C. J. Mahaney stepping down

I've posted twice before regarding SGM Sovereign Grace Ministries which was a look at structural problems in their discipline process and Sovereign Grace Ministries' use of demotivational methods which was a particular abusive technique they made heavy use of which was a distinctive. The leader of SGM C. J. Mahaney is stepping down. Note on his blog, note from the board, leaked documents regarding the dispute.  C.J. heads up Together for the Gospel, and is bringing in his friends from that organization to guide him during his stepping down.

I'd like to congratulate the people at the various SGM blogs: SGM Survivors, SGM Refuge, Spiritual Tyranny, Wartburg Watch, SGM Uncensored .  Mahaney has been a major leader in the whole New Calvinism movement.  So far the issues being discussed are internal problems regarding Mahaney creating problems with other pastors, rather than the more widespread  longstanding pattern of abuse of membership.  Its the authoritarian culture that's the problem, Mahaney, as dictators go is not unusually bad.  Part of being a dictator is terrorizing or at least intimidating those around you, that's the job.  If you don't like the behavior don't create authoritarian structures that necessitate it.

So the doctrinal and structural problems remain.  But what has changed is the problems are being widely talked about on the web.  When Joshua Harris rereleased Boy meets Girl the fact that 2 of the couples in his previous edition were getting divorced was public knowledge.  Stories about church facilitated sexual abuses have leaked.  Stories about embezzlement have leaked.  Stories about wrongful terminations, ruined marriages, and how miserable so many women are in SGM have leaked.   SGM is not able to act in secrecy anymore and the blogs above, and several others that were active over the last few years are responsible.

I don't have much to say other than this was an important step in people banding together to try and prevent the sorts of rampant abuses in authoritarian churches.  And the offer I made to Josh Harris 3 years ago remains open.  If SGM wants to start trying to build structures to stop abuses rather than to facilitate them I'd love to engage in constructive conversation.


____

Post Script (Feb 2, 2012)

It appears that way these allegations were handled was to create a biased board that investigated it and exonerate C.J. Mahaney.  The results are still not published, but the underlying facts to present Mahaney as having threatened someone to keep them silent years ago.   I'm not sure what is going to ever get published but I'll update here as more information becomes available:

• Response to SGM panal report from Larry Tomczak

____
See also:

• Al Mohler dismisses documents regarding Mahaney and abuse.  

Don't reassure me, empower me

Terrific line I ran across today which of course applies more broadly:

I make my peace with the LDS Church’s institutional sexism every day, every week, because I believe that this is where God called me to be. I’ve also been very lucky to have local leaders who understand some of the challenges that women face in the Church and try to do what they can to encourage progress. 

However, here’s the thing: no man gets the right to reassure me that I’m his equal when every single outward sign of how the Church is run tells a different story. 

Salt Lake City leaders, here’s a request: Stop telling me I’m incredible, and start giving me responsibility and authority befitting an adult and not a child. Stop standing up each Mother’s Day to wax on about how women are fantastically spiritual and start taking a hard look at the institutional sexism that repeatedly devalues women. (read the full article)

Sophia Bibliography

Ran into a great bibliography of Sophia at the Lutheran Seminary (link to original). I have to frequently discuss the issue of Christianity emerging from Hellenistic Judaism i.e. a progression of:

1. Hellenized Judaism
2. Hellenistic Judaism
3. Gnosticising Jews
4. Christian Gnosticism
5. Orthodox Christianity

Sophia as the origin of Jesus comes up quite frequently and a handy list of references....

Aldredge-Clanton, Jann. In Search of the Christ-Sophia : An Inclusive Christology for Liberating Christians. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1995.

Aubin, Melissa M. "'She Is the Beginning of All the Ways of Perversity:' Femininity and Metaphor in 4q184." Women in Judaism 2 (2001).

Barker, Margaret. "Wisdom: The Queen of Heaven." Scottish Journal of Theology 55 (2002): 141-59.

Brock, Ann Graham. "The Identity of the Blessed Mary, Representative of Wisdom in Pistis Sophia." In Walk in the Ways of Wisdom, 122-35. Harrisburg ; London ; New York: Trinity Pr Intl, 2003.

———. "Setting the Record Straight--the Politics of Identification: Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother in Pistis Sophia." In Which Mary?, 43-52. Atlanta: Soc of Biblical Literature, 2002.

Camp, Claudia V. Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs. Bible and Literature Series, 11. Decatur: The Almond Press, 1985. BS1465.2 .C26

———. “Woman Wisdom As Root Metaphor: A Theological Consideration.” The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, ed J. Hoglund K.Huwiler E.J. Glass. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

Chryssavgis, John. "Sophia, the Wisdom of God: Sophiology, Theology, and Ecology." Diakonia 34 (2001): 5-19.

Cole, Susan, Marian Ronan, and Hal Taussig. Wisdom's Feast : Sophia in Study and Celebration. 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.

Conway, David. The Rediscovery of Wisdom : From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.

DaCosta, Jacqueline. "Can Apophatic Theology Be Applied to Goddessing as Well as to God?" Feminist Theology 11 (2002): 82-98.

Edwards, Mark J. "Pauline Platonism: The Myth of Valentinus." In Studia Patristica Xxxv, Ascetica, Gnostica, Liturgica, Orientalia, 205-21. Louvain: Peeters, 2001.

FitzGerald, Constance. "Transformation in Wisdom: The Subversive Character and Educative Power of Sophia in Contemplation." In Carmel and Contemplation, 281-358. Washington: ICS, 2000.

Good, Deirdre Joy. Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature. Monograph Series (Society of Biblical Literature) ; No. 32. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987.

———. "Sophia as Mother and Consort: Eugnostos the Blessed (Nhc Iii, 3 and V, 1) and the Sophia of Jesus Christ (Nhc Iii, 4 and Bg 8502, 3)." University Microfilms International, 1983.

Gilbert, Maurice. “Le Discours De La Sagesse De L'Ancien Testament.” La Sagesse De L”Ancien Testament, ed Maurice Gilbert. BETL, 51. Leuven: Leuven Universtiy, 1990. John Ireland BS1455.S12 1990

Jacobson, Diane. “Strengths and Weaknesses of Wisdom/Sophia Talk.” in A Reforming Church...Gift and Task Charles P. Lutz, 107-25. Minneapolis: Kirk House, 1995.

Johnson, Elizabeth A. She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. N.Y.: Crossroad, 1993.

———. "Holy Wisdom: Image of God's Saving Presence." Review of Wisdom ATLA0001280248. Living Pulpit 9 (2000): 6-7.

Keleher, Serge. "Response to Sophia Senyk, 'the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Today: Universal Values Versus Nationalist Doctrines'." Review of Senyk, Sophia Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church today ATLA0001334828. Religion, State & Society 31 (2003): 289-306.

Kuhn, Heinz Wolfgang. "The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 between Qumran and Proto-Gnosticism." In Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, 240-53. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2000.

Lang, Bernhard. “Lady Wisdom: A Polytheistic and Psychological Interpretation of a Biblical Goddess.” A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods, and Strategies, ed. Athalya Brenner, and Carole Fontaine, 400-425. Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1997.

———. Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess Redefined. New York: Pilgrim, 1986.

Lefebure, Leo D. “The Wisdom of God, Part 1.” Christian Century, no. 10/19 (1994).

———. “The Wisdom of God, Part 2.” Christian Century, no. 10/26 (1994).

Matlack, Hugh. “The Play of Wisdom.” Currents in Theology and Mission 15 (1988): 425-30.

Matthews, Caitlin. Sophia--Goddess of Wisdom : The Divine Feminine from Black Goddess to World-Soul. London: Mandala an imprint of HarperCollins, 1991.

McKinlay, Judith. Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1996.

Meehan, Brenda. "Orthodox Understandings of Wisdom/Sophia." Review of Wisdom ATLA0001280248. Living Pulpit 9 (2000): 20-21.

Murphy, Peregrine L. "The Evolution of Sophia." Review of Wisdom ATLA0001280248. Living Pulpit 9 (2000): 29.

Murphy, Roland E. “The Personification of Wisdom.” Wisdom in Ancient Israel, ed John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson, 222-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995. LTS BS 1455.W56

Nolan, Lucinda A. "Seeing What Is Not There Yet: Sophia Lyon Fahs, Entelechy and the Religious Education Association." Review of Embracing the past, envisioning the future ATLA0001488686. Religious Education 99 (2004): 247-71.

———. "Together with Questioning Minds: Sophia Lyon Fahs (1876-1978)." Religious Education 98 (2003): 454-70.

O'Connor, Kathleen “The Invitation of Wisdom Woman: A Feminine Image of God.” BibToday 8 (1990):87-93.

Petry, Janine. "The Matchmakers: When the Wesley Brothers Agreed to Help Each Other Find Wives, They Never Guessed Their Deal Would Lead to Disaster." Review of Wesleys ATLA0001478583. Christian History (2001): 23-25.

Polak, Frank H. "Joab and David in Double Vision." Biblica 82 (2001): 264-69.

Racine, Jean-François, and Madeleine Beaumont. "Three Approaches to the Position of Women in the Q Document: Hal Taussig, Luise Schottroff, and Amy-Jill Levine." InWomen Also Journeyed with Him, 99-116. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000.

Sandelin, Karl-Gustav. Wisdom As Nourisher: A Study on an OT Theme, Its Development Within Early Judaism, and Its Impact on Early Christianity. Abo: Abo Akademi, 1986.

Schmidt, Josef. "Nous Und Sophia in Offb 17." Novum testamentum 46 (2004): 164-89.

Schneemelcher, Wilhelm. "Zur Gestalt Der Eva in Der Gnosis." In Hairesis, 48-63. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002.

Schroer, Silvia. “Wise and Counselling Women in Ancient Israel: Literary and Historical Ideals of the Personified Hokmâ.” Feminist Companion to Wisdom Literature, Athalya Brenner, 67-84. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1995.

———. Wisdom Has Built Her House : Studies on the Figure of Sophia in the Bible. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000.

Stiers, Brenda J. "Preaching on Wisdom...The Sophia Tradition." Review of Wisdom ATLA0001280248. Living Pulpit 9 (2000): 40-41.

Terrien, Samuel. “The Play of Wisdom: Turning Point in Bibilical Theology.” HorBibTheology 3 (1981): 125-54.

Walthe, Bruce. “Lady Wisdom As Mediatrix: An Exposition of Proverbs 1:20-33.” Presbyterion: a Journal for the Eldership - Covenant Seminary Review 13 (1987): 65-78. 87080.00.

Waltke, Bruce. “Lady Wisdom As Mediatrix: An Exposition of Proverbs 1:20-33.” Presbyterion: A Journal for the Eldership - Covenant Seminary Review 14 (1988): 1-15. 87080.00

Winter, Marie Therese. Woman Wisdom. New York: Crossroad, 1990.

Zur, Yiphtah. "Parallels between Acts of Thomas 6-7 and 4q184." Revue de Qumran 16 (1993): 103-07.

A defense of Driscoll to the left

This is an unusual post for me. Normally this blog attacks Patriarchy and Complementarianism. My opinion hasn't shifted on that. This blog has ended up being very critical of Conservative Reformed Christianity, and my opinion on that has shifted in the last 2 years in a very negative direction. When I started I thought the problems were much less frequent and much less deep than I do today.

So why write a defense of Mark Driscoll? Well because a great many of the problems in conservative reformed Christianity are countered by Driscoll. He separates off the bible from a whole range of political and social conservative positions and presents a new vision for what evangelical Christianity could look like. In other words he achieves the goal of the emerging church movement even though he no longer associates himself with it. It is the missional core which I think puts him in a totally different category than the Josh Harris, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul.... clan.

Quite simply the core idea of the neo-evangelical movement founded by Harold Ockenga was to separate Christian theology from Christian culture as a matter of working principle. A good example which is less controversial today was Moody's belief that there was no need to change the dietary habits of Eastern European converts, "The great commission is not a command to convert the world to Anglo-Saxonism". If one considers neo-evangelicalism to be a legitimate endeavor, that is disagrees with fundamentalism and liberalism that such a separation is impossible then it is hard to see what Driscoll is doing as being inconsistent with the absolute core goal of the neo-evangelical movement.

Without directly implicating MacArthur, Driscoll distinguishes between missionaries who study culture and fundamentalists who try to avoid culture.

"Fundamentalism is really losing the war, and I think it is in part responsible for the rise of what we know as the more liberal end of the emerging church," Driscoll says. "Because a lot of what is fueling the left end of the emerging church is fatigue with hardcore fundamentalism that throws rocks at culture. But culture is the house that people live in, and it just seems really mean to keep throwing rocks at somebody's house." (Christianity today article on Driscoll)

Driscoll built his ministry on 4 points.

1. The Church is primarily middle aged and female. In particular men 22-25 are the least likely to go to church. This is very bad.
2. Thus the church needs an outreach to young men.
3. However, the reason young men are not attracted to the church is a systematic problem with the way church is usually conducted. So churches that want to break from this mold need to "do church" with a very different flavor.
4. In particular what is needed is a to build churches that are theologically orthodox but culturally young and masculine.

One can watch the video the Church needs dudes to hear Driscoll reconstruct this argument in his own words. And if you look at the Acts29 churches I think his objective has been achieved. The core defense of Driscoll from within a neo-evangelical framework is whether people agree with these 4 points or not.

The first question is, is it bad that church is primarily female? Do we need an outreach to young men, and is acceptable to change the character of churches so that they become young men friendly; that is "affirming" of their gender and their identity?

I'd assume most neo-evangelicals would answer this question that yes it is bad. Christianity seeks converts of both sexes and if churches are some way systematically failing to reach you men that should be addressed. Driscoll himself makes an interesting argument that not only is it bad from an evangelical standpoint but leads to lack of aggression and creativity.

As he puts it "the church is run by nice soft 'chickified' church boys". Church attire in his opinion is very effeminate for example men's clothing in pastels. In his opinion the decor in most churches is effeminate and the music is emotionally charged and effeminate. This sort of environment is hostile to to aggressive young men. That is exactly the sorts of young men who are likely to be entrepreneurs. That is a marketing strategy targeted at women in their 40s will be unsuccessful with men in their 20s. So all of these aspects need to change in a church targeting young (20s) single men who are college educated and innovative (aggressive). All those aspects changed, further Driscoll developed a preaching style that he modeled on Chris Rock, a communicator who is able to effectively communicate with young men.

In terms of longer term goals, Driscoll believes that if that aggressive men are involved when young then they will marry and bring in their families so that this style of outreach is not self limiting. Moreover he sees this failure as being why evangelical Christianity is shrinking. In Driscoll's view Church planting is primarily a matter of natural talent followed by training. Most churches choose men who lack the correct natural talent and then apply an aggressive training program. The reason they do this is that most churches can't handle young entrepreneurial men. These men are the ones who are likely to question leadership, are thus seen as "trouble makers" and driven away. But in Driscoll's view, if you want innovative churches you need this sort of man.

Finally, Driscoll believes that the church environment is unbiblical. He cites David, Paul, John the Baptist, as being the sort of man he has trouble picturing "wearing sweater vests singing love songs to Jesus".

I'd also conclude by addressing the issue of Driscoll on sex. In my opinion where Driscoll has been most often attacked is for saying uncomfortable truths about male sexuality. His comments on things like middle aged weight gain, lack of oral sex or lack of frequent sex as being causes of adultery are politically incorrect and true. The question for the left wing critics is can a preacher honestly address women on the issue of male sexuality or do we need to keep pretending that sexual boredom and adultery are uncorrelated events?

See also:

• Freedom4captives A pro women's blog that contains the sort of arguments addressed in this post
• MacArthur v. Driscoll addresses the right wing criticism.

Suzanne's index

Suzanne McCarthy of Suzanne's bookshelf has put together a wonderful index of her posts on language. While it is far from a complete list it is a terrific resource for those looking for quick counter arguments on many of the common woman bashing themes that show up on bible blogs. Definitely a resource worth checking out.

I figure I'm also going to use this post as a running place holder for various related topics so expect the list below to be live and growing:

• Wayne Grudem and Heresy is an argument for how many of the complementarian trinitarian positions are explicitly rejected by the creeds.
• You can find a terrific debate between Sandy Grant and Suzanne on 1Tim 2:12 here on Theologica. I had an earlier post on this discussion.
• Grudem's open letter to egalitarians and Suzanne's responses: part1 part2

Wow I just got promoted

So I just got paid a pretty high complement a few minutes ago. Yesterday I posted a link to the Bayly blog (thread) to the Why be an ESV hater article. Basically the article is about the fact that the ESV is a political translation, and Bayly was both agreeing with me and posting some pretty clear evidence. As is my policy I contact anyone I link to every time I link if I can. I think that is basic politeness, gives them a chance to respond. Anyway, the Bayly's actually know who I am. Not only that David Bayly paid me high praise indeed, "Thanks for dealing with this individual [CD-Host] I've not found another commenter on this blog as filled with darkness, including the atheists who recently visited the site. They are deceived. This individual is a deceiver". Talking about yours truly! Wow and here I thought I was just a run of the mill bible blogger. Hah, I just made #1 force of darkness on the whole history of their blog (which actually goes back quite a ways). I'm feeling great. I've had a lousy week and that post definitely made my day. I'm on the internet so I get insulted regularly, but that was the coolest of all time.

OK so other than CD's ego tripping is there any content coming from this? First off I'd like answer a few questions.

There was a request for a link to my debate with Frank Turk (centuri0n). This is in reverse order (start at the bottom) but it is available here. There was a request for more insight on discipline and I was recommending the walk throughs list. Eric, had linked to my Rules for due process.

So what set them off? Heck, if I know. I haven't talked to those guys in over 2 years:

• I'm hoping it was the Defense against Patriarchy series. This series the Bayly's actually deserve some credit. Of course, Doug Phillips was the main target, but the Baylys also had a blog full of their claims about their views having been the norm through Church history were a leading inspiration. I ended up writing over 100 pages proving that to be a cock-and-bull story.
• Another possibility was our first encounter Tim Bayly on homosexuality and feminism where Bayly calls for excommunication based on opinion (not teaching or actions). I asked him to confirm this was really his opinion. He sort of did, then rejecting my characterization then refused my offer to let him rephrase as he saw fit.
• One of the other articles about women's issues.
• There are about another 1/2 dozen scattered references to him over the years.

But this just doesn't seem to rise to the level of prince of darkness, ok maybe defense does. I'm pretty proud of that. So while I feel great pride in David's complement there is this sense of undeserved praise. What to do, what to do? I should mention that Tim's comment wasn't bad either:

CD-Host, I owe our readers no link to your lies and heresies. Contradicting the Word of God is no small thing, and it's my sworn duty to silence it when it occurs. Often, it's helpful to our readers to hear questions and arguments. But in your case, the anonymity and toxicity of your heresies rises to a level I must not permit. So I'm pulling all links to your web site.

So in other words my stuff is well above the average in terms of lies and heresies. And you know what, I also got a permanent link on Planet Atheism today. Tim in recent threads had mentioned there were some problems recently with atheists (I couldn't find the threads on his blog unfortunately). But I suspect there is a connection, and this new link is their doing. So to get to the point, I'll take this opportunity to warmly thank both Tim and David for their endorsement.

I've noticed in the last 2 years a sharp drop off in claims that complementarianism and patriarchy were the universally held view up until: a generation ago, the 70s, the last hundred years.... and I can only hope that I had something to do with this and my modesty is misplaced.

Wayne Grudem and heresy

So I was just wrapping up a great conversation on New Leaven. At the end of the conversation Suzanne McCarthy (of Suzanne's Bookshelf -- translation, Abecedaria -- foreign language keyboarding, silence is the ornament -- personal) and I were dialoguing. Suzanne frequently writes on egalitarianism vs. complementarianism. Complementarianism is just a smidge to the left of patriarchy, on a left right axis, there are complementarians that would not qualify as supporters of patriarchy and there are patriarchal doctrines that many complementarians would reject. So for example, complementarians will quote Dabney's materials without appealing to his authority while patriarchs openly embrace Dabney.

Anyway if we cut through the details the complementarian argument is basically women should be oppressed politically and especially in the church because the bible teaches that girls have cooties. So again cutting through the details Suzanne is is a top notch amateur linguist who spends a great deal of her time proving that the bible does not in fact teach that girls have cooties. Which is similiar to my defense series where I disproved the historical claim that the girls & cooties theology has been a constant through Christian history.

What was interesting about the thread was that Suzanne raised a point which shows a fairly clear cut heresy in complementarian writing, which means looking at the details. First, you may want to read the notion of the economic trinity, "ontological equality but economic subordination" directly from Grudem himself in his Systematic Theology (p251). Bruce Ware in his 2006, Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and Submission Among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead argued:

The Father and Son are fully equal in their deity as each possesses the identically same divine nature, yet the eternal and inner-Trinitarian Father-Son relationship is marked, among other things by an authority and submission structure in which the Father is eternally in authority over the Son and the Son eternally in submission to the Father. There is, then, an eternal and immutable equality of essence between the Father and the Son, while there is also an eternal and immutable authority-submission structure that marks the relationship of the Father and the Son

Normally trinity stuff bores me, but what is important here is to show that subordination does not imply inequality. Unlike the patriarchs the complementarians don't want to actually assert that women are less then men, just that they ontologically equal while being functionally subordinate. Scripture isn't clear on this at all with regard to men and women but they assert it is clear on this with regard to the Godhead. Further they argue that marriage is meant to teach us mystically about the nature of God's relationship. A perfect example of this argument is from the opening statement of my debate with Frank Turk of TeamPyro.

So to summarize so far what we have is a triad:

1. The son is subordinate in authority to the father
2. The church is likewise subordinate to Christ
3. Wives are likewise subordinate to their husbands

Attack point (1) and the whole argument falls apart. The counter attack is that point 1 is a clear cut violation of the creeds. Now this is tricky. The words "authority" and "power" have diverged in English language meaning. The word that is getting translated to authority (or right) is the greek word (ἐξουσίαν, exousia). In the Latin Vulgate this is getting translated to the word potestas.

So for example 1Cor 11:10:
ESV: That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Greek: διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους
Vulgate: deo debet mulier potestatem habere supra caput propter angelos

The problem of course is that for 1700 years Christians have asserted the equality with respect to potestas. Now in the creeds potestas gets translated as power:

latin: In Deitatis unitate personæ tres sunt unius ejusdemque essentiæ, potential ac æternitatis; Deus Pater, Deus Filius, ac Deus Spiritus Sanctus.” (Westminster Confession Latin)

English: “In the unity of the Godhead head there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. (Westminster Confession English)

or to pick another example (again from Suzanne):

non secundum imparem potestatem uel substantiam uel aliquid quod in eo patri non sit aequale missus est, sed secundum id quod filius a patre est, non pater a filio

For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son.

1. The creeds assert there is no difference in potestas between father and son
2. If you believe the creeds are biblical then there is no difference in exousia between father and son
3. Thus if you believe the creeds you must hold that the doctrine that the bible teaches that the son and father are equal only in dunamis but that the son is subordinate in exousia is false.
4. Hence the argument the son is subordinate in authority (in English) is false.
5. Hence the little triad arguing for the subordination of women is false.

Or to put it simply if you buy Grudam / Ware position you are advocating Arianism. This argument has actually been responded to be the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood though (IMHO) they fail to address the key point (link). As an aside Arian Christians have a long history of treating women well, I'm sure they don't like their beliefs being co-opted by the girls have cooties crowd.

-----

See also:

• A sample document where Bruce Ware argues that it was impossible for God to have sent a female savior because of eternal submission (Could Our Savior Have Been a Woman? The Relevance of Jesus' Gender for His Incarnational Mission)
• The original article at Suzanne's site:
• Summary of the trinity debate part1, part2, part3.
• An amusing video on cooties.
• John Piper and Wayne Grudem directly address this point in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood
  

Female ministers

I put this list together two years ago for a debate of denominations with female ministers. I'd love to open up a thread and have people add to it. So please post if I have missed one that you know of.

Just picking American churches:

Quakers since at least the early 1800s

The Congregationalist church since 1853

Salvation Army since 1865

United Methodist church since 1880

Church of the Nazarene since 1889

Church of God since 1909

Mennonite Church since 1911

Assemblies of God since 1914

United Reformed Church since 1917

Baptist churches since 1920

PCUSA since 1930

Anglicans since 1942

Hussite Church since 1947

Evangelical Lutheran Church since 1948

Old Catholic Church since 1949

Church of the Brethren since 1958

Metropolitan Community Church since 1968

Church of Scotland 1969

Evangelical Lutheran 1970

Reformed Church in America, elders 1972

Episcopal Church 1976

Lutheran Ministry 1976

Reformed Church in America, minister 1979

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1984

Church of England, 1992

Scottish Episcopal Church as priests, 1994

Seventh-day Adventists 1995

Christian Reformed Church, 1995

Scottish Episcopal Church as bishops 2002

Worldwide Church of God, 2007

10 reasons men should not be pastors

1. A man’s place is in the army.
2. The pastoral duties of men who have children might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent.
3. The physique of men indicates that they are more suited to such tasks as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do ministerial tasks.
4. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
5. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football and basketball games demonstrates this.
6. Some men are handsome, and this will distract women worshipers.
7. Pastors need to nurture their congregations. But this is not a traditional male role. Throughout history, women have been recognized as not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
8. Men are prone to violence. No really masculine man wants to settle disputes except by fighting about them. Thus they would be poor role models as well as dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
9. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was betrayed by a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment remind us of the subordinated position that all men should take.
10. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep sidewalks, repair the church roof, and perhaps even lead the song service on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church.

Taken from Serving Bread blog

Collyridian

There is an ancient form of Christianity that comes up quite often in my discussions of female ministers called Collyridianism and I thought I should have a reference page. I also thought some of my readers might be curious.

The Collyridians were Christians who consider the trinity to consist of The Father / Allah, Jesus the Son and Mary the Mother. Like Muslims they held the Father was unknowable only his will was knowable and revelation of the father was through the son and the mother. They had something like the Eucharist but as the priest represent Jesus to the congregation the priestess represents Mary. And hence parallel offerings. They accepted something like the canonical bible though like many middle eastern Christians of the time they may had used the Diatessaron as their gospel prior to canonization. They most likely were docetic in their theology, and they likely were much more syncretic than orthodox Catholicism.

Many Muslim scholars believe this is the form of Christianity described in the Qu'ran for example sura 5:73-5:

[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.
[5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

The show up most noticeably in the writings of Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis. And it is here that they come up so frequently, because in defending the what is wrong with the Collyridians he explicitly allows for teaching and ministering, that is what Protestant ministers do and only attacks woman performing the sacrifice (communion). I’ll quote the relevant excerpts, [] are mine:

undertaking to do something blasphemous and forbidden and performing in her name, by means of women, definitely priestly acts… [long biblical history of woman not offering sacrifices dropped] Deaconesses serve bishops and priests on grounds of propriety….. . . This you must also carefully observe that only the office of deaconesses was necessary in the ecclesiastical order; also ‘widows’ are mentioned by name, and among them the senior most are called ‘elders’ (Greek: presbytidas), but they have never been made women presbyters (presbyteridas) or women priests (sacerdotissas)….
“Never has a woman been appointed amongst bishops and priests. But, someone will say, there were the four daughters of Philip, who prophesied. Yes, but they did not exercise the priestly office. And it is true that there is the Order of Deaconesses in the Church . But they are not permitted to act as priests or have anything to do with that office.” (Panarion 79, 1-4)

Epiphanius' entire apologetic is biblically based so Collyridians must have held a high view of scripture, which shows another example of people in the ancient world were able to read scripture in a way empowering to woman. We know that Islam had the same opinion “people of the book”.

They seemed to have continued on to a limited extent after the 4th-5th century. St. John of Damascus wrote about them in 728 and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, even asserts that Summa Theologica III.25.5 was directed at this group's practices, putting their death later still.

Interestingly there is a new denomination forming in their honor, The Collyridian Britannic Episcopal Church. Also a highly related group the Army of Mary has 25,000 current members.

________

See also

• Collyridian Liturgies
• Restoration Church of Jesus Christ, a Mormon church which believes in the quadriune Godhead consisting of Mother, Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit http://www.amazon.com/Panarion-Epiphanius-Salamis-Hammadi-Manichaean/dp/9004098984/

Early female leaders

One of the very first secular references to Christians and Christians practices at length is Pliney's letter 96 to Trajan (written between 111 and 113 CE). He is asking Trajan for instruction regarding religious persecution with regard to Christians. While he does not think highly of the religion one paragraph stands out quite strongly, where he describes how he interrogates the leaders of a small house church:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

1Tim 2:12 terrific discussion

I'd like to recommend to people interested in the issue of 1Tim 2:12 they head over to Theological discussion and read the excellent debate between Sandy Grant and Suzanne McCarthy regarding the use of the term "authority" in this verse. Its a fantastic discussion based on evidence on real evidence for both sides. Suzanne is defending the belief that "exercise authority" here means illegitimate authority and so a good translation would be something more like N.T Wright’s Translation of 1Ti 2:9-15

9 In the same way the women, too, should clothe themselves in an appropriate manner, modestly and sensibly. They should not go in for elaborate hair-styles, or gold, or pearls, or expensive clothes; 10 instead, as is appropriate for women who profess to be godly, they should adorn themselves with good works. 11 They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. 12 I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed. 13 Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. 15 She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence. (Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis)

Priscilla, A female leader

In the church of St John at Heidelberg we have the window pictured to the left of Aquila & Priscilla; note in the lower pane we can see Priscilla teaching.

There are several mentions of Priscilla in the New Testament. The first is in Acts 18 where she instructs Apollos:

Acts 18:1 After this Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. 18:2 There he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to depart from Rome. Paul approached them 18:3 and because he worked at the same trade, he stayed with them and worked with them (for they were tentmakers by trade)...
18:19 When they reached Ephesus, Paul left Priscilla and Aquila behind there, but he himself went into the synagogue and addressed the Jews...
18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures. 18:25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. 18:26 He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately.

The next is in Romans where Paul uses the term synergoi, colleague to refer to her:

16:3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my colleagues in Christ Jesus, 16:4 who risked their own necks for my life. Not only I, but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

Co-worker which is how the word is often translated is too weak. This term can even be used as a euphemism for sex (though I'm not arguing or implying Paul means it that way), colleague, good friend perhaps. What the word is never used for is a subordinate, while the word in "co-worker" in English can imply a subordinate. That is Paul considers Priscilla an equal, he is addressing her as an equal. This means that at least in Paul's mind she is not beneath him either directly or diagonally. This rules out the usually counter claimto Priscilla being a leader, that Aquila was a peer and Prisca worked under Aquila, because then Priscilla would be a diagonal subordinate and the word choice would be inappropriate.

I'd point to 1Cor 3:9 shows again Paul stating that he and Apollos are working together, another use of synergoi, not that Apollos works for Paul. When one reads 1Cor 3 the whole point of the chapter is rejecting the sort of hierarchy which would put one or the other on top; Jesus is on top.

Then in first Corinthians he mentions how she runs a house church (this one in Emphasis):

1Cor 16:19 The churches in the province of Asia send greetings to you. Aquila and Prisca greet you warmly in the Lord, with the church that meets in their house.

Finally in 2Tim 4;19 he greets them again indicating they travel as well:

2Tim 4:19 Greetings to Prisca and Aquila and the family of Onesiphorus.

As can be seen above, Priscilla is mentioned before Aquila in (Acts 18:18,26, Rom 16:3, 2 Tim 4:19). The reason this is so key, is that normally the man would be named first or exclusively; meaning she is the better known and more prestigious of the two. And this is occurs in books addressed to various cities, so she is not just some well known/respected person locally rather she is well known and respected within the whole of the Christian community; and better known and more respected than Aquila.

Moreover there is strong evidence according to the experts that the shift in Acts 18:2 was a later change. Ben Witherington for example in he anti-feminist tendencies of the "Western" text in Acts (Journal of Biblical Literature 103 no 1 Mr 1984, p 82-84.) mentions the shift of Acts 18:2 and argues that Priscilla was consistently named first. Metzger in the textual commentary on the NT has this verse with Priscilla named first and gives the same reason. The Teachers' Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles By Francis Nathan Peloubet, is cited by both as for the importance of this shift (i.e. diminishing her role).

So in other words we have Prisca approximately equal to Paul in Paul's mind; and Priscilla generally regarded as well above Aquila by the broad Christian community. Those two facts together are strong evidence of the extent of her leadership. But there is even more evidence. In Acts 18:26 she is portrayed as teaching a theologian about theology. Again she is listed first, with regard to the act of teaching. And this is devastating to the argument that women should not teach because it means that she is well respected as a teacher / missionary not because of some secondary factor.

Karl Josef Rudolph Cornely in Commentarius in ep. ad Romanos" (Paris, 1896) collected the various ancient authorities on this subject and there seems to be agreement that Prisca is the more important of the pair since otherwise she would never be named first. Chrysostom held a similar opinion regarding her being named first indicated she was the teacher of Apollos.

This too is worthy of inquiry, why, as he addressed them, Paul has placed Priscilla before her husband. For he did not say, “Greet Aquila and Priscilla,” but “Priscilla and Aquila.” He does not do this without reason, but he seems to me to acknowledge a greater godliness for her than for her husband. What I said is not guess-work, because it is possible to learn this from the Book of Acts. [Priscilla] took Apollos, an eloquent man and powerful in the Scriptures, but knowing only the baptism of John; and she instructed him in the way of the Lord and made him a teacher brought to completion (Acts 18:24-25). (John Chrysostom, “First Homily on the Greeting to Priscilla and Aquila”)

In his commentary on 2Tim he says essentially the same thing. Incidentally in Homily 40 on Acts he indicates Paul left them in Ephesus specifically so they could teach. Again another direct reference to Priscilla being a teacher.

The current Pope commented on church tradition, "Later hagiographic tradition has given a very singular importance to Priscilla, even if the problem of identifying her with the martyr Priscilla remains."

A few more pieces of evidence are archeological. In Rome to this day there is still a street named after her (but not him) in the aventine Via de Santa Prisca. There is a large church built in her honor, that goes back to the 4th century and possibly earlier, which legend says was the location of her house. Incidentally under the church was a mithric temple, so it may have been that Prisca's "house church" was really quite nice, a converted temple, it also contains Christian catacombs from no later than the 2nd century. Her grave still has veneration.

So to summarize the bible teaches

• Paul does not consider her an inferior.
  
• That she outranked Aquila.
• That she taught theology.
  

External sources teach

• Church fathers agree she was a teacher.
• As that the interpretation of her being named first indicating primacy was upheld in both the ancient and modern world.
  
• Archeology indicates she was the more important of the pair.

Finally while highly speculative we have Adolf von Harnack's view that Priscilla wrote Hebrews (link to Ruth Hoppin summary). Luther suspected Apollos was the author. In either case we have the differences between the Pauline theology and the theology of Hebrews coming from Priscilla's school, and indicating the importance of her theological and philosophical teachings.

Miriam, a female church leader

Miriam is a minor biblical character who occurs in a few places. But those places are very telling:

Exodus:

2:1 A man from the household of Levi married a woman who was a descendant of Levi. 2:2 The woman became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a healthy child, she hid him for three months. 2:3 But when she was no longer able to hide him, she took a papyrus basket for him and sealed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the child in it and set it among the reeds along the edge of the Nile. 2:4 His sister stationed herself at a distance to find out what would happen to him.

2:5 Then the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself by the Nile, while her attendants were walking alongside the river, and she saw the basket among the reeds. She sent one of her attendants, took it, 2:6 opened it, and saw the child – a boy, crying! – and she felt compassion for him and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”

2:7 Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and get a nursing woman for you from the Hebrews, so that she may nurse the child for you?” 2:8 Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Yes, do so.” So the young girl went and got the child’s mother. 2:9 Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this child and nurse him for me, and I will pay your wages.” So the woman took the child and nursed him.

2:10 When the child grew older she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, “Because I drew him from the water.”

Exodus:

15:20 Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a hand-drum in her hand, and all the women went out after her with hand-drums and with dances. 15:21 Miriam sang in response to them, “Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and its rider he has thrown into the sea.”

Numbers:

12:1 Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married (for he had married an Ethiopian woman). 12:2 They said, “Has the Lord only spoken through Moses? Has he not also spoken through us?” And the Lord heard it.

12:3 (Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than any man on the face of the earth.)

12:4 The Lord spoke immediately to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam: “The three of you come to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them went. 12:5 And the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent; he then called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward.

12:6 The Lord said, “Hear now my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision; I will speak with him in a dream. 12:7 My servant Moses is not like this; he is faithful in all my house. 12:8 With him I will speak face to face, openly, and not in riddles; and he will see the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” 12:9 The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he departed. 12:10 When the cloud departed from above the tent, Miriam became leprous as snow. Then Aaron looked at Miriam, and she was leprous!

12:11 So Aaron said to Moses, “O my lord, please do not hold this sin against us, in which we have acted foolishly and have sinned! 12:12 Do not let her be like a baby born dead, whose flesh is half-consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb!”

12:13 Then Moses cried to the Lord, “Heal her now, O God.” 12:14 The Lord said to Moses, “If her father had only spit in her face, would she not have been disgraced for seven days? Shut her out from the camp seven days, and afterward she can be brought back in again.”

12:15 So Miriam was shut outside of the camp for seven days, and the people did not journey on until Miriam was brought back in. 12:16 After that the people moved from Hazeroth and camped in the wilderness of Paran.

Numbers:

20:1 Then the entire community of Israel entered the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh. Miriam died and was buried there.

Micah:

6:3 “My people, how have I wronged you?
How have I wearied you? Answer me!
6:4 In fact, I brought you up from the land of Egypt,
I delivered you from that place of slavery.
I sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to lead you.

The last verse particularly, Micah 6:4 indicates that Miriam is a leader at the level that Aaron is, that is Moses, Miriam and Aaron form a leadership triad but she is not on the same level as Moses. Calvin even though he disapproves of female elders agrees that both Miriam and Deborah were leaders with authority. That is he considers these two to be exceptions but does not deny they were leaders with authority. Moreover he asserts that this authority was granted directly by God:

Then he adds, I have set over thee as leaders Moses, and Aaron, and Miriam, the sister of them both.... With regard to Miriam, she also performed her part towards the women; and as we find in Exodus 15, she composed a song of thanksgiving after passing through the Red Sea: and hence arose her base envy with regard to Moses; for being highly praised, she thought herself equal to him in dignity. It is at the same time right to mention, that it was an extraordinary thing, when God gave authority to a woman, as was the case with Deborah that no one may consider this singular precedent as a common rule. (John Calvin Commentary on Micah 6:4)

Jewish legend also considers this a triad. Rashi, explains Ta’anith 9a (Ta’anith is the book of fasts and feasts) and provides the background needed to understand Micah 6:4.

Our Sages say that the three great Divine gifts that sustained the Jewish people in the desert-the Manna, the Clouds of Glory, and the Well-were in the merit of these three worthy shepherds, Moshe, Aaron, and Miriam respectively. "Miriam's Well," as it became known - a rolling rock that accompanied the Jewish people on their wanderings - provided fresh water in the desert, not only for the people, but also for their cattle and sheep. It also made the desert bloom with green pastures and beautifully scented flowers. Small wonder the people loved and respected this wise, G-d fearing and saintly prophetess. (Rashi/Chabad link)

This association with water comes from the bible itself, for those of a more mystical bent Numbers 20:1-2 presents a more interesting picture, Miriam dies and the water stops. Right after the song of Miriam the bitter water is made sweet, manah comes from heaver and Moses draws water from a rock. And of course Exodus 2:1-10 where she is associated with the river.

Going to numbers 12, this passage is often used against women teachers. However it says the exact opposite. God asserts quite clearly in 12:6-12:8 that he is directly sending Miriam visions and dreams. He contrasts that with the sort of direct conversation he has with Moses. And there is no question he considers Moses superior but the important thing in establishing female leadership that God is purposely tasking her with teaching. That is while this information is of lower quality than what Moses receives she most certainly is the recipient of revelation meant to be passed on to the people.

There is a lot of Jewish practice that is specific to women. Moses during the 40 years lays down laws that apply specifically to woman, but not in anywhere near enough detail for these instructions to be carried out. Also there are many other blessings and prayers that are woman's only, and presumably Moses wouldn't know these. That is Jews have very extensive customs and laws regarding duties including those that are exclusive and/or generally performed by woman (example menstral ritual purity and separation of dough) and mostly they are passed and taught by women to women. It would not be unreasonable that Miriam as the woman in the triad was the source of these. Especially given Aaron as the third this makes sense, i.e. Moses would have difficulty teaching things he was forbidden to actually do. So we could have Moses handles laws for the community as a whole, Aaron handled the rituals specific to priests, Miriam handled the rituals specific to woman.

So lets be clear on numbers 12. Being subordinate doesn't mean that one is not a leader. In fact in most denominations everyone is subordinate to some agency. In the Catholic church deacons to priests, priests to bishops, bishops to cardinals, cardinals to the pope and the pope to the councils (usually council of cardinals). I'd offer the story of Korah (Numbers 16) as a quick example that what happened to Miriam was because she was opposing Moses not because she was female. God himself states (Numbers 12:6-10) that it is because of his special relationship with Moses that Miriam and Aaron should not speak against Moses. There is no hint that what happened to Miriam is because she is a woman and the same thing happens to a male. So I think this proves that God did approve of Miriam as a leader, just not as one coequal to Moses. Everyone is subordinate to Moses, including Miriam, because he is a servant.

Again Jewish legend also upholds this interpretation, that the issue who she was opposing not that she wanted to teach. Rashi (commentary on Numbers 12:8):

against my servant Moses Heb. בְּעַבְדִי בְמשֶׁה, lit., against My servant, against Moses. Scripture does not say בְּעַבְדִי משֶׁה, against My servant Moses, but בְּעַבְדִי בְמשֶׁה, against My servant, against Moses . [The meaning is thus:] against My servant even if he were not Moses, and against Moses, even if he were not My servant, you should certainly have feared him, and all the more so since he is My servant, and the servant of the king is a king himself! You should have said, “The King does not love him for nothing.” If you claim that I am unaware of his actions, this [statement] is worse than your previous one. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:8, Tanchuma Tzav 13]

In Exodus 15 she acts as a music minister leading the woman in song and worship.

Miriam does not lead in the manner of a 21st century protestant on the list, she is depicted as almost 4000 years ago. But what the bible does teach is a divinely sanctioned teacher of the word who is a leader.