Andrew James blogs…
“During Hillsong Conference i went to one of Robert Fergusson’s electives on preaching. This was a two part series and this part was all about the delivery or your message or talk.
One of the exercises he demonstrated was to tell stories based on memories and relate it to a spiritual message. He said the word “frog” and then got someone to come up and instantly share a 1-2 minute memory of a frog, and pull a spiritual message in about the frog. So first of all you draw from a memory or experience with a frog, then talk a bit about that memory and demonstrate a spiritual message.
Well here is my memory, although while i was showering tonight i chose the word “elephant”
When i was 14, in Thailand, i had the wonderful opportunity of riding on an elephant. 10 foot up in the air sitting on my seat on the elephant’s back, we ascended what i thought was an almost vertical mountain side. It was wet, muddy and looked to be extremely slippery. This of course brought great fear as i was thrown forwards, backwards, sideways, every which way as the shoulder blades of the elephant bounced up and down as it walked. As I thought of the elephant in the shower tonight, and was thinking of my spiritual message to go with that memory it clicked! wow Roberts teaching really works!! I pulled memories of the elephant itself, its eyes half closed, looked almost as if it was completely at rest nearly sleeping, its ears flapping in the breeze shooing off the flies, and it walking so calmly up that muddy hill. Each foot it placed exactly where it was supposed to and had complete balance, the elephant wasn’t worried in the slightest
With God in us, we also can have this peace when we climb the ‘mountains’ in life. With the world ’slippery’ and ‘muddy’, like the elephant we can walk steadfast and without loss of balance, completely trusting that where we go is the will of God! – love it.
Thanks Mr elephant, I never thought you would have such an impact in my life nearly 15 years later.
PS. You should try it too, pick any random thing/noun and over a coffee share a story and a challenge.”
From http://www.thehudds.com/ajh/2009/07/steady-as-an-elephant/
No use for the Bible anymore then, Robert?
It does work to deliver a message though, doesn’t it. I felt peaceful and positive about walking with God just thinking about the elephant as an illustration.
Of course you could use the same technique to convey any message you like. Doesn’t mean it’s true. That’s where good use of scripture is really needed.
It seems a bit backwards to me. I don’t see a problem with preaching from experiences that relate to themes in the Bible but a lot of hill$ong pastors like to construct their sermons the opposite way. They think of a topic, often based on their life experiences, then find verses to support that message instead of understanding what the original authors intended to say. In this case, they have gone to a frog or an elephant first instead of the Bible. I’ve even heard Hill$ong pastors preach from movies then try to fit the Bible into the theme of the movie
my word is “erect cock about to blow it’s load”
Go for it – give me the sermon.
Peter denying Jesus three times before the cock crowed.
Too easy.
(Although, probably a bit too much biblical content there for a Hill$ong sermon)
Playing devil’s advocate here, I’d hazard a guess and say that the guys point is not so much to build an entire 45 minute message on the subject of a frog, but that sometimes illustrations from our own lives can help paint a picture and add further insight into what the bible is saying about a particular subject. Or not. I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
It’s an understandable method to use. People in today’s culture can relate to silly analogy’s like above. But geesh! It’s good to have a balanced dose of scripture with the analogy.
Problem with analogies is that people start living and applying analogies to their own life rather than scripture.
Ray Comfort is a beauty at doing this. His doctor analogy seems to be a powerful analogy to live by in teaching people how to evangelise. But because that analogy is relied on so heavily, rather than what the bible says about evangelism, it is defended more then what the bible says of evangelism and does more damage than good when applied to unbelievers, believers and the gifts of evangelism.
So analogy’s like the above can be incredibly erronous. Use at risk. Don’t read into them and defend the analogy if someone finds a hole in it. They are faulty, but the bible aint!
My tuppenceworth any way…
I actually like a lot of Ray Comfort’s preaching. He probably does overuse analogies but I don’t think he expects them to be taken too literally. He often uses the fireman analogy to describe evangelism, but if we really did evangelise like a fireman rescues people from a building then we would just look insane and reach no one. I didn’t like his banana the atheists worst nightmare thing either, but I think overall he does a lot of good in helping Christians share their faith. The good thing is that despite his flaws he always tells people to read the Bible for themselves and welcomes criticism, which can’t be said for a lot of pentecostal preachers
Just throwing this in, hey guys why aren’t there more female preachers???? What does every1 think
Because it’s not biblical – 1 Timothy 2:11-14. If you don’t agree take it up with God.
i know Teddy, ive read the Book, im just saying, not imploring. What about Joyce Meyer or other women that speak in uniting churches or whatever
anywho, thought that was a sore point, as has bee before in discussions. At the church I attend man, woman and child can speak if they choose…….anyway it also says in NT Deacons, Pastors should be married once only etc etc and that doesn’t happen so…and says women should have their hair/head covered, you don’t think that was a more cultural thing?
Im outta here, one feels sometimes they cannot speak their mind. I have a daughter and a son and they are treated equally, and they like that. They are both brilliant, different of course, but both treasured.
I read somewhere New Scientist or something that women speak twice as much as men. a fact in fact….but there are exceptions.
Women tend to talk more, chat more, but that is a generalisation too….
No, it’s not cultural in regards to authority, the reference verse 13-14, going back to Adam and Eve (no head covering there, or anything else!)
Have a look at churches where women are allowed to have (unbiblical) authority, you will find a whole lot of other unbiblical stuff going on. Generally “heresy central”. Take a look at the Elijah List mob , totally whacky! If anyone is interested, check out the last evening service “preached” by Chris Pringle at C3 on 28/06/09 http://www.myc3church.net/?q=node/71, one of the most foolish messages I’ve ever heard. It’s an embarrassment to the body of Christ.
Yeah, i know watcha mean, some women say the silliest things, they i think are not thinking but sort of going with a flow.
Ive heard C3 preachers………….no comment, cept Kelsy, he’s not too bad
Hey, just off the subject, just clicked on TTT’s address and PP’s site showed up, weird shit happening……………i mean shite, imean stuff
So we can prove the link between women and heresy can we? – what a lot of codswallop . In fact some of the greatest people alive were called heretics – Jesus and Galileo spring to mind
In fact a number of churches have had women in leadership for years – the sky hasn’t fallen in . In regard to Chris Pringle – maybe she is a really bad preacher – like Bobbie Houston – nothing to do with the fact they are women . Just a coincidence.
Take it up with God, Katherine. I’m done with scripture twisting. 22 years of it.
I’m not having a problem with TTT’s site http://thethinkingtheologian.blogspot.com/, however he’s “temporarily” retiring for a time it seems.
I have taken it up with God and am at peace .
So are you a pastor? I was, and am no longer. And funnily enough have peace! http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=4
Yeah, i have to say the boss of me is Jesus, that just keeps it easy and real. For me anyway
Yeah regards to ttt’s site, corrupted pc virus/flu, i have had some weird stuff from previous organisation/church…………too much to mention lol
Katharine (right spelling this time)two or three years ago I would have come at this topic of defending “women having authority over men” with guns blazing and with absolutely no scriptural evidence to back it up. My argument would have been only experiental and charismatic.
Have to let this go for a few hours as my husband is waiting to take me out to dinner and I must meekly submit…….
I’m done with twisting scripture too – including the scriptures that have been misused to keep women out of their place in the body of Christ. But I won’t go into those arguments here. I do think its important in churches where women preach for the congregation to understand why that is OK, at a scriptural level. Too often, its just because she’s the pastor’s wife. I did look into the subject to satisfy myself. A friendly book about it is ‘10 Lies the Church Teaches About Women’ by Lee Grady. And yes, I know he is Charismatic, (editor of Charisma magazine), and I found his explanations very interesting. But I respect those who feel differently. Churches where women teach should explain why. Too many of them can’t. Others certainly can. Those that can, probably have better teaching available on everything else, too.
Why on earth a woman has to preach regularly just because she is married to the church’s senior pastor, I don’t know. But its amazingly common. I’d rather see men and women who are specifically gifted, or have a particular message to bring, preach. No wonder people use existing women preachers to help justify their stance against women preaching when the qualification some of these women to do so regularly is zilch. Having said that, there are cases when the woman partner is a great speaker/preacher/teacher, and that is wonderful, and should be acknowledged.
Anyway it really wouldn’t be such an issue if churches were less institutionalised. If people weren’t elevated on pedestals, and if we knew and related to those with authority rather than viewed them from a distance, then you’d know who to listen to and who to ignore, based on your knowledge of their walk with God and their character. Gender would not even be an issue, most of the time.
Well, that was a bit of a rant, and a very abbreviated one. For the record, I have never been a pastor, and never aspired to be one. Or a teacher.
Hope you enjoyed your dinner Teddy.
Nothing wrong with submission – its the context and sense of the term that is crucial.
Women like Bobbie Houston, Chris Pringle and Joyce Meyer should also read verse 9 – I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
Why are some people obsessed with what women wear?
I have to say, changing the subject, i’m not a big fan of the Hillsong preaching. I heard brian Houston talking about how we need to “shoot the arrow.” He gave some old testament biblical examples of when arrows were used, and used them to say: “shoot your arrow.” Praying, I was revived to anger as I realized he was preaching a feel good message about life. His message is “Get up and go, now! There is so much good you can accomplish if you just shoot your arrow.” But what he speaks is heretical. We aren’t to shoot our own arrows, yet that’s what he said. We’re to rely on Christ to not only provide the arrows, but where and when to point them and shoot them. I was further appalled at how there was no gospel message. It was not related to the cross, it was just a feel good message. Woe to him! I pray a curse on Him! And then he claims all things in Jesus name?!?! To blaspheme my Lord and Savior in such a way… He is as the Pharisee who travels all manner of distance to make one convert, then once made, he makes him twice as fit for hell as himself. That God would rebuke him and put him in his place.
Preach from Scripture, preach the Gospel, and preach to save souls, or STOP CORRUPTING THE CHURCH WITH FALSE TEACHINGS!!!
Edwin Rohweller: “I pray a curse on Him!”
Please pray for Brian Houston instead. It’s better for God to lead and humble those in the body of Christ. You can be passionately against what someone has said, but PLEASE don’t curse anyone in God’s name.
Houston can get under my skin too sometimes. I believe they don’t preach the gospel enough and introduce false teachings. But cursing someone is a serious thing to do. Please take that back and just sincerely pray for the man to hear from God more clearly.
And by all means… have a rant here!
my word is “erect cock about to blow it’s load”
There are some odd and graphic scriptures in the bible. Some really focus on Israel’s prostitution. (Ezekiel 23 anyone! o_0 )
But I’m sure their is an uncomfortable one that talks about all man coming from the loins of the First Adam and now there are those that have come from the loins of Christ. First thing I thought of.
While the above is graphically put in foul language, Hebrews considered all things spiritual and sacred, so that form of imagery was appropriate to speak of who we were and now who we are in Christ.
About this whole ‘woman in leadership’ thing; rather then derail the thread here, let’s talk about it sensibly over on signposts02 .
http://www.signposts02.wordpress.com
Yes, let’s talk sense, here here SP. Have been re-reading the NT this morning and found some teachings on elders, quite interesting. Of note: Titus1:7-9 and Titus10:12-16. Gosh reading these scriptures are illuminating. But I agree discuss over at SP2 is more civil.
Have a great day
Don’t forget to include Titus 1:6…., the husband of but one wife.
Funny how you’ll grasp an old testament teaching on women in leadership and say it’s valid but when it comes to tithing you say because it’s OT it’s not relevant?
I’m not against either, if one feels so led then fine. I have received some great insight into some passages of scripture from the preaching of women, as with men. Even out of the mouths of children… and Teddy, to say “take it up with God..” what a weak, weak position.
Yeah, I’m so unrepentant of my anger, it’s not even funny. I believe it was Luther who said “Curse Erasmus!”, it was also he who said “I have no better remedy than anger. If I want to write, pray, preach well, I must be angry; then my entire blood supply refreshes me. My mind is made keen, and all temptations depart.” And Charles Spurgeon has stated, “Let eloquence be flung to the dogs rather than souls be lost. What we want is to win souls, and they are not to be won by flowery speeches.”
Concerning the curse, I am full aware that we are not to curse our brothers in Christ. I am familiar with James 3:9-10 and Romans 12:14. But my concern is with someone who teaches falsely. I question his very salvation, but beyond that, I am disturbed that people follow him in such great number. I would that God would strike him from his podium, his pedastal, that he would repent of his blasphemy and turn his face towards Jesus Christ. I would that he would not have need of suffering a curse, or a judgment. But such itself is blasphemy. For when Peter said to Jesus “Surely not you, Lord.” Christ’s response was “Get thee behind me Satan!”
I would rather him suffer shortly on earth than burn for eternity. I would rather he openly suffer, so that in his repentance he could become an even greater man of God. I would that his flock would see his wrong and believe on the gospel, and the preaching of the gospel, and not on the false doctrines of living a “purposeful” life. For we are not purposed by anyone but Jesus. And sometimes it is not prudent that we go into purpose blindly. But always it is prudent that we bow and pray, so that our going out can be with the purpose of the cross.
But you know this, and you understand my anger. The issue is with the curse. But I shed tears to say, I would rather he hurt now, than be flung into hell where there is weeping and wailing, and much gnashing of teeth. That he would pray thankfulness for God has rebuked him. That I would welcome a curse on myself, that my flesh would die, but my soul be saved. Praise the Lord that
he will restore my flesh after it has been purified by fire. Praise the Lord that His Son took upon Himself the curse of the Law that damns us all. “For Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Galations 3:13-14).
Where else do we go then beside His Word. The heart is deceitful above all else so our views can’t be validated anywhere else. If my opinion doesn’t line up with God’s CLEAR teaching, guess who’s wrong? Where’s the OT scripture your’e referring to – Deborah in Judges I guess, but that in itself is judgment. Her leadership was not spiritual by the way.
Let me clarify that last statement, I posted too soon. She acted primarily in the role of an arbiter, not as an ongoing leader, which explains why she called on Barak when needing military leadership against the Canaanites. There’s no other occasion where she had engaged in any ongoing prophetic work.
God has given women a different role in the church. Men and women are equal in spiritual privilege, capacity, blessedness, and promise. Both are able to serve the Lord effectively. But the responsibility of overseeing a church is limited to men.
teddy, oh teddy, oh teddy, Paul wrote many times of women who were doing equal work in the church to men, Lydia, Priscilla, Junia (who was commended as an apostle and see as an outstanding one) and also Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis, “women who work hard in the Lord. He also mentions Phoebe as a deacon in the church, as well Mary and Chloe. He wrote far more about women and appreciated women in Ministry far more than we generally recognise.
Teddy I see you accept that both men and women are able to serve the Lord effectively, however I think from Pauls writing that women were in leadership in the early church and that there is no real reason why women can not be heads of churches.
Gal. 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” is a call for equal roles within the church, despite the fact that it is speaking about salvation primarily it has impact on social roles as well.
this is a great discussion on women in ministry – very long but well worth the read I think.
The ultimate result of a woman being given authority -
Katherine Schori claims individual salvation is heresy
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10782
Yes teddy, because ALL women do that. (insert sarcasm here).
Can I ask if Teddy you’re male or female?
Its interesting that translators have sometimes gender biased their interpretations of the Bible too, where a woman had authority. For example, the name ‘Junia’ is sometimes translated ‘Junias’ or is thought of as a contracted version of the name ‘Junianus’. Apparently this gender changing of Junia only began in the thirteenth century when the name became less common.
Female, Alias. No one will win this discussion. If I say I take scripture as the final authority, where is the departure on opinions going to take us. Sarcasm, hmmmm …. what do you mean?
I feel sorry for you Teddy, in this instance.
In case you’re serious about your sarcasm question, my point was that you can’t possibly expect anyone to draw a line between one example of “women in authority” and all women who preach. I mean, seriously? That’s the best you’ve got?
I’m a bloke, btw.
Why do you feel sorry for me? What a strange thing to say. Especially to someone that has come out of 22 years of church lite aka C3. Katherine Schori is a pretty good example of what happens when church denominations go liberal. And I’m a member of a great anglican church now. And that’s the last thing I would have expected to happen – btw!
I think it’s great that you are doing well, please don’t misunderstand me. I guess I’m surprised that you seem so resigned to your ‘fate’ as a female.
And now we have Paula white back “pastoring” Without Walls the charismatic church founded by she and her now ex-husband – this list of flaky, no sound doctrine, female leadership just goes on and on!! Sorry to be seeming to belabour the point.
Attached is a fine example of what she believes:
Teddy, I do respect your view, but do differ based upon scripture itself. But regardless of which perspective we have, really, Paula White??? Its a bit like putting Steve Munsey or Phil Pringle up as examples of male preachers/teachers. Not fair!
This is the prevailing church culture today. This is the sort of leadership that false doctrine produces. A great quote I heard today..”False doctrine/teaching survives and flourishes where the people are most ignorant. Ignorance is the soil in which apostacy grows”.
This is the same culture that gives Joel osteen a standing ovation.
Couldn’t resist the Paula White link. Her returnis the latest big story coming through Charisma Magazine.
Teddy, I’d like to hear your take on Galatians 3:28 and how it affects the position of women in ministry. Also have you had a look at the paper I linked to?
I’m going to let John Macarthur express this issue as he does so much better than I can. As I’ve already said, this is a subject that won’t be resolved here. When someone comes out of a gospel lite charismatic church and starts embracing reformed theology as my husband and I have done, we can only rejoice in the freedom it brings. I’m a very outspoken, opinionated woman and haven’t felt any loss of freedom in “biblical submission” – in fact for all its so-called liberated women preaching at C3, I would suggest they are under “bondage” particularly to the “word of faith” stuff they espouse. This conversation is not about C3 women, I know you are referring to all women in the body of Christ but we have only ever known that style of church.
WHERE THE FEMINISTS GO WRONG! – John Macarthur
If more Christians understood the methods of feminist thinking and what kind of biblical interpretation they must do in order to arrive at their conclusions, they would likely be more hesitant to accept the feminist position. To understand the feminist interpretation process, we begin by examining their view of Galatians 3:28 and how their interpretation of that verse affects their interpretation of the rest of the New Testament.
FEMINIST VIEW OF GALATIANS 3:28 – The foundation for all feminist interpretation of the New Testament is Galatians 3:28–”Their is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Feminists interpret this verse to refer to an equality which is both theological, regarding men and women’s standing before God, and also social, regarding all of their relationships in day-to-day living. If men and women are equal before God, feminists say, then there can be no differences within their roles and responsibilities in society. Feminists therefore use this verse as the basis for the elimination of all role distinctions between men and women in Christianity. They then interpret all other New Testament verses on women in light of the feminist understanding of Galatians 3:28, thus demanding that no other verse be allowed to teach role distinctions for men and women.
PROBLEM WITH FEMINIST VIEW OF GALATIANS 3:28 – Feminists fail to interpret Galatians 3:28 in its proper context. The verse concerns the subject of justification and the believer’s relationship to the Abrahamic covenant. Paul was not seeking to establish social equality in the relationships he mentioned. Rather, he was showing that all, regardless of their standing in society, may participate by faith in the inheritance of Abraham to be sons of God. He was teaching the fundamental equality of both men and women in their standing before God. Even the feminists emphasize that this is a theological passage rather than one dealing with practical matters.
Equality of being before God does not require the elimination of all role distinctions in society. Equality of being does not rule out authority and submission in relationships. We could point to many examples of relationships in which there is equality and yet a difference in roles involving authority and submission–the Trinity, the President and U. S. citizens, parents and children, employers and employees, Elders and church members.
The theology of Galatians 3:28 will result in certain social implications, but they will be the ones given in the Bible. Where authority and submission are discussed in relationships in the New Testament, instructions are given for how those relationships may be regulated so that they function in Christian love and harmony and not with abuse. The Bible does not eliminate authority but cautions that authority should be exercised in a way that honors Christ. Those in authority (husbands, Elders, parents, employers) are instructed to use their authority in a godly way. And also, those who are to submit to these authorities (wives, church members, children, employees) are instructed to submit to authority in a godly way.
Because feminists want to rule out the submission of wives to husbands and of women to male leadership in the church on the basis of Galatians 3:28, they face a serious problem in biblical interpretation when they come to the Pauline passages which explicitly teach the submission of wives to husbands and women to the male leadership in the church. Beginning with their interpretation of Galatians 3:28 that all role distinctions must be abolished in the name of equality, they seek to interpret these other Pauline passages (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5; I Tim 2:11-15; I Cor. 11:1-16; I Cor. 14:34-35) in light of that questionable interpretation of Galatians 3:28. Feminists of various persuasions have come up with four different ways of handling this biblical material in order to reach conclusions favorable to the feminist viewpoint:
FEMINIST VIEW #1 – The New Testament passages which teach the submission of women were not really written by Paul but were added by scribes, and thus are not part of the inspired Word of God.
PROBLEM WITH VIEW #1 – This position reveals a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. According to this view, some of the Bible was inspired by God and some was not. Therefore, the Christian, rather than submitting to Scripture, must function as the judge of Scripture–always making decisions about what is inspired and what is not inspired. Both II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21 indicate that God inspired all Scripture, that he was overseeing the process of the writing of Scripture in such a way that the end product is His Word, not the product of human authors. Thus, the Christian views all of the Bible as God’s inspired Word and does not set himself as judge of the Bible.
FEMINIST VIEW #2 – The New Testament passages which teach the submission of women were written by Paul, but he was wrong. Those who hold this view believe Paul was too much influenced by his rabbinical background and that in his writing of Scripture he had not reached a full understanding of how the gospel related to relationships between men and women. Thus, he was mistaken in some of the passages he wrote.
PROBLEM WITH VIEW #2 – This position is also based on a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. In this view, too, the Christian must become the judge of Scripture to determine for himself what is correct and what is incorrect. This view assumes that twentieth century man has a better understanding of God’s truth than did the Apostle Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21 indicate that God worked in and through the writers of Scripture in such a way that the end product was God’s perfect Word and not a conglomeration of truth and error put together by human authors.
FEMINIST VIEW #3 – The New Testament teaches the submission of women, but the teachings are no longer applicable in the twentieth century. According to this view, Paul was teaching the world view of his own culture in the first century, but our twentieth century culture is more enlightened about the equality of men and women, so the teaching no longer applies. Or sometimes it is said that writers of the New Testament knew that the ideal was to abolish all gender-based roles but feared to hinder the gospel if they broke so radically with their own culture. Thus, these Pauline passages are relegated to temporary cultural truth rather than universal truth for all cultures and all times.
PROBLEM WITH VIEW #3 – The foundation for Paul’s teaching on the role or responsibilities of women is never the culture of his own day but rather the purpose of woman’s creation and the woman’s failure in the fall as Paul points out in I Corinthians 11:1-9 and I Timothy 2:8-15. Adam was created first, and Eve was later created as a helper for him rather than their being created simultaneously and independent of each other. Eve was deceived and led her husband into sin rather than submitting to his leadership. If the reason for the woman’s submission is related to the creation and the fall, than it is not something which can change from year to year and culture to culture. Rather, it is a universal principle.
Some feminists say that there was no submission for the woman in creation but only as a result of the fall, that Genesis 3:16 was the beginning of authority and submission. But Genesis 2:18-25 teaches a submissive role for Eve in relationship to Adam, and Paul interprets it that way in the New Testament. Thus, the cross does not rid us of authority and submission, but it brings harmony to authority and submission relationships.
FEMINIST VIEW #4 – The New Testament, if rightly understood, has never taught the submission of women. If the literary context, the historical context and the theological context were carefully studied, Paul would be clearly seen to be egalitarian, and thus the New Testament teaches that women may fulfill any responsibilities in the marriage and the church that men may fulfill. Thus, “headship” means only “source” and never “leader” or “authority.” “Be subject” means only “relate yourselves to” or “respond to” or “adjust yourselves to” and never “submit to.”
PROBLEM WITH VIEW #4 – In these last two views the confusion among the various feminist representives comes to the surface. Both groups read these same passages, and some say they teach submission and others say they do not.
Greek lexicons include “authority” as one of the meanings for “head” and “submit” as one of the meanings
By the way Greg, I’ve listened to several interviews with Joseph Tkach and the journey that cult took to becoming Christ centred.
http://sharpens.blogspot.com/search/label/JOSEPH%20TKACH
I’ve also watched a video link elsewhere – I do get around the WWW, part of that journey out of our own deception.
Teddy you have come from Christianity-light in C3 to Anglicanism full fat and hard right in the Sydney Diocese…the greater majority of Anglicans around Australia do not share John Macarthur’s views…For a start he uses words like feminist to get reasonable people off side with a particular view of scripture purely because they don’t want to be thought of as being feminist…this throws a block up in his arguement – one that doesn’t exist in reality…it is not just feminist theologians who feel that women should have equal place and roles in the church.
I’m not interested in John Macarthur’s views – I want to hear your views. Why when Paul had no problem with female leaders do you feel that females should not be leaders?
Why is it that woman can lead in civil society but not in church? Show me any intelligent person who believes that? Going to John Macarthur for support is not helping your cause – he is extremely right wing and has been the subject of accusations of heresy himself!
I’m with you here Greg, as someone with both Sydney Anglican and Pente background. Doesn’t mean I’m right of course, but thank you for putting forward the other side of this discussion. I had to settle this issue for myself, and am peaceful with the result. You don’t have to be a ‘feminist’ to have a different view to John Macarthur; neither do you need to dominate your husband. (Why would you, in Christ? Thinking of this things in terms of who is in charge just misinterprets the issue.)
I would add that John Macarthur can and should be questioned just like any other Christian leader; the Anglicans do not have a monopoly on doctrine although they express themselves logically and very clearly. That is their strength and their weakness. Weakness in that if they take an unnecessary or wrong stance, its pretty convincing to them and many others.
Our appreciation of John Macarthur was partly due to his book “Charismatic Chaos”. From there our primary teaching comes from the doctrines of grace,in particular http://www.salvationbygrace.org.
Now you can say what you like about JM but the gratefulness we have to the leading of the Holy Spirit to historical reformed theology is huge. I don’t have a problem with women teaching women, the scriptures (Titus 2:3-4)call for that and is neglected in the church today. Nor do I have a problem with serving in various capacities, children’s ministries, worship, bible reading etc but see biblical mandate for male oversight.
You want my opinion not JM’s but I agree with him and he is not a stand alone theologian either so don’t pillory him!!. You want me to use scripture, but you would only object because you don’t agree with the “interpretation”. I look at scripture applying three rules, 1.context 2.context 3.context. Listened to enough teaching to start applying original language to interpret text.
Extreme right-wing you say, I disagree! Just someone who preaches and teaches faithfully. And I don’t think God has taken us through such a painful process of deprogramming only to drop us into more deception.
Did you read any articles on Katherine Schori and the split in the States – 700 churches broken away from the episcopal church, much like Australia and Africa breaking away from England over these very same issues. What are your views on what she has say about personal salvation? Track the church’s views historically as they start ordaining women, don’t you see what’s happening?
RP, John Macarthur was part of the journey, still like him and listen occasionally. And of course, he’s just a man to be questioned and he would happily concur. He’s not arrogant, just passionate for sound doctrine to be preached from all pulpits. Listen to guys like Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Mark Dever, C J Mahaney – all so different who are reformed in their views but can all sit down and be in disagreement on minor issues but total agreement on major issues such as women in ministry
!
its allgood, don’t worry be happy, we all love the words of Jesus, so it’s all good
yEAH RIGHT
Ah well, have to agree to disagree on this one, Teddy. I do think it would be a less ‘major’ issue if churches didn’t have the habit of elevating their teachers/preachers to such heights. It would take a book to discuss it, so I’m not going to make any cases here.
I think the people you’ve mentioned often make good points; some of them do seem a bit arrogant to me though. I found the Sydney Anglican scene to be a bit arrogant, actually, but I know that individual churches can be viewed on their merits, so I wouldn’t suggest that every Anglican church had the arrogance seen in the one I used to attend. I have some friends attending a wonderful one nearby which is not like the one I used to attend.
I actually don’t see that women being in leadership leads to negative impact…in fact my rector is a woman and in the time she has been rector of our parish it has virtually doubled in size. It used to be just her as rector and now we have another full time ordained assistant. I see just as many men leading the church down the wrong path as there are woman who do…it’s called human nature, it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender or headship. Our Diocese (Newcastle) which is viewed by the Sydney diocese as being quite liberal when actually it has quite a solid mix of high and low church, liberal, anglo-catholic and evangelical traditions has many strong, evangelical women rectors and a few who I wouldn’t set foot in their churches – but it’s about their doctrine not their gender – there are just as many male rectors whose churches will never see me inside them.
I’m not saying Teddy that God has dropped you into more deception – for example God brought me back into his church through the writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong who is anathema to Sydney Anglicans and I too agree that there is a whole raft of areas where he has got it wrong – and yet so many more where he is spot on – John Macarthur is obviously someone like that for you – he may well be right on many issues – he is wrong on the women in ministry issue.
I would still like you to respond to this comment of mine:
To clarify I mean to ask, show me any intelligent person who thinks that women should not lead in civil society. Many women have led entire countries – and yet you think they are not qualified by virtue of nothing other than biology to lead a church?
I have no objection to women in civil authority – however do you think the BIBLE (shouting) encourages us to think of nations as blessed when women hold the reins of national authority Isaiah 3:12?
just dont mention thatcher erg………..idid at a dinner party once……mention Gandhi’s fa;mily
I nearly did!!!!
What about Robert Mugabe? What about Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, blah, blah, blah…
Were they all women in drag?
Point being, as Greg the Explorer basically said, there are good and bad leaders of both genders, within the church and without. Pointing to these examples is just arguing selectively when we use them to prove a broad generalisation.
I know people who thought Margaret Thatcher was God’s gift, by the way. So again, it all depends on your political persuasion.
The arguments from scripture are another matter.
I am going to add my two cents to this discussion on Women in the Church and Ministry (I have been working too hard this week to do any visiting here…):
Having been exposed to “feminism theology” (a view from women on theology), I must admit to my eyes being opened. Lots of people will use the scriptures to bar women from entering the ministry, running churches or even just being themselves! For me, women have so much more to give to the world – and their viewpoints can be so life altering. While not being a total Joyce Meyer fan, I admire her.
Now as for the scriptures, we have to remember the world view that in existence. Paul writing to Timothy was writing with a Jewish cultural background. Now that would influence his point of view massively. The New Testament world was an extremely Patriarchal society. Roman men “owned” their family. Even sons of Romans were under their authority until the father passed on! Women were just above slaves in certain respects. While women will always have immense influence on their husbands, they were still subjected to abuse and discrimination.
Also let us remember the Levitical law when it came to marriage – if the husband died before he had sired a child, then the woman was to marry his brother and the first child would be considered to be heir to the deceased husband’s estate. (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). While this had practical reasons, this would be considered barbaric today. Also lets not forget that women had no choice in whom they were to marriage – it was arranged in most cases.
We should also remember the example of the women caught in adultery and brought to Jesus, with the intention of catching him out. Why was the man not there?
Finally women would marry at young ages – Joseph passed away before Jesus’ ministry – he would have been around mid twenties to early thirties when married, Mary would have been married off at age 13 or 14!
So why have I brought up these examples? Because we don’t live like this, and Scripture should be interpreted in its correct context – historical, socio-cultural, textual and reader response criticism should be taken into consideration. We need to read the Bible through the eyes of the original author/audience. We have enough historical evidence to understand a lot of the customs and culture of biblical times.
Women in biblical times cannot be considered to today’s women. Since the advent of the enfranchisement of women and the women’s lib movement, women have been liberated to a large degree except in the church! We have come a long way since the middle ages and victorian times – women are almost equal to men in every way. My wife is an extraordinary women as a wife, a mother and what she does in her profession as a veterinary surgeon! I take my hat off to her!
I know of some really good women in ministry. One of them is Lyndie McCauley, Ray McCauley’s ex-wife, who was a reluctant minister at first. She had to take a service one Sunday morning – without any preparation, because Ray had been delayed on a flight back from the US. I found her immensely real – that to me is what defined her. Her theology is sound and what she has taught is fantastic! She has a massive heart for people and that comes across in her messages with huge dollops of compassion for people.
In summary, I believe that Scripture should not be manipulated to suit people and Women have their place on an equal standing with men in ministry.
Teddy has her own convictions – and that is fine. I think that some times you have to just accept that some will have their own viewpoint.
Why is my comment awaiting moderation Lance?
It’s one of life’s great mysteries.
WordPress just does that sometimes.
“It’s one of life’s great mysteries.”
LOL!!!!
“Summary, I believe that Scripture should not be manipulated to suit people and Women have their place on an equal standing with men in ministry.”
I like you, Craig, I really, really like you
p.s. Craig, not just because I agree with your theology of women, but also your cultural theology of braaivleis, rugby, sunny skies and chevrolet…and boerewors!
“p.s. Craig, not just because I agree with your theology of women, but also your cultural theology of braaivleis, rugby, sunny skies and chevrolet…and boerewors!”
Ek het my land baie lief! I am sure you miss home a lot! There is no where else like it… It would cause me great sorrow to leave again.
Ok! Now you’ve done it! I miss that red dirt soooooooo much.
It’s obviously difficult to convince someone of a Biblical mandate when they refuse to accept the Bible as authoritative. The problem with the argument is that the church must necessarily reflect the attitudes and social structure of the world. But the church is not “of the world” (John 15:19) nor is it commanded to follow or reflect worldly attitudes.
I mean to say “if” not “when” – but it is an interesting point. Does everyone invovled in this discussion see the Bible as authoritative?
yes but not as a literal prescription in all regards
I just follow what Jesus said, mostly, and the epistles/letters, and I seek counsel from wise men/women
Have a great day everyone
The Holy Scriptures are inspired by God, but the authored by men, thus the Bible is the Word of God, but we need to always consider the men who wrote the Scriptures. For this reason we have to interpret the Bible and use hermeneutical tools to gain insight into their thinking – and what God desired us to hear. Peeling away the layers of the text we gain insight. In fact, the Text can be seen as a tapestry, with many colours and textures.
The Bible is not free of “this world” – because it is of this world – it is the means by which God has chosen to communicate with us. Men wrote the Bible, not God Himself. People were the instruments and for that particular reason we see their biases and their culture coming through.
As Greg said, the Bible is not a text to be used or translated literally. It is the Word of God for myself and it has authority for me when it comes to my salvation and how to get closer to God, but as for social norms and values – I do not view the Bible as prescriptive when it comes to certain social norms.
I think that literal interpretations get people into trouble.
Craig, it fascinates me when the claim is made that the Bible is authored by men and that we need to cede to their humanity in its invovlvment.
All scripture is God-breathed. God wrote the Bible.
The truth is still the truth. We continue to follow the dictates and standards laid out in Scripture because we recognize that the church of Jesus Christ belongs to God, not to the people who have brought into the body. We can’t at the same time claim to worship God while rebelling against His word.
The church is distinct from the world. Since the church was established by Jesus, who also sustains it, He is able to dictate the organizational structure of His church (Mat. 16:18).
But I assume that such an argument is a moot point when dealing with someone who sees no God-breathed authority in that Word.
And I can’t spell involvement or maybe I can.
I love what J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) said -
“It is another fact that there is an extraordinary accuracy in the facts and statements of the Bible, which is supernatural and above man. Here is a book which has been finished and before the world for nearly 1800 years. Those 1800 years have been the busiest and most changeful period the world has ever seen. During this period the greatest discoveries have been made in science, the greatest alterations in the ways and customs of society, the greatest improvements in the habits and usage’s of life. Hundreds of things might be named which satisfied and pleased our forefathers, which we have laid aside long ago as obsolete, useless, and old-fashioned. The laws, the books, the houses, the furniture, the clothes, the carriages of each succeeding century, have been a continual improvement on those of the century that went before. There is hardly a thing in which faults and weak points have not been discovered. There is scarcely an institution which has not gone through a process of sifting, purifying, refining, simplifying, reforming, amending, and changing. But all this time men have never discovered a weak point or a defect in the Bible. Infidels have assailed it in vain. There it stands, -perfect, and fresh, and complete, as it did eighteen centuries ago. The march of intellect never overtakes it. The wisdom of wise men never gets beyond it. The science of philosophers never proves it wrong. The discoveries of travellers never convict it of mistakes.-Are the distant islands of the Pacific laid open? Nothing is found that in the slightest degree contradicts the Bible account of man’s heart.-Are the ruins of Ninevah and Egypt ransacked and explored? Nothing is found that overturns one jot or tittle of the Bible’s historical statements.-How shall we account for this fact? Who could have thought it possible that so large a book, handling such a vast variety of subjects, should, at the end of 1800 years, be found so free from erroneous statements? There is only one account to be given of the fact,-the Bible was written by inspiration of God.”
“But I assume that such an argument is a moot point when dealing with someone who sees no God-breathed authority in that Word.”
This what I wrote:
“The Holy Scriptures are inspired by God, but the authored by men, thus the Bible is the Word of God, but we need to always consider the men who wrote the Scriptures.”
I will always believed that the Bible is God inspired, and He breathed life into the words written by men, but the Bible was written by men – and men are fallible, they make mistakes, they are biased and therefore, the imperfect. This is what makes the Bible so amazing – that God could use imperfection to bring forth His thoughts! But I believe it to be naive to think that the authors of the Bible did not have a certain slant to their writings. The four Gospels are an example of this: Three are called the “synoptic Gospels” and then there is John. However, even though the three synoptic Gospels echoed each other (this is a fascinating study), there remained very different slants to their particular versions of the Gospels!
Teddy we both have very different approaches to our views on the Bible. I once believed the way you do until I was educated to think differently and question everything that I believed and was taught. I still do so today, and I still question my own faith today. I am not out to get you to change your point of view, I am just giving my 2 cents worth. God Bless you.
So, forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you, are you saying there could be “mistakes” in the Bible? And I’m enjoying the dialogue,
grace and peace to you too!
“So, forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you, are you saying there could be “mistakes” in the Bible?”
Mistakes in the Bible? Depends on what you are referring to. Translation errors do exist, although the more modern translations are pretty accurate.
I would not say that the authors of the Bible made mistakes in recounting the story of salvation – especially St Paul! But what I am saying, is that we cannot make the Bible prescriptive when it comes to social norms and values. There are universal laws that transcend the ages and are considered to be non-negotiable, eg: murder, stealing, adultery etc etc. However, for me the specific issue that we are discussing, women in ministry and behaviour of women in the church is one of those issues that I believe cannot be made prescriptive for today. There is a denomination in SA, which originated from the Netherlands that uses the Bible to prescribe how women should dress, the Pinkster Protestante Kerk. Needless to say, women are not allowed to wear make up, jewellery or even cut their hair. A lot of the people that I have met from this church are wonderful christians, good moral people. But women are conservative in the extreme. That for me is a good example of using a literal translation of the Bible which results in an oppression of women. The women attending the PPK churches defend their beliefs, but yet it was a doctrine that was created by men!
I enjoy my wife dressing up, wearing make up and wearing jewellery. To me, it enhances her beauty.
But if you go into the reasons why Paul was prescriptive about women dressing modestly and not wearing jewellery and make up, just think about it – the women who did dress like that were out to make themselves attract to the opposite sex for only one reason – sex, and most of those women would have been prostitutes. Sex in the Ancient Near East was a very private affair occurring in marriage. But in the Graeco-Roman world, there was a very different view. Homosexuality was an accepted practice in Greek society, women were fair game for men in the Roman world. Orgies were common place in high society of Rome. For a Jew like Paul this was totally repugnant and this would have come through in his writings and his prescription of morality and norms and values.
Teddy if you believe in the scriptural place and role of a woman I would respectfully ask why you are trying to “teach” Craig (obviously a man?) or others on blogs such as these? Clearly, that is not the role of a woman in scripture.
I actually agree with almost all of your points on a woman’s role and the infallibility of scripture, even though it is considered anathema and oh-so politically incorrect to come out and say these things. Having said all that, I would be keeping this in mind:
1 Timothy 2:12 “…But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression…”
A woman teaching a man amounts to the same thing as the church teaching Christ. In the “pecking order” of God’s church, women may teach women, men may teach both sexes and Christ is above all save the Father.
Ephesians 5:21 “…For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body..”
1 Cor 11:3 “…But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God…”
If Craig or any other person on this blog won’t accept the plain words of scripture, they should not consider themselves “spiritual” at all –
1 Cor 14:37 “…If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I WRITE unto you are the commandments of the Lord…”
Don’t fall into the trap of being baited Teddy. Stick to your guns but don’t go against scripture and try to teach men. Let God sort these clowns out.
I’m not trying to teach. I see your point but this is a blog not a church and discussions do drift from one area to another. In fact, I has already decided not to continue as we have definite areas of dissension, as someone who believes in the inerrancy of scripture.
Teddy not anonymous!!!
Just saw this about a response of mine about Ray Comfort’s overuse of analogy:
“He probably does overuse analogies but I don’t think he expects them to be taken too literally.”
I have read and watched allot of his material and seem to remember him putting more emphasis and focus on his analogies, trips and ticks then what the bible says on evangelism.
Because of this, he does miss the mark completely. If he studied the bible thoroughly, he would discover that it’s the Holy Spirit that convicts unbelievers of sin, not the law.
I’m not wanting to get into a discussion about Ray Comfort’s teaching’s specifically, but he is a great example of someone who does overdo it with analogy, and the results are cuccoo.
And Edwin Rohweller, you are one interesting character. I hope I get to know you better as we chat here and on SignPosts02.
I find it quite ironic that I have been arguing the case for women!
As for the comments that have been made, it is funny how people presuppose things. My view of the Holy Scriptures is that it is the Word of God. However the Bible should be interpreted correctly, i.e. a literal translation is a poor translation in my view, because it fails to take into consideration the the complexity of a 2000+ year collection of manuscripts.
The Bible is inerrant and infallible in my opinion when it comes to my salvation and the direction of how to commune with God.
However to discount everything I have mentioned in the approach to Biblical Interpretation is also quite a sad thing. I learnt to apply hermeneutical tools to the text of the Bible at University. It opened my eyes up to Scripture like never before!
And finally what I also want to mention is Ethics. What do we deem as sin? What do we consider as sin? Some cultures will view some activity as sin, while others will not. In my country, alcohol consumption is viewed as sinful, as you are destroying the Temple of the Holy Spirit. In the UK, this is not a considered sin. There are universal laws which God has put into place, and which God will judge us on. But our conscience plays a massive role in our lives. And our conscience is heavily influenced by culture and cultural norms and values.
I believe that many things that we deem to be critical to our sanctification are not as important as we think!
I have enjoyed our debate Teddy. Agreement to disagree is a good place to keep harmony. God Bless!