Women's Roles in the Church and the Gospel

Earlier in the week I did a couple of posts on the role of women in the church (here and here) that were spun off of this post by Rhett Smith, whose post was spun off of this statement from the Together for the Gospel folks.

Article XVI

We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the church, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.

We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical dinstinction of roles excludes women from meaningful minstry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

In the first post I did I defended the T4TG statement against Rhett's assertion that this gave evidence of the oppression of women.  In the second post I dealt with what I thought was the real issue.

In this post I want to address a different matter, and that is the issue raised in the last sentence of the article 16:

We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

There is a huge debate today between complementarians and egalitarians about women's roles in the church.  The egalitarians would take issue with the statement as a whole, but that would be just a rehashing of the standard debate that has gone on and is still going on.  But this last statement has ratcheted things up a notch because, in the egalitarians view, in tying women's roles to the gospel the T4TG signers seem to be elevating the issue to a top tier issue.

Most Christians will, in one form or another admit that there are some doctrines or issues that take greater precedence than others.  Protestants will say that the doctrine of justification by faith is a top tier, non-negotiable issue, but something like eschatology or baptism is a lower tier issue where Christians can disagree.

And that is the crux of the matter here.  Whether the signers of these articles meant to do this or not, the last sentence of Article XVI seems to elevate the "women's roles" issue into that top tier.

I gotta say that I am loathe to criticize the T4TG folks - I consider myself to be on the same theological team as these guys in most ways and consider them to be my superiors in every way.  Further I think the statement as a whole pushes pretty much all of the right buttons.  They have addressed many issues and theological fads that definitely damage the church's witness to the gospel.

And, as I said I am in agreement with the statement as a whole.  But I do think this last sentence in Article XVI gives the impression that egalitarianism necessarily damages our witness to the gospel, and I think that states the matter too strongly.

And the way I would state my own position in this regard would be to say that:

Egalitarianism may accompany compromise on the gospel, but it does not necessarily cause the compromise of the gospel.

My impression is that the last sentence of Article XVI implies the latter. 

I'll defer toJeremy Pierce for an explanation of how egalitarianism may accompany the compromise of the gospel.  In a comment on one of my prior posts he said:

One way it damages the message of the gospel is that egalitarians tend to link egalitarianism to the level of the gospel. They say the gospel removes the distinction entirely except for basic biological differences in who bears children, tying Gal 3:28 to gender roles rather than simply equality in the face of the gospel. It's possible that they just mean that a perspective like that undermines the gospel.

The other thing that it does is it destroys role relations in the Trinity. Part of the gospel is Christ's submission to the Father's will, and part is the self-sacrificial love of Christ for the church as her head and husband. You remove that when you call it "the heresy of hierarchicalism" if you take I Cor 15 seriously and admit that Christ's submission to the Father is eternal, as many egalitarians do.

And I'll defer to Jeremy again for an explanation of how the one doesn't necessarily follow the other -

I do think egalitarians can avoid saying those things, though, and that makes it false to say that egalitarianism always involves something that undermines the gospel. What would be more accurate would be to say that egalitarianism's implications can undermine the gospel if they're clearly seen and accepted, while admitting that not every egalitarian accepts such implications.

Also, any discussion of things like this will lead to some name dropping where it is pointed out that so and so is egalitarian and this person's credentials are impeccable on the gospel.  I think that is a weaker argument as it can come perilously close to a fallacious appeal to authority.  But though I think this is a weaker argument I do think it has some merit.

In a comment on a prior post, Joel Hunter brought up John Stott and wondered if the T4TG folks think he has damaged his witness to the gospel.  I am unaware of Stott's position on this matter but I assume, from what Joel is saying, that Stott must be a complementarian.  Of course many folks think Stott has damaged his witness to the gospel because of his position on eternal punishment (and I am not sure if he has changed on that or not), but I doubt anyone would throw him off the boat solely for his position on women's roles.

Also, those of us who studied at RTS-Orlando back in the 90's remember Roger Nicole, the esteemed Reformed Baptist theologian.  I once heard R. C. Sproul refer to him as St. Roger or St. Nicole or something like that.  To my knowledge his evangelical, conservative and reformed credentials have never been questioned even though he is egalitarian.

As I have read some of the T4TG folks over the years they have written or endorsed some strong polemics against positions that other T4TG people held.  Yet they could embrace one another.  And I do believe there are more Roger Nicole types out there whose grasp of the gospel we don't want to call into question.

While I do think that the issue of women's roles is an important one on a number of levels, and while I also believe that egalitarians are in error, I think the T4TG folks would serve the body well by offering some rationale, clarification, or revision of the last sentence of Article XVI.   

 

Related Tags: Current Affairs, Politics & Society, Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Church, Women, Women in leadership, Leadership, Elders, Teaching Elders, Ecclesiastical, Together for the Gospel

Comments

[Ligon Duncan]

Dear David:

Thanks for your thoughtful posts on the T4G Statement. The T4G posse will soon begin blogging through the articles and trying to explain some of the things folks are asking about or reacting to, but I thought I'd give you a quick shout on this subject.

First, let me say that Mark, Al, CJ and I have boundless respect for folks like Roger Nicole. Al and I have done endorsements for some of Roger's books, and Mark was Roger's Byington Scholar at Gordon-Conwell. No one loves him more or regards him more than we do. His work on the atonement, for instance, is stellar (and he's recently written to CT praising Mark Dever's article on the same). However, we think his views (evangelical egalitarianism) on the Bible's teaching on manhood and womanhood are seriously mistaken and damaging to Christian marriages and congregations. Roger thinks the same about our views. But we all still love and regard one another. Nevertheless, all seven participants in T4G think complementarianism is vital for the effective Gospel witness of the church in this increasingly pagan setting.

Second, let me provide you a sneak peak at some of my own reasons for seeing complementarianism as a non-negotiable for Gospel witness in our times. Four things.

One, deny complementarianism and the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is undermined (thus harming the church's witness to the Gospel). The gymnastics required to sustain the position that when God says in the Bible that "I do not allow a women to teach or to exercise authority over a man," He doesn't mean than women cannot teach, and that in fact He does want women to teach and rule in the church -- has a devastating effect on the practical authority of the Bible in the church. This is one reason why I think we just don't see any Roger Nicoles in the younger generation of evangelicalism (meaning: those who hold strongly to inerrancy and also to egalitarianism). Many if not most evangelical egalitarians today have significant qualms about inerrancy, and are embracing things like trajectory hermeneutics, etc. to justify their positions. Inerrancy or egalitarianism, one or the other, eventually wins out.

Two, the possibility of a definitive common basic interpretation of the Bible is lost. Because if you can get egalitarianism from the Bible, you can get anything from the Bible. You know, Baptists and Presbyterians both would love a verse that says "I do not permit paedo-baptism" or "I do not permit believers-only baptism." We'd rejoice if we had one. It would settle so many things. Well, we have two handfulls of those verses on complementarianism, and our egalitarian friends regularly come up with new arguments for why those passages don't mean what they say. This undermines confidence in the clarity of Scripture and a common interpretation of it, and undermines the authority of Scripture (as in point one), and thus harms our Gospel witness.

Three, because extra-biblical ideas underlie evangelical egalitarianism (based as it is on borrowed ideas from cultural feminism, and, as Peter Jones has shown, even paganism), whenever and wherever it's principles are worked out consistently, there is an eventual denial of the Gospel. This has played out already in the Sophia movement, so the slippery slope argument on this matter is not an uncharitable speculation, but an established historical fact.

Four, when the biblical distinctions of maleness and femaleness are denied, Christian discipleship is irretrievably damaged because there can be no talk of cultivating distinctively masculine virtue or feminine virtue. One can only speak of a vague androgynous discipleship. That's not how God made us though. We need masculine male Christians and feminine female Christians, and that kind of discipleship requires an understanding of and commitment to complementarianism. Hence, denial of complementarianism compromises Gospel discipleship.

For these reasons and more, I think we were right to "deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel." But we'll have a chance to say more on this later.

Hope this helps.

Your friend,

Ligon

[Chong]

I’m a complimentarian. I can see how egalitarianism results from (1) denying the authority of Scripture; (2) sloppy hermaneutics; (3) extra-biblical ideas; and (4) denying gender differences.

But, in order to justify the statement in question, it would be helpful to spell out the connection between egalitarianism and the gospel itself—because it is not immediately apparent (without further explanation, I tend to agree with David Wayne’s reformulation). When we think about the gospel, we think about the things that are essential for salvation, not male headship and God’s established order for the church. So how do these issues really affect the gospel?

I think the statement tries to capture the meaning behind passages such as: “…encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored [or blasphemed].” (Titus 2:4-5)

Everything we do can affect our witness. Indeed, we are living epistles written not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of flesh (2 Cor. 3:3). If wives are not submissive to their husbands, they dishonor God’s word. If women reject God’s established order in the church, they are not living out the word of God. Our humility and submissiveness exemplifies Christ. (By contrast, our pride and disorder blasphemes God’s holy name.) This is the testimony of our lives. This is the gospel lived out. This is how we “speak” of Christ that people would come to know Him and be saved.

Of course, it is necessary to preach the gospel message. But I think the statement attempts to emphasize the importance of accurately living out God’s word—because that too is sharing Christ with the world.

[wfseube]

Thank you, David, for your postings, and Ligon for your subsequent comment. I wholeheartedly agree with both of you. Ligon's clarification was precisely what I had hoped to hear. His point: deny complementarianism and the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is undermined is spot on. I see egalitarianism as something of a barometer to one's treatment of the Scripture. A barometer gives a pretty good idea of what the weather will be, but it's not 100% accurate in that matter. Likewise, those who pursue egalitarianism frequently have other "unique" views on Scriptural interpretation, but they can be accurate occasionally. If one can extract an egalitarian interpretation from the Word, they can probably find just about any off-the-wall interpretation. Ligon makes that point with his statement: Because if you can get egalitarianism from the Bible, you can get anything from the Bible. Exactly.

[joel hunter]

Dr. Duncan, I'd like to address the four reasons you've identified.

1. Denial of the authority of the Bible

a. Non causa pro causa. Granted, twisting the Scriptures to fit a predetermined agenda, whether it be principled or pragmatic, “has a devastating effect on the practical authority of the Bible in the church.” No doubt we would agree that this truism is exhibited in many mainline congregations. One of the things I do appreciate about the T4G statement is its challenge to how this use of the Bible occurs in so-called “Bible-believing” evangelical congregations, too. So no one is immune from undermining the practical authority of the Bible just because they profess a “high,” even inerrantist view of the Bible.

b. I think your conference actually undermines this first point which attempts to link one’s view of the Scriptures to one’s views on women in the church and society. This first point is an attempt to exclude by fiat the very possibility of a genuinely biblical notion of egalitarianism. Do Nicole, Witherington, Wright, et al, really perform hermeneutical gymnastics to read 2 Timothy (e.g.) in the non-complementarian way? Doesn’t seem that way to me. Seems that they are challenging our presuppositions about the context, which is where the whole issue of teaching authority derives. If they’re right, then practical biblical authority is not devastated, but enhanced. Furthermore, if they’re right, then the removal of a cultural overlay that we have imposed on the Scriptures entails the unleashing of biblical authority and soundness. I suppose only time and fruit will tell.

c. Consider also the possibility that you are reducing ‘egalitarianism’ to only socio-political (cultural) egalitarianism. It is quite true that many congregations have let cultural egalitarianism (e.g., derived from Kantian notions of human autonomy) to determine church life and practice. But at worst, cultural egalitarianism is a symptom, an effect, not a cause. No space is allowed for the possibility of biblical egalitarianism. Turn the tables for a moment. Would you accept a caricature of complementarianism that reduces it to socio-political (cultural) chauvinism? Probably not. You would challenge that reduction and argue that there is a strong biblical case for complementarianism. This, btw, is why even complementarians should reject the notion that denying complementarianism damages the witness to the gospel.

d. It may be the case that most egalitarians do not “hold strongly to inerrancy.” But why should they be linked? Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. If we can agree that a biblical case for egalitarianism can be legitimately proferred, then this connection is at best weak, at worst non-existent. There might be good reasons to find ICBI-formulated inerrancy to be a defective, inferior view of the Scriptures, without there being an underlying socio-political agenda to reach that conclusion. It simply does not follow that the rejection of a particular formulation of inerrancy, nor the rejection of complementarianism, entail an inferior or low view of the authority of the Scriptures.

2. Poor hermeneutics.

a. Is there “a definitive common basic interpretation of the Bible?” Yes! If we can determine what that is, we can also determine who is “together for the gospel.” And I think the “definitive common basic interpretation of the Bible” was wrestled for us by the apostles and the ECF, resulting in the Nicene creed. Now that’s together for the gospel. But I suppose the issue you’re wanting to raise is: “is there a definitive common basic interpretation of every specific biblical word and text?” that is far more controversial.

b. You mentioned baptism. Your claim that egalitarians “regularly come up with new arguments for why those passages don’t mean what they say” could very easily be applied to baptism, could it not? 1 Pet 3:21? Do not your Baptist colleagues by necessity have to attach the “hermeneutical gymnastic” label to you since you hold that texts like Col 2:12, Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27 and 1 Cor 12:13 apply to infants? If they don’t, that’s a pretty charitable oversight for them. I regularly hear my credobaptist friends say just something like what you said about egalitarians: “you paedobaptists come up with lots of clever arguments for why those passages don’t mean what they say.” Michael Spencer is the poster boy for claiming that we paedobaptists rely on logic more fundamentally than Scripture. Now, setting aside the question of who has the “definitive, common basic interpretation” of baptism right, I ask: why can’t this same extraordinary charity demonstrated over baptism, which all Christendom believes is essentially related to the gospel, be extended to egalitarians in a statement that purports to define who is “together for the gospel?”

c. I think your hermeneutical requirement is founded on a philosophical principle; viz., idealism. Scripture itself testifies to the historical relativism (in a non-absolute sense) of hermeneutics, as Jesus and the New Testament writers were all brilliant re-interpreters of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is quite likely that they were accused of using the same deception as the serpent: “Hath God said…?” But why did Jesus re-interpret the received understanding of some of the Scriptures for his hearers (“You have heard it said…”)? Not for the sake of finding and fixing the one, timeless, atomic, adamantine Lockean meaning, but precisely to subvert the received, dominant interpretation which had acquired a spirit-killing historically accreted meaning.

3. Extra-biblical ideas.

The alleged connection to paganism cuts both ways. Unquestioned male authority over women is also rampant in paganism. The paganistic egalitarianism you speak of has less to do with a genuine recovery of ancient rites (despite Dan Brown’s efforts) as it does with a Colossians 2:23 spiritual stew of self-made religion. Again, non causa pro causa. What you interpret as a factual case of slippery historical slope, I believe has much more to do with the unholy marriage of Western individualism and gnostic elitism. It appeals to our fallen nature’s final hope, that I really am the center of the universe and that by cultivating secret wisdom suppressed by earthly authorities, I can participate once again in the higher mysteries. This appeal to all the right elitist impulses is a timeless battle. It does not follow at all that a biblical egalitarianism leads to these abuses or is connected with them in any way. Quite possibly, a biblical egalitarianism is precisely what is needed to challenge the do-it-yourself spirituality that floods the West.

4. Denying biblical distinctions of maleness and femaleness.

What is the biblical basis for separate male and female discipleship? Is that not elevating texts that are addressing specific, contingent circumstances over the discipleship that Jesus was doing? I’m afraid I don’t get this point at all.

On another blog in which I was rightly called out for my uncharitable attitude toward you and this conference, I wrote about my own desires for what a “together for the gospel” conference and effort might look like. “All I ask for, all I plead for, is that if a group of men are going to join in a cross-denominational effort (and good on them for doing that!) to publicly declare their allegiance to the gospel as they understand it, then for pity’s sake give due consideration to the fact that the Body of Christ is much larger than the bright confessional lines we draw around our particular community (and this is true for the non-Reformed, the Catholics and the Orthodox, too). The complete absence of any notion of the invisible church that might also be “together for the gospel” with us Reformed types must be addressed.

Consider, instead, the approach taken by the Touchstone contributors in their conference http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830818898/qid=1147188013/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5384070-6366319?s=books&v=glance&n=283155>Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue. This is an excellent example of representatives from different traditions, steadfastly arguing for and maintaining the bright lines of their confessional distinctiveness, who, nevertheless, are talking to and with each other about the essentials of the faith, the “Great Tradition,” or mere Christianity. Of course, it’s arrogant of me to even propose that the T4G guys do what I want and follow this other model of being “together for the gospel.” But that’s what I would offer as a constructive, hopeful alternative. I wish at least the presbyterians involved with T4G would consider following in the footsteps of fellow Reformed theologian Harold O. J. Brown (who did participate in the above “ecumenical” conference). For that matter, maybe the Baptists in T4G would find it rewarding, too.”

The cultural concerns that shaped the T4G conference are shared by many believers in this larger tradition. Would it not be to the benefit of us all to be "together for the gospel" in dialogue with those in the Body of Christ who share these same concerns? Such dialogue does not entail compromise on any point of doctrine, as the above referenced conference and book show quite clearly.

[joel hunter]

Sorry, two brief follow-up remarks.

1. David, thank you for this post and the concession (is that reading too much into it?) to my biggest concern with Article XVI.

2. My response to Dr. Duncan's reasons for holding complementarianism so closely to one's gospel witness was not intended to ratchet up an argument. One thing I abhor is this proclivity of us Reformed types (and I am no exception) to love debate over dialogue (thanks, Glenn). Dr. Duncan owes me nothing by way of acknowledgement or response. I offer my reaction/reflection only to advance discussion and conversation, and to express my deepest desire that the meaning of "together for the gospel" extend rather than contract the dialogue.

[Jeremy Pierce]

Stott is indeed a complementarian, of the same variety as Craig Blomberg or Gordon Hugenberger. This school of thought agrees with the mainstream of complementarianism on marriage roles and takes a slightly altered stance on leadership roles in the church. It takes the elder role to be open to men and women but reserves the head elder role in each congregation for a man. I believe Hugenberger thinks the majority of elders in a congregation should be male. Blomberg says what matters is if there's a head elder over the other elders. I don't know where Stott falls on that issue, but he's in the general area of those two. I think the whole view relies on a strange notion of a hierarchy among elders, and it completely falters on that since there's no such thing biblically.

I don't know what Stott's view on women preaching is. He probably doesn't join Blomberg on thinking it's ok. But even if he does he's still a complementarian, because he doesn't take the absolutist egalitarian view that most evangelicals have given in to nowadays. Complementarianism is simply reserving some place for role distinctions among equals, and Stott clearly does that.

[brian]

Thanks David for this very reasoned and gracious post on what is a very touchy issue.

I second Chong's comment that the actual connection between egalitarianism and the Gospel needs to be spelled out. As I read Mr. Duncan's arguments, I had a flashback to the kind of arguments made by Ken Hamm and other YECers. They would also say that if you come up with any other interpretation of the appropriate verses then your compromising the authority of scripture. They would say that if you can get an old earth from Genesis then anything is possible.

The problem is that you can take any issue and use the same argument to say a different interpretation undermines the authority of scripture and therefore compromises the Gospel. But people don't do that. They realize that people can have interpretive differences and still have scipture as authoritative and still have an uncompromised Gospel.

What makes the egalitarian/complementarian issue different than all the rest?

[David Wayne]

Ligon - many, many thanks for your response. This was very helpful and I am looking forward to reading more as you guys write and explain.

Joel - I appreciate your interaction with me and Dr. Duncan here. I suppose you could say I have given a concession here - I think you and I still see things differently but yeah, this linking of the women's issue to the gospel is really going to take more explanation than could be done in a short statement. I've just come across an article by Bruce Ware on this that I'm going to excerpt in a later post that I think is a good complement to Dr. Duncan's comments here. Look for it in a day or so and I'd be interested in your comments on it.

Jeremy - as always, thanks for much appreciated insights and information.

Brian - good question - I hope that will be addressed by the T4TG folks

[Cheryl Schatz]

Hi,

Ligon said:
>> deny complementarianism and the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is undermined (thus harming the church's witness to the Gospel).<<

This is a very sad statement that indicts egalitarians with a position of not believing in the complete inspiration of scripture. That is simply not true. Not only do I, as well as others, believe in the authority of scripture, but I believe that the words and grammar are inspired so that what is written in the original languages is inspired in every way.

Also Ligon said:
>>The gymnastics required to sustain the position that when God says in the Bible that "I do not allow a women to teach or to exercise authority over a man," He doesn't mean than women cannot teach, and that in fact He does want women to teach and rule in the church -- has a devastating effect on the practical authority of the Bible in the church.<< However I would say that the complementarians are the ones who are evading scripture to try to prove their point. Why do I say that? Because in order to believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 refers to a law restricting all women in all of church history to not be able to teach biblical doctrine to men, instead of seeing this passage as refering to a problem within that congregation, then one must say that God has broken his own laws. God has made it clear in scripture that all laws and all accusation of sin must have at least a second witness - Deut 17:6; Matt 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1. However there is no other place in scripture that says that a woman is not allowed to teach a man, therefore to take 1 Timothy 2:12 as a law or ordinance that is binding on Christian women today would be to disregard inspired scripture that sets up a boundary for the establishment of a law. Egalitarians can see that the law has not been established, therefore the verses, in context, are dealing with a problem of false teaching in the Ephesian church. To disregard the context of 1 Timothy 1:3 where Timothy is left behind to stop the false teachers and to insist that Paul is stopping true bible teachers in 1 Timothy 2:12 is to play gymnastics with the text. God has never once given a law that has no second witness and a law that stops all godly Christian women from teaching correct bible doctrine to men in the body of Christ is invalid without a second witness.

Our ministry has a 4 DVD set called "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" www.mmoutreach.org/wim.htm and this set is a multi-media teaching on the hard passages of scripture on the subject of women. You can view a clip of the introduction at the above web page and reviews of the set are on this page as well. It is time for the church to ask the hard questions of those who seek to limit the ministry of women and to also seek the clear bible teaching in context using the inspired words and grammar to understand the hard passages of scripture.

Cheryl

[David W. Bailey]

I have recently published the authorized biography of Roger Nicole, entitled Speaking the Truth in Love: The Life and Legacy of Roger Nicole. It is available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or the publisher, Solid Ground Christian Books.

[David Bailey]

Just a note to let you know that I have published the authorized biography of Roger Nicole, Speaking the Truth in Love: The Life and Legacy of Roger Nicole (Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006). I hope you enjoy it! It is available from Amazon, Books-A-Million, Cumberland Valley and the publisher, Solid Ground.

[Indi]

I've read these articles and most of the comments. A few thoughts off the cuff:

If Christ's submission to the Father and Christ's sacrifice/servant-leadership are illustrations of the role of women and the role of male headship, respectively, then what is interesting to note is the Father's response to Christ's submission -- He elevated Him and placed "all things" into submission to Christ.

I am interested less in how women grapple with submission - which has been expertly covered - and more in how male heads grapple with elevating women in parallel to how God elevated Christ. There seems to be a phobia running rampant that makes men feel they are somehow becoming less male if they elevate a woman.

In general, I think we're overlooking some big stuff here.

1) Paul is known to quote a problem and then defend/outline/clarify his argument in response - these distinctions are not always clear in the Greek or in the English translation.

2) The extended full application of the parallel of the relationship between Father and Son is rarely discussed.

3) Many terms are left undefined. Example: Discrimination, headship, etc.

4) Instances in scripture were women are seen to have been in a teaching position are overlooked -- it's clear that they taught and helped convert men to anyone who sees that a big part of the processes of conversion from a human standpoint is education (being that the Holy Spirit has cornered the market on conviction). The examples that have been noted in comments have generally been replied to with "that was outside of a church context". What I'm concerned with here is the lack of definition when it comes to 'teaching' and the blur between evangelisim and teaching, and how we can define and understand a 1st century "church context".

5) This doesn't have to be an either-or proposition. There's something really important and big and multi-dimensional about how the Father relates to both the Son and how the One God relates to the world. I'm afraid we tend to stuff roles and people and even the gospel into a box to make it easier to handle.

6) There are many different ways to approach the Scriptures. There are many different types of rhetoric and literary devices used in Scripture. In this subject, we could be dealing with archetypes, allegory, rhetorical device, metaphor, comparisons, cause and effect, radiation, pivotal points, progressions, interrogation, analysis, summary, and even more. That's just off the top of my head in reference to scripture passages commonly quoted on both sides. This is a throwback to my earlier points, but encompasses more than they did, and is very important to establishing a common understanding.

What makes one passage 'superficial' and the other 'gospel tier' is a really good question - but to answer it sufficiently I think we'd have to have a common vocabulary enabling the explanation - reasons - behind our different choices of sciptural interpretation. Then we could say, "Because the theme of this book is ____, that necessitates a limitation on the interpretation of ____ which is why I conclude that _____." And so we could actually discuss the heart of the matter - our underlying philosophies, experiences, and scriptural interpretations which have led to the different conclusions.

As it is, one man uses different types of interpretation for a set of passages, another man uses the exact opposite, and both use sound logic, but the reasons behind remain shrouded in mystery and untouchable. Perhaps one has a surer footing than the other, but I can't tell from here.

So while all of this is very interesting (to me) I have seen what I believe to be a bunch of head butting largely due to unshared and unexplained interpretation models - and how can one intelligently discuss a conclusion when the source of the underlying interpretation remains unclear? All we can really do is lob generalizations and often crude conclusions at each other, contradict and ignore foundational issues.

But I could be wrong about all of this. I'm not only a layperson, but a simple uneducated (high school dropout) housewife. (And prone to typos on top of that. Yeach.)

Hmmm. On second thought, it could be more fun if we just resorted to throwing vegetables. *grabs a carrot*

[Pat Brown]

Is anyone seeing what is happening to Sam Downing over at BaylyBlog regarding the women's issue? Not pretty.

[Marshall]

This is rapidly becoming a MAJOR issue for the 36th GA of the PCA meeting in Dallas this June. There are at least four overtures over this matter.

http://www.waysidechurch.org/femdeacs/ovandoc.htm

[Manning]

InvitationToVisit:

http://christian-newcovenant.angelcities.com/index.html

Freedom Under The New Covenant of Jesus Christ - Online Examination of equality and freedom under the New Covenant.