are God-breathed and the gospel that Paul wrote was certainly a direct revelation from Christ. It is the complementarians themselves who are guilty of ignoring God’s word through Paul as they ignore 1 Timothy 2:15 as fully inspired, given as the complete end to the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12. Those who choose to ignore verse 15 will continue to be confused by verse 12.

    If we say that we believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, then we must also accept the authority of those whom He sent. We must accept and believe the entire New Testament as our final rule of faith and practice, or else we call in question the authority of the apostles and even the authority of our Lord Jesus. We can’t have it both ways. We must conclude that Paul’s teachings were every bit as authoritative as those of Jesus, as well as the other founding FATHERS of the faith.

    All scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching and reproof and for godly living. The problem with complementarians is that they so often take one scripture out of its inspired context and this causes them to distort the precious words of scripture. No one here that I know of is denying that Paul’s words are scripture. To say otherwise is to misrepresent our view. This is very common, sad to say because so many complementarians have a prejudiced view against their brothers and sisters in Christ, that their eyes and ears are blinded to hear and see what we truly believe. It is easier to distort what we believe than to really find out the truth.

    Since Happy Promise Keeper has now determined that “the Holy Spirit” has called him away from reading on this blog, then one must wonder if what he believes is the Holy Spirit’s prompting is not just his own fleshly desires. The Holy Spirit is never guilty of distorting the truth or misrepresenting the beliefs of the body of Christ. Those who practice such things should not claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them in this direction. It would be much more honest to admit that they are not interested in learning and judging others without a solid foundation to do that is a work of the flesh.

  79. The Scriptures, not just the NT, are what is sufficient for our faith and practice. There is a lot in the NT that needs OT context to understand. And there are some things that are simply not stated in the NT as they are taught in the OT and therefore assumed by the NT author.

    Jesus was the living Word of God, Paul was inspired by God when he wrote what would become Scripture.

  80. Cheryl, I think the following link and the long comment thread it spawned will settle any possible questions about what HPK was doing here, and why:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CCC-Forum/message/28460

    He was dishonest from his very first comment here on your blog, and his own words reveal what is in his heart…as do the words of the like-minded people on the CCC-forum show them for who and what they are.

    How sad it is to see such self-deception that they’re willing to call lies the truth, and truth lies!

  81. Mary,

    Thanks for the head’s up! I am not surprised at all that HPK would say this:

    Kamilla, thank you for the heads up. Trust me, I’ve dealt with this type of witch before. She is now “moderating” my every comment so I’m sure I will be shown the door. I’ll go down fighting for the truth. If I can just save that one lost sheep …..

    Since I asked for proof of the deceptions he claimed were on my blog, he no longer wants to post here saying that the “Holy Spirit” is guiding him away. His language on the link you posted reveals why I put his comments on moderation. It is my desire to honor the Lord Jesus here and not give a platform to those who want to mock their brothers and sisters in Christ. Such a shame when this attitude comes out and it is attached to the name of the Lord. If I were a comp, I would be fully ashamed of the language and gossip from that discussion board in the link you gave.

    And by the way HPK was not “shown the door”. I asked him to read the material on my site before he made general accusations that he could not substantiate. The CCC discussion board is very much like the CARM discussion boards – the abusive way that comp Christians talk to other Christians is tolerated and encouraged. Very sad indeed.

  82. I visited that link, Mary, and I just about had a heart attack now. That’s how hard I was struggling with rage and hate in my heart, … That disgusting little boy and his thumb-sucking friends were practically roasting in their self-righteousness and slander of Cheryl and the others here. One of the silly children actually called HPK “Daniel in the lioness’s den”! That man …called Cheryl a witch! I’m not sure I’ve ever felt this kind of anger before; …. And Kamilla Ludwig, … erected by the Bayly brothers on their hateful blog, was saying awful things and lies too. These people are disgusting, … and I have never, ever seen such a cesspit of self-congratulation and verbal group-gratification before, not even when I mistakenly visited a blog of patrio-centric wife-spankers.

    You wouldn’t believe how restrained my comments are here; I was ready to let forth a string of unGodly curses that would make even these demons blush down to their soiled white robes. They’ve erected a …means of authority and reverence, and they call our beliefs the pit of hell? I hope God’s more merciful to them than He was to the Israelites with their idolatry and self-worship.

    Praise God, my heart is calm now.
    (edited by Cheryl)

  83. Okay, I’m blushing. I’m a pastor’s kid and I didn’t even use slang when I was a kid…didn’t even know what a “zit” was until I was married.

    I know your mad. But it is okay. Don’t be mad at them for me. We are fighting a common enemy, but they have been deceived to think that they will win or look good by taking a strip of off us (or me!) This is persecution in its raw form. I practice not responding in kind because it only gives them the justification to practice this bad fruit. People need to see the fruit that they are displaying and God-willing people will see that the attitude here is much different. Yes, there is a lot of hurt that needs to come out, but God will help many to hurt here and share their hurt without having to lash out the way these very bad examples of comps do. Believe it or not there are some decent complementarians out there who do not act this way and comps are not our enemy.

    I think the best thing to do is pull the blinders back on what these folks do and then show the world that we are not like them. They will know us by our love.

    Love and hugs,
    Cheryl

  84. Notice also the tired old tactic of commenting on a long-dormant entry with drive-by language (that is, accusatory, defamatory, statements with no substantiation). I’ve seen that sort of behavior time and again from patriarchalists toward those whose blogs uphold biblical equality. The patriarchalists can’t refute the truth they find on such blogs, so instead they resort to ad hominem attacks on the bloggers and commenters, focused on older entries that apparently push some equality/egalitarian-despising button or other. Perhaps they think that their false accusations will not get noticed right away, so they can crow to their fellow anti-biblical equality friends that the egals have no answer for them. (If that was “Happy” Promise Keeper’s motivation, you foiled him neatly, Cheryl.)

    But whatever the reason for such blatantly false and unchristlike behavior, it’s definitely one of the plays in the playbook. Kind of like complaining bitterly when one’s terrible behavior in private is made public, eh?

  85. Mary, absolutely! The worst thing for a drive-by player is to have the curtain pulled back on their bad behavior. Those who delight in doing bad things love the darkness.

    John 3:20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

  86. “Believe it or not there are some decent complementarians out there who do not act this way and comps are not our enemy”

    I know, though I sure was ready to forget that a few minutes ago. If I really offended you, please forgive me; I would never have used those words if they hadn’t showed their monstrous spirits first; I hope, in that sense, I wasn’t at their level. Come to think of it, I don’t think they’re true complimentarians, even; they’re not even true Christians. Believe me, what I wanted to say was far, far worse, though; at least I used metaphors (oh all right, slangs)

    For the record, I adore John Piper, Martha Peace, Nancy Leigh Demoss, Lori Wick, Michael and Debi Pearl (two of the BEST comps in the whole wide world), and even John MacArthur in his better days. I also like Stacy Mcdonald, when she’s on good behavior. But these folks..ugh. I’m amazed HPK even considers himself on the same planes as some of the finer folk in the CBMW. They’re just children, errant children.

  87. As a learning experience for all, I would like to copy from a blog that Happy Promise Keeper was “happy” to also dive bomb. Notice the common words about “God led” him to leave the post? The following is from http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/an-abuser-takes-aim-at-this-blog/ Unfortunately this attitude is not uncommon amongst hierarchists. They have little respect for boundaries and they use the “leading” of God as a spiritual leverage to do whatever dirty work they would like. This is the fruit of hierarchy.

    Since this commenter has persisted in an astonishingly pernicious “bombing” of this blog, I have decided to point out his example to readers. If you use the search bar and type in “Happy Promise Keeper” you can see all the comments posted by this reader, except for a couple which I deleted following his defiance of my wishes.

    After attempting to engage politely with this writer for several days, and after his insistence on continual disrespect, I told him he was no longer welcome here and to stop posting comments. In amusing irony, he then decided that “God led” him to leave this blog. Really? “God” led him away? After I told him not to post?

    Just this statement alone should raise all kinds of red flags. He might as well have directly stated, “well, I won’t leave because you said so even though this is your blog, only because God said so, because I have no respect for you even though you are the owner of this blog.”

    Well, after a break from “Happy” thoughts, he returned today. Since he decided to defy my stated wishes, I think his comments are worthy of making an example. Here is our exchange:

    Happy Promise Keeper:

    Hi, Danni. I am led of the Lord to come back here for a time. I would like to comment on this that you said …..

    “Domestic abuse is exactly the same spirit as sexual adultery, but even more egregious because it includes the element of a murderous spirit. ”

    Please share with me how you arrive at this conclusion, of course aside from simple opinion. I simply cannot see this point born out in Scripture. The Scripture is VERY clear that one CAN divorce for adultery and even remarry. But, with the vague definitions of “domestic abuse” we see these days, I am concerned that we are allowing too much liberty to divorce unless and until EACH case of alleged domestic abuse is proven. If we broaden Scripturally-allowed divorces to include the mere allegations of this “domestic abuse” then we are doing a disservice to marriage.

    Agree or disagree?

    Danni:

    You were not led of the Lord to come back here in direct violation of my request for you to refrain. That expresses a tremendous lack of understanding of Biblical authority and reveals your personal fundamental disrespect for women.

    How would it be possible for “the Lord” to lead you back here when the owner of this blog specifically told you not to post again? On this blog I have the authority to say who can post and who cannot. You have been very specifically told not to post but you say “the Lord” led you to disobey the authority on this blog? That is categorically impossible. So you need to check what “Lord” you are obeying – it is not the God of the Bible.

    Your behavior is that of an abuser. YOU are openly expressing – and leaving a visible public record of – your own heart. Your choices are revealing some very vivid errors:

    1) You are insisting on your will over what has been clearly expressed by another – which is abusive. This is the same heart of a man who will insist on his will over his wife’s because he does not believe his wife has any authority over anything – not even her own thoughts, beliefs, opinions, or ideas. If you will do this to a stranger on a public forum – you will do it to your wife and any other woman. I will go so far as to say with complete assurance that, since you cannot refrain from such behavior with a stranger in a public forum, this is a pattern of behavior that characterizes you in all your relationships with women.

    2) You are using spiritual manipulation by saying “the Lord” directed you. The Lord will never direct someone to violate the will of another where that other person’s will is of equal, or greater, weight in the situation. The only way you can justify this is if you fundamentally believe your will is superior to mine and you have some inherent right to supercede and dominate mine – in blogland, where you have no authority; on my blog, where I have all of the administrative authority. This means your words that “the Lord” directed you are a lie and manipulative. If you are not aware that you are lying and being manipulative you need to get on your face with God in some serious repentance. That is a fact – which I’m quite sure you will reject.

    3) We have previous addressed your insistence that I justify my writing to you – even on this thread. This is bullying, and again, forcing your will in dominance over me. I will not justify one word to you. I attempted to engage in dialogue with you and you amply demonstrated that you will not receive anything I say. So there is no point. “Answer not a fool according to his folly…”

    4) Your choice to come back here and attempt to pick up where you left off is also typical abuser behavior. Abusers frequently make the rounds back where they have been before and previously attempted or succeeded in abuse, to see if they can pull the string again. Is there still a sucker attached to this one? You just did something so extremely stereotypical of an abuser, I am amazed.

    You have some personal choices to make. You can receive the truth that I have just told you, or you can reject it. But one choice you do not have is to engage me in conversation on my blog about what I have written. This is not because I cannot defend what I believe. It is because I refuse to attempt to engage with an abuser. I have deleted your other comment. I will only leave comments by you because they continue to reveal your abusive heart attitudes – since they then stand as a living testimonial for others to see your example. Other similar comments from you will receive a similar response from me.

  88. That Danni is one of heck of a cool woman, and I told her so. She handled that silly child with responsibility and discipline, just what he needs.

    You know, I think one of the reasons I was so unbearably furious was that I expected more from those people. They spoke, bogusly, of egals being like nailing Jello to a wall, which is of course JUST LIKE THEM. As someone on Danni’s blog pointed out, this is the sin of “deflection”. I should have realized that HPK was obviously a verbal abuser, and others on his blog were probably all like him and Kamilla: childish and petty with a history of bullying. Usually, once I realize someone with offensive comments has a history like that, I get over my outraged shock, shrug and say “Oh, they’re one of THEM; no wonder.” My instincts will have to be faster in the future.

  89. Jennifer,

    Good thoughts! Understanding the mindset that these people have allows the arrows to be deflected so that they bounce off you. As one very wise man said a long time ago “I don’t let them rent space in my head.” There will be no space available in my head for those who practice abuse. They are just not worth the time or effort. I am so glad that you found Danni’s blog helpful. We can always learn from a wise woman. 😉

  90. Jennifer,

    If I really offended you, please forgive me;

    I was just hoping that I wasn’t offending you by editing your post. No you haven’t offended me. I just needed to edit the post because I am way too soft hearted to let the words attract others who could come here and get really messy. And I really do want to honor Jesus in this blog even if there is dishonor coming from nasty comps.

    I’d give you a big hug if we were close by. 🙂

  91. Thanks 🙂 Indeed, Danni is quite smart, and thank you for her link. I’m just astounded at how you, her, and some of my older egal friends speak the truth so calmly, even when they’re castigating an abuser. How do they do it??? I guess you more or less just answered that. One of the things that Michael Pearl said is, more or less, “never get angry. Just state the facts, and no one can defeat you.” Of course, there are times we do get angry, but his words are wise; I’ve seen that man gracefully tear up bad doctrine before, with sharp words, yet he never seemed mad. It’s an art that must come with years. As it is, I’m still a bit proud of myself for not using a single cuss word in my earlier rant; I don’t know if I’ve ever been that angry before in my life, so considering how wrathful my temper and sharp my tongue, that was a first step.

  92. “I was just hoping that I wasn’t offending you by editing your post”

    Nah 🙂 It’s not the first time, and I for one do respect the authority of blog-owners, especially morally responsible ones. Big hug to you too 🙂 Thanks for your kind example.

  93. Thanks for posting that quote from Danni’s blog, Cheryl. Good for her! This Craig Coffey/”Happy Promise Keeper” has indeed established a pattern of bullying; Danni did right to name the behavior and refuse to put up with any more of it.

    Something we would all do well to remember is that the whole “complementarian” movement, started by CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), came into being in order to stand against biblical equality and the organization that first promoted it widely (CBE – Christians for Biblical Equality). “Complementarian” was coined as a more palatable word and concept than “patriarchal.” The word was co-opted, as though men and women are somehow not “complementary” under biblical equality. Since its inception, CBMW and those who speak for the organization have had a vested interest in discrediting egalitarian Christians and the tenets of biblical equality.

    And now, we see a number of groups (including the CCC-forum) that consider CBMW “wimpy” and “closet egalitarians” because they acknowledge that scripturally, a man is not supposed to rule over his wife. The hard-core patriarchalists DO promote “father rule” and “husband rule,” quite unabashedly. And it is a group of such patriarchalists who were cheering Mr. Coffey on (assuming he gave CCC his actual name) in his false witness and character assassination here.

    We should beware those groups that define themselves by what they stand against. What they stand FOR is usually pretty seriously skewed. When people expend that much energy in denouncing such thoroughly biblical concepts as equality and mutual submission between men and women, it goes a long way toward illustrating what they think male-female interactions should reflect instead.

    And one more point: Try getting agreement on what the “instead” beliefs are supposed to be, among those who stand against biblical equality. Truly, “complementarianism” is all over the map. The only point of agreement you’ll find is that there is some degree of abridgment of freedom for women that is not also abridged for men, and this abridgment is justified for purely gender reasons. Just what gets abridged, how severely, and in what areas of life (i.e., church, family, marriage, society), is a matter of what seems right in their own eyes, since there is no agreement on any of the specifics. So it’s a matter, for women, of it being OK and even “biblical” for our freedom in Christ to be abridged simply because we’re women.

    Such is the fruit of a belief system that uses only biblical descriptions of worldly social systems as its justification. “Everyone (does) what is right in their own eyes.” Men receive preferential status simply for being men, and women are taught that it is a virtue to accept that status quo. It’s no wonder that egalitarians and biblical equality are so hated! There’s a great deal of worldly power to be lost if women accept their full freedom in Christ and Christian men start considering their Christian sisters as better than themselves. The hard work of treating one another as Scripture commands we treat each other, means putting others first. That’s virually impossible to do if we believe all the lies about men and women being so different and only “spiritually” equal (if even that concession is made). Patriarchy (including the versions masquerading as “complementarian”) pits women and men against each other, as thought “man” and “woman” are antonyms. By contrast, biblical equality/mutual submission requires that we submit to the truth of Scripture that we are all one in Christ Jesus and all members together of the body of Christ.

  94. About the CCC thread, what’s funny is that they are making this place sound as if it’s scarry! Oooh s c a r r y!! Boo! LOL! Stay away LOL!!

  95. Why doesn’t everyone on the CCC thread just come on over and we can have a group hug?? Yeah!!! *hugs* 🙂

  96. ‘I know your mad. But it is okay. Don’t be mad at them for me. We are fighting a common enemy, but they have been deceived to think that they will win or look good by taking a strip of off us (or me!)’

    I heard the prophecy…

    Down is going up and up is coming down.

    And Hi Jennifer! It’s good to see you posting here! 🙂

  97. Mary said: ‘Patriarchy (including the versions masquerading as “complementarian”) pits women and men against each other, as thought “man” and “woman” are antonyms.’

    Now that’s a way to put it!!

  98. Hey Cheryl, can you post this loser’s IP number? That way we can all filter him out of our own blogs too. IPNs are public knowledge and easily obtained from any browser, so this wouldn’t be a violation of anyone’s privacy AFAIK.

    But then, even without that, I’m sure we’ll all be able to smell him coming.

  99. Hey there, Pinklight! Thank you! 🙂 Have we met online before?

    “And now, we see a number of groups (including the CCC-forum) that consider CBMW “wimpy” and “closet egalitarians” because they acknowledge that scripturally, a man is not supposed to rule over his wife”

    OMG, are you serious? I thought the little monsters were practically worshipping the CBMW; Craig certainly pretended to be their little avenging angel. My God, these people are just wicked. Or perhaps delusional and weak-minded would be better terms. Mary, you’re very smart.

  100. #111 Mary,

    Lots of great words! Thanks.

    Such is the fruit of a belief system that uses only biblical descriptions of worldly social systems as its justification. “Everyone (does) what is right in their own eyes.” Men receive preferential status simply for being men, and women are taught that it is a virtue to accept that status quo. It’s no wonder that egalitarians and biblical equality are so hated! There’s a great deal of worldly power to be lost if women accept their full freedom in Christ and Christian men start considering their Christian sisters as better than themselves.

    Very profound!

  101. #116 Paula,

    I will send you his IP address. I don’t think it would be appropriate to post it online since that is what was done to me by a comp who opposed me and I don’t think this was right so I don’t want to do the same thing that they do. However I will give it out to whoever will need it to give them a head’s up and I would be happy to do so. Thanks for asking. I will email you, Paula.

  102. This is what happens in a Hiarchy world! Read the News from the Berean Call.

    Today’s Update

    MURDER IN SOME CASES DECLARED LEGAL

    Murdering Women Declared Legal [Excerpts]

    January 26, 2009: Pakistan has a problem with women. In the tribal areas, Islamic radicals burn schools (170 in the last two years) for girls and declare it illegal for women to work outside the home. The parliament openly condemns this Taliban/al Qaeda policy. But at the same time, the nations highest court declares that honor killings (murdering a young woman for marrying or dating someone her family does not approve of) are not crimes. The high illiteracy rate among women has long been a major reason for lack of economic progress in Islamic nations. In Pakistan, overcoming the problem means going to war with Islamic conservatives, and the government has been reluctant to do that.

    There was a sharp increase in violence in Pakistan last year. Deaths went from 907 in 2005, to 1,600 in 2006, 3,500 in 2007 and 8,000 last year. Pakistan suffered more from Islamic radical violence than neighboring Afghanistan. Last year, about 6,000 died in Afghanistan, while Pakistan lost 8,000. There were 2,100 terrorist attacks last year, leaving 2,300 dead. Battles between terrorists and security forces left 3,200 dead. Interestingly, only a third of those dead were in operations involving the army and police (either attacks on tribesmen, or clashes along the border itself). About 40 percent of the dead were the result of tribes fighting each other (usually pro-government groups against pro-Taliban ones.) The government arrested over 4,000 Islamic radical suspects last year.

    http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/india/articles/20090126.aspx

    I love #111 comment: There’s a great deal of worldly power to be lost if women accept their full freedom in Christ and Christian men start considering their Christian sisters as better than themselves.

    Yes, we as Christian have to treat others better then ourselfs, that would includes men to women! That’s what Jesus said (Smiling), now who would want to argue with him on that one! I would like to ask CFBMW that and also say Isn’t He (Jesus) the one who is Faithful and True!

  103. Oh, and one more choice tidbit from the CCC mutual congratulatory society: HPK/Craig Coffey says (there, of course, since “God led” him to leave this blog) that he “knows” readers from egalitarian blogs read at the CCC-forum. (Well, duh! He’s hardly subtle in the tracks he left from here; I for one have read the ccc’s poison pit for years.) So what do you think: he says that he wants egalitarians (which he seems to be unable or unwilling to spell properly) to “come out into the [ccc’s] light” and post there, where he claims that he will offer said egalitarians the courtesy he “wishes” he had received on their blogs. (I guess he’d really have cried if he’d been responded to in the same manner in which he fired his volleys here.) Talk about revisionist history!

    I’m still laughing over that “invitation.” The highly discourteous and unchristlike behavior he exhibited here and at Danni’s blog shows me that we’d be fools to believe such a ruse. And trust me: you do NOT want Michael McMillan (keeper of the ccc group) nor the other members of that group to have your e-mail address. The dive-bombing currently restricted to their occasional unsolicited visits to egalitarian blogs would turn up in far greater numbers in your e-mail in-box, the moment you dared to post anything about the truth of biblical equality on the ccc-forum and defend it against their lies and ridicule. I’ve seen the participants there over and over again, tear up egalitarians for sport, just because they can. It’s fun for them. They’ve convinced themselves that biblical equality isn’t, and Christian egalitarians aren’t, so there’s nothing wrong with treating said Christian egalitarians as terribly as possible. They are not honest people, and they most assuredly do NOT want honest, respectful discourse with egalitarians. If you doubt me, browse through their messages and see what they have to say about egalitarians. You won’t find an honest statement about egalitarians or biblical equality from any of them. You will, however, find that egalitarians are a favorite targets for their scornful lies. I cannot imagine speaking of the worst unrepentant sinner in the way they take pride in mischaracterizing egalitarians. Somewhere, they’ve so lost their focus on Jesus Christ that they think it’s acceptable to lie about, defame, and do verbal violence to fellow members of the human race, let alone fellow Christians (and I will not stoop to their tactic of dismissing them as though they’re not Christians — misguided, absolutely, but not beyond the power of Christ to bring them back). But then, such are the fruits of this world’s love of power and control. Remember, they idolize patriarchy. They’ve even deluded themselves into thinking it’s compatible with Christianity.

    I guess it just sticks in Craig’s craw that we can read his own confessions at ccc about his motives, but see no need to muddy ourselves by confronting him further about them on his own toxic soil. He was itching for a fight, but all he got here and at Danni’s blog was the truth, along with plenty of truth-telling about his dishonest intentions. He got found out, and he’s embarrassed that it was a bunch of women who saw through him so easily, so now he’s blustering like the poser he is. And yes, we did have some observations to make about his lack of maturity and wisdom. And the thing patriarch wannabes can stand the least is to not be taken seriously. So he grossly distorts and summarizes what he was up to, and his complaints to his ccc buds sparks a flurry of comment about how horrible egalitarians are, and everybody pities poor Mr. Coffey for how he got treated by those who saw through his ruse and called him on it.

    I suspect he knows the truth, and recognizes that biblical equality is the real deal, but like so many who prefer this world’s sinful patterns of patriarchy, he prefers the darkness to the light. So no, Craig, we won’t abandon the light for the ccc’s chosen darkness, just to give you more fodder for your folly. Just in case you harbored any illusion that the flock in these parts couldn’t smell the predator’s scent at ccc. This life is way too short to waste it on ccc-style game playing. At such time as you want to actually deal honestly with the truth of biblical equality and tell the truth about the Christians who embrace it, you’ll find egalitarians will more than meet you halfway. But your games were neither original nor skillfully played. You were right to crawl back to ccc. They quite obviously welcome your twisted version of reality.

  104. Going back to chapter 4 of “Building Strong Families” Lepine suggests that there will be attacks on the husband’s way of leadership from all kinds of directions. He says that “(attacks) will come from friends and coworkers who, thinking themselves to be wise, have become as fools (Rom. 1:22)”

    #That verse in Romans is how the sexually immoral want to justify their wrong doing…has nothing to do with this issue! Taking more scriptures out of context. This is really sad how low they go. I see a cult at hand.

  105. Michael

    I have some far out thoughts on Romans 1. For example, I wonder when Paul said “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:”Rom 1:26 if the “natural use” was really about relationship, not sex (as it is traditionally taken)? Eve was created for RELATIONSHIP! Is a marriage that only has sex and no RELATIONSHIP “vile affections”? “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,” Rom. 1:27 God intends woman not to be a sex toy but to be a HELP MEET, to be heard, respected, valued.

    Rom 1:27″And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    Have you EVER heard it interpreted as anything but homosexuality? But I think it might mean that they exalt men and go off on workaholism (or some other form of consuming fleshly lust) and leave “the natural use” of woman which is as EZER/HELP MEET to be respected, heard, valued as co-heir…. so they trade in the help MEET for a MEET recompense of their error. Any wonder the divorce rate is so high in the “church”?

    Romans 1 continues:

    28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    and they think this is about “the other guy” and they are superior because they go sit in a pew once a week…

  106. Charis,

    I never thought of it that way….Great Insight! I think both our views are correct and both in line with scripture! Your insight is very deep understanding and it does tie into Genesis..the begininng! Thank You, I’m going to save your insight. any other thoughts all.

  107. Charis,
    While relationship is very important and we certainly were created for relationships with our husbands, this is not the inspired words of Romans 1:26, 27.

    The word “meet” in verse 27 in the KJV is an old type word and we do not use this word any longer in this way. It is the Greek word #1163 and it means “necessary” such as necessary punishment. If you look up each word in the Greek to see what the literal Greek means you will find that the meaning is a deep sexual lust, a burning lust of one male for another. The “use” of the woman is a sexual use according to the Lexicons and “that which is opposed to nature” is that which is against natures laws. It is a passage about shameful lusts that God gives them over to. While I agree very much with you about the importance of relationships, this passage is clear from the words that Paul uses, that is is about shameful sexual practices.

  108. I knew you would disagree, Cheryl.

    I did look up the words and I know that the “meet” connection is just in English

    “burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly”

    unseemly= . ungracefulness; awkwardness; disfigurement; brings discredit, disgrace;
    (as well as “in moral sense, indecorum, obscene or disgraceful conduct”) from here

    and the word “lust” is not restricted to sexual lust. see BLB lexicon

    Frankly, I think its a good description of some forms of hard compism. They bring discredit and disfigurement to marriage as well as the scriptures and God. And the men do lust for each other in the sense of for the envy and lust for male power and position.

    And I consider it a lie and a slander on God’s character to think that he is only concerned about the SEX being conventional and NOT the “natural use” for which he created women which is not about sex but about being an equal companion, a help MEET.

  109. Charis,
    In word definitions, several options are listed and the exact meaning is dependent on the context. The context “unseeming” in this context is not about an outward disfigurement. It is about disgrace and shame. While men can lust for male power and position, the text specifically says that these men will lust for each other. It is lust for a person not envy for their position. The context is a moral failure not a failure to emotionally connect.

    “Natural use” is not about relationships. Where is the word “use” ever used about relationships? We must have a second witness to make a sound case. Just because God is talking about the natural physical “use” in these verses does not mean that God did not create the woman for both physical, mental and spiritual purposes. I personally do not know of anyone who says that God created the woman only for a sexual purpose for the man. Even John MacArthur who is a strong complementarian admits that the woman was created for interpersonal relationship with the man. I think that it would be better for us to do away with the old English term “meet”. This word no longer has meaning in our time. A better term would be a “completer”. A woman completes the man in that she is able to give him what he lacks. The original creation of a solitary man without the woman was “not good” according to God.

    The purpose of Romans 1 is that men who reject God are then able to reject the physical relationships created by their Creator. Those who reject the Creator will go on to reject morality and God will turn them over to “act out” their immorality so that they receive in their body the due penalty for their sin. The purpose of the passage is not to describe the wonderful complementary addition of women to a man. It was written to show the perversions on one thing only – the design of the human body. When perverted men reject God’s design for the human body, anything goes and when anything goes, shame and disgrace will follow.

    I should have a look at other passages that actually do say what you are saying – that God made women to be a spiritual, emotional and physical partner for the man and when men discredit and disregard any part of her worth, men reject God’s good creation. Rejecting God’s full creation of the worth of the woman will lead men into myths and lies and marriage and the church will be greatly hurt.

  110. Natural Use
    does NOT necessarily mean sexual. The only “evidence” for that is Strong’s concordance (with only ONE witness BTW- in this Romans passage ONLY). I think the writers of Strong’s were male, and that is where their focus was (SEX as a woman’s “natural use”)

    If you look in the lexicon at Tufts at the greek words translated “natural use” you will not find sex even mentioned-
    “natural use” is a pretty accurate reflection of the Greek, and I think Genesis 1 shows that the Natural Use GOD intended is not restricted to SEX (I think that was imposed on this text by tradition, and I think its an insulting view that the “Natural Use” of women is all about sex- I can’t believe that’s what GOD means, because I know GOD and HIS character better than that)

    chresis= use http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%2335956

    physikos= natural

    But I dislike debating with you. You appear to make up your mind and you don’t seem willing to look objectively at the evidence. I don’t expect to be heard on this. I expect you to line right up with the traditional interpretation and assume that its my “issues” rather than assuming that my “issues” give me insight on some scriptures which you can’t see because you lack the experience of having been treated as if your “natural use” is all and only about sex.

  111. Charis,
    The natural “use” in this context is about the body. It doesn’t say that the “natural use” of a woman’s mind or her emotions or her friendship. The context is about abusing of the body and shame and lust. All I need is a second witness to show that “natural use” can refer to something other than the physical.

    I am completely with you on the issue of marriage and relationships and that a husband should not be expecting a sexual relationship with his wife while refusing to bond with her emotionally. What I am saying is that the passage is not talking about emotional relationships between husband and wife. I am not saying that God didn’t create women for intimate emotional relationships with men. He absolutely did create the woman for this purpose. In this way I am not debating you at all because I agree with you. I am just saying that you are using Romans 1 out of context. Romans 1:24 says “body”. It is only talking about the sin done in the body. It is a sinful acting out what started in the mind. God is not saying that He created women only for a physical “use”. But the term “use” is never used for an emotional relationship. If I am wrong, then it would only take a second witness from scripture to prove me wrong. If you can find a second witness I would be willing to revisit this issue.

    I think that it is very noble to encourage men to honor and cherish their wives and not to look at them as if they were objects to “use” instead of an outworking of a loving, emotional relationship. But I would caution you at reading into a passage something that is not there. If you remove the sinful lusting of one man for another man’s body, you are removing what God has said is sin and it removes one of the witnesses from the NT against homosexuality. Does this make sense?

  112. Charis,
    I should add that it is wrong to assume that I know nothing about being treated as if woman was only for sex. I just prefer not to talk about any past experiences openly since my relationship with my husband is very satisfying and God-honoring. I am a logical kind of person and I try hard not to let past “issues” color the way I read the scriptures. I would rather look at all the factual things that are already there like word meanings, the grammar, the word construction and the entire context. There is too much that already is written into the scripture for me to speculate about what God might mean that He didn’t put clearly into the text. Again, I am willing to admit that I am wrong if it can be shown that there is a second witness that “use” can reference the emotional or spiritual side of a woman and not the physical body. I would encourage you to check the scriptures and bring to light any reference to “use” that I may have missed. My experiences or lack of experiences does not stop me from seeing the truth of God’s word that you could bring.

    Blessings!
    Cheryl

  113. Charis,
    Here is a good verse:

    Malachi 2:14 “Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.

    The purpose of the wife is to be a companion and in a relationship by covenant.

    What is interesting is that in the next verse God identified that those who have the Spirit did not deal treacherously with their wife as companion and covenant partner.

    Malachi 2:15 “But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.

    Is it possible that the man who treats his wife as a sex object and not as a companion and covenant partner does not have the Holy Spirit? Perhaps that is a thought to follow through on and a sobering warning to any man who mistreats and objectifies his wife.

  114. For more thoughtful expressions of the purpose of women and their worth see the youtube clip at

    This is produced by fishersofwomen.com and under the tab spiritual clarity Dawn G. Choate writes:

    Our preconceptions about words such as authority, submission, rule, governance, and headship often cloud our ability to really penetrate the Scriptures and hear from God Himself on his views of women. Instead, we repeat what we have been told by others and depend on worldly judgements, missing entirely the heart of the One who created us and knows our purpose and destiny intimately.

    I heartily agree. We are first of all created for God and for his glory and our purpose for the man is much beyond just our physical beauty and bodily function. We can praise God for all that he created us to be.

  115. Thanks Cheryl for making this scripture more clearly. Thanks for your hard work in looking up all the words! Thanks Charis for your hard work too in looking up the words too.
    This passage is talking about the body and what has come to it because of sinful mans heart!

  116. I just ran across this in a search for Cheryl’s Youtube videos. I thought it pertinent to this thread.

    Please help me not scream in horror. :-O
    Who is this woman?

  117. This is Monica Dennington a young woman that still seems steeped in the traditions that have been passed on to her. I tried emailing her months ago but she didn’t respond. I don’t think she is interested in any other view other than her own. I am not saying that she is always wrong on what she teaches, but on this subject she would do well to expand her views and listen to others.

  118. Just so you know, Cheryl, Mrs. Webfoot is Donna L. Carlaw. I trust you remember her from last year, was it? Just for future reference, in case she decides to visit again. I’m glad her comment was short and sweet.

  119. Jennifer,
    Thanks for the warning. I finally figured that one out too and she should be on my moderation list as one of the only posters I have had to moderate due to an aggressive attitude towards the posters.

  120. No probem. I’ve seen her at her nicest and this unstable aggression that comes and goes is very troubling.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: