A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

The author appears to miss the fundamental characteristic of a counterfeit. That is, it is difficult to distinguish it from the authentic else it could not effectively deceive.

The description given in Chapter 2 of Satanic authority is not convincing as counterfeit. For instance, if you compare Peters actions to prevent the Lord from going to the cross there is a complete mismatch with the authors description of what is counterfeit. Peter exhibited none of those characteristics, yet the Lord characterized Peter as Satan. Peters natural love and real concern for the Lord's well-being are the characteristics of a genuine and effective counterfeit.

Satan is all those things described but that is not the counterfeit we need to concern ourselves with. An indication of a counterfeit is whether it diverts from seeking the things of God as it was with Peter.

Drake

I disagree with you, Drake. Were it not for the counterfeit authority of Satan, we would have no other concerns; we would have no diversions from seeking the things of God. Regardless, the discussion in the quote below is not about "counterfeit". It's about authority and freedom. The quote discusses both the characteristics of God's authority and what Jane describes as Satan's counterfeit authority.

The counterfeit authority of Satan has been used against God's people since Satan rebelled. It was used on Adam and Eve in the garden to effect the fall of man and, to Jane's point, is still being used today by Christian men who have been used by the deceiver to lord it over and rule over, not only Christian women, but other Christian men. I've heard of at least one Christian woman, formerly in the LC, who ruled with counterfeit authority on other saints in the church. Most of us who post on this forum have experience with counterfeit authority as Jane has described. I know I have.

If you don't care for the word "counterfeit", you're free to find another word. This is the one Jane chose and it fits the deeds of the devilish one who exercises self-serving authority over brothers and sisters in Christ and make their lives a living hell.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Counterfeit authority makes sense to me - it is really Satan's twist on God's authority. God has the only authority and he has given man authority to rule (the governing authorities etc). Satan has no authority except that of God's which he twists, abuses and misuses.

I believe what Drake is alluding to is that there are at least two possible ways by which genuine authority is twisted by Satan to become counterfeit:

- to have genuine authority from God and not exercise it in the right way.
- to have no authority from God and exercise it in the right (or wrong) way. This can be a very subtle kind of counterfeit.

We should differentiate between possessing authority and exercising authority. For example, a genuine master has authority over the servant, but the master may abuse the exercise of that authority. Eph 6:5-9 describes how to exercise authority:

Ephesians 6:5 Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Ephesians 6:9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Suppose the Master did not follow Ephesians 6:9 - this does not mean that the Master does not have authority over the servant or that he is not the master. It means he is not exercising the authority in the proper way. This genuine authority then becomes counterfeit.

Alternatively, the master may only be pretending to be a master over the servant. This would be a counterfeit authority as well, even if the master is loving, kind and treats the servant well. It is mistaken to think that genuine authority is simply a matter of loving those under our authority and not Lording it over them. Counterfeit authority is not just genuine authority misused. Counterfeit authority could be exercise of authority that one does not have. We may think that if there is a ruler in the church who is loving, kind and does not abuse others that they are exercising genuine authority. But there is still the possibility that they are exercising their own authority without any direct authority from God. I have touched on this in my thread "Delegated Authority -what many Christians today do not understand".

[Drake]

Nell,

Words describe concepts and concepts form beliefs and beliefs solidify into doctrine and teachings. That is why her use of the word counterfeit is either relevant or not in her presentation. I think she meant exactly what she said about it. I believe Jane is thoughtful about her choice of words. And in describing Satans counterfeit she mischaracterized it. It is not my place to substitute a different word, Yet, she paints a world that is quintessential black and white, good and evil people, righteous and unrighteousness happenings, things that are right and wrong. So in describing Satan's attack she defaults to this same paradigm, that is , if God is loving and good, Satan is the polar opposite when in reality Satan is very adept at mimicking the attributes of God. Peter exhibited that and for our benefit the Lord recorded the incident. That is why Peter is relevant. His thought, opinion, and recommendation were the Satanic counterfeit and if that is not understood then Jane will have missed the real counterfeit and misidentified as counterfeit that which is not.

To my observation in these few samples of her new book, she seems to be searching for new definitions of scripture to validate the wrongs of the past related to authority and it seems she is building a case that it was counterfeit authority. Therefore I believe this book is very much connected with her past experiences. However, I will reserve a definitive point of view as I see how she develops this line of thinking and where she eventually takes it.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nell,

Words describe concepts and concepts form beliefs and beliefs solidify into doctrine and teachings. That is why her use of the word counterfeit is either relevant or not in her presentation. I think she meant exactly what she said about it. I believe Jane is thoughtful about her choice of words. And in describing Satans counterfeit she mischaracterized it. It is not my place to substitute a different word, Yet, she paints a world that is quintessential black and white, good and evil people, righteous and unrighteousness happenings, things that are right and wrong. So in describing Satan's attack she defaults to this same paradigm, that is , if God is loving and good, Satan is the polar opposite when in reality Satan is very adept at mimicking the attributes of God. Peter exhibited that and for our benefit the Lord recorded the incident. That is why Peter is relevant. His thought, opinion, and recommendation were the Satanic counterfeit and if that is not understood then Jane will have missed the real counterfeit and misidentified as counterfeit that which is not.

To my observation in these few samples of her new book, she seems to be searching for new definitions of scripture to validate the wrongs of the past related to authority and it seems she is building a case that it was counterfeit authority. Therefore I believe this book is very much connected with her past experiences. However, I will reserve a definitive point of view as I see how she develops this line of thinking and where she eventually takes it.

Drake

Drake makes some valid points here. No doubt Jane's life experiences will affect her views on scripture. Aren't we all the same? Lee was no different! When it comes to the abuse of spiritual authority, exclusive systems like the LCM are rife with examples. I have personally posted some of my own stories, but some were so painful, that they are better left unsaid.

If we look at the N.T., it is grossly lopsided when addressing spiritual authority. Most of the warnings are given to the leaders, not the followers. Paul became our excellent pattern, not by assuming the divine authority, but by serving in humility, due to his former life killing Christians. Lee and many LC leaders seemed to have missed this completely.

I agree with you that life in the LCM was not "quintessential black and white." There was too much overlap not to admit shades of gray. This is why I have constantly testified that LC leaders have betrayed our trust. Yes, many of these brothers ministered life and shepherded the saints, but some also "played God," crossing normal freedom boundaries into manipulation and control. This forum is filled with such stories. Because we received genuine spiritual fellowship from them, at least initially, we trusted them and we submitted to them, which eventually enabled them to take advantage of us and use us for their own advantage. We got betrayed.

By elevating himself to become some consummate N.T. MOTA, Witness Lee established abusive ministry patterns which other leaders followed. Not all leaders, but far too many. Usually the abusive ones were promoted first. Think about how abusive Phillip Lee was, and by all accounts, not even saved, yet promoted to running "the office." Thus the LCM became a system of abuses, a system which rejected normal Christian boundaries, a system which usurped the Headship of Christ.

With such a background, the church of God often needs a healthy counter-ministry, with the pendulum swinging the other direction, to bring us into balance. The apostle Paul also brought such balance in his ministry, in contrast to the Judaizers coming from headquarters, who attempted to bring the church under subjection, using the same techniques used by Nee and Lee, and the same "spiritual authority" doctrines based on Moses.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With such a background, the church of God often needs a healthy counter-ministry, with the pendulum swinging the other direction, to bring us into balance. The apostle Paul also brought such balance in his ministry, in contrast to the Judaizers coming from headquarters, who attempted to bring the church under subjection, using the same techniques used by Nee and Lee, and the same "spiritual authority" doctrines based on Moses.

While I generally agree with what you have said, I am not sure that a pendulum swinging is the way it would be according to scripture. Rather than just going the opposite way, the answer should be to go the right way, even if that is at the bottom of a pendulum's swing. Not saying that there are not true opposites to arrive at in some cases, but not in all cases. When we speak so broadly, it seems that just doing a pendulum swing is an opportunity to miss things to the other extreme and invite the return of the original extreme that we fought against.

In all of this there is something that neither elevates nor diminishes any of God's people. And that is the way of loving God, neighbor, and one another. It changes the gender fights into nothings. It turns authority into the job of a true servant. And so on. Neither of those are on the other side of the pendulum. They are in a different approach to the whole thing. The one that is actually in the Bible.

[OBW]

Nell,

There is a general problem with this discussion. To be of any real value, everyone involved would need to read the entire book (which many will not have the time or will to do). And without that, much of this is missing the support for the positions taken.

For example, you posted (and linked) portions about "lemon translations" yet I have found nothing in either that describes what is wrong with the translations that are there other than a general statement that they are gender biased. Saying it is gender biased does not make it so. There needs to be something supporting that. It may be in the book. But I have not found it in the parts supplied here. So if I was needing to be convinced, I would be finding nothing to help me change my mind about things.

And I assume that this is why the thread is here. It may be contrary to your normal way of approaching things, but if you want to make that leap, try finding the parts that make the reasons clear, not just the positions. There may be a lot of emotion and passion in this. But to make a case, it still needs solid facts so that a reasonable person can have something to consider for purposes of changing their mind.

Don't anyone assume that I am pushing back at the substance of the book or its topic. I am not.

[UntoHim]

I don't think everyone needs to read the whole book for Nell or anyone else to address the various mistranslations in a piecemeal fashion. As a matter of fact, I think this is the best way to address such large issues on a public forum. I don't know if you read the PDF that Nell posted, but it's a real good summation, and there is enough in this one portion to get us off the ground.

I personally have never seriously considered this view:

There were no female members on early Bible translation committees, so it was easy for Satan to use innate male bias to influence the translations of verses that pertained to women’s roles. Historically, females have not been afforded the same access to education as males; so, even if men had desired the presence and input of women on their translation committees, at the time the Bible was being translated, there was no pool of women Bible scholars from which to select. Regardless of the reason why women were absent from translation committees, the simple fact remains: The female voice and perspective were not present in Bible translation efforts. Females would have been able to point out and challenge any translations pertaining to women that displayed male bias, something men would not be able to recognize easily. The absence of female input provides a rational explanation for why seven somewhat difficult to translate and interpret Bible passages in the New Testament stand out as anomalies among the more numerous grape passages.

In due time, I think Nell will get us into the individual "lemon" passages, but I think this might be enough for us to get the discussion going.
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I don't think everyone needs to read the whole book for Nell or anyone else to address the various mistranslations in a piecemeal fashion. As a matter of fact, I think this is the best way to address such large issues on a public forum. I don't know if you read the PDF that Nell posted, but it's a real good summation, and there is enough in this one portion to get us off the ground.

I personally have never seriously considered this view:


In due time, I think Nell will get us into the individual "lemon" passages, but I think this might be enough for us to get the discussion going.
-

What if the Bible had been translated by an all female translation committee? Would we be discussing different "lemon translations" that reflected a female gender bias that men would like to see revisited and corrected when appropriate?

The goal of the translators is to "get it right" without bias. K. Bushnell discusses this in her book "God's Word to Women."

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Nell,

There is a general problem with this discussion. To be of any real value, everyone involved would need to read the entire book (which many will not have the time or will to do). And without that, much of this is missing the support for the positions taken.

For example, you posted (and linked) portions about "lemon translations" yet I have found nothing in either that describes what is wrong with the translations that are there other than a general statement that they are gender biased. Saying it is gender biased does not make it so. There needs to be something supporting that. It may be in the book. But I have not found it in the parts supplied here. So if I was needing to be convinced, I would be finding nothing to help me change my mind about things.

And I assume that this is why the thread is here. It may be contrary to your normal way of approaching things, but if you want to make that leap, try finding the parts that make the reasons clear, not just the positions. There may be a lot of emotion and passion in this. But to make a case, it still needs solid facts so that a reasonable person can have something to consider for purposes of changing their mind.

Don't anyone assume that I am pushing back at the substance of the book or its topic. I am not.

OBW,

You are correct. The "lemon translations" are covered in the book in detail. My post and Unto's post passed each other in cyber space. I said the same thing he said (great minds) so I edited this one. I am getting Gen. 3:16 ready. Meanwhile, I posted all the lemons.

Thanks---
Nell

[Nell]

Old Testament: (1)
Genesis 3:16 (NIV)
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

New Testament: (7)
1 Corinthians 11:1–16 (NIV)
1 Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ.
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 14:29–40
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[b]

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.[c]

39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Ephesians 5:22–24
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Colossians 3:18
18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:8–15
8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

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

Titus 2:3–5
3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God

1 Peter 3:1–2
3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nell,

Words describe concepts and concepts form beliefs and beliefs solidify into doctrine and teachings. That is why her use of the word counterfeit is either relevant or not in her presentation. I think she meant exactly what she said about it. I believe Jane is thoughtful about her choice of words. And in describing Satans counterfeit she mischaracterized it. It is not my place to substitute a different word, Yet, she paints a world that is quintessential black and white, good and evil people, righteous and unrighteousness happenings, things that are right and wrong. So in describing Satan's attack she defaults to this same paradigm, that is , if God is loving and good, Satan is the polar opposite when in reality Satan is very adept at mimicking the attributes of God. Peter exhibited that and for our benefit the Lord recorded the incident. That is why Peter is relevant. His thought, opinion, and recommendation were the Satanic counterfeit and if that is not understood then Jane will have missed the real counterfeit and misidentified as counterfeit that which is not.

To my observation in these few samples of her new book, she seems to be searching for new definitions of scripture to validate the wrongs of the past related to authority and it seems she is building a case that it was counterfeit authority. Therefore I believe this book is very much connected with her past experiences. However, I will reserve a definitive point of view as I see how she develops this line of thinking and where she eventually takes it.

Drake

Drake,

Regarding your ending sentences:

"Therefore I believe this book is very much connected with her past experiences. However, I will reserve a definitive point of view as I see how she develops this line of thinking and where she eventually takes it."

As a person reads A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies she/he sees what thorough research it contains regarding how the scriptures depict women and their roles in history and in the Church of the Redeemed.

I strongly encourage you and others to read this book. Jane gives examples of godly families and the blessings society as a whole experiences from them. This truth is inspirational to those of us who perhaps have not had such triumphs in our past in that we see the good plans of our Heavenly Father as He sets us free.

This book is well-balanced and points all believers to stay the course as God faithfully finishes the work He has begun in us.

[JJ]

Today's side bar quote from The Woman of Chayil reminds me of a nagging question I had during my last 5 years with TLR, which is:

Who and how is Paul charging to put on the whole armor of God in Ephesians 6?

Is it individual Christians as soldiers in God's army? Is it the church in Ephesus as a "corporate warrior"? Is it the whole body of Christ as a "corporate warrior"? Is it "the Bride of Christ" as a "corporate warrior?

LSM and TLR repeated "corporate warrior" so many times, the charge to take up the whole armor of God lost its power to motivate me in a way that holds me personally accountable with the "corporate warrior" interpretation. So, I began to think more along the lines of being a soldier in God's army.

I see Jane Carol Anderson's quote falls into the bride of Christ being a "corporate warrior" taking up the charge.

So, which is it? Is it one? Is it both? Does it matter?

FYI, some relevant Word searches below

Warrior, Army, Armor, White horse, Sword, Fight, Helmet, Breastplate, Shield, Girded, Feet Word Searches

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_8

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_2

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_2

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_2

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/sng/6/4/s_677004

[Nell]

"IN THE BIBLE, THERE ARE A SMALL NUMBER OF FAMILIAR PASSAGES that are at the root of wrong beliefs about women and authority. These few verses exist like one bunch of “lemons” hanging on a grapevine in a Biblical vineyard laden with many “grapes.”

Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations, translations which have adulterated and corrupted the real meanings of God’s words. All of these passages are fundamentally about authority and, in particular, about women and authority. It is time for men and women alike to stand up and speak the truth... ."

Following is another quote from "A Woman of Chayil..." The above quote is a reminder about the use of "lemons" and "grapes".

From this passage we note:

"...A general principle of Bible teaching is to teach what the Bible teaches or prescribes about behavior, and not to teach authoritatively about what can only be observed about behaviors of people in the Bible. I will not argue this point, but will say strongly that whatever is taught prescriptively should produce what is seen descriptively in the Bible. If a teaching produces something different than what the Bible illustrates or describes as proper behavior, it is unhealthy teaching and should be questioned and re-examined."

Nell