Egalitarianism Vs. Complementarianism

[seeking1]

So, I do realize that the local church was kind of hard on sisters, depending on the locality, it was harder for some sisters than others. However this is just something that I have really been wrestling with lately. Regarding women pastors my thoughts have always been along the lines of "I don't think that it's biblical but, meh, who cares". However, since I've been attending a church that has two women pastors (the lead pastor is a male) I have noticed that it seems like most of the activity in the congregation is dominated by women. So, after digging into it a little further, seeing what the Word says and reading various papers that support both viewpoints it really seems like it takes some theological "maneuvering", to support the position of women pastors. I would love to hear some of your thoughts on this.

[Drake]

Hi seeking1,

I do not believe the pastoral system is according to the Scriptures. Therefore, anything that I would add would be irrelevant to your question.

Drake

[Ohio]

Pastors are shepherds of the flock. Both the OT and NT scriptures are filled with verses on pastor / shepherds.

Hi Drake, show me a verse about LC "Full-Timers?"

What Drake really said was, "I do not believe the LSM 'Full-Timers' system is according to the Scriptures."

[Ohio]

Personally I lean towards "Complementarianism" in the body of Christ. For example, I have never seen brothers serve in the nursery, but that doesn't mean it could never happen.

I Corinthians shows us that the members of His body do not all have the same gifts. That doesn't mean that the sisters are "more equal" than the brothers, it just means that not every member is gifted the same way.

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi seeking1,

I do not believe the pastoral system is according to the Scriptures. Therefore, anything that I would add would be irrelevant to your question.

Drake

I get your point Drake but since leaving the local church I have not found an assembly that really lines up with what the Lord has shown me. That said, I have been intentional about just being around other believers (that aren't blatantly heretical) and having my kids around other believers while overlooking doctrinal differences or at least I am trying to, hence this thread.

[seeking1]

Hi Ohio,

Yeah, that seems to be where I'm at and I'm having a hard time justifying anything else. What troubles me is that the argument for egalitarians employs some of the same reasoning used by the pro gay marriage bunch.

[Nell]

Seeking1,

What kind of theological "maneuvering"?

Can we agree on these definitions?

Christian egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal or level), also known as biblical equality, is a Christian form of egalitarianism. It holds that all human persons are created equally in God's sight—equal in fundamental worth and moral status. This view does not just apply to gender, but to religion, skin colour and any other differences between individuals. It does not imply that all have equal skills, abilities, interests, or physiological or genetic traits. Christian egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.

Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,[1] that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. The word "complementary" and its cognates are currently used[2] to denote this view. For some Christians whose complementarian view is biblically-prescribed, these separate roles preclude women from specific functions of ministry within the community.[3][4] Though women may be precluded from certain roles and ministries they are held to be equal in moral value and of equal status. The phrase used to describe this is 'Ontologically equal, Functionally different'.[5]

Complementarians assign primary headship roles to men and support roles to women—based on their interpretation of certain biblical passages. One of the precepts of complementarianism is that while women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches subscribing to this view.

Nell

[awareness]

Thanks for that Nell. Concerning women, Paul seems to be of the egalitarian sort :

Rom 16:7* Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.*

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by seeking1

So, I do realize that the local church was kind of hard on sisters, depending on the locality, it was harder for some sisters than others. However this is just something that I have really been wrestling with lately. Regarding women pastors my thoughts have always been along the lines of "I don't think that it's biblical but, meh, who cares". However, since I've been attending a church that has two women pastors (the lead pastor is a male) I have noticed that it seems like most of the activity in the congregation is dominated by women. So, after digging into it a little further, seeing what the Word says and reading various papers that support both viewpoints it really seems like it takes some theological "maneuvering", to support the position of women pastors. I would love to hear some of your thoughts on this.

Your view matches that of top theologians in the field such as Daniel B. Wallace who states that it requires exegetical gymnastics to arrive at an egalitarian conclusion.

He has written extensively about this such as here:

https://bible.org/article/some-refle...agmatic-issues

What is interesting about him is that personally he is egalitarian but professionally as an expert in NT Greek, he is complementarian and does not believe that the bible supports an egalitarian position.

As an example of the "exegetical gymnastics" Wallace talks about, consider this passage:

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. (Colossians 3:18–21).

Now egalitarians argue that both wives and husbands must submit to each other. Even though it only mentions wives submitting to husbands in this verse, they draw from a verse elsewhere in scripture which says "submit to one another". This is one "gymnastical jump". The second gymastical jump is regarding the part about children obeying parents. If one reads the text as if both wives and husbands submit to each other, then should parents also obey their children?? This cannot be.

If we add to this discussion that historically men have led the church, as supported by all major denominations until only in modern times, the egalitarian position is on a shallow ground of sand.

I personally believe that egalitarianism is a sign of degradation in the church. It is no coincidence that such a movement took hold in the church, around the same time as the LGBT and feminist movements in the 70's/80's. When I was in denominations in the 70's/80's, I observed as the traditional role of the man in the family, in society and in the church was being eroded bit by bit.

Thanks to the Reformation, the bible was made available to everyone in the common language, since the 1500/1600's. Why has it taken so long for the egalitarians to come into the church, if the teaching is truly in the Bible? I believe the teaching is not obvious in the bible, and the movement has come about from influence of the world on the church. If egalitarianism was the teaching of the bible, we surely would have seen it adopted early in the Reformation, in the 1700's for example.

The Lord showed me that this was the doing of the anti-Christ, and not from Him. All this is done under the guise of being modern and "relevance to todays culture". Worse, compromising with the world, as churches are afraid to be unpopular with the status quo in Western society. It is not so in Eastern countries, which are appalled at the acceptance of gay marriage in the West and erosion of family values and the father figure as the head of the family and the church.

[HERn]

I love the body of Christ. I have a Nazarene friend who is OK with women pastors, but would never touch an adult beverage; and several reformed friends that brew their own, but could never accept a woman elder or pastor.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your view matches that of top theologians in the field such as Daniel B. Wallace who states that it requires exegetical gymnastics to arrive at an egalitarian conclusion.

He has written extensively about this such as here:

https://bible.org/article/some-refle...agmatic-issues

What is interesting about him is that personally he is egalitarian but professionally as an expert in NT Greek, he is complementarian and does not believe that the bible supports an egalitarian position.

If he's such a New Testament expert, then he should be honest about discrepancies in the NT manuscripts concern women, and their 'scripturely' demanded silence.

I can't help but think Wallace, as a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, knows where his bread is buttered, and so has to comply with their conservative patriarchal views ... that essentially reflects back to caveman day type views.

That women are are lesser vessels is quite universal across cultures, religions, and times. Particularly among monotheist religions.

Face it, men, as physically stronger, need to subjugate women because women have better brain computers ; and because all human life come from them.

Wallace clearly supports the manly view that prolly does go back to caveman days.

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by Nell

Seeking1,

What kind of theological "maneuvering"?

Can we agree on these definitions?

Christian egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal or level), also known as biblical equality, is a Christian form of egalitarianism. It holds that all human persons are created equally in God's sight—equal in fundamental worth and moral status. This view does not just apply to gender, but to religion, skin colour and any other differences between individuals. It does not imply that all have equal skills, abilities, interests, or physiological or genetic traits. Christian egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.

Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,[1] that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. The word "complementary" and its cognates are currently used[2] to denote this view. For some Christians whose complementarian view is biblically-prescribed, these separate roles preclude women from specific functions of ministry within the community.[3][4] Though women may be precluded from certain roles and ministries they are held to be equal in moral value and of equal status. The phrase used to describe this is 'Ontologically equal, Functionally different'.[5]

Complementarians assign primary headship roles to men and support roles to women—based on their interpretation of certain biblical passages. One of the precepts of complementarianism is that while women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches subscribing to this view.

Nell

So, one example of what I think is "maneuvering" can be found in this excerpt from the Junia Project, (the full article can be found here: https://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/ )where the author attempts to pick apart Paul's intent in 1Tim 2:12 however, their effort pretty much falls flat with what seems to be all smoke and no fire.

"Before we conclude that this passage is “clear” we must consider the limitations of our English translations. The most problematic issue is the rendering of the verb authentein as authority. This unusual Greek verb is found only once in scripture and rarely in extrabiblical texts, where it is usually associated with aggression. Authentein is translated as “domineer” in the Latin Vulgate and New English Bible and as “usurp authority” in the Geneva and King James Bibles.

A study of Paul’s letters shows that he regularly used a form of the Greek “exousia” when referring to the use of authority in the church (see 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 9:4-6, 9:12, 11:10, 2 Cor 2:8, 10:8, 13:10, Col. 1:13, 2 Thess 3:12, Rom 6:15, 9:21). So it is strange that some modern versions translate this simply as “authority”. Considering the context, it is likely that Paul was objecting to something other than the legitimate use of authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. (More on authentein here, and see a more recent follow-up post here.)

There is also the possibility that the verb didaskein (to teach) is linked here to the verb authentein in what is called a hendiadys (two words joined by a conjunction to make a single point). “Don’t eat and run” would be a modern example. So a better interpretation might be “don’t teach in a domineering way”.

Additionally, the grammar in this passage changes abruptly from the plural “women” in verses 9 & 10 to “a woman” in verses 11-15. Then it changes back to “women” in the next chapter, suggesting that Paul had a specific woman in mind, perhaps one that Timothy had written to him about. Furthermore, some scholars believe “I don’t permit” could also be accurately translated as “I am not currently permitting”. So while these verses are often used to defend male-only leadership, current scholarship suggests that the passage is anything BUT clear on the issue."

Regarding the definitions, I would not agree on those definitions. May I ask where you found them? The author is clearly being more charitable to Egalitarianism. The invocation of race is troublesome given that this is also a tactic used by the LGBT movement in an attempt to ride the coat tails of racial discrimination in order to promote their agenda. Furthermore, the definition of Egalitarianism could also be used to define complementarianism which also holds that "all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race." Complementarians just maintain that God, as indicated by the Scriptures, has not called women to be in ministries that place them in authority over adult men. Also, the author injects Judaism and Islam into the definition of "Christian Egalitarianism", which seems like an attempt at projecting legalistic patriarchal characteristics onto that view point.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by seeking1

So, one example of what I think is "maneuvering" can be found in this excerpt from the Junia Project, (the full article can be found here: https://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/ )

Thanks for that, btw. I've been involved with the Church of Christ (Cambellites) here locally. They take these verses in Timothy very seriously. So I emailed the link to them. One of them is a outspoken CoC female, the other is a CoC preacher for over 50 years. Our discussions should be lively.

So seeking1, so far I don't know you from Adam's cat. But from your post I gather some things about your position on the egalitarian/complementarian question.

I gather that, you don't seem to be too fond of egalitarianism. Cuz to you it doesn't strike you as true to Timothy.

Also, I gather that you're not fond of exegesis of scripture. Like taking a look at the Greek text, context, and so forth and so on.

It also stands out that LGBTQ is anathema to you. I doubt that you'll ever be egalitarian with them.

And you seem too to be concerned about being egalitarian with race, Judaism, and Islam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. But if I'm not, tell me please, just who are you egalitarian with?

[UntoHim]

Geeez Harold, how many rabbit holes can you fit into one post? Give seeking1 one a break, will ya? His opening post was pretty straight forward. If you want to address that then go for it.

It's good Friday....so be good.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Geeez Harold, how many rabbit holes can you fit into one post? Give seeking1 one a break, will ya? His opening post was pretty straight forward. If you want to address that then go for it.

It's good Friday....so be good.
-

My bad. Sorry seeking1. I guess I should hold any questions until I give you the chance to reveal your position in its entirety.

Sorry again brother, or sister (I don't know yet). Consider me just an idiot.

Happy Good Friday ... if you celebrate it.

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by awareness

My bad. Sorry seeking1. I guess I should hold any questions until I give you the chance to reveal your position in its entirety.

Sorry again brother, or sister (I don't know yet). Consider me just an idiot.

Happy Good Friday ... if you celebrate it.

Hello Awareness,

I am a man, by the way. This is a good write up regarding the complementarian view on woman pastors if you are interested:
https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...become-pastors

My answers to your queries are below.

***I gather that, you don't seem to be too fond of egalitarianism.* Cuz to you it doesn't strike you as true to Timothy.***

Thus far no, it does not strike me as true to the Scriptures.

***Also, I gather that you're not fond of exegesis of scripture.* Like taking a look at the Greek text, context, and so forth and so on.***

Sure I am but, it should lead somewhere. Not just take people in circles and leave them dazed and confused.

***It also stands out that LGBTQ is anathema to you.* I doubt that you'll ever be egalitarian with them.***

Anathema? That's a little harsh but, I would certainly never be affirming of their lifestyle.

***And you seem too to be concerned about being egalitarian with race, Judaism, and Islam.***

Not sure where you got this from.


***Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.* But if I'm not, tell me please, just who are you egalitarian with?***

You may have misunderstood but I am discussing Christian Egalitarianism, that is, Egalitarianism among believers.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

I love the body of Christ. I have a Nazarene friend who is OK with women pastors, but would never touch an adult beverage; and several reformed friends that brew their own, but could never accept a woman elder or pastor.

The scripture is more permissive of a good home brew than female church leaders.

[Evangelical]

I think that most people would be ok if an oil rig or construction site was not in charge by a woman. But they don't see that the church is a spiritual construction site - men are just more capable of church leadership and hard work. That's why men have wide shoulders to bear the burden and women don't. Some women pastors I know of just couldn't do the work without a supportive husband beside them. Others cut their hair short and try to give a male persona.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The scripture is more permissive of a good home brew than female church leaders.

That is absurd. Paul said an elder needed to be "the husband of one wife". That means, if you select an elder according to the scripture you will get both a brother and a sister. Everyone with any experience in the church at all knows that the wife of an elder is a "church leader".

[Nell]

Originally Posted by seeking1

...Regarding the definitions, I would not agree on those definitions. May I ask where you found them? ...

The definitions are Wikipedia...at least they are a place to start.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is absurd. Paul said an elder needed to be "the husband of one wife". That means, if you select an elder according to the scripture you will get both a brother and a sister. Everyone with any experience in the church at all knows that the wife of an elder is a "church leader".

Must an elder also have a plurality of children? 1 tim 3.4. This cannot be the intended meaning. The meaning is that the elder must have good character and not a string of divorced and remarriages. I disagree with your interpretation also because celibacy was highly valued in early church leadership. If being married was a requirement we dont see it practiced.

Its true that there are more verses supporting the drinking of wine than female elders. Also...Jesus drank alcohol but never appointed a female disciple.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by seeking1

Hello Awareness,
I am a man, by the way. This is a good write up regarding the complementarian view on woman pastors if you are interested:
https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...become-pastors.

Thanks seeking1 for clearing all that up. I think now I could tell you from Adam's cat. And thanks for the link to the complementarian view. I did read it. I guess I should admit that I'm not OCD on keeping the Bible, but hold rather to, whatever works.

I'm a male too, but resent the short shrift women have gotten from the beginning ... the Genesis story basically threw them under the bus. But I understand that a woman became the mother of God. Can you get any higher honor than that? And look at the intimacy young teen Mary shared with the Spirit of God! No man has ever achieved that.

And I hope you had a good Friday, and hope you enjoy the Easter Bunny and Egg ... the feminine symbols and celebration of the fecundity of Spring.

And by the way all. If we're gonna be OCD about scripture, let's not forget about Sophia (wisdom), that was elevated in Proverbs 8, to being Gods' consort from the beginning. That's an outstanding honor to women too.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Must an elder also have a plurality of children? 1 tim 3.4. This cannot be the intended meaning. The meaning is that the elder must have good character and not a string of divorced and remarriages. I disagree with your interpretation also because celibacy was highly valued in early church leadership. If being married was a requirement we dont see it practiced.

Its true that there are more verses supporting the drinking of wine than female elders. Also...Jesus drank alcohol but never appointed a female disciple.

So you disagree with the scriptural qualifications for an elder, yet use these same scriptural qualifications to claim that women cannot have church leadership roles.

Can you please let me know what "scriptural basis" you have to say that women cannot have church leadership roles?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you disagree with the scriptural qualifications for an elder, yet use these same scriptural qualifications to claim that women cannot have church leadership roles.

Can you please let me know what "scriptural basis" you have to say that women cannot have church leadership roles?

You are misinterpretating the passage. This well known evangelical apologetics site explains why and provides scriptural basis:

https://www.gotquestions.org/women-elders.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are misinterpretating the passage. This well known evangelical apologetics site explains why and provides scriptural basis:

https://www.gotquestions.org/women-elders.html

Just answer the question. This link refers to the verses you have just said should not be interpreted literally, but rather according to your logic.

What is your scriptural basis to say that women cannot be church leaders?

Since everyone knows that an elder's wife is a church leader it seems beyond any reasonable interpretation of Paul's word in Timothy and Titus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just answer the question. This link refers to the verses you have just said should not be interpreted literally, but rather according to your logic.

What is your scriptural basis to say that women cannot be church leaders?

Since everyone knows that an elder's wife is a church leader it seems beyond any reasonable interpretation of Paul's word in Timothy and Titus.

The way I understand it is, all localities are antonymous. So elders are whatever the locality selects, male or female.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just answer the question. This link refers to the verses you have just said should not be interpreted literally, but rather according to your logic.

What is your scriptural basis to say that women cannot be church leaders?

Since everyone knows that an elder's wife is a church leader it seems beyond any reasonable interpretation of Paul's word in Timothy and Titus.

The link interprets the verses you use differently to you and explains that the emphasis is on the man not the wife or children. I consider gotquestions a reliable resource for mainstream evangelical beliefs and it shows that your view is not a reasonable, average interpretation.

Did you read what it said about the average person?:

As a result, just a cursory reading of this passage would lead the average person to conclude that the role of an elder/overseer must be filled by a man. The phrase “husband of one wife” also indicates that the office of elder is assumed/intended to be fulfilled by men. The same points are also made in the parallel passage of Titus 1:5-9.

So based on this paragraph your interpretation is not that of an average person and you cannot claim that yours is a "reasonable interpretation". I think many Christians would disagree that a elders wife or elders children or family dog are "church leaders".

You have no authority to declare that your own private interpretation is a "reasonable interpretation" given that I can find the majority of bible commentaries on biblehub explicitly disagree with your interpretation:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/3-2.htm

Benson:

the husband of one wife — This neither means that a bishop must be married, nor that he may not marry a second wife; which is just as lawful for him to do as to marry a first, and may, in some cases, be his bounden duty. But whereas polygamy and divorce, upon slight occasions, were both common among the Jews and heathen, it teaches us that ministers, of all others, ought to stand clear of those sins.

Barnes:
The husband of one wife - This need not be understood as requiring that a bishop "should be" a married man,

Poole:
he apostle commanding ministers to be the husbands but of one wife, doth not oblige them to marry, if God hath given them the gift of continency

Gill:
though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife

A literal interpretation of this passage as requiring an elder to be married is not a view held by the majority of bible scholars or churches in history. This then is a good example of you conducting "exegetical gymnastics" and stretching the truth or going beyond what scripture says to make the bible support an egalitarian viewpoint.

If the best support you can find for female elders is to infer that an elder *must* be married and to then infer that an elder's wife is also a "church leader" then this shows there is no strong basis for the egalitarian position.

Your view must take two "exegetical gymnastic leaps" to support female elders:

1. "Elders must be married" - not well supported by biblehub commentaries or gotquestions.org. We must therefore reject the thinking that this is an average or reasonable interpretation.
2. An elder's wife is a "church leader" - this would not be an average or reasonable interpretation, just as saying that the President's wife is the "President of the USA", or Bill Gates wife is the "head" of Microsoft (she is, or was, only a project manager). Although I can imagine a wife of a leader providing support and advice from time to time, this does not mean they could or should be seen as having equal authority.

[ZNPaaneah]

I get it. Paul said that a prerequisite of being an elder is "husband of one wife" but "got questions" says that doesn't mean "the husband of one wife" but rather that he is a man. Paul said that he raised his family well, but got questions says that doesn't mean he actually raised his family well, but rather that he is a man. I asked a simple question, what is your scriptural basis. You didn't need to give me all this, simply say "I don't have scriptural basis, rather I base this on got questions.

I have a different and radical interpretation. In my interpretation when Paul says that the elder is the husband of one wife, I interpret that to mean that he is the husband of one wife. Likewise, when it says he raised his family well, I interpret this to mean that he raised his family well. I realize that taking Paul as the primary authority over such luminaries as "got questions" is a radical and unpopular way to interpret the Bible.

But here is where it gets interesting. If the elder is the "husband of one wife" then that means you are not simply choosing the man, you are also choosing the woman (you know, the elder women who are charged with teaching the younger women -- i.e. church leaders). When the Bible says that the man shall be joined to his wife and the two shall be one flesh, I take that as well. I suppose got questions can explain that away as well. So if the man is the "husband of one wife" it stands to reason that the woman is the wife of one husband. If the man is credited with "raising his family well" it also stands to reason that the wife should also be credited with raising the family well.

Since two thirds of church members are women it stands to reason that you need both men and women church leaders, a position supported by Paul's charge to the elder women to teach the younger women.

Since the straightforward reading of Paul is logical, and much better aligned to the scripture than the gymnastic interpretation of got questions, why the need for such a twisted misogynistic interpretation? What happens if you have a man, your best Bible teacher, and he is not married, or is divorced, or his kids are the stereotypical "pastor's kids"? Well then, in that case you need someone to spin the word of God to make excuses.

Please note, "gifted teacher of the word" is not a prerequisite for an elder.

Your Bible teacher does not need to be an elder. But what the church needs from the elders is to be an example for the flock, and to counsel the saints to help them primarily with their marriage and family. Hence the prominence of these prerequisites.

[Evangelical]

My scriptural basis is the correct interpretation of the passages cited in the gotquestions article. It is confirmed to be a sound interpretation when considering what the biblehub commentators have to say. Most commentators say that the verse is prohibiting polygamy not celibacy. This puts your view at odds with the most reasonable and logical interpretation.

In short...if the elder is meant to be a husband and wife team or husband or wife then
1 Tim 3:1-7 would say 'they'...not 'he'.

[ZNPaaneah]

It would be a reasonable interpretation if the verse you quoted about celibacy referred to the position of elder of the church. Since it doesn't your "reasonable" interpretation is nothing more than a non sequitur with Catholic spin doctors explaining how their church leaders could be celibate.

[Evangelical]

Are all those bible commentaries I quoted and GotQuestions.org "Catholic spin doctors" ? Or are you talking about the translator's use of the male pronoun "he" or "his" rather than "they"? Was it a cleverly crafted spin by the Catholics to convince the KJV translators to use all male pronouns? You would prefer to insert wild conspiracy theories than simply admit that you may be wrong. A logical and normal reading of a verse which uses all male pronouns is to conclude that elders are male, not female or "male and female".

Consider the male pronouns in 1 Tim 3:4, which comes after introduction of the wife in verse 2 ("...A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife"):

4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect.

If your reading is correct that both the male and/or female are elders, then verse 4 should say like this:

4 they must manage their own family well and see that [B][B]their children obey them , and they must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect.

This would be obvious to an average English speaking person, which is why my interpretation is plain and logical and yours is not.

[ZNPaaneah]

I feel you have to read every verse in Paul that is relevant to this question. When I do this I see a very definite emphasis on the man, while at the same time recognize that he refers to the role that women take in church leadership.

So then, what is the reason? That is where interpretation comes in.

1. He is a husband of one wife -- not interpretation, simply the word.

2. He has raised up his family well -- not interpretation, simply the word.

Why then the emphasis on the man rather than a more 50/50 approach? I think (my interpretation) that this is because the church is not 50/50, but rather 65% women and 35% men. If he doesn't put his thumb on that scale it will quickly become 80% women and 20% men.

[Evangelical]

I don't necessarily disagree with your last explanation even though I disagree with your first because I think the use of the male pronoun only is telling. I think that female leaders can make the church "too feminine".

Some statistics seem to support this:

http://archive.decaturdaily.com/deca...1/church.shtml

The author of "Why Men Hate Going to Church" thinks the church is so feminine it's driving men away..

[ZNPaaneah]

But I think that is a result of your interpretation. If you take a male bias, and allow that men only who aren't married can be leaders, then you have to expect the pendulum will swing the other way.

When the church is "too feminine" it is simply because women are doing what the men did.

The problem is families: Marriage and children. That is why we need elders who are an example of a proper family who have raised their children well. They are the ones who need to be set up as an example to the rest of the saints, they are the ones we need to counsel the saints.

[UntoHim]

Ok guys, time to let seeking1 have the thread back.

No more posts until seeking1 has a whack at this thing.

seeking1, the floor is yours.
-

[seeking1]

Thanks UntoHim, but I'm o.k. watching Evangelical and ZNP duke it out, that's fine but. I think that they are still on topic, unlike other threads that I've seen go way off topic.

My intent in starting this thread was hearing from (ex) local-churchers on this topic. Given that the Local Church, IMHO, is a traditional patriarchy style of church where the men dominate all aspects of leadership and condescension towards women is an accepted norm I wanted to see where people here fell on the spectrum.

[ZNPaaneah]

Something to consider:

3 that aged women likewise be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; 4 that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed:

I think the use of "aged" women and "train" in this translation (ASV) is due to the reticence to use the term "elder" and "teach".

Still, Paul is charging these aged women to teach or train the younger women.

So my question is this. Paul gives explicit criteria for selecting elders, deacons and even widows who are to be enrolled in church care. Where does he give the criteria for selecting these elder women who are to train others if it is not the same section in Timothy where he explains how to select elders?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Something to consider:

3 that aged women likewise be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; 4 that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed:

I think the use of "aged" women and "train" in this translation (ASV) is due to the reticence to use the term "elder" and "teach".

Still, Paul is charging these aged women to teach or train the younger women.

So my question is this. Paul gives explicit criteria for selecting elders, deacons and even widows who are to be enrolled in church care. Where does he give the criteria for selecting these elder women who are to train others if it is not the same section in Timothy where he explains how to select elders?

Notice the part about being in subjection to their husbands. This means if the husband is an elder his aged wife who could be considered an 'elder' to the women in their care are not qualified to lead a church. The elder woman teaches the younger women to be in subjection as she herself is. The egalitarian view of equality is wrong. This rules out both a single aged elder female leading a church and also a married female whether she is an elder to the younger women or not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Notice the part about being in subjection to their husbands. This means if the husband is an elder his aged wife who could be considered an 'elder' to the women in their care are not qualified to lead a church. The elder woman teaches the younger women to be in subjection as she herself is. The egalitarian view of equality is wrong. This rules out both a single aged elder female leading a church and also a married female whether she is an elder to the younger women or not.

Interesting take. I have a different view, but definitely, your interpretation fits neatly into mine.

12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ... 23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked;

So I would ask you a few simple questions.

1. In the church, which are our comely members, the brothers or the sisters? (Hint -- anyone who is married knows there is only one right answer).

2. On which members has Paul bestowed more abundant honor, the brothers or sisters?

3. Which members have no need? (This is a little tougher to understand but as your earlier post about how brothers refuse to go to churches that seem "too feminine" suggests, one of these requires their ego to be stroked and for one there is no need).

4. Which members are "lacking" in the church -- brothers or sisters?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Interesting take. I have a different view, but definitely, your interpretation fits neatly into mine.

There is some overlap in our interpretations. I don't see a major issue if the woman is considered (honorary) elders as long as the woman is in subjection to her (real) elder husband, as the Scripture says. I do not see a strong case for equal male-female eldership or women-only elders. The language in the original Greek or in our English translations does not allow for it.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ... 23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked;

So I would ask you a few simple questions.

1. In the church, which are our comely members, the brothers or the sisters? (Hint -- anyone who is married knows there is only one right answer).

2. On which members has Paul bestowed more abundant honor, the brothers or sisters?

3. Which members have no need? (This is a little tougher to understand but as your earlier post about how brothers refuse to go to churches that seem "too feminine" suggests, one of these requires their ego to be stroked and for one there is no need).

4. Which members are "lacking" in the church -- brothers or sisters?

The reason why Paul bestowed more honor on the sisters is because the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). It is because they are the weaker vessel that they are suited for being elders to the weaker women (young women) but not to the men and women (the whole church).

There is another point which I believe makes the egalitarian viewpoint highly unlikely and it is that menstruation was a taboo topic in many cultures including Judaism and early Christianity which prevented women from leadership in various church rituals due to ritual impurity. This would have ruled out a young woman being considered for church leadership:

Ezekial 18:6 he....neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is some overlap in our interpretations. I don't see a major issue if the woman is considered (honorary) elders as long as the woman is in subjection to her (real) elder husband, as the Scripture says. I do not see a strong case for equal male-female eldership or women-only elders. The language in the original Greek or in our English translations does not allow for it.

The reason why Paul bestowed more honor on the sisters is because the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). It is because they are the weaker vessel that they are suited for being elders to the weaker women (young women) but not to the men and women (the whole church).

I don't think you understood my view. I think that Paul bestowed more abundant honor on the brothers because their ego needs it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is another point which I believe makes the egalitarian viewpoint highly unlikely and it is that menstruation was a taboo topic in many cultures including Judaism and early Christianity which prevented women from leadership in various church rituals due to ritual impurity. This would have ruled out a young woman being considered for church leadership:

Ezekial 18:6 he....neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

Unfortunately for that position you are combining the Old creation with the New Creation. In the New Creation there is no male or female.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think you understood my view. I think that Paul bestowed more abundant honor on the brothers because their ego needs it.

That's a novel twist on the Scripture. I don't think Paul told the husbands to honor their wives because their ego needs it. The context is about bestowing honor on the weaker parts not the stronger. Sometimes you come up with strange interpretations and honoring men's egos is not the most obvious and logical interpretation.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Unfortunately for that position you are combining the Old creation with the New Creation. In the New Creation there is no male or female.

In the new creation there is also no marriage. What does this mean for your theory that male elders must be married? You can't pick and choose which parts of the New Creation you want to follow. A church which follows the New Creation idea should have no male or female distinctions, and also no marriage or children either. Until then, the Old Creation is still very much with us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's a novel twist on the Scripture. I don't think Paul told the husbands to honor their wives because their ego needs it. The context is about bestowing honor on the weaker parts not the stronger. Sometimes you come up with strange interpretations and honoring men's egos is not the most obvious and logical interpretation.

23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor [Paul bestowed more abundant honor on the brothers]; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness [the brothers are "our uncomely parts" though we generally refer to this in the reverse -- sister is the better half, fair sex, etc]; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need [the sisters have no need. Even with Paul giving the chief leadership role to brothers we still have 65% of church members are sisters]: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked [Paul gave more abundant honor to the brothers by giving them the chief leadership role]

Sometimes there are ugly situations and you need someone to be the "ugly" one (dealing with scam artists, abusive people, wolves in sheep's clothing). In that case the brothers are much more suited to being "ugly" when it is necessary. But for the most part we would like the testimony and expression of the church to be beautiful, in which case the sisters are clearly very well suited.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the new creation there is also no marriage. What does this mean for your theory that male elders must be married? You can't pick and choose which parts of the New Creation you want to follow. A church which follows the New Creation idea should have no male or female distinctions, and also no marriage or children either. Until then, the Old Creation is still very much with us.

We deal with the Old creation in our testimony to the world. Our families are still old creation which is why salvation is personal, each person has to receive Christ. However, they are sanctified by a believing spouse or parents. But your claim that a woman's menstrual cycle would make her unclean for spiritual service to the Lord is contrary to Paul's word that in the New Creation there is no male or female. Peter also contradicts that with the word that "we are a royal priesthood".

If you are in the Old creation then you are in the sabbath rest and are not suitable for spiritual service. Only those in the new creation are called to be fellow laborers with Christ. But, all unbelievers are in the old creation and many new believers are also mostly in the Old creation. God is not the author of confusion.

In my understanding both brothers and sisters are essential and need to be tempered together. Salvation is very much about families and marriage. Many of those who come into the church need counseling concerning these matters. Many need mentors because they didn't have proper fathers and mothers. But, when you get into the new creation the distinction between male and female does not exist. By that I am referring to the function of the spirit and the gifts of the spirit.

[seeking1]

For anyone that is interested, here is a video of a pastor answering the "Can women be pastors?" question. I have watched, probably 2 dozen videos on the subject but I really liked how this guy (who I had never heard of) laid it out.

https://youtu.be/3oOnPVunV8I

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by seeking1

For anyone that is interested, here is a video of a pastor answering the "Can women be pastors?" question. I have watched, probably 2 dozen videos on the subject but I really liked how this guy (who I had never heard of) laid it out.

https://youtu.be/3oOnPVunV8I

He really dives deep into head covering (36 minutes) but skims over the aspect of a woman being an elder or pastor.

His key verse concerning church leadership is that Adam was created first and was not deceived, Eve was created second and fell into transgression. It seems to me that women have a key weakness that men don't have, they are the comely members and drop their defenses when anyone appreciates their comeliness. They also have an aversion to being "ugly". Men on the other hand are not the comely members and do not have the same aversion to being "ugly" when necessary.

I also appreciated the lengthy discussion on the biblical hierarchy. Christ -- head of man -- Man head of woman -- woman head of child.

So what happens when a man becomes a pastor, is his mother still his head?

He ties this into "the woman will be saved through childbearing". He makes an interesting point, she is not saved from hell, she is saved from second place. So then, the hierarchy is not a straight line, it is a circle.

The woman doesn't understand why she is "second place" to the man, but learns at home by raising children and listening to the children with the same questions as to why they are second place to the mom.

Also, this matter of head covering, it applies to everyone. Everyone has their head covered. Elders do not have the authority to "hire and fire" or to "give raises" or to assign work. It is Jesus who saves, Jesus who will reward us at His throne and Jesus who calls. Elders will also be rewarded or punished at the throne, they also need the Lord's salvation, and they also are called by the Lord.

He also connects the verse in 1Cor about Paul not permitting a woman to speak in the meeting with the context about speaking in tongues. It is not a overarching rule but rather specific to the exercise of tongues during a church meeting.

Finally, he points out again and again that these gender specific roles in the NT are so that we would raise our family well.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

...Adam was created first and was not deceived..

So, which is worse, willful sin or sinning because you were deceived? The serpent deceived the woman, but the man knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. Somehow not being deceived seems to be a “badge of honor” for a man, but that could only mean he acted willfully. How is that a good thing?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

So, which is worse, willful sin or sinning because you were deceived? The serpent deceived the woman, but the man knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. Somehow not being deceived seems to be a “badge of honor” for a man, but that could only mean he acted willfully. How is that a good thing?

Good point. Seems to me they both were deceived. Adam, however, heard from God first-hand.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

So, which is worse, willful sin or sinning because you were deceived? The serpent deceived the woman, but the man knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. Somehow not being deceived seems to be a “badge of honor” for a man, but that could only mean he acted willfully. How is that a good thing?

The post you are quoting from was a summary of the positions taken from the youtube video that seeking1 referenced. Since I have summed up 45 minute video with a very brief post I think it would be more fair to actually listen to his video and then discuss what he said. In my post I made it clear that this is a key verse to the position he takes.

That said I do think this is a very interesting verse to discuss, it is crucial to the discussion (I agree with the pastor on that point, that this verse is critical) and I would like to be involved in a discussion on it. However, I am not interested in "which is worse". Instead, I believe this event reveals strengths and weaknesses of both men and women, as a result it is important in determining what roles we are each more suited to.

[Evangelical]

Scripture is fairly clear that only the woman was deceived. Adam was not deceived and ate the fruit knowing that it was a sin (1 Tim 2:14). Adam's sin was willful, and greater than the woman's - for this reason death came through Adam directly (Romans 5:12), not Eve.

God declared that the one who had the greater sin (the man) would have the greater responsibility in the church. This may seem unfair as the one who committed the least sin should have preference but God does not make decisions in this way - God makes decisions based on His infinite wisdom.

I believe it is this way for some reasons:

Adam's sin was worse, so God had more to forgive the man, and therefore God showed more grace and love to Adam than Eve (Luke 7:47).

The ability to fall into error without knowing it (deceived) is potentially worse than willful error in regards to leadership. If the leader is deceived then it is blind leading the blind. But if the leader knows their sin, then at least they know. Even though willful sin is worse, it is easier to correct tha deception.

As an example, it is really hard to correct someone who doesn't know they have sinned or even what the concept of sin is, like a small child or an animal. If you correct them once, they will probably repeat their mistake.

But an adult who has full faculty of reason is potentially easier for God to correct and deal with, learn from their lesson and move forward. An example is David and Bathsheba - this was a willful sin on the part of David to kill her husband and it seems he started the affair, but Bathsheba was probably deceived or coerced by David into committing sin but she also shares some of the blame for not being faithful to her husband. For this reason David gets the harsher punishment and Bathsheba does not seem to be punished.

[ZNPaaneah]

Wow! I guess this is what Paul means when he says we see through a glass darkly. I think your interpretation is colored by your experience of leaders willfully sinning in the LRC.

I agree with you that most of us would prefer a leader who was not easily deceived. I think we would also prefer a leader who was loyal to us and took responsibility for our error.

Again, I am not interested in proclaiming judgement as to whose sin was greater. Perhaps your interpretation is correct, perhaps Adam, after having been joined to Eve and become one flesh with her didn't want to be cut off from her. Perhaps like Truman he said "the buck stops here" and was willing to take responsibility for the fall. One thing that the preacher on the youtube video that Seeking1 got right is that there are possibly 30 different interpretations of this question.

[Drake]

Evangelical>" ...and Bathsheba does not seem to be punished."

That the child from that sinful act died was punishment enough. Later she bore Solomon showing God's righteousness, mercy, forgiveness, and determination and wisdom to accomplish His purpose of the ages.

Drake

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Scripture is fairly clear that only the woman was deceived. Adam was not deceived and ate the fruit knowing that it was a sin (1 Tim 2:14). Adam's sin was willful, and greater than the woman's - for this reason death came through Adam directly (Romans 5:12), not Eve.

So, I dont think this was a matter of whose sin was worse/greater. I think what Paul is getting at is the fact that there is a created order. Many scholars argue that the fact that Paul goes all the way back to creation in addressing women teaching means that he is not just confronting a local cultural issue but, he is giving this as a universal principle for the church everywhere. I know that the "A" word is a touchy subject here. But God is a God of order with order comes authority. We see this playout in the angelic realm when Michael would not bring a charge against the enemy over the body of Moses. Paul is just bringing that to light here.

So, yes Eve sinned 1st but sin did not enter into humanity because of her transgressions, because she was not the head of humanity, Adam was the head of humanity. That is why Romans 5 tells us that " just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men" The cause of Eve's sin was her desire for authority, her desire to have her eyes opened and be as the Most High. Sound familliar? Maybe the serpent knew he couldn't get the man? Perhaps he tried already? The man had already been working the garden by himself prior to the creation of the woman. Perhaps the the enemy saw something in the relationship between Adam and Eve that he could take advantage of? Who knows?

But we do know that Paul, as directed by the Holy Spirit, saw fit to use this as grounds to forbid women from being in authority positions over men in the church. I think that much is clear and I think that it has been clear for almost 2000 years and that the church has been abiding in this principle since Paul wrote it. It is only in recent times (the last 70-80 years) that it is being challenged. Why is that?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by seeking1

The cause of Eve's sin was her desire for authority, her desire to have her eyes opened and be as the Most High. Sound familliar?

Interesting that this was the cause of the fall, and it is also interesting that this portion in Timothy is about the woman's salvation.

3 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?... 6 But one hath somewhere testified, saying,

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;
Thou crownedst him with glory and honor,
And didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet.

Prior to Jesus becoming Lord of All He was first made a little lower than the angels.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by seeking1

... The cause of Eve's sin was her desire for authority...

Is that a verse? Where?

Nell

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by Nell

Is that a verse? Where?

Nell

We all know it is not and it wasn't my intent to convey that it was a verse. But the proposition was that "you will be like God". So you tell me, what was Eve looking for?

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Interesting that this was the cause of the fall, and it is also interesting that this portion in Timothy is about the woman's salvation.

3 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?... 6 But one hath somewhere testified, saying,

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;
Thou crownedst him with glory and honor,
And didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet.

Prior to Jesus becoming Lord of All He was first made a little lower than the angels.

Amen! I'm in. But this is from Hebrews?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by seeking1

Amen! I'm in. But this is from Hebrews?

Hebrews 2 quoting Psalm 8

[Nell]

Originally Posted by seeking1

We all know it is not and it wasn't my intent to convey that it was a verse. But the proposition was that "you will be like God". So you tell me, what was Eve looking for?

That was only part of the conversation. The context was 1) The most subtle serpent approached Eve with a question. 2) She replies with what God said, including a phrase God had not said. 3) More conversation with the woman. 4) Her husband was standing there but did not join the conversation. 5) She eats, and gives to her husband. The rest is history.

What was she "looking for"? The verses don't really imply that she had a motive. It seems that to her it was a conversation with a subtle, and I'll say manipulative serpent that DID have a motive. She bought it. According to her confession, she was deceived. She was clearly in over her head, trying to hold her own with the subtle manipulator. Her husband just stood there watching. He was not deceived about what was happening, but neither did he join the conversation, which might have helped her. She was younger and probably less mature than her husband.

Maybe she did want to be "like God" but since she didn't initiate the exchange, that was probably not foremost in her mind. It seems that she was trying, as best she could, to answer the serpent's questions on her own, but that did not go well for her.

Just my thought.

Nell

Genesis 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

[aron]

Originally Posted by seeking1

So, I do realize that the local church was kind of hard on sisters, depending on the locality, it was harder for some sisters than others..

The local church was initially egalitarian with sisters. Watchman Nee used them extensively as a stepping-stone to power. Eventually they were no longer needed, and seen as a threat to the "authority" of men, and were discarded. Back to the nursery they went.

Originally Posted by FaithSavesKeswick

In 1935 Nee became involved with Pentecostalism through Miss Elizabeth Fischbacher of the China Inland Mission.[1665] He had “overcome his reservations about women preachers sufficiently to attend her meetings,” and, in line with his Keswick continuationism, “acknowledged the Holy Spirit’s . . . gifts to the church of healing and of speaking with and interpretation of tongues.”[1666] Nee “found peace and spiritual blessing in her message and some experiences associated with her Pentecostal theology.”[1667] Miss Fischbacher, who translated various items for the Little Flock into English,[1668] accompanied Nee to the 1938 Keswick convention;[1669] the addresses in Nee’s The Normal Christian Life were delivered on this trip to the West.[1670]

Peace Wang and Ruth Lee were also Nee's closest 'senior' co-workers. Eventually, though, egalitarianism served its purpose - the acquisition of temporal, earthly power - then it was formally rejected. Like in the book, "Animal Farm". To get rid of the current ruling class, "we are all equal"; to establish a new ruling class, "but some of us are a bit more equal than others".

http://faithsaves.net/sanctification...higher-life-3/

Of course, this is just hypothesis, suggested by the facts. It may be that the "truth" of the local church and egalitarianism is different. I'm just writing what I see, and what it suggests to me. It may suggest something else, to other readers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

http://faithsaves.net/sanctification...higher-life-3/

Interesting link aron, do you know who wrote this? What is their agenda?

I find it amazing how the Recovery can use people, and then discard them. And vice versa. The Keswick Convention of T.A. Sparks was always held in high regard by Lee.

Look at these conclusions in the piece you linked. They do seem quite extreme. Perhaps our scholar Drake can provide needed insight.

Applications from the Life and Teachings of Watchman Nee

The writings of Watchman Nee are extremely dangerous and unreliable. Those of Nee’s successor, Witness Lee, are even worse.[1810] Believers should be warned against them, not encouraged to read them. They would be better used to kindle a fire in a wood stove than to kindle a fire for God in a believer’s soul—and they have been an instrument to lead many to the everlasting fires of hell.

Do you want your church to reject the true God and join a modalistic cult that denies the gospel, banishes believers to a Protestant purgatory, confuses and hinders Biblical sanctification, and rejects the study of Scripture for demonically produced mystical experiences? Then acquire Watchman Nee’s writings and study them carefully, for by the study of his writings countless people have been brought into exactly this sort of apostasy.

Vast numbers in China have rejected Christianity for the Church of the Recovery, and in the United States and elsewhere in the world the cult of Nee and Lee proselytizes by spreading the teachings and writings of their false prophets to as many in Christendom as show any interest. Is rejecting Jehovah for idolatry an intolerable and infinite evil? Then have nothing to do with Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, for they were not God’s watchmen, nor true witnesses to Him.

The abominable heresies of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee illustrate where the Keswick continuationism can lead—their cult is Keswick theology gone to seed. The rejection of grammatical-historical exegesis and literal interpretation for mystical and experiential hermeneutics fundamentally undergirds Keswick, Pentecostal, and Church of the Recovery doctrine; all these movements fall away, and classical orthodoxy on sanctification and other areas of Christianity is restored, when literal hermeneutics are reinstated and their implications rigorously applied.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

do you know who wrote this? What is their agenda?

They don't like the Keswick Convention for sure. . .it was hard to tell . . . they were talking about modalism and deification; Pentecostalism and holiness/sanctification. I'd been looking for info on Elizabeth Fischbacher and Watchman Nee; they'd gone together to Keswick and she translated his talks, there. So they were more than passing acquaintances - they were at least for a while co-workers and peers.

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee - The Overcoming Life

In Chefoo I learned a lesson. One day Miss Fischbacher and I were praying for definite gifts from God. I was praying for the gift of faith, while she was praying for the gift of healing. After we prayed for a quarter of an hour, both of us received the gifts. In the evening we went to the meeting, and Sister An told me that another sister living downstairs in the meeting place was going out of her mind... The next day I invited Miss Fischbacher to come with me to see the sick sister. Of course, I could have gone alone, but Miss Fischbacher had just received the gift of healing, and I had received the gift of faith. Why should we not apply them now? When Miss Fischbacher got my invitation, she was somewhat hesitant. She said she would pray first. After she prayed, she decided to come. ….The Lord gave me faith. My faith rose up in me, and I began to praise the Lord! I knew that she was going to be healed. After Miss Fischbacher prayed, she also had faith and began to praise the Lord. Then two brothers and a sister also prayed a few words, but they were not in the flow of the Spirit as much as we were. Then the time came, and I had to take Miss Fischbacher to her boat.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I find it amazing how the Recovery can use people, and then discard them. And vice versa. The Keswick Convention of T.A. Sparks was always held in high regard by Lee.

Keswick was held in regard in the LC because it validated Watchman Nee before Christianity. But the LSM would never endorse "Fallen Deformed Christianity" Keswick on it's own right! "Mystery Babylon" Keswick! Oh no! Funny how that works. It's always a one-way street: the My Way Highway.

Originally Posted by David Woodbridge PhD Thesis on the Brethren in China

Most of the duration of Nee’s second trip to Britain was spent at the Honor Oak Fellowship Centre of Theodore Austin-Sparks. Formed in 1925, Honor Oak hosted regular church meetings, but also formed a larger operation that included residential conferences and regular publications. Nee had been introduced to Austin-Sparks’ writings by Margaret Barber, and he had subsequently befriended a CIM missionary, Elizabeth Fischbacher, who had been part of the Honor Oak Fellowship before becoming a missionary. Fischbacher resigned from the CIM in 1935 and became associated with the Little Flock. It was she who had suggested that Nee accompany her and a group of missionaries to Britain in 1938.

In the LC we respected Keswick because it validated Nee and by extension was one of our bona fides of Christian spirituality. But we didn't want to know too much about Keswick, because then, someone might start asking questions about Elizabeth Fischbacher and egalitarianism. Besides, it's Mystery Babylon.

[seeking1]

Thanks for sharing this link Aron. Though I don’t agree with the author’s hard line Baptist position, there is so much in this article that simply cannot be ignored, it is a scathing indictment of Nee, Lee, Pentecostalism and how they all were the fruit of the “Keswick Revival”.

Pentecostalism was the true child and heir of the Welsh holiness revival work of Evan Roberts. It is historically certain that the “world-wide . . . Pentecostal . . . revival was rocked in the cradle of little Wales . . . becoming full grown in Los Angeles.”[927]

The abominable heresies of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee illustrate where the Keswick continuationism can lead—their cult is Keswick theology gone to seed. The rejection of grammatical-historical exegesis and literal interpretation for mystical and experiential hermeneutics fundamentally undergirds Keswick, Pentecostal, and Church of the Recovery doctrine; all these movements fall away, and classical orthodoxy on sanctification and other areas of Christianity is restored, when literal hermeneutics are reinstated and their implications rigorously applied.

There is also much about the error of Jesse Penn-Lewis and her influence on Nee. I always thought there was something peculiar about the arrangement between Jesse Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts, this piece gives some more background information on it. I think this may also explain the split between Penn-Lewis and T.A. Sparks, though Sparks (to my knowledge) never went into detail about the split, perhaps he discerned that there was error in her teaching and began to distance himself.

[aron]

Originally Posted by seeking1

Though I don’t agree with the author’s hard line Baptist position, there is so much in this article that simply cannot be ignored, it is a scathing indictment of Nee, Lee, Pentecostalism and how they all were the fruit of the “Keswick Revival”. .

Hard line Baptist dogmatism is not a savory stew for sure. Yet if Martin Luther "recovered" anything about justification by faith, we shouldn't casually dismiss the Baptist critique, either. In short, it seems the "holiness" movement suggests a "second level" of Christian experience, and this is what the Baptists object to. In my case, having gone from Baptist to LC and back, I can see it from both sides. I was drawn to the Charismatic Experience, as superior to hearing the gospel preached every Sunday morning. "Repent or face damnation" every week does get old.

But on the other hand, the "next level" Christianity becomes a moving target; Lee introduced the Vital Groups concept because we weren't vital enough. Said who? Said Lee. So he had a fulcrum to manipulate us. When we were in a heightened state of subjectivity (shouting, repetitive chanting, rocking back and forth) we were under the thumb of Lee. He could suggest anything. We competed to see who could shout AAAYYYEE-MEN! loudest.

But if the topic is women's role in the Church, the influence of women on Nee can't be dismissed. And yet his movement does indeed dismiss them. Go figure.

[Weighingin]

I also thank you for that reference, Aron. So “get out of your mind” is not original to the LC. Though the author is extremely distrustful of experience and
allegory, this writing still shows me what influenced Nee and Lee. Even there is some connection to the Quakers! Our experience of the Lord can include “feelings”, but they can often not be of Him. The Christian sphere has a lot of impressions, teachings, Etc and to say one ministry has it all is incorrect.