Pot Calling the Kettle Black
Posted by Matt B on Jun 20th, 2007
2007
Jun 20
In a bizarre twist, which doesn’t surprise anyone actually, Ingrid criticizes a church for hiring a senior woman pastor. Issues aside, Ingrid often acts as an authority over Christian men. Before anyone points out that she only attacks “unregenerate”, let me remind us all that we don’t know the state of anyone’s soul, only God knows that.
Perhaps she should stay at home and consult her husband before she blogs. 
June 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
There is a vast difference between expressing views and opinions in a blog–the equivelent of a community coffee shop, and pastoring a church. Ingrid has long supported women in ministry, but she has consistently held that the job of pastor, preaching, administering of sacraments is reserved for men. I know because she goes to my church.
June 20th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
oooooo beware! She may just call you a name with a lot of hyphens in it!!!
June 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Ingrid uses the internet as a platform to hold various “ministries” accountable, utlizing the light of God’s Word as her only guide for discernment. The 1 Timothy 2 passage clearly forbids women from excercising authority over the pastor of their local assembly. I have never Ingrid speak out against her own pastor. This post is rediculous.
June 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Debra-
What about teaching? Are women allowed to teach men, especially in matters of Scripture and faith?
June 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Months ago I wrote an article (below) addressing the non-addressing of what I call “Elder Blogs”. Those blogs reprove and rebuke elders, which Biblically should be done by other elders.
Now if you believe women can be elders, so be it. If you do not, then you have a problem letting women rebuke ordained elders from all over the globe. I love the husband comment, you will get mail!
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/11/elder-blogs-some-blogs-are-devotional.html
June 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
clearly- I disqualify your argument because I already said that we won’t be questioning whether or not someone is regenerate or not. If Ingrid believes that men should be teaching both men and women, then only her husband should run the blog.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
What church is that Debra?
I’d be fascinated to learn what kind of church actually passes the test for Ms. Schlueter.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
The basioc point is this:
If Ingrid doesn’t believe women should be elders, then she has no business reproving, rebuking, and generally castigating elders from many different churches. If it isn’t Scriptural for her to publicly rebuke her pastor, she should not do it to other pastors.
As far as the “coffee shop” metaphor, are we saying that she cannot rebuke her pastor within the church building but she can let him have it at the coffee shop? It is blatantly unscriptural, which was started by her father scripturally, but became unscriptural when she took it over.
That is unless you believe women can be elders. Can you imagine John MacArthur’s wife running a blog that continually rebuked MacLaren and Bell and Ingrids’s pastor?
June 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I believe this brings up a very good point. The complementarian position taken to it’s logical end leaves very few legitimate positions available for women in the Church. One can make a very good argument that the Bible includes teaching under the same umbrella as pastoring. If we can’t have women pastors, then we shouldn’t have women Sunday School teachers, Bible study leaders, etc. I assume Ingrid is “teaching” on her radio show, at least in her mind, so it is kind of funny for her to rail against this issue.
This is kinf of a moot point in my mind, though. I am firmly egalitarian in my view, and I believe that are many qualified women who shouldn’t be forbidden to lead, just as much as there many unqualified men behind many pulpits. To me the Biblical standard isn’t based on gender as much as it as a consistent track record of servant leadership in all areas of one’s life. That argument can be had another day, though.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Phil - you are consistent, Ingrid is not. The Scripture directs the older women to teach the younger, so the gift of teaching can be assigned to them. But if women cannot be elders/pastors, they should not take authority over them by publicly rebuking them but still claiming Biblical submission.
June 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Hey Rick/Henry Frueh, (Why is it you have two names anyway?)
Is this the same blogger who allows women coo in the comment section and pat you on the back when you attack Ingrid? I thought women were to be silent, according to you? How come it’s okay when “Baptist girl” massages your ego but it’s bad when Ingrid speaks out? Your malice (and hypocrisy) is showing…
June 20th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I disagree that the complementarian position leaves few positions for women in the church (of course that just depends on the particular variety of complementarianism) but Ingrid assumes a position of even greater authority than any pastor or elder has. Maybe we could start calling her Pope Ingrid.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
clearly,
so clearly a woman is not allowed to exercise authority over their local pastor. But, they are able to exercise their authority and voice over other pastors. Hmmm. Have you been taking logic lessons from Silva?
June 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Nathan,
Come now. You know very well that Ingrid has no real “authority” on the Internet just the same as I’m no one’s real “pastor” on the Internet you silly.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Of course she has no authority. But it is her verbal rebukes that are way out of Scriptural alignment. If her hsuband began to act liberal and compromising, what does the Scripture say Ingrid should do? Start a blog and rebuke him, or win him with her humility and Christlikeness?
There is no way to justify a women rebuking ordained elders, unless you believe that women can be elders. I consider women who usurp authority by chastening elders publicly as egregious a Scriptural compromise as women pastors.
I am surprised that view emerged on this blog. (did you get the “emerge” reference? Clever, huh?)
June 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
It’s not just a matter of actual position, but also, if I am understanding Henry’s position, of gender itself that disqualifies Ingrid to rebuke.
apples and oranges, Ken.
Or should I say…? Nah…=)
June 20th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
So then what is the goal of Pope Ingrid’s blog Ken? She certainly is issuing orders, and seems to be telling people what not to do. If she started saying these things in her church to her pastor it would certainly be seen as an attempt to exercise authority.
And as for you not being a pastor, that’s hardly a surprise, since the term denotes actually caring for individuals, instead of shredding them with your words.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Let’s face it, brothers and sisters, on this issue the emperor has no clothes. If you believe the Scriptures teach that a women cannot be an ordained elder, then you are hypocritical if you endorse a women screeching out against ordained men on the internet. (screeching is a verb used in this case for a gender affect, humourously.)
Even if Ingrid was humble and soft spoken, but still corrected ordained men she would be compromising her own Scriptural stance. But, Matt, is it Scriptural for Ingrid to rebuke a women pastor since both are out of line? Wow, can you imagine Mrs. Luther rebuking Calvin? Or Mrs. Tozer correcting Moody? Or Mrs. Spurgeon rebuking Wesley?
We’ve come a long way baby!
June 20th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Rick,
If Mrs. Calvin rebuked anyone she probably would have been murdered by her husband in the name of the cross.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
1. I am in a position where I teach Sunday school which has men in it. I already talked about this elsewhere, so I won’t belabor it here. No one else seems willing to do it at our small church, so I have to help the other guy. Yes, yes, Deborah. I know. Deborah gets used a lot. There must be more to it that “if only men did their job” because that implies that Rosie the Riveter had skills as long as no one else was available even though her rivets held just as well as the man before her.
2. I don’t know about the women-as-elders thing, but I do know that struggling with all the “complementariasm” teaching out there left me feeling worthless in the church. Men can say all they want about how women are valued, blah blah blah, but when they hold that view and it comes right down to it, to the applying it in real life and real church…worthless. I’m not gifted in the kitchen, with kids, not interested in ladies’ teas…there is no place. Frankly, few “complementarian” men really take that hard line in their own marriages.
3. I should probably apologize to Ken Silva for publicly slamming him, though I am still trying to ignore him. Not just because or since I am a woman. But because it was unnecessary and probably wrong. I’ll think about it.
4. The book “Captivating”, though not flawless I suppose, really helped me see worth in being a woman beyond the usual stuff I hear Christian men say about women while patting their heads and telling them how important they are now please be quiet and take your place below. Frankly, Christian men have damaged a lot of supposedly “important, but in your place” women. A lot of inept men have pushed out gifted women.
5. I will never wear a bonnet. It hasn’t come up here, but if it does, I’m just going to go ahead and state my position early.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
“I will never wear a bonnet.” Me either. I hate hat hair!
June 21st, 2007 at 6:21 am
Julie,
Excellent use of a historical reference! Your comment about Rosie the Riveter made my morning.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:23 am
A women can teach men, Julie, as long as she does it under authority (meaning the leadership approves). Many women teachers are better than men (Kay Arthur) But she cannot correct or rebuke elders.
By the way, the bonnet thing, you are so funny. I watched your Nicarauguin (sp) trip and I saw no bonnets.
I am not a complementarian? man. Whatever the Scriptures say that is the truth. Now if you want to start on the downfall of the elder position in these days, you will have loads to talk about.
Also, take notice that the usual suspects are very quite concerning this issue. Hmm…I wonder.
No I don’t, I saw it coming.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
And who might those “usual suspects” who “are very quite [quiet?] concerning this issue” be there Rick?
Ingrid? She hasn’t been commenting here. And I’m already on record many times concerning this issue. Appears to be one of your pet hobby horses to me.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:34 am
Ken - “hobby horses”? That from the man who oversees a stable full.
You’ve stated a lot of things on the record but it doesn’t stop you from stating them again and again. Can Ingrid or any other woman publicly rebuke an ordained elder on matters of doctrine? I know you are on record, but I have forgotten.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:36 am
In the strict complementarian view, a woman critiquing the doctrine of an elder is wrong. It’s her husband’s job to do that. Her job is to be quiet and submissive to her husband.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:37 am
Rick- I just unmoderated a comment from Valhalla that you might want to respond to.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:57 am
Valhalla - In German Henry is “Heinrich” so when I was little they called me little Heinrich which became “Rick” over the years. Sorry, nothing real sinister. I have never attacked Ingrid personally, only her standing in a gender exclusive place of authority. I did not write it, God did.
I never said a woman cannot agree and even compliment men like Christina (Baptist girl) did, I said they cannot rebuke an elder. By the way, if you are a woman you are exhibiting the very trait the Bible forbids.
Matt - I have never deleted a comment on my blog even when they are abrasive so I appreciate you letting the entirety of the dialogue show through. And for the record Ingrid is a scholarly believer who has genuine talents in Christ. She is just out of the Biblical guidelines for women. I even agree with some of her assessments of evangelicalism.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:59 am
Julie says,
“I will never wear a bonnet.”
What about one of those bandana scarfs like Rosie the Riveter’s?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:45 am
I think it would be helpful to us all for the strict complementarians who support Ingrid show a NT example of a woman rebuking a man in a matter of faith. We see Paul rebuking Peter, Paul rebuking the Corinthians, Paul rebuking the Galations, Jesus rebuking the Pharisees, etc, etc, etc.
I see no difference between Paul’s letters of rebuke to a church and Ingrid’s blogging of rebukes to a church. Errr…except that Ingrid isn’t the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:56 am
You do know guys that women pastors are a-ok within the new evangelicalism and the emerging church, right?
So unless you personally hold that women cannot be ordained as elders you would be…O, what’s that word I’m looking for? Ah yes, hypocrites to be arguing Ingrid can’t “rebuke” elders when new evangelicalism is replete with women elders.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:10 am
Ken-
I am a complementarian. My church recently voted on women as elders and senior pastors, which I voted against. The vote did not pass.
Both Mars Hill Seattle and Imago Dei in Portland, important churches in the emerging movement, do not allow women elders or pastors.
So, no hypocrisy on my part.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:16 am
Ken,
Certainly the debate about women pastors is not a new thing. You can go back 100 years or more and find people writing about it. To somehow make it an emerging church issue or “new evangelicalism” is just not being intellectually honest.
Personally, I have no problem with women being in leadership roles. I do have to say that it seems a little disingenuous for a woman blogger who apparantly feels free to set herself up as an authority on everything and everyone to take exception at a church hiring a woman pastor. It seems Ingrid has one standard for herself and another one for everyone else.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:30 am
“Both Mars Hill Seattle and Imago Dei in Portland, important churches in the emerging movement, do not allow women elders or pastors.”
Right. But Mars Hill G-rap and hundreds of others do. And this will only increase…
June 21st, 2007 at 10:36 am
Mosaic does not allow women elders. Our women pastors oversee women only (women’s ministry).
June 21st, 2007 at 10:46 am
You lost me on Mars Hill G-rap but now I get it. Hilarious!
“And this will only increase…” proves nothing. You can’t predict the future and you are speculating. My article was dealing with the hypocrisy of Ingrid. Let’s not confuse the issue.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:17 am
Julie,
It is not my intent to gloss over any pain you may have experienced in regards to teaching. However, you can teach and exercise spiritual authority over approximately 2/3 rds of the earth’s population (i.e. adult women and children of either sex) should the opportunity arise, without question or debate. Is this not a large enough potential target audience in which to fulfill your calling to teach?
June 21st, 2007 at 11:21 am
Rick,
How is it OK for a woman to teach a man even if she is under a male’s authority?
June 21st, 2007 at 11:30 am
Hou-J,
How is it ok for a woman to teach a young male?
June 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Matt B.,
Careful now.
” ‘And this will only increase…’ proves nothing.” You can’t predict the future and you are speculating.” What you have just said yourself also proves nothing as well. As you can’t “predict the future” either. Therefore you personally “are speculating” to think that women elders and pastors will not increase.
Mine is only an educated guess based on the literal fact of women pastors within liberal mainline denominations already. Why one “Episcopal” priestess has now come emerging and even discovered god in “the other” so she is a Muslim and a Christian.
So looking at this, we then combine how evangelicals are so afraid to confront these issues head on because it is supposedly “unloving”; the proliferation of women pastors in many of the evangelical and highly Arminian Charismatic and Pentecostal denominations, the recent one called in an SBC affiliated church, as well as those already within “holiness” denominations like the Nazarene church, it’s pretty clear women elders will only increase.
And then you say: “My article was dealing with the hypocrisy of Ingrid. Let’s not confuse the issue.” Matt B, this is the issue because you prove no “hypocrisy” on Ingrid’s part. Many of the people who read this watchdawg blog are in favor of women elders, they just wouldn’t like Ingrid to be one.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I love how Ken throws “Arminian” into the description of churches that have women pastors. hahaha. This coming from the most calvinistic professing “non-calvinist” I have ever read.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Nathan,
I said a “male child” not a “young male”. Women can certainly teach children. (e.g., Timothy’s mother and grandmother taught him) I would assume that priveledge expires in young adulthood. The Bible is not specific when that occurs to my recollection, some say at bar mitzva (sp?) age which is what, around 13? I would say no later than post puberty.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Houston John,
No. 2/3 isn’t “good enough” for me.
What are your limitations, then, as a man? None? It’s a nice world for you, isn’t it?
With all the additional limitations on women, it would appear that God set women up with a few “extra” sin possibilities that men don’t have. The Bible is full of direction for both sexes, with a lot of additional ones for women. And oh yeah, men, love your wives as Christ loved you. Which seems to get translated, through intrepreation of Paul’s writings, as “I love you enough to ask you to be quiet and be happy with 2/3 and ask me about it later in private.”
I don’t like teaching kids. They tell kitty and puppy stories at inopportune times. Teaching kids is not my gift. It really isn’t. So I get even less than 2/3. Yay for me!
When, exactly, am I forbidden to teach boys/men? Where’s the line? The day they turn 18, our man-made reference point as adulthood? Or is it the infamous “age of accountability” which isn’t anywhere in the Bible, that I’m aware of? Who gets to make the call when women can no longer teach the male gender? When they’re married? When they move out of their home? Why, that would mean many 30-40 men in this day and age are still teachable by women. Is it up to the parents when a son is no longer teachable by a woman?
What boundary shall we set up for when women beginning sinning by opening their mouths and speaking out wisdom in front of or to a male? What fool is going to volunteer to delineate that boundary, when I don’t see anything so clearly marked in the Bible? Who wants to speak for God and set that up?
I don’t see it as 2/3 “why aren’t you satisfied with that.” I see it as 1/2 of the world’s population hamstrung. And that’s not acceptable, nor do I believe it was God’s plan that half of his creation be pushed down in the way this has been used in the past centuries up to now. If you are a man, you cannot understand what it is to be told you have no voice unless you are around other women. If you are a woman and have no husband, you really have no voice, then, because strict interpretation would lead to taking your questions to your husband and not speaking them out in front of men.
Men have no idea.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
(My comment came in without seeing Houston John’s reply)
Puberty.
Since they hit it at different ages, that should make for a nice time in Sunday School classes, pulling male children in and out once their voice cracks.
All to avoid being taught by a woman.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Ken- I never said I could predict the future. I didn’t say whether women in leadership will increase.
I’m not afraid to confront the issue. I voted against women in eldership.
Then your second point. Ingrid believes women shouldn’t be elders/preachers. Ingrid then rebukes other leaders, like Billy Graham. Again, according to her belief, only her husband should be doing this. She should be quiet and submissive to her husband.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Nathan,
I’m afraid in your misplaced zeal to criticize me you show your ignorance yet again: “I love how Ken throws ‘Arminian’ into the description of churches that have women pastors. hahaha.”
It is beyond question that many, many Charismatic and Pentecostal denominations and holiness denominations like the Nazarene churches are highly Arminian. I simply stated a fact, nothing more. I have no desire to debate Calvinism vs Arminianism because I am with neither camp anyway.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Julie,
I totally sympathize with you. My wife is a couple of months away from getting her PhD in Microbiology, and is smarter than the average pastor by two. In most churches, however, her greatest responsibility would be watching children in the nursery or supplying food for bake sales.
The church we serve at has an “official” egalitarian stance, but there are still a lot of “traditionally” minded people in the congregation (which is odd being that the church is in a Northeastern college town). One man in my church forbids his wife to discipline their son. Talk about messing a kid up! I truly feel that a lot of men hide behind “it’s in the Bible” to cover up their own insecurities. I think, also, people automatically equate female leadership with an ultra-liberal, hyper feminist type of woman. The thing is, I know plenty of women who are pastors who completey break that mold. In fact, two of our close friends who women pastors are very conservative.
Sometimes church culture is just frustrating.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Houston John - It is surely permissable and even wonderful for gifted women to teach men. The prohibition comes when they take authority or/and rebuke those in authority. The reference in I Timothy is obvious in the context of usurping authorit. Otherwise women would have to be silent which is also in the context.
I would love to listen to Julie teach, she seems to have a creative fling to her which sometimes translates into the literary realm. We cannot be Victorian, but we need to be Scriptural.
I would like to hear Ingrid teach, not screech (I love that word). There is no question, no matter what side of the theological tracks you pitch your tent, the reformed/orthodox crowd is practicing hypocrisy when they allow their women - folk to openly screech (I’m sorry, I can’t help it), I mean correct and rebuke and make fun of and reprove and castigate and smear an ordained man of God. But as lone as it is in a “coffe house” setting God loves to hear it, just not inside the motar and brick where Christians meet. We all know that is the real church!?
Women should be seen and not…Uh..oh. (that was a virus) Any man who claims he is the head of his house will lie about other things also!
June 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Women should be seen and not heard, unless they go to a remote village in the “ends of the earth;” then it becomes okay for them to be in all kinds of leadership roles with men. This seems to be what many truly believe, judging by the disproportionate number of women missionaries and the lauding of some single women missionaries like Mary Slessor who preached the gospel.
There’s your answer, Julie.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
The exact line, Julie, is the fourth Tuesday after his nineteenth birthday at 2:35 P.M.. Any teaching after that is verboten.
The only exception is if the woman plays the cello, she then can teach a male to play the cello until he is twenty as long as she covers her head.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Women missionaries are not the issue. If Ingrid started a blog bashing her senior pastor I am positive her church’s elder board would ask her to stop.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Now ther’s an interesting topic for a blog. Calling for Ingrid’s pastor to disipline her and make her cease her unscriptural behavior. The “pot” thickens! (get it?)
June 21st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
A correction, a blogger notified me that I deleted two comments about a year ago. I had forgotten, but he was correct.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Matt,
My point is that I think everybody has “inconsistencies.” Women missionaries, even in past centuries, did things overseas that they wouldn’t have been doing in their home churches, yet they are spoken of favorably in conservative Christian circles. Those are issues generally relating to teaching and my comment was more directly related to Julie’s situation than Ingrid’s.
Personally I would like to understand just what is meant by “teach” - for example, is sharing the gospel with someone teaching? Or does it mean some systematic exposition of scriptures? If it’s okay for a woman to share the gospel with men, but there are no capable men available to give further instruction, what should a woman in a remote village or small church do?
Then there’s the issue of prophesying, that women were allowed to do - just what was that, and how did it differ from teaching?
To complicate everything, surely there must be God-fearing women over the centuries that have been convinced God was leading them to share the gospel in foreign lands - are they to be held responsible that there were no men to walk alongside of them? Who are we to say they followed their own will? Yet if scripture clearly means women should not teach men, shouldn’t that apply everywhere . . .
Rick,
Personally I don’t understand your strong position on women not rebuking elders (which is not a clear cut instruction in my opinion ) coupled with your strong position that women can teach men as long as they’re under male authority. Paul simply said “I forbid women to teach or have authority over men.” People can debate on just what that means forever by making guesses about who Paul’s intended audience was; I don’t think anyone can dogmatically say, based on scripture, that it’s okay for women to teach men, even if they are doing it under male authority. We can make a guess or an “interpretation” that comes to the conclusion that Paul’s words don’t apply to women today, or that somehow it’s okay if they’re under male authority, but I don’t see how it can be more than a guess. I think that interpretations that allow for women pastors, women teaching men here and abroad, come more from our present culture’s ideas about what is good (women being equal, giftedness instead of gender determining roles) than clearly from scripture.
Matt,
I think that if ANYBODY at Ingrid’s church started a blog bashing the senior pastor the church’s elder board would ask them to stop. The issue there is not gender.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Ken Silva
Ken Silva again in response to Julie’s criticism.
What am I missing?
June 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Rick,
I was brought up that a woman also should not be voted in as President of this fine country based on the same principle that she shouldn’t be pastor of a church. Do you agree with that? I’m just curious.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
This is a question for everyone here.
How would you define “spiritual authority”? How does one have “spiritual authority” over another? How does that work?
Didn’t Martin Luther proclaim Christ as the only Mediator between God and man? So how does one have authority over me spiritually?
I can understand organizational authority within a given organization. If I were a Sunday school teacher, and wanted to touch on a controversial topic, it would be a matter of courtesy to check to make sure everyone - men, WOMEN, parents, elders, pastors - is on board.
So you get a buy from everyone including the pastor. You work with everyone as a team player, which isn’t quite the same thing as “submitting oneself to spiritual authority” (whatever that means).
If you believe in the concept of spiritual authority, what are the boundaries?
Authority with boundaries work really well. Cops can stop me for speeding. That is well within their authority to do so. But they cannot arrest me because they do not like my faith. They may not like my faith, but it is not within their authority to arrest me. It is not in their job description.
Positions of authority which function well has very well defined boundaries. In contrast, tyrannical authority has no boundaries by definition. The Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation had no boundaries whatsoever.
So in plain English, if you are an advocate of human spiritual authority, I would like to hear from you what you think its boundaries are.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Excuse my grammar. Nathan, I wish there was a way to preview before submitting comments.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Joe, are you, my brother in Christ, handing me the sword with which to severe my own throat? Let me say that I do not vote and so I am a-gender in the election.
Wow, my sidestepping abilities amaze even me!
June 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
David C. - the Scriptures admonish us to obey them which have the rule over us. It isn’t Spiritual authority as such, it is ecclesiastical authority. The Word refers to such as overseers and the like. Not Lording it over the people, but ruling all the same.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Hey David C.,
“What am I missing?” Irony.
“Didn’t Martin Luther proclaim Christ as the only Mediator between God and man?” Well, actually no. If you open the Bible to 1 Timothy 2:5 you’ll see that God proclaimed that:
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Pretty solid Source there I’d say my friend.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Hahaha! Will you email me what you think on that issue then? I’m honestly very curious for reasons I’d rather not get into on here. Not that I
think Kenmight be reading just to find something to attack Mars Hill aboutJune 21st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Rick, nothing personal here, but that is so not plain English.
So what does it mean to “rule over us.”? How is that different from “lording it over”?
It is ecclesiastical authority, so only church related activities are under authority?
June 21st, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Ken, you are so cute
June 21st, 2007 at 7:05 pm
“Ken might be reading just to find something to attack Mars Hill about…” *psst* Is ok Joe, I really don’t need you as there’s plenty wrong at Mars Hill Bible Church right from the top on down.
*blushing* Aw shucks David C. You’re too kind. Truly, I actually have the perfect face for radio.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
David C. - that is open to degrees, but it must mean something. The body of Christ is not anarchy and the offices given by the Holy Spirit are for a divine purpose.
Paul ordered the Corinthian church to oust the man living with his father’s wife. Paul many times said that he had authority over some, but he did it with humility and care. There is no doubt, the Scriptures teach authority. Now we can sift out the meanings and their practical applications, but thyere are overseers in the body of Christ.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Rick,
So ecclesiastical authority = authority within the Body of Christ, but that is not spiritual authority? I am losing you.
As to anarchy within the body of Christ, I think it is not the lack of authority. There are way too many people asserting authority without defining its boundaries.
As to Paul, he had apostolic authority to do a lot of things one of which was writing epistles which later joined the canon.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Wow, Ken responds to what can be seen as a gay overture.
An appearance of evil, anybody? (I Thessalonians 5:22)
June 21st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
The Scriptures state that if a man cannot rule his own house, how can he rule the house of God. Now no one can force spirituality on anyone, but the overseers can dictate what is taught or if a person is in such sin they should be removed from the fellowship.
So they are not spiritual overseers individualy, but in reality collectively which I call ecclesiastical oversight. It is as you say though spiritual in nature, just not individual oversight. The elders cannot tell you how to raise your children but they can teach what the Scriptures say about it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 am
Julie said: “What are your limitations, then, as a man? None? It’s a nice world for you, isn’t it?”
Well let’s see:
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
Oh yeah, there’s no limitations on men, you can just stick anybody up there.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 am
Julie: “No. 2/3 isn’t “good enough†for me.”
So, you desire to be in authority over men?
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:12 am
Regarding the when a boy becomes a man, the bottom line there is no clear cut delineation in Scripture so I was just throwing out some possibilities. When boys and girls go in to puberty they all of a sudden don’t want their fathers (if girls) or mothers (if boys) walking in on them unannounced, etc. etc. because it is a very embarrasing time for them. Teen boys need strong male leadership and role models during this stage of their lives in order to fully define and develop their identities as a male. I would assume this is the same for teenage girls.
Golly, I was just throwing out some suggestions since the Bible is silent on the exact age.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 am
I have noticed in my ministry and in my own family that as my boys grew later in their teens they were more apt to rebel against my wife’s authority. I believe that this is a natural revealing of God’s design that as men get older they resist female authority much more easily than male.
God’s design showing through?
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 am
I think the word that is very dangerous in this conversation is “authority”. When the scripture talks of spiritual leadership it uses the shepherd/sheep metaphor as the dominant model. It seems that the present-day Church has taken its lead more from the military model where you have different levels of commanders/soldiers.
While I believe there is definitely a spiritual warfare aspect to faith, I don’t think the military motif needs to be taken too far. The difference in these two models is huge. A shepherd cannot lead the sheep anywhere he won’t go himself. Commanders on the other hand “send” the troops into a battle without necessarily going. A shepherd leads by serving and influences others by example. A commander’s authority is based mainly on position or rank. This can influence people, but it the weakest form of authority.
How this relates to this discussion is this. I know you can find examples of women usurping authority from male leadership, but you can also find plenty of men who have done the same thing. On the other hand, I believe there have been plenty of Godly women thoughout history who have become leaders of both men and women just because they were natural servant leaders. I don’t think a person striving to be in “authority” over anyone is God’s intention for either gender.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:46 am
Phil - all waht you said is good. But the Scriptures, which must be our final authority, teach that there are positions of authority, given by the Spirit, which have been designed by God to be filled by qualified men.
To be sure men have brought reproach on those positions, but that does not eradicate the clear teachings of Paul.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 am
Houston John, my point on limitations on men is rather illustrated by your scripture choice. All of those things would apply to women as well, unless women can have more than one husband, etc. Most of what is directed at men apply to women as well. It doesn’t really work vice versa.
Do I want authority over men? No. I don’t think that I really said that here. I don’t want authority over anyone, frankly, because that’s responsibility and I’m just as lazy and unwilling to step up to the plate as the next one. This isn’t about having authority over someone. I think men might be surprised how natural it is for them to want authority and power (and hence, can be their downfall) and how most women really don’t want that, that we work in different ways with people (with our own downfalls). This was less about authority than about telling women to stay in a certain apron-filled closed-mouth babysitting space in church life.
The problem is that when men with such beliefs hear women say things that I do, they assume they are dealing with an uber feminist (as was stated above in another comment) and that the woman is some kind of Jezebel wanting authority and power. This is not usually the case, and isn’t for me. I don’t want authority over men. I don’t want authority over my father, pastor, brother — I don’t. I do, however, want to be able to use all of my gifts and be able to talk and teach (if that is a gift) and be treated like a human being with ideas and question and not be told to be quiet, wait until at home with the hubby (which I don’t have), just take care of the kids, or bake some cookies and serve the food at fellowship dinners.
That’s my point here.
I don’t disagree that both boys need strong male leadership. I would encourage men, who have the gift of teaching or whatever the realm is that we’re talking about here, to do so. None of that is what I’m trying to say. What I’m trying to say is that a) when you start setting up rules and such on something that the Bible is silent on, it’s a dangerous place, and b) it shouldn’t be an across-the-board given that women are relegated to some kind of back seat and given tasks to do that have nothing to do with their gifts and skills based simply on the fact that they are a woman.
An interesting note regarding boys rebelling against mothers: girls clash a great deal with mothers, too, as do boys and their fathers. I’ve seen ineffectual male high school teachers with no respect by any student, and I’ve seen female high school teachers that run a sharp class. I don’t deny the different roles in a family, or that each sex has strength and weaknesses, or even that each sex is different — I’m fairly conservative! — but I do think it important to not limit or assume based on sex i.e. “you be quiet because you are a woman.”
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 am
Rick,
I don’t want to get into a protracted debate here about it, but I would disagree with the assertion that the sections in 1 Timothy you are referring are universal edicts about gender roles. There were obviously women who ministered with Paul referenced in other parts of Scripture. It seems that in Ephesus the women were a rowdy bunch that needed to be dealt with quite severely.
Anyway, I don’t think this issue needs to be a point of division, necessarily. My problem with some complentarians is based more on the fact that some men seem to think it gives them a license to have a wholesale disrespect for women. I’m not accusing the complentarians here of doing that, but that has been my experience elsewhere.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
I agree with most of what you shared, Julie. Is it not evident that some women have outgoing personalities while some men are not leaders at all? Sure. There are also different types of leadership.
You run a blog and teach a muliti-gendered (two I hope) class, you are a leader. The issue here is does the Scripture outline male leadership within the visible church, or are those Scriptures, as Phil suggests, captured in that time and culture and God has intended them to be more mircurial.
I understand how much pompous buffoonery has been caried out under the guise of “male leadership” and I deplore the devaluing of the Spiritual gifts in believing women. But that still cannot alter the clear teaching of Scripture.
Corrie Ten Boom, Ann Graham, Kay Arthur, and on and on the list goes of women who were leaders. But they were not elders. But true and Spiritual elders would recognize and celebrate their God given gifts and leadership talents.
By the way, thak you for not screeching. (I cannot get away from that word which is probably some sexist humor. Bear with me, I’m in process)
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 am
I also have to admit a natural bias with this issue just based on my experience. One example would be the following. I’ve played on our churches worship team for the 10 years, basically. Much of that time was with a woman serving as the worship pastor (she was a full-time pastor with credentials). She was a few years older than me, and probably half the members on the team were over 10 years older than her and the other half my age or a little younger (I’m 31 now). A majority of them were men. Anyway, she was in no way bossy, catty or anything that men sometimes associate with women leaders. The older men really treated her like a daughter, and the younger guys thought of her as a sister. When she asked us to do something, we just did it. There were very few instances if any I can think of where there problems because of gender issues.
Fast forward to now. She has left the position, and a man who is about 12 years older (about 45) has taken her job. He’s a nice guy and all, but there is no where near the respect for him as she had. Mainly, I think it is there leadership styles. She was the epitome of a servant leader, and let’s just say this guy has room for improvement.
I just can’t believe that God would instill in her and other women such giftings and let them go to waste.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
Henry said, “I have noticed in my ministry and in my own family that as my boys grew later in their teens they were more apt to rebel against my wife’s authority. I believe that this is a natural revealing of God’s design that as men get older they resist female authority much more easily than male.
God’s design showing through? ”
God’s design, or natural, sinful inclination towards rebellion showing its ugly face? Isn’t it true that it’s easier for kids, any kids, any age, period, to “get away” with rebelling against mom rather than dad? I have noticed that girls, boys of any age, starting very young will “rebel,” insist on their own way, if someone isn’t strong enough in their spirit and will to insist on obedience. For a number of mothers who are usually with their kids more often than the dads, it can be easy to give in to a child’s wants and let the child become the dictator. This is especially true if the mother is a person that wants to avoid conflicts - many females are appeasers and I think enforcing obedience is especially difficult because of that.
Good reasons for a gentle but principled dad to be at home as much as possible.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 am
Amy - you missed the testeronical point.
Phil, I see no problem with a woman being a worship leader. That psition is not even addressed in the New Testament, so the gender is not specific. My favorite worship caomes from the Hillsong singers which is led by an anointed woman. But tha worship leader can not be an elder, Biblically. Do you see the difference?
Women leaders - yes. Women elders - no.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
Rick,
It’s funny you put it that way, because it’s basically the what my local church does. The A/G’s official stance is completely egalitarian, but local bodies have their own by-laws. So our church allows female pastors, and theoretically we could have a female senior pastor, but it doesn’t allow female elders. To me, it seems like a very non-sensical position. In the NT, it seems that elders were pastors of house churches, so to make such a distinction is sort of a non sequitor to me.
Also, it seems odd that you could trust a woman as a pastor, put her in charge of an entire budget and ministry, but not trust her to sit on an elder board. I would say in our church it would be about 50/50 on a vote to allow woman elders. To change the by-laws, though, requires a 2/3 majority.
Oh well.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 am
I am just going to throw his into the pot here…
Why is it that we dismiss passages about women not braiding their hair of passages regarding veil wearing as cultural. But when it comes to this, they are “obviously” timeless. I am not saying that we need to break this all down and throw everything out with cultural context. I am just wondering who decided what is and isn’t cultural in the scriptures.
We also have a big problem with Deborah in the OT, huh?
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 am
Nathan - as far as Deborah and others go God uses women as leaders when He chooses. But that does not mean overseers of the church in the NT.
The cultural thing you bring up is interesting since there certainly are cultural references made in the Scriptures. Paul says about men with long hair that the church has no such “custom”. The teaching there is that we should be culturally sensitive wherever we are. The braiding of the hair and wearing of gold is obviuosly in the context of “pride”. That would apply to all of us but with different distinctives.
Back to the issue, I think that Phil’s point is well taken, how can a woman be a pastor and not be an elder. Also, if a woman is the pastor is she her husband’s pastor as well, and if so, how does the headship work in that family?
What we must do is start with the clear teaching of Scripture and then consider cultural considerations without altering the truth. And as Julie has communicated in several different ways, male leadership does not mean prideful domination and the devaluing of leadership gifts in sisters in Christ. We are dealing exclusively with the overseers of the church, not a completely male thread of leadership down to the head groundskeeper.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 am
Rick,
what I was suggesting was that a women in leadership at the time was not cultural. Could it be that it too is an example of being culturally sensitive?
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:32 am
Did Mrs. Spurgeon write books on how awful certain Christians are? Did Mrs. Luther? Did Mrs. Calvin? Did Mrs Peter (the apostle)? Did Mrs Fill-in-the-name-here of a dead famous pastors wife?
Who is Ingrid’s model? It’s not Christ.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 am
Nathan - the issue, again, is not women leaders as such, it is the elder position. If we culturalize the qualifications outlined in Scripture then the road to truth gets way more slippery and the parameters are now opened to any and all interpretation.
Ingrid’s model is Cruella De Vil (101 dalmations)
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Matt B,
“Who is Ingrid’s model? It’s not Christ.” Ever read Matthew 23?
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Ken-
Yes I have. Here’s a Word from the Lord for you.
Matthew 23: 15″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.”
I’ve also read 1 Corinthians 13. It’s a chapter all Christians should meditate on.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Ingrid has moved from modeling Christ, to usurping Christ.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Matt,
Uh-oh, claiming to be a prohet now are we: “a Word from the Lord for you.” Dude they get all over me for my allegedly claiming “authority” and makingmyself God. Tread lightly there guy or they’ll be a-coming for you!
Tim says: “Ingrid has moved from modeling Christ, to usurping Christ.” Um, aren’t you being a hypocrite by making this judgment about Ingrid? After all the point of the Ingrid-bashers here is she has no “authority” to make judgments of others.
So, are you someone extra-special now? Or maybe only men can make judgments? Or maybe only the “anointed of the Lord” here at CRN.Info? are allowed to make judgments for God. As iggy says ad infinitum - “LOL!”
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Oooh good one Kenny, except I’m not trying to get churches to change their behavior ala Pope Ingrid. BTW, it seems that you were appointed by Pope Ingrid to take over the “Christian” “Research” Network, I suppose that would make you Cardinal Kenny. Either way, no one is listening when you issue your Papal Bull.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Sometimes I wonder about the idea that women in a postition in question (teaching, pastor, leader, etc.) and the assumption that she is there because she wants authority. I know that the mere position of teacher, etc. is one of authority. However, I see it as a woman being faithful to the call and leading of God. The end result might be the same, but 4×4 and 8+8 are not the same operation despite giving the same answer.
I guess, what I’m trying to say, is that sometimes being obedient to God means crashing up against the opinions of men who think that it can’t possibly be from God because of gender. It is a matter of obedience for women, and a hard one knowing that this will be an issue for about half of the people, a matter of obedience and right motives of the heart.
Some men and some women want authority and power and that is wrong. Some are trying to obey and do the best they can. That is not.
I’m A/G, by the way, which takes an official position that is very freeing to women. Obviously, we can debate the elders/pastor issue, but I’m addressing the issue of those who really, really want to limit women.
Regarding Nathan’s comment about the braiding, etc. (which is why I made the bonnet joke, since sooner or later, the hair covering issue usually gets raised) — why is it that those are not “enforced”, then?
June 24th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“A/G, by the way, which takes an official position that is very freeing to women.” And also “very freeing” from the Biblical text as well… Where are the qualifications for women elders? There aren’t any - “husband of one wife.”
June 24th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Ken,
Not that it will convince you, but here is the A/G’s position paper on women in leadership.
By the way, based on a comletely literal reading of 1 Timothy 3, I guess elders should be required to be married and have children then? I don’t see how listing a qualification that is specific for a man anyway forbids a woman from serving.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“I don’t see how listing a qualification that is specific for a man anyway forbids a woman from serving.”
O I totally understand how God would write something specific to a man when He also meant women as well. He really isn’t much of a communicator.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Phil,
The good LORD knows I’m no defender of anything Ken, but to be fair there are people who would hold that position because they believe it is the most Biblically correct. Everyone I’ve ever met was mean spirited, often bigoted, and not very good pastors, but they were consistent.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
I’m not saying that Ken believes that b/c I don’t know if he does or not. I was just stating from my experience. And I certainly don’t believe it.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Joe,
Well, I don’t have a problem necessarily with people holding a certain position that is different then mine. It becomes an issue, though, when people start accusing others of apostasy when holding a certain position on a secondary issue. I guess, in a sense, that is the definition of fundamentalism.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:59 am
I agree with you Phil
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Imago Dei, Donald Miller’s home church and favorite whipping boy for Ken and Ingrid, has released a statement on women and leadership in their church.
It is a soft complementarian statement.
http://www.imagodeicommunity.com/article/women-in-ministry–qa-forum-this-sunday
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:28 am
Matt - a very balanced and well written treatise. I applaud Miller for having Biblical courage from both persuasions.
He must have had some prayerful contemplation before he wrote it. (OK, sarcasm)
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
Miller didn’t write it. He is heavily involved with the church. It’s just interesting that the “emerging” churches are supposedly liberal.
And Ken and Ingrid have slammed Imago Dei as well.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 am
Rick,
Just for whatever it’s worth, I don’t believe Donald Miller is in any type of leadership position at Imago Dei, he just attends there. Rick McKinley is the name of the lead pastor.